March 03, 2015, 06:30:16 AM

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - dirtcastle

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 27
Does anyone have actual evidence that Geforce cards are actually competitive with Quadro cards for heavy, long-term video/graphics editing?

I think we have established that there are comparable specs between Geforce and Quadro cards. But clearly the firmware is different. And there is also the question of durability over time, in the context of heavy video/graphics editing.

Some evidence to back up these claims would be greatly appreciated. :-)

AFAIK, there's basically no performance difference betwen a super-expensive quadro card and a $150 geforce gaming card:

This may change with newer versions, but I wouldn't spend that kind of money without being sure it's not a stupid expense.

After reading this, I did some research and found the following.

This does appear to open up a lot of cards, but it's not like the entire Quadro line is now outcompeted by a $150 card.

I'm looking at the GeForce GTX 680 as an alternative to the Quadro K4000, but I'm wondering if that extra 1GB of memory in the K4000 will increase performance by 33%.

I'm saving up for the Nvidia Quadro K4000. That should give a nice BIG boost to Pr/Ae. Although I'm not sure how much performance-boost it will give to Cinema 4D, which I plan to start using eventually.

Download and install GingerHDR
That will allow you to import the RAW files straight out of the camera into Premiere Pro without having to convert to any DNG/TIF formats

Thanks for the heads-up!

GingerHDR is perfect for going straight into the NLE. It works as a plugin with both Premiere and After Effects. At $150, it's definitely on the costly side. At first, I ignored it because I figured there HAD to be a free alternative, right? Well, not yet. Up to this point, I think it is still the only software that will bring files directly into Pr/Ae without any compression.

GingerHDR has a 30-day trial. But I'm guessing that any projects I use it on will get disabled if I don't purchase a license. That is giving me a bit of pause, because I am confident there will be free alternatives within a matter of weeks/months. The question now is whether Prores 4444 (using RAWanizer) is good enough to tide me over until a free "native" solution emerges.

Does anyone have any thoughts on whether RAW will be that much better than Prores for my shamelessly amateur videos? Is it worth that extra $150 to get native RAW capabilities a few months before something free comes out?

I've tried out a few different post-processing conversion workflows. Here are some brief comments.

raw2dng (WIN/OSX)
- PRO: Reliable. Clean output. Note: used by other converters (e.g., RAWanizer).
- CON: Limited to outputting DNG stills, which must then be converted before importing to an NLE.

RAWmagic (OSX)
- PRO: when it works, it converts a RAW file directly to Resolve-ready CinemaDNG
- CON: still very beta, with lots of bugs (including noise, fringe, aberration, and more)

RAWanizer (Win)
- PRO: creates DNGS, TIFFs, and a proxy tiffs and a proxy video. It can also output Prores 4444.
- CON: slow, but to be expected considering how much it does.

EyeFrame (Win)
- PRO: Convert Magic Lantern RAW to dng, tiff, Prores, DNxHD, MPEG2 I Frame HD and MJPEG.
- CON: Runs within another program, Lightworks (Win).

I haven't used EyeFrame yet (because it requires Lightworks). Because RAWanizer works sufficiently, I'm reluctant to try EyeFrame until I hear a rousing endorsement.

If anyone has experience with other tools, please share about it.

Software & Accessories / Re: Mac Pro Humor
« on: June 13, 2013, 05:11:30 AM »
I love me some Apple. But bring on the mockery!

What's the latest progress on this? There was so much info about the breakthrough...but not much word on how progress was to refining this for a more general release to the public.

I think the in-camera stuff is pretty solid now (varying a bit by model). But the post-processing workflow is still in flux.

There are a number post-processing sub-projects going on right now, but as far as I can tell... nothing has risen to the top yet. If everyone were on the same OS, using the same applications, and wanted the same editing format, I think we'd have a solution by now. But it's just the opposite. That said, people are definitely chugging along.

Check out the ML post-processing forum. There's at least 8-9 projects, each with their own different process or software.

I will be taking some of these workflows for a spin over the next week.

If anyone else has tried a converter other than raw2dng, it would be great to get some details.

Software & Accessories / Re: New Macpro teased at Mac Conference
« on: June 11, 2013, 04:27:42 PM »
Even if Apple had decided to make the new Mac Pro more adaptable and customizable, it would still be A LOT cheaper to build a custom PC. I definitely prefer OS X to Windows, but for a video/graphics workstation computer, all I care is that the operating system is stable.

I've been spec'ing custom PC builds. It takes a bit of work and research for someone who has never assembled a computer from scratch (me). But I can build a monster video workstation for under $4k. I can build EXACTLY what I want without arbitrary limitations. Hell, I could even do a Hacktintosh if I couldn't live without OS X.

BTW, I also still rock that late-2011 17" MBP. Unfortunately, that is not something I can build myself ;-)

None of the response options in the poll fit my situation. I'm using LR4, and will wait until my vendor of choice ( offers the program at a substantial discount (as they did with LR4). I can see the value in the new features, but none that I have read about are must-haves for me.

I also don't see my situation in the poll answers: I already have CC. But I can understand that it's not in the answers because it's a completely different mindstate. You just grab whatever you need, whenever you need it. It's crazy. Admitedly, it's too pricey for most. But if you use 3+ Adobe programs on a regular basis and for many years in a row, then it's worth it.

Just upgraded my LR4 to LR5. It actually turns out that LR5 is an entire new application, completely seperate from LR4. All my presets and plugins automatically synced into LR5 which was nice. Do you know the best way to transfer all my photos and collections from LR4 to LR5?

When I installed LR5, it asked about bringing files into LR5. Did you get that dialog? I'm seeing all my stuff in LR5.

Okay so the original LR5 Beta is what's being updated correct? My LR4 will remain LR4 as a separate program?

I just grabbed LR5 via Creative Cloud. It installed totally separately from LR4, and left LR4 untouched. I'm guessing they do it this way for file management reasons.

Is it really worth all that hot air?
For those who care, yes it is worth discussing ... for those who don't care, it is "hot air".

Is it that hard to figure out?
You asked a question and you got a reply ... "hard to figure out" or not is for you to figure out ;D

It looks like you haven't run out of hot air yet.

Is it really worth all that hot air?
For those who care, yes it is worth discussing ... for those who don't care, it is "hot air".

Is it that hard to figure out?

I guess every Adobe-related post will now devolve into rants for/against Creative Cloud.

Is it really worth all that hot air?

Software & Accessories / Re: About to start with Focal
« on: June 10, 2013, 02:42:26 AM »
Lots of light, you want EV's above 10.  Use tungsten/halogen, not fluorescent or LED.

What about indirect sunlight?

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 27