CS5 Beta Testers

[Tom.Wong]

So this is for the people on this forum who have used, tested, and can vouch for PP CS% and on.

I have a few questions about PP and I wanted to ask people who used the software rather than someone who just works for the company.


1. Has anybody tried extensive round tripping via FCP and PP and back and forth? Any glitches or hiccups to know about? What happens when you use files that are NATIVE to PP, and try to send to FCP that are not native but needed a transcode. Will it just go crazy and not recognize it?

2. PP xml, will it go to apple color for finishing and grading of RED r3d's?


3. anybody compare performance against gtx 285 mercury playback vs quadro 4800? How much of a performance hit am I expecting if i get the 285 instead for my mac? It's a huge price difference, is the performance TRULY there?


4. I've seen examples of how you can mix and match anything you want on the timeline and make it work and fit, no transcodes necessary. Big examples was R3D 4k footage, and 7d 720p footage on the same timeline. Simply by using the scale to fit option the 720p filled up canvas in the 4k sequence. Is it artificially scaling it to 4k and softening the image and is that gonna cause issues if i export out? Or is it merely just fitting it to the canvas for you so you don't have to see it in a tiny box?

If i render out a 4k sequence like that with mixed footage, how does it interpret and mix all the different files and formats? 720p footage and 4k? Would it let me export out as 720p, and give me different debayer settings upon export and retain the 720p of the 7d footage? If i export as a 4k quicktime, will it scale up the 720p footage?

Does mercury pro apply in actually exporting and rendering out via media encoder? Or is that all processor only, and is that also 64 bit?



A lot of questions I know, but the software is being looked and treated as "it can do anything" NLE, and I wanna know the true limitations and hiccups of it. Nothing is perfect, and I really wanna know what "problems" any of you guys have had with it and what it can really do.

 

[Santiago Marti]

http://vimeo.com/10935283
Here! Watch!

 

[Tom.Wong]

that answers half my questions, now seeking latter half

 

[Greg M]

Unfortunatley beta testers are under NDA

 

[Mike Brent]

"What are mac users going to do"?

"they have to kick it down a notch..."

enough said...

 

[Santiago Marti]

It does scale, if your sequence is 4K, everything will be scaled to 4K. The same goes for an hd sequence. If your clips are at full debayer, then the export will be full debayer. Like in CS4, you have source settings per clip, and if you select a bunch of clips you change every clip at the same time. Debayer is a source setting, not an export option.

Yes, you can export using CUDA acceleration. With or without media encoder.

 

[Mathieu Ghekiere]

"What are mac users going to do"?

"they have to kick it down a notch..."

enough said...

That video is really impressive, and as an Apple fan and FCS-user; it pains me to say but that kind of performance is impossible in FCS. And it sounds like the problem with Mac-users having to put the resolution lower to play back the same thing has to do with the offerings on Graphic Cards on the Mac, not really Adobe's fault now is it?
If CS5 is as stable as it scores with performance, than I hope for Apple's sake they don't wait too long with upgrading FCS to a similar performance.

 

[Uli Plank]

That much I can clearly state as a beta-tester: with a GeForce GTX 285 or a Quadro FX4800 (Mac version) CS5 runs equally well on a Mac und OS X. You can even use the same card under Bootcamp if you like W7…

And, yes, stability is much better than in CS4 with 4K. Memory management in a clean 64 bit environment is far superior.

 

[Tom.Wong]

don't discount the power of the quadro 4800, it's not a weak sauce card. Perhaps in the the coming months there will be more nvidia cards available for mac now that there is more of a demand. All it really takes is flashing the on board firmware and making the drivers for it on MAC OS. Hackintosh systems allow for a huge variety of nvidia cards, much more than a pure mac would.

i think i'm just gonna end up sticking with my ATI for awhile and using the playback engine software rendering power do the work for now. I'm not getting much RED footage in just mainly HDSLR stuff, and with a maxed out 8 core mac i can still cut it like butter according to that video.

gonna upgrade to a full 4800 when resolve comes out and has pro res final conform options

 

[Steve Cee]

Maybe this will answer the other half:

http://www.tdepost.com/videos/2010/4/13/premiere-pro-cs5-final-cut-pro-roundtrip.html

 

[Tom.Wong]

watched that already. it doesn't answer everything, might just have to demo PP and try the round tripping myself and see if i can get PP project direct into color, etc.

 

[Uli Plank]

I can render a DPX sequence and get it into Color with an EDL directly from PPro. Plus, AFAIK H. G. Daun is already working on the Clipfinder workflow.

 

[SimonBjork]

How do you render a DPX sequence and get the EDL to point to the DPX files instead of the files in your timeline?

 

[Petri Teittinen]

3. anybody compare performance against gtx 285 mercury playback vs quadro 4800? How much of a performance hit am I expecting if i get the 285 instead for my mac? It's a huge price difference, is the performance TRULY there?

I haven't tried either one - but wait!

GTX 285 GPU is a D10U-30 which is also used in Quadro FX5800. There's a D10U-20 in the Quadro FX4800, which can be found in GTX 260. In theory GTX 285 should be more powerful than FX4800.

 

[Rick Burnett]

Hopefully after CS5 comes out someone will try all these cards in both OSX and WIN and then we can evaluate price/performance. I'm always so afraid to update my video cards in my Mac Pro.

 

[uz29]

Adobe has posted this benchmarking report for CS5 & these are supposedly done with the NVIDIA Quadro FX 4800.
It has some benchmarks with R3D footage.

http://www.adobe.com/products/creativesuite/pdfs/production_premium_cs5_benchmarking_report.pdf

 

[Tom.Wong]

what card are they using in this test? you'd think adobe/nvidia would put up more extensive benchmarks to show the "power of cuda" and nvidia can be more convincing in selling more quadro cards.

 

[shashbugu]

I haven't tried either one - but wait!

GTX 285 GPU is a D10U-30 which is also used in Quadro FX5800. There's a D10U-20 in the Quadro FX4800, which can be found in GTX 260. In theory GTX 285 should be more powerful than FX4800.

for pure core speed gtx 285 is faster, but for the calculations Cuda does in PPro the Quadro fx 4800 is much more effective, intelligent and faster

 

[David McGavran]

RED is fast in CS5

RED is fast in CS5

PPro uses all your cpu cores in CS5 to decode RED R3D files. That is why it is so much faster than CS4. We then push the bits up to the CUDA card so that effects and such are accelerated. I think out of the box the performance will really impress RED users with more on the way very soon...

Dave
Adobe Guy

 

[shashbugu]

PPro uses all your cpu cores in CS5 to decode RED R3D files. That is why it is so much faster than CS4. We then push the bits up to the CUDA card so that effects and such are accelerated. I think out of the box the performance will really impress RED users with more on the way very soon...

Dave
Adobe Guy

Dave,
The question we have been asking is what is the render out speed after editing, say for a minute 0f R3d with no effects to Pro res 4444?