5 ms·

I don't know of a cloud provider that rents OS X machines do you? OS X is needed for Final Cut Pro, etc. If you're using Adobe Premier then you could use Micros

I don't know of a cloud provider that rents OS X machines do you? OS X is needed for Final Cut Pro, etc. If you're using Adobe Premier then you could use Microsoft Azure or another cloud provider that supports Windows.

hairyhenderson 10y ago
I doubt video editing would go very smoothly over an RDP connection to a Windows VM in the cloud ;)
- brazzledazzle 10y ago
  You might be surprised. It wouldn't be ideal but you can do some amazing stuff these days with low enough latency to the data center.
disordinary 10y ago
I'd imagine the latency of running a video editor in the cloud would be a pain, also transferring hundreds of gigabytes of raw video information into the cloud isn't insignificant.
- elastic_church 10y ago
  transfer hundreds of gigabytes of raw video, or mail the hard drive to the data center. use proxy videos in your project, transfer the split instructions and composites, and let the server do the rendering no latency at all
  - jlgaddis 10y ago
    > ... mail the hard drive to the data center. > no latency at all Um...
    - elastic_church 10y ago
      I mean, after they get to the data center lol. just a few days mailing while you are busy editing the local files
  - disordinary 10y ago
    Yeah, but if you're using proxies your fine on a macbook pro. It's only the final render that needs the original files.
  - tdkl 10y ago
    You should probably apply for work in the Apple PR team for "Pro"fessionals.
    - elastic_church 10y ago
      but I never said you needed a mac to do that, so why?
Laforet 10y ago
Depends on how the workload is split and such. Using AWS for video encoding is actually quite viable as long as Amazon don't charge for incoming bandwidth and dirt cheap spot instances could be found at the right time of the day.
- TheOtherHobbes 10y ago
  Cloud render farms have been a thing in CGI for nearly a decade now. It can - sometimes - be cheaper to buy time than to buy hardware. But there are a lot of disadvantages. The process only really works for final renders. All the creative work needs to be fast and local, but thumbnail renders don't always give you enough detail to make good decisions. It doesn't work for audio, because audio isn't great with low-quality previews and often needs hands-on changes. It doesn't work for many kinds of ML - not unless the render machine has the latest graphics cards. It doesn't work for renders with huge asset libraries spread around a LAN. And so on. Basically there is a list of use cases, but it's not even half of all possible use cases. Meanwhile dual-Xeon servers have really started to kick ass. These are workstation grade machines with high four and low five figure prices. You can have up to 48 independent cores on a dual-CPU board, which is excellent for video rendering. Or you can get a blade rack. Depending the project, they can be better value than an off-prem cloud account. (Sometimes). Apple has turned its back on this space. I don't entirely understand why. Xserve had real potential, but they decided to go dumbed-down consumer instead.
  - colejohnson66 10y ago
    Is more CPU cores really better? I thought a bunch of graphics cards would be better. Isn't that the whole point of Nvidia'a Quadro line?
  - nodesocket 10y ago
    In terms of Xserve, I think it made sense to drop it. If you're buying a server, nearly all applications make more sense using Linux and commodity hardware. The exception are desktop based (GUI) applications which Mac Pro targets. There really is no viable market for a Mac Server.
hogrammer 10y ago
Premiere. With an 'e'.
chx 10y ago
xcloud.me? macincloud?
comex 10y ago
https://www.macstadium.com/mac-pro/ https://www.macstadium.com/mac-pro/ Not cheap, but...

hairyhenderson 10y ago

I doubt video editing would go very smoothly over an RDP connection to a Windows VM in the cloud ;)

brazzledazzle 10y ago
You might be surprised. It wouldn't be ideal but you can do some amazing stuff these days with low enough latency to the data center.

disordinary 10y ago

I'd imagine the latency of running a video editor in the cloud would be a pain, also transferring hundreds of gigabytes of raw video information into the cloud isn't insignificant.

elastic_church 10y ago
transfer hundreds of gigabytes of raw video, or mail the hard drive to the data center. use proxy videos in your project, transfer the split instructions and composites, and let the server do the rendering no latency at all
- jlgaddis 10y ago
  > ... mail the hard drive to the data center. > no latency at all Um...
  - elastic_church 10y ago
    I mean, after they get to the data center lol. just a few days mailing while you are busy editing the local files
- disordinary 10y ago
  Yeah, but if you're using proxies your fine on a macbook pro. It's only the final render that needs the original files.
- tdkl 10y ago
  You should probably apply for work in the Apple PR team for "Pro"fessionals.
  - elastic_church 10y ago
    but I never said you needed a mac to do that, so why?

Laforet 10y ago

Depends on how the workload is split and such. Using AWS for video encoding is actually quite viable as long as Amazon don't charge for incoming bandwidth and dirt cheap spot instances could be found at the right time of the day.

TheOtherHobbes 10y ago
Cloud render farms have been a thing in CGI for nearly a decade now. It can - sometimes - be cheaper to buy time than to buy hardware. But there are a lot of disadvantages. The process only really works for final renders. All the creative work needs to be fast and local, but thumbnail renders don't always give you enough detail to make good decisions. It doesn't work for audio, because audio isn't great with low-quality previews and often needs hands-on changes. It doesn't work for many kinds of ML - not unless the render machine has the latest graphics cards. It doesn't work for renders with huge asset libraries spread around a LAN. And so on. Basically there is a list of use cases, but it's not even half of all possible use cases. Meanwhile dual-Xeon servers have really started to kick ass. These are workstation grade machines with high four and low five figure prices. You can have up to 48 independent cores on a dual-CPU board, which is excellent for video rendering. Or you can get a blade rack. Depending the project, they can be better value than an off-prem cloud account. (Sometimes). Apple has turned its back on this space. I don't entirely understand why. Xserve had real potential, but they decided to go dumbed-down consumer instead.
- colejohnson66 10y ago
  Is more CPU cores really better? I thought a bunch of graphics cards would be better. Isn't that the whole point of Nvidia'a Quadro line?
- nodesocket 10y ago
  In terms of Xserve, I think it made sense to drop it. If you're buying a server, nearly all applications make more sense using Linux and commodity hardware. The exception are desktop based (GUI) applications which Mac Pro targets. There really is no viable market for a Mac Server.

hogrammer 10y ago

Premiere. With an 'e'.

chx 10y ago

xcloud.me? macincloud?

comex 10y ago

https://www.macstadium.com/mac-pro/ https://www.macstadium.com/mac-pro/ Not cheap, but...