MBP capable to handle what I want to do?

Jump to First Reply
Posted:
in Current Mac Hardware edited January 2014
Hello everyone,



I'm a college student and I'm in need of a new laptop. I had received an HP notebook for my birthday a few months ago, but to my dismay, it's not powerful enough to do what I need it to do: Video Editing. I'm a broadcast major, so we're required to do a lot of shooting and editing. So that means I'm using a lot of Final Cut Pro and I'm also required to learn Motion.



To get straight to the point, I need to get a new notebook, preferrably a Mac, to do what I need to do. I've been looking at the Mac Book Pro Core 2 Duos and they seem to be what I need. However, I'm not really sure if they are capable of running Final Cut Pro and Motion decently. So, does anyone know whether the MBP C2D 15" 2.16 GHZ model will be powerful enough to do what I need to do? Also, how big of a performance leap would I get if I got the 2.33 GHZ model over the 2.16 GHZ model? Thanks a lot!

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 12
    kfdankfdan Posts: 81member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by wing70301 View Post


    Hello everyone,



    I'm a college student and I'm in need of a new laptop. I had received an HP notebook for my birthday a few months ago, but to my dismay, it's not powerful enough to do what I need it to do: Video Editing. I'm a broadcast major, so we're required to do a lot of shooting and editing. So that means I'm using a lot of Final Cut Pro and I'm also required to learn Motion.



    To get straight to the point, I need to get a new notebook, preferrably a Mac, to do what I need to do. I've been looking at the Mac Book Pro Core 2 Duos and they seem to be what I need. However, I'm not really sure if they are capable of running Final Cut Pro and Motion decently. So, does anyone know whether the MBP C2D 15" 2.16 GHZ model will be powerful enough to do what I need to do? Also, how big of a performance leap would I get if I got the 2.33 GHZ model over the 2.16 GHZ model? Thanks a lot!



    Unless you need a lot of screen realestate (video editing does) I'd get the new 12" coming out soon. It will have all the same connections that the 17" C2D has but will be more compact. You need at least 2.33 CPU for video capture and editing in HD.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 2 of 12
    kickahakickaha Posts: 8,760member
    Just to clarify...



    The 12" MacBook Pro is sheer speculation at this point. Nobody knows if it's a real product or not.



    The claim that you need "at least [a] 2.33 [GHz] CPU" for HD editing is based on... what? The Final Cut Pro page states: HD features require 1GHz or faster single or dual processors (authoring HD DVDs requires a PowerPC G5, Intel Core Duo processor, or Intel Xeon processor). I do believe that even the 2.16GHz Core Duo is faster than 1.0GHz, and sufficiently so to take care of any buffer for 'minimum requirement' phobia.



    Your statement about video editing requiring screen real estate is valid, however, in which case, given the current lineup of known products, a 15" MacBook Pro and an external monitor would seem to be the best balance for portability and a dedicated workstation.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 3 of 12
    I wouldn't bet on a 12'' MacBook Pro, that seems highly unlikely. Get the current MBP, it will be plenty powerful enough. Although, you may as well wait a few days just on the off-chance that a new MBP is released at MacWorld Expo.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 4 of 12
    jvbjvb Posts: 210member
    A MacBook Pro at any clock speed will be plenty sufficient for Final Cut Pro, and the future Adobe Premier if you choose to use that. Don't worry about it.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 5 of 12
    Marvinmarvin Posts: 15,563moderator
    I don't know about how capable the MBP would be because it depends on what you do. What I know is that I use Pixlet compression quite a lot because it's the only codec that maintains the quality well enough for me on certain types of animation. However, an intel iMac chokes on 1024x576 resolution video. I don't know if it's the codec but I suspect it's the throughput because a quad G5 is fine playing it.



    So although in terms of CPU performance, the Intel chips are on par with the G5s, the system throughput of the Intel machines (with the exception of the Mac Pro) is not on par with the G5 desktops and when you deal with video, that is what you need.



    You should try out the MBP yourself though because that's the only way you will be able to find out if it will or won't meet your specific needs. Weighing up the price, I'd be tempted to go for a Mac Pro instead.



    Now if you need portability, then you have to consider that FCP is an industry standard video tool, not available on anything except a Mac and the fastest Mac portable is the MBP so if you need portability and FCP then you have little choice.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 6 of 12
    splinemodelsplinemodel Posts: 7,311member
    Possibly, the pixlet codec isn't a universal binary or is optimized for altivec. Otherwise, the Core Duo is quite a good chip. I think it runs integers faster than the G5.



    Either way, you can't get a G5 laptop, so you'll have to deal with Core Duo no matter what path you're taking. Considering that video professional seem to use 'em, I bet any of the models will rock. If you can get a good FW800 or external SATA drive, that might also be a good thing to have.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 7 of 12
    my brother uses a 15" MBP core duo 1.8Ghz with FCP to do freelance video editing and animation, all current MBPs are now core 2 Duo and FASTER so you should be fine. what more do you need to know?
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 8 of 12
    First off, even if the 12" MacBook weren't a rumor, why the hell would you suggest that to someone using it for video editing?



    Anyway, for the OP, you're not going to find a computer faster than the MacBook Pro. Intel Core 2 Duo is the fastest mobile processor on the market right now, so unless another manufacturer sells one with a slightly higher clock speed, this is it. I don't know how it works for HD editing (I'd imagine the hard drive would be a problem for that), but I've done a few short (10 minute) films on much, much older computers (a trusty G4 500 Mhz) that had a fraction of the power.



    Also, you're not going to find a better video editing program than Final Cut Pro, either... Adobe Premiere is so buggy it's completely unusable and Avid only is good on the high end, and even then, that's questionable. Not all of Apple's pro programs are all that great, but Final Cut Pro is not only the best out there, it's so easy to use (once you learn it) it's like using a scalpel.



    Also, if you NEED to use FCP and Motion, then you should get a Mac. Having to use a computer lab during finals is an absolute nightmare.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 9 of 12
    guarthoguartho Posts: 1,208member
    I made it through college and got my broadcasting degree with a Blue & White G3 and later a Quicksilver G4 867.* I now own a video production company and our most recent corporate video was put together primarily on a 1.8Ghz MacBook. Not MacBook Pro, MacBook. Most of the work was done with an external monitor and the scratch files were kept on an external FW HD.



    If I were you, had the dough, and needed portability I'd buy the low end MacBook Pro. Not because it has more raw power than the MacBook, but because it has FW800 and the card slot which will allow you to add eSATA. This way you can get great throughput from an external HD. Get a decent sized external monitor as most of your editing will be done at a desk anyway.



    Having 'enough' power but not the max available will help you to become an efficient editor as well.



    The short version is, "Yes, it will do what you need"











    *I could have made it all the way through school on my G3, but I accidentally killed it when I replaced the power supply. I did eventually resurrect it, but not until 6 months later.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 10 of 12
    guarthoguartho Posts: 1,208member
    HDV has the same bitrate as miniDV. It's more processor intensive, but the HD speed shouldn't be anymore of an issue than it already is with DV. If you're working uncompressed than yes, HD speed will be an issue.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 11 of 12
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by gregmightdothat View Post




    Also, you're not going to find a better video editing program than Final Cut Pro, either... Adobe Premiere is so buggy it's completely unusable and Avid only is good on the high end, and even then, that's questionable. Not all of Apple's pro programs are all that great, but Final Cut Pro is not only the best out there, it's so easy to use (once you learn it) it's like using a scalpel.



    Have you even used a recent version of Premiere? Premiere Pro 2.0 is great, granted it's no FCP, but its pretty damn close...fast and extremely stable.



    12" for video editing... half of the time I find my 15" too small for video editing!



    And they require you to use Motion? Change schools now.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
  • Reply 12 of 12
    eckingecking Posts: 1,588member
    I use my 2.0 core duo(not core 2) 128mb ati gpu totin' mbp for hd editing all the time and use FCP Studio all the time. There is nothing to be worried about for a broadcast student. I'm a film student and I got no problems.
     0Likes 0Dislikes 0Informatives
Sign In or Register to comment.