Mac For Video Editing 201310/18/2021
It offers faster renders and the new Metal engine allows you to edit more complex projects and works with higher frame rates and more effects. This is a top video editing software for Mac from a reputed brand like Adobe has everything that most users are looking for.The 16in MacBook Pro is a good video-editing machine, and the one to get if you need to edit video on the move, but again, this is a Mac that is likely to get one of Apple's M-series processors soon.Final Cut uses up to 18GB of RAM, so 16GB or more is recommended. Also, MacBooks are NOT gaming laptops. Look for another brand for gaming.The Best Mac for Video Editing Is What Mac laptop should you get Well, the answer depends on whether you are a passionate amateur or a professional video editor with lots of deadlines to meet. But, the good thing is that laptops today have become powerful and flexible enough to handle even the most complicated video editing task.13-inch MacBook Pro comes standard with 8GB of high-performance 2400MHz memory and can be expanded to 16GB, using 2400MHz Double Data Rate 4 (DDR4) synchronous dynamic random-access memory (SDRAM).It was maligned constantly for being a trashcan. Above is how the design should have looked. Games will perform better if you use Windows using Boot Camp.Note: the item that I recommend may not be the latest model, if you can, upgrade. If you’re planning to run multiple professional applications like Final Cut Pro X, it’s a good idea to max out your memory.2013 Mac Pro 6-Core Review. The dual GPU and primary use of the Mac Pro as a video editing workstation, however, were the deciding factors.Note: MacBook Pro memory is not user accessible. If you think you may need more memory in the future, consider upgrading at the time of purchase.MacBooks are great for casual gaming.
If the software only uses one CPU core or one GPU you're not going to see a performance benefit from the Mac Pro and it will even be slightly slower. It's not as fast as the latest iMac 2017 for single core performance or single GPU performance. Thunderbolt on Hackintosh is again a reliability issue and on PC it doesn't even work as it's a Mac standard.Liberates your PC from work desk, so you can use it for gaming, which is something it is actually good atHigh multicore performance - still right up there in 2018MacOS upgrades don't break things (risky on Hackintosh)You avoid 5K retina display scaling issues in Premiere and can watch 4K material at 1:1 on a 4K display - or even Cinema 4K display (4096 x 2160)Can upgrade CPU, SSD, RAM (unlike iMac where you can only upgrade RAM and rest is locked in or very difficult to change)Mid-range 6 core / dual D500 model is now £1800 in UK (second hand), quad core / D300 sometimes even less (£1200)Bullet proof reliable and long-life pro componentsWorkstation grade ECC RAM (error checking)Internal SSD (a lot of iMacs still fusion drive - WTF Apple!)There are a few drawbacks of course, as this is a 4 years old computer. IMac / iMac Pro cannot.In fact it can run 6x 5K displays daisychained! (Ok yes that's overkill)Quieter than a PC and much smaller than 99% of them as wellHackintosh often needs wired mouse and keyboard (bluetooth lags) and LAN connection (wifi problems), even if everything else works perfectlyThunderbolt compatible for external graphics card and RAID drives. Can't think of any other downsides. Dual D500 not as fast for gaming as a single GTX 970 in a PC which won't break the bank but then that is what a PC is for and a Mac Pro is not. FCPX runs great on either system, as it is designed for newer architecture. New iMac Pro smokes it in performance in every way but it is bonkers expensive and you won't see a huge performance benefit in everyday apps like Adobe stuff because Adobe are lazy fuckwits who don't optimise their software for years and years. That should tell you something cause that’s one hell of a GPU. I upgraded the shit out of the 2010, including an Nvidia GTX 980ti and I still love using the iMac more. CPUs are old as fuck compared to new Kaby’s with h.265 acceleration. DDR3 not 4.For reference, I’ve got a 6 core 3.33 2010 Mac Pro collecting dust while I’m running my 2017 maxed out iMac (costs the same as lowest spec Trash Can Pro) connected to a Dell 4K. Where do I start? There are many many reasons why people shouldn’t be on a Mac Pro. ![]() Much less easy to do that with an iMac, you can't get it in carry-on for a start. Mac Pro, you can put in a camera case and go to another country, hook it up there to a screen. Am I allowed to do that sir, on my own site!? You ok with that?Then there is the form factor. That is why I started the thread. Instant hd plugin mac torrentI don't know why the 2017 model is so much faster maybe it's the Kaby Lake Quick Sync. There is a major and generally unreported performance increase between the 20 iMac 27 on H264 material in FCPX. In FCPX the iMac is about 2x faster at importing and creating ProRes proxies and 2x faster at exporting to 4k or 1080p H264. Trashcan or not.As a documentary editor with 200 terabytes of archival 4k H264 material, I've extensively tested the 12-core D700 nMP vs a top-spec 2017 iMac 27. Whoever recommends same option for everyone is an idiot.I do my editing in H.264 and ProRes.if your software is utilising the TWO GPUs on the Mac Pro, and you picked up a D700 spec Mac Pro cheap, it's a good buy. For Video Editing 2013 Code To ProResRegarding acoustic noise, these spinning Thunderbolt RAID arrays also make noise, so the iMac fan noise under load is just one more thing. However I have multiple 32TB Thunderbolt 2 arrays simultaneously on my 2017 iMac and they work OK. The nMP has lots of ports and multiple Thunderbolt 2 controllers feeding those ports. However if you acquire H264 then transcode to ProRes for editing, the 12-core D700 nMP transcodes only 1/2 as fast as the 2017 iMac (using FCPX).That said the nMP is very quiet, whereas the iMac fans spin up under sustained load. If you do ProRes acquisition and have an end-to-end ProRes workflow, the nMP is pretty fast, at least from my tests. Obviously performance in Premiere or Resolve may be different.On ProRes it's a different story. I'm still testing it, but on complex real-world H264 timelines with lots of edits and many effects, the iMac Pro rendering and encoding performance to H264 is only about 15-20% faster than the 2017 iMac. However even the 10-core Vega 64 iMac Pro isn't vastly faster on H264 than the 2017 top-spec iMac. The iMac Pro is much faster than the nMP, especially on H264, because FCPX is apparently calling the UVD/VCE transcoding hardware on the Vega GPU. They each must be evaluated separately, and performance results in one NLE don't necessarily apply to another.I've also done preliminary FCPX performance testing on both 8-core and 10-core iMac Pros. If you are using Resolve and Premiere those are each unique workloads, even when processing the same material. However Resolve and Premiere are both cross-platform so you also have the option of going Windows which gives you many hardware choices - a blessing and a curse. The iMac Pro remains very quiet under heavy load, more like the nMP.In your situation I'd be tempted to either get a top-spec 2017 iMac or that $4000 deal on the base-model iMac Pro or wait for the modular Mac Pro. On some specific effects such as sharpen and aged film, the iMac Pro is about 2x faster whether the codec is ProRes or H264.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply.AuthorMichele ArchivesCategories |