Is my macBook Pro too weak to do video?

[lapieuvre]

I notice that whenever I have a video file encoded in h.264, my mac Book Pro 15"(Early 2011-i7 quad core 2Ghz) has problem reading it in Live. I convert them in mpeg4 format (through Live) and then it's fine.

I purchased the basic 15" model, so the video card was weaker than the 2000$+ model. I figured I didn't do video back then, but now...

Am I already in need of a Mac upgrade?

Thanks

[H20nly]

Jebus, i would hope not. if a year old machine that costs what a MBP costs can't handle a little video i'd say it's time to rethink your computing loyalties.

[lapieuvre]

Jebus, i would hope not. if a year old machine that costs what a MBP costs can't handle a little video i'd say it's time to rethink your computing loyalties.

Then why can't I play a single h.264 video file? the image freezes every 2 seconds.

[fishmonkey]

most likely it will be an issue with the file itself, a problem with the encoding or somesuch...

[H20nly]

Jebus, i would hope not. if a year old machine that costs what a MBP costs can't handle a little video i'd say it's time to rethink your computing loyalties.

Then why can't I play a single h.264 video file? the image freezes every 2 seconds.

i'm not sure, but look at what you're asking... it's either some kinda broken or like fishmonkey says... the file is corrupted. i can't imagine that an MBP is "too weak" to handle a bit of video if everything is in proper working order.

hope you get it sorted.
H

[lapieuvre]

no it happens with every file. it really seems my MPB is too weak. I litterally have to convert the file to mpeg-4 to view it and work some music on it.

[rikhyray]

it really seems my MPB is too weak

Highly unlikely, actually as far as GPU and CPU go impossible.
What are the file sizes, resolutions ? If it is HD you should use some lossless format- doing it in full res is impractical. Another thing, in video editors you almost never use full res for previewing half, 1/4 or even less, still it is better to convert to some more editing friendly lossless format. Live does not have such "eco" viewing options, it uses default QT, does not have real video functionality of its own.
Using correct codec and QT video in Live should not use more than 2-5% of CPU.
P.S. Notebooks are not really meant for any serious video work, Mac or PCs. You need serious GPU, tons of RAM and multi HDD. Having video streaming from ext HDD is helpful when working with videos, also having another one for scratch/temp, you could try that. Another thing working with videos -defrag often. Dont believe iDiots who tell you Mac does not need defragmentation, it surely does, specially when you work with huge files

[lapieuvre]

Thanks, I will try these 2 things:

1. defrag my hd

if it doesn't work:

2. Use an external drive

[rikhyray]

Thanks, I will try these 2 things:

1. defrag my hd

if it doesn't work:

2. Use an external drive

These are secondary factors, the most important is to have video in editing friendly format (QT in this case) and 8Gb or more RAM

[lapieuvre]

Well 8 gigs I got. Conversion is long! So the answer is yes: todays computers are still too weak to do video?

[rikhyray]

Well 8 gigs I got. Conversion is long! So the answer is yes: todays computers are still too weak to do video?

Kind of never been and never will be, since as CPU & GPU power grows so are the standards. 320x240 was commonly used in 90s, even beginning of this century. Till not long ago 720x 576 (or 720x480) were considered "high resolution", and are still widely used. Now it is 1080 HD but even higher resolutions are used. The CPU and GPU power increases as well but @ any given time video editing is always at the top edge of computers performance. Notebooks never been ideal for work with the video, OK for watching some rushes but for crunching numbers you need multi processors (processing split over network) and for seeing anything real time the most powerful GPU with proper cooling etc.
Remember editing some s-video in 90s, could never see what I have done until rendered (which would take ridiculous amounts of time even for few minutes of footage). Not long ago it was only possible to work with After Effects using wire frames or some silly, hardly visible preview resolution. Today lots can be done real time, even with the notebooks - Mac or PC, but you have to know "how`s".
Anyway , you have 3 options:
1. use iMovie it will "prepare" your video making it easy, relatively quick to edit- you dont have to learn , understand anything , Apple does it for you. iMovie exported video will play in Live without any hiccups .
2. learn some basic about video- codecs, resolutions, softwares like Avid, Final Cut, Premiere or Vegas- might take few months or years.
3. Get it done by somebody who knows how (time and money saving solution, trust me)

[fishmonkey]

Well 8 gigs I got. Conversion is long! So the answer is yes: todays computers are still too weak to do video?

the answer is that there is a lot to know about video, as there are so many different encoding types and options. it's much more complicated than audio.

[deva]

Your macbook is sufficient...

[Muzik 4 Machines]

install perian

[Pitch Black]

Lots of good advice here ^^^

Does the movie play properly in Quicktime, or other video player software? It really should do that easily on your machine.

If the video only glitches during playback inside Live, consider: is the video warped? Does it make any difference if you unwarp it? Does changing Live's audio buffer size make any difference? Does having an empty Live set with just video behave differently to a set with lots of audio content + video?

H.264, while offering small file sizes and good video quality, is the codec that most VJ software specifically mentions to avoid when VJ'ing, because it takes a lot more CPU cycles to uncompress each frame than many other codecs. Many VJ softs recommend using photo-jpeg for VJ'ing where a trade-off between light CPU-load and good image quality is wanted.

What are you using video inside live for? Composing to picture? Editing? VJ'ing? Each one of those uses would have their own most appropriate codec and picture size for the job at hand. I trained as a video editor back in the days when broadcast-quality video came off a machine like the one below, it took me a few years to get my head around digital video codecs etc.



Live's audio engine is designed to deliver real-time timestretching and re-pitching and seamless drag-n-drop of effects. As I understand it, Live's highest priority is to never interrupt the audio output stream, to the extent that it will even slow down its GUI to a crawl sometimes under heavy loads but will keep the audio going seamlessly... It wouldn't surprise me to find that video playback frame-rate is one of the lower-priority tasks in Live.