Laptop for editing - Help needed

Hello guys.

What do you think about this for a laptop with the principal purpose of editing (premiere and AE).

17.3"
Intel Core i7-4710HQ 2GHz
16 GB RAM
AMD Radeon R9 M265X 4GB Dedicated
2TB
Price: 1698 USD

or this one

15.6"
Intel Core i7-4710HQ 2.5 GHz
16GB 1600MHz DDR3L SDRAM
GTX 860M 4GB DDR5
256 GB SSD
Price: 2150 USD

Since i dont have much understanding about computers, i would like to know if each one of those are good for editing and if the second it's much better than the first?

Thanks a lot!
 
check which one had a video card that supports CUDA for Premiere Pro.

SSD is nice for the OS and software.
You'll need an extra Harddisk/SSD for footage. Harddisks are cheaper and bigger, but you may need SSD when you use raw footage.
 
sfoster i'm not very familiar with that software and i certainly did not know it was free!

Sweetie because i'll also need to take it with me sometimes because i travel a lot around the country, i'll need something portable.
I know i can get much better from a desktop but it's not ideal for me.
 
Last edited:
The next question is, what are you editing? What footage? codec? Resolution etc.

You need to determine whether the machines in question will handle what you'll work with. It's easy to get higher and higher specs, spending more each time. You may even find that what you're working with just won't work to your expectations on a laptop.
 
If you're really editing, the laptop will overheat and eventually burn out (by that I mean in like a year or two). Don't waste your money. Bite the bullet, save money, lug around a real editing station.

Also Davinci Resolve Lite is free, the professional software is still a thousand dollars. Which you won't need at all, even if you're a complete indie you can get plenty of color grading from After Effects with Colorista II. However you'll most likely just slap on a Magic Bullet Looks and customize that anyways.

Actually have the time to care? Hire a color gradist online, some even work free (like me) as building a demo reel is key.

But again... really... Build a PC with 1.5k and you'll be pretty set. I'll stress again as others have, CUDA is needed.
 
sfoster i'm not very familiar with that software and i certainly did not know it was free!

For almost all indie uses it is free.
Definitely should be a consideration.. I bought a laptop without know this and now I regret my decision. I wish I could use resolve.. I am stuck with magic bullet and it's just not as comprehensive.

I read color grading books and it's disappointing and frustrating that I don't have the tools available that they talk about.
 
However you'll most likely just slap on a Magic Bullet Looks and customize that anyways.

For most color correction issues, why is this a bad thing? I'm not trying to argue with you on a process basis, or the professionalism of using Resolve? I'm asking more of a utilitarian/financial/time producer question. Do you think your dad would be able to tell the difference between magic bullet vs resolve corrected shot? Wouldn't it be strange to expect the producer of a low/no budget film to care about color so much? If we're going to be honest, the low/no budget producer just made a low/no budget movie. The inherent implication is that his/her "caring" is constrained by the limitations that a low/no budget production imposes on lighting/sound/acting/props/location/post.

A 'customized' magic bullet look is pretty effective, I find, on things that have been shot with relatively good lighting. It would be unreasonable for me to spend less resources on lighting and more on color, wouldn't you agree?

I'm really looking for your thoughts on the subject. Just to find out from your perspective, given the constraints of the low/no budget producer, how you think, someone who has already compromised, and continues to compromise during post on say audio, should approach color. I'm fighting with myself right now between magic bullet/speedgrade/resolve. If my timeline for finishing my film keeps getting pushed back, I might give up on the speedgrade/resolve part of the plan, and just go with magic bullet. My time is so limited. And I spent the last month trying to teach myself audio post. It's taking all of my time. And I'm never going to be perfect at it. I have to get back to real editing soon. It's highly tempting for me at this moment to just go with magic bullet.

Actually have the time to care? Hire a color gradist online, some even work free (like me) as building a demo reel is key.

This is very tempting indeed, but how would this work online exactly? I've got 3.5TB worth of files.
 
Last edited:
a colorist doesn't edit every single clip of footage you've got.. you give give them the final product and they work on it directly. much less than 3.5TB

unless you're working with some kind of like 4k raw footage then maybe it could be that big i guess
 
For most color correction issues, why is this a bad thing?

Grading without correcting will yield less than predictable results. You may get lucky, but sometimes, you're going to paint yourself into a corner and not know how to get out.

Do you think your dad would be able to tell the difference between magic bullet vs resolve corrected shot?

How long is a piece of string? It will depend if the footage requires any correction before you graded or not. You know how some people tell that a video is amateur by its sound? Some also tell by the way the film looks, which is partially determined by the grade. They won't always be able to put their finger why it feels amateur.

Wouldn't it be strange to expect the producer of a low/no budget film to care about color so much?

It's about the same as a producer of a low/no budget film to care about sound. Even about as much as they care about having a good editor, sound designer and so on. Hell, it's about the same as them with named talent or a good script. So, yes it is strange.

It would be unreasonable for me to spend less resources on lighting and more on color, wouldn't you agree?

It's a ball of string question. I haven't seen the material so it's impossible to have an educated opinion of what you need. Do you trust your knowledge of color grading to know what you need and what's the best course of action for that stage of your production?

A production can get let down by its weakest link.

If my timeline for finishing my film keeps getting pushed back. My time is so limited.

Just think of the good old Cheap, Good, Fast triangle. Pick two. If you want good and cheap, you're going to have to take your time. If you want fast and cheap, go your magic bullet route. If you want good and fast, expect to pay for it. Only you can determine your objectives and needs.

This is very tempting indeed, but how would this work online exactly? I've got 3.5TB worth of files.

There's a teeny tiny, little company called FedEx. I hear they may have a solution. Include another drive for the export(s) you require.

a colorist doesn't edit every single clip of footage you've got..

It depends on the workflow, but the fact that it sounds like it's already been edited, so doing a light grade/correction while transcoding for the edit probably isn't going to happen. I've done it for a production before, so it can happen.

you give give them the final product and they work on it directly.

Its one option. So long as the editor exports it correctly and the encoder doesn't do anything silly you should be fine. In my opinion it's far from ideal, though it can depend on what needs to happen to the final footage. It's why using an EDL and the original footage is the workflow that is used most often.

Good luck!
 
Grading without correcting will yield less than predictable results. You may get lucky, but sometimes, you're going to paint yourself into a corner and not know how to get out.



How long is a piece of string? It will depend if the footage requires any correction before you graded or not. You know how some people tell that a video is amateur by its sound? Some also tell by the way the film looks, which is partially determined by the grade. They won't always be able to put their finger why it feels amateur.



It's about the same as a producer of a low/no budget film to care about sound. Even about as much as they care about having a good editor, sound designer and so on. Hell, it's about the same as them with named talent or a good script. So, yes it is strange.



It's a ball of string question. I haven't seen the material so it's impossible to have an educated opinion of what you need. Do you trust your knowledge of color grading to know what you need and what's the best course of action for that stage of your production?

A production can get let down by its weakest link.



Just think of the good old Cheap, Good, Fast triangle. Pick two. If you want good and cheap, you're going to have to take your time. If you want fast and cheap, go your magic bullet route. If you want good and fast, expect to pay for it. Only you can determine your objectives and needs.



There's a teeny tiny, little company called FedEx. I hear they may have a solution. Include another drive for the export(s) you require.



It depends on the workflow, but the fact that it sounds like it's already been edited, so doing a light grade/correction while transcoding for the edit probably isn't going to happen. I've done it for a production before, so it can happen.



Its one option. So long as the editor exports it correctly and the encoder doesn't do anything silly you should be fine. In my opinion it's far from ideal, though it can depend on what needs to happen to the final footage. It's why using an EDL and the original footage is the workflow that is used most often.

Good luck!

Jesus Christ!
You wrote all that, and I got absolutely nothing out of it, other than you must be an expert filmmaker, and I must be a 5 year old who doesn't know what FedEX is. You must be a real filmmaker. Cause I sure as hell don't speak your language.
 
Back
Top