Adobe media encoder for mac7/30/2023 ![]() Some codecs, such as ProRes, fully support multi-threading. Some codecs are single-threaded, which means even if you tried to use all the resources on a Mac Pro, the codec itself would throttle performance. AME does not access hardware acceleration at all. Compressor does access hardware acceleration on Macs that support it, such as iMacs and MacBook Pros, but not on the Mac Pro. Apple Compressor does use the GPUs when exporting from Final Cut Pro X, but not when compressing within Compressor. In fact, its downright murky.Īdobe Media Encoder (AME) does take advantage of both graphics cards in the new Mac Pro, provided the Mercury Playback Engine is enabled. ![]() ![]() In the original article, I wrote: “And neither application takes advantage of all the power that the Mac Pro has to offer.” Except that isn’t completely true. UPDATE – A NOTE ON GRAPHICS CARDS AND SYSTEM RESOURCES For others, like MPEG-4, settings are easier to match.įor some tasks, Compressor is a better choice. For some codecs, such as QuickTime, getting the settings to match between the two programs is difficult. This indicates that simply using the default settings may not be sufficient to get the best results. I would expect similar results on iMacs or MacBook Pros, though the compression speeds will be different.Įven more surprisingly, when using default settings in each application, the compressed file sizes can vary by hundreds of megabytes. NOTE: This article is based on tests run on the new Mac Pro. While it would be true to say that AME is generally faster, it is not true to say that it is consistently faster. There are significant variations between Apple Compressor 4.1 and Adobe Media Encoder 7.2, in both speed and quality. I chose MPEG-4 because both applications support it extensively, and it is the preferred video codec for all Apple devices. In this retest, we look both at speed and image quality for MPEG-4 compression. ![]() (Think of this as climbing a mountain, there are many paths to the top, but only one peak once you get there.) However, different developers will take different paths to get to that result and those different paths can result in different compression times with, potentially, different image quality. The H.264 codec, like all standardized codecs, describes what the finished compressed file should look like. Similar bit rate settings should yield similar file sizes, though not, necessarily, similar image quality. ![]() If file sizes are radically different for the “same” setting, which they were in my original tests, it means that the bit rate settings are also significantly different. All other settings being equal, lower bit-rate settings will compress faster than higher-bit rate settings. It is incorrect to simply compare the speed of video compression without also comparing image quality. And I discovered that testing video compression software is MUCH more complicated than I first thought. This week, I decided to continue this comparison by comparing the speed of Apple Compressor to Adobe Media Encoder (AME) on the new Mac Pro. Last week, I compared the speed of video compression on an iMac vs. In my continued research, I realized that there were a number of significant mistakes and false assumptions I made in the first version, so I updated this article and retested both programs. In the week since this article was first published, I had the opportunity to continue researching the differences reported here on Apple’s website, as well as talk with Patrick Palmer, the Senior Product Manager at Adobe, who is responsible for Adobe Media Encoder. This article has generated a lot of readers and discussion. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply.AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |