New iMac Pro!

KrocanX said:
Well, you are right. Apples to apples. I did not explain it correctly, sorry. The thing is that there was no iMac in same price range and similir speced iMac would cost me way more even though I would prefer iMac. I cant switch to FCPX (some clients want AE a PPRo projects) so Adobe is the way. I also usualy hit the celling of 64 GB of RAM with Adobe. So buying new machine with less than 128GB would not make sense for my point of view.

Anyway I dont want to start again discussion Apple vs PC. Simply was trying to agree with you haha. Adobe is not Mac friendly haha
Click to expand...

I also don't mean to say Adobe users should use a Mac. Just trying to point out that the Macs are worth the cost for those of us not using Adobe software. They may seem over priced to some people but if one uses FCPX and the pro apps a machine like the iMac Pro is very welcome. Users of other applications may not have the same insane ram requirements as Adobe users so there isn't as much of a necessity to have a system with 64GB or 128GB of ram. Not to say it wouldn't help in some situations for some users but FCPX generally doesn't need as much so a iMac Pro with 32GB will likely run into much less ram issues with FCPX than a PC user might need with Adobe.

If an Adobe user finds a PC to provide a lot more bang for buck then by all means go that route. For the Apple application user we don't have that option. We pay more but so what. Thats our choice.

Keep in mind we also don't have to pay rent to Adobe to get the same amount of work done. Over five years Adobe costs $3,000. FCPX/Motion/Compressor is $400 for life. Any extra paid for a Mac is made up with the "Adobe Tax" on the PC side after a few years. If you have a small business with multiple users the cost goes up even more. Apple can install on up to five machines. Adobe on two but technically not used at the same time. I can have five editors and I still pay $400 for five years of use. Adobe legally is $15,000 for five editors over five years. Now which platform costs more? Even for an individual you are talking $3,000 over five years and it doesn't stop there. From the day FCPX came out we have not been charged another penny and that isn't likely to change anytime soon. We also don't have to pay monthly to use Office software. Pages, Numbers and Keynote are free. Maybe not as featured as Office 365 but I use both at work and the Apple apps are vastly more efficient and easier to use than Office 365 could ever dream to be. All that stuff adds up over time and it is important to factor in all costs when talking about a Mac vs PC. In one uses the free Resolve and Open Office then sure a PC will be more powerful for equal money and not have any accumulated costs over time. But Adobe users end up paying more or the same as Mac users in the end. We just pay at different times.
 
Thomas Smet said:
I also don't mean to say Adobe users should use a Mac. Just trying to point out that the Macs are worth the cost for those of us not using Adobe software. They may seem over priced to some people but if one uses FCPX and the pro apps a machine like the iMac Pro is very welcome. Users of other applications may not have the same insane ram requirements as Adobe users so there isn't as much of a necessity to have a system with 64GB or 128GB of ram. Not to say it wouldn't help in some situations for some users but FCPX generally doesn't need as much so a iMac Pro with 32GB will likely run into much less ram issues with FCPX than a PC user might need with Adobe.

If an Adobe user finds a PC to provide a lot more bang for buck then by all means go that route. For the Apple application user we don't have that option. We pay more but so what. Thats our choice.

Keep in mind we also don't have to pay rent to Adobe to get the same amount of work done. Over five years Adobe costs $3,000. FCPX/Motion/Compressor is $400 for life. Any extra paid for a Mac is made up with the "Adobe Tax" on the PC side after a few years. If you have a small business with multiple users the cost goes up even more. Apple can install on up to five machines. Adobe on two but technically not used at the same time. I can have five editors and I still pay $400 for five years of use. Adobe legally is $15,000 for five editors over five years. Now which platform costs more? Even for an individual you are talking $3,000 over five years and it doesn't stop there. From the day FCPX came out we have not been charged another penny and that isn't likely to change anytime soon. We also don't have to pay monthly to use Office software. Pages, Numbers and Keynote are free. Maybe not as featured as Office 365 but I use both at work and the Apple apps are vastly more efficient and easier to use than Office 365 could ever dream to be. All that stuff adds up over time and it is important to factor in all costs when talking about a Mac vs PC. In one uses the free Resolve and Open Office then sure a PC will be more powerful for equal money and not have any accumulated costs over time. But Adobe users end up paying more or the same as Mac users in the end. We just pay at different times.
Click to expand...

Great perspective Thomas and the precise reason I am on FCP X and Resolve. I HATE subscriptions, I already have to have them for Vimeo Pro and several other apps/programs, so the idea of paying Adobe or AVID for ProTools or MC for life is abhorrent to me. I hope that Apple and Blackmagic never go to the subscription model.
 
I share pretty much the same philosophy as Thomas ^. I started out many years ago as a very loyal Adobe user... but they have since lost me and I ended subscription probably two years ago now. And it seems every month or so I find a new non-subscription program/app that does very well for my needs and is a one-time payment only.
 
Thomas Smet said:
I also don't mean to say Adobe users should use a Mac. Just trying to point out that the Macs are worth the cost for those of us not using Adobe software. They may seem over priced to some people but if one uses FCPX and the pro apps a machine like the iMac Pro is very welcome. Users of other applications may not have the same insane ram requirements as Adobe users so there isn't as much of a necessity to have a system with 64GB or 128GB of ram. Not to say it wouldn't help in some situations for some users but FCPX generally doesn't need as much so a iMac Pro with 32GB will likely run into much less ram issues with FCPX than a PC user might need with Adobe.

If an Adobe user finds a PC to provide a lot more bang for buck then by all means go that route. For the Apple application user we don't have that option. We pay more but so what. Thats our choice.

Keep in mind we also don't have to pay rent to Adobe to get the same amount of work done. Over five years Adobe costs $3,000. FCPX/Motion/Compressor is $400 for life. Any extra paid for a Mac is made up with the "Adobe Tax" on the PC side after a few years. If you have a small business with multiple users the cost goes up even more. Apple can install on up to five machines. Adobe on two but technically not used at the same time. I can have five editors and I still pay $400 for five years of use. Adobe legally is $15,000 for five editors over five years. Now which platform costs more? Even for an individual you are talking $3,000 over five years and it doesn't stop there. From the day FCPX came out we have not been charged another penny and that isn't likely to change anytime soon. We also don't have to pay monthly to use Office software. Pages, Numbers and Keynote are free. Maybe not as featured as Office 365 but I use both at work and the Apple apps are vastly more efficient and easier to use than Office 365 could ever dream to be. All that stuff adds up over time and it is important to factor in all costs when talking about a Mac vs PC. In one uses the free Resolve and Open Office then sure a PC will be more powerful for equal money and not have any accumulated costs over time. But Adobe users end up paying more or the same as Mac users in the end. We just pay at different times.
Click to expand...

I am anti-subscription. I prefer to pay a one time cost for the software. So I will never ever use Adobe. It is FCPX for videos. Even stopped upgrading the lightroom (for still photography) after the subscription model came up. And I have no intention of ever going back to windows.

iMac Pro looks a bit pricey. It is not yet launched in India. Apple is still trying to arm twist the India Government to allow online sales (single brand retail) without fulfilling the Indian law. So the cost in India is always a lot more than what you guys pay in US. May be a new iMac instead of iMac Pro. The decision has to wait. However, I have to admit that the specs of iMac Pro is mouthwatering.
 
Thomas Smet said:
I also don't mean to say Adobe users should use a Mac. Just trying to point out that the Macs are worth the cost for those of us not using Adobe software. They may seem over priced to some people but if one uses FCPX and the pro apps a machine like the iMac Pro is very welcome. Users of other applications may not have the same insane ram requirements as Adobe users so there isn't as much of a necessity to have a system with 64GB or 128GB of ram. Not to say it wouldn't help in some situations for some users but FCPX generally doesn't need as much so a iMac Pro with 32GB will likely run into much less ram issues with FCPX than a PC user might need with Adobe.

If an Adobe user finds a PC to provide a lot more bang for buck then by all means go that route. For the Apple application user we don't have that option. We pay more but so what. Thats our choice.

Keep in mind we also don't have to pay rent to Adobe to get the same amount of work done. Over five years Adobe costs $3,000. FCPX/Motion/Compressor is $400 for life. Any extra paid for a Mac is made up with the "Adobe Tax" on the PC side after a few years. If you have a small business with multiple users the cost goes up even more. Apple can install on up to five machines. Adobe on two but technically not used at the same time. I can have five editors and I still pay $400 for five years of use. Adobe legally is $15,000 for five editors over five years. Now which platform costs more? Even for an individual you are talking $3,000 over five years and it doesn't stop there. From the day FCPX came out we have not been charged another penny and that isn't likely to change anytime soon. We also don't have to pay monthly to use Office software. Pages, Numbers and Keynote are free. Maybe not as featured as Office 365 but I use both at work and the Apple apps are vastly more efficient and easier to use than Office 365 could ever dream to be. All that stuff adds up over time and it is important to factor in all costs when talking about a Mac vs PC. In one uses the free Resolve and Open Office then sure a PC will be more powerful for equal money and not have any accumulated costs over time. But Adobe users end up paying more or the same as Mac users in the end. We just pay at different times.
Click to expand...

Exactly this. I've had a lot of PC/Adobe users tell me I was 'paying too much'
for a Mac instead of going with a PC and they referred to 'the Apple tax.' I told them
I had saved enough money switching from Adobe to FCPX/Motion/Compressor/Affinity
once CC came out...that I had enough to buy a new computer and some other goodies as well.
'Adobe tax' indeed.
 
Thomas Smet said:
I also don't mean to say Adobe users should use a Mac. Just trying to point out that the Macs are worth the cost for those of us not using Adobe software. They may seem over priced to some people but if one uses FCPX and the pro apps a machine like the iMac Pro is very welcome. Users of other applications may not have the same insane ram requirements as Adobe users so there isn't as much of a necessity to have a system with 64GB or 128GB of ram. Not to say it wouldn't help in some situations for some users but FCPX generally doesn't need as much so a iMac Pro with 32GB will likely run into much less ram issues with FCPX than a PC user might need with Adobe.

If an Adobe user finds a PC to provide a lot more bang for buck then by all means go that route. For the Apple application user we don't have that option. We pay more but so what. Thats our choice.

Keep in mind we also don't have to pay rent to Adobe to get the same amount of work done. Over five years Adobe costs $3,000. FCPX/Motion/Compressor is $400 for life. Any extra paid for a Mac is made up with the "Adobe Tax" on the PC side after a few years. If you have a small business with multiple users the cost goes up even more. Apple can install on up to five machines. Adobe on two but technically not used at the same time. I can have five editors and I still pay $400 for five years of use. Adobe legally is $15,000 for five editors over five years. Now which platform costs more? Even for an individual you are talking $3,000 over five years and it doesn't stop there. From the day FCPX came out we have not been charged another penny and that isn't likely to change anytime soon. We also don't have to pay monthly to use Office software. Pages, Numbers and Keynote are free. Maybe not as featured as Office 365 but I use both at work and the Apple apps are vastly more efficient and easier to use than Office 365 could ever dream to be. All that stuff adds up over time and it is important to factor in all costs when talking about a Mac vs PC. In one uses the free Resolve and Open Office then sure a PC will be more powerful for equal money and not have any accumulated costs over time. But Adobe users end up paying more or the same as Mac users in the end. We just pay at different times.
Click to expand...

That is all well and fine until Apple decides to kill FCPro X.

They do have a history of this, after all.

Tombstones.jpg
 
mcgeedigital said:
That is all well and fine until Apple decides to kill FCPro X.

They do have a history of this, after all.

View attachment 128400
Click to expand...

Why on earth would Apple kill one of their most purchased apps? To be fair Adobe killed Encore and also killed the older form of Premiere. Adobe has also killed a lot of other programs like fireworks and Flash is more or less dead now. Adobe has killed just as many applications. FCP7 had to go for the same reason Premiere should go. It was bloated old code and represented an old fashioned outlook at how to edit video. The philosophy of Apple is to no longer need 500 applications to get the job done. Adobe wants to pad their CC offering by creating new applications that should just be an added feature to existing programs. Its a smokescreen to make users feel like they are getting more value out of CC. Why would I need to use a separate program to edit audio like Audition when I can edit audio perfectly right inside of FCPX? Apple didn't kill programs as much as they learned how to merge the important aspect of the side programs into the main program.

You can't really consider an evolution from FCP7 to FCPX a death since FCPX replaced FCP7. Cinematools is no longer needed by 99% of the world. There was little point to support it anymore and many of the features were rolled into FCPX or Compressor.

DVD Studio Pro = Encore and all companies are guilty of killing off DVD authoring a little prematurely. The fact that I have to install Premiere CS6 just to get Encore is 100x more appalling.

I will give you Shake and back when I did VFX that was a huge punch to the gut. I spent many years not able to forgive Apple for that one. Fusion has since 100% filled that gap so I am happy. To be fair Apple did have Motion which some features of Shake were rolled into. Nowhere near a justification but it isn't as if Apple ditched compositing and motion graphics that 99% of their customers were actually going to do.

FCPX is not going anywhere anytime soon and has about as much of a chance of failing as any other NLE out there. Looking at Vegas, Encore, Avid and any other lesser known NLE out there. The FCPX user base is growing every day and some pros that are able to get over their initial hatred and gut reaction to FCPX are starting to take a second look. Where will Adobe be when users are tired of the subscription model and no longer want to pay the Adobe Tax? Once editors really give FCPX a chance very few leave it.
 
I just finished editing a corporate project in FCP X 10.3.4 a few minutes ago, just uploaded a cut to Vimeo Pro for client notes. I have to say, FCP X is getting better and better. Having decades of experience with AVID, FCP Studio and Premiere over the years, I have to say the Apple way of doing things in FCP X is pecularialry single minded. In FCP 7, we used to make comparisons with AVID because AVID was so rigid, there was only one way to do anything in AVID while in FCP Studio, there were numerous ways to accomplish the same task, allowing editors the freedom to use the ways of doing things that worked for them and appealed to them. In FCP X, some of that flexibility is still there but the magnetic timeline and how the program handles audio is kind of a PITA for certain things and it seems very rigid. As I cut more and more with it though, I am getting used to it's quirks. I purchased the Larry Jordan training videos, which I really need to actually sit down and watch to learn the "proper" way to do certain things. I just opened up FCP X a couple of years ago and just started figuring it out but I have the feeling that there are a lot of cool things that I don't even know exist with roles, certain keyboard shortcuts, batch processes, etc.

Premiere or any other subscription model are out for me, it feels like extortion and I won't do it unless I am forced to or if someone else is paying the price. Personally I am going to be devoting a few days of time to better learning how to actually edit, handle audio and the finer points of Resolve. I find Resolve much more exciting than any other editing program, I just need to sit down with the YouTube videos and dig in. The CC and audio capability alone make it worth it and the cost is very reasonable, Kudos to BMD for stepping up and making a pretty cool program and constantly updating it. I think between FCP X and Resolve, I will never have to worry about Adobe or AVID again.
 
puredrifting said:
Personally I am going to be devoting a few days of time to better learning how to actually edit, handle audio and the finer points of Resolve. I find Resolve much more exciting than any other editing program, I just need to sit down with the YouTube videos and dig in. The CC and audio capability alone make it worth it and the cost is very reasonable, Kudos to BMD for stepping up and making a pretty cool program and constantly updating it.
Click to expand...

Coming from FCP 7, the transition to Resolve was much easier than going from 7 to x. Familiar interface and most of the same keyboard shortcuts.
 
mcgeedigital said:
Yeah Resolve is definitely making all of the right moves on the editing front.
Click to expand...

What's been shocking to me is just how good DaVinci has gotten at optimizing their software for the Mac hardware that's available. Benchmarks I've seen have put it in line or even beating FCPX in some things. To even have it close is incredible considering how different Premiere and FCPX run on newer Mac hardware on the rendering end of things.

I look forward to seeing how Premiere/FCPX/Davinci all compare in benchmarks on the iMac Pro. Typical iMac speed boost normally shows 10-15% improvement in Premiere MAX while FCPX and Resolve have seen 25-30%+ speed boosts in similar render tasks with new machines. What will iMac Pro show? No idea.
 
KyleProhaska said:
What's been shocking to me is just how good DaVinci has gotten at optimizing their software for the Mac hardware that's available. Benchmarks I've seen have put it in line or even beating FCPX in some things. To even have it close is incredible considering how different Premiere and FCPX run on newer Mac hardware on the rendering end of things.

I look forward to seeing how Premiere/FCPX/Davinci all compare in benchmarks on the iMac Pro. Typical iMac speed boost normally shows 10-15% improvement in Premiere MAX while FCPX and Resolve have seen 25-30%+ speed boosts in similar render tasks with new machines. What will iMac Pro show? No idea.
Click to expand...

Comparison tests here: http://blog.vincentlaforet.com/2017/12/12/apples-new-imacpro-has-an-impressive-200-300-speed-bump/

Getting roughly parity performance improvement relative to cost increase. Surprising.............. and worth it if you're a pro editor.
 
Last edited:
Who here plans on buying an imac pro?

I've got a mid 2011 imac that is still chugging away and works pretty well with .r3d and blackmagic raw (so long as I proxy). My dilemma is do I buy a "cheap" 5K imac for $3k or the $5k base imac pro, instead of dropping the $8k on the Mac Pro configuration I actually want.

*edit* looks like the numbers break down like this:

$5599 Imac Pro 8 core base model (but with upgraded graphics card)

5K Imac 4.2ghz, base ram, 1TB ssd - $3099.00
GPU box and card $811
64GB RAM Upgrade (OWC) $798
$44708.00 souped up Imac
 
Last edited:
This is the review I was waiting for...if you're in H264 and 2K land, stick with the i7 iMac...if you're into 4K but especially RAW 4K and 8K...the performance jump is huge. At first I was disappointed (but not shocked) to see the iMac best the iMac Pro in quite a few of his benchmarks that he's used in the past (but wow does FCPX scream with each new update) but once he moves into RAW and 4K the differences are huge. As expected, for 2K performance we've pretty much hit the peak from hardware/software standpoint.

The 8K project took 2hrs+ on the iMac and 16min on iMac Pro.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nLF3g2zF3qs
 
Last edited:
Thomas Smet said:
I also don't mean to say Adobe users should use a Mac. Just trying to point out that the Macs are worth the cost for those of us not using Adobe software. They may seem over priced to some people but if one uses FCPX and the pro apps a machine like the iMac Pro is very welcome. Users of other applications may not have the same insane ram requirements as Adobe users so there isn't as much of a necessity to have a system with 64GB or 128GB of ram. Not to say it wouldn't help in some situations for some users but FCPX generally doesn't need as much so a iMac Pro with 32GB will likely run into much less ram issues with FCPX than a PC user might need with Adobe.

If an Adobe user finds a PC to provide a lot more bang for buck then by all means go that route. For the Apple application user we don't have that option. We pay more but so what. Thats our choice.

Keep in mind we also don't have to pay rent to Adobe to get the same amount of work done. Over five years Adobe costs $3,000. FCPX/Motion/Compressor is $400 for life. Any extra paid for a Mac is made up with the "Adobe Tax" on the PC side after a few years. If you have a small business with multiple users the cost goes up even more. Apple can install on up to five machines. Adobe on two but technically not used at the same time. I can have five editors and I still pay $400 for five years of use. Adobe legally is $15,000 for five editors over five years. Now which platform costs more? Even for an individual you are talking $3,000 over five years and it doesn't stop there. From the day FCPX came out we have not been charged another penny and that isn't likely to change anytime soon. We also don't have to pay monthly to use Office software. Pages, Numbers and Keynote are free. Maybe not as featured as Office 365 but I use both at work and the Apple apps are vastly more efficient and easier to use than Office 365 could ever dream to be. All that stuff adds up over time and it is important to factor in all costs when talking about a Mac vs PC. In one uses the free Resolve and Open Office then sure a PC will be more powerful for equal money and not have any accumulated costs over time. But Adobe users end up paying more or the same as Mac users in the end. We just pay at different times.
Click to expand...

Point taken, BUT, FCPX is just one application. Many of us still need After Effects or at the very least Photoshop to go along with whatever editing program we use. If you use 2, 3 or more Adobe apps on a regular basis the price the negligible.
 
robmneilson said:
Who here plans on buying an imac pro?

I've got a mid 2011 imac that is still chugging away and works pretty well with .r3d and blackmagic raw (so long as I proxy). My dilemma is do I buy a "cheap" 5K imac for $3k or the $5k base imac pro, instead of dropping the $8k on the Mac Pro configuration I actually want.
Click to expand...

Late 2012 iMac owner here. This iMac has been one of the best computers I have ever owned, super reliable (not one glitch or breakdown in five years of daily usage - AppleCare was a bust for this one), a pleasure to use. We bought my wife a new MBP at our local Apple store a few weeks back and the saleserpson answered a few questions for me about the iMac Pro (this was week or two before it came out) and since then, the local Apple store has been hammering me to buy one. Personally, I won't be shooting 8K or even 6K footage (I shot two projects in 6K this year on the RED Weapon, but that was it) much in the foreseeable future. My main camera for the foreseeable future for my own two documentaries is the C200, shooting CRL, which even my 2012 iMac can basically handle although it's not fast. The 2017 basic 27" current iMac is such a good value, even if you up the graphics card and add your own RAM to max it, its still cheap, I cannot fathom spending the big bucks on a new iMac Pro. I am diviidng my time between FCP X and Resolve and even this old iMac is competent, if not a speed demon with both programs. If I edited for a living, I think I would be standing in line for a top of the line iMac Pro but in a given year, editing charges are only about 20% of my overall income so it's probably just not worth it for me. I don't use AE and I am definitely a simpler, more documentary type of editor, although once in a while I will really push my timeline and end up with 14-18 tracks of audio/video, but that is rare, perhaps once or twice a year. For cuts and dissolves, simple motion graphics done in Motion FCP X, and typically short form shows. of 2-15 minutes, the basic iMac fills the bill nicely.

I am actually more interested in acquiring a larger 20-24TB or so RAID 5 system and a basic 2017 or mid 2018 iMac than an iMac Pro at this point.
 
I'm basically in the same boat as you are. I edit a fair bit of 5k footage, but don't do any of my own AE work (other than lower thirds) so I hope to get by with the 5k Imac instead of the big boy one. A RAID tower is likely a more solid investment as well.

I'm so impressed how long my imac has lasted. I brought it in for a graphic card problem (there was a recall on whatever model I had in mine) and they swapped it out...but it didn't fix my problem. So they just installed a new logic board...all for free. I was even past my warranty. I think that support alone is keeping me from just buying a high powered PC.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top