Need Help in Choosing a MacBook Pro for Video Editing!!!

[macwhisperer]

Hello everyone! I've got a problem. I want to buy a macbook pro for on the road video editing, but I cannot seem to make up my mind which one I should choose. The price range between the 13'' and 15'' is pretty big, so I don't know whether it is nescessary for me to spend that extra money.

I am video editing with final cut pro and I use adobe after effects and photoshop, and I would like the system to run as fast and as smooth as possible, yet still be laptop.

So the three that I can't seem to choose from are:
13-inch: 2.3 GHz (dual-core)
13-inch: 2.7 GHz (dual-core)
15-inch: 2.0 GHz (quad-core)

And which ever laptop I choose, I will change the hard drive to:

SEA MOMENTUSXT 500GB SATA2 HDD +4GB SSD (7200 rmp)

and RAM memory to 8GB.

So anyways, even with the things I am going to add to the laptop, will I still have to buy the 15'' one because of the processor and two video cards (even though I know that video cards are mostly a 3D thing, but I am using adobe after effects)

If I would know that the 13'' would run as good and without problems then I would save a lot of money.

Oh yes, and mostly I edit HD material from Canon 5D Mark II camera.

Please share your experience!

Thanks,

I.

 

[HBOC]

if you are doing any serious editing, I believe the 15" is the way to go. I would think the 13" screen size would be too small..You can also opt for the Matte screen. I HATE my glossy screen, and I believe Apple is going to swap me for a Matte screen, as that is what I had on my old MBP that they swapped me for... we'll see..

 

[mulo]

i'd say 15" 2.2 or 13" 2.3

 

[derbothaus]

Get any of the "true" quad's, 15" 2.3GHz if possible. Pass on the Dual cores. They are plenty fast but you'll want those extra cores for rendering, compressor, and basic longevity. After Effects will use them. Final cut will most likely not unless you use pro res all the time.
Basically if the question ends in "...for Video editing" get the fastest you can afford of everything.

Also, the quads are the only ones that would be an upgrade from your tower. The duals can't really compete with any of the Mac Pro's except something like the 2x2 core 2.0GHz Xeon 1,1 variety. Keep in mind Macbooks are not really meant to be hammering the cpu for extended periods. They get really hot and you will start another thread about what may be wrong with it

The right tools for the right job. Video wants a Mac Pro.

 

[macwhisperer]

Oh yes I forgot to say, that yes I understand that serious editing requires a big screen, which I actually have at home - 27'' LED Cinema Display

But since in the summer time I will be literally editing material ON THE ROAD, I would make the sacrifice, if I would know that the 13'' would work as well as the 15'' one

 

[macwhisperer]

Get any of the "true" quad's, 15" 2.3GHz if possible. Pass on the Dual cores. They are plenty fast but you'll want those extra cores for rendering, compressor, and basic longevity. After Effects will use them. Final cut will most likely not unless you use pro res all the time.
Basically if the question ends in "...for Video editing" get the fastest you can afford of everything.

Hey, yes. I know that when it comes to video editing, more power for more money is always better. But then again I want to get a bang for my buck..

 

[macwhisperer]

Get any of the "true" quad's, 15" 2.3GHz if possible. Pass on the Dual cores. They are plenty fast but you'll want those extra cores for rendering, compressor, and basic longevity. After Effects will use them. Final cut will most likely not unless you use pro res all the time.
Basically if the question ends in "...for Video editing" get the fastest you can afford of everything.

Also, the quads are the only ones that would be an upgrade from your tower. The duals can't really compete with any of the Mac Pro's except something like the 2x2 core 2.0GHz Xeon 1,1 variety. Keep in mind Macbooks are not really meant to be hammering the cpu for extended periods. They get really hot and you will start another thread about what may be wrong with it

The right tools for the right job. Video wants a Mac Pro.

You are right, but I can't really imagine me packing a Mac Pro in the trunk of my car and then whipping it out and setting it up every time I reach my destination (i'm putting together a travel journal)

So that's what I meant by getting the most for "on the road" video editing.

 

[Jaimi]

Bang for Buck - Get the 2.2Ghz 15". Upgrade the RAM yourself for $80, it only takes 5 minutes (be sure to use a number "0" phillips screw driver).

 

[derbothaus]

You are right, but I can't really imagine me packing a Mac Pro in the trunk of my car and then whipping it out and setting it up every time I reach my destination (i'm putting together a travel journal)

So that's what I meant by getting the most for "on the road" video editing.

Sorry man. Too true.
I stand by the quad. If you can't swing the 2.3GHz get the 2GHz you referred to. Also the graphics on the 15" obliterate the Intel only option on the 13" ers. You are gonna be really bummed on AE if you only have integrated graphics. REALLY bummed.

After taking a look at the actual graphics options, Jaimi is right get the 2.2GHz 15". Better graphics all around (more memory) 256MB is not enough to fully utilize AE.
Kind of important for video, no?

1. 15" 2.3GHz ATI 6750 1GB
2. 15" 2.2GHz ATI 6750 1GB
3. 15" 2.0GHz ATI 6490M 256MB

 

[hypervish89]

I use my base 2010 13" mbp to do video editing when I'm not at home and on the imac. It does just fine, it can render 1080p but it just takes longer.

 

[derbothaus]

I use my base 2010 13" mbp to do video editing when I'm not at home and on the imac. It does just fine, it can render 1080p but it just takes longer.

Yes it is possible. I used to edit Final Cut on a 15" 2.2GHz Core 2 and it ran fine with mostly 720p24p. But I would not call it enjoyable.

 

[namethisfile]

you'll want the 15" mbp with the dedicated gpu because FCS doesn't run on intel integrated grafx according to the tech requirements.