Go Back   MacRumors Forums > Special Interests > Visual Media > Digital Video

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old Oct 30, 2012, 07:09 AM   #26
mBox
macrumors 68020
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Quote:
Originally Posted by BlueParadox View Post
Good, gives recent iMac users a chance to say good-bye to their old iMacs
mBox is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Oct 30, 2012, 08:11 PM   #27
A Y
macrumors newbie
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
If you have an Apple store near you, another idea is to take some footage with you and try it out on their computers. I did this recently, because I'm trying to figure out how to upgrade my late 2008 15-inch MBP. I loaded a bunch of test files (GoPro files in my case, because that's what I had handy) and MPEG Streamclip on a USB disk, and then tried out transcoding to ProRes as well as doing multicam cuts in FCPX on the store machine.

They won't have the fastest Mac Mini, but it will give you an idea. My store had the quad-core 2.3 GHz i7 with 4 GB of RAM, but after playing with it, I had an idea of how much gain I'd get. The store's Mini didn't have FCPX on it, so I just downloaded the trial. The store staff were cool with it, and knew exactly what I was doing.

FWIW, going from the Hero's 1080p H.264 to ProRes 444, 100% quality with MPEG Streamclip was about 6-8x faster. On my home machine, editing multicam with 3 angles can bog the machine down, but the Mini handled it fine.
A Y is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 1, 2012, 12:24 PM   #28
MacBookProzak
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Quote:
Originally Posted by nateo200 View Post
So I'm dead set on the 15" MacBook Pro...definitly gonna BTO the low end model and max out most of the stuff or just get the high end model for the 1GB or GPU RAM...will have to decide on that, as well as an SSD upfront or later on...if I start editing uncompressed video more often then an SSD will be in order. But...the MacBook Pro Retina 15" sounds interesting...I've heard its pretty fast....or do I have to worry about all those pixels needing to be driven?
The cMBP you see in my signature line is what I use 10 to 12 hours a day to edit video on and it handles anything I can throw at it. I have the the hybrid 750GB Momentus XT drive it in and it serves me very well, so i did not see a reason to spend the extra money on SSD. I use a Lacie thunderbolt drive to do all my video work off of... life is good.
__________________
2012 15" MacBookPro 9,1 - 2.7 GHz Intel Core i7 - Memory: 16GB 1600 MHz DDR3 Corsair - Vengeance - Graphics: NVIDIA GeForce GT 650M 1024 MB - High-Resolution 1680x1050 Anti-Glare Display
MacBookProzak is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 1, 2012, 03:20 PM   #29
Hessel
macrumors member
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Renkum
Send a message via AIM to Hessel Send a message via MSN to Hessel
I'm suprised I don't hear any words about the Mac Pro.

you can get a Mac Pro with an AMD Radeon 5770 and quad core Xeon for 2000 bucks.
Hessel is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 4, 2012, 02:29 AM   #30
gabrielscindian
macrumors newbie
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by nateo200 View Post
I might pick up a Mac Mini as my next computer with the quad core, throw 16GB's of RAM and use that as my primary machine for FCP X, After Effects and encoding...its tiny enough I could carry it with me to work and home if needed...I'll be editing primarily DSLR footage but I expect to be editing footage from RED Scarlets in the future at like 4K....Right now I use my 2010 13" MacBook Pro with a fricken Core 2 Duo...I was thinking the Mac Mini would be a good choice with the quad core and I could easily throw in more RAM in the future and with Thunderbolt future upgrade paths seam unlimited...heck we could have External CPU's to add on in the future! But my main interest is editing video without swearing at my computer...this is sort of a critical moment. Any insight? I gotta get onto the quad core to speed up rendering times...
I'm editing 4k files on my late 2012 mac mini.
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	photo-1.JPG
Views:	279
Size:	1.10 MB
ID:	374880   Click image for larger version

Name:	photo.JPG
Views:	204
Size:	810.8 KB
ID:	374881  
__________________
2012 Mac Mini 6,2 Server
2x480 OWC ExtremePro 6 SSD
16gb OWC ram
gabrielscindian is offline   1 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 4, 2012, 11:08 PM   #31
nateo200
Thread Starter
macrumors 68030
 
nateo200's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: NY State
Quote:
Originally Posted by gabrielscindian View Post
I'm editing 4k files on my late 2012 mac mini.
I see it hyper threads to 8 threads? I didn't think the Mac Mini Server could do that (as per the first picture and your signature). I see your editing 1.9:1 4K, is it off a RED One or Epic? Just curious how smooth it is...
__________________
-15" rMBP 2.4/8/256/650M, FCP X, AE CS5.5, PS CS6
-USB3 180GB SSD, Intensity Shuttle Thunderbolt
-iPhone 6 in Space Grey 128GB, Samsung Galaxy Note 8
-Canon 550D, GoPro3 Black
nateo200 is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 6, 2012, 05:09 PM   #32
gabrielscindian
macrumors newbie
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by nateo200 View Post
I see it hyper threads to 8 threads? I didn't think the Mac Mini Server could do that (as per the first picture and your signature). I see your editing 1.9:1 4K, is it off a RED One or Epic? Just curious how smooth it is...
It's off of the red scarlet. Debayer 1/4 res in Smoke 2013 beta release 5 realtime playback in the timline. When you add vfx you have to render that section. It is a speedy little machine
__________________
2012 Mac Mini 6,2 Server
2x480 OWC ExtremePro 6 SSD
16gb OWC ram
gabrielscindian is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 6, 2012, 05:18 PM   #33
mBox
macrumors 68020
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Quote:
Originally Posted by gabrielscindian View Post
It's off of the red scarlet. Debayer 1/4 res in Smoke 2013 beta release 5 realtime playback in the timline. When you add vfx you have to render that section. It is a speedy little machine
We did similar tests using RCXPro on a Retina/Sonnet Echo with and without REDROCKET.
R3D from RED MX plays decent on 1/2 and def full using ROCKET.
The files were on a Tempo SSD Pro (dual SSD drives RAID0).

I think some DIT set-ups are using Mini.
mBox is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 24, 2012, 05:55 PM   #34
blackmoses
macrumors member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Quote:
Originally Posted by nateo200 View Post
I might pick up a Mac Mini as my next computer with the quad core, throw 16GB's of RAM and use that as my primary machine for FCP X, After Effects and encoding...its tiny enough I could carry it with me to work and home if needed...I'll be editing primarily DSLR footage but I expect to be editing footage from RED Scarlets in the future at like 4K....Right now I use my 2010 13" MacBook Pro with a fricken Core 2 Duo...I was thinking the Mac Mini would be a good choice with the quad core and I could easily throw in more RAM in the future and with Thunderbolt future upgrade paths seam unlimited...heck we could have External CPU's to add on in the future! But my main interest is editing video without swearing at my computer...this is sort of a critical moment. Any insight? I gotta get onto the quad core to speed up rendering times...
What about a used or refurbished Mac Pro tower?

I did try out a 2012 Mac mini as a potential replacement for my 2008 Mac Pro, but, to be honest, I didn't like it. Aside from the issue with the DVI going out sporadically, I was concerned that I would overheat the machine through constant rendering and transcoding. FCPX ran okay, but the lack of graphics performance was a bit too obvious. Maybe if I'd stuffed it with extra RAM...

Last edited by blackmoses; Nov 24, 2012 at 06:01 PM. Reason: More response!
blackmoses is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Nov 25, 2012, 02:38 AM   #35
Yebubbleman
macrumors 68020
 
Yebubbleman's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Quote:
Originally Posted by nateo200 View Post
I might pick up a Mac Mini as my next computer with the quad core, throw 16GB's of RAM and use that as my primary machine for FCP X, After Effects and encoding...its tiny enough I could carry it with me to work and home if needed...I'll be editing primarily DSLR footage but I expect to be editing footage from RED Scarlets in the future at like 4K....Right now I use my 2010 13" MacBook Pro with a fricken Core 2 Duo...I was thinking the Mac Mini would be a good choice with the quad core and I could easily throw in more RAM in the future and with Thunderbolt future upgrade paths seam unlimited...heck we could have External CPU's to add on in the future! But my main interest is editing video without swearing at my computer...this is sort of a critical moment. Any insight? I gotta get onto the quad core to speed up rendering times...
Given that we're talking about a quad-core mobile version of Ivy Bridge, CPU-wise, it's a GOOD computer for those tasks. GPU-wise is where you'll really hate your life. Yes, the Intel HD 4000 is substantially better than the NVIDIA GeForce 320M in your Mid 2010 13" MacBook Pro, but for 4K RED footage, that would give me pause. That said, while external GPUs via Thunderbolt will likely be more of a regular thing, for now, it isn't. Thunderbolt, at best will only support 8x PCIe, though I'm pretty sure that it technically is only supposed to support 4x. Expect a later iteration of Thunderbolt to be able to do it. For now, just be glad that it is otherwise fast enough to not be the bottleneck for anything. But no, if you want to do RED and/or 4K, don't get a Mac mini, you will be happier than you are on your 13" MacBook Pro from 2010, but you'll still be unhappy.

Quote:
Originally Posted by mosiejczuk View Post
Hi,
I'm in a similar situation as the started of this thread. I'm doing research before replacing my 2009 c2d mbp and in spite of having done some heavy math I neede help from people with more knowledge.

I'm running on a limited budget and I have to choose a machine that will do best at video rendering (Adobe Premiere and Final Cut Pro). My choices are:

Base 21" iMac with i5 2.7, 8 GB of RAM and 640M
Mid Mac Mini with i7 2.6, 16 GB (I can do that myself) and HD4000 - just like it is discussed before.

I know both have flaws, but do You think one will do considerably better than the other? The point is: does memory and CPU outweight GPU?

Thanks for Your help!
Mid 21.5" iMac with either the i5 or i7, CTO it with 16GB of RAM (as you can't upgrade from 8 to the 16GB maximum on your own) and the 650M. Also, with the Fusion drive. If you can't afford it, wait until you can as you won't like it otherwise.

Quote:
Originally Posted by nateo200 View Post
Good to know someone else is in the same boat as me! I'm curious about the 2.3 vs 2.6Ghz upgrade though, obviously it'll help but Id like to see by how much...obviously grab the 2.6 for the extra 100 i believe it is. I mean I guess I could get a GPU in a thunderbolt enclosure later on but if the base iMac is better then I will look that way.
The cache is the same on both CPUs, so really it's a difference of 300MHz, which isn't anywhere near as substantial in 2012 as it was in 2000. Again, relying on an external thunderbolt GPU solution is not smart and doesn't save you much money.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MrPlayer66 View Post
For serious editing I'd go for the iMac, the jump to Ivy Bridge CPU and the discreet graphic card would lep you a lot more than an integrated CPU, with Premiere Pro and After Effects you can use GPU acceleration with your effects. Going from your current machine to a Mac Mini the biggest jump you would see would be in transcoding time but this jump wouldn't be too great, also once you begin editing long sequences with transitions and effects the mac mini would reveal how under power it can be. The biggest disadvantage of a 2012 iMac, or least the 21.5" one is that the ram is not user replaceable outside of that it's a great value.
Just max out the RAM at the time of purchase...than the fact that it isn't user-replaceable becomes a non-issue.

Quote:
Originally Posted by nateo200 View Post
I was setting up the ideal BTO iMac that I was going to hopefully get but now I see that the 21.5" iMac can't have its RAM upgraded but the 27" can? I think thats just ridiculous! Now they gotta go and gouge me up front...Then I was looking at the Mac Pro's and I figured I could take the low end model as I have a decent display already but it hasn't been updated at all...no USB 3.0 or even Thunderbolt! Oh well...I guess Ill go for the 27" with 8GB of RAM and look forward to the 16GB and hopefully 24GB I can throw in it at a later point...just need a faster machine.

I think Apple is indirectly making life harder for the power user >
Again, the bump to a 21.5" iMac with 16GB of RAM will be a price gouge, but not that bad of one. And once a 2012 21.5" iMac has 16GB of RAM in it, the no-replaceable RAM bit is a non-issue as it will be maxed. If you can do a 27" iMac, for what you're trying to do, that would probably be best. The Mac Pros are behind the curve on a lot of things. The Xeons still kick the crap out of some of the Ivy Bridge Macs out there now, but the performance gap is quickly closing.

Quote:
Originally Posted by nateo200 View Post
Oh I've read all about it I've just only started to feel it. Then I have people who think my needs for a faster computer are ridiculous. They think that video magically puts its self together when you open up FCP! The iMac getting its upgradability castrated is really what bothered me...Apple telling us what we need and don't need
The iMac always had its upgradeability castrated. 100% non-removable RAM is new, but best of luck replacing drives on that thing. It looks to be no easier with this current iteration.




Quote:
Originally Posted by nateo200 View Post
Well I don't edit H.264 directly at all. It all ends up in ProRes 422 so my Core 2 Duo doesn't barf 1s and 0s all over my lap... I'm looking at the 15" MacBook Pro the entry model with 8GB RAM (Going to put more obviously)....is this going to be sufficient or at least less painful for my tasks? Mainly looking for smoothing out my editing times, rendering times and actually have the power of a discrete graphics card for programs like After Effects. Also the Thunderbolt port is a welcome addition that seams to make the purchase even more future proof since you can plug anything from a hard drive to an external GPU to it!
The 2012 non-retina 13" and 15" MacBook Pros max out at 8GB of RAM. You can stuff 16GB in there and it'll recognize it, but if you have any problem with the machine any Apple Authorized Service Provider or Apple Store can attribute your problem to having more RAM than is officially supported and can deny you service or (if you're dealing with a real jerk) deem your warranty voided. It's really dumb, but there you have it. The 15" retina MacBook Pro can be configured to take 16GB of RAM, which is the actual maximum of the Ivy Bridge chipset and will give you a fighting chance at not hating your life when editing 4K/RED. Also, of note, the 15" retina screen is roughly 2K, so it'll look better with your footage.

Quote:
Originally Posted by nateo200 View Post
So I'm dead set on the 15" MacBook Pro...definitly gonna BTO the low end model and max out most of the stuff or just get the high end model for the 1GB or GPU RAM...will have to decide on that, as well as an SSD upfront or later on...if I start editing uncompressed video more often then an SSD will be in order. But...the MacBook Pro Retina 15" sounds interesting...I've heard its pretty fast....or do I have to worry about all those pixels needing to be driven?

Again, I'd go Retina here as you can have 16GB of RAM and have it be officially supported. As for the amount of pixels being driven, both the Intel HD 4000 and the NVIDIA GeForce GT 650M are each more than capable of driving that display. The problems that exist currently are with the OS's ability to suddenly display that many more pixels per inch on pre-existing visual assets. The GPUs can do it, but the OS is doing a crap job of doing what it needs. That could be a driver issue, that could be an issue with the OS itself. Which it is, I couldn't say. But many mistake it as an actual hardware issue and that's simply not the case.
__________________
MacBook Pro (15" Mid 2012); PC Tower (3.4GHz Phenom II x4; Radeon HD 6850); 5th Gen iPod touch; 2nd and 3rd Gen tv; iPad Air Verizon; Galaxy S5 Verizon
"Don't Cry, Eat Pie"
Yebubbleman is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 12, 2013, 08:19 PM   #36
EddieT
macrumors newbie
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Hiroshima, Japan
5 angle multi cam on mini

Hi guys. I have a 5-angle HD video editing project for FCPX I've been putting off forever because I don't have a powerful enough computer. Got a bunch of Thunderbolt drives, so that's not an issue. Ordered a maxed out mini. The middle one, upgraded to 16 GB memory and the 2.6 chip. Then cancelled it the next day when I came across some posts that said the mini wasn't up to more than very simple video editing projects. I am a relative beginner to video editing, so am not familiar with this RED video. I assume that requires a lot of power and benefits from a dedicated GPU. For my purposes, however, for a 5 view HD project, I am beginning to wonder (again) if I can get by with that maxed out mini.
EddieT is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 12, 2013, 08:24 PM   #37
simsaladimbamba
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: located
Quote:
Originally Posted by EddieT View Post
Hi guys. I have a 5-angle HD video editing project for FCPX I've been putting off forever because I don't have a powerful enough computer. Got a bunch of Thunderbolt drives, so that's not an issue. Ordered a maxed out mini. The middle one, upgraded to 16 GB memory and the 2.6 chip. Then cancelled it the next day when I came across some posts that said the mini wasn't up to more than very simple video editing projects. I am a relative beginner to video editing, so am not familiar with this RED video. I assume that requires a lot of power and benefits from a dedicated GPU. For my purposes, however, for a 5 view HD project, I am beginning to wonder (again) if I can get by with that maxed out mini.
If the footage from the five cameras is properly transcoded to ProRes 422 or ProRes 422 Proxy and the footage for each camera is on an extra HDD (or two cameras per HDD), then that will not be a problem, as the data throughput will be the limiting factor and not the CPU.

I could play back six or so streams of HD footage on my 2009 MBP in Avid Media Composer, and again, the limiting factor was the access to the external HDD and not the CPU, though I used DNxHD 36 as codec (a proxy codec to need less HDD space).

forgot to add:
Video Compression
Why It Matters & How To Make The Most Of It
which includes the following sections:
simsaladimbamba is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jan 12, 2013, 10:07 PM   #38
EddieT
macrumors newbie
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Hiroshima, Japan
Thanks, simsaladimbamba. Yeah, not sure what to do. Might wait until I can get my school to buy me an iMac this summer. Thanks for your reply.
EddieT is offline   0 Reply With Quote

Reply
MacRumors Forums > Special Interests > Visual Media > Digital Video

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Similar Threads
thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
iPad Mini: How much thicker and heavier is the Retina Mini over the old Mini? Xeyad iPad 27 Nov 14, 2013 10:12 AM
iPad Mini: iPad Mini with retina display thicker and heavier jabingla2810 iPad 50 Oct 23, 2013 11:52 AM
FCP X works super on Mac mini! Agnoslibertine Mac mini 2 Nov 30, 2012 12:40 AM
iMovie/FCP limitations on Mac mini? Reminisce32 Digital Video 2 Nov 3, 2012 08:32 AM

Forum Jump

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:04 PM.

Mac Rumors | Mac | iPhone | iPhone Game Reviews | iPhone Apps

Mobile Version | Fixed | Fluid | Fluid HD
Copyright 2002-2013, MacRumors.com, LLC