Hey Chadwick hope you are having a great Thanksgiving (yes I'm watching this on Turkey day). I enjoyed this video as I am impressed with the new Mac Mini and decided to buy one. They are pretty hard to get hold of here in the UK but I have managed to order one which should be with me by mid December. I decided on the base model and will be using an external drive (2TB NVME in a Thunderbolt 4 enclosure). It will be my first Mac so I have some learning to do! Keep up the good work. 👍
@8:45 background render is one of the reasons FCP is so fast at exporting. Of course there are reason why you would want to turn that off, but leaving it on will make your renders super fast.
@@CreativeVideoTips Maybe I'm talking out of my ass, but I think it generates prores files of all the things you do on the timeline. So if you were to render out a prores from there, I would just be stitching those rendered clips together. No transcoding. And if you were to render out a h.264 it would take those prores rendered clips and use those to transcode. Titles and graphics and all are then already rendered. So the background render part is essential in making FCP fast. It renders the parts that need rendering while you're working.
Would I be wrong in saying the bitrate of the exported file makes all the difference here? If the resolve export was also at 60mbps bitrate for the final 4k file, would it not have taken longer to encode and export?
Not in the time to encode. I actually testing this with setting the encode bit rates the same and got the same result with the time. The more I've tested since last week - it appears that Final Cut does not kick in the CPU the same way Resolve does - and that is the difference.
Please make a video on Remote Rendering! I’ve looked it up a few times but haven’t found anything up to date and or very clear. I really need help on that😢
great to hear - I have more tests I'm working on that you won't have to sit through the progress bars coming up next week with Resolve comparing previous apple silicon to M4.
I would be very interested into the remote rendering tutorial. In particular, I would love to see hybrid setups as in Mac laptop for editing and rendering with a remote machine with Linux or Windows computer with a more powerful GPU.
Thats a great question - and I want to know too! Or, could I use magnetic mask - and just export the alpha channel? Dylan Bates has a wonderful channel that I need to go learn how that works.
The higher bitrate encoding on the FCP render likely caused it to take longer. Also, when you scrub the timeline during an export FCP will "pause" the render to make your scrub experience better. It looked like you scrubbed a bit? Likely adding a few seconds to the export. Davinci is impressive though!
Cool, noted. It's kind of like a render farm - but not exactly - one machine does one full video. However the Fusion Render node, in contrast, can distribute individual frames to different computers. I think I'll do both in the same tutorial.
Definitely want a video on remote rendering! I just picked up the base model Mac Mini, would love to use that as a remote renderer while working on my MacBook Pro!
Have you tested how the scrubbing/editing performance of a heavy timeline on the mini behaves? I feel that’s is often a key area lots of other channels don’t really look into. Thanks!!!
I think the fact that you rendered footage from the network drive and then back to it probably hampered the actual speed of the renders a bit. The speed of Final Cut really comes through with the favorites workflow and getting used to the magnetic timeline. It also handles titles and certain effects noticeably quicker than Resolve. It's crazy how certain text effects or relatively basic fusion compositions slow Resolve to a crawl. I've switched to Resolve a few years ago but I miss Final Cut a lot of the time. I'm going to give it another look on some future projects.
Maybe, but the data rate of the h264 files he was creating was so much lower than the drive speed I doubt that was a bottleneck, even going from and to the same drive. If he had exported ProRes 4444 4K, then it’s a factor for sure.
I understand what you're saying - but this is pretty old school mindset. Most every post house I work with has footage that is shared on a server, and you render back to that server. The only exception are local cache files (for resolve anyway). 10 gigabytes per second isn't 10 gigibits per second. And the majority of the footage most folks work with taps out at 200-300 megabits per second. There is a ton of headroom.
@@CreativeVideoTips Agreed, I am old school, our Synology at work is just on gigabit and doesn't have a cache drive so reading and writing at the same time can be painful. 10 gigabit and a modern and well set up drive probably completely mitigates my concerns.
great video, would love to learn more about the remote rendering (rendering exporting while editing another project) will be waiting for that video... thank you.
+1 on the Remote Rendering video. How are you liking that Synology NAS? I was very close to purchasing that exact one just this week but held off out of concerns that 10GbE might sometimes be a little bit of a bottleneck for me. Your Speed Test results were reassuring though!
Cool - I think this server is the best thing for any group of 1-6 editors - I have one personally and installed another 3 for small post productions houses. There is also a desktop version - they 8 drive model is a must.
Uh shouldn’t you use the same bitrate.. if you were trying to make a fair comparison? FC exported the video that is twice the size of the one from Davinci resolve
Thank you for pointing this out - since Final Cut alone doesn't allow to change data rates - I have gone and run the same test/timeline out through a custom compressor preset to 30mpbs from Final Cut and got just slightly worse results then then native export. About 10 min 10 sec. The thing I'm noticing is that Final Cut won't kick in the CPU like Resolve will. It keeps the machine cooler, just doesn't fully use it.
@@CreativeVideoTips Yes it's true. But I think it would be an interesting video if for example 2 people were given the same media files. Then the were shown a video of what the final result should look like. And the both of them use the available media to try to recreate the finished video. And then watching their process and how fast they were able to do it and comparing which software is able to do it faster.
Love the deep dive into geekdom with the comparison between NLE's and the new tech... have to say that the price point on the new Mac Mini is INSANE, but love that Davinci still comes off on top ;)
Thanks - yeah I'm a bit puzzled how apple can't optimize their hardware better than blackmagic can - but this really tells the story of the importance of good software code.
Nice test, something important Resolve does not handle ProRES RAW so if you have a ProRES RAW pipe line Resolve is out. Both FCP and Premier will handle it
Fcp has been always faster than other EDL systems, I can cut a commercial in less than an hour in FCP and in the rest takes me longer, I have an M1 Macbook and is an interesting app to have
I’d like to see a tutorial on remote exporting. I looked at it a while back but couldn’t get it to work. We are a feature film post house and we are running the Project Server with 4 machines, so one could be used when rendering.
Oh perfect - that is an ideal case for using it. Keep an eye out over the next month or so and hopefully I can knock out the remote rendering tutorial.
Would you mind testing actual editing/colour grading tasks such as noise reduction and other effects within DaVinci Resolve? It would be valuable to see how it performs compared to other chips
The reason why FCP is faster than Resolve is because it handles much better titles, effects, etc while playing back in the timeline without rendering. I know this because I use both two on a regular basis. The same applies to DaVinci and Premiere: DR is faster on real time playback.
this is a good insight - I can see that likely being an important reason regarding titles - thanks! Fusion/(fusion titles) was originally built as a standalone tool, where the current motion/fcp was made in unison.
@@CreativeVideoTips I started Fusion in version 5, when it was only for PC and developed by Eyeon. Almost 20 years ago. That is one of the reasons why Fusion is slow: even if BM has done a great job optimizing it, it is still slow. It's one of the reasons why it did not have that much success as a compositing software compared to Nuke or Shake, which were much faster. What I wanted to point is that the final speed render does not necessarily mean than a software is faster than other. Also, I think that you should have verified if the debayer and decoding options for the RED files were the same in both programs. That would have been a much fair comparison. And who knows, maybe Resolve would have been even faster: it wouldn't be a surprise if it handles RED files faster than FCP.
Nailed it. FCP plays back titles in real time while Resolve drops frames or has to render cache when mograph titles are added to the timeline. FCP also renders out timelines faster that have large amounts of motion graphics. Resolve has a long way to go to catch FCP in the speed department.
@@motionfxes bro what the f fusion is much faster than nuke and even faster the ae as more complex composition i have used all three fusion is much better then ae and nuke and the reason nuke is industry standrad it maketing by foundary and it was aviable for linux and foundary provided free licences to studios and then everyone built pipelines around it they started charging heavy prices
It's a pity that we don't have your source material for the test, because I would love to test my computer and compare it to the i7 13700k 4080S and whether it's worth using the Mini as a second computer
I was shocked you didn’t export via the delivery page. Reasons why? I export 45+ minute sermons and they take about 40 minutes to render downscaling from 6.5K
@@garretreed9709 oh I normally use the deliver page. This was just to use the most simple basic exports from both apps. You can't customize final cut without compressor so I just did the same out of resolve
Thanks for the feedback. I could use it to change my Mac Mini M1 with this Mac Mini Mini 😂 (it's even smaller!). The only doubt is whether to take the M4 Pro version. I didn't quite understand what you said (I’m not American): I seem to have understood that with DaVinci Resolve I can do the shared rendering on multiple Macs? In the face of Final Cut Pro I remain on DaVinci Resolve Studio for which I have the license.
What I would love to know is how well DR operates inside Sequoia. I have the DR Studio version operating in Ventura 13.7.1 on a Mac Studio M2Max. The thought of changing OS creeps me out. I’ve found it difficult to get a definitive answer on “is it safe to update to Sequoia or even Sonoma?” I can’t think of a better person to make a video about DR and MacOS. In the meantime I’d be interested to hear everyone’s EXPERIENCE with DR and Sequoia and/or Sonoma. Is it risky? Are there performance benefits? etc. Thanks Chadwick and to anyone who can help.
I will try to make a post when I update my main M2Max production machine. I haven't yet - typically I wait at least 6 months. The mini M4 had an odd thing with network connections and some APFS drives I have, so honestly I would wait right now if you can.
so, how can i edit in FCP like they have it in davinci? taking words out out and it cuts the video, like the "um's" and other words you don't want in the video... Any way to do it in FCP? any help would be appreciated... thank you.
I think k part of the reason for the difference in e port times is how FCP will make use of the Apple Silicon hardware media encoder built into the chip. That’s why the CPU and GPU utilization was lower with FCP. The hardware chip was doing most of the work. This is a point of confusion for even FCP users who get frustrated why getting a newer Apple Silicon machine doesn’t always export faster than a previous Apple Silicon machine. A hardware encoder had pros and cons. The cons are the export speed can be tied to that encoder. The pros being it frees up system resources for effects processing. Because the exports in both cases were just straight video clips there was very little processing going on besides scaling to for the project size. So Resolve had the advantage here because it sucked as much as it could from the CPU and GPU to go faster. If there would have been grading, layers of effects and so forth FCP may have had the advantage since it has more system resources left to process that stuff faster. So a cuts only edit like this that isn’t exactly realistic of a real world project is faster in Resolve but one with effects, grading and so forth may be faster with FCP. Also export time is becoming one of the least important benchmarks for video editing. We may spend hours, days or even weeks editing a project and may export one or a few times. While Resolve was faster than once or a few times to export at that slightly faster speed isn’t likely going to make or break the project. Video exports so fast these days that is hardly an issue anymore. Especially for short form videos like this where the time difference is shorter than the time to go pee. What’s important about faster systems today is how much they can play in realtime before choking and how much complex processing they can handle. Like noise reduction, stabilization, retiming, Ai masking and so forth. Straight cuts only editing and exporting is so dumb simple these days. Finally the M4 Max has double the hardware media encoders and the M4 Ultra if we get one will double that again. That’s helps split the encoding time even more because FCP will split the encoding between this encoders. That means an Ultra can encode 4x faster theoretically. Plus it has that extra raw power for effects. That’s where even though the M4 is more powerful than a M1 Max is some benchmarks the exporting in FCP might still be faster on the M1 Max. Because of the double media encoders.
DaVinci Resolve, Premiere and most of the editing software do use Apple Silicon encoders both for playing and encodinh video, just as FCP. This comparison could have been fair if he had matched the decoding and debayer settings in both Apps. And even doing so, that just proves that Resolve is faster exporting Red footage. Every software handles códecs differently. Also, exporting times are not that important: in my opinion working in the timeline in real time with effects, titles, etc is much more important.
Interesting! I just watched another video test of magic mask vs the new magnetic mask in FCP. FCP won that one though it isn't as open to animate and control after the mask has been made.
Yeah, I haven't used the magnetic mask in Final Cut yet. However I will say that none of these give perfect commercial grade results. They all need manual intervention. I have a previous tutorial on Magic Mask that shows how you can manipulate the data after the magic mask does its thing. Sometimes that is useful.
Hi buddy, thanks for the great comparison, very interesting and I thought FCP could be the winner. Could you tell me the name of the program you use to see the performance of your Mac? The one that shows you the resources used in real time.
Can you explain about the rate differences again and how it affects quality. Both files you exported were h.264 , final cut rendered a file that plays back at 60 ish /s while DR rendered a slower 30 ish/ sec video.......wait doesnt that actually mean that fcp won the battle ? Fcp made a video file that plays back at twice the bit rate of the dr file in just a few minutes more??? Sorry if im way offbase here and im completly mis understanding everything. :)
No, it just means that final cut made a larger file. The larger file will be a nicer looking image, but takes up more space. Higher data rate = better quality (in general). I am doing much more extensive testing over the next week to compare M4 vs other apple machines to see how this compares. So far its good, but not as good as a Max from previous.
@@CreativeVideoTips It is not correct. Exporting at a higher bitrate means the computer has to work much harder to generate the same video track (which obviously has higher quality). It’s not just a matter of the "final file size"; in fact, that size comes precisely from the increased complexity in details and color gradients of the generated file.
Resolve don't need a plugin for red footage, but you didn't mention the way Resolve handle ProRes Raw 😛🤓. Also to me your test need to have the exact same data rate to be useful.
Ah yeah, no apple prores raw for resolve - honestly I've never been given a prores raw file ever since that format came out. I think it has a niche, but I'm not part of that group that used prores raw.
@@CreativeVideoTips If you shoot on Sony camera and absolutely want raw, it's the only way to have good quality raw with manageable files size but the workflow is horrible. The reason is mostly because Resolve is the way to go for most people for grading, and because Blackmagic boycott it. But ProRes Raw is far superior codec than BRAW... but has someone who is in the industry for a long time , I know that it's not always the best who win.
I'm a Resolve user on Windows but this was an unfair comparison, you should match the bitrate next time to make it fair, also Resolve had issues loading the files and you had to manually fix that while Final Cut Pro missed a plug-in sure, but didn't give issues afterwards. Just trying to be fair here, even though I still use Resolve.
New Mac user here. Why do think the computer ran higher in resolve than Final Cut? And I missed what got high. Can you tell me what it is that got higher?
Thank you, best would really be ProRes - but that can take a while to upload for longer videos, or slow internet. I typically use H.265 straight from resolve's deliver page at 50mbps.
Nice...this is something I would do just for fun lol. I was watching the @stalman podcast and he brings up that people use FCP because of it's editing speed and the magnetic timeline. Which is something probably good for content creators. Do you agree with that or is it more of a software preference to you?
It sounds like we're a bit similar. I need to watch his podcast on it. But I don't agree about the idea of a magnetic timeline being faster - that comes from people that really don't understand how a ripple trim works. All of the main 4 NLEs do that - and in fact, the cut page almost mimics the final cut timeline. I think whatever is fastest - is whatever you learned and work the most with. That's hard to judge objectively, you can't really. There's been times I would say I'm fastest with Final Cut - back on version 3! Then later I'd say I was faster on Premiere, or Avid - Now it's Resolve. Once you can play one piano - it's a week of getting adjusted to a new one.
You performed a very rough test, using significantly different export bitrates as well. Clearly, this leads to different results. Final Cut is faster even without background rendering.
I've only had it up and running for 2 days. So far so good. One thing this hasn't done is thrown out memory leak issues like I had originally with the M1 Max a couple years ago. The software seems to know its limits. I'll have more coming up in the next few weeks with the mini and only resolve.
I'm actually comparing those this week. Rendering times is at least 2x faster on the M2 Max. I need to cut more to give insight into the feel of editing.
@@CreativeVideoTips thank you for the insight. Looking forward to more information. If possible could you also let us know how fusion works in the M4 chip vs the M2 Max. I am unable to find any information regarding that.
Does it matter? You don’t choose either one of them based on rendering speed but based on how they work. And of course all the other apps you need to obtain in order for having the same functionality as Davinci Resolve has packed in.
I can't say with certainty, but believe it was a single pass encode to h264 - this is my best guess on the default behavior. I didn't change any default debayer settings. I'll be curious if other folks get similar results.
Foe editing purposes, what will be a preferred way to increase the storage capacity of a base mac mini? External SSD enclosure or a dedicated SSD NAS? And what about 10 Gig Lan and TB5 on the higher version?
even if the finalcut is faster considering the features that resolve offers i wouldnt not consider going back to finalcut since the finalcut x damn i really the automatic rendercache before.
Hi Than you for test, Do you thing that this mac mini m4 base is usable for short music production videos 4- 5 min. , colour grading editing on budget, I have blackmagic cinema camera 2.5, and plan to buy bmcc 6k , Thank you
So I never really understood these types of videos. If I’m cutting a wedding video. It’s probably two weeks to get a great full edit. I don’t even know how many hours that would equate to. Depending on the footage. The export is such a minuscule percentage of that workflow. It’s completely meaningless to me which program exports faster. Is it an indication of the overall speed of a program? I don’t think so. What is it like the other 99% of the time that you were using that program.? Don’t get me wrong, I am a Final Cut user. Most likely because I started editing digitally in early 2000s. Had I started with da Vinci? I’m sure I would be just as happy if not happier. The program is massive and it’s a bit harder to learn for an old dog like me. I’m not claiming it’s not as good if not better. I just wonder what a different test would look like. Thank you for the time you put in to help out. You just earned a new subscriber.
Hi Jay, thanks for the comment. This video was a pure curiosity to see how they deal with re-encoding various sources. How fast an editing app works has hundreds or thousands of variables - I get that. I for sure would never suggest changing applications based on something like this, but I think its a fun experiment.
Yeah, but remember you can't really do a direct comparison - They're different apps, different encoding algorithms, and also de-bayer differently. Those are both the software default H.264 exports.
Its not a Fair test The Synology encodes on the fly Depending on what specs. So the avrage person might find slower render times espechally for H.264 opr H.265 fotage. so you have to test on the Computers storage. 2nd Difrent data rates can affect time so all the setting have to match or be as close as they can be. And you should have done a play back test of all the fotage. as playback is somthing i wana see in the timeline. how well difrent codec playback. its got bultin H.254 and H.265 decoderrs and encoders and i wana see them both working not just the encoders. Rendring times is important as well but most time saved is iun the editing the better fotage plays back the quicker you can edit and better results you can get. Beleave me. Evry second counts and the current laptop i use can't play back the fotage i edit and is slowing me down a lot. But its also the syunolagy nass we use ( The team i work in ) is going to 3 - 4 people editing videos all at once and can't read and write fast enought to play back smothly.
Sheesh, anything is faster than resolve. I've been trying to make it useful for a while and it just is the slowest app ever made. Premiere pro runs circles around it
@@CreativeVideoTips 100%. To your point... I am blown away by how cheap everything is now. My AVID, beige Mac with IO/graphics cards and storage was around 80k in 1999. My company had 6 of them. Tape decks were a whole other story... Crazy.
Just the fact that Final Cut can’t handle red files natively is such incredible bullshit. I edit with 16 bit red footage quite often… Why would I want the hassle of final cut. And these ridiculous videos about what’s faster… Nobody makes videos about what’s higher quality, what’s better, speed has so little to do with it. I get paid by the hour so why do I want to go faster? And I know final cut can’t handle 16 bit. Final cuts great for mom and Pop videos but the pros just won’t use it. Every Hollywood movie is color corrected in resolve… Nobody color corrects a movie in final cut. Final cut is a bit of a joke.
A definite yes on the remote render tutorial.
noted - thank you, its on the list.
I’d like to learn about how you use the Synology, what the right hardware is and how to set it up
Thanks for the suggestion Michael.
Hey Chadwick hope you are having a great Thanksgiving (yes I'm watching this on Turkey day).
I enjoyed this video as I am impressed with the new Mac Mini and decided to buy one.
They are pretty hard to get hold of here in the UK but I have managed to order one which should be with me by mid December.
I decided on the base model and will be using an external drive (2TB NVME in a Thunderbolt 4 enclosure).
It will be my first Mac so I have some learning to do!
Keep up the good work. 👍
@8:45 background render is one of the reasons FCP is so fast at exporting. Of course there are reason why you would want to turn that off, but leaving it on will make your renders super fast.
Interesting - does Final Cut then use those render files when you hit export? I did not realize that.
@@CreativeVideoTips Maybe I'm talking out of my ass, but I think it generates prores files of all the things you do on the timeline. So if you were to render out a prores from there, I would just be stitching those rendered clips together. No transcoding.
And if you were to render out a h.264 it would take those prores rendered clips and use those to transcode. Titles and graphics and all are then already rendered.
So the background render part is essential in making FCP fast. It renders the parts that need rendering while you're working.
Would I be wrong in saying the bitrate of the exported file makes all the difference here? If the resolve export was also at 60mbps bitrate for the final 4k file, would it not have taken longer to encode and export?
Yes…the higher the bit rate the higher the quality
Not in the time to encode. I actually testing this with setting the encode bit rates the same and got the same result with the time. The more I've tested since last week - it appears that Final Cut does not kick in the CPU the same way Resolve does - and that is the difference.
Please make a video on Remote Rendering! I’ve looked it up a few times but haven’t found anything up to date and or very clear. I really need help on that😢
Noted!
Agreed! I literally was trying to do this the other day and got stuck with the process of it.
I was watching the Magnetic Mask for FCP today and thinking: We've had this for a few years already in DVR!
Ha, yeah there's new stuff to explore in fcp, but maybe not new stuff to post production.
This is exactly the content I was looking for and specially great that it is using the latest software!
great to hear - I have more tests I'm working on that you won't have to sit through the progress bars coming up next week with Resolve comparing previous apple silicon to M4.
I would be very interested into the remote rendering tutorial. In particular, I would love to see hybrid setups as in Mac laptop for editing and rendering with a remote machine with Linux or Windows computer with a more powerful GPU.
Seems like there is good interest in remote monitoring so that will be coming before the year is over - I don't have non mac computers though :(
Curious if magic mask is better than magnetic mask, or what use cases.
Thats a great question - and I want to know too! Or, could I use magnetic mask - and just export the alpha channel? Dylan Bates has a wonderful channel that I need to go learn how that works.
if possible do a video about Magnetic mask vs magic mask comparing results, speed.. etc
remote rendering tutorial would be really cool 💪😏
Great, noted and coming in the next several weeks
The higher bitrate encoding on the FCP render likely caused it to take longer. Also, when you scrub the timeline during an export FCP will "pause" the render to make your scrub experience better. It looked like you scrubbed a bit? Likely adding a few seconds to the export. Davinci is impressive though!
DEFINITELY want the Remote Rendering video!
And please network 3+ machines, wanna know the render-farm-miness of the system.
Cool, noted. It's kind of like a render farm - but not exactly - one machine does one full video. However the Fusion Render node, in contrast, can distribute individual frames to different computers. I think I'll do both in the same tutorial.
Definitely want a video on remote rendering! I just picked up the base model Mac Mini, would love to use that as a remote renderer while working on my MacBook Pro!
absolutely - its simple, just a couple gotchas - tutorial coming soon
Have you tested how the scrubbing/editing performance of a heavy timeline on the mini behaves? I feel that’s is often a key area lots of other channels don’t really look into. Thanks!!!
thank you - i'm working on it for sure - I'll have more in depth resolve m4 thoughts next week
@@CreativeVideoTipsperfect maybe how the Mini performs on fusion comps?
I use both so I’m so excited
Great, its been a big week for both!
I think the fact that you rendered footage from the network drive and then back to it probably hampered the actual speed of the renders a bit.
The speed of Final Cut really comes through with the favorites workflow and getting used to the magnetic timeline. It also handles titles and certain effects noticeably quicker than Resolve. It's crazy how certain text effects or relatively basic fusion compositions slow Resolve to a crawl.
I've switched to Resolve a few years ago but I miss Final Cut a lot of the time. I'm going to give it another look on some future projects.
Maybe, but the data rate of the h264 files he was creating was so much lower than the drive speed I doubt that was a bottleneck, even going from and to the same drive. If he had exported ProRes 4444 4K, then it’s a factor for sure.
I understand what you're saying - but this is pretty old school mindset. Most every post house I work with has footage that is shared on a server, and you render back to that server. The only exception are local cache files (for resolve anyway). 10 gigabytes per second isn't 10 gigibits per second. And the majority of the footage most folks work with taps out at 200-300 megabits per second. There is a ton of headroom.
@@CreativeVideoTips Agreed, I am old school, our Synology at work is just on gigabit and doesn't have a cache drive so reading and writing at the same time can be painful. 10 gigabit and a modern and well set up drive probably completely mitigates my concerns.
great video, would love to learn more about the remote rendering (rendering exporting while editing another project) will be waiting for that video... thank you.
Noted - I wasn't sure how many folks have multiple computers - this is high on my list now.
+1 on the Remote Rendering video. How are you liking that Synology NAS? I was very close to purchasing that exact one just this week but held off out of concerns that 10GbE might sometimes be a little bit of a bottleneck for me. Your Speed Test results were reassuring though!
Cool - I think this server is the best thing for any group of 1-6 editors - I have one personally and installed another 3 for small post productions houses. There is also a desktop version - they 8 drive model is a must.
Thanks, appreciate the reply.
Uh shouldn’t you use the same bitrate.. if you were trying to make a fair comparison? FC exported the video that is twice the size of the one from Davinci resolve
Thank you for pointing this out - since Final Cut alone doesn't allow to change data rates - I have gone and run the same test/timeline out through a custom compressor preset to 30mpbs from Final Cut and got just slightly worse results then then native export. About 10 min 10 sec. The thing I'm noticing is that Final Cut won't kick in the CPU like Resolve will. It keeps the machine cooler, just doesn't fully use it.
Awesome & Thanks :)
Welcome 😊
They might have the render time beat, but I want to see who can edit a video faster.
haha - this is entirely based on the person pushing the buttons - either one can be very fast, just depends on the user
@@CreativeVideoTips Yes it's true. But I think it would be an interesting video if for example 2 people were given the same media files. Then the were shown a video of what the final result should look like. And the both of them use the available media to try to recreate the finished video. And then watching their process and how fast they were able to do it and comparing which software is able to do it faster.
Love the deep dive into geekdom with the comparison between NLE's and the new tech... have to say that the price point on the new Mac Mini is INSANE, but love that Davinci still comes off on top ;)
Thanks - yeah I'm a bit puzzled how apple can't optimize their hardware better than blackmagic can - but this really tells the story of the importance of good software code.
Nice test, something important Resolve does not handle ProRES RAW so if you have a ProRES RAW pipe line Resolve is out. Both FCP and Premier will handle it
Yep you're right. I had forgotten about that format. I don't see hardly any productions shooting with prores raw - but that is very good point.
Fcp has been always faster than other EDL systems, I can cut a commercial in less than an hour in FCP and in the rest takes me longer, I have an M1 Macbook and is an interesting app to have
I’d like to see a tutorial on remote exporting.
I looked at it a while back but couldn’t get it to work. We are a feature film post house and we are running the Project Server with 4 machines, so one could be used when rendering.
Oh perfect - that is an ideal case for using it. Keep an eye out over the next month or so and hopefully I can knock out the remote rendering tutorial.
Yes for remote rendering! Post upgrade, I have M1 mac doing nothing, when it could be doing something 😄
Noted and on it - watch for something in the next week or two.
if you move home folder to your NAS will have no problem with background rendering in resolve
Would you mind testing actual editing/colour grading tasks such as noise reduction and other effects within DaVinci Resolve? It would be valuable to see how it performs compared to other chips
Hi, yep i'm working on a deeper look video this week with the M4 just with resolve.
The reason why FCP is faster than Resolve is because it handles much better titles, effects, etc while playing back in the timeline without rendering. I know this because I use both two on a regular basis. The same applies to DaVinci and Premiere: DR is faster on real time playback.
this is a good insight - I can see that likely being an important reason regarding titles - thanks! Fusion/(fusion titles) was originally built as a standalone tool, where the current motion/fcp was made in unison.
@@CreativeVideoTips I started Fusion in version 5, when it was only for PC and developed by Eyeon. Almost 20 years ago. That is one of the reasons why Fusion is slow: even if BM has done a great job optimizing it, it is still slow. It's one of the reasons why it did not have that much success as a compositing software compared to Nuke or Shake, which were much faster.
What I wanted to point is that the final speed render does not necessarily mean than a software is faster than other.
Also, I think that you should have verified if the debayer and decoding options for the RED files were the same in both programs. That would have been a much fair comparison. And who knows, maybe Resolve would have been even faster: it wouldn't be a surprise if it handles RED files faster than FCP.
Nailed it. FCP plays back titles in real time while Resolve drops frames or has to render cache when mograph titles are added to the timeline. FCP also renders out timelines faster that have large amounts of motion graphics. Resolve has a long way to go to catch FCP in the speed department.
@@motionfxes bro what the f fusion is much faster than nuke and even faster the ae as more complex composition i have used all three fusion is much better then ae and nuke and the reason nuke is industry standrad it maketing by foundary and it was aviable for linux and foundary provided free licences to studios and then everyone built pipelines around it they started charging heavy prices
@aman34587 Nuke is and has always been much faster than Fusion.
It's a pity that we don't have your source material for the test, because I would love to test my computer and compare it to the i7 13700k 4080S and whether it's worth using the Mini as a second computer
Yeah that would be awesome to hear how it works on your machine. The cost to host and share that much data would be too much.
Thanks for this quick showdown!
Could you please name the app you are using to monitor system resources from the menu bar? Thanks.
thanks for watching - this is istat menus
I was shocked you didn’t export via the delivery page. Reasons why? I export 45+ minute sermons and they take about 40 minutes to render downscaling from 6.5K
@@garretreed9709 oh I normally use the deliver page. This was just to use the most simple basic exports from both apps. You can't customize final cut without compressor so I just did the same out of resolve
@@CreativeVideoTips okay that makes sense. For a sec I thought I was doing it wrong and adding extra steps to my workflow. Thanks for clarifying!!
Thanks for the feedback. I could use it to change my Mac Mini M1 with this Mac Mini Mini 😂 (it's even smaller!). The only doubt is whether to take the M4 Pro version. I didn't quite understand what you said (I’m not American): I seem to have understood that with DaVinci Resolve I can do the shared rendering on multiple Macs? In the face of Final Cut Pro I remain on DaVinci Resolve Studio for which I have the license.
What I would love to know is how well DR operates inside Sequoia. I have the DR Studio version operating in Ventura 13.7.1 on a Mac Studio M2Max. The thought of changing OS creeps me out. I’ve found it difficult to get a definitive answer on “is it safe to update to Sequoia or even Sonoma?” I can’t think of a better person to make a video about DR and MacOS. In the meantime I’d be interested to hear everyone’s EXPERIENCE with DR and Sequoia and/or Sonoma. Is it risky? Are there performance benefits? etc. Thanks Chadwick and to anyone who can help.
I will try to make a post when I update my main M2Max production machine. I haven't yet - typically I wait at least 6 months. The mini M4 had an odd thing with network connections and some APFS drives I have, so honestly I would wait right now if you can.
@ Thanks Chadwick. 😊❤️
so, how can i edit in FCP like they have it in davinci? taking words out out and it cuts the video, like the "um's" and other words you don't want in the video... Any way to do it in FCP?
any help would be appreciated... thank you.
afaik there is no way to do transcript based editing directly in fcp; there's stuff like gling who allows you to do this and export an xml to fcp
@@martinowong i see..i hope final cut incorporates this style of editing like davinci resolve..
Have you ever checked the bitrate of the final result for both exports before coming to any conclusion?
I think k part of the reason for the difference in e port times is how FCP will make use of the Apple Silicon hardware media encoder built into the chip. That’s why the CPU and GPU utilization was lower with FCP. The hardware chip was doing most of the work.
This is a point of confusion for even FCP users who get frustrated why getting a newer Apple Silicon machine doesn’t always export faster than a previous Apple Silicon machine.
A hardware encoder had pros and cons. The cons are the export speed can be tied to that encoder. The pros being it frees up system resources for effects processing.
Because the exports in both cases were just straight video clips there was very little processing going on besides scaling to for the project size. So Resolve had the advantage here because it sucked as much as it could from the CPU and GPU to go faster.
If there would have been grading, layers of effects and so forth FCP may have had the advantage since it has more system resources left to process that stuff faster.
So a cuts only edit like this that isn’t exactly realistic of a real world project is faster in Resolve but one with effects, grading and so forth may be faster with FCP.
Also export time is becoming one of the least important benchmarks for video editing. We may spend hours, days or even weeks editing a project and may export one or a few times. While Resolve was faster than once or a few times to export at that slightly faster speed isn’t likely going to make or break the project. Video exports so fast these days that is hardly an issue anymore. Especially for short form videos like this where the time difference is shorter than the time to go pee. What’s important about faster systems today is how much they can play in realtime before choking and how much complex processing they can handle. Like noise reduction, stabilization, retiming, Ai masking and so forth. Straight cuts only editing and exporting is so dumb simple these days.
Finally the M4 Max has double the hardware media encoders and the M4 Ultra if we get one will double that again. That’s helps split the encoding time even more because FCP will split the encoding between this encoders. That means an Ultra can encode 4x faster theoretically. Plus it has that extra raw power for effects. That’s where even though the M4 is more powerful than a M1 Max is some benchmarks the exporting in FCP might still be faster on the M1 Max. Because of the double media encoders.
DaVinci Resolve, Premiere and most of the editing software do use Apple Silicon encoders both for playing and encodinh video, just as FCP.
This comparison could have been fair if he had matched the decoding and debayer settings in both Apps. And even doing so, that just proves that Resolve is faster exporting Red footage. Every software handles códecs differently. Also, exporting times are not that important: in my opinion working in the timeline in real time with effects, titles, etc is much more important.
Interesting! I just watched another video test of magic mask vs the new magnetic mask in FCP. FCP won that one though it isn't as open to animate and control after the mask has been made.
Yeah, I haven't used the magnetic mask in Final Cut yet. However I will say that none of these give perfect commercial grade results. They all need manual intervention. I have a previous tutorial on Magic Mask that shows how you can manipulate the data after the magic mask does its thing. Sometimes that is useful.
Hi buddy, thanks for the great comparison, very interesting and I thought FCP could be the winner. Could you tell me the name of the program you use to see the performance of your Mac? The one that shows you the resources used in real time.
Hi - that is istat menus
Nice video! Now I want to know if Final Cut Pro in that M4 is faster than Davinci Resolve in a Windows PC for the same $$
It definitely would be, $600 mac mini will be beat by a great pc gpu but not sure you could price match that for a pc at $600
Unfortunately, computers are more expensive. If you are a content creator, switching to a Mac will put your mind at ease.
Oof, thats territory that is out of my league. I sure do love the personality of a mac - even if they aren't "the best".
@@CreativeVideoTips Of course. I just want to know which one is better for people that doesn't prefer a specyphic O.S.
@@OnBar3 Depends on your content, for run of the mill editing, definitely, for more complex things like VFX then no
Can you explain about the rate differences again and how it affects quality. Both files you exported were h.264 , final cut rendered a file that plays back at 60 ish /s while DR rendered a slower 30 ish/ sec video.......wait doesnt that actually mean that fcp won the battle ? Fcp made a video file that plays back at twice the bit rate of the dr file in just a few minutes more??? Sorry if im way offbase here and im completly mis understanding everything. :)
No, it just means that final cut made a larger file. The larger file will be a nicer looking image, but takes up more space. Higher data rate = better quality (in general). I am doing much more extensive testing over the next week to compare M4 vs other apple machines to see how this compares. So far its good, but not as good as a Max from previous.
@@CreativeVideoTips It is not correct. Exporting at a higher bitrate means the computer has to work much harder to generate the same video track (which obviously has higher quality). It’s not just a matter of the "final file size"; in fact, that size comes precisely from the increased complexity in details and color gradients of the generated file.
Muli machine render video please!
you got it
Resolve don't need a plugin for red footage, but you didn't mention the way Resolve handle ProRes Raw 😛🤓.
Also to me your test need to have the exact same data rate to be useful.
Ah yeah, no apple prores raw for resolve - honestly I've never been given a prores raw file ever since that format came out. I think it has a niche, but I'm not part of that group that used prores raw.
@@CreativeVideoTips If you shoot on Sony camera and absolutely want raw, it's the only way to have good quality raw with manageable files size but the workflow is horrible. The reason is mostly because Resolve is the way to go for most people for grading, and because Blackmagic boycott it. But ProRes Raw is far superior codec than BRAW... but has someone who is in the industry for a long time , I know that it's not always the best who win.
@@geraudtruel7189 In what way is prores raw superior to Braw?
@@memcrew1 No pre-debayering and a lot of other stuff, but the explanation is long. Check on google. There is a lot of comparaison.
I'm a Resolve user on Windows but this was an unfair comparison, you should match the bitrate next time to make it fair, also Resolve had issues loading the files and you had to manually fix that while Final Cut Pro missed a plug-in sure, but didn't give issues afterwards. Just trying to be fair here, even though I still use Resolve.
New Mac user here. Why do think the computer ran higher in resolve than Final Cut? And I missed what got high. Can you tell me what it is that got higher?
Thanks for the video! What codec do you render your videos to for upload to UA-cam? I don’t know which is best.
Thank you, best would really be ProRes - but that can take a while to upload for longer videos, or slow internet. I typically use H.265 straight from resolve's deliver page at 50mbps.
Can I buy Max mini M4 for film editing? It's a good choice?
For sure, that is an incredible choice.
Nice...this is something I would do just for fun lol.
I was watching the @stalman podcast and he brings up that people use FCP because of it's editing speed and the magnetic timeline. Which is something probably good for content creators. Do you agree with that or is it more of a software preference to you?
It sounds like we're a bit similar. I need to watch his podcast on it. But I don't agree about the idea of a magnetic timeline being faster - that comes from people that really don't understand how a ripple trim works. All of the main 4 NLEs do that - and in fact, the cut page almost mimics the final cut timeline. I think whatever is fastest - is whatever you learned and work the most with. That's hard to judge objectively, you can't really. There's been times I would say I'm fastest with Final Cut - back on version 3! Then later I'd say I was faster on Premiere, or Avid - Now it's Resolve. Once you can play one piano - it's a week of getting adjusted to a new one.
Remote rendering! please☺
notes :)
You performed a very rough test, using significantly different export bitrates as well. Clearly, this leads to different results. Final Cut is faster even without background rendering.
Planning to buy M4 pro Macbook Pro.. how does resolve performs on it??
I have not used one of those machines yet - but it looks really great.
How is the Mini for creating in Davinci ?
I've only had it up and running for 2 days. So far so good. One thing this hasn't done is thrown out memory leak issues like I had originally with the M1 Max a couple years ago. The software seems to know its limits. I'll have more coming up in the next few weeks with the mini and only resolve.
👍@@CreativeVideoTips
@@CreativeVideoTips Can Normotim help in situations related to stress or anxiety?
How it he Mac mini M4 Handling the DaVinci Resolve editing? Would this be better than investing in a Mac Studio M2 Max?
I'm actually comparing those this week. Rendering times is at least 2x faster on the M2 Max. I need to cut more to give insight into the feel of editing.
@@CreativeVideoTips thank you for the insight. Looking forward to more information. If possible could you also let us know how fusion works in the M4 chip vs the M2 Max. I am unable to find any information regarding that.
Does it matter? You don’t choose either one of them based on rendering speed but based on how they work. And of course all the other apps you need to obtain in order for having the same functionality as Davinci Resolve has packed in.
I think its just interesting to see how the base defaults compare - espcially for someone that would only put clips on a timeline and hit export.
love fcp
theres something elegant about the design for sure
Do you know if either of the tests use 2-pass encode? I assume you had your Resolve Prefs GPU to Decode and Debayer for r3d? Thanks for testing!
I can't say with certainty, but believe it was a single pass encode to h264 - this is my best guess on the default behavior. I didn't change any default debayer settings. I'll be curious if other folks get similar results.
Foe editing purposes, what will be a preferred way to increase the storage capacity of a base mac mini? External SSD enclosure or a dedicated SSD NAS? And what about 10 Gig Lan and TB5 on the higher version?
I would start with a 4TB ssd, and if you outgrow that or need to collaborate with other users or machines - get a synology nas (no need for ssd nas)
even if the finalcut is faster considering the features that resolve offers i wouldnt not consider going back to finalcut since the finalcut x damn i really the automatic rendercache before.
Hello my friend , excuse me ,can I ask that app you use for CPU and GPU and network monitor on the top menu ? Can you tell me the name of the app?
Hi friend - this is istat menu
@@CreativeVideoTips Thank you very much
Resolve 19.1 on M2Ultra is crazy 🤪 fast 🚀 24core 76gpu, 64GB ram. Cranks out 4k UA-cam H265 videos rapidly
Nice! that is for sure the top of the line, still after this release of M4s
@@CreativeVideoTips M4 Ultra next, really hoping for a Pro Display XDR 2 next year, BT2020 color space and HDR would be awesome
Excellent 🙏🏽🐰🐰🐰😀
Many many thanks
Hi Than you for test, Do you thing that this mac mini m4 base is usable for short music production videos 4- 5 min. , colour grading editing on budget, I have blackmagic cinema camera 2.5, and plan to buy bmcc 6k , Thank you
So I never really understood these types of videos. If I’m cutting a wedding video. It’s probably two weeks to get a great full edit. I don’t even know how many hours that would equate to. Depending on the footage. The export is such a minuscule percentage of that workflow. It’s completely meaningless to me which program exports faster. Is it an indication of the overall speed of a program? I don’t think so. What is it like the other 99% of the time that you were using that program.? Don’t get me wrong, I am a Final Cut user. Most likely because I started editing digitally in early 2000s. Had I started with da Vinci? I’m sure I would be just as happy if not happier. The program is massive and it’s a bit harder to learn for an old dog like me. I’m not claiming it’s not as good if not better. I just wonder what a different test would look like. Thank you for the time you put in to help out. You just earned a new subscriber.
Hi Jay, thanks for the comment. This video was a pure curiosity to see how they deal with re-encoding various sources. How fast an editing app works has hundreds or thousands of variables - I get that. I for sure would never suggest changing applications based on something like this, but I think its a fun experiment.
video size are completely different which means compression level and quality is different. I think it is not an apple to apple comparison.
Yeah, but remember you can't really do a direct comparison - They're different apps, different encoding algorithms, and also de-bayer differently. Those are both the software default H.264 exports.
FCP can be as fast as it wants - as long as it's lot less powerful I couldn't care less.
Its not a Fair test The Synology encodes on the fly Depending on what specs. So the avrage person might find slower render times espechally for H.264 opr H.265 fotage. so you have to test on the Computers storage. 2nd Difrent data rates can affect time so all the setting have to match or be as close as they can be.
And you should have done a play back test of all the fotage. as playback is somthing i wana see in the timeline. how well difrent codec playback. its got bultin H.254 and H.265 decoderrs and encoders and i wana see them both working not just the encoders. Rendring times is important as well but most time saved is iun the editing the better fotage plays back the quicker you can edit and better results you can get.
Beleave me. Evry second counts and the current laptop i use can't play back the fotage i edit and is slowing me down a lot. But its also the syunolagy nass we use ( The team i work in ) is going to 3 - 4 people editing videos all at once and can't read and write fast enought to play back smothly.
Sheesh, anything is faster than resolve. I've been trying to make it useful for a while and it just is the slowest app ever made. Premiere pro runs circles around it
Its Fusion that’s slow, then again Fusion is a more complex pipeline
I think its the default 32 bit float space that slows Fusion - In comparison to Nuke, Fusion flies.
The fact that DaVinci is a newer software and on its 19th iteration tells me that Apple doesn't care about us. I should leave them for this. 😢😂😢
Really? You bought the low end M4 mini? Yikes!
Yep, I think its a marvel of modern tech and I'll have many uses for it.
Всё зависит от того чем рендерит софт, процессером или графикой. Сравнение не сравнимое
Even if Final Cut was faster.... I just can't. There are some features in there that I love... but not enough to make it my main NLE.
yeah, that's why I love there are options - the cool thing about both of these is that its just a 1x cost.
@@CreativeVideoTips 100%. To your point... I am blown away by how cheap everything is now. My AVID, beige Mac with IO/graphics cards and storage was around 80k in 1999. My company had 6 of them. Tape decks were a whole other story... Crazy.
So did Apple give a Mac Mini to every resolve content creator? Must be nice
Man, that would have been nice. No this was purchased with my own funds from freelance compositing.
Just the fact that Final Cut can’t handle red files natively is such incredible bullshit. I edit with 16 bit red footage quite often… Why would I want the hassle of final cut. And these ridiculous videos about what’s faster… Nobody makes videos about what’s higher quality, what’s better, speed has so little to do with it. I get paid by the hour so why do I want to go faster? And I know final cut can’t handle 16 bit. Final cuts great for mom and Pop videos but the pros just won’t use it. Every Hollywood movie is color corrected in resolve… Nobody color corrects a movie in final cut. Final cut is a bit of a joke.
😆