• Wondering which camera, gear, computer, or software to buy? Ask in our Gear Guide.

New Machine/Post Pro Recommendations?

S

sloaneparker

I am purchasing a new computer (Mac/Apple) with the intent of editing my videos on it. If you could get a new Apple film editing system, what would you get?

Thanks in advance =)

PS> I am leaning towards the MacBook Pro but that particular machine has had some buggy issues (some programs > Adobe CS for example is very buggy with the Intel processor). Do folks know if the MacBook Pro would be a good machine for post prod film editing?
 
Sort by date Sort by votes
Congrats on your (future) purchase!

I'm looking to go straight Mac myself and I've been looking at either the 24in iMac, the 17in MacBook Pro or a full Mac Pro workstation. All three have options to add FCP at the time of purchase.

Smaller items like the Mac Mini and the MacBook aren't advanced enough to run FCP on (That's what Apple says, anyway).
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
A Mac Pro is a great machine to build on. You start with quad processors (2 dual cores), with space for 4 SATA hard drives, 2 optical drives and 16GB of RAM.

The reason you don't want a Mac Mini or Mac Book for editing and high end graphics apps is because they don't have a dedicated video card.

The problems with Adobe Photoshop on Mac Intel is that it has to run under emulation. I would expect a Universal Binary of Adobe Photoshop soon. However, you might consider one of the bundles offered by some of the Mac vendors where you can get the Mac with Parallels and Windows XP installed, or Windows XP setup for dual boot. As long as you stay off-line on the Windows side, I wouldn't think you'd ever have a problem with it. If you use Parallels Desktop, you can run Windows in a virtual machine, while running other Mac software. The best part is that the entire Windows system exists as a file on the Mac that can be backed up and restored with a simple drag-and-drop, so keeping Windows running becomes very easy.

Essentially, when purchasing the new Intel based Mac, you need to see if your favorite apps have Universal binaries, or consider running them in a Windows virtual machine.

You can't go wrong buying the Mac Pro. Even if you use it to run Windows (???), it is an excellent piece of hardware. Extremely powerful, expandable, and capable of running anything out there.

BTW: I have a dual processor G5 and two Intel Macs. I've had no problems with the Intels, yet, but Photoshop runs like a sick cow on the Intels.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
... and one more thing ...

The Mac Pro is an excellent value, if you compare it to a high end PC with similar features. It's also better engineered than any PC I've ever seen.

(also, a clarification on my first post; Windows is a file, if you install it under the Parallels Desktop software. If you install Windows for dual boot, it exists in a partition on your Mac hard drive and works pretty much identically to how it works on a PC)
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
I can't wait until we start seeing Oct-Core (two quad core intels) Mac Pro workstations! Though I can only imagine what the electricity bill would be like for such a machine...
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
If you want to get into massively parallel computing, the "cell" chip is the future.

However, I wouldn't be the forum's top computer science engineer if I didn't mention that there is a law of diminishing returns while adding CPUs. The software and the task need to be designed/suited to massively parallel execution in order to benefit from a "google-plex" of processors. Given the design of most of the software we use in creating multi-media content, more than 4 CPUs (or cores) probably won't provide much benefit. I think Lightwave 3D is the only software I have that will take advantage of more than 2 CPUs. There is also some overhead in the coordination required between the individual threads of execution.

I think, with 4 x 3Ghz cores, your system will be mostly constrained by I/O speed when editing or rendering video streams. Don't forget, that if the hard drives, system bus, and main RAM can't keep all of those CPUs supplied with the data they need to process, then the CPUs start to idle, and no amount of processing power will change the equation.

If I were buying a new quad-core, in addition to 4-8GB of fast RAM, I think I'd install 4 SATA hard drives and set them up in a RAID configuration, right out of the box.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
more than 4 CPUs (or cores) probably won't provide much benefit.
Click to expand...

Agreed. Though so far gains have been fairly linear in nature. I do agree though.

For massively parallel processing GPUs are the future I think. With more programming functionality coming out with every new generation we're looking at a bright future. We're talking about several GPUs working in parallel being able to perform like that 80 core intel chip. Pretty damn impressive.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Yes, the graphics world lends well to partitioning, and thus parallelization. And, to be fair, some software like Lightwave 3D, is capable of utilizing 16+ CPUs and is generally not I/O bound. So, it all really depends on what sort of work you're doing, and how many programs you are running simultaneoulsy. If you're encoding a DVD in the background while you're editing, the DVD encoder could probably use 1 or 2 CPUs per track to be encoded, while you have your own CPU to keep the system responsive.

There will be improvements in I/O, RAM, etc. as they scale the processors, so we'll always be improving. Actually, the SATA is wide open for speed improvements.

We're starting to sound like the terminator in the orginal Terminator movie when he in the gunshop, asking for a plasma rifle. The original poster was probably interested in what he could buy this year!
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
If you're a big gamer like I am, two or even four processors still aren't enough. You need LOTS of processing power to buffer all those billions of textures per second to create that truly immersive environment.

For editing HD for example, two 3GHz processors and 2GB of RAM is enough to edit any big production, although you'll NEVER have enough drive space... But that's a different thread altogether.

I applaud Intel and AMD loading up CPUs with multiple cores. I'll wait until the 4 core systems to be released before I buy a new machine.

"640K should be enough for anyone." --Bill Gates :lol:
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
LOC, I think you need more GPUs for your textures. ;)

Regarding RAM, I'd recommend 4GB on a Mac, if you can afford it. A 32bit application on OS X can access 4GB of RAM, and you've always got about 50 background processes and the kernel sucking down up to 512MB or RAM. Programs like Adobe After Effects can use as much memory as you can give them (up to the 4GB limit), so anything over 4.5GB is probably overkill for most editors, until we have true 64bit programs on OS X.

Gamers are another animal altogether, and requirements are highly dependent on the specific game, how it's written, etc. We should all be grateful to the fanatical gamers for driving down the price of GPUs (thanks, LOC).
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
The next version of OSX will be 100% 64-bit according to the press relase on apple.com. By its release date of January 2007, they should be offering quad core machines. That's when I'm grabbing one.

BTW, all my PCs currently have at least 2GB of RAM in each including my notebook.
LOC, I think you need more GPUs for your textures.
Click to expand...
You're right with one exception: Everquest II. The bonehead way this game was created, it's based on CPU, not GPU like World of Warcraft (I play both). The running joke is that no matter how fast or how many CPU cores you have, it's never enough to play EQII. :lol:
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
I'm sure there are lots of exceptions in the gaming world. I used to write some gaming software, but I'm not a gamer. Regarding Mac OS X being 64 bit, that doesn't mean the apps will be 64 bit, nor should they be. A 64bit app actually uses more RAM to do the same thing. If an app actually needs to address a terabyte of RAM, then it's worth the hit, otherwise, 32bit addressing makes more efficient use of memory.

Mac OS X comes with a very nice Activity Monitor that will give you and idea of your actual memory footprint. It's probably reasonable to start with 2GB and add more if you really need it.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
It's amazing how far gamers have pushed GPU tech which is incidentally great for those of us who plan to use it in software for other purposes like video processing. Lots of power built into those suckers.

The other amazing this is how even all the current power just isn't enough for the latest games - especially once you turn the resolution up to a moderately decent level. Oblivion for instance absolutely will NOT run at its highest visual settings, with constant good frame rates on current hardware at decent res levels. Indoor stuff is great but outdoor - ouch. Maybe 15-20FPS in places on the best setup? Partly due to poorly optimized code on behalf of bethesda but man...
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top