Comparison Article Export times CS6 vs FCP X

www.streamingmedia.com/Producer/Articles...aspx?ArticleID=83582


The author didn't send to compressor, but Exported in FCP X USING Compressor settings. Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but don't you use FCP X's engine instead of Compressors?
Because I know compressor in default settings can be slower then FCP X.

If it's FCP X's engine, these numbers are troubling though...

PS: I've seen that the article is sponsored by Adobe, although results have been confirmed and attested by 2 other companies, of which I *think* they are unbiased.

Quadro is actually not the best card for FCP X's A/VFoundation engine, but great for CS6's Mercury engine, so the test is amazingly flawed right there. Try both on a 5780 card and watch things drastically change. I've done that test myself. Exporting to Compressor uses a MUCH more sophisticated encoding engine meant for higher level, professional transcoding, not simple outputs, which are faster using Export Media. This person is obviously doing a propaganda job for Adobe and/or simply has no idea what FCP X's proper workflow is. I have an article on macProVideo about encoding H.264 in FCP X that shows WAY faster export times. This article really is slanted badly.

And he's not even doing a real "60 minute" export, but "guessing" at the time, which simple does not work like that technically or paper, nor in the real world! OMG, what a really horribly done article! Streaming Media should be super embarrassed to publish such amateurish garbage!

Hi Ben,

do you have a link to your article?
Would like to read it.

BTW: I didn't check the 60 minute export version, I just looked at the export speeds of his tests, raw. These already showed a big difference, although I agree that his hardware wasn't really optimized for FCP X.

Thanks,

I never said I published an article, just that I did tests in my own studio. We found you can't estimate a hour plus "Media Export" based on the times of a 2 minute "Compressor Transcode". Why Media Export wasn't used sounds very fishy to me.

All his exports were for h264 material correct?

I have to agree with Ben, while I don't think the testing was malicious in any way, it was of course bent in Adobe's favor. Adobe has done some amazing things with their CUDA coding.

I find this ironic also because I have found the h264 exports in FCP X to be very fast, blazing compared to FCP7/Compressor. However, I am publishing straight to YouTube or Video most of the time, so it is using one pass encoding, but I have been very satisfied with the results of the 1 pass for my purposes.

BenB wrote: I have an article on macProVideo about encoding H.264 in FCP X that shows WAY faster export times.

Hi Ben,

I meant what you said here. You talked about an article on macProVideo? Could you show it?
Just would be interested to read it. FCP X is new software, I read about it a lot, to know more about what it can and can't do (I try it for my own smaller projects as well).

BTW, exporting a H.264 out of FCP X without special settings, but just the 'H.264 setting' out of FCP X also produces very fast exports in my opinion, in comparison with FCP 7 or Compressor.