8K Pro Res with M2 Mac Mini

[macman4789]

Hi,

I am not an expert in this field, however wondered if anyone could give me some insight into this. Apple advertises that the current Mac mini can edit up to 8K pro res. Presumably, this is based on the reliance on the hardware encoders/decoders in the M2 chips.

I wondered has anyone had any experience with this? Is it a fluid experience? The only reviews I can find of 8K editing is at h.265 with an M2 Pro and that seemed quite fluid.

What the involve working at ‘better performance’ or creating proxies?

Thanks

 

[R S K]

Erm… we’re talking up to TWENTY-TWO streams of 8K, yes. So… are you asking about ONE stream? 😄

Yeah. It’s fluid.

 

[macman4789]

Erm… we’re talking up to TWENTY-TWO streams of 8K, yes. So… are you asking about ONE stream? 😄

Yeah. It’s fluid.

Sorry it was probably a silly question and why I’m not very experienced with this. The reason I asked was I’ve seen many videos where high end Mac’s have struggled with 8K from say the Canon R5. Is that just because of the codec used and that Pro Res 8K is optimised for Apple silicon? I apologise if that’s an obvious question.

If so, how do you get around this so that you can edit Canon 8K? What options do you have?

Thanks

 

[T'hain Esh Kelch]

It is likely the Canon codec. The M series chips are optimized to a few specific formats, but does accellerate a lot more than that to some extents, but codecs will require to take advantage of the pipelines in the chips. You could convert your movies to ProRes, or another accellerated format.

 

[R S K]

Is that just because of the codec used and that Pro Res 8K is optimised for Apple silicon?

Exactly. Very few other codecs would before that well. Although, also thanks to the Media Engines, H.264 and HEVC (they have hardware-enabled encode and decode as ProRes does) should do nearly as well and most other "ALL-I" codec should, too, depending on the overall data rate.

Any "IPB" codec will do worse because they are much more difficult to decode i.e. are much more computationally intensive. The R5 for example does both All-I and IPB in Ultra 8K and DCI, UHD 4K and DCI, and FHD. Even RAW via an AtomOS recorder (not Canon's "RAW Light"!). If you want maximum performance, but at the cost of substantially larger file sizes, then you use ALL-I or even (ProRes) RAW. But only in rare exceptions. I'd stick with IPB (specifically HEVC) encoding 90+% of the time. I have been producing nearly exclusively in HEVC since I got my M-Mac.

I don't know which Mac you consider "high-end" or which codec was being used, but any newer M-Mac, especially those with one or more Media Engines, will most certainly not have any issue with ProRes files. Unless of course, the disk they're coming from is too slow. The MP4s should be perfectly fine, too. Again, merely shooting Canon's "RAW" (which isn't even technically RAW) will pose performance issues because it's so painfully unoptimized.

 

[macman4789]

It is likely the Canon codec. The M series chips are optimized to a few specific formats, but does accellerate a lot more than that to some extents, but codecs will require to take advantage of the pipelines in the chips. You could convert your movies to ProRes, or another accellerated format.

Thanks for this. Can you convert any format to ProRes?

 

[macman4789]

Exactly. Very few other codecs would before that well. Although, also thanks to the Media Engines, H.264 and HEVC (they have hardware-enabled encode and decode as ProRes does) should do nearly as well and most other "ALL-I" codec should, too, depending on the overall data rate.

Any "IPB" codec will do worse because they are much more difficult to decode i.e. are much more computationally intensive. The R5 for example does both All-I and IPB in Ultra 8K and DCI, UHD 4K and DCI, and FHD. Even RAW via an AtomOS recorder (not Canon's "RAW Light"!). If you want maximum performance, but at the cost of substantially larger file sizes, then you use ALL-I or even (ProRes) RAW. But only in rare exceptions. I'd stick with IPB (specifically HEVC) encoding 90+% of the time. I have been producing nearly exclusively in HEVC since I got my M-Mac.

I don't know which Mac you consider "high-end" or which codec was being used, but any newer M-Mac, especially those with one or more Media Engines, will most certainly not have any issue with ProRes files. Unless of course, the disk they're coming from is too slow. The MP4s should be perfectly fine, too. Again, merely shooting Canon's "RAW" (which isn't even technically RAW) will pose performance issues because it's so painfully unoptimized.

Thanks for this detailed response, really appreciated. A few questions from this:

- Can you edit in All-I and then export as IPB which would be considerably smaller?

- in terms of high-end I just meant anything above the baseline M chips so Pro, Max and above. Although to be fair I think the base M2 has accelerated encoders?

- In terms of disk speed you mentioned, what sort of minimum speeds would you be expected to have to edit in 8K? I’m guessing any of the internal M SSD’s will be sufficient?

- When you said Canon RAW isn’t technically RAW, what do you mean by this?

- Lastly, would 16GB unified RAM be enough to edit in 8K ProRes? Does FCP load up the entire timeline into it and then use swap for the rest of it?

Thanks

 

[R S K]

Thanks for this. Can you convert any format to ProRes?

That's what "optimizing" is, yes.

- Can you edit in All-I and then export as IPB which would be considerably smaller?

ProRes is All-I (meaning an intraframe codec), IPB can be any number of codecs such as both H.264 and HEVC, yes.
Here are some good infos.

I think the base M2 has accelerated encoders?

ANY Mac with a chip that has one or more Media Engines is hardware accelerated, yes.

I’m guessing any of the internal M SSD’s will be sufficient?

Those test with the 18 streams were ONLY on the internal, yes. You'd be hard pressed to find anything even CLOSE to as fast externally and not have to mortgage your house for it.

- When you said Canon RAW isn’t technically RAW, what do you mean by this?

It is partially debayered in camera (the same goes for Blackmagic "RAW" btw!). Actual RAW, such as ProRes RAW isn't debayered at all until it hits your NLE.

- Lastly, would 16GB unified RAM be enough to edit in 8K ProRes?

I have to wonder why you even insist on editing 8K to begin with. 🤨 What for? You hate free disk space? And yes, 16GB would fully suffice for even multiple streams, given the Media Engines.

Does FCP load up the entire timeline into it and then use swap for the rest of it?

No. Final Cut does not load entire timelines into memory. But explaining Apple Silicon and macOS memory management HERE would be taking matters a bit far, too.

 

[macman4789]

That's what "optimizing" is, yes.



ProRes is All-I (meaning an intraframe codec), IPB can be any number of codecs such as both H.264 and HEVC, yes.
Here are some good infos.



ANY Mac with a chip that has one or more Media Engines is hardware accelerated, yes.




Those test with the 18 streams were ONLY on the internal, yes. You'd be hard pressed to find anything even CLOSE to as fast externally and not have to mortgage your house for it.



It is partially debayered in camera (the same goes for Blackmagic "RAW" btw!). Actual RAW, such as ProRes RAW isn't debayered at all until it hits your NLE.



I have to wonder why you even insist on editing 8K to begin with. 🤨 What for? You hate free disk space? And yes, 16GB would fully suffice for even multiple streams, given the Media Engines.



No. Final Cut does not load entire timelines into memory. But explaining Apple Silicon and macOS memory management HERE would be taking matters a bit far, too.

Thank you for your answers, it is appreciated. No I’m not intending on editing 8K any time soon 😃. There’s just a lot of stuff on the internet about ‘you must have x Mac or y Mac’ to edit in 8K however looking on Apple’s own website that is not what they advertise and wanted to clarify. Sometimes people make out you need Max or Ultra chips to edit in 8K. Thank you for your clarity

 

[R S K]

Very confusing. You're not interested in, nor planning on editing 8K… yet that's your yardstick i.e. biggest worry??

🤔​

looking on Apple’s own website that is not what they advertise and wanted to clarify.

???

Apple's website:

The powerful media engine has twice the capabilities of M2 Max, further accelerating video processing. It has dedicated, hardware-enabled H.264, HEVC, and ProRes encode and decode, allowing M2 Ultra to play back up to 22 streams of 8K ProRes 422 video — far more than any PC chip can do.

An Ultra is twice a Max, which is (more or less) twice a Pro. Therefore ⅓ of 22 streams is just over seven streams of 8K. So even if that were a marketing-fueled exaggeration by a factor of 2 you'd still be able to edit three streams comfortably.

Mind you, any one stream of 8K is (nearly) equal to four streams of 4K!

So I'm not exactly sure where any confusion came about in terms of performance. At least mathematically.

 

[macman4789]

Very confusing. You're not interested in, nor planning on editing 8K… yet that's your yardstick i.e. biggest worry??

🤔​

???

Apple's website:


An Ultra is twice a Max, which is (more or less) twice a Pro. Therefore ⅓ of 22 streams is just over seven streams of 8K. So even if that were a marketing-fueled exaggeration by a factor of 2 you'd still be able to edit three streams comfortably.

Mind you, any one stream of 8K is (nearly) equal to four streams of 4K!

So I'm not exactly sure where any confusion came about in terms of performance. At least mathematically.

Very confusing. You're not interested in, nor planning on editing 8K… yet that's your yardstick i.e. biggest worry??

🤔​

???

Apple's website:


An Ultra is twice a Max, which is (more or less) twice a Pro. Therefore ⅓ of 22 streams is just over seven streams of 8K. So even if that were a marketing-fueled exaggeration by a factor of 2 you'd still be able to edit three streams comfortably.

Mind you, any one stream of 8K is (nearly) equal to four streams of 4K!

So I'm not exactly sure where any confusion came about in terms of performance. At least mathematically.

As mentioned in my original post, I’m not very well versed in this area and just wanted to seek some information from someone who is more knowledgeable about this.

I’ve recently been trying to do a bit of research, and a lot of stuff out there says you can’t edit 8K unless you get x Mac. However, as I stated above that’s not what Apple advertises as they state even lower end Macs like Mac Mini can’t handle it and so I want to ask someone who really knew or has experience like yourself.

At the moment, my video editing won’t stretch past 4K but more and more people are talking about 8K even to wait with and export down to a lower resolution later. I just wanted a few questions answering which you have done so with great detail. I appreciate your time and knowledge with this.

 

[R S K]

even lower end Macs like Mac Mini can’t handle it

Typo? Becasue, yes, especially the most current Mini is more than capable. Again, given the right codec and IO.

more and more people are talking about 8K

Of course, they are since the 4K market is saturated. New marketing buzzwords are needed. I'd love to see where those people are playing that material back. And shooting in 8K to later output to 4K or below is really only relevant to some MUCH higher-end productions because the nominal (if any) increase in quality is hardly worth generating at minimum four times the amount of data than you actually need. 6K for some possible reframing in post? Sure, why not? Do it myself all the time. But 8K is utterly irrelevant to me at this point (except maybe for some very rare specialty needs) and don't see it becoming it anytime soon. Being able to do some 40+ streams of 4K should do just fine and be the only really relevant resolution yardstick for a long while.

I appreciate your time and knowledge with this.

Glad I could help.

 

[macman4789]

Yes, it sounds like you are right and like you say it’s also whether there are the right screens to display the content in 8K. 8K screens are still quite sparse for consumers.

Do you think AV1 will change things? I’ve heard this the latest codec which may be popular?

 

[ghostwind]

Of course, they are since the 4K market is saturated. New marketing buzzwords are needed. I'd love to see where those people are playing that material back. And shooting in 8K to later output to 4K or below is really only relevant to some MUCH higher-end productions because the nominal (if any) increase in quality is hardly worth generating at minimum four times the amount of data than you actually need. 6K for some possible reframing in post? Sure, why not? Do it myself all the time. But 8K is utterly irrelevant to me at this point (except maybe for some very rare specialty needs) and don't see it becoming it anytime soon. Being able to do some 40+ streams of 4K should do just fine and be the only really relevant resolution yardstick for a long while.

Shooting in 8K is becoming quite common as camera sensors move in that direction. It's best practice to capture at the highest resolution a camera's sensor offers and downsample from there as needed for delivery. It's really that simple. Some 8K cameras will let you shoot cropped at 6K (some won't), but that's not optimal off the sensor. Absolutely irrelevant to you, perhaps, although if you understand the benefits of shooting in 6K for work in post, it's not such a leap to imagine doing it at 8K.

As far as 40+ 4K streams being a benchmark, not sure what world that's happening in.

 

[R S K]

Shooting in 8K is becoming quite common as camera sensors move in that direction.

Which is utterly nonsensical as a standard mode of capture, full stop. The "because I can!" attitude that lacks any rhyme or reason. The exponential amount of additional data (and I don't care if it's supposedly "affordable" to store, because it's sure as **** isn't affordable to archive!) stands in absolute no relation to any (purely subjective) quality gain. Your resolution is the last thing in the chain that determines any level of quality. You're most certainly not getting 4x the quality for 4x the amount of data that you're shooting. So that's ludicrous reasoning and a logical fallacy. Otherwise, why not go straight to 12K if that's such a great idea?

Oh, and I have a mobile phone that shoots 8K. Therefore that must shoot just amazing footage, right? Why would I use anything else by your logic?

As far as 40+ 4K streams being a benchmark, not sure what world that's happening in.

Where did anyone say that that's "happening"? Oh right, no one. It was nothing more than a frame of reference, not alleged as some sort of necessity. Or do you think you have to worry about one stream of 8K (reminder: which this is about) when 40+ streams of 4K are a cinch?

🙄​

 

[ghostwind]

Which is utterly nonsensical as a standard mode of capture, full stop. The "because I can!" attitude that lacks any rhyme or reason. The exponential amount of additional data (and I don't care if it's supposedly "affordable" to store, because it's sure as **** isn't affordable to archive!) stands in absolute no relation to any (purely subjective) quality gain. Your resolution is the last thing in the chain that determines any level of quality. You're most certainly not getting 4x the quality for 4x the amount of data that you're shooting. So that's ludicrous reasoning and a logical fallacy. Otherwise, why not go straight to 12K if that's such a great idea?

Oh, and I have a mobile phone that shoots 8K. Therefore that must shoot just amazing footage, right? Why would I use anything else by your logic?




Where did anyone say that that's "happening"? Oh right, no one. It was nothing more than a frame of reference, not alleged as some sort of necessity. Or do you think you have to worry about one stream of 8K (reminder: which this is about) when 40+ streams of 4K are a cinch?

🙄​

You mad bro? What's with all the bold words and over-the-top statements? You've countered my post with nothing meaningful. Things aren't that complicated. Calm down.

"6K for some possible reframing in post? Sure, why not? Do it myself all the time.".....Is this the "attitude" you were talking about

Do whatever you want. Just stop being so dramatic and ridiculous. "Full stop"

 

[R S K]

You mad bro?

Ah yes. The classic, infantile, escapist argument when you have nothing of actual substance to bring to the table: "U mad bruh??!!" Yikes.

What's with all the bold

😂​

And if that doesn't work, go for the irrelevant formatting approach to deflect from the fact that you've been called on your blather and have nothing of value as a response.

You've countered my post with nothing meaningful.

Mh-hm. Sure.

Which is why you can't engage with the arguments, but rather resort to some sad, ad hominem ramblings. Got it. 👍🏼

stop being so dramatic and ridiculous.

Talking to yourself now? 🤔

If you don't know what you're talking about… maybe just don't say anything? What a concept.

 

[ghostwind]

I know exactly what I'm talking about and made it very clear in my first post. Like I said, it's not complicated. It's best practice to capture at the highest resolution a camera's sensor offers and downsample from there as needed for delivery. That's all there's to it, really, if you care about quality and having room to work with in post.

Now, as you said, "6K for some possible reframing in post? Sure, why not? Do it myself all the time.", please tell me why this is also not, "utterly nonsensical as a standard mode of capture, full stop. The "because I can!" attitude that lacks any rhyme or reason."

Like I said, is it that much of a stretch for you to go from 6K to 8K and make such over-the-top, silly comments?

 

[R S K]

Sure. You do you.

🤦🏼‍♂️

 

[JimmyG]

Shooting in 8K is becoming quite common as camera sensors move in that direction. It's best practice to capture at the highest resolution a camera's sensor offers and downsample from there as needed for delivery. It's really that simple. >snip<

I couldn't agree more with these sensibilities. I've greatly enjoyed the added versatility for reframing and subject tracking and in being able to apply added image stabilization (where needed) in post for 4K output since shooting in "open gate" mode on my S1's and GH6. And, as an added bonus, the upscaling of that footage to 8K (when the time comes, on my end) won't be as, er, "suffered" as any of my 4K or 1080P footage.

To put this in perspective...back in 2017 I had a discussion with a camera manufacturer rep over my desires to shoot at "better than 8-bit 4:2:0" and their reply to me at the time was "why shoot at 10-bit 4:2:2 if you're never gonna be able to see it?". These were still the pre-10-bit display days and I "got" where they were coming from with their question, but my answer was simple..."No, I can't see it today, but I will be able to in the upcoming years. The problem is that when that time comes I won't be able to go back in time and reshoot that total solar eclipse, or reshoot that eagle snatching a fish out of the water, so I want to shoot all of that today in 10-bit 4:2:2 to future-proof my current efforts and expenses for when I can realize the full potential of that footage going forward."

...And this is what getting in and shooting 8K RAW today means for me.

Maybe it seems impractical or even unnecessarily expensive today (especially when one is counting pennies while working for clients...I am not), but next month's Total Solar Eclipse will get shot in 8K 12-bit N-RAW by yours truly...because, I know the future is coming (in fact, 8K 10-bit viewing is here today already), and there's no redos in life.

 

[lin2log]

So that's ludicrous reasoning and a logical fallacy. Otherwise, why not go straight to 12K if that's such a great idea?

Exactly. Why wouldn't "yours truly" 🙄 be shooting in 12K exclusively being such the demanding super-pro? Why not TWO 12K cameras at the same time, in 3D AND uncompressed just to be safe and since "N-RAW" has been judged a useless joke on the cameras that support it? Cuz remember: "future unknown" yadda yadda! And as we all know there'll never be another solar eclipse EVER again and 8K TVs are just all the rage with staggering numbers and they're SO "here today"! Who DOESN'T want to have to sit TWO FEET from his 60" TV to even be able to optically resolve the content that doesn't exist?

The pretentious jabber is truly mind-boggling. lol

 

[ghostwind]

Exactly. Why wouldn't "yours truly" 🙄 be shooting in 12K exclusively being such the demanding super-pro? Why not TWO 12K cameras at the same time, in 3D AND uncompressed just to be safe and since "N-RAW" has been judged a useless joke on the cameras that support it? Cuz remember: "future unknown" yadda yadda! And as we all know there'll never be another solar eclipse EVER again and 8K TVs are just all the rage with staggering numbers and it's SO "here today"! Who DOESN'T want to have to sit TWO FEET from his 60" TV to even be able to optically resolve the content that doesn't exist?

The pretentious jabber is truly mind-boggling. lol

Dunno dude, I use 8k N-RAW now, to deliver 4K to paying clients. Nothing to do with the future. Who has judged N-RAW a "useless joke"? Surely someone that hasn't used it.

 

[lin2log]

Yeah, dude, I'm totally sure that your undoubtedly Hollywood-level productions would be completely RUINED by 500Mbit 10bit LOG HEVC that has a stop or two MORE of dynamic range in e.g. a Z9 and that at a FRACTION of the size.

You keep pretending.

 

[ghostwind]

Yeah, dude, I'm totally sure that your undoubtedly Hollywood-level productions would be completely RUINED by 500Mbit 10bit LOG HEVC that has a stop or two MORE of dynamic range in e.g. a Z9 and that at a FRACTION of the size.

You keep pretending.

This forum is full of amateurs and tech-nerds, so I'm not surprised to read some of the dumb stuff in this thread. Sounds like you're confused about HEVC vs. RAW because you read something and misunderstood it somewhere on the Internet. HEVC 2 stops more DR over NRAW? LOL. You realize you have to apply NR to RAW in post, and once you do that, the numbers are the same for DR with NRAW having a lot more latitude. HEVC applies way too much NR, is not 12bit, and has less room for editing in post. ProRes is a better alternative to NRAW, not HEVC. Of course, if you were a working pro, you'd know this. You don't need to work in Hollywood to see the benefits of RAW, and this sounds like a bad discussion of RAW vs. JPEG from 20 years ago, and we know how that aged. You sound foolish.

 

[Paul.w]

This forum is full of amateurs and tech-nerds, so I'm not surprised to read some of the dumb stuff in this thread. Sounds like you're confused about HEVC vs. RAW because you read something and misunderstood it somewhere on the Internet. HEVC 2 stops more DR over NRAW? LOL. You realize you have to apply NR to RAW in post, and once you do that, the numbers are the same for DR with NRAW having a lot more latitude. HEVC applies way too much NR, is not 12bit, and has less room for editing in post. ProRes is a better alternative to NRAW, not HEVC. Of course, if you were a working pro, you'd know this. You don't need to work in Hollywood to see the benefits of RAW, and this sounds like a bad discussion of RAW vs. JPEG from 20 years ago, and we know how that aged. You sound foolish.

Couldn't agree more, I've been reading this forum for ages, but thought I'd finally have to register to say I've never in my life read so much complete and utter BS than what has been spouted on this thread.
So many self appointed "experts" that in reality are utterly clueless!

To get back to the original posters topic,
Any of the current M spec macs will suit your needs just fine, if you can film in apple prores all the better as M silicon loves it.

8k will almost certainly, (eventually) be the high end option of choice, but to be honest, unless you have something like an 88"+ tv, or 8k projector and wall size screen, the benefits (for viewers) are negligible.

For editing purposes, capturing in 8k offers benefits such as room to crop, zoom reframe, and stabilise etc in post, but to be honest 6k offers the same benefits at a cheaper price and smaller file size. And remember, dynamic range and data rates have more influence on picture quality than simply number of K's.

For any one who's interested, I've filmed on a R5c (awful camera) a C70 (good but poor media choice) an A7siii ( very good but dated now) a c300mkiii (too heavy when rigged) a Z9 (great hybrid and underated video option) and am currently rocking a S5iix which as my own purchase and offers great 6k to ssd options and the best bang per buck.
I edit in final cut (6k prores) on a mac studio M2 max which suits my needs just fine.