MBP 2009 SSD or 7200rpm HDD for FCS video

Discussion in 'Digital Video' started by Wheetman, Jan 12, 2009.

  1. Wheetman macrumors member

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2007
    #1
    Now that the 2009 17" MBP is soon to ship, I am looking to buy my first MAC. I intend using it, inter alia, for video editing the HD footage I have collected using my Sony HDR-HC7E. For this I intend using FCS. Could you please let me have your thoughts on whether I would be better getting an internal SSD or HDD (7200rpm) from which to run the applications? As my scratch and storage will be to external 7200rpm HDD, is there any benefit in paying the extra to get the SSD? I have read somewhere that SSD is not as stable as HDD when it comes to video editing - leading to dropped frames... Is this true?

    I shall be looking to get a Nehalem mac pro when they are introduced, but want to get started with my projects sooner rather than later. If I max out to 8Gig of Ram on the MBP is it likely to be up to the job with FCS working with HD Mini DV tapes?

    Working with HD Video is a new venture for me and I am a hobbyist rather than a pro. I shoot underwater footage and want to reproduce at the best quality I can, hence the shift to the Mac.

    Any good advice will be welcome.
     
  2. SansArc macrumors newbie

    SansArc

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2009
    #2
    As far as SSD I can't really say whether it would be any better or worse. You are already using a 7200rpm drive for an external scratch disc so I personally don't see any benefit of getting an internal SSD but maybe to load programs quicker. And if your hearing of problems then don't dish out the cash IMO. Stick with a 7200rpm drive. And as far as a MBP handling your HD footage it would be just fine with 2g of ram, 4 would be great:)! But heck if you want to get 8 that wouldn't hurt. My little iMac 2g ram G5 still handles HD footage in FCP with ease. Let me emphasize IN FCP!
     
  3. Wheetman thread starter macrumors member

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2007
    #3
    You say that with 2Gig of Ram you are handling HD with ease in FCP. What are your rendering times? I would have thought that with only 2Gig of Ram they would be quite slow processing HD - as there is so much more information to process. Maybe I am wrong, but I would be interested to know nonetheless.
     
  4. SansArc macrumors newbie

    SansArc

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2009
    #4
    Rendering times in FCP are not bad at all. When dealing with say a 5 minute video and rendering it inside a standard def sequence it may take between 5 to 7 minutes. Keep in mind this particular machine is not as fast as even the last generation of Macbook Pros. At work I use a Mac Pro with only 4g ram while using Adobe AE and FCP. This applies to our laptops as well. The MBP we use only have 2g ram as well and primarily use HD footage and we do lots of nesting as well. Like I said 2g ram is still good but 4g would be wonderful:cool: Its also my understanding that FCP will not utilize an entire 8g ram at this point. I may be wrong. But really more ram just means you can run multiple apps at a time. I can still run After Effects and FCP at the same time though. Not as smooth as I would like. The only problem I foresee is when trying to play HD in Quicktime. My iMac catches a fit when you try to play an full 1080p clip so I would think 4g ram should suffice. Again this machine is over 3 years old.
     
  5. Wheetman thread starter macrumors member

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2007
    #5
    That is really useful information. Thank you. Maybe I don't need to max out the RAM after all.

    Best Regards.
     

Share This Page