Hardware needed for video editing?

[Ambrosia7177]

Hello. I am reading an article comparing FCPX and Adobe Premier Pro and I'm not sure if my rMBP has what it takes to run either software package.

Adobe Premiere Pro vs. Apple Final Cut Pro X: What's the Difference?

If you could help me better understand if my current laptops are sufficient for video editing with these applications, as well as figuring out what an "ideal" laptop would have, that would be appreciated!


Here is what the article says...

Adobe Premiere Pro CC:
Premiere Pro CC runs on both Windows and macOS. Requirements are as follows:

On macOS, you need version 10.12 or later; an Intel 6th generation or newer CPU; 8GB of RAM (16GB or is more recommended); 8GB of hard-disk space; a 1,280 by 800 display (1,920 by 1,080 or larger recommended); a sound card compatible with Apple Core Audio.

And...

Apple Final Cut Pro X:
As you might expect, Apple's software only runs on Macintosh computers.

It requires macOS 10.13.6 or later or later; 4GB of RAM (8GB is recommended for 4K editing, 3D titles, and 360-degree video editing), OpenCL-capable graphics card or Intel HD Graphics 3000 or later, 256MB of VRAM (1GB recommended for 4K editing, 3D titles, and 360-degree video editing), and a discrete graphics card. For VR headset support, you also need SteamVR.

Currently I have two identical 13" rMPB's with 16GB RAM and running macOS Sierra, although I will likely dedicate my unused 2nd rMBP for video-editing, and upgrade to macOS Mojave...


Obviously having a $10,000 desktop Mac would be ideal, but since I travel state-to-state to work on IT projects, I have to stick with laptops. And certainly for the rest of this year, I need to stick with the laptops that I currently have.

Interested to hear the gurus thoughts!

 

[Wando64]

Unless you tell us the year of release of your MBP, nobody will be able to offer any advice.

On a side note, if you happen to have an iPad pro, Lumafusion would be an incredibly inexpensive, yet very powerful, tool for video editing.

 

[macsound1]

I have edited video all the way back on a White Macbook with 4GB of ram and a spinning disk. The only thing that has changed since then is the software has become more bloated.
In premiere you can reduce the playback quality so you get better performance, or you can manually render as you add effects. Once rendered, you're literally just playing a video file, so as long as your computer can do that, you can edit video.

 

[ApfelKuchen]

We don't know which 13" rMBPs you own, or how much RAM you have installed. No opinions possible without more info.

This is pretty simple math, really. You have 10.12.x. Apple says you need 10.13.6 for Final Cut Pro. We know how you feel about upgrading your OS. If you don't want to upgrade, it's Adobe Premiere for you - until Adobe changes its requirements (perhaps with the next edition).

If you have doubts about your Macs' capabilities, there's a neat little free app in the Mac (and iOS) App Stores called MacTracker that has specifications for everything Apple has ever produced.

Premiere and Final Cut Pro are tools. Each has its fans, so asking "which is best for me" is like asking someone which flavor of ice cream you should buy - the recommendations will mostly be based on that person's personal preferences, rather than some sort of scientific analysis.

 

[Ambrosia7177]

Unless you tell us the year of release of your MBP, nobody will be able to offer any advice.

On a side note, if you happen to have an iPad pro, Lumafusion would be an incredibly inexpensive, yet very powerful, tool for video editing.

Oops, sorry, my rMBPs are early 2015...

And, yes, someone mentioned LumaFusion in another thread, and I watched their video and was quite impressed!

But for now, I just want to know how my current rMBP's stack up...

Thanks.
[automerge]1595523544[/automerge]

We don't know which 13" rMBPs you own, or how much RAM you have installed. No opinions possible without more info.

I just added the year, and I did provide 16GB RAM earlier...

This is pretty simple math, really. You have 10.12.x. Apple says you need 10.13.6 for Final Cut Pro. We know how you feel about upgrading your OS. If you don't want to upgrade, it's Adobe Premiere for you - until Adobe changes its requirements (perhaps with the next edition).

I also said in my OP that I would consider upgrading to something like Mojave - for which I just built a bootable USB installer and installed onto a blank external drive as test the other night...

 

[Ambrosia7177]

I owned the early 2015 rMBP 13" for two years and purchased it solely for video editing in FCPX. It was the base configuration (i5, 8GB/128GB, Iris 6100) and it was quite the workhorse for its small size and relatively "weak" specifications.

To add to my OP, I see...

MacBook Pro (Retina, 13-inch, Early 2015)
Processor: 3.1 GHz Intel Core i7
Memory: 16 GB 1867 MHz DDR3
Graphics: Intel Iris Graphics 6100 1536 MB

When you say "relatively weak" specifications, can you elaborate?

I am shooting video with my iPhone 6S Plus and doing mostly "man-on-the-street" interviews. (Am shooting at 1080p @ 30fps, although someone encouraged me to consider shooting at 4K whch suprisingly I can do with my old iPhone?!)

Raw videos range from 2 - 50 minutes.

I don't expect lots of fancy effects (e.g. 3D stuff), so I think what I'm doing is on the simple side of things, but then I am a total newbie to video shotoing and editing.


In the past in this forum, it seems that many insist you need a 15" or 16" MBP because they supposedly have more advanced video cards? Even if I had the money - which I don't - "portability" is important to me as I travel around the country. Meaning if I can get by with a 13" laptop, then all the better. (Desktop is never an option.)

HTH.

 

[Mark Holmes]

I used my mid 2012 MacBook Pro, i7 16gb RAM, recently on location editing a 4 camera multi camera shoot, files on an external SSD - wasn't ideal but doable. You should be fine up to 4K on 2015's.

 

[06tb06]

When you say "relatively weak" specifications, can you elaborate?

Adobe Premiere Pro tends to be a bit more taxing on your computer than FCP, the latter being more fine tuned and optimized for the hardware that it was built for (Mac). My desktop PC (Windows) had much better hardware specs (a more capable CPU and discrete gaming graphics) and the performance in Premiere Pro was horrible, because at the time Adobe wasn't really optimizing their software.

In the past in this forum, it seems that many insist you need a 15" or 16" MBP because they supposedly have more advanced video cards? Even if I had the money - which I don't - "portability" is important to me as I travel around the country. Meaning if I can get by with a 13" laptop, then all the better. (Desktop is never an option.)

FCPX works best on any Mac. There are plenty of videos on YouTube that you can watch to give you more perspective into this arena. I know of a particular one; a standard 12" MacBook....

4K Video Editing on a 12" MacBook? - YouTube

 

[Ambrosia7177]

I used my mid 2012 MacBook Pro, i7 16gb RAM, recently on location editing a 4 camera multi camera shoot, files on an external SSD - wasn't ideal but doable. You should be fine up to 4K on 2015's.

Fwiw, I am leaning heavily toward upgrading to FCPX since iMovie seems to be seriously lacking in some things I need/expect.

And after reading the link in my OP, it seems like FCPX makes more sense for me than Adobe Premiere Pro.

So the hope is that I have two decent rMBP's that can be used with FCPX as I did my feet into the video editing/cinematic production pool?!

Then if things really take off, maybe I can look at getting the "latest and greatest" MBP hardware.


Oh, I also wanted to add that my end goal is publishing my short videos (i.e. 1 - 10 minutes) on my YouTube channel or possibly directly on the website I am building which includes my own server...

 

[James_C]

As others have said for what you want to do, your current MacBook Pro is more than capable of running FCP, it is a huge step up from iMovie.

 

[maflynn]

[MOD NOTE]
A number of posts were removed as the thread was getting derailed.

 

[lin2log]

It's simple: the performance you get in iMovie is exactly what you'll get in FCPX. Under the hood they are the exact same. So if iMovie does what you need performance wise, you're just missing features, then FCP is the way to go, no question. Never mind that it's a ONE TIME purchase. You don't end up paying ransom money for your own IP.

Forget Premiere. It doesn't get anywhere close to FCP's performance. And yes, your MBP is more than enough. Having one with discrete graphics would of course be exponentially better. Upgrading your OS is also hardly worth the fuss.

 

[iluvmacs99]

OP, you basically have more computing power to deal with 1080p and up to 4K video production. Before I had a Mac Pro, I used to video edit on my white Macbook with a Core 2 Duo and a GM950 with the older version of Final Cut Pro with 1080p and there is no problem with that and I used to work with many indie video commercial producers (my former job for 3 decades had been working with people in digital imaging production) and they never had any problem video editing 1080p with much inferior hardware than you have now. You have more power than you need.

I have been investigating Lumafusion and I see a lot of young people use it. With small production video, Lumafusion is actually more preferable than Final Cut Pro or Adobe Premiere just because it's like iMovie but with some professional features using an iPad. It is amazing what an iOS app like Lumafusion can do and probably will become more popular once the Apple Silicon Macs are introduced.

 

[Ambrosia7177]

It's simple: the performance you get in iMovie is exactly what you'll get in FCPX. Under the hood they are the exact same. So if iMovie does what you need performance wise, you're just missing features, then FCP is the way to go, no question.

Okay.

Never mind that it's a ONE TIME purchase. You don't end up paying ransom money for your own IP.

Yeah, I agree. That is why I am leery to deal with any of Adobe's products these days...

Forget Premiere. It doesn't get anywhere close to FCP's performance. And yes, your MBP is more than enough. Having one with discrete graphics would of course be exponentially better. Upgrading your OS is also hardly worth the fuss.

All good to know!

I see that Apple is offering a 90-day free trial of FCPX, so I am going to check it out. (iMovie is nice, but I have discovered that I can't get the precision editing the audio tracks like I am used to in Audacity, and since I need to edit around interviewee's spoken words, that level of details is a deal maker/breaker.)

 

[Ambrosia7177]

I have been investigating Lumafusion and I see a lot of young people use it. With small production video, Lumafusion is actually more preferable than Final Cut Pro or Adobe Premiere just because it's like iMovie but with some professional features using an iPad. It is amazing what an iOS app like Lumafusion can do and probably will become more popular once the Apple Silicon Macs are introduced.

Someone else mentioned that in another thread of mine, and I checked out their video testimonials, and was quite impressed!

I think FCPX is the way to go on my rMBP, but down the road I would liek to get an iPad so that I can try things like Lumafusion ot in the field. So good reminder!

 

[Fishrrman]

Start with iMovie. It's actually fairly good. And it's free.

If you can put together a small movie with iMovie, and "want more", then try Final Cut Pro (I believe there's a demo version).

Now, if you're going to be doing 4k, that could get more tricky...

 

[Ambrosia7177]

Start with iMovie. It's actually fairly good. And it's free.

I have plaayed with it some, but it doesn't offer the precision that I need on the timeline - especially the audio timeline.

If you can put together a small movie with iMovie, and "want more", then try Final Cut Pro (I believe there's a demo version).

Actually Apple is being gracious these days and offering a 90-day free trial.

Now, if you're going to be doing 4k, that could get more tricky...

What do you mean by that?

 

[Fishrrman]

4k requires speed, processing power, and plenty of storage.

Very important with FCPX is to use "create proxy media" when importing 4k video.
This gives low-resolution "workfiles" to put the video together.
But when you go to "render" it, the full-resolution 4k media is used to create the final output.

 

[Ambrosia7177]

4k requires speed, processing power, and plenty of storage.

Very important with FCPX is to use "create proxy media" when importing 4k video.
This gives low-resolution "workfiles" to put the video together.
But when you go to "render" it, the full-resolution 4k media is used to create the final output.

Okay, good to know.

By the way, since you brought up 4K, what ae the benefits of shooting 4K?

Obviously it is better quality, but how much benefit do you really get?

I am shooting interviews with my iPhone and planning on posting them on YouTube and maybe my website. SO in that case, do I even need 4K? (I sorta assume that 4K is when you are creating movies for people to watch on large monitors/TVs, right?)

 

[ApfelKuchen]

Okay, good to know.

By the way, since you brought up 4K, what ae the benefits of shooting 4K?

Obviously it is better quality, but how much benefit do you really get?

I am shooting interviews with my iPhone and planning on posting them on YouTube and maybe my website. SO in that case, do I even need 4K? (I sorta assume that 4K is when you are creating movies for people to watch on large monitors/TVs, right?)

Is 4K "necessary" for your You Tube channel and website? No. 4K demands greater bandwidth, so many of your viewers will end up viewing a lower-quality stream anyway. The question is, will the 4K stream actually look good to those who are able to view it/enhance your contents, or are you just wasting bandwidth?

In the end, it's a matter of production values. As soon as you decide you want to present "4K quality" you have to consider what goes into that quality - better lighting, better cameras and better camera technique, better microphones and microphone technique, etc. There's little point of shooting 4K if everything that contributes to the production is of less-than-4K quality.

From one perspective, "quality" has to do with making sure that nothing distracts viewers' focus from the content you're presenting - defects of any sort. A "clean" production in 1080p beats a sloppy production in 4K. As they say, you can't make a silk purse from a sow's ear.

 

[Ambrosia7177]

Is 4K "necessary" for your You Tube channel and website? No. 4K demands greater bandwidth, so many of your viewers will end up viewing a lower-quality stream anyway. The question is, will the 4K stream actually look good to those who are able to view it/enhance your contents, or are you just wasting bandwidth?

In the end, it's a matter of production values. As soon as you decide you want to present "4K quality" you have to consider what goes into that quality - better lighting, better cameras and better camera technique, better microphones and microphone technique, etc. There's little point of shooting 4K if everything that contributes to the production is of less-than-4K quality.

From one perspective, "quality" has to do with making sure that nothing distracts viewers' focus from the content you're presenting - defects of any sort. A "clean" production in 1080p beats a sloppy production in 4K. As they say, you can't make a silk purse from a sow's ear.

Very well stated!

Well, I'd say that at best I am 1080p material for now... 😊

 

[Fishrrman]

1080p (done with a good camera) can look very good.
A trick I believe some Youtube folks use is to import their 1080p clips into a 4k movie.
And then "edit" and upload it AS "a 4k movie" (even though the source material was only 1080p).
Since Youtube compresses all uploads, the finished video actually looks better.

Something I noticed while viewing videos on YouTube (or elsewhere).
I have just a 1080p display. Can't display anything more.
But...
If I watch a 4k video on YouTube in 1080p, it looks ok.
then...
If I switch the resolution to 4k or even just to 1440p, it looks BETTER/cleaner for some reason (even though my viewing screen is 1080p).
My guess is that due to Youtube's compression, when you watch a "1080p" video, you're actually "getting fed" something "less than" full 1080p.

 

[Ambrosia7177]

@Fishrrman,

Interesting...

 

[macsound1]

It is unfortunate what youtube does with compression. That's why all videos uploaded as 360p look so awful. They looked much better when originally shot, but because YT's compression is like old video CDs, they are now virtually unwatchable. But if someone slapped the VHS video into a 1080 file format, YT would have given it enough bits to not look like trash.

Youtube's compression bitrates:

Type	Video Bitrate, Standard Frame Rate (24, 25, 30)	Video Bitrate, High Frame Rate (48, 50, 60)
2160p (4k)	35-45 Mbps	53-68 Mbps
1440p (2k)	16 Mbps	24 Mbps
1080p	8 Mbps	12 Mbps
720p	5 Mbps	7.5 Mbps
480p	2.5 Mbps	4 Mbps
360p	1 Mbps	1.5 Mbps