Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
@Lants 28963 wrote:
Hey guys. Thanks for the answers, but these don’t seem to be the problem. I tried different video cards (one from another mac pro that was working just fine) and didn’t get a better result. It might be a bug/incompatibility of Toxik and my setup. Don’t really know what might be happening. But the only thing that gave me any hints is that it might be memory/mem management related. As all the time Toxik start using too much of my RAM it slows down like i’ve described.
I’ve tried in both 10.5 and 10.6 and it’s the same, so it’s not OS related. I considered that my computer is somehow broken, but i don’t have ANY problem with anything else (did run tests etc).
Also the media drive isn’t the problem – tried that too. So it seems to be either memory related or how it deals with memory and the kind of mac pro i have. Hard to tell.
Thanks you all. Will be looking into this more in the future. Waiting for 10.6.2…
Cheers
Hey just a quick update.
I have had access the last few days to a 2009 workstation and reproduced the same problem. There was some success in taking out the hyperthreading, but it does not really resolve the issue. It does indeed seem to be mem related. There is no fix at this time that I can see, but perhaps if you try to turn off the hyperthreading, this may indeed make it work better for you.
Cheers
@lex 28919 wrote:
Does anyone know how to change the location of Toxik’s media cache on a mac. Can’t seem to find it anywhere!
Thanks.
Hey,
sorry I am not 100% up on the MAC version, but if you can find the TOXIK.ini file. You can change the location within that file. Just make sure you del the old one and assign a new location in the toxik.ini file and it will created it. You can even put it on a attached drive or whatever if you want.
Cheers
ps. With in the MAC you can use the righclick and open the program directory and see the contents of that and I am sure it will be in there. on the PC it is in TOXIK/etc/ Hope that helps.
Cheers
@lex 28929 wrote:
Ok, if you have your media cache pointing to the same drive as your footage it slows Toxiks playback down. I have pointed my cache to a separate drive and seems to be working as expected.
haha, that was going to be my second response, as I did not read all of it. Sorry about that. This is also not recommended at all. It tries to read and write to much info. If a slow drive then, well you get slow response.
Cheers
@Lants 28749 wrote:
Having this issue on a Macpro (early 2009: 8-core, 2.26ghz, NVIDIA GeForce GT 120, default HDD).
Installed toxik trial on one of the new Imacs, also on a bit older mac pro (2008) and it runs super fine. Plays back very smoothly. But on this mac above it plays very slowly or will get stuck at a frame and won’t go further no matter what. I’ve posted elsewhere but i wonder if anyone with the same setup have tried Toxik yet and could share the experience.
Right now i don’t know if it’s a software issue or hardware. Any other app runs fine. AE and nuke for example can play back the same footage no problem, many times faster.
Thanks in advance.
Hey Lants,
Well, I am not a MAC expert, but here is what I do know. You graphics card GT120 has not been tested with TOXIK (TOXIK has specific Graphics card OpenGL requirements and not all cards will support them) this is not to say it is the problem, just that it is not tested yet. Also, TOXIK/Maya 2010 is not ready for the latest MAC OS (Snow Leapard) again could be a problem if you are using it, but it seems you are not? You also need to know that you must use the Apple default drivers for no higher than 10.5.8.
Just as a side note. Products like AE and nuke do not have the same requirements that TOXIK does. This could be why those products run fine. However, they also do not have the same advanced features as TOXIK employs, so you can not compare them in that way. If those products are working on that system fine, then I would use those instead.
You said that TOXIK runs on the other macs. This confirms what I will say and that is, it is not TOXIK that is the problem directly. It is related to TOXIK in that it does not support all hardware configurations, but it is not a direct flaw as such.
At this time, I personally would recommend using RH linux or Windows7 or XP 64.
I hope this is of some help.
Cheers
Hey,
Ok I just wanted to make sure my memory is not going bad, so I tested what I was trying to explain and I was correct.
So it is like this, and this is not to say this is what is happening to you, but if you load some 3:2 material for example. You then proceed to load it into a composition and then change the frame rate to 24fps. You start to roto and you finish your roto and then go back to work points. The point can move in all kinds of directions. Even if you remove the 3:2, but you lead the loaded materials settings at 30 or 29.97 you can still have issues with floating points. The only way to deal with this is to make sure that all your material is at the correct frame rate. Forget about the resolution I was thinking of something else. If all this is cool, then I will need to see the roto.
Cheers
Hey,
Well if you are comfortable with it, you can send me the file at [email protected] and I can have a quick look. If not I understand. However, when you load the file and the points are off and you try and move that point, does the point seem to move in funny directions to the direction you move the mouse? This would help me.
Thanks
Hi Szazs,
It is hard to say exctly what you mean, because of your description. However if you mean that you control point has offset from the point you put it. It may have something to do with one of two things. First off check that you have the safe framerate. For example, your frame rate is consistance. You do not have your material in at 29.97 and you are working at 24 for example. I am going by memory, which sucks :wink:, but this can cause a problem. Same kind of idea, but with resolution differences. I am not in front of my computer at the moment, but I think this also a cause. However the frame rate thing I think is the one. Just check those things first.
Hey Ronsuss,
No worries on the tit for Tat. I like a good debate and I hope this is what we are doing.
I will be honest and say I am not a eQ expert.. Yet… 😀 But I think after my research for us this type of system will work best. I just get put off by people trying to compare system/software. I know you are not meaning to do this, but some times this is what happens. 🙄
As far as Smoke is concerned. Yeah it is a great system, especially the fact that it can do comp and effects to a degree like flame, but flame takes it to the nth degree. However eQ is a very good compositing system, and again we have to be carefull to understand that where and what we use these systems for plays a big role in how they are implimented.
Well that is about it for me. Final comment, the journey in post is more interesting that the nuts and bolts.
take care
Hey,
I think one of you guys said that it was more for DI. Well we are going to integrate eQ into our facility. However we will no be doing Comp within eQ. This is a finishing system and the compositing it has would be enough to allow it to deal with anything that comes up within a finishing job.
Someone also said that FCP and Shake for 2K can do more. Well I will say that it can do a lot. Shake is a desktop compositor that allows for, lets say, detailed work. It takes time, but the end result is fantastic. FCP on the other hand has some serious productivity issues. Where as the eQ/IQ is one of the best finishing systems out there, as far as getting the job done fast. With there new workflow they anounced at NAB, this has opened up the door to allow a facility to make huge productivity gains in the area of data management. All I am saying is don’t compare FCP with the likes of eQ or Smoke. You can’t, they are so different in there approaches, and for the type of end user/environment. You do get what you pay for. The cost of this equipment is not about the end result, but how you travel through it. IQ can deal with muli-streams of 4K uncompressed RGB data, if you need this, well this is the system, if not then get something else. It is that simple.
It is like trying to compare Shake/Nuke with Flame. At the end of the day they both allow the user to make fantastic work, but the purpose is very different and they are used very differently.
So I would be very carefull saying it sucks, or something like that 😆
That is my 2cents
Hey Guys,
Well I think you are looking at an example of what will be seen from apple when they rework Shake.
I was more impressed when it worked with Motion. Very nice app for the new to VFX person. Also cheap, but it is not advanced compositing system.
But very cool.
Mark Ramussen
Compositor