Page 92 of 92 FirstFirst ... 42828889909192
Results 911 to 918 of 918
  1. Collapse Details
    Senior Member scorsesefan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Queens, New York
    Posts
    2,067
    Default
    Thanks, Norbro. I did notice in reviews that besides screen size the surface area was decreased...


    Reply With Quote
     

  2. Collapse Details
    Senior Member Thomas Smet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    2,739
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by scorsesefan View Post
    I was thinking of picking up the 13in MB Pro M1, but I don't think it will be enough real estate for editing. Any guesses on the price point/release dates on the 14/16 inch models?
    I actually don't find a huge difference between a 15" and 13" laptop. Resolution wise the 15" was a 1440 wide display vs the 13" which is 1280. Thats the 1x resolution of course but essentially that's what the screen real estate is like.

    There isn't a huge difference between the two resolutions. Apple also has the ability to use scaled resolutions. The 15" can go up to 1920 wide and the 13" up to 1680 wide. Thats a lot more real estate to fit an NLE UI. The reason it doesn't go higher is Apple prefer to target an optimal resolution for vision and comfort. Most PC laptops just give you a 1920 or 3840 wide display on 15" without factoring in just how tiny that is to use. By targeting 1440 on the 15" Apple provided the optimal 2x pixel density for the optimal DPI for a more comfortable experience. PC laptops with a HD or UHD display use an inferior scaling method to have a more comfortable workspace. Apple renders the screen on the GPU at 2x resolution and then maps that to what pixels the display has. So when you set the M1 MBA to 1680 wide its actually being handled on the GPU like a 3360 wide display that is then mapped to the 2560 retina pixels it has. Its kind of like having a 1.5x Retina display which is still much better than a 1x display. The pixels are so small its also really hard to tell its not a 1:1 display. At home I use a 27" UHD monitor that I often scale up to 2560 which is the same as the 5k Apple iMac display. Its really hard to tell it isn't a 1:1 5k. Anyway my point is Apple has kind of perfected the optimal screen density and scaling. In fact its so good that by default Apple sets their Macs to use the one notch scaled up resolution as the normal setting. The 13" shows its default as 1440. They didn't bump up the resolution of the 13". They just realized it looks so good to just set it as the default. When you drop down to 1280 scaled mode thats the actual 1:1 2x resolution.

    No matter what laptop is used the editing experience is somewhat restricted due to screen space. When you factor in many of us edit at least on a 24" - 27" and in many cases two monitors its hard to shrink down to a single 13", 15" or 17" laptop. I used to use a 17" MBP and while it did have more space and was easier to use at the DPI at that resolution it was still a compromise compared to working on a desktop. Thats why I prefer to have a desktop and a affordable and compact MBA. The M1 is more than capable of handling the kind of editing tasks I would do on the road.

    I honestly prefer the 13" M1 MBA because I wanted a smaller screen that was easier to carry around, use on a flight and ran forever on battery. It may lack in a bit of screen space but I just plug in my iPad and use Sidecar to add a second portable display. A 12.9" iPad Pro is almost a perfect addition to the 13" M1 Macs to have a dual screen setup on the road. There are other portable monitors only solutions out there but if one already has an iPad sitting around use it as a second display. Actually works really good with
    FCPX. I do use FCPX which helps a bit since its UI is streamlined for smaller displays. When I use Resolve with Braw I will say the 13" does start to feel super tight. Especially in Fusion. When I bump it up to 1680 wide however it gets much better.


    Reply With Quote
     

  3. Collapse Details
    Senior Member scorsesefan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Queens, New York
    Posts
    2,067
    Default
    ^Thanks, I was thinking mostly of the UI (Premiere Pro) on a 13in vs the 14 or 16in. If the 16" M1 (or x or whatever) comes in around $2100-$2200 I'll probably go for that...


    Reply With Quote
     

  4. Collapse Details
    Senior Member Thomas Smet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    2,739
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by scorsesefan View Post
    ^Thanks, I was thinking mostly of the UI (Premiere Pro) on a 13in vs the 14 or 16in. If the 16" M1 (or x or whatever) comes in around $2100-$2200 I'll probably go for that...
    There isn't going to be much physical difference between 13" and 14". Just like there wasn't much difference between the 15" and 16". 1440 UI space vs 1536 UI space. Thats less than 100 pixels of extra UI space. Its more but not physically enough to make a massive difference. I don't think the newer 16" models will change much from that. Apple doesn't like to deviate from a certain DPI. In the case of the 16" its the same DPI as the 15". It just adds more pixels along the edges into of a bezel. There isn't much bezel left so the new 16" will likely still be around the same resolution. Not that having more is goign to be a massive boost to be honest. You can scale the current 16" to 2048 wide which means the GPU is essentially rendering the UI at 4096 wide. Thats as good if not better than any other laptop out there. No other laptop I know of supports DCI 2k and 4k resolution even if that is at 1.5x retina.

    Having used a 17", 15" and now a 13" Mac I honestly don't see a massive UI space difference between the 3 models. With scaling the 15" easily had more detail than my non retina 17" ever did. The 13" gets pretty darn close.

    The 14" is likely going to be the same concept as the 16". Less bezel to add maybe another 70 - 80 pixels or so. A little boost but still the same more or less UI space.

    As far as Premeire UI I'm not entirely sure. It has been a long time since I used Premiere. But the same rule kind of applies. If the UI struggles at one resolution adding another 80 pixels likely isn't going to suddenly change that. Basically if Premeire sucks on a 13" I will bet my life it will still suck on a 14". The 16" will have more UI space but in order to really have a tangible impact on the UI you really need to use it scaled to 2048 which is very tiny details. I used a 15" at 1920 for years and eventually stopped. I have since learned how to better swap applications quickly and keep my laptops at their default size now most of the time.

    You can also get a 13" MBA and a 12.9" iPad Pro with a XDR display for less than the new or current 16" MBP. Thats a dual monitor setup thats 100% battery powered and very compact to travel with. plus you now have a tablet to use production apps that are more touch screen friendly like a slate.


    Reply With Quote
     

  5. Collapse Details
    Senior Member Thomas Smet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    2,739
    Default
    Quote Originally Posted by scorsesefan View Post
    ^Thanks, I was thinking mostly of the UI (Premiere Pro) on a 13in vs the 14 or 16in. If the 16" M1 (or x or whatever) comes in around $2100-$2200 I'll probably go for that...

    I will add one reason to maybe wait would be to see if the 16" gets a XDR display. I almost bought a 12.9" iPad Pro to hopefully use with Sidecar as a HDR grading monitor but I have yet to see a review where anybody actually tests it for that purpose. A better solution for many would be for the 16" and the larger iMac to have XDR. I feel Apple will likely go this direction eventually.


    Reply With Quote
     

  6. Collapse Details
    Senior Member paulears's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Lowestoft - UK
    Posts
    1,917
    Default
    I never even noticed how Macs handle screen resolution till I connected an ATEM device and actually read what the note on the screen said. Ive never once looked at an Apple screen and thought it lacking in any way. However they do it, it works.


    Reply With Quote
     

  7. Collapse Details
    Default
    A market update - to the best of my abilities.

    It looks like Microsoft is not going to do a Windows-for-ARM OS, instead turning to a compiler, wherever needed. There might be some performance issues.

    Qualcomm and Samsung seem to want to go after the ARM market but at the lower end. Correspondingly, they'll split their models between the Chrome and Windows.

    Chromebooks are blazing hot for the school market. HP overtook Apple as a #1 computer manufacturer in the US due to its success with Chromebooks. The price/performance ratio seems to be more than sufficient.

    Intel has gone the "ARM route" by redesigning their mobile chips on the fast one/slow one principle. Their new CPU (Tiger lake, right?) seems to be good enough and it has pretty much every app in the universe from Windows. Once again, the performance is good enough for most users.

    AMD is betting on its GPU's, with the CPU's already good enough.

    NVIDIA still dominates in the GPU market with the 81% share and is on Jim Kramer's "buy" list. BTW, Jim Kramer has a long buy list.

    Apple is doing really well with M1 and is outperforming a comparable Windows laptops on performance, albeit lacking in some features. And a ton of apps.


    Reply With Quote
     

  8. Collapse Details
    Senior Member JAMedia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2019
    Location
    Birmingham UK
    Posts
    178
    Default
    Give it 10 years and apple will be using RISC V like everyone else.


    Reply With Quote
     

Page 92 of 92 FirstFirst ... 42828889909192

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •