Export resolution and camera resolution question

I am thinking of buying a new camera- specifically one that will film video in widescreen as well as widescreen photo's. I have been looking at some that have a maximum video resolution of 848x480, which will come out fine.
With iMovie, so far I have been using my wife's Casio camera which records video at 640x480 (4:3 ratio), and I have been cropping the video in iMovie and exporting as 640x360 widescreen. The next resolution up from 640x360 in iMovies export settings is 960x540.
My question is, if my new camera has a video res of 848x480, when I export that in iMovie, will it have to be down-scaled to 640x360, or will there be an option to export at the same resolution (I don't think it will let me upscale it to 960x540)?
Thanks.
Message was edited by: wastedyuthe

As long as you don't have "constrain" checked, it won't resample.

Similar Messages

Export-Import and Naming convention question

All,
Newbie here. Have a question related to the naming convention for SAP R/3 system and XI manual export/import process. We are currently in the development environment where our R/3 systems are named as D55CLNT400, D56CLNT300 etc (first 3 characters are the system id, and last 3 are the client number.) This is per the XI best practices convention.
The question i have is - if we name the technical system as above - and export the configuration objects from the Dev to Test environment - where the R/3 systems are named as T55CLNT400, T56CLNT300 (similar naming structure). Does it mean that we need to manually change almost all of the items in the Test environment on the configuration side (like business sytem name, interface determination, receiver determination etc)
Is this the correct way or are we missing something??? I would have preferred a way - where we needed to only update the communication channel parameters.
Thanks.
Message was edited by:
thezone

In the SLD, create three Business System Groups: DEV, QAS and PRD.
In each of these groups, you must have the relevant application servers (in your case, R/3s) and one integration server (XI).
Then, for each Business System in Group DEV, define a transport target in QAS group.
In your case, the transport landscape should be like this:
D55CLNT400 -> T55CLNT400
D56CLNT300 -> T56CLNT300
XI_DEV -> XI_QAS
Do the same for the QAS group (defining transport targets in PRD group). Observe that you need to have the same number of Business Systems in each group for this to work properly.
Now, when you transport your configuration objects from XI_DEV to XI_QAS, all the Business Systems in DEV landscape will be replaced for the equivalent ones in QAS landscape.
More info: http://help.sap.com/saphelp_nw2004s/helpdata/en/ef/a21e3e0987760be10000000a114084/frameset.htm
Regards,
Henrique.

Export resolution stumper. . . .

I'm not very proficient at iMovie, so I'm perplexed by how I increased my export resolution the last time I created a movie.
Here's the background, I have iMovie 11 and my video camera is a Panasonic PV-GS500. Each time I've exported a movie to the media browser, it limited me to a large movie. However, the last time for some reason, it allowed me to export a 1080p version. Now I'm exporting another movie, but again I'm limited to a large movie. Anybody have any idea what I did last time to increase the resolution to HD. The camera, media, and software have remained constant for what it's worth.
Thanks for the help!

Then I would try - just to in-circle the possibly culprit
• Start a new User Account (Apple-menu / System Pref. / Accounts / Plus sign)
• Log out of this Account and into the New one (Apple-menu down to las option)
• Now start iMovie and import some material and re-try Share function
If this now works - then my Guess is that the problem is in
• iMovie pref file/s - or -
• iMovie Casche files
in the old account - and that trashing them will be the medicine (as iMovie now has to create New and error free ones)
This is a very common problem - most often due to - Panic/Forced Quits - as they induces errors in lot's of places ( finally adding up to a Major Break-down ). So by
• Trashing these files
• Running - Repair Permissions (Disk Util tool)
• Running - Repair Hard Disk (Disk Util tool - but now You first has to start Mac from DVD or ext. Hard Disk)
I can keep this Major problem away as long as possibly.
(and only Force Quit - when there are no other option (as just waiting it out)
Yours Bengt W

Another resolution question.....sorry

Thanks to Zac and Bogie for helping me out with the whole resolution questions but I do have one more....sorry. Do I need to log and capture in FCP in order to import the file into compressor to change the codec or is there another way? Maybe direct from the camera so it doesn;t get any more compressed than it is?
Thanks again for putting up with me
Rick

If you shot on DV, for example, capturing it isn't compressing more. It is what it is. You shot it DV, it is DV. What's on the tape isn't "better" than what gets captured to your hard drive.
Anyway, yes, you have to capture or ingest the footage or have some sort of existing movie file to put it into Compressor. You can't take it from the camera directly.

Set exported resolution for each image within InDesign

I'm generating a document in InDesign destined only for the screen (as a PDF) and I'm wondering whether in CS6 the user can set the exported resolution separately for each image. i.e click on a image and set the resolution for that image. Reason: to allow end-viewers to zoom in on certain images and retain quality.
And while I'm on the subject of changing resolution, a few years ago someone wrote a script for me (in response to a post), that when you clicked on an image within InDesign, resampled the original to 300 dpi, saved it, and made the necessary adjustments in InDesign so the image stayed the same size.
Can CS6 do that? Or do I need to dig up the old script?

> ... destined only for the screen (as a PDF) ...
The developers of PDF will thank you for that statement!

HD vs. 4K Video resolution questions

I was taking some still photos with my iPhone at 3264 x 2448 for a PP project and it had me thinking. HD video is only 1920 x 1080, which is much less resolution than a basic still shot from an iPhone.
1. Why is 1920 x 1080 HD resolution the high quality standard and not 4k video camera resolution? Is this currently a limitation of display devices and price, or is there some other reason?
2. Can I make a 4k still image project in PP based on a resolution of something like 4096 × 2048 and than just downconvert when I'm done? Are there any issues with working with lots of stills of that size in the program?
Thanks.

media kat wrote:
I was taking some still photos with my iPhone at 3264 x 2448 for a PP project and it had me thinking. HD video is only 1920 x 1080, which is much less resolution than a basic still shot from an iPhone.
1. Why is 1920 x 1080 HD resolution the high quality standard and not 4k video camera resolution? Is this currently a limitation of display devices and price, or is there some other reason?
Yes. Infrastructure was dragged up to 1920x1080 over two generations. It'll take another generation to pull it up to 4k. there are already 4k displays and cameras so it'll happen faster than last time.
4K capture, processing and display is around us. The distribution is the weak link at the moment
Having said that, just as TV shows destined for SD broadcast were shot on 35mm film (which has far higher resolution than Standard Definition (720x480) ), 4K cameras are being used as the primary shooting camera for TV shows that are broadcast in HD (eg Arri Alexia is very popular for TV dramas - eg Burn Notice).
Display devices - yes that's an issue
Price - yes, 4k cameras and workflow is still very high $$$
other reason - yes, it takes time for the public to adopt the new technology. The ability to broadcast it is the biggest issue right now.
media kat wrote:
I was taking some still photos with my iPhone at 3264 x 2448 for a PP project and it had me thinking. HD video is only 1920 x 1080, which is much less resolution than a basic still shot from an iPhone.
1. Why is 1920 x 1080 HD resolution the high quality standard and not 4k video camera resolution? Is this currently a limitation of display devices and price, or is there some other reason?
2. Can I make a 4k still image project in PP based on a resolution of something like 4096 × 2048 and than just downconvert when I'm done? Are there any issues with working with lots of stills of that size in the program?
Thanks.
Yup, edit in one of the RED formats or make a custom sequence using the industry standard 4K resolutions.
Alternately if you know you're using only the iPhone camera photos (not video) make a sequence that matches that resolution.
- For example I made a 4K timelapse using DSLR photos then down converted the 4K sequence to 1080p. (http://youtu.be/hK53CYs8pDY)

Aperture Export Resolution...

Does anyone know how to change the export resolution in Aperture? Any versions I export are 72 DPI regardless of format (tiff, jpeg, psd), while the RAW masters export at full 300 DPI resolution.
Choose an image, and right-click on it. Select Output>Export Version. I've tried every option, and it always exports at 72 DPI. I know this because I open the exported image in Preview or Photoshop CS2, and the information on the file is that it is 72 DPI.
I've checked in the preferences, but can't find any way of changing this. It seems rediculous that Apple would put out Pro software for Photographers that would only export files at web res.
Anyone know how to change this?
20" iMac G5 Mac OS X (10.4.5)

Okay, so there are thrid party apps to do it, and I
greatly appreciate you explaining them, but is there
no way to set Aperture to export at 300 dpi for
everything except web and e-mail outputs?
I guess what I'm getting at is that Aperture is
supposed to be the ultimate workflow solution,
eliminating all other applications except Photoshop.
Surely there must be way to set Aperture to export
at 300 dpi.
The thing is that DPI really means nothing independent of resolution - it is only a kind of hint to other programs as to what the size may be, but does not by itslef really control print size or anything else. Just a default size in some applications. Even though I have given a workaround for setting DPI I really don't use it myself as I simply export and then use the images in other programs, like InDesign, or send them off for printing.
Aperture currently simply ignores these values, passing them on from the original RAW file. So right now it has no way to alter DPI as it does not know what it is for any file. Aperture does not care, it does not need to as it scales images up or down as required by the task at hand.
I agree that Aperture should have some way to select a DPI for export, or possibly let you edit the metadata value for the resolution in a version (along with lots of other metadata). But I also think it really doesn't matter that much, as all that really matters in the end is how many pixels there are in the image you are outputting. That is something Aperture does let you control (though not quite as well for upsampling as I would like).
Does this make sense, or am I not understanding
something here?
No, you are understanding the current limitations perfectly. What is it you need the DPI set specifically for?

Soundtrack Pro AAF export resolution only at 16bit?

Hi
Can anyone confirm to me that the latest Soundtrackpro 2.0.2, audio AAF export is only available in 16bit resolution and not in 24bit resolution?
Thanks!
Xske

Finally found the answer. The recording was done at 48, the audio/MIDI settings were set to 48, but the sampling setting on the export was not, causing everything else to break down. Once all three matched the export worked and the playback audio worked without opening the clip editing screen.

Adding a RAID card to help speed up export (and other drive question) in Premiere Pro CC

First of all, I have read Tweakers Page exporting section because that is where my primary concern is. First my questions, then background and my current and proposed configurations:
Question 1: Will adding a hardware RAID controller, such as an LSI MegaRAID remove enough burden from the CPU managing parity on my software RAID 5 that the CPU will jump for joy and export faster?
Question 2: If true to above, then compare thoughts on adding more smaller SSDs for either a one volume RAID 0 or smaller two volume RAID 0 to complement existing HDD RAID 5. That is, I'm thinking of buying four Samsung 850 Pro 128 GB SSDs to put in a four disk volume to handle everything (media/projects, media cache, previews, exports), or split it up into two volumes of two disks each and split the duties, or keep the four disk volume idea and put the previews & exports on my HDD RAID 5 array.
The 850's are rated at SEQ read/write: 550/470 MB/s thus I could get around 2000/1500 MB/s read write in a four disk RAID 0 or 1/2 that if I split into two volumes to minimize volumes from reading/writing at the same time, if that really matters with these SSDs?
The Tweaker's page made a few comments. One is splitting duties among different disks, rather than a large efficient RAID may actually slow things down. Since the SSDs are much faster than a single HDD, I'm thinking that is no longer accurate, thus I'm leaning toward the Four disk configuration putting OS & Programs on C drive, Media & Projects on D (HDD RAID 5), Pagefile & Media Cache on SSD (2-disk RAID 0) and Previews &Exports on 2nd SSD RAID 0 (or combine the two RAID 0's and their duties).
Just trying to get a perspective here, since I haven't purchased anything yet. Any experience/stories, I would appreciate.
My current drive configuration:
My D drive is software RAID 5 consisting of four 1 TB Western Digital RE4 (RED) 7200 RPM HDDs with a CrystalDiskMark SEQ Read/Write of 339/252 MB/s.
The C drive is SSD 500 GB (Samsung 840 (not Pro) and does 531/330 MB/s. My OS, Program Files and Page File are on C, and data/media files/project, etc all are on the RAID drive.
Problem:
Current setup allows for smooth editing, only the exporting seems slow, often taking between two and two and a half times the video length to export. Thus a 10 minute video takes 20-30 minutes to export. 15 minute video can take 30-40 minutes to export. The first 10% of the two-pass export takes under a minute (seems fast), but it gets slower where the final 10 or 20% can hang for many minutes like my system is running out of steam. So where is the waste?
I have enabled hardware acceleration (did the GPU hack since my GPU isn't listed) and it may spike at 25% usage a few times and eat up 600 MB of VRAM (I have 2 GB of VRAM), otherwise it is idle the whole export. The CPU may spike at 50% but it doesn't seem overly busy either.
Our timeline is simple with two video streams and two audio streams (a little music and mostly voice) with simple transitions (jump cuts or cross dissolves). We sometimes fast color correct, so that might use the GPU? Also, since we film in 1080 60P and export 1080 29.97 frames/sec, I think that is scaling and uses the GPU. I know without the GPU, it does take a lot longer. I have ruled out buying a faster GPU since it doesn't appear to be breaking a sweat. I just need to know if my system is bottlenecked at the hard drive level because I'm using software RAID and my disks are slow and will hardware RAID significantly reduce the CPU load so it can export faster.
Our files are not huge in nature. Most our clips are several MBs each. Total project files are between 5 GBs and 10 GBs for each video with Windows Media File export being 500 MB to 1.2 GB on average. We shoot using Panasonic camcorders so the original files are AVCHD, I believe (.MTS files?).
Considerations:
1. I'm thinking of buying (and future proofing) an LSI Logic MegaRAID 9361-8i that is 12Gb/s SAS and SATA (because some current SSDs can exceed the 6Gb/s standard).
2. I'm not replacing my current RAID 5 HDDs because not in my budget to upgrade to 6 or more large SSDs. These drives are more important to me for temporary storage because I remove the files once backed up. I don't mind a few inexpensive smaller SSDs if they can make a significant difference for editing and exporting.
I can only guess my HDD RAID is slow but the CPU is burdened with parity. I would imagine running RAID 10 would not help much.
My setup:
my setup:
CPU - i7-3930K CPU @4.5 GHz
RAM - G.SKILL Ripjaws Z Series 32GB (4 x 8GB) DDR3 2133 @2000
Motherboard - ASUS P9X79 WS LGA 2011
GPU - Gigabyte GeForce GTX 660 OC 2GB (performed the compatibility list hack to enable hardware acceleration).
C drive - 500 GB Samsung 840 SSD (Windows 7 Pro 64 bit and programs).
D drive - four 1 TB WD RE4 Enterprise HDDs 7200 RPMs in software RAID 5
Case - Cooler Master HAF X
CPU Fan - Cooler Master Hyper 212 EVO with 120 mm fan
Power Supply - Corsair Pro Series AX 850 Watt 80 Plus Gold
Optical Drive - Pioneer BDR - 208DBK
thanks in advance,
Eric

........software RAID 5 off the motherboard ??????......NOT a good idea, from what I have read here on this forum from experts like Harm Millard and others. They have mentioned a LARGE overhead on the CPU doing this....causing sub-par performance. RAID 0 off the motherboard will NOT do this, however.....RAID 0 would provide optimum speed, but, with the risk of total data loss if ANY drive fails. You may wish to reconfigure your RAID to be RAID 0...BUT...you would need to DILIGENTLY back up its entire volume onto perhaps a quality 4TB drive very frequently.
A lot depends on the nature of your current and FUTURE codecs you plan to edit. You may not want to sink a lot of money into an older setup that may have trouble with more demanding future codecs. For now, in the 1080p realm, your rig should be OK....the read/write performance on your CURRENT RAID 5 setup is not great, and a definite drag on the performance. The rest of your components appear to be fine.....the Samsung SSD, though not ideal, is OK.....it's write speed is WAY lower than the Pro model,but, the drive is used mainly for reading operations. Since you have Windows 7 Pro, and NOT Windows 8.......you CAN put the entire windows page file onto the RAID 0 you might create.....this will take that frequent read/write load OFF the SSD. Read the "tweakers Page" to see how to best TUNE your machine. To use your current setup most efficiently, without investing much money, you would :a. create the RAID 0 off the motherboard, ( putting all media and project files on it ) b. install a quality 7200rpm 4TB HDD to serve as a BACKUP of the RAID array. Then, install a Crucial M550 256GB or larger SSD, ( close in performance to Samsung 850 Pro...much cheaper), to put all previews, cache , and media cache files on....AND to use as " global performance cache" for After Effects...if you use that program. Exporting can be done to ANOTHER Crucial M550 for best speed...or, just to the either the FIRST Crucial or, the 4TB drive. Your current GPU will accelerate exports on any video containing scaling and any GPU accelerated effects. Your CPU is STILL important in SERVING the data to and from the GPU AND for decoding and encoding non-GPU handled video....your high CPU clock speed helps performance there ! You may want to check out possibly overclocking your video card, using MSI Afterburner.or, similar free program. Increasing the "memory clock speed" can RAISE performance and cut export times on GPU effects loaded timelines,or, scaling operations. On my laptop, I export 25% faster doing this. With my NEW i7 4700 HQ laptop, I export in the range of your CURRENT machine....about 2 to 3 times the length of the original video. PROPERLY SET UP...your desktop machine should BLOW THIS AWAY !!
Visit the PPBM7 website and test your current setup to possibly identify current bottlenecks,or, performance issues. THEN, RE-TEST it again, after making improvements to your machine to see how it does. Be aware that new codecs are coming (H.265 and HEVC,etc.) which may demand more computer horsepower to edit, as they are even MORE compressed and engineered for "streaming" high quality at a lower bandwidth on the internet. The new Haswell E...with its quad-channel memory, 8 core option, large number of PCI gen. 3 lanes, goes farther in being prepared for 4K and more. Testing by Eric Bowen has shown the newer PPro versions provide MUCH better processing of 4K than older versions.

Curious question about Lightroom previews and Camera Raw Cache

Posted in the Flickr Lightroom Group as well:
I have noticed something about the Lightroom (3.6) previews and Camera Raw cache that have me puzzled.
I create a brand new empty catalog and purge the Camera Raw Cache.
Then I import ONE Nikon RAW (NEF) file with dimensions 2592 x 3872 (10 megapixels - 10,036,224 pixels).
Next I export that NEF file to an uncompressed 8-bit TIFF file. You would expect the size of that TIFF file to be roughly 30 megabytes (10 megapixels x 3 bytes per RGB value) and in fact the TIFF file is 30,135,830 bytes in size. If you export the same TIFF file but specify ZIP compression the resulting file size is 10,834,038 bytes. Obviously the compression obtained here is going to be highly specific to the image but so far no surprises.
During import I specify render 1:1 previews and I go into Loupe mode and view the entire image at 1:1 size. I also visit the develop module and do a bunch of manipulations on the image but no cropping.
At the conclusion of all of that I exit from Lightroom and examine the size of the Camera Raw Cache folder as well as the Lightroom previews folder. It would be my expectation that the previews folder should have a rendered full image and that the Camera Raw Cache should also have a rendered form of the raw data. What would you expect the size of those respective folders to be?
In fact - in my trials the previews folder totals a mere 1,675,264 bytes and the Camera Raw Cache which contains one DAT file corresponding to the one cached image is merely 267,374 bytes. This does not seem like nearly enough bits to preserve the rendered image nor is there a full size image tucked away in the actual catalog either - that file is not large enough to contain that. And yet I can use Loupe mode at 1:1 size and move from image to image with no loading delays (even when importing multiple files).
I'm wondering if I've missed something obvious in my analysis and if not, whether someone might care to speculate as to what magic Adobe is practicing here. Even if we grant them some special algorithm to compress their previews I don't see how they can achieve a compression so much greater than the ZIP-compressed TIFF file achieves.
And for those that might think to ask - I've repeated these experiments with multiple raw images and on both the PC and MAC platforms.
I look forward to some answers or interesting theories or perhaps someone might replicate the experiment and report findings.

MadMan and Hal - thanks so much.
So that was my D'Oh moment of what I was missing - the use of re-rendered JPGS as previews. That certainly does fit with the file sizes I am seeing. I had naively assumed that the previews might have tried to preserve the full fidelity of the image - But as you suggest that full fidelity is likely only there in the develop module.
This perhaps explains another observation from the Develop module - moving from one image to another might display "Loading" either briefly or across a longer duration. My guess is that the length of the loading process might have to do more with what is cached in RAM than cached on disk in the camera raw cache. More of a shame then that 64-bit Lightroom on 64-Bit Windows cannot grab more RAM than it seems to do at present.

Export videos and pictures from an ipad to a camera kit using a sd card

i need to export videos and images from ipad mini to sd card using a camera kit, please help, and if so what app do i need to do that.

i did find another "scenic route" around, but it has some limitations, yet might be beneficial.
there is an ipad app called Easy Transfer. basically, it works through the web. you type in a web address it give you, and you can transfer files via the "refresh" button on your browser, and through your ipad.
the downer is, if you have a so-so internet connection, data is lost on video filles. i tried to transfer even a one minute video file, and it was missig frames when it got to my mac...sigh.
but, hey...it is another option, perhaps for some of you with cable modem or supa-fast webby web! ;-)

My friend got a new iphone 5. when he was setting it up and the icloud questions came, we couldnt get past one it was almost like it froze but it didnt he just cant get past it. what do we do?

my friend got a new iphone 5. when he was setting it up and the icloud questions came, we couldnt get past one it was almost like it froze but it didnt he just cant get past it. what do we do?

What question?
What did you try?
Was the device connected to Wi-Fi or Cellular data?
Do you really want help? If so, stop being vague and provide some details.

Partial black flashes/stripes on exported m4v and sometimes mov????

Hi everyone,
I just bought a Canon HF100 full HD camcorder and a Class 6 8GB SDHC card which according to Canon manual should be fast enough to record full HD by the camera.
So the question is that in iMovie 08 where I've imported it at full resolution - when I export it using Share -> Export Movie and select either Medium or Large i get black flashes or stripes in the output video - note that they don't go across the whole video though
I didn't think I was getting it using Share -> Export using Quicktime but I just saw one today that only has 1 black flash but it's there
Playback in imovie shows no black flashes at all.
I've tried exporting all sizes and all qualities and see black flashes in all qualities and sizes..
Just wondering what it might be caused by???
Thanks
Jason

Problem was a faulty logic board, apple replaced it under warranty

LR4 and Camera RAW Cache folder

Hi all,
I know many are complaining about LR4 responsiveness and how LR3 was faster in response.
Like many others, I have a new and very fast PC, however it seems that LR4 is crawling when it comes to navigtaing through images.
I've done my share bit of tweaking LR4 to get the best optimized results such as, Optimize catalogs, Render 1:1 previews, Increase Camera Raw cache size to 30GB, move the Camera Raw Cache folder next to the catalog folder as Adobe recommends and what not.
LR4 didn't become more responsive, however I did notice something strange, which is the topic of this post.
While filddeling around with LR4 performance issues on my PC, I've noticed that even though I have over 20,000 images in my PC and some folders are rendered with 1:1 previews, the Camera Raw Cache folder is empty.
This might explain why rendering 1:1 previews didn't affect LR4 while browsing images.
For example, right after I've created the 1:1 previews (whether it's straight from import or after the fact) I'm browsing back and forth during this browsing action, LR4 renders the 2 images each and every single time I view them - that beats the purpose of using the cache folder.
So one comes to think how could it be that with such a catalog size and 1:1 previews, the camera raw cache folder remains empty? And could this be the cause that makes LR4 render each and every single image time and time again regardless if I viewed the image a second ago?
Thanks.
Gil.

Firstly, to clarify, Previews and Camera RAW files are not the same thing. Previews are simple, just jpeg representations of the raw file, at various resolutions used principally in the Library module and filmstrip.
Camera RAW cache files are used by the Develop module and contain the output from some initial RAW processing. I don’t remember exactly what processing but about half that LR needs to do to render an image. This processing is done regardless of what you actually do in the Develop module so it is done once, then cached. This is why the “Loading” appears to take longer when you initially browse to an image in the Develop module. The rest of the RAW processing (about half) is done every single time you browse away from the image and back again. This is why you always get CPU spikes when browsing through images in the Develop module. So you can create as many 1:1 previews as you like, this will have no impact whatsoever on image rendering performance in the Develop module.
So to answer your question specifically,
Can you be more specific about when exactly does this folder being populated?
A camera raw cache file is generated when you browse to an image whilst in the Develop module. Files continue to be generated until the cache size limit is reached, then as new files are generated, the oldest are deleted.

What is the optimum core configuration for a new Mac Pro to process and manipulate very large (80 megapixel) images using PhotoShop and Camera Raw?

Hello:
I will be using creative techniques to process and manipulate a large number (hundreds) of very large (80 megapixel) images captured using a medium format digital back (Phase One IQ180).
Final output will be digital fine art imagery printed using an Epson 11880 at large sizes (up to 60 inches x ?), retaining the highest possible quality and resolution. I will be using Adobe CC PhotoShop and Camera RAW as well as Capture One software. PhotoShop filters will be used extensively.
The Mac Pro needs to be optimized for the above purpose and be useful for at least five years. I plan to max out all the other options (RAM, graphics cards, storage). Performance is more important than cost.
The few discussions I have found that mention optimum core configurations seem to lean toward 6 or 8 (but likely are not taking into consideration my need for manipulating a large number of very large files), so I am looking to this foum for opinions.
Thank you,
Kent

See if this helps
http://macperformanceguide.com/index_topics.html#MacPro2013

My iBook crashes when previewed or after exporting it and sync

Hello,
I designed a photography iBook, and added 2 gallery widgets of 20 pics each. My iBook crashes when previewed on my iPad 3 or after exporting it and syncing it to the iPad. It happens after viewing the book and interacting with it.
I have seen that the gallery widgets behave a bit sloppily when you swipe to the next pic, also the second row of thumbails (pics 11 to 20) don't show properly, some thumbails just don't appear.
What can I do? delete the widgets and start again? Is the iBook crashing because of them? Any user having this problem in the past months?
Thank you!

I did it, removed both, started from 0 again. Same problem, thumbails dont show for items 11 to 20. The widget in general works a bit sloppily always, no matter amount of items.
i tried to make images smaller in resolution, same problem.
only solution: never have more than 10 items per gallery, and split 20 photos in 2 different galleries in 2 pages.

Export resolution and camera resolution question

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for