Why is Motion so much quicker than FCP doing Steady Cam?

Being a helicopter operator I keep doing projects that require steady cam.
I used to use Shake, then Motion, and now FCP with the additon of steadycam but I am wondering why Motion is so much quicker than FCP with the same clip.
Maybe a dumb question but one I need to ask.

running the same filter in both fcp and motion, motion always renders faster.
This is because motion renders and draws all frames directly on your graphics card. FCP now uses the GPU for many effects but has to read back from your card to main memory.
Unless Apple does a total rewrite of FCP this is unlikely to change, guess you either have to keep swapping apps or put up with longer renders in FCP.
Roger
CoreMelt

Similar Messages

When I send or reply my static signature is in text instead of html. this is an issue because there is no space as normal. please advise or work with smartmail to correct. firefox is much quicker than explorer and I've always preferred firefox. thank you

when I send or reply my static signature is in text instead of html. this is an issue because there is no space as normal. please advise or work with smartmail to correct. firefox is much quicker than explorer and I've always preferred firefox. thank you

That is a legitimate Mozilla newsletter. As it says in the email:
You're receiving this email because you subscribed to receive email newsletters and information from Mozilla. If you do not wish to receive these newsletters, please click the Unsubscribe link below.
Unsubscribe https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/newsletter/existing/ad9febcf-65ac-41fd-810b-798945f448f3/
Modify your preferences https://www.mozilla.org/en-US/newsletter/existing/ad9febcf-65ac-41fd-810b-798945f448f3/ "

Why is Chrome so much faster than Safari?

I'm an Apple and Safari lover, but love goes only so far. I have tried everything with Safari in Yosemite, but it's really in a sad state when it won't even open my Google account page, or my own website. Sadly, I have found so many pages that either load so slowly that I give up, or don't open at all in Safari, yet Chrome always works, and fast. In fact, Firefox and Opera, both of which I have never used regularly are much better than Safari right now.
Does anyone have a clue as to why Safari has turned into such a poor browser in Yosemite? But please don't suggest I go to safe mode. I only want a decent browser, which I would prefer was Safari and not Chrome, but I do not want to deconstruct or rebuild my Macbook Air OS installation.

Funny. I'm finding exactly the opposite to be true. I've used Chrome since it came out, and it used to be far superior to Safari. Lately I find it to be very buggy--lots of jittery, time consuming page loads and crashes. Frustrated, I imported all of my stuff to Safari where loading times, scrolling, and navigation are like butter. No crashes and no loading issues on my MB Pro. So far so good.
I do wonder if it has something to do with the "baggage" I developed on Chrome over the years. I kept things pretty tidy--purging history, cookies, etc-- but it still just kept getting worse.
I guess Firefox is an option, but one thing is certain: I will not be returning to IE ****.

Why is MME playing much better than ASIO4ALL

I have a 64 bit acer Aspire R7 with 8GB RAM and runing windows 8.1. i have bin using adobe audition(now using CS6) for about 10 years now and i have never found myself havin this problem:
1)It so happens that my MME drivers are giving less glitches than the ASIO4ALL.(no matter how much i play around with the buffer size)
2)when using the asio4all during play back,the volume is lower compared to that of the MME drivers.
3)the asio4all icon on the system tray keeps flickering from play(green) to an exclamation mark(red) constantly
i cant use my MME for my projects coz i gat quite a bunch of plugins waiting to join the party...hence it will start glitching too sooner than later(((pliz help!!!help help help!!!!

I'm usin the onboard soundcard.i know have to get an external USB soundcard(guilty)...money issues.((but the thing is i used to run the same version of audition on a much smaller laptop(hp,32 bit,3GB RAM) and it worked far much better than the acer.when i play audio in audition with plugin effects:MME used to lag while ASIO4ALL would play it smoothly.n now i have rather the opposite situation.
ryclark wrote:
What audio interface are you using with Audition? If you are using the onboard soundcard you would be much better off using an external USB connected one with proper ASIO drivers which bypass the operating system completely.
There should be no difference between using ASIO4All and MME drivers since ASIO4All uses the windows drivers anyway. It converts them to ASIO for audio interfaces that don't have ASIO drivers. However from what I hear Win 8.1 may be causing the problem with your glitchy audio especially if you are using the built in audio
What do you mean there is no difference between ASIO4ALL and MME drivers?then why does audition prompt to use ASIO4ALL if available??

How much quicker than G5?

I've currently got a iMac G5 2GHz machine with 1GB RAM, and running 10.4.11.
I've started to encode some Video_TS files and am surprised at how long it takes.
How much quicker/faster could I expect the midrange Intel iMac to be? Rough idea - are they, generally speaking twice as fast, 4x..?
Would be good to know if the process I'm going through is going to be cut from 4 hours to 2 hours, 1 hour or 40 minutes.
I appreciate that to answer this in any great detail you'll probably need to know all the details of this specific current task, but as I may well be carrying out other processor demanding jobs in the future I'm just after a rough guide. Kinda wanna know what £1000+ will actually get me (other than a much nicer looking iMac with Front Row, iSight etc)
Thanks

Encoding speed depends upon the processor.
I use a Mac Pro 2006 Xeon a 2 hour video will take about 65 minutes.
I also use a powerbook G4 , a 2 hour video takes about 15 hours.
I also use an Imac C2D a 2 hour video about 2.5 hours.
You could opt for the El Gato USB hardware encoder. Costs around $75.00 to $99.00 Do some research on it and I'm not sure about USB 1.1 or if your G5 has USB 2.0 This would greatly effect speed. I would think that the El Gato would bring you in around 2.5 hours (just guessing) I don't use it. You also need to research the resolution the device would bring to your encodes.

IOS -- Why recommended Flash is Much more than Image Size

Its Generally Observed that when we download an image the Image size is Much less than the Recommended Flash Card Size.
eg
First Image Information CURRENT
Image Name s72033-pk9sv-mz.122-18.SXD4.bin
DRAM / Min Flash 512 / 64
Size ~~ 48 Mb
Second Image Information
Image Name s72033-adventerprisek9_wan-mz.122-33.SXH3a.bin
DRAM / Min Flash 512 / 512
Size~~ 78Mb
Why So ? Bcuz other files like config / vlan.dat dont demand Much space & For a Backup Image256 Mb would be Enough. Please Elaborate Your Answer

Adesh,
Generally memory sizes are incremental ie 16,32,64,128 etc... So of course you have to have the available amount of memory to be able to store the IOS on it. Many routers now come with the SDM GUI that takes up 6-8Mb on flash memory, and I think Cisco does take things like that into consideration.
On your second image with the 512Mb recommended amount of flash I think is a typo. I see no reason why 512Mb is required for a 78Mb file. You could hold several IOS files with that amount of flash (which is nice) but not required.
I believe that the vlan.dat and the startup-config are still housed in NVRAM. Which is a completely different file system than flash.
HTH,
Mark

I have IE & Firefox on both my laptop and desktop. Why is Firefox so much slower than IE7? Firefox seems to take forever to load pages!

I have a HP laptop & Dell desktop with IE7 and Firefox. I use Firefox more as I like it better than IE, yet the pages in Firefox load so slow. I thought the new version of Firefox was so much faster, but it seems to drag along and take forever to load pages. Why is this??
== This happened ==
Every time Firefox opened
== 6/17/2010

Please ask your question on a forum for the Flash Player

Why is PE12 so much slower than PE11?

I have been using PE11 on a quick machine with 8GB of RAM without any issues. Thought I'd 'Upgrade' to PE12 and everything is (literally) 10 times slower. I have to render everything before I can ply it in the timeline (never had to render in 11) and the rendering can be as slow as one frame a second. Obviously this is unworkable when I import 20mins of video and it's 40,000 frames to render. If I import the same info into PE11 it doesn't even need rendering. I can drag along the blue arrow and see it all move as fast as I like with the stuttered audio going along with it. In PE12 I need to move the arrow to a given point - stop it - and wait about 5 seconds to see the frame that is there and then it might play after about 5 seconds.
It's driving me mad and I just can't fathom it. Same machine - same file - same request of the software, but drastically different results.
I want to get my money back on PE12 as it was a waste of time - but don't know if that is possible.
Anyone else experiencing performance issues with 12?
Looking on the Internet in general it seems many many people have this issue (one chap had 32Gb RAM and experienced the same problems). Must be down to the software.
Cheers

Hi ATR - and thanks for the comprehensive comments. I am also running Windows 8.1 64 bit.
Appreciate the advice on getting a refund for the software - I may well use that if I can't find out why things are so slow.
I will try to answer your questions below...
I bought this laptop new a couple of weeks ago, so not much opportunity for things to get too clogged up yet - having said that, one of the programs that always goes on any of my PC's is Ccleaner so that was installed right away (and has been regularly run).
I actually tried the Adobe support chat 3 times last night - but each time I was onward connected to tech support and after pleasantries, they dissapeared each time. So I gave up on that.
Yes - I have 11 and 12 on this same machine. In fact I've been experimenting this afternoon with using each program in isolation and also together - loading snips of video and rendering / saving / exporting to DVD. I am burning a DVD now with 11 which is the only one I have the patience for at the moment. I'll try burning the same clip from 12 when this is done.
Then there are the typical questions...
a. What project preset?
b. What are the properties of what is going on that Timeline?
c. Even with your present computer environment, how much multitasking is going on?
d. Latest version of QuickTime installed?
e. Run As Admininstrator and User Account with Administrative Privileges?
f. Video card/graphics card driver version up to date according to the web site of the manufacturer of the video card/graphics card?
a. Not sure about the project preset (am new to Elements) but I guess they are default - I did notice when I went to 'adjust' and 'Smartfix' there was a green icon in it - so I clicked reset to get rid of that - thought that might have had a bearing on the slow speeds.
b. not sure of details here either - I have basically used a USB to phono convertor to transfer a load of Video8 footage off my camera with the default settting (MPEG). I've been capturing for about 30mins at a time and then putting 2 or 3 of the 30min sections into the timeline (but have also now played with far smaller (2 to 5 minute) sections of captured video to compare and contrast on speeds for various processes with more manageable chunks of video. Thus far I am leaving the video as is - I.e.apart from introducing a transition affect between sections, I have no narration or effects or soundtrack - just the raw MPEG video (and sound) on video1 and audio1
c. Multitasking apps / programs - I do have a few things running, but nothing serious - I will get rid of all else that's running when carrying out some more tests - good point, thanks.
d. Erm - not sure about QT - will have a look and update this evening if necessary
e. Yes - running as admin - although I possibly wasn't before... Do I have to right-click the icon to invoke this every time? I tested after running as admin and it made no difference
f. Like QT - I will check the video card software - being a new machine I did have it do quite a few updates when I got it home (including 8 to 8.1 upgrade).
I have now captured about 30 hours of Video8 from the late 80's onto the laptop and need to move on to my next video camera, the VHS-C beast which has early footage of the kids etc. It feels good to know I'm finally getting this stuff digitised, but I won't be able to cope with editing and burning it on DVD at the speed PrE12 is going...
Thanks again for the time in coming back to me. I shall address the QT and video card drivers issues tonight and see how I go.
Fundamentally, I just cannot see why I have such a pronounced difference in performance between the two versions - seems very odd.
Cheers,
Tom.

Why is Thunderbolt so much slower than USB3?

I'm considering two different drives for Time Machine purposes. Both are LaCie. Either of these:
- Two Porsche 9233 drives, 4 TB each
OR
- A 2Big Thunderbolt drive, 8 TB, which I would configure as RAID 1 (a mirrored 4 TB volume)
My question is this: I've viewed both of these product pages via the Apple Store, and I noticed that LaCie's information for the Thunderbolt drive makes it a lot slower than the USB drives. Meaning: They say that the 2Big Thunderbolt drive maxes out at like 427 MB/s, whereas the Porsche USB drives max out at 5 GB/s. Why is this? Isn't Thunderbolt supposed to be a lot faster than USB (any iteration)?

Not an easy question, short of a whole lot more detail on the construction of those two devices.   You're likely going to need to look at the details of the drives and probably at some actual data.   You're really looking for some real benchmark data that you can compare, in other words.    Particularly which (likely Seagate) drives are used in those (IIRC, Seagate bought LaCie a while back), and what the specs are.
The hard disk drives themselves are a central factor, where the drive transfer rate is a key metric for big transfers (and that can be based on drive RPM as much as anything, faster drives can stream more data, but they tend to need more power and run hotter), and access (seek) time for lots of smaller transfers (faster seeks mean faster access, so good for lots of small files scattered around). Finding the details of the drives can be interesting, though. I've seen lots of cheaper disks that spin very slowly, which means that they can have nice-looking transfer times out of any cache, but then... you... wait... for... the... disk... to... spin.
The device bus interfaces can also vary (wildly) in quality.   I've seen some decent ones, and I've seen some USB adapters that were absolute garbage.   Some devices have decent quantities of cache, too. Others have dinky caches, and end up doing synchronous transfers to hard disks, and that's glacial compared with memory speeds.
One of your example configurations also features RAID 1 mirroring, which means that each write is hitting both disks.   The writes have to pass through a controller that can do RAID 0 mirroring, and that can write the I/O requests to both drives, and that can read the data back from (if it's clever) whichever of the two drives is best positioned in related to the sectors you're after.   If it's dumb, it won't account for the head positions and drive rotation and sector target.   Hopefully the controller is smart enough to correctly deal with a disk failure; I've met a few RAID controllers that weren't as effective when disks had failed and the array was running in a degrated mode. In short, RAID 1 mirroring is a reliability-targeted configuration and not a performance configuration. It'll be slower. Lose a disk in RAID 1 mirroring, and you have a second disk with a second copy.    If the controller works right.
If you want I/O performance without reliability, then configure for RAID 0 striping.   With that configuration, you're reading data from both disks. But lose a disk in a RAID 0 striping configuration and you're dealing with data recovery, at best. If the failure is catastrophic, you've lost half your data.
But nobody's going to make this choice for you, and I'd be skeptical of any specs outside of actual benchmarks, and preferably benchmarks approximating your use. Reliability is another factor, and that's largely down to reputation in the market; how well the vendor supports the devices, should something go wrong. One of the few ways to sort-of compare that beyond the reviews is the relative length of the warranty, and what the warranty covers; vendors generally try to design and build their devices to last at least the length of the warranty.
Yeah. Lots of factors to consider. No good answers, either. Given it's a backup disk, I'd personally tend to favor eliability and warranty and less about brute speed.
Full disclosure: no experience with either of these two devices. I am working with Promise Pegasus Thunderbolt disk arrays configured RAID 6 on various Mac Mini configurations, and those support four parallel HD DTV video streams with no effort. The Pegasus boxes are plenty fast. They're also much more expensive than what you're looking at.

Multiline string color property is too slow, why is console so much quicker?

I have a *vi that I am trying to use to format a multi-line string indicator with colors. The idea is that the data represents network traffic and must be formatted as shown in columns. I realize that there is an upper limit on the horizontal size of the string control of around 2000 characters. The standard console can be 9999 character wide. Second issue is that when I use a property node the iterations take forever to process since I am not able to concurrently apply the formatting to the string as I right them to the string window. I realize that I am using white space as filler and that this is causing a delay but in general this is taking way too long to format. Is there anyway to speed this up and go more than 2000 characters wide? If not is there a simple way to invoke the windows console in Labview and use the format parameter show in the attached *.cpp file?
I have attached the vi along with a sample Dev C++ project showing how fast the console is in comparison when apply colors to large amounts of text data.
Solved!
Go to Solution.
Attachments:
main3.cpp ‏1 KB
Trial_071030.vi ‏236 KB

Ouch! This looks like a literal translation of text code whcih is not al all optimized for dataflow. All these local variables cause extra data copies. Your code constantly needs to switch to the UI thread.
Two ideas:
Defer panel updates while doing all the coloring.
Use shift registers instead of local variables.
Why is your 3D picture set to scale with the panel? How big is your monitor?
Message Edited by altenbach on 10-30-2007 08:23 AM
LabVIEW Champion . Do more with less code and in less time .

Why is CS6 so much slower than CS5 was

Setup: Sager laptop NP8760 - CPU: QuadCore Intel Core i7 820QM, 2648 MHz (20 x 132)
8GB ram running win 7 64 bit
I've found that trying to use the CS6 (cloud) version of Adobe bridge is not really possible unless you don't mind having 4-8 second pauses for nearly any use. Right clicking for any reason is guaranteed to cause a good 5 second wait to see the right click menu. The first click on any menu bar item also gauranteed to cause a 5-8 second wait. Repeatedly (happens whenever focus leaves bridge, no matter how momentary)
Of course if you are intent on working with your images you can't really put up with that much delay.
I end up using CS5 bridge with CS6 photoshop or any of the other CS6 tools, but some things are then impossible to do from bridge, to me the worst one is not being able to send selections of images thru the photoshop image processor. I have to start CS6 bridge and put up with its incredible contrariness to do that job.
Something that was done to bridge between CS5 and CS6 seems to be the likely place to look for the solution to this problem, but while I can read the lsted changes I don't know enough to be able to tell which might be responsible or what I can do about it.
My hardware is nothing breath taking but should be well adequate to run Bridge... especially when I've carefully turned off any other application that I am using.
I've noticed lots of talk here of redoing cache and moving cache etc. My cache is on a different disk than the program and I've purged it a time or two to make sure that wasn't the problem.
I've made no customizations to bridge so it should be installed all vanilla.

I have the same issue. Customer chat has not been able to resolve.
: CS6 Unresponsive.
2 second lag after clicking on any menu item.
4-8 second lag after right clicking on any image.
3 second lag while selecting images with arrow keys.
2 second lag selecting multiple images
My system is high performance:
. 12 Core 3.3Ghz Xeon Processors
. 24GB RAM
. Primary drive is 8 SSDs in a RAID0 configuration
. Dual nVidia Quadro FX5400
. OS: Win7 x64
CS5 and CS5.5 were very “snappy” in responsiveness on this system. CS6 Bridge works fine on my laptop, perfectly responsive.
Once Camera RAW or Photoshop are open, no issue working in these tools, so, the issue is bridge.
Here’s my debugging steps which have not worked to fix the issue:
Installed the latest camera RAW plug in from Nikon. Nikon D800 RAW .NEF files work in windows explorer and in CS5.5.
Installed all windows updates
Installed the lastest nvidia FX5800 card drivers
Uninstalled all Adobe products (reader, media player, etc.)
Uninstalled all plugs ins (HDR, noise, etc.)
Checked there are no fonts on the system (no TTF files)
Uninstalled Office 2013 to make sure there were no system font issues.
Uninstalled all Nikon software except the RAW plug in.
Deleted C:\Program Files\Adobe and C:\Program Files (x86)\Adobe
Searched for any Adobe reference in c:\Users\<my_username>\ (example AppData), and deleted it.
Cleaned the registry of any reference to Adobe or any dll related to Adobe or an Adobe plug in.
Rebooted multiple times.
Re-installed CS6 Master Collection. At this point it did not recognize my raw photos (.NEF from a Nikon D800).
Installed all Adobe Updates.
The updates fixed the camera raw issue
Ran FontTest.jsx – all fonts passed, none failed.
Tried Preferences:
Advanced -> Use Software Rendering : CPU utilization went up, but, no impact on the lag
Startup Scripts : Disabled all but Photoshop CS6
Increased Cache Size, Compacted Cache, Purged Cache, Different Cache organizations, etc.
bob

Why is Chromium so much faster than Safari?

Safari is starting to drag its feet when launching just about any site. Does Chromium have something Safari doesn't?

HI,
Empty your Safari cache more often. Command + Option + E
Why use Google Chrome?
Carolyn

Why is Spotlight so much better than Finder?

I don't get why Finder is so useless. I type a file name or application name into Finder, it doesn't find it. I type it into Spotlight, and POOF there it is, right at the top! Is there an explanation for this?

Finder just uses Spotlight, so searches should be identical given identical conditions. When you search from Finder, confirm that you're having the search look at the entire system ("This Mac") or it may be searching only a specific drive or folder and hence turning up only partial results. You can set what Finder looks at by default in the Finder Advanced preferences; I set mine to "Search This Mac" so that the search is widest by default.
Note that unlike the Menu Bar Spotlight search, Finder does not return a "Top Hit" - returns are strictly alphabetical by file/folder name - so things may not be at the top like you may expect.
Hope this help.

Why is Intel so much slower than AMD??

We have run into a problem with a few of our clients running Intel Pentium 4 (no hyperthreading) processors. Our web application under tomcat runs 20 - 30% slower on Intel (benchmarks scores are available). Our shop uses AMD Athlon processors and we have no performance problems at all.
We have had client come to our shop to verify that the application is indeed faster here and they always say that it is significantly faster.
We have developed benchmarks for certain parts of our system (formula calculation, and page rendering) and run themmon and AMD 2500+ and and Intel P4 2.4 Ghz . According to all industry standard (SiSoft Sandra, etc) benchmarks we have come across, these machine should perform roughly the same, with the AMD performing slightly (5-10%) above the Intel.
Has anyone come across this problem before?? Are there certain operations or combinations of operations in Java that are significantly slower on the Intel??
We are seeing this on both the Client and Server VMs. All machines are running JDK 1.4.2_04 on Windows XP SP 1.

http://www.nasdaq.com/asp/quotes_news.asp?cpath=20040608\ACQBIZ200406080001BIZWIRE_USPR_____BW6209.htm&symbol=amd&selected=amd&kind=&mode=basics&formtype=&mkttype=&pathname=&page=news

Will iMac 3.4 i7 run Photoshop much quicker than 2.26 8-core Mac Pro

Hi,
I'm thinking of reducing the footprint of my kit and replacing my 2.26 8-core MP & Display with a new iMac 27 3.4
When running Photoshop CS5, does this i7 offer a good performance improvement over my MP? (RAM would be 16GB in both cases)
I'm assuming the answer is 'yes' as I don't think CS5 expolits the multi-cores, but I'd like a second opinion before I pull the trigger
Thanks
Paul

Thanks...there may come a time where 16GB RAM is not enough but I don't think it will be for a while for me. New iMac has FW 800 and Thunderbolt so my outboard storage is catered for.
I'm really interested to know if anyone has a new iMac and can compare it to an older MP.
When I go into an Apple Store and play with any iMac I notice that it brings up an app window almost instantaneously from the dock, whereas my MP bounces around the dock icon for while before doing anything.
Perhaps I could persuade my local Apple Store to load CS5 for me.

Why is Motion so much quicker than FCP doing Steady Cam?

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for