![]() ![]() Obviously, this is an incredibly simple test, and it has its limitations in terms of really putting the performance of both softwares to the test. 54 Seconds for ProRes 422 HQ - Clip Size: 1.28GB.36 Seconds for ProRes 422 - Clip Size: 799MB.27 Seconds for ProRes 422 LT - Clip Size: 499MB.1 Minute, 7 Seconds for ProRes 422 HQ - Clip Size: 1.11GB.58 Seconds for ProRes 422 - Clip Size 784MB.50 Seconds for ProRes 422 LT - Clip Size: 432MB. ![]() Here are my results as I encoded the clip into 3 different flavors of ProRes in both EditReady and Media Encoder: The original clip was full HD, and the original file size was 274MB. I used a single 57 second h.264 clip shot on my Canon 60D to conduct my test. However, once I started using EditReady (and comparing it to Adobe Media Encoder, which is what I normally use for all of my encoding), what I found was pretty impressive. Unfortunately, EditReady is a Mac-only app, so in order to test its speed and overall performance, I had to use the Macbook.Ĭoming into the conversion process, I had been expecting all of my tests to be painfully slow because, frankly, the Macbook is on its last leg. Suffice it to say, I would NEVER choose to do transcoding work on the Macbook unless it was absolutely necessary. Back in the day, the Macbook was no slouch in terms of performance, but time has not been kind to it, and the performance these days is pretty underwhelming. ![]() I own two computers, a mid 2010 Macbook Pro with a dual core 2.66GHz i7 processor and 8GB of RAM, and a custom-built editing PC that is insanely beefy in terms of specs and raw power. But, before we do, a primer on the computer that I used to test the software. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Details
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |