The matter with my format size is that I can't seem to get a 'custom' size. Is there a way to go larger than the presets? I'd like to go into the 3,000 pixles wide neighborhood; any chance?
DesignR Go to the preset custom and there you can get your custom size
@DesignR remind me if you're on Pro or Express? If Express, 1920x1080 is the maximum project or composite shot size you can make.
I have both Pro and Express. I am working in PRO and, yeah, my settings don't go any larger than 1920x1080.
In my 'Project Settings' window, I go to 'Custom' and try typing in 2000, as an example, but am stopped at 200. Kinda difficult, working on high end videos.
@DesignR remind me of your system specs--especially your GPU. Hitfilm will not allow you to create comps above a certain size if it doesn't think your machine can handle it. For example, a GPU with 4GB or more of VRAM is required to try anything larger than 4k.
Model Name: iMac Model Identifier: iMac9,1 Processor Name: Intel Core 2 Duo Processor Speed: 2.66 GHz Number of Processors: 1 Total Number of Cores: 2 L2 Cache: 6 MB Memory: 4 GB Bus Speed: 1.07 GHz Boot ROM Version: IM91.008D.B08 SMC Version (system): 1.37f3
iMac: Display Type: LCD Resolution: 1920 x 1200 Pixel Depth: 32-Bit Color (ARGB8888) Main Display: Yes Mirror: Off Online: Yes Built-In: Yes
@DesignR there's your issue right there....
The minimum requirements listed for Hitfilm are an i3 CPU with at Intel HD4000 GPU or AMD Radeon HD 5000
That Core 2 Duo is below minimum specs to run Hitfilm at all, and you have NO GPU. It actually speaks to the stability of the Hitfilm code that you're even able to boot up the software on that particular machine!
Yeah, you're not going to be able to make anything greater than 1920x1080.
@DesignR as Triem said your system does not meet the minimum requirements. You have a GeForce 9400M in your Early 2009 iMac which has only 128 MB of memory, but the minimum is 512 MB as listed in the system requirements. Your CPU is not supported either but that is probably less of an issue in your case.
Thank you, Cedric,... yes, I know I'm due for an upgrade, that's for sure... but, even at that, this is some amazing & fun software you have here, which I can learn on, until then.
2009 to 2017? That's a well-used machine that has served honorably.
I love my Mac(s). Hopefully, I'll be able to configure a new MacBook in order to play with the big boys-
With the 2016 Mac your only real option is the top-end 15-inch MacBook Pro. It's the only one with a decent GPU.
Decent. Not good. It's a 2GB model, so you won't be able to go above 4k.
The 2016 MacBook Pro is, to be very blunt, way underpowered at its price point. For $500 less you can get a PC with 4 times the RAM, 4 times the storage, 4 times the VRAM, and a faster CPU and GPU.
Not Mac bashing here--this is a fact. It's a true shame that Mac design is moving to gimmicky annoyances (removing industry standard ports to sell adaptors, and very high res displays that every user turns up desktop scaling for--giving you the usable resolution of a lower res panel with all the overhead of a higher res panel and additional overhead from scaling) rather than top-end core hardware.
Thanks again, Triem23,... yeah, I don't know what's up with them- Maybe they'll wake up - soon.
Sadly, I doubt it. In 2014 Apple sold more iProduct than all Mac products combined from 1984 on. The MacBook seems to be a phone accessory now. :-(
Those numbers above, btw, come from last time I bought a laptop. I was considering jumping to Mac until I did the power/price comparisons. Spending that much extra cash on such lower performance for the sole benefit of a slightly more stable operating system wasn't worth it.
Sign in to comment