![]() ![]() This can be enabled by selecting "other" as above. There is a separate search capability available in Finder called a "raw query". KMDItemCodecs = "*ProRes 422*" & kMDItemAudioChannelCount = 4 & kMDItemPixelWidth = 1920 It will show you what searchable metadata items exist. ![]() The available raw query terms can be determined by starting a terminal window and type "mdls " (without the quotes but with a trailing space), then drag/drop a sample image or video file from Finder to the terminal window. For video files you can search for bit rate, pixel width, pixel height, and codec. That gives a long scrollable list of items you can add to the Finder search. It is usually easier to add the above search items to Finder by doing CMD+F, picking the left drop-down menu and picking "Other". Or you can combine these with capitalized Boolean terms. E.g, for still photos you can do CMD+F in Finder and search like this: Spotlight allows various metadata searches on image and video data. With Spotlight disabled I can only do that with a slow brute-force search. That said, on a large deeply-nested media volume I frequently need to manually search for files using Finder. I just did an FCPX relink test and didn't see an advantage from having Spotlight enabled. I've previously speculated that FCPX may use Spotlight to expedite certain types of access, and that was based on some tests I did several years ago. But in all the disk benchmarks I've done it's never dramatically hurt performance. ![]() When doing disk benchmarks it's a good idea to disable it - simply to get more consistent numbers. Just curious what's the basis for disabling Spotlight on a media drive. Go into System Preferences and forbid Spotlight from touching it, even though it really really wants to. make sure Spotlight isn't constantly looking at your drive. Oh, and make sure Spotlight isn't constantly looking at your drive. I really think the i CPUs in the non-pro machines are better for FCP. Still, like I said, I get the same stuttering and beach balls so it may just be the janky Xeon CPU. I wonder if there is a USB 3 to Thunderbolt 2 dongle that would give me better speeds. I haven't done any real research so I don't know how true that is. SSD is supposed to be faster than that, but I have a Mac Pro and I have heard the USB throughput on these are not as good as they should be. Pretty slow! And this is USB 3 connected directly to the Mac (not going through any hubs). I edit on a 2 TB Sandisk SSD and I still notice the same beachballs and stutters as when I edit using a laptop hard drive spinning at 5400 RPM connected via a USB 2 cable with a short in it. You can move the cache back when you're done editing and before you move the Library to its final forever home. I would also recommend the cache be on a different drive than the SSD. I cannot see any visual difference for any material I've tested when doing "Faster Encode" vs "Better Quality". That is excluding effects - those can take considerable time. On your machine exporting 4k H264 to 1080p H264 using that preset should be about 4x or 5x faster than real time, IOW 15 sec for every 60 sec of material. If you are exporting in H264, try using this: Re "exports sometimes take a while", this depends on the codec but is rarely I/O-limited. You need a separate backup drive for that. Also everything must be backed up, both system drive and external drive. Your biggest problem is the SSD is quite small by today's standards. However an SSD is very fast so it can probably do both. This is because media I/O is dominated by large sequential reads vs library/cache I/O is dominated by small random reads & writes. Re optimal I/O layout in general you want the library and cache on a separate drive from the media. Re RAM, you only need an upgrade if Activity Monitor shows memory pressure: /en-us/HT201464#memory ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |