Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

iMac or MBP for video and photo editing?

N

nyguy4u

macrumors member
Original poster
Oct 21, 2008
97
4
Hello,

Now that the new MBP is out, I am going to be purchasing a new Mac in the next week or so.

Here's my dilema, I am switching from a PC. In doing so, I will be switching from Photoshop to Aperature. And Premiere Pro to Final Cut Studio. I also use a DV cam with firewire to export to my current PC, and would like to continue using firewire to whatever Mac I decide to purchase.

While portability would be nice, it's not a deal breaker.

I'm torn if I should get the iMac or the new 17 MBP. Other than portability issues and screen size, is there any reason I should go with one over the other for video and photo editing?

I'm open to all opinions!

Thanks in advance.
 
You can work perfectly with the most powerful 15 inch macbook pro. Just get the best options available: 2.8GHz, 4GB RAM, 320 GB 7200 HDD.

I know because I video/audio/photo edit myself.

You can get the 17 inch macbook pro but it seems a waste of money for me.
 
Hammer, that doesn't really bother me one way or another. Actually, I like the glossy display better anyways. But, that's just my opinion.

Emperor, dropping down to a 15" will be tough. I have a 17" now, and I couldn't see myself going down a size.

CaveMan, I have no idea what that is, or what the difference is lol


Comparing specs between the iMac and 17" MBP, it seems that the iMac has the leading edge spec wise, am I correct on that? I also notice that while you are giving up portability, you are gaining more for your money, at least that's what it seems like to me. Please correct me if I am wrong. I know a TON of people that do video and photo editing on a MBP, but I rarely see it done on an iMac. That's why I want some advice if there is a reason for that other than the portability issue.
 
nyguy4u said:
CaveMan, I have no idea what that is, or what the difference is lol
Click to expand...

The 24" iMac's panel can natively display 16 million colors. The laptops (and 20" iMac) can only display 260,000 colors (but tries to fake it with dithering). This will be apparent when you have gradients in your photos - they will be nice and smooth on the 24" display, but blocky on the 17" (or 20") display. The panel in the 24" (an H-IPS) is far superior to that of the others (a TN panel). If you do critical photo work, the 24" iMac is really the best way to go.
 
So, in what I'm understanding, the 24" iMac seems to have better specs? The only real reason for the MBP is for it's portability, but if I sacrafice that, I have a more powerful machine with the 24" iMac?
 
Well, the new 17" MBP is built on the NVidia 9400M chipset, while the iMacs are built on Intel Santa Rosa. It is likely that the next iteration of the iMacs will also have the 9400M, so if you can wait then we can re-evaluate it for you. The 9400M allows OpenCL - not sure if the current iMac video cards will. The technology for OpenCL was introduced in the NVidia 8800 series, so the old MBP will not benefit from it.
 
Cave Man said:
Well, the new 17" MBP is built on the NVidia 9400M chipset... the 9400M allows OpenCL - not sure if the current iMac video cards will. The technology for OpenCL was introduced in the NVidia 8800 series, so the old MBP will not benefit from it.
Click to expand...

Not sure what you mean, I use Ps CS4 at work and the OpenCL definitely kicks in on my 20" iMac. I thought any computer with a dedicated graphics card would benefit from this technology:confused:

With re to the OP, unless you need the portability - go the desktop, better value for money and better specs all 'round.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back