1:1 previews not noticeably faster than standard?

I normally import using standard size previews. I generated 1:1 previews of an entire folder after import, thinking it would speed up since I was checking each image at 1:1. But after they were generated and I started browsing through the images, the time taken from clicking 1:1 from fit was not noticeably faster. I've never used 1:1 previews before - is there no real advantage to using them over standard? (I'm using LR3, Core i7, 18GB RAM).

My problem seemed to be solved when I started importing at 1:1 instead of importing at standard and then Library - Previews - Render 1:1 previews when I needed them. I had LR3 set to discard 1:1 previews after a week.
Today I needed 1:1 previews of a folder that had been imported more than 1 week ago. The 1:1 previews had apparently been discarded since when I tried to view the images at 1:1 instead of Fit, there was a delay while LR said "loading." I then went to Library - Previews - Render 1:1. A message at the top left said scanning existing previews but when that process was finished, there was no message that said rendering previews. When I view those images at 1:1, I still have to wait for the preview to load rather than it being instantaneous the way it was on the day that I imported those photos into LR3 at 1:1.
I have tried closing my catalog, restarting my computer, deleting 1:1 previews and trying again. I've also searched this forum for "previews" and didn't come across any solution.

Similar Messages

Encore cs6 not any faster than 5.1

Encore cs6 not any faster than 5.1
I opened up a cs5.1 project in cs6 and did a "Preview from here" of a motion background with 8 motion thumbnails...running 40 secounds. Each version of Encore took 2 minutes to render the motion menu so i could preview it.
A little dissappointing. 32 bit vs 64. Same speed:-(
I have 32 gigs of ram. i7-980

heres a test. try importing a single 42gb timeline of 1080p into encore cs5, and now do the same thing for cs6. rendering may or may not be faster for menus, but you can get right to work on your project in cs6, while it processes in the background, vs cs5 having to stare at the yellow status bar for 90 minutes (it seemed, lol)

MBP 13" not really faster than MB 13"

Hi
I want to upgrade my 4 year old MB 13". I really like the size... I waited a long time for the new processors to come. Now I discovered that the 13" model does not feature the i5 and i7 processors and I heard that the 13" MBP cannot be compared to the 15" model in terms of performance.
I will do more photo editing (photoshop) and video editing (final cut express) and my old MB is getting really slow...
Any advice on choice of Macbook - Pro or normal...
Thanks!

Hi niefl,
First of all (and I know this isn't quite what your are asking) although the new MBP isn't as fast as the new 15" model, it is a LOT quicker than a four year old MB. We have an early 2 GHz black CD MacBook (about the same generation as yours), a later , Core 2 Duo, MB, a SantaRosa 15" MBP from 2007, and a June 2009 13" MBP . Even the June 2009 13" model is much, much faster in any situation that requires processor power for things like photo editing or video editing than the early 2 GHz MB .
As far as comparison with the late 2009 polycarbonate MB goes, the benchmarks published by MacWorld (see http://www.macworld.com/article/147071/2010/04/13inchmacbookprobenchmarks.html) indicate that the new MBP 13 is a bit faster than the MB but not by a huge margin - maybe about 10% on most tasks.
But there are other very good reason to get the MBP if you can afford the extra couple of hundred dollars. For video work the huge difference is firewire. USB is better on recent Macs than it was in the days when your old MB was released, but it is still slower than FW400 and much, much slower than the Firewire 800 available on the MBP but not the MB.
Secondly the "standard" base configuration of the MBP comes with 4 gig of RAM, while the MB comes with just 2Gig. To do what you want to do efficiently you will need at least 4 gig of RAM. You will really notice the benefit of this with both photo editing and video work. Simply upgrading the RAM on the MB to 4 gig will cost you around half the difference in price between the two machines anyway!
Thirdly, the MBP comes with an illuminated keyboard. I never realised how useful this would be until I obtained my first MBP. Once you have been using one for a while it is hard to go back to the non-iluminated one.
Fourthly the MBP is a little lighter and slimmer than the MB.
Fifthly, our own experience has been that the aluminium MBPs are substantially tougher than the polycarbonate ones. Not only are they much more scratch resistant, but they are also less prone to case fractures through minor knocks.
Sixth, they have batteries / power management systems that give you longer battery charge life.
Seventh, they provide full sound output through the minidisplay port if you wish to hook up to an HDMI TV (unlike the MB)
Finally, they look better!
If you assume that you will have to upgrade the MB to 4 Gig of RAM anyway, then you get all the rest for just $100!
Pretty hard to beat when it comes to value IMHO!
Having said all of that, there is no doubt that the base model i5 MBP 15" is a very sweet computer, and ideal for the purposes you speak of, but if your budget, or demands for portability, means that you are choosing between the 13" MBP and the MB, I think the current model of the MBP13 wins hands down when it comes to overall value, and is a bit faster too.
Cheers
Rod

New Mac Pro 8-core / D700 not much faster than an iMac... in PPro CC.

So.... my very preliminary testing with our new Mac Pro using the plugin I use most (filmconvert -FC) anyway, shows that Premiere CC needs more optimization for the dual GPUs. In fact, I'd say the CPU utilization is not up to snuff either.
I know FC only uses one GPU presently from the developer. That will change. In the meantime, using a couple of typical projects with that plugin as an example, I'm only seeing 25-45% speed up in renders over our maxed out iMac (late 2012, 27") exporting the same project. That's significant of course but not the 100%+ one would think we would be seeing at the least given the MacPro config of 8 cores and dual D700s. Premiere Pro CC seems in fact to never maximize CPU (never mind GPUs). I have yet, in my very limited testing, see it "pin the meters" like I did on the iMac.
Of course that's just testing now two short (under 5 min) projects, and it depends on what one is doing. Some stuff is much, much faster like Red Giant's Denoiser II or Warp Stabilizer VFX. The improvement there can be 3-4x faster anecdotally. I used to avoid them for speed reasons unless absolutely needed a lot of the time but now they are fast enough to rely on quickly. Other stuff unrelated top PPro CC like DxO PRIME noise removal on RAW stills is much faster too, as is Photoshop CC. Some effects like blur, sharpening, resize there are nearly instant now even on giga pixel files in Photoshop CC.
And of course FCPX is much faster on it but I hate the whole editing paradigm. The timeline is just horrid on it; simple things like replacing a word in someone's dialogue is a multi click, multistep process that is nearly instant in Premiere and most every other NLE. Just to try to see your whole timeline is a chore, to see what your edits and sound are in detail are problematic, trying to keep things in sync is a chore, and you can't even zoom your timeline window to full screen! If anybody has edited for any amount of time, I do not understand how they use FCP X. If they start with that program, for example if they are young, then that is a different beast.
I'm sure Adobe will improve over time. They have to to stay competitive. In the meantime I'll take my 45%... but I wish I saw much more improvement given the cost and hardware differential. Unfortiunately, for now, the mainstream reviews I have seen regarding PPro performance on this machine were right.

That statement about 4k/5k in Premiere CC with the nMP is false, insofar as performance goes.
I just tested 5K Red raw files just dragged into Premiere Pro CC (latest version). I expected this to be slow, given my HD experience. However, on my 8 core/D700, I can play 1/2 just fine, full speed. And I even can also do that with a very streneous plugin/filter attached - FilmConvert (in OpenCL mode), also at 1/2 which is quite impressive. I can even add a bunch of other Premiere filters and SG looks and it still stays at full speed at 1/2.
Ironically, this is quite faster than FCPX which can't seem to play back 5K at all with that filter attached (it doesn't stutter, but it's not smooth... low resolution at "best performace" and reduced frame rate). Even if I remove all filters FCPX plays back Red 4k (again not transcoded) about the same as CC at 1/2, but with a seemingly lower resolution to keep it smooth. It's a head scratcher. It's like Adobe's Red handling is much better coded than Apple's in this case.
Or... it has to be attrituable to that particular plugin (other FCPX motion-based plugins don't suffer the same fate and are fast). But either way, filter or no, Premiere Pro CC is definitely and sharper looking at 1/2 when cutting Red 4k/5k with no transcode, playback in real time, than FCPX which needs to bump it down to what looks like a 1/4 or less rez to keep it smooth. So I have no idea what is going on.
This experience is the opposite with HD, where FCPX is significantly faster (using the same filters/plugin, using C300 Canon XF for HD and 4 and 5K RedRaw alternatively). Premiere seems slower in HD than FCPX by a good amount in HD and signficantly faster with Redraw 4k. Go figure.

Edge faster than 3G!!!!

I bought my iphone so i could waste time when i was bored, going on facebook and the likes at work etc where theres a blocked wifi.
However!
I find that 3g is unbearably slow for me, i mean slow. So slow that I stop bothering with it and actually start working again. a test on the speedtest.net app usually gets me an overall speed of 150Kbps with 3g, and about 7 kbps with Edge.
But whenever i try and use 3g for anything other than speedtest app, edge trumps it in all areas. When im using the edge network i get faster speeds buffering youtube videos (approx 15 secs for a 1 min video to buffer a bit then start playing) about 20 secs for a webpage to load, and faster loading of directions and maps images in the google maps app.
Does anyone have any idea what on earth is going on?!

BennyboyOxtoby wrote:
true, but the point still remains that it should be faster when using 3g,
Not necessarily. If you're getting 3G speeds that are twice EDGE speeds, for example, but the YouTube stream for EDGE is 1/3 the bandwidth of the YouTube stream for 3G, then the download on EDGE would be faster. Just a hypothetical scenario.
Either way, though, the problem is most likely with the network and not with the phone. Download speeds are dependent on network traffic. During business hours in a downtown region, 3G speeds are significantly slower than during off-peak hours. Early on, I was getting 3G speeds slower than EDGE speeds too - AT&T (the US iPhone carrier) upgraded their 3G network in the Boston area, and now I get good speeds on 3G (as reported by SpeedTest, but also in actual use) - noticeably faster than on EDGE (the phone drops to EDGE in the middle of my building, since the EDGE frequencies have better structural penetration than the 3G frequencies).

Just got my iPad 2 three days ago and noticed the battery life drops faster than I expected at least compared to the others ones around

Just got my iPad 2 three days ago and noticed the battery life drops faster than I expected at least compared to the others ones around, please I need to know the cause and how to effect necessary changes that will prolong the battery life as I have gone through the settings which includes turning off the push notifications, reduce brightness and so on but that doesn't seem to help much.

FYI
The quickest way (and really the only way) to charge your iPad is with the included 10W or 12W (5W on Mini) USB Power Adapter. iPad will also charge, although more slowly, when attached to a computer with a high-power USB port (many recent Mac computers) or with an iPhone Power Adapter (5W). When attached to a computer via a standard USB port (2.5W, most PCs or older Mac computers) iPad will charge very slowly (but iPad indicates not charging). Make sure your computer is on while charging iPad via USB. If iPad is connected to a computer that’s turned off or is in sleep or standby mode, the iPad battery will continue to drain.
Apple recommends that once a month you let the iPad fully discharge & then recharge to 100%.
How to Calibrate Your Mac, iPhone, or iPad Battery
http://www.macblend.com/how-to-calibrate-your-mac-iphone-or-ipad-battery/
At this link http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/galaxy-tab-android-tablet,3014-11.html , tests show that the iPad 2 battery (25 watt-hours) will charge to 90% in 3 hours 1 minute. It will charge to 100% in 4 hours 2 minutes. The new iPad has a larger capacity battery (42 watt-hours), so using the 10W charger will obviously take longer. If you are using your iPad while charging, it will take even longer. It's best to turn your new iPad OFF and charge over night. Also look at The iPad's charging challenge explained http://www.macworld.com/article/1150356/ipadcharging.html
Also, if you have a 3rd generation iPad, look at
Apple: iPad Battery Nothing to Get Charged Up About
http://allthingsd.com/20120327/apple-ipad-battery-nothing-to-get-charged-up-abou t/
Apple Explains New iPad's Continued Charging Beyond 100% Battery Level
http://www.macrumors.com/2012/03/27/apple-explains-new-ipads-continued-charging- beyond-100-battery-level/
New iPad Takes Much Longer to Charge Than iPad 2
http://www.iphonehacks.com/2012/03/new-ipad-takes-much-longer-to-charge-than-ipa d-2.html
Apple Batteries - iPad http://www.apple.com/batteries/ipad.html
iPhone: Hardware troubleshooting (Power/Battery section also applies to iPad)
http://support.apple.com/kb/TS2802
Extend iPad Battery Life (Look at pjl123 comment)
https://discussions.apple.com/thread/3921324?tstart=30
New iPad Slow to Recharge, Barely Charges During Use
http://www.pcworld.com/article/252326/new_ipad_slow_to_recharge_barely_charges_d uring_use.html
Best Practices for iPad Battery Charging
http://www.ilounge.com/index.php/articles/comments/best-practices-for-ipad-batte ry-charging/
Tips About Charging for New iPad 3
http://goodscool-electronics.blogspot.com/2012/04/tips-about-charging-for-new-ip ad-3.html
How to Save and Prolong the battery life of your new ipad
https://discussions.apple.com/thread/4480944?tstart=0
Prolong battery lifespan for iPad / iPad 2 / iPad 3: charging tips
http://thehowto.wikidot.com/prolong-battery-lifespan-for-ipad
iPhone, iPod, Using the iPad Charger
http://support.apple.com/kb/HT4327
Install and use Battery Doctor HD
http://itunes.apple.com/tw/app/battery-doctor-hd/id459702901?mt=8
To Extend a Device’s Battery Life, Get to Know It Better
http://tinyurl.com/b67c7xz
iPad Battery Replacement
http://www.apple.com/batteries/replacements.html
In rare instances when using the Camera Connection Kit, you may notice that iPad does not charge after using the Camera Connection Kit. Disconnecting and reconnecting the iPad from the charger will resolve this issue.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Since you are a new iPad user .....
Complete guide to using iOS 6
http://howto.cnet.com/ios-6-complete-guide/
Guide to Built-In Apps on iOS
https://sites.google.com/site/appleclubfhs/support/advice-and-articles/guide-to- built-in-apps-ios
You can download a complete iOS 5 iPad User Guide and iOS 6 iPad User Guide here: http://support.apple.com/manuals/ipad/
Also, Good Instructions http://www.tcgeeks.com/how-to-use-ipad-2/
Apple - iPad - Guided Tours
http://www.apple.com/ipad/videos/
Apple iPad Guided Tours - Watch the videos see all the amazing iPad apps in action. Learn how to use FaceTime, Mail, Safari, Videos, Maps, iBooks, App Store, and more.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YT2bD0-OqBM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ROY4tLyNlsg&feature=relmfu
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QSPXXhmwYf4&feature=relmfu
How to - Articles & User Guides & Tutorials
http://www.iphone-mac.com/index.php/Index/howto/id/4/type/select
iPad How-Tos http://ipod.about.com/lr/ipad_how-tos/903396/1/
You can download an iPad User Guide to the iPad from the iTunes store.
 Cheers, Tom

Dedicated scratch not faster than scratch on boot volume

My Mac Pro boot OS is on a 150 Gb striped raid made from outer partitions on two 1Tb drives in bays 1 and 2. There is 95 Gb free on the boot. 8 Gb RAM.
My normal scratch is on a dedicated 150 Gb striped raid made from the outer partitions of the 1Tb drives in bays 3 and 4.
I ran the Retouche artists Photoshop speed test with the scratch on the dedicated separate scratch, and on the boot volume.
The results were:
Average time of several runs with dedicated scratch was 45.5 seconds.
Average time with scratch on boot was 43.9 seconds.
Since I was expecting the dedicated scratch to be faster I was a bit surprised so I repeated the exercise on my MacBook Pro (1.83 MHz, 2 Gb RAM). Normal scratch is the boot volume which a 5400 rpm 500 Gb Samsung with 150 Gb free, no partitions. For this exercise, I connected an eSATA via an express card to provide a dedicated scratch alternative.
Average time with dedicated separate scratch was 152 seconds.
Average time with scratch on boot was also 152 seconds.
All Retouche Tests were done with 40 history states and 4 cache levels, which results in about 7Gb of scratch being used. On both machines Quickbench shows the scratch as just a few percent faster than the boot.
I repeated the Mac Pro tests with the test file located on different drives, including the boot and the scratch, but there were no significant differences.
What has happened to the standard advice about dedicated scratch for Photoshop?
Any thoughts ? (other than that I have too much time on my hands!)
Mike

Important to note the buffer on those drives are the all 32MB or are some 16MB.
A drive with a 32 MB buffer is going to record data faster.
However if you are on a MacPro (Intel) which it sounds like you are,
I can confirm that using your start up disk as opposed to a dedicated
separate scratch will not be of any speed advantage with photoshop.
At least it does not seem that way from my own test.
I also found partitioning the drive does not seem to be necessary on the intel box?
I have a test that is fairly consistent regardless as long as you have sufficient RAM 8 GB or more a Raid O scratch and an the same amount of memory allowed.
I still find with CS 4 that using bigger tiles is helpful as wel as the Forced VM Buffer plug in.
They still seem to speed things up a bit.
My test work on my dual xeon core duo that way in 16-18 seconds ona 8 core MacPro with 2GB of RAM and with out the Raid 0 and using the startup as the scratch with no Raid configured and without the plug ins it takes about 3 minutes.
The Ram and the raid are the important things the other two help.

Output video is faster than preview?

Hello everyone,
Im fairly new to after effects. So new in that it took me all day yesterday to create a simple 10 second clip with a gradient ramp and floating circle particles. Here is my issue. When I click on the play button in the "preview" box, it loads the 10 second clip with the little lime green line. After loading (I think its called rendering?), I am able to play the clip from start to end as many times as I'd like. When I do this, the clip plays at the speed I want. But when I add it to the render queue and export it, the clip is much faster. Im sure there is a solution to this beginner question of mine but I just cant seem to figure out how to slow the output video down to have the same speed as when I preview the clip. When I preview the clip, right about the "preview" box I get some text in red saying "fps: 11.404/30.00 (NOT realtime). So maybe It has something to do with the fps when I export it? So my rationale was, change the composition fps to 11.4, add to render queue, then export and maybe itll be the same speed as the preview but no luck. Any help would be greatly appreciated. Thanks!

You are not understanding at all how Video or After Effects works or how previews are generated. PLEASE, for your own sanity, spend a few minutes watching this series of videos on the Basic Workflow. That should point you to the right direction.
RAM preview (not accomplished with the space bar) may not ever be at full frame rate. This depends on your comp resolution and your system. You may have the comp window zoom factor set to 50% but your comp resolution set to 100%, which will slow down the rendering of a ram preview and can effect playback speed. You'll be more successful if you have resolution in the comp window set to automatic. The whole AE experience requires at least a couple of hours going over just the basics of the UI, previewing, and rendering or you will be forever frustrated and think that the software is not working when it is actually working exactly as it is supposed to.

CS 5 OnLocation not any faster with HDV than CS3?

I've been using CS3's OnLocation for dozens on on-site shoots for several years now and regularly sings it praises wherever I travel. I've used an older 2.1 Ghz single processor Dell laptop, and more recently been using a Quad-core I-5 Toshiba. My primary camera is a Canon XHA1s; among others, I also use a Sony FX7 and Z5U.
Recently I've been increasingly shooting HDV to tape with a desire to capture same to my laptop using OnLocation with its field monitor. After initial testing showed ongoing artifacts in my video stream (both recorded and on-screen), I changed to an external SIIG Firewire card which completely resolved those problems for artifact-free footage.
One problem which remained, however, is unacceptable field monitor performance using OnLocation with HDV. With full frame-rate features enabled, I was getting as much as a 10-second lag time! (yes.. 10 SECONDS). When I cut back which frames are being displayed (OnLocation settings), the lag goes down somewhere between .5 and 1 second (still pretty bad IMO), and is pretty stuttery.
I was hoping that CS5's OnLocation would be more optimized for HDV and perform better, and installed a friend's version of CS5 OnLocation to test this out. Sadly, not only did it perform *NO BETTER*, but after some period of capturing (10 minutes one time, an hour another time.. did not seem consistent) the laptop's screen would go blank (not off) and the computer remained unresponsive (required a hard boot). After this repeated several times, I tried using CS3's OnLocation again, but it too was experiencing the "blank screen then lock the laptop" problem -- although I haven't tested it, I do hope that uninstalling CS5's OnLocation and re-installing CS3's will remove the offending DLL or Codec and avoid future "lock-up" problems.
My question here is -- is the lag and stuttery (like a low frame rate or shutter speed) field monitor the expected behaviors with OnLocation and HDV? Yeah yeah.. I've read excuses that "HDV requires more processing" but I've captured and previewed full framerate HDV using Sony Vegas's capture while simultaneously capturing a DV stream using the same software, and had no issues at all while experiencing fluid previews.
Any thoughts on what's going on? If I knew CS5 would fix the problem and/or was more optimized, I'd happily pay for the upgraded Master Collection, but my experience has not proven so well
Help?!
:-/ Rob

heres a test. try importing a single 42gb timeline of 1080p into encore cs5, and now do the same thing for cs6. rendering may or may not be faster for menus, but you can get right to work on your project in cs6, while it processes in the background, vs cs5 having to stare at the yellow status bar for 90 minutes (it seemed, lol)

Is this logging code faster than using a standard logging API like log4J

is this logging code faster than using a standard logging API like log4J or the logging API in java 1.4
As you can see my needs are extremely simple. write some stuff to text file and write some stuff to dos window.
I am thinking about using this with a multi threaded app. So all the threads ~ 200 will be using this simultaneously.
* Tracer.class logs items according to the following criteria:
* 2 = goes to text file Crawler_log.txt
* 1 = goes to console window because it is higher priority.
* @author Stephen
* @version 1.0
* @since June 2002
import java.io.*;
import java.net.*;
import java.util.*;
import java.text.*;
class Tracer{
public static void log(int traceLevel, String message, Object value)
if(traceLevel == 1){
System.out.println(getLogFileDate(new Date()) +" >" + message+ " value = " + value.toString()););
}else{
pout.write(getLogFileDate(new Date()) +" >" + message + " value = " + value.toString());
pout.flush();
public static void log(int traceLevel, String message )
if(traceLevel == 1){System.out.println(message);
}else{
pout.write(message ) ;
pout.flush();
//public static accessor method
public static Tracer getTracerInstance()
return tracerInstance;
private static String getLogFileDate(Date d )
String s = df.format(d);
String s1= s.replace(',','-');
String s2= s1.replace(' ','-');
String s3= s2.replace(':','.');
System.out.println("getLogFileDate() = " + s3 ) ;
return s3;
//private instance
private Tracer(){
System.out.println("Tracer constructor works");
df = DateFormat.getDateTimeInstance(DateFormat.MEDIUM, DateFormat.MEDIUM);
date = new java.util.Date();
try{
pout = new PrintWriter(new BufferedWriter(new FileWriter("Crawler_log"+getLogFileDate(new Date())+".txt", true)));
pout.write("**************** New Log File Created "+ getLogFileDate(new Date()) +"****************");
pout.flush();
}catch (IOException e){
System.out.println("**********THERE WAS A CRITICAL ERROR GETTING TRACER SINGLETON INITIALIZED. APPLICATION WILL STOP EXECUTION. ******* ");
public static void main(String[] argz){
System.out.println("main method starts ");
Tracer tt = Tracer.getTracerInstance();
System.out.println("main method successfully gets Tracer instance tt. "+ tt.toString());
//the next method is where it fails - on pout.write() of log method. Why ?
tt.log(1, "HIGH PRIORITY");
System.out.println("main method ends ");
//private static reference
private static Tracer tracerInstance = new Tracer();
private static Date date = null;
private static PrintWriter pout = null;
public static DateFormat df = null;
}

In general I'd guess that a small, custom thing will be faster than a large, generic thing with a lot of options. That is, unless the writer of the small program have done something stupid, og the writer of the large program have done something very smart.
One problem with java in this respect is that it is next to impossible to judge exactly how much machine-level processing a single java statement takes. Things like JIT compilers makes it even harder.
In the end, there is really only one way to find out: Test it.

HT4060 I'm having some problems with my ipad and charging it. I am having to leave it in charge for a lot longer, but when I take it out and want to use it the battery is still not completely full and goes down a lot faster than usual

I'm having some problems with my ipad and charging it. I am having to leave it in charge for a lot longer, but when I take it out and want to use it the battery is still not completely full and goes down a lot faster than usual. The other day, I had charged my iPad overnight so that I could take it to university with me for the day, and when I had switched it on the next day the battery was on 5% and I had not used it since charge.

Your battery may be dying. THey are only good for so many charges/discharges. If you have an apple store near by make an appointment and have them check itout

Why does audio run faster than video after burning my iMovie project in iDVD?

I created a project in iMovie HD and shared it to iDVD 6. When I played the finished disc, I noticed that the audio ran much faster than the video. I rechecked my movie and audio clips in iMovie to make sure they were matched correctly, and I saw no problem there. I burned the disc again through iDVD and got the same problem when I played it in a DVD player.
I have never had this problem before and I've been working on dvd projects all week. I think the only difference with this movie project is that I had movie clip audio and background audio playing at the same time at some parts of the movie, but I don't know if that's the issue.
Any suggestions?

Hi
And just to add to OT-s brilliant suggestions - really - Do a Save as a DiskImage ! IMPORTANT !
• When free space goes down on the Start-Up hard disk to 5Gb or less - strange things occurs - Yes even audio out of sync - to not working DVD at all.
I secure a minimum of 25Gb free space when using SD-video to iDVD - if HD material I would guess 4-5 times more as it has to be re-calculated into SD and this needs space.
DVD - is as standard SD-Video (as old time CRT-TVs) - even if You use DVD-Studio Pro or iDVD or Roxio Toast™ - That's what it is and using HD material doesn't improve a bit (may be even give a lesser result)
Yours Bengt W

Why is Mac Pro 2.66 only 1.3x faster than 2.7 G5 on CPU intensive stuff?

I produce DVDs so my Compressor DVCam -> MPEG2 encoding is the most time consuming task. Take the MacWorld benchmarks, I was dissappointed the QC 2.66 was a third faster than a DC 2.7 G5 running Compressor.
I would have expected almost 2x as fast, basically halving encoding times. The Mac Pro took 107s vs G5 137s only 1.28x as fast OR put another way jobs complete in 78% of the time taken for the G5.
This is key reason for me to have just sold a G5 DC 2.3...but I'm dissappointed with these early indicators. Would it be reasonable to assume Apple have not optimised Compressor for Intel - surely not at this late stage?
G4 Dual Gigabit Mac OS X (10.4.7) ATI 9800 Pro

Terpstar,
I was wondering if you have had a chance to use Motion yet. I have a MBP, and using Zapfino fonts with SciFi Glow crashes my system every time. I would be interested to see if this is the case on other intel based systems. This has led to a failure of my main logic board twice over the last month. See my thread:
http://discussions.apple.com/thread.jspa?threadID=614641&tstart=25
Also, of the two GB ram I have installed, FCP doesn't seem to utilize more than 100MB of RAM. Although the VM size is several GB for the app. I noticed that in order to utilize both cores on my MBP, Airport had to be turned off.
Also, as Ned Snowing was saying, there is no doubt that there are going to be many software bugs that must be sorted out. Especially since this program is being adapted for intel macs, and not re-written.

Are the brushes in Photoshop CC faster than CS6 - still need to use CS5 for large files

Hey,
Are the brushes in Photoshop CC any faster than Photoshop CS6.
Here's my standard large file, which makes the CS6 brushes crawl:
iPad 3 size - 2048 x 1536
About 20-100 layers
A combination of vector and bitmap layers
Many of the layers use layer styles
On a file like this there is a hesitation to every brush stroke in CS6. Even a basic round brush has the same hesitation, it doesn't have to be a brush as elaborate as a mixer brush.
This hesitation happens on both the mac and pc, on systems with 16 gb of ram. Many of my coworkers have the same issue.
So, for a complicated file, such as a map with many parts, I ask my coworkers to please work in CS5. If they work in CS6 I ask them to not use any CS6 only features, such as group layer styles. The only reason why one of them might want to use CS6 is because they're working on only a small portion of the map, such as a building. The rest of the layers are flattened in their file.
Just wondering if there has ever been a resolution to this problem...or this is just the way it is.
Thanks for your help!

BOILERPLATE TEXT:
Note that this is boilerplate text.
If you give complete and detailed information about your setup and the issue at hand,
such as your platform (Mac or Win),
exact versions of your OS, of Photoshop (not just "CS6", but something like CS6v.13.0.6) and of Bridge,
your settings in Photoshop > Preference > Performance
the type of file you were working on,
machine specs, such as total installed RAM, scratch file HDs, total available HD space, video card specs, including total VRAM installed,
what troubleshooting steps you have taken so far,
what error message(s) you receive,
if having issues opening raw files also the exact camera make and model that generated them,
if you're having printing issues, indicate the exact make and model of your printer, paper size, image dimensions in pixels (so many pixels wide by so many pixels high). if going through a RIP, specify that too.
etc.,
someone may be able to help you (not necessarily this poster, who is not a Windows user).
a screen shot of your settings or of the image could be very helpful too.
Please read this FAQ for advice on how to ask your questions correctly for quicker and better answers:
http://forums.adobe.com/thread/419981?tstart=0
Thanks!

Photoshop 7 faster than CS 3 on Mac Intel .....

How come Photoshop 7 running on a MacIntel so via Rosetta emulation mode is really really quite faster than the CS 3 which is native !!
It clearly shows the lack oof optimisation of adobe softwares and that after each update they are becoming more and more gaz factories !!
It is clear that softwares with competitors are really better than others, the flagrant exemple of Lightroom vs Aperture !
Plus the prices ...
CS 3 Standard Edition is in Europe 2032 vs 1199 $ in Northern America reported in US $ 2985 $ vs 1199 $ !!! European customers have to pay 2,5 the price for the same crap !!
It is clearly that you take your customers for pigeons !!
Thank you i tried CS 3 the slowlyness and the few more feature will not justify to pay 2,5 more !!

But its it faster than CS3 on an Intel Mac with Leopard.
You also have clearly confused the people here on the forums (OTHER USERS) with Adobe.
Also instead of getting mad at Adobe in America Maybe you should be asking why Adobe distributers in your part of the world see the need to jack the price up. I have a feeling it has more to greed on your end than our end.
>i tried CS 3 the slowlyness and the few more feature will not justify to pay 2,5 more !!
Well if you really do own Photoshop 7 instead of just a pirate copy you might want to upgrade now as Adobe's policy world wide is 3 versions back. As soon CS4 is released you will no longer be eligible for upgrade pricing.

1:1 previews not noticeably faster than standard?

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for