reel2reel
Apr 11, 09:43 AM
I hope they remove the Constant Crash feature.
I hope the new version comes in a box with a free t-shirt.
I've still got the t-shirt they gave out w/ Version 1.0. Somewhere.
Aww, give them a break, they're probably just trying to keep with the 90's design of the UI. :D
Honestly, the website totally sucks. Looks like a get-rich-quick advertisement site. They might be FCP pros, but they know amateur HTML.
In keeping with the videos they produce (the one's I've seen anyway)
I hope the new version comes in a box with a free t-shirt.
I've still got the t-shirt they gave out w/ Version 1.0. Somewhere.
Aww, give them a break, they're probably just trying to keep with the 90's design of the UI. :D
Honestly, the website totally sucks. Looks like a get-rich-quick advertisement site. They might be FCP pros, but they know amateur HTML.
In keeping with the videos they produce (the one's I've seen anyway)
davea11ee
Apr 5, 06:27 PM
Time for my 8 cores to start all being used at the same time.
intlplby
Nov 28, 10:53 PM
i'd love to see this work as a defense in court, but it'd never happen
amin
Aug 18, 10:28 PM
Obviously, inherently the iMac design is inferior to the Mac Pro/Powermac.
It may be obvious, but based on your earlier statement that a Conroe iMac would be "able to crunch through" apps faster than a Mac Pro, the obvious seemed worth identifying.
But I think there's a bigger reason why Apple chose to go all quad with the Mac Pro: Apple chose all quad because a duo option would have had the same performance in professional apps (again, excluding handbrake and toast which are the only two examples touted about). A single processor Woodcrest or Conroe option will have the same obtainable CPU power for 90-95% of the professional market for another 6-12 months at the very least.
So you think they put an extra processor in across the line just to be able to say they had a quad? Even the AnandTech article you used as a source showed here (http://www.anandtech.com/mac/showdoc.aspx?i=2816&p=18) that PS took advantage of quad cores in Rosetta
Here's some data regarding the Mac Pro's FSB:
*snip*
What can we take from this? Because of the use of FB-DIMMs, the Mac Pro's effective FSB is that of ~640MHz DDR2 system.
And how does it fare in memory latency?
*snip*
Your points about latency and FSB are not separate negatives as you have made them. They are redundant theoretical concerns with implications of unclear practical significance.
As for bandwidth, although the Mac Pro has a load of theoretical bandwidth, the efficiency is an abysmal 20%. In real use a DDR2 system has 72% more usable bandwidth. (source here (http://www.anandtech.com/mac/showdoc.aspx?i=2816&p=11))
I don't know bout you, but if I were a heavy user of memory intensive apps such as Photoshop, I'd be worried. Worried in the sense that a Conroe would be noticeably faster.
I am not worried. Everything anyone has come up with on this issue are taken from that same AnandTech article. Until I see more real-world testing, I will not be convinced. Also, I expect that more pro apps such as PS will be able to utilize quad cores in the near future, if they aren't already doing so. Finally, even if Conroe is faster, Woodcrest is fast enough for me ;).
Memory issues aside, Woodcrests are faster than Conroes, 2.4% on average (source here (http://www.anandtech.com/showdoc.aspx?i=2795&p=6))
I think you misread that. They were comparing Core 2 Extreme (not Woodcrest) and Conroe to see whether the increased FSB of the former would make much difference.
It may be obvious, but based on your earlier statement that a Conroe iMac would be "able to crunch through" apps faster than a Mac Pro, the obvious seemed worth identifying.
But I think there's a bigger reason why Apple chose to go all quad with the Mac Pro: Apple chose all quad because a duo option would have had the same performance in professional apps (again, excluding handbrake and toast which are the only two examples touted about). A single processor Woodcrest or Conroe option will have the same obtainable CPU power for 90-95% of the professional market for another 6-12 months at the very least.
So you think they put an extra processor in across the line just to be able to say they had a quad? Even the AnandTech article you used as a source showed here (http://www.anandtech.com/mac/showdoc.aspx?i=2816&p=18) that PS took advantage of quad cores in Rosetta
Here's some data regarding the Mac Pro's FSB:
*snip*
What can we take from this? Because of the use of FB-DIMMs, the Mac Pro's effective FSB is that of ~640MHz DDR2 system.
And how does it fare in memory latency?
*snip*
Your points about latency and FSB are not separate negatives as you have made them. They are redundant theoretical concerns with implications of unclear practical significance.
As for bandwidth, although the Mac Pro has a load of theoretical bandwidth, the efficiency is an abysmal 20%. In real use a DDR2 system has 72% more usable bandwidth. (source here (http://www.anandtech.com/mac/showdoc.aspx?i=2816&p=11))
I don't know bout you, but if I were a heavy user of memory intensive apps such as Photoshop, I'd be worried. Worried in the sense that a Conroe would be noticeably faster.
I am not worried. Everything anyone has come up with on this issue are taken from that same AnandTech article. Until I see more real-world testing, I will not be convinced. Also, I expect that more pro apps such as PS will be able to utilize quad cores in the near future, if they aren't already doing so. Finally, even if Conroe is faster, Woodcrest is fast enough for me ;).
Memory issues aside, Woodcrests are faster than Conroes, 2.4% on average (source here (http://www.anandtech.com/showdoc.aspx?i=2795&p=6))
I think you misread that. They were comparing Core 2 Extreme (not Woodcrest) and Conroe to see whether the increased FSB of the former would make much difference.
0815
Apr 6, 04:19 PM
Isn't it amazing that so many of these XOOM owners also, coincidentally, "own" an iPad/iPad 2, or their spouse/mom/dog/significant other does?
Either there's a lot of exaggerating (astroturfing) going on, or someone's spouse/mom/dog/significant other has a lot more sense. ;)
Why, I own an iPad and a XOOM and a Galaxy Tab and that HP Windows 7 Slate thingy and a Nook and a prototype PlayBook and I can tell you from personal experience that the iPad is like 100x better than all of those! :rolleyes:
A friend of mine has actually three of each you mentioned in every available configuration (for himself, his wife and his son) - and all of them think the iPads are the best ones ... and he is the only one you should listen to since he truly was able to compare them with different 'user types'.
Either there's a lot of exaggerating (astroturfing) going on, or someone's spouse/mom/dog/significant other has a lot more sense. ;)
Why, I own an iPad and a XOOM and a Galaxy Tab and that HP Windows 7 Slate thingy and a Nook and a prototype PlayBook and I can tell you from personal experience that the iPad is like 100x better than all of those! :rolleyes:
A friend of mine has actually three of each you mentioned in every available configuration (for himself, his wife and his son) - and all of them think the iPads are the best ones ... and he is the only one you should listen to since he truly was able to compare them with different 'user types'.
gnasher729
Aug 26, 04:08 PM
I dont see much change really, the 1.66GHz merom chip will find its way into the mini (they'll scrap the solo model).
The 1.83 & 2.00GHz for iMacs (if they use merom) and MacBooks and the 2.16 and 2.33 for the 15 & 17 MBPs respectively. Its that simple.
Only problem with that is that a 2.33 GHz Merom chip will be fifty percent more expensive than a 2.16 GHz Yonah is today. So do you think Apple will increase prices of the MacBook Pro by $150 to $200 or reduce their profit?
The 1.83 & 2.00GHz for iMacs (if they use merom) and MacBooks and the 2.16 and 2.33 for the 15 & 17 MBPs respectively. Its that simple.
Only problem with that is that a 2.33 GHz Merom chip will be fifty percent more expensive than a 2.16 GHz Yonah is today. So do you think Apple will increase prices of the MacBook Pro by $150 to $200 or reduce their profit?
Vercingetorix
Mar 31, 10:33 PM
I completely disagree.
Going open sounded like a great idea in the beginning. Fast forward to today, and manufacturers have used the openness against the platform by creating custom versions of android that aren't readily upgradable.
This has hurt the platform more than 'being open' helped it and google is right to start regulating what can and cannot be done.
I think we're all pretty lucky to have experienced both sides of the spectrum to be honest :)
Whether they're right to start regulating or not, they're still shamless hypocrites. What happened to all the principles that they waved around in the air? Andy Rubin himself said that the "definition of open" was that anyone could download the Android source and do whatever they wanted to it. Now people have to kiss his ring?
Google are the ones who waved the bloody shirt and shrieked about how Android-vs-the-iPhone was about freedom. Just because they're forced to backtrack now doesn't mean it's not blatant hypocrisy.
Going open sounded like a great idea in the beginning. Fast forward to today, and manufacturers have used the openness against the platform by creating custom versions of android that aren't readily upgradable.
This has hurt the platform more than 'being open' helped it and google is right to start regulating what can and cannot be done.
I think we're all pretty lucky to have experienced both sides of the spectrum to be honest :)
Whether they're right to start regulating or not, they're still shamless hypocrites. What happened to all the principles that they waved around in the air? Andy Rubin himself said that the "definition of open" was that anyone could download the Android source and do whatever they wanted to it. Now people have to kiss his ring?
Google are the ones who waved the bloody shirt and shrieked about how Android-vs-the-iPhone was about freedom. Just because they're forced to backtrack now doesn't mean it's not blatant hypocrisy.
SevenInchScrew
Dec 9, 01:09 AM
DoFoT:
It depends on what you want from a game. If you care more about driving and tuning than painting and whatnot go buy GT5. Its all about driving and not much else.
I love it because i'm a bit of a car nerd. If you like cars you will like GT5. If you love cars you will love GT5, its just that simple.
I guess I'll throw in my counterpoint to that then, just to give him another opinion to mull over, because I love cars and don't love GT5....
The game is not real good. Every time I've played it, I can't help but think of how it could have been SOOO much better, if they just trimmed back on the crazy feature list a bit. The game tries to be everything to everyone who likes cars. But the problem with that is, trying to do many things means you'll never excel at any of them. Often the implementation of things in this game is a little weak or unfulfilling because of that. For example...
NASCAR is in, but is pretty plain and boring, and doesn't feel like a real cup race. If you like NASCAR, you'd be better served with a full game based on that.
Same with WRC stuff. Yes, the rally is pretty decent. But, I've played a bunch of REALLY awesome rally games before, and this is nowhere near as good.
Day and Night cycles, and Weather effects look amazing.... on the very few tracks that you can actually have them function on.
The sounds of the cars, just as with every GT game that has come before it, is terrible. Very few cars actually sound like their real-world version, and when you tune them up, they get even less distinctive.
The car list, while huge, is FILLED with cars that I have absolutely no desire to drive in a racing game. I get Kaz's intention, bringing in cars from many eras and different parts of the automotive spectrum to see them, and maybe appreciate them more. But this is a racing game at its core, and I don't ever want to race a VW Kombi.
And lastly, the menus are just pitiful. It really feels like they designed them first, all those years ago, and then never touched them again. So many games have come and gone with great menu systems, and this game took nothing away from them, because they are just awful in this game.
This game really had the potential to be amazing. If they got rid of NASCAR, WRC, Karts, etc, and took out about 4-500 of the boring, crappy cars, we'd be getting somewhere. Use the time and effort that those removed things would have occupied to make some manageable menus, more Premium cars, and get the Day-Night cycle and Weather on all tracks. That would have been great. But that isn't what we got.
Don't get me wrong, it is a good game. But GT games aren't supposed to just be good, they are supposed to be GREAT. But even after a 6 year wait, we only got pretty good.
But hey, as I've said on many occasions, it does make some DAMN GOOD screenshots. Almost unreal at times...
Click to HUGE-size
http://imgur.com/hLJ12.jpg
http://imgur.com/V06hb.jpg
http://imgur.com/Vciun.jpg
http://imgur.com/ZGPiF.jpg
http://imgur.com/IMrhk.jpg
It depends on what you want from a game. If you care more about driving and tuning than painting and whatnot go buy GT5. Its all about driving and not much else.
I love it because i'm a bit of a car nerd. If you like cars you will like GT5. If you love cars you will love GT5, its just that simple.
I guess I'll throw in my counterpoint to that then, just to give him another opinion to mull over, because I love cars and don't love GT5....
The game is not real good. Every time I've played it, I can't help but think of how it could have been SOOO much better, if they just trimmed back on the crazy feature list a bit. The game tries to be everything to everyone who likes cars. But the problem with that is, trying to do many things means you'll never excel at any of them. Often the implementation of things in this game is a little weak or unfulfilling because of that. For example...
NASCAR is in, but is pretty plain and boring, and doesn't feel like a real cup race. If you like NASCAR, you'd be better served with a full game based on that.
Same with WRC stuff. Yes, the rally is pretty decent. But, I've played a bunch of REALLY awesome rally games before, and this is nowhere near as good.
Day and Night cycles, and Weather effects look amazing.... on the very few tracks that you can actually have them function on.
The sounds of the cars, just as with every GT game that has come before it, is terrible. Very few cars actually sound like their real-world version, and when you tune them up, they get even less distinctive.
The car list, while huge, is FILLED with cars that I have absolutely no desire to drive in a racing game. I get Kaz's intention, bringing in cars from many eras and different parts of the automotive spectrum to see them, and maybe appreciate them more. But this is a racing game at its core, and I don't ever want to race a VW Kombi.
And lastly, the menus are just pitiful. It really feels like they designed them first, all those years ago, and then never touched them again. So many games have come and gone with great menu systems, and this game took nothing away from them, because they are just awful in this game.
This game really had the potential to be amazing. If they got rid of NASCAR, WRC, Karts, etc, and took out about 4-500 of the boring, crappy cars, we'd be getting somewhere. Use the time and effort that those removed things would have occupied to make some manageable menus, more Premium cars, and get the Day-Night cycle and Weather on all tracks. That would have been great. But that isn't what we got.
Don't get me wrong, it is a good game. But GT games aren't supposed to just be good, they are supposed to be GREAT. But even after a 6 year wait, we only got pretty good.
But hey, as I've said on many occasions, it does make some DAMN GOOD screenshots. Almost unreal at times...
Click to HUGE-size
http://imgur.com/hLJ12.jpg
http://imgur.com/V06hb.jpg
http://imgur.com/Vciun.jpg
http://imgur.com/ZGPiF.jpg
http://imgur.com/IMrhk.jpg
mkjellman
Sep 18, 11:14 PM
to be honest - i've been looking at the lenovo offerings and i'm attracted. i have been a diehard apple fan my entire life, but if all it means is i have to use tiger clone (aka vista) but at least have hardware that is current with technology i'll buy.
so yes, apple has a monopoly, but they can't be to jack ass about it because people will start to go other places no matter how good ilife is.
there is no excuse that one of the top 5 notebook venders in the united states on intel architecture is behind this much its competitors.
so yes, apple has a monopoly, but they can't be to jack ass about it because people will start to go other places no matter how good ilife is.
there is no excuse that one of the top 5 notebook venders in the united states on intel architecture is behind this much its competitors.
Eidorian
Jul 30, 08:55 PM
I'd like to be able to install OS X on it, because the only reason why I'd ever use Windows is for the latest games. Here are the spec's, think this would run OS X nicely? ;-)This is a joke...right?
laidbackliam
Aug 7, 10:39 AM
I'd like to see your "Mac" model bumped up past the iMac. I think a lot of people, myself included, would pay a premium for the ability to upgrade. In fact, I wouldn't care if they didn't offer a completely new model as long as they offer some "affordable" manifestations of the Mac Pro. So how's this (and go easy on me here because I rarely delve into the technical aspect of things):
-Squire
yes, but i see the price point being under the iMac still. but again, this is just something i'd LIKE to see, and don't expect. and i know some people would pay a premium. but i'm not some people.
-Squire
yes, but i see the price point being under the iMac still. but again, this is just something i'd LIKE to see, and don't expect. and i know some people would pay a premium. but i'm not some people.
boncellis
Aug 27, 09:12 PM
Sifting through this thread can make one either optimistic or irrational, depending on who you ask. One point I found absent among the discussion was the possibility of a Core 2 Duo machine coinciding with the September 16th iPod offer end date.
Makes sense to me, but then I tend to get shouted down a lot in this forum. ;)
Makes sense to me, but then I tend to get shouted down a lot in this forum. ;)
generik
Sep 18, 11:20 PM
For the love of God, please, learn to spell.
As I is naught en Amerikan canned sumone plz tell mi wen tanksgifting is? :p
As I is naught en Amerikan canned sumone plz tell mi wen tanksgifting is? :p
OceanView
Apr 11, 01:46 PM
I can live with it if they include a larger screen, 4G, Larger Capacity and the A5. Possibly 1GB RAM. That would be sweet :)
nagromme
Aug 7, 03:21 PM
Wow! :eek:
It's amazing how Apple keeps managing BIG updates to OS X. They are moving forward so much more efficiently than Microsoft. Not just polishing little things, but big, useful things. Not to mention some fun ones to attract consumers. I hope the advanced Spotlight features include easy boolean searching.
And now we can all wonder about those OTHER features Steve said they are concealing for now so Microsoft can't make a halfway copy (or attempt to) yet again.
I'm surprised res-independent UI was not discussed, but Apple has already said (http://developer.apple.com/releasenotes/GraphicsImaging/ResolutionIndependentUI.html) that is coming, so maybe it's just not polished enough to bother showing yet. (Or maybe it's better to show when new displays come out? Today's new low prices on Cinema Displays might hint at new displays to come later.)
I've been asking for that background-change effect in iChat for years! Adobe Premiere could do that in the 90s, though not in realtime. Too cool!
Now one question... A new Front Row has been mentioned, but what will it have? PVR, tuner-ready for future Macs or peripherals? At first I also wondered about ["from across the room or across the house"... But I bet they're just talking about sharing iTunes or photos from another Mac, which is old news.
PS, congrats to MR's servers for handling the load :)
It's amazing how Apple keeps managing BIG updates to OS X. They are moving forward so much more efficiently than Microsoft. Not just polishing little things, but big, useful things. Not to mention some fun ones to attract consumers. I hope the advanced Spotlight features include easy boolean searching.
And now we can all wonder about those OTHER features Steve said they are concealing for now so Microsoft can't make a halfway copy (or attempt to) yet again.
I'm surprised res-independent UI was not discussed, but Apple has already said (http://developer.apple.com/releasenotes/GraphicsImaging/ResolutionIndependentUI.html) that is coming, so maybe it's just not polished enough to bother showing yet. (Or maybe it's better to show when new displays come out? Today's new low prices on Cinema Displays might hint at new displays to come later.)
I've been asking for that background-change effect in iChat for years! Adobe Premiere could do that in the 90s, though not in realtime. Too cool!
Now one question... A new Front Row has been mentioned, but what will it have? PVR, tuner-ready for future Macs or peripherals? At first I also wondered about ["from across the room or across the house"... But I bet they're just talking about sharing iTunes or photos from another Mac, which is old news.
PS, congrats to MR's servers for handling the load :)
Unspeaked
Nov 29, 11:10 AM
You posted a list of artist people will start to illegally copy if Universal starts to tax iPods....
Hey, what they do with the list is their business...
All I was doing was letting the thread know the breadth of Universal's stable!
;)
Hey, what they do with the list is their business...
All I was doing was letting the thread know the breadth of Universal's stable!
;)
NATO
Nov 28, 06:58 PM
I believe, correct me if I'm wrong, that microsoft suggested it in the first place to universal.
So they say.... :rolleyes:
So they say.... :rolleyes:
generik
Sep 13, 05:34 AM
Seems like someone in Anantech has managed to do just that with the upcoming Clovertown chips (http://anandtech.com/mac/showdoc.aspx?i=2832&p=6).
It is like the iMac/Mac Mini -> Merom all over again!
It is like the iMac/Mac Mini -> Merom all over again!
NY Guitarist
Apr 6, 10:50 AM
SB processor is great. I hope it has a backlit keyboard.
But I thought integrated graphics typically were not very good, and some software won't even work with it.
Apple giveth, Apple taketh away.
But I thought integrated graphics typically were not very good, and some software won't even work with it.
Apple giveth, Apple taketh away.
appleguy123
Feb 28, 08:19 PM
It matters that you describe it as fornication.
What has this dubious claim to do with anything? :confused:
He's trying to equate in our minds homosexuality, rape, and pedophilia.
What has this dubious claim to do with anything? :confused:
He's trying to equate in our minds homosexuality, rape, and pedophilia.
JAT
Apr 6, 03:53 PM
What you and every other non-informed are missing is the Xoom lack of apps is a not really a con for 2 reason.
1. Unlike iOS, ALL APPS, in the android market scale to fit the 1280x800 screen. No x1 or x2 crap. So I can still ENJOY my facebooke app on a larger screen. Nothing is lost. "optimized for tablets" gives me the same information just with a different interface. So long has my twitter app or facebooke or squeezebox app scale so i can see all. I am a happy camper.
2. Unlike iOS i would argue that the xoom needs LESS apps to do functions that take iOS 3 or 4 apps to do. I dont need goodreader or the like because I have a native file system. I dont need skyfire because i have flash. I dont need to open in here, open in there. Every app can have access to each other...
Scale?? Access to each other??
I'm beginning to wonder if you have ever used EITHER iOS or Android.
1. Unlike iOS, ALL APPS, in the android market scale to fit the 1280x800 screen. No x1 or x2 crap. So I can still ENJOY my facebooke app on a larger screen. Nothing is lost. "optimized for tablets" gives me the same information just with a different interface. So long has my twitter app or facebooke or squeezebox app scale so i can see all. I am a happy camper.
2. Unlike iOS i would argue that the xoom needs LESS apps to do functions that take iOS 3 or 4 apps to do. I dont need goodreader or the like because I have a native file system. I dont need skyfire because i have flash. I dont need to open in here, open in there. Every app can have access to each other...
Scale?? Access to each other??
I'm beginning to wonder if you have ever used EITHER iOS or Android.
Kevin Monahan
Apr 6, 02:20 PM
Unless you have an extreme PC...Adobe makes no sense (unless you are using the Quadro nVidia cards in a Mac Pro). Sure, the Merc engine increases performance for a few transitions and filters....but rendering is still necessary in MOST cases!
Premiere Pro makes sense in a lot of cases for Mac users. It makes the most sense for After Effects artists, like yourself, as you can dynamic link directly to After Effects from the Premiere Pro timeline. As you pointed out, Macs work great with Premiere Pro and the NVIDIA Quadro 4000 card. More and more cards are being supported as time moves forward. Want a certain card to add Mercury Playback engine hardware acceleration? Make a request here: http://www.adobe.com/go/wish
Not sure what you mean by "unless you have an extreme PC, Adobe makes no sense?" Yes, you need more RAM and a decent NVIDIA card to make Premiere Pro really fly on a PC-it's a 64 bit application-but even modest PCs do just fine with Premiere Pro. If Apple puts out a 64 bit application, you can bet that you should be looking at upgrading your Mac with a lot more RAM, more cores on the GPU, etc., as well. Need more info on tuning your system with Premiere Pro? Watch this: http://tv.adobe.com/watch/learn-premiere-pro-cs5/optimize-a-computer-for-mercury-playback-engine/
You wrote that rendering is still necessary in most cases. Really? What kind of system are you on? I've never had to render, even on my '09 MacBook Pro with no NVIDIA card and the Mercury Playback Engine in software mode.
You say that CUDA accelerates only a "few" video filters and transitions? There are a lot more than that! Upgrade to Premiere Pro 5.0.3 and you'll see the following GPU accelerated effects:
- Alpha Adjust
- Basic 3D
- Black & White
- Brightness & Contrast
- Color Balance (RGB)
- Color Pass
- Color Replace
- Crop
- Drop Shadow
- Extract
- Fast Color Corrector
- Feather Edges
- Gamma Correction
- Garbage Matte (4, 8, 16)
- Gaussian Blur
- Horizontal Flip
- Levels
- Luma Corrector
- Luma Curve
- Noise
- Proc Amp
- RGB Curves
- RGB Color Corrector
- Sharpen
- Three-way Color Corrector
- Timecode
- Tint
- Track Matte
- Ultra Keyer
- Video Limiter
- Vertical Flip
Premiere Pro makes sense in a lot of cases for Mac users. It makes the most sense for After Effects artists, like yourself, as you can dynamic link directly to After Effects from the Premiere Pro timeline. As you pointed out, Macs work great with Premiere Pro and the NVIDIA Quadro 4000 card. More and more cards are being supported as time moves forward. Want a certain card to add Mercury Playback engine hardware acceleration? Make a request here: http://www.adobe.com/go/wish
Not sure what you mean by "unless you have an extreme PC, Adobe makes no sense?" Yes, you need more RAM and a decent NVIDIA card to make Premiere Pro really fly on a PC-it's a 64 bit application-but even modest PCs do just fine with Premiere Pro. If Apple puts out a 64 bit application, you can bet that you should be looking at upgrading your Mac with a lot more RAM, more cores on the GPU, etc., as well. Need more info on tuning your system with Premiere Pro? Watch this: http://tv.adobe.com/watch/learn-premiere-pro-cs5/optimize-a-computer-for-mercury-playback-engine/
You wrote that rendering is still necessary in most cases. Really? What kind of system are you on? I've never had to render, even on my '09 MacBook Pro with no NVIDIA card and the Mercury Playback Engine in software mode.
You say that CUDA accelerates only a "few" video filters and transitions? There are a lot more than that! Upgrade to Premiere Pro 5.0.3 and you'll see the following GPU accelerated effects:
- Alpha Adjust
- Basic 3D
- Black & White
- Brightness & Contrast
- Color Balance (RGB)
- Color Pass
- Color Replace
- Crop
- Drop Shadow
- Extract
- Fast Color Corrector
- Feather Edges
- Gamma Correction
- Garbage Matte (4, 8, 16)
- Gaussian Blur
- Horizontal Flip
- Levels
- Luma Corrector
- Luma Curve
- Noise
- Proc Amp
- RGB Curves
- RGB Color Corrector
- Sharpen
- Three-way Color Corrector
- Timecode
- Tint
- Track Matte
- Ultra Keyer
- Video Limiter
- Vertical Flip
iStudentUK
Apr 11, 11:26 AM
They should stick to the June update each year. I know it may not be their fault but Apple need to keep the iPhone up to date, otherwise they will lose ground. Mobile phones are very competitive.
TheManOfSilver
Aug 27, 09:25 PM
Sifting through this thread can make one either optimistic or irrational, depending on who you ask. One point I found absent among the discussion was the possibility of a Core 2 Duo machine coinciding with the September 16th iPod offer end date.
Makes sense to me, but then I tend to get shouted down a lot in this forum. ;)
Actually, this has been mentioned (more than once I think) ... but I agree with you that it would make sense (let people shout what they may ;) )
Makes sense to me, but then I tend to get shouted down a lot in this forum. ;)
Actually, this has been mentioned (more than once I think) ... but I agree with you that it would make sense (let people shout what they may ;) )
