Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Log in
  • Hey all, just changed over the backend after 15 years I figured time to give it a bit of an update, its probably gonna be a bit weird for most of you and i am sure there is a few bugs to work out but it should kinda work the same as before... hopefully :)

Mac vs. Macbook pro for editing

Paul Duvilla

Paul Duvilla

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 9, 2011
Messages
188
Reaction score
0
Points
0
Location
New Jersey
Hi I was wondering what everyone thought would be better for editing footage from scarlet or epic s when they come out? Either the new Mac or the new Macbook Pro. Which one does everybody think will handle the workflow better and which is faster?
 
Mac Pro will be faster.
iMac next
Macbook Pro next.
(all things being equal)

This is so self-evident that I suspect it's not really your question. Can you try again?
 
I think that's right.

BUT, if you're on a budget, the latest 27" iMac with its 2 thunderbolt ports might be a nice option (one port for external storage solutions, another for video device.... Maybe there would be a way to put a Red Rocket in a case connected by a thunderbol port ?).
 
If you are going to edit at a pro level, you will need power, compatibility,expandibility and flexibility. Sure you can run FCP or Premierer Pro on a MacBook Pro or a new iMac and many folks including me edit ProRes HQ 1080p etc without a problem.I use a second generation MacBook Pro when I am on the road with an e-Sata card and small raid. But still speaking from Apple, a MacPro is the only tool that you can expand with cards such as those from Red or elsewhere. If you should choose to run a raid card, and high speed external storage along with a red rocket card you need a box you can access and expand and neither an iMac or Macbook Pro will let you do this. The higher the rez the more computing horsepower you will need unless you choose to go the proxy route but you will still need to finish your production and then there is grading...
Just my 2 cents.
 
The super simple version

MacBook Pro will work

iMac will work better

Mac Pro will work best

:tongue_smilie:
 
really depends on your workflow...

for studio-work and generally in-house stuff (post, grading, editing, rendering) -> nothing beats a Mac Pro!
(despite the fact that there's no Thunderbolt on board right now - but it's just a matter of time, and you can compensate with internal raid options, external fibrechannell/e-sata to get the speed you need). It's the most flexible machine and you'll have all the upgrade-options which are more restricted or only bto on the other models (esp. graphics, I/O-extension).

if it is for the price-tag -> the new iMac's offer a great performance/price ratio... here you get about the same power (compared to a smaller non-bto Mac Pro version) for less money. What you don't get is the flexibility to upgrade stuff yourself in the same fashion as for the Mac Pro. And you get a glossy display in first place - but you can add one or two "proper" displays any time, not that much of a problem. The Thunderbolt-Stuff is still lagging a bit behind - many announcements but nothing really available right now, I think we have to wait at least until mid-summer to get where it should be.

Macbook Pro; really nice machines in my opinion... here I'd suggest to further specify how mobile you really need or want to be, I think 15 inch is a very good compromise between performance and mobility (for studio work you have your external display). You can also use it for DIT work, quality checks on set, showing stuff to clients and so on... Just a matter of how you're working. There are also replacement-kits to exchange the optical drive to a second harddisk which can be a very nice thing (SSD to boot, HDD for more space). But I don't see it as a "real" studio-machine...

I personally use a 13 inch MBP for DIT-stuff... I'm not into "big" productions so I'd rather keep the wight and size down because usually I have enough time to get everything right even with the "small" equipment... the glossy screen (or the screen in general) is a major downcome with 13 inch but I can always plug it to our on set monitoring (17 inch panasonic) if needed. I'm on the road quite a bit so it really helps me when I keep the package small and simple (eg. all external drives bus-powered so I don't even need a power-plug for some time).

edit: at the studio I use 2 different Mac Pro Setups (one for grading/post, one just for editing... and for analog Stuff we still have dually G5's).
 
Last edited:
I think some of these comments are a little disingenuous. I know this isn't Scarlet User but many First time Scarlet buyers are not Pro's, and will be seeking out the best 'cost effective' option to edit (I know I am). For many this will be an Apple/Final Cut X set up with some kind of external storage. So I think its a valid discussion to what each current machine will do and as Final Cut X is available what performance we would get from each machine and configuration option.

So I welcome any more detailed experiences and opinions based on what people already know.
 
JIM MALLON said:
I think some of these comments are a little disingenuous. I know this isn't Scarlet User but many First time Scarlet buyers are not Pro's, and will be seeking out the best 'cost effective' option to edit (I know I am). For many this will be an Apple/Final Cut X set up with some kind of external storage. So I think its a valid discussion to what each current machine will do and as Final Cut X is available what performance we would get from each machine and configuration option.

So I welcome any more detailed experiences and opinions based on what people already know.
Click to expand...

Dear Jim,

The original question by Paul was not about cost effectiveness, but rather what system is better and faster for editing Scarlet and Epic footage/ workflow in general. Epic and scarlet are pro cameras. Needing pro post gear is not a disingenuous statement but fact. You will always be limited by the speed of your machine, the amount of RAM you have, the speed of you HDD, your video card. The more you invest wisely, the more you will be able to do.

Now to answer your question directly. I have edited shorts, documentaries, commercials, video clips, and you name it on everything from my little MacBook pro and to Mac pro beasts with redrockets and on my PC workstation in Premiere CS5. You can edit red on anything, but just be prepared to be limited somehow unless you get a few bells and whistles.

If you want a mid level desktop solution for FCP X, then the new iMac is great. If you are a PC or a CS5 user, go for a customized PC setup with a card that does cuda video acceleration - I have the gtx285. Premiere was a wonderful stopgap until apple got their act together to release FCP X.

As to what you mean by cost effective... Please define that a little more. I would suggest maxxing out with ram, getting a fast SSD, and external raid to connect via thunderbolt. But that, of course, costs.

Hope that helps.

Ivan
 
Its not just about having a thunderbolt port, sure it will help once lacie releases something that actually takes advantage of the speed/port but I think SSD/Ram is the real issue. Max out the Ram and get fast SSD's (6gbs a sec esata) by getting it cheap at OWC. Using a SSD for your aps is a great start, but if you can afford to use SSD for your media as well you will be able to do things much faster.

If you already own a somewhat new Mac gretting SSD and maxing the Ram out with OWC makes more sense I think than buying a whole new machine (the new machine will need these same upgrades anyway). Thunderbolt is so fast I don't think the fastest SSD's will even keep up with it. I mean supposedly the fastest current SSD's are only 6gb/s and they are sooo much more money then using the 3 gb/s SSD's that they are somewhat cost prohibitive still. Personally rather than jumping on the Thunderbolt wagon I am going to replace my stock apple HDD with a OWC 6gb/s SSD and I am getting one ideally big enough to keep some media on it and aps. By getting the 6gb/s now you are future proofing the drive for your next machine down the road, so I think its worth the extra cash.
 
Fair enough about the question simply being more about what is best rather than cost effective. But my point still stands what is the real world experience of different options. There are a lot of factors and cost is a major one of them. There is also a lot of configurations for both that make the answer less simplistic.

What I was really wanting was real world experience. Just saying Imac is better or faster than a MacBook Pro is not helpful to make a personal decision.

Things I would like to know and here about is what would the experience be like on the different options. Like is it possible to edit on a 17" screen for any length of time or how long would the new Imac takes to do various jobs (from peoples current experience and guesses for Final Cut X) from converting to ProRes to rendering on a timeline. So when people say its doable but slow to use an Imac what does slow actually mean?
 
JIM MALLON said:
Fair enough about the question simply being more about what is best rather than cost effective. But my point still stands what is the real world experience of different options. There are a lot of factors and cost is a major one of them. There is also a lot of configurations for both that make the answer less simplistic.

What I was really wanting was real world experience. Just saying Imac is better or faster than a MacBook Pro is not helpful to make a personal decision.

Things I would like to know and here about is what would the experience be like on the different options. Like is it possible to edit on a 17" screen for any length of time or how long would the new Imac takes to do various jobs (from peoples current experience and guesses for Final Cut X) from converting to ProRes to rendering on a timeline. So when people say its doable but slow to use an Imac what does slow actually mean?
Click to expand...

OK, let me take a shot at an answer. I've edited for a long time, I've run a full-on production house, and now I'm independent, with a much smaller footprint. (Just want you to know where I'm coming from.)

You can do real editing on a Macbook Pro. Rendering on a Macbook Pro sucks. The new ones are better, but there is nothing like a Mac Pro with 16 cores and 24Gig of RAM for working with video projects of significant size. Having said that, if you are not on a deadline, you can manage rendering (overnight, while you sleep) so that it doesn't get in the way of what you want to do. But if your project is heavily render-dependent, get a Mac Pro workstation and fill it with as much RAM as you can afford. An iMac is limited to 16G RAM. That's just barely enough. In a 64-bit world RAM is really important.

When I say you can do real editing on a Macbook, I mean editing. The minute you get into anything that involves compositing of any kind, 8G of RAM is a real limitation. So consider the kind of work you do carefully.

Editing with only one screen for any length of time sucks. It sucks more than compositing with 8G of RAM. But that's not really a problem for any of these machines. Any of them can power a second display, and you should get one if you are going to be doing a lot of editing. It does not have to be an expensive display, it just has to give you more space for bins and tools and the like.

I've never owned an iMac. They occupy an odd space for me. I think they are a great personal computer if you don't need portability. They come with one terrific screen, just enough RAM to be workable, and now with Thunderbolt, they can accommodate enough storage for video work. But I want either portability or power. I own a 17" Macbook Pro and a Mac Pro, and I use them differently. The iMac doesn't do anything for me, but it might be right for you. It depends on what you do and what compromises you are willing to make (or need to make).

Think out of the box. If you really need power, then don't worry so much about portability. You can pack up a MacPro and take it with you. Lots of DITs do that every day. If portability is everything to you, then plan around that. It'll take longer to render on a Macbook, but it can be scheduled.

Finally, we're talking about a LOT of data here. A day's shoot is 100G of data. I do a lot of documentary work, and an interview day is 500G of data. You need to think about how to make it available when you need it and how to back it up. Whichever way you go, the computer is only the central part of the system. You have to budget for the rest of what you will need.

As you say, there are a lot of factors. i hope I've helped shed some light on some of them.
 
I'm with David. I have a 17" Macbook Pro with an internal SSD for my personal machine and a slightly older (a year old, maybe) Mac Pro at work. I'm personally happier working on my Macbook Pro. I'm not sure if it's the age difference of the machine or my infatuation with editing at coffee shops, but I've never particularly felt difference in speed.
 
I'm kinda in your shoes too.

I'm kinda in your shoes too.

I am in a similar spot, only I am looking at the iMAC (2011) VS. MAC PRO 2010. David mentioned 16-core but I don't know that Mac Pros come in 16-cores, only 12 as far as I know. He also mentioned 16-GBs ad the cap on RAM for the new iMac but I think you can actually go 32 with OWC but it'll run you $3K. Regardless, his point about having two monitors to edit is a good one but I think a lot of people use MacPros (I own one) everyday for editing and have no problems (esp at coffee shops ;-). I also have an iMac 24" 2.0 with 6GB RAM and do long-form editing on it and it is about to croak. A lot of real issues have been well-raised by those here already, but I wonder how many here are doing a lit of titling and FX and (as I read here) compositing? If you are doing much more than cutting I think the editing process can start to stagger on you with a slower machine. I have to do intermediate renders after I add about 10-15 layers of titles, images, and mix in a rash of cross-fades, etc. I'll do five or six of these before I can get to the end of a job because I can't see things in real time otherwise. Eliminating this is important for me and I can't add a 4000 card to an iMac to take advantage of the Premiere Mercury Playback Engine. However, if the FCPX release will make good use of the iMac's configuration (i7 maxed) then you might be able to do just about anything on it, or the Mac Book Pro, as both will have the Thunderbolt and both can power a second monitor. I use a second monitor with my MacBook Pro all the time.
 
Before people get too Mac Pro's are for Pro's then its worth knowing that the new imac is not far off from an entry level Mac Pro. And that 'most' people who buy a Scarlet will not likely be that Pro, cause they would get the Epic if they were. When talking about the Scarlet it shouldn't be a dirty word to try and be cost effective. Thats why RED made the Scarlet in the first place to hand the Red quality down to a more 'amateur' user. I know this will piss peoples egos off but its generally true for future Scarlet users.
 
I've edited footage on everything from a steenbeck to a maxxed out Mac pro.

Use whatever works for your situation with your budget.

There is more than enough information in this thread, this forum, and online in general to help you make a great decision.

Cheers

Ivan
 
oddball question:

does anyone think that it might be feasible to edit scarlet footage on a maxed out macbook air?
it would be an amazing combo for international travel...

-n
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top