PDA

View Full Version : The Dual 2 GHZ looks great but what about the 1.6


codycartoon
Sep 29, 2003, 11:44 PM
The dual is always getting amazing reviews... but i really can't afford the extra $1000...

How much slower is the 1.6?

Will it be ok for a very ambitious filmmaker?

I recently edited a five minute short(20 minutes logged footage) on my powermac g4 867... It was ok, but i know if i start to do longer(witch i will) then i will need quite a bit more power.

thanks a bunch

-cody

panphage
Sep 30, 2003, 12:39 AM
Originally posted by codycartoon
The dual is always getting amazing reviews... but i really can't afford the extra $1000...

How much slower is the 1.6?

Will it be ok for a very ambitious filmmaker?

I recently edited a five minute short(20 minutes logged footage) on my powermac g4 867... It was ok, but i know if i start to do longer(witch i will) then i will need quite a bit more power.

thanks a bunch

-cody

According to the barefeats benchmarks, you're probably better off getting a dual G4 1.2 than the single G5 1.6.
http://www.barefeats.com/g5.html
Like with all benches, bring some salt along.

The dual 1.2 G4 w/Superdrive, 160GB HDD, and 1GB ram is gonna run you $2300 at the apple store. The only drawback to the duallie is the ol' video card (Radeon 9000) is great, but not as great as the 9800.

GigaWire
Sep 30, 2003, 01:04 AM
your far better off finding a reasonably priced 2nd hand dualie at 1 ghz or above, then taking the money you have saved and investing it in camera equipment like a 3 chip camera, a light kit, lenses, filters, etc. As a hobby, a dual 2.0 just doesn't make fiscal sense, as the speed of a computer has no impact at all upon the quality of the shots made for your videos. I mean really, how important is it that you can render really fast when the footage doesn't even look that good to begin with?

maka
Sep 30, 2003, 11:08 AM
I think the g5 will get better benchmarks when the system and apps are better optimiced. If you don't want to find your self with an obsolete system in one or two years, then get a g5. Even if the 1.6 is now close to a dual 1.25 g4 in speed, the g5 will get faster soon.

I wasn't sure if I should get the dual g5, but I decided to go for it. When Apple releases a 3ghz dual g5 and all of the pwermac line (except maybe for an entry level one) are on duals, a dual 2ghz will still be a hell of a machine. And besides, it can use twice the number of plugins in Logic Audio compared to the 1.8 :).

mymemory
Sep 30, 2003, 11:52 AM
If I do not have the money to get a dual G5 I would get a dual G4 with the entire ram.

I was reading an article that said that unless the software doesn't containg 64 bit words the 64 bit processor are useless.

About doing video, I have a Powerbook G3 500 w/ 256MB ram. I was doing a clip in after effects fully loaded. The render for the 30 sec clip took me 1 hour and 20 minutes. I then took the same render and process it in a 12" Powerbook with 620Ram, it took 9 minutes!!!

I think the speeds are ok, teh problem are not the render time that much any more, the problems are your way to work. Render will always take time, in a production render time sometimes take just 10% of uor time. Usually when you do rendering you go to eat something or start working in another computer, that is why I have 3 powerbooks.

Your best bet is to have 2 computers later one, that is better than having just one with everything. Once you are rendering you can not work any more.

maka
Sep 30, 2003, 12:03 PM
Originally posted by mymemory

I was reading an article that said that unless the software doesn't containg 64 bit words the 64 bit processor are useless.


But it's not just the 64 bit that matter. The g5 is a new processor that's very different to the g4. The system has not been fully optimiced, nor the applications. It's value will grow in a few months while the value of a g4 will go down...

MacBandit
Sep 30, 2003, 12:07 PM
Originally posted by maka
But it's not just the 64 bit that matter. The g5 is a new processor that's very different to the g4. The system has not been fully optimiced, nor the applications. It's value will grow in a few months while the value of a g4 will go down...

Actually when Panther comes out all modern systems will perform better. Even the G4s are showing a 25% or better overall system performance gain.

The simple fact is a Dual processor system of reasonable speed will always beat a single processor machine when used in the real world not in benchmarks. In the real world most people especially artists are using more than one app at a time.

maka
Sep 30, 2003, 12:41 PM
Originally posted by MacBandit
Actually when Panther comes out all modern systems will perform better. Even the G4s are showing a 25% or better overall system performance gain.

The simple fact is a Dual processor system of reasonable speed will always beat a single processor machine when used in the real world not in benchmarks. In the real world most people especially artists are using more than one app at a time.

I guess you're right about the duals, but I still think the potential growth of a g5 machine is always going to be bigger than that of a g4, afterall it just came out and the g4 has been around for so long that I wonder how much more can you optimice for it.

I guess time will tell...

Dont Hurt Me
Sep 30, 2003, 02:21 PM
the quicksilver is a solid design i dont see why you dont just upgrade your cpu and anything else you need. i went from a 800 to a 1.4 and is very nice now.

FlamDrag
Sep 30, 2003, 03:31 PM
Originally posted by maka
{snip}If you don't want to find your self with an obsolete system in one or two years, then get a g5. Even if the 1.6 is now close to a dual 1.25 g4 in speed, the g5 will get faster soon.

{snip} When Apple releases a 3ghz dual g5 and all of the pwermac line (except maybe for an entry level one) are on duals, a dual 2ghz will still be a hell of a machine. {snip}

TWO things here...

1. Why do people say that the G5 "will get faster" if s/he buys it now? A 1.6 Ghz G5 will always be a 1.6 G5. MAYBE the apps he uses will be significantly optimized for the G5 in the coming years, but then again - maybe not. These are not things that you can safely assume.

2. Why do you expect that Apple will go Dual across the line anytime soon? Based on what information? In recent history that has not been the case. They've had one top-end dual machine and singles all the way down.

Furthermore, what does this have to do with his / her current problem?

Budget is clearly an issue here and based on the best information available - a Dual G4 would both save money and provide better performance for the desired use.

maka
Sep 30, 2003, 05:04 PM
Originally posted by FlamDrag
TWO things here...

1. Why do people say that the G5 "will get faster" if s/he buys it now? A 1.6 Ghz G5 will always be a 1.6 G5. MAYBE the apps he uses will be significantly optimized for the G5 in the coming years, but then again - maybe not. These are not things that you can safely assume.


I think it's safe to assume that the apps and most important, the system will be better optimiced for the g5 making the system "faster" in apperance. It's a new design, it seems logical, and it's too soon to judge it's full potential yet.


2. Why do you expect that Apple will go Dual across the line anytime soon? Based on what information? In recent history that has not been the case. They've had one top-end dual machine and singles all the way down.


The g5 is designed with a dual setup in mind. I guess eventually only the entry level will be single. This wouldn't be the first time all the Towers are duals except for the entry level one...


Furthermore, what does this have to do with his / her current problem?

Budget is clearly an issue here and based on the best information available - a Dual G4 would both save money and provide better performance for the desired use.

That's three :)

If he has to choose between a maxed g4 and a entry level g5, then it does have to do with it. My opinion is that a g5 is better in the long run.
(even the 1.6)

MacBandit
Sep 30, 2003, 05:05 PM
Originally posted by maka
I guess you're right about the duals, but I still think the potential growth of a g5 machine is always going to be bigger than that of a g4, afterall it just came out and the g4 has been around for so long that I wonder how much more can you optimice for it.

I guess time will tell...

It appears there is always room for optimization. For example look at the new compiler that IBM just came out with for the PPC architecture. It was specifically for the G5 but it improves G4 performance as well.

maka
Sep 30, 2003, 05:09 PM
Originally posted by MacBandit
It appears there is always room for optimization. For example look at the new compiler that IBM just came out with for the PPC architecture. It was specifically for the G5 but it improves G4 performance as well.

I see... well, maybe i'm a bit too excited with the g5 :)

MacBandit
Sep 30, 2003, 05:18 PM
Originally posted by maka
I see... well, maybe i'm a bit too excited with the g5 :)

I don't think it's possible to be too excited over the G5. Well maybe you could. In any case if the 970s development cycle goes smoothly it will be Apples savior. All in all it has created not only a light at the end of the tunnel but I think I hear the rumble of a freight train.

For now though with this generation the Dual/G4s are still quite competitive. It's only certain tasks that the G5s excel greatly in and tasks that flood the FSB on the G4s. Also the MHz increase is the biggest difference. It's the MHz increase that is going to save Apple. That's what people are still comparing. Apple finally reached the 2GHz realm and if they can reach 3GHz before the Intel/AMD crowd hit 4GHz then we'll be very well off.

Dont Hurt Me
Sep 30, 2003, 05:41 PM
unless you buy the top g5 you really should be thinking of making your machine a dual g4 or 1.4 single. then in a year or two get a polished g5 and panther to go with it. anyone who is going from a quicksilver or better to a single g5 is crazy because the performance you get with the high end g4 vs cost and you have to start over with memory /video card.

codycartoon
Sep 30, 2003, 07:22 PM
Wow thanks everyone!

After much pondering... i have decided to get the dual 2ghz G5.

I can get that for under $2550(with out the super drive) with an educational discount.

Although the G4 looks nice now... I am really looking for a system that will still be speedy for another 2-3 years (I will get a G5 powerbook when it comes time for college) and there is really no point in spending a $1000 less this year only to upgrade again next year. Not to mention if I decide to edit a feature, the G4 just won't cut it.

your far better off finding a reasonably priced 2nd hand dualie at 1 ghz or above, then taking the money you have saved and investing it in camera equipment like a 3 chip camera, a light kit, lenses, filters, etc. As a hobby, a dual 2.0 just doesn't make fiscal sense, as the speed of a computer has no impact at all upon the quality of the shots made for your videos. I mean really, how important is it that you can render really fast when the footage doesn't even look that good to begin with?

I agree with that on some levels, but I already can borrow an XL-1 from my high school and the footage looks fine, if anything i will need money for basic production costs such as food for the actors, props, and sets.

A $1000 is a lot more, but i think it is worth it. And not just for the short term, but long term.

thanks so much everyone!

-cody

any recommend for a nice CRT or LCD monitor under $500?

maka
Oct 1, 2003, 02:11 AM
good choice :)

tduality
Oct 1, 2003, 03:05 AM
I can't give any advice but I happened to play a bit with G5 1.6 running Panther pre-release in shop a yesterday for the first time.

It was..so...well....fast, responsive, amazing! iMovie worked like a charme. I must say that I have a PM G4 400 and haven't worked on any other Mac whatsoever, so I can't compare with the dualies mentioned above. What I take from this is that I'll be happy with any of those machines.

Next thing I got to find out is whether the new Powerbooks are fast and responsive enough for me and how much Panther contributes to the performance. In a few weeks I will know.

BigHairyBuds
Oct 1, 2003, 03:58 AM
Originally posted by maka
I guess you're right about the duals, but I still think the potential growth of a g5 machine is always going to be bigger than that of a g4, afterall it just came out and the g4 has been around for so long that I wonder how much more can you optimice for it.

I guess time will tell...

I agree, the OS still uses only 64 bit libraries and is not completely designed for the 64 bit architecture. Basically it's the same OS (what is the G5 os called anyway? just 10.2.7???) we run with a G4 but has a few internal optimizations to take advantage of the new architechture (such as the ability to address double the amount of ram). As Apple continues to develop the code and optimize it, there will still be increases in G4 and possibly G3 (at least the 750xx's) performance, but the increase in the G5's performance will be significantly improved over time whereas previous generations will only see minor changes....unless you count Apple giving us 10.2.8 as a downgrade...I never thought a 733 could outpace a 933, but what do I know..

the G5 makes me horny.
so does my bong :eek:

tumblebird
Oct 1, 2003, 07:10 AM
Hey Cody,
Now, while I agree with your decision as per avoiding obsolescence, I feel I must tell you that I feel your video editing reasons are a little inaccurate. Granted, I am basing my opinion on only your two posts, but I have some experience in the area and I don't want you to make a mistake.
Let me begin by covering a little about what I do. I am a Visual Effects Artist, Compositor and Supervisor in Los Angeles. I have worked on a fair share of music videos you've seen, no doubt, on MTV, M2 and CMT, depending on what you watch, as well as various commercials, programs and independant films. I have worked entirely on G4s for these projects.
You say that there's no way for a G4 to handle a feature? Well, if you are shooting on dv, and editing on any platform, i.e., FCP, Premier, what have you, you aren't going to be rendering very much. DV is real time on even a TiBook 667 or above. Even when you get into colour-correction and effects, these are things that you do either first or last. The edit itself, if rendering is going to be a problem, is done at a lower res, generally, as an offline. This saves disk space. Potentially, you could, if you were in a crunch, edit a feature off an iPod in a severely compressed RToffline codec in FCP v3 or v4.
The only things that the Dual 2.0Ghz G5 is going to really shine in over any recent G4, as per professional film-editing, is the compositing, CG and/or FX.
Don't get me wrong, the G5 Dual is my next machine, in fact, I'm going to buy a few for my post facility. What I would warn about is thinking it alone is more important than having secondary storage devices for actually onlining your movie at full res and a quality monitor, so you have enough screen space to make editing efficient and high enough contrast to make sure your video looks its best. I would never ignore your monitor. You are entering a visual venue; your computers head is of paramount importance.
Regardless of your decision, goodluck and keep up the hard work. Be the next big name.
Zack:)

codycartoon
Oct 1, 2003, 08:38 PM
Originally posted by tumblebird
Hey Cody,
Now, while I agree with your decision as per avoiding obsolescence, I feel I must tell you that I feel your video editing reasons are a little inaccurate. Granted, I am basing my opinion on only your two posts, but I have some experience in the area and I don't want you to make a mistake.
Let me begin by covering a little about what I do. I am a Visual Effects Artist, Compositor and Supervisor in Los Angeles. I have worked on a fair share of music videos you've seen, no doubt, on MTV, M2 and CMT, depending on what you watch, as well as various commercials, programs and independant films. I have worked entirely on G4s for these projects.
You say that there's no way for a G4 to handle a feature? Well, if you are shooting on dv, and editing on any platform, i.e., FCP, Premier, what have you, you aren't going to be rendering very much. DV is real time on even a TiBook 667 or above. Even when you get into colour-correction and effects, these are things that you do either first or last. The edit itself, if rendering is going to be a problem, is done at a lower res, generally, as an offline. This saves disk space. Potentially, you could, if you were in a crunch, edit a feature off an iPod in a severely compressed RToffline codec in FCP v3 or v4.
The only things that the Dual 2.0Ghz G5 is going to really shine in over any recent G4, as per professional film-editing, is the compositing, CG and/or FX.
Don't get me wrong, the G5 Dual is my next machine, in fact, I'm going to buy a few for my post facility. What I would warn about is thinking it alone is more important than having secondary storage devices for actually onlining your movie at full res and a quality monitor, so you have enough screen space to make editing efficient and high enough contrast to make sure your video looks its best. I would never ignore your monitor. You are entering a visual venue; your computers head is of paramount importance.
Regardless of your decision, goodluck and keep up the hard work. Be the next big name.
Zack:)

Thanks Zack,

The problem I have been having with my G4 is that it has been dropping frames, taking a long time to render, and the more footage i add the more laggy it gets.

But i really see what you are saying about a nice monitor and another HD. And this has made me rethink the 2ghz...

I will have about $3000 to spend on a system... How should I spend it?

Thanks you so much Zack, i really appreciate it. What independent films have you worked on?

-cody

jamall
Oct 1, 2003, 09:48 PM
If I were you, I'd whip out that single 867MHz processor card and swap in either a single 1.4GHz (overclockable to at least 1.5GHz) for under $600 or a dual 1.2GHz for under $800. That will leave you over two grand to get a good video card (a Radeon 9800 for about $380), a fast RAID setup (a pair of 180Gig drives for under $400), and a pair of 17" LCDs for about $1000. I don't know the value of an Aurora PCI card in what you'll be doing, but you could easily fiddle with my numbers to fit one in your budget. It seems to me that you can build on what you've already got to end up with a kick-ass system. I know which setup I'd prefer.

tumblebird
Oct 1, 2003, 11:36 PM
Hey Cody,
Jamall doesn't have a bad point. For one thing, once you go to two monitors, you'll never go back. I use two 19" ViewSonic VX900 LCDs on my main Dual 1.25GHz and two 19" Mitsubishi Diamond Plus 91 CRTs for my Dual 450MHz. The Viewsonics are phenomenal, as LCDs go.

You want to go for something with as high a contrast ratio as you can. They are 600:1, versus most cheapies that only go 250:1 through 400:1. Also, you have to watch resolutions. I run my 19inchers at 1280 by 1024. Although I find it still a little cramped in Final Cut, it's a whole lot better than a single 800 by 600 or 1024 by 768.

You might consider a single if it has a high enough res. I recommend the ViewSonic VX2000 and the Formac Gallery 2010. They use the exact same LCD panel. They have a res of 1600 by 1200, which is great for FCP. It allows two 100% views in standard layout and ample room for everything else, like timeline, bin, 'n' stuff. Something I don't even have with my dual monitors. My next machine with have two of the VX2000s. The drawback is that they cost around $1000 each or more plus tax and shipping, depending on how hard you search. Pricewatch is a good place for the Viewsonic. Although, a plus for the Formacs is a USB connection, just like the Apple brand displays, and I believe they offer calibration tools for the most accurate colour.

Jamall's second suggestion is even better than the first. The sluggishness you're finding with the edit is not due, hardly, at all too the speed of your chip. When you have a large edit with many cuts the computer has to jump around the disk to immediately present the next clip. This is deathly difficult for a single hard drive, let alone one attached via IDE, serial, USB or Firewire.

What professional editors use are large arrays of SCSI drives. You generally need a drive set, array or RAID (Redundant Array of Independent/Inexpensive Drives) that can sustain at least a data rate of approximately twice the rate of the footage you're using. For instance, uncompressed footage at nearly 30MB/sec needs a partition capable of running at least 60MB/sec. I recently finished a music video with lots of effects in a limited time, so we had to edit at full res without smaller proxy footage. The captured clips where running off a little four IDE drive, 160GB, Medea RT RAID, a $1300 little black box. The drive set runs at around 65MB/sec, supposedly, but it was having severe playback issues when running the edit. Next time I will make sure to have storage running closer to 100MB/sec or faster, possibly four to eight 10k or 15k SCSI disks. Access time can be crucial too, but most modern drives are fairly efficient in that area. The biggest hidden expense here is a proper SCSI card. The Adaptec or Atto UW160s are upward of $300.

You may actually be able to get by, for now, with a dual IDE card (Sonnet makes a good one), and a pair of Western Digital 7200RPM IDE drives. Get the ones with an 8MB cash, it'll help with lots of media stuff and aren't much more expensive. This will be a much cheaper solution, but considering DV is 5:1 compression, or 25Mbits/sec (5MBs/sec), you should get by okay. Especially if your cuts aren't crazy short for the entire film.

I'm not sure the Aurora or Radeon are really all that necessary since you're not pushing OpenGL graphics or onlining uncompressed video. A bigger advantage, for DV, would be a nice DV bridge and a good composite monitor. The Hollywood Dazzle works acceptably for, I think, between $150 and $250, not sure. In addition, in place of an expensive broadcast monitor, a little 13" Sony Wega flat CRT TV from Best Buy, maybe $150 or so, is plenty for checking you colour for real. LCD computer monitors are crisp, bright and flicker-free, but they can be fairly inaccurate as far as hue and saturation. Even CRT computer monitors can be misleading. I've used the above setup quite successfully for some of the lower budget DV stuff and even some things higher end. Just don't think it's perfect.

Altogether, a Viewsonic VX2000 or Formac 2010, a dual IDE card and drives, and a DV bridge and TV monitor, might run you around $2000 or so. That's a guess, I didn't run the math or check all the prices, so you'll have to weight those things yourself.

I would hazard to say that all these things are equally as important to real editing as your machines clock speed, minus the rendering. Every true, high-end, editing package with include lots of screen space on one or two monitors, plenty of fast, fast storage and a monitor of some kind to see what everything is really going to look like. Not every system will have the latest, greatest processor.

Another wise fellow here said something very true, render at night or while you're eating. We will always want faster machines to see the final results, but the biggest time savers are those that deal with interface. If you can't see enough of the timeline, have to watch the clips at sub-100% resolutions and you're dropping frames, how can you accurately edit anything without going mad? These are not generally things that the processor can do anything about.

On the other hand, don't let me discourage you from getting a machine that will, of course, curb obsolescence. You can add to an existing computer, thus prolonging it's life somewhat, but eventually the software will require you to upgrade the whole bundle. In this way, a G5 is a very smart way to go. The nice part of upgrading the monitors, hard drives and getting a DV bridge is that they can be transferred to a G5 at a later date. Just attach the new monitor to the G5 you buy next year, throw in those drives with the Sonnet, so long as the cable can reach, connect the bridge and you'll be in business on the new machine.

You'll have to make your own decision, of course, and by that, you'll be weighing what YOU find important to the way you work, but at least, I hope I gave you something to think about. I hate working on a slow computer when a faster one is available, but I couldn't work effectively without the "extras". If you had $5000 it wouldn't be an issue, right? Of course, you could always get the G5 now, and a big screen, and when a feature is in the sights, then you can get everything else.

748s
Oct 2, 2003, 12:58 AM
what are you cutting with? fcp? a g5 will render any composites a lot faster than an 867 g4 but if you are cutting with fcp4 a g5 will not make the edit faster. for cutting, (using fcp4), an 867 with maxed ram and a 160gb raid works for me, no dropped frames or lag even when cutting a 150 minute documentary from 12 hours of footage (dvc project). i might get a g5 next year. it will speed up livetype renders, mpeg2 encoding etc. the real speed for cutting comes from inside your own head. get fcp4, max ram and fast hdd's.

tumblebird
Oct 2, 2003, 01:08 AM
Here's a good man. Mr. 748 speaks the truth. Well put.

revenuee
Oct 2, 2003, 02:12 AM
Originally posted by 748s
what are you cutting with? fcp? a g5 will render any composites a lot faster than an 867 g4 but if you are cutting with fcp4 a g5 will not make the edit faster. for cutting, (using fcp4), an 867 with maxed ram and a 160gb raid works for me, no dropped frames or lag even when cutting a 150 minute documentary from 12 hours of footage (dvc project). i might get a g5 next year. it will speed up livetype renders, mpeg2 encoding etc. the real speed for cutting comes from inside your own head. get fcp4, max ram and fast hdd's.

Finally a post that makes sense

i use use 400 mhz with 320 ram running FCP 1.2 and a dedicated 20 GIG SCSI AV drive

and i've put out 45 - 90 minute finished videos - wedding videos ( ya i know, can't get any lower as a film/video maker - not much else an 18 year old can do)

I've also put out plenty of short films 3 - 20 miutes and commercials, and any thing else that fell into my lap when i was in highschool, all full of graphics, composites, text whatever i could dream off.

EDIT : all work school oreinted exept wedding videos

Sure it took some time, but i don't think i could have done it better if my renders went faster.

A faster system will let you experiment more and you'll see what kind of "effects", titles, any thing else you think of, you'll see it work faster

but if you took some time storyboarding, and really took the time work out all the details in your preproduction, you don't really have to experiment once you edit anyway.

The only way i could see myself being more efficent is on a laptop. I know a lot of people say that laptop isn't as fast as a desktop, and for serious video work you need a desktop. But i'm tired of being trapped in one room, thats the only thing keeping me from doing my work faster/

With that said

I would go with the G5 just because it's newer technology, and a lot of newer software will be made to take advatage of it better.


But never forget

I don't think that Picasso would of painted better if he had a better brush, do you? So do you really think you'll do better work on a better computer?

748s
Oct 2, 2003, 03:03 AM
Originally posted by tumblebird
Here's a good man. Mr. 748 speaks the truth. Well put.

thanks. you are too kind!:D

Originally posted by revenuee
and i've put out 45 - 90 minute finished videos - wedding videos ( ya i know, can't get any lower as a film/video maker - not much else an 18 year old can do)

don't worry about wedding videos. a lot of people turn up their noses about doing weddings. they are no different from a feature/doco/music video/tvc etc. you still have to tell a story in pictures. if you can't tell a story you're in trouble. a wedding video audience is the toughest you'll ever come across.
EDIT: as far as a cutting on a powerbook......don't CNN and others cut in the field with fcp on powerbooks. can't remember who, but it is being done. lots of things being cut on powerbooks.

revenuee
Oct 2, 2003, 04:53 PM
Originally posted by 748s
thanks. you are too kind!:D

Originally posted by revenuee
and i've put out 45 - 90 minute finished videos - wedding videos ( ya i know, can't get any lower as a film/video maker - not much else an 18 year old can do)

don't worry about wedding videos. a lot of people turn up their noses about doing weddings. they are no different from a feature/doco/music video/tvc etc. you still have to tell a story in pictures. if you can't tell a story you're in trouble. a wedding video audience is the toughest you'll ever come across.
EDIT: as far as a cutting on a powerbook......don't CNN and others cut in the field with fcp on powerbooks. can't remember who, but it is being done. lots of things being cut on powerbooks.

ya i know, a figure - working at something in film/video is better then just dreaming about all the work you will do one day

When i first started i was using Linear System to do all my editing ( this is why i always stress preproducion so much when i do my projects i guess), and still produced great results, the computer just made it easier and cheaper to have your own suite at home,

and you would not be at error when you say that Powerbooks are used for editing at CNN and other major networks - article on CNN.com two months ago



Mobile editing solutions have their place in the world. as a student working on independent projects you can work anywhere, i acctually regret getting a desktop and not getting a laptop back then... i was going to get the G4 15 as it came out, but i think i'm personally going to hold out till the G5, if and when it ever does, i can still work on the machine i have, and since i can't afford to upgrade all the time, i figure getting a computer with new technology will satisfy me for atleast a few years after =)

codycartoon
Oct 5, 2003, 12:29 AM
Thank you so much everyone! All of your comments have been so helpful.

I think i may have discovered why my G4 seemed a little sluggish. I only have 256 MB memory.

Thanks to TumbleBirds response I have decided to stick with my current system for another year and will spend the money I have saved to improve the efficiency of it, as well as production budgets for my next films.

I realized that i was caught up in the equipment I was using and the G5 would some how give me a major advantage over other filmmakers. But when the truth is that a faster system won't make your film better. Money for food, books, props , and many other miscellaneous expenses that occur through out all 3 production stages is much better that extra MHz.

I have decided to get:
Formac Gallery 2010 (1000-1200)
1GB RAM (?)
13 inch TV (150-200)

I already have a separate 80 gig HD installed for DV purposes only, and I think that will work fine for what I am doing now. I will also reformat every major project.

where would be the best place to get RAM?

Thanks so much! It it wasn't for you guys i could have made a very costly mistake that could have affected my film career in a very negative way.

-Cody

tumblebird
Oct 5, 2003, 03:35 AM
Hey Cody,

The place I have gone to to get all of my RAM for my systems is an online store called Ramjet. They can be located at www.ramjet.com. In a pinch I've gone to a local reseller, the homestore of MacMall and PCMall, a place called Creative Computing, on Wilshire in Santa Monica. In addition, I know that we're not the only post house to use them. They were good, the RAM is great, but their prices are not the best to be found. Ramjet also offers a lifetime warranty. Again, it's up to you. Incidentally, I appreciate your taking my advice, as well as everyone elses. You are quite right, it is your talents that will further your filmmaking, not your computer horsepower. Now, if you were a digital graphic artist, you might consider the newest and greatest stuff out there. However, the majority of filmmakers today never even learned with the option of a computer. They excel in storytelling and character direction and developement. Lastly though, you are again right in buying more ram.... I don't care who you are, make sure you have enough memory for what you're doing. 256MB for Final Cut is on the slight side. Even OS X gobbles up most of that. A cool gig is going to suite you well. Good luck.

Zack Nederlander

MacBandit
Oct 5, 2003, 06:17 PM
Originally posted by codycartoon
where would be the best place to get RAM?

The best place to find the best prices on RAM guaranteed to work in every Mac model is at www.RAMSeeker.com . They are a dedicated Mac RAM price site.

revenuee
Oct 5, 2003, 06:38 PM
Ya. A good sized monitor is the better investement. You've probably noticed the screen can pretty full, pretty quickly.

Are you planing on just using the single 21 inch monitor

if so

Have you considered a dual monitor solution?
It would probably be a little cheaper then getting that large monitor - i know what it's like when your trying to get your suite together on a limited budget
getting a second video card or a video card that supports two monitors plus another 17 inch will probably run you less then that single 21 inch and you'll have more desktop space to move stuff around.

But then again your losing a lot of real desk space... Just a thought though.