MBP for video editing?

hello, I was wondering if a MBP would be sufficient for video editing. I'm interested in the fact that it has a Firewire 800 port, a real DVI port to connect to a Cinema display, but I have doubts about the low speed hard disk (5400 rpm) and would also like to know whether the X1600 with 128MB would be enough.

 

It should be, I have some friends who do video editing in the field and use MacBook Pros without any problems..... I think they even do it with the 5400rpm drive, although one could always upgrade to a 7200rpm drive if it was a concern.

For what it's worth, they also seem to commonly use an external firewire drive sometimes, rather than the internal drive.

The 128MB X1600 should be fine.

 

Yup, macs are well known in teh video editing dept. OS X is used almost exclusively in video editing stuff, pro level.
Rumor is the 160 gig 5400 rpm drive is as fast as the 100gb 7200 rpm one.

The video card has no bearing on normal video editing.

 

Ya I saw a THG chart that substantiates that claim. http://www23.tomshardware.com/storage25.html?modelx=33&model1=414&model2=426&chart=144
The platter size seems to make up for the difference in rotation speed, but I've seen people say that once you fill the first platter ( 80gigs ) that performance turns towards the 7200 competitor. Still, this isn't too shabby.

 

Cool, thanks. Usually once you fill a drive to the 50% mark, the performance normally takes a dive anyway.

And here I am with 10% free on my 100 gig one 0.o

 

yeah a mac with Final Cut Studio is basically enough to do post production on a feature film. Many many TV/Movie studios are moving towards digital methods and using these less expensive setups, to produce better quality and more efficient work.

Final Cut studio is very very good. I really like using Adobe's production suite because everything is integrated really well, but you can't go wrong with either.

and actually, in terms of basic video editing. iMovie and iDVD in OSX are powerful enough programs to produce very very decent work. iMovie starts to become a hassle once you know about Final Cut though.

 

BTW, I shoudl mention Final Cut PRo is like, a 40 or 50 gig install. So go for that 160 gb HDD.
Yah, only program I've ever seen that requires that much freaking space... I never installed it cause I don't have the room :-D

 

You could use that firewire 800 port... I have a nice RAID0 enclosure next to my machine that I use for video capture.

 

Can someone list the best firewire 800 external hdd's avaliable?

 

Final Cut Studio does not take up 42 gb's of space, the programs are up to 4gb and all the extra content can get up to 42gb's.

http://www.apple.com/finalcutstudio/specs.html

 

I have Finalcut Express..and I was wondering why my drivespace is now half gone (of course I have other programs too). It looks like it can take up 16gb with all the extras even though the program itself is only 500mb. I wasn't paying attention.. I just kept feeding disks in. =P oops

 

I think a MacBook Pro will do you just fine. Now if you are looking at time-sensitive work or A LOT of video editing, you may want something with more power to do all the rendering, like a Mac Pro. But if you are a student or not doing a ton of work with deadlines and such the MacBook Pro will probably work great for you.

**EDIT** I would utilize that FW800 for some exteranl drive space like others have said. Or consider an eSATA express card.

 

Still a few questions...

I think I will use an external drive for video storage. For the internal drive, are there any advantages of choosing the 5400rpm drive over the 7200rpm? Does it run significantly quieter and cooler? If not, I wouldn't mind sacrificing 20Gb for a faster hd speed.

I'm still doubtful about the graphic card, because I really don't know anything about that. If 128MB is already enough for video editing, then why would anybody choose the 256MB? Also, will 256MB generate more noise/heat than the 128MB card?

Is the cinema display also suitable for video editing or is it more for graphic design? Would kind of panel is inside? TN, IPS, MVA, PVA? ( http://www.answers.com/topic/tft-lcd)

 

For applications that do make use of extra VRAM, the extra video memory can help...... some of the graphical features of OS X (particular 10.5) might benefit from it as well; for example, the Expose and Spaces functions, if using lots of windows open at a time and multiple spaces, could benefit from additional VRAM.

A 5400rpm drive isn't going to be significantly quieter or cooler really, but perhaps a little bit. The difference isn't so great as it used to me.

The Cinema display should be suitable for video editing (it's one of the intended markets for it really, not to mention the "cinema" in the product name). Of course, a Dell LCD would also be good.

 

Rather than upgrading to the 100GB 7200rpm drive, I'd go with the 160GB 5400rpm unit. The greater data density will give you almost the same speed boost on sequential R/W operations, and you can never have too much HDD space... especially for video.

I doubt you'll notice the extra 128MB video ram, the GPU isn't really utilised as anything but a frame buffer for video work under OS X. Still, if you want/need the bragging rights...

I use a 23" Cinema Display for editing and DVD authoring work and love it. All of the Apple Cinema Displays use a LG-Philips S-IPS panel.

 

The MBP is a great, great choice. Why don't you read cashmonee's recent review of it?

 

It seems like the 160GB 7200rpm notebook drives are starting to trickle out, or will at least soon be available (I think Seagate and Hitachi so far have announced them), so that might also be an option worth considering when they become available.

 

I did read cashmonee's recent review, as a matter of fact, it pulled me over the edge since the heat problems were my major concern from buying one. I also feel reassured about the customer support. It looks like when you have a problem with your unit, it will eventually get fixed and ultimately that's what matters most to me. I've not come across any horror stories in this forum like I've read from other manufacturers. The questions that I ask in this thread are not about buying one, but which one.

 

I would upgrade to 2Gb of RAM. The cost of upgrading the RAM on the lower priced model is already half the cost of upgrading to the higher priced model (with the 2Gb RAM and 256MB ati standard). That's why I'm thinking of going for that one, at least if I don't have to sacrifice too much cooling, quietness and battery time.

 

It's not going to make a big difference in cooling, quietness or battery life.

I actually went with the higher-end C2D config for the same reason (once I factored in the cost of buying an extra gig of RAM, I figured "what the hell" and went with the higher end config).

 

Personally, I edit video and sound all the time on my 1.67 GHz powerbook 15" with 1.5 gigs ram and it's great. You should have no problems at all with a MBP

 

I edit video on my Windows notebook with a 4200rpm hard drive. It's a little slow rendering, but 5400rpm wouldn't be I don't think.

 

The difference in battery life between the two models is minimal... and you're right, 2GB RAM should also be on your list, especially if you plan on using parallels workstation down the track. Don't bother with the 3GB upgrade though, at this stage it's way too expensive to justify the performance boost you're likely to see.

It's also been my experience that the top line model Macs tend to hold their resale value a little better, if that helps any...