How well do the Imacs work with DSLR's

J

jamesmallonuk

Well-known member
Thinking of getting a 7D or t2i. I was wondering how well people are able to edit footage on the latest imacs. Do the machines edit with ease or are there very long render times etc. What specs would anyone recommend on an Imac to really edit efficiently? I would be shooting quite a lot of footage for a documentary.


*Also is a mini mac or their laptops viable options as well.
 
The 7D footage needs to be converted to pro res. Canon just released a new plug in for FCP that does this quickly and smoothly using FCP's log/transfer function.

Remember that you will only be able to edit using a single FW800 port, so drive speed is important. A iStorage Pro or Caldigit VR two drive solution is a good investment.

No Mac Mini, but a solid 15 inch MBP may be fine.
 
Why not a Mac Mini David? I thought the new ones handled ProRes and FCP well enough to get the job done. Probably not good graphics for Motion but that's not necessary to cut FCP. I found this on an Apple discussion from back in '08:

I spoke with a rep at the Apple Store, and she called a Tech with this question.

Answer: YES. Final Cut Studio 2 will work, and eventually the FCS site will be updated to show that it is supported. Motion will work, though not at it's best. Since I mostly do titles in Motion, it will be fine when traveling out of the country away from my loaded MacPro. I'm not doing HD on these trips, so I should be fine.
Click to expand...


Noah
 
Oh yeah- it's far from the ideal by a long shot. But I think it could work in a pinch.

Nah
 
I think any current Mac, save the Air, would be viable depending on how much a performance hit you are willing to take. You can get an iMac w/an i5 or i7 desktop CPU that will be much faster than the Core2Duo mobile CPUs found in the Mini and the laptops. The i7 iMac has been tested and has CPU crunching speeds that rival the current Mac Pros. The big hangup w/the iMacs is expandability (as David pointed out). You only get one FW800 port so you are limited by that in terms of storage and in terms of being able to attached video I/O gear to your machine in the future.

I don't know what your budget is but some refurbished Mac Pros aren't much more expensive than an i7 iMac and are much more versatile machines, IMO.


-Andrew
 
>it's far from the ideal by a long shot. But I think it could work in a pinch.

IN A PINCH...meaning IF YOU HAD TO, or IF ALL OTHER OPTIONS ARE NOT AVAILABLE. Like in an emergency situation where the MacPro, or iMac aren't available. This should NOT be the MAIN choice for your primary editing machine. Not for a documentary with a lot of footage.

The LOWEST END machine I'd recommend is an iMac. Best to have a MacPro or MacBook Pro, so that you have some expandibility when it comes to connecting hard drives and possible capture cards.

MacMini as a main machine...no way. Why even PONDER it? Do you not think your project is important enough to get a PROPER machine to edit it with?
 
Shane Ross said:
The LOWEST END machine I'd recommend is an iMac. Best to have a MacPro or MacBook Pro, so that you have some expandibility when it comes to connecting hard drives and possible capture cards.
Click to expand...
I'll take the liberty of adding the qualifying state of "a MacBook Pro that has an ExpressCard34 slot." :beer:


-Andrew
 
We're editing some doc stuff on a new quad-core iMac, shot on the GH1 and 7D. It seems to hold up pretty well and we've got about four terabytes of storage daisy-chained through the single 800 port.

It's faster than my macbook pro by a noticeable amount with renderings, encodings, etc. However, when it comes time to capture some old stuff from tape with a Matrox in a couple of weeks...I'll have to use the laptop. Trade-offs...
 
Shane Ross said:
>it's far from the ideal by a long shot. But I think it could work in a pinch.

IN A PINCH...meaning IF YOU HAD TO, or IF ALL OTHER OPTIONS ARE NOT AVAILABLE. Like in an emergency situation where the MacPro, or iMac aren't available. This should NOT be the MAIN choice for your primary editing machine. Not for a documentary with a lot of footage.

The LOWEST END machine I'd recommend is an iMac. Best to have a MacPro or MacBook Pro, so that you have some expandibility when it comes to connecting hard drives and possible capture cards.

MacMini as a main machine...no way. Why even PONDER it? Do you not think your project is important enough to get a PROPER machine to edit it with?
Click to expand...

Normally I'd be with you 100% but now that we have decent (IMHO) HD DSLR cameras like the T2i that are costing $700 I have to at least be open to the possibility that these a lowly Mac Mini will allow you to cut FCP for 24p/HD. Are they my first recommendation, absolutely not. Are they preferable say to editing in Vegas/Avid/ Premiere on a PC- for me you betcha.

Noah
 
David S. said:
No Mac Mini, but a solid 15 inch MBP may be fine.
Click to expand...

Shane Ross said:
The LOWEST END machine I'd recommend is an iMac. Best to have a MacPro or MacBook Pro, so that you have some expandibility when it comes to connecting hard drives and possible capture cards.

MacMini as a main machine...no way. Why even PONDER it? Do you not think your project is important enough to get a PROPER machine to edit it with?
Click to expand...


I'm confused by this.
Don't the MacMini and the MacBook pro have the same video chip, the same single Firewire port, and basically the same processors?

How is a MacBook Pro preferable at all?
 
>Don't the MacMini and the MacBook pro have the same video chip, the same single Firewire port, and basically the same processors?

No, different video card. The NEW MacBook Pros have TWO!

>How is a MacBook Pro preferable at all?

More RAM available in a MBP. Express34 slot for expandibility: extra FW ports, or eSATA, or ability to connect to a capture device like an MXO2, or AJA IO HD, IO Express, MOTU unit. Video card is BETTER. The mini is a very bare bones consumer computer.
 
OK

I was looking at the lower end MacBook Pros, which have the same 9400M video as the MacMini.
Didn't even notice the more expensive ones have two, with one appearing to be the same and one better.
 
I'm debating on the Quadcore Imac verses a Macpro Refurb right now. The Refurb is $200 more. I just don't know which I should buy. I have never owned a refurb anything.
 
Shane Ross said:
>Don't the MacMini and the MacBook pro have the same video chip, the same single Firewire port, and basically the same processors?

No, different video card. The NEW MacBook Pros have TWO!

>How is a MacBook Pro preferable at all?

More RAM available in a MBP. Express34 slot for expandibility: extra FW ports, or eSATA, or ability to connect to a capture device like an MXO2, or AJA IO HD, IO Express, MOTU unit. Video card is BETTER. The mini is a very bare bones consumer computer.
Click to expand...



Please post correct information. Yes the new MBP (15.4 ) have two video cards, but you can only use one at a time. A computer is a computer, point blank and period.

A friend of mine is cutting footage on a 2007 Macbook pro at Full Hd Res with an external Hd, that's all. The only thing is graphics need to be in 8 bit as the card does not allow 10.

If my friend had a newer Mac Mini which carries a faster processor, supports firewire 800, and has a better graphics card then his job would be faster/easier.

I believe it is truly unfair for you to make such comments as fact, when these are more of your opinion. It's just like video people saying DSLR are not real video cameras.

Mac Mini is more than capable of running an Full HD 1080 24fps FCP project.


Richard J. Johnson said:
I'm debating on the Quadcore Imac verses a Macpro Refurb right now. The Refurb is $200 more. I just don't know which I should buy. I have never owned a refurb anything.
Click to expand...


THe refurbished computers from Apple are basically new and come with a 1 year warranty, no need to worry at all. A Mac Mini cost about $700, a Quad Core Imac about $1600-$1700. No doubt it is a better computer due to the processors but the Mac Mini on a budget is more than able to use FCP. Mac Pro is a nice computer but in my opinion it is overpriced. I would save that money and put it towards my camera if it were me :)
 
I'm not certain how Shane's remark is incorrect. The new MBP do have two video cards. Shane never indicated or suggested you can use two at the same time.

Certainly a computer is computer, but different computer models have different capabilities, and FCS2 and FCS 2009 are dependent on some of those capabilities for certain features.

In my opinion, a Mac Mini isn't a good computer for running FCS at all, especially when compared to a MBP 15.4 inch or MacPro

Why do you indicate a Mac Pro is "over priced?" Over priced compared to what?
 
David S. said:
I'm not certain how Shane's remark is incorrect. The new MBP do have two video cards. Shane never indicated or suggested you can use two at the same time.

Certainly a computer is computer, but different computer models have different capabilities, and FCS2 and FCS 2009 are dependent on some of those capabilities for certain features.

In my opinion, a Mac Mini isn't a good computer for running FCS at all, especially when compared to a MBP 15.4 inch or MacPro

Why do you indicate a Mac Pro is "over priced?" Over priced compared to what?
Click to expand...


Yes you are correct , but by someone reading his post it would make you think that the computer uses two graphic cards when it does not. Only one can be used at a time, not like Mac Pros or other dual card machines.


Second unless you have used a Mac Mini which cost less than a $1000 I would not say it is not a good computer.


gallery-big-02.jpg



2.66GHZ Core 2 Duo, 4Gbs of Ram , 256 NVIDIA GeForce 9400M graphics card, fire wire 800 port, etc.

This computer is more than capable to run FCP, sure a Mac Pro and Imac with quad/octo cores will allow faster rendering + more crunching , but for someone on a budget a $1000 mac mini can fully run FCP. IMO this is something the OP should highly consider and save some money, at least that's what I would do.
 
Whatever. Do what you want. I guess I'm too much of a PRO to consider the small mini powerful enough for working with HD.

What is "full HD" anyway?
 
Shane Ross said:
Whatever. Do what you want. I guess I'm too much of a PRO to consider the small mini powerful enough for working with HD.

What is "full HD" anyway?
Click to expand...

"Pro", lol.


My Full HD comment was referring to 1920 x 1080p, which for commercial world is a standard. I have worked on a MBP, MP and MAC MINI and while the MP is the fastest the price tag was a lot more.

Exploring options for a less than $1000 computer is not a bad idea and IMO a very good choice. 2.66 Core Duo processors is actually pretty powerful, couple that with 4gbs of ram, excellent hard drive and a descent video card ( 256mb ) and you have a stable system.


Sure you cant run 4-5 screens and render huge effects compared to the Mac Pro, but at a price of at least $1000+ less I feel that the MAC MINI is an excellent computer and unless your doing movies like Star Trek for the big screen that Mac Mini is more than enough.


$0.02
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top