New Mac system

[legstud]

Hello all,

My wife and I are dipping our toes into the world on independent filmmaking. She is the creative force; me... I'm just a computer guy and filmmaking novice, so I get to set up the editing system

Anyway, we're pretty settled that we're going to use Final Cut and going with Mac. However, as I'm looking into getting a system (and being cost-conscious, of course), I'm coming across a few things that are making the decision a little more difficult.

Initially, I had my eye on a MacBook Pro with the following specs:
15" display
2.4 GHz Core 2 Duo processor
4GB RAM
256 MB VRAM
NVIDIA GeForce 8600M GT with 256MB of GDDR3 memory and dual-link DVI
One FireWire 400, one FireWire 800, two USB 2.0 ports, one ExpressCard/34 slots

This was going to run me $1200-ish. I know it's not the best in the world, esp. considering the new MacBook Pro's have faster processors and more cores... but like I said, I have to be budge conscious. (FYI I have another monitor I'll be hooking this up to, so I don't need a huge onboard monitor for this.)

But then I saw two things:
1. The specs for Studio (see here). Note the specs for Soundtrack Pro and Color. They want multiple inputs/outputs for audio, and 512 MB of VRAM for DPX rendering.
2. The new iMac's are lower in price than the laptop above, with beefier specs -- i3/3.1 processor, 8 GB RAM, etc.

So, my questions:

• Do I need to worry about the multiple audio input/outputs? I didn't even see this option when configuring new systems (MacBook Pro, iMac, or MacPro), so I'm guessing this is some kind of add-on equipment?
• Do you think it's better to go with the beefier iMac and sacrifice the portability? I'm thinking of day-to-day use and convenience.
• Are there any other ports I need to worry about?
• What about the DX rendering? I don't know what that is, much less how that would play into editing.

Your thoughts much appreciated!
Tom

 

[spinner]

I don't use the internal HD for any media. To dangerous for
my tastes.

I agree with this.

I have a souped up Mac G4 laptop and I do ALL my editing on it. However, as of right now, I have 2 external hard drives and am looking at getting one of the 2 terabyte externals. I learned to run all of my programs from my laptop and keep all my actual footage on the externals. I learned that, by the way, from the lovely members of IndieTalk.com. 90% of the issues I had with my Mac went away as soon as I stopped saving footage to the laptop.

Plus, I would rather have my laptop because I take it everywhere with me. I'm considering a small portable external for ease of transport.

-- spinner

 

[DDK]

I have a souped up Mac G4 laptop and I do ALL my editing on it. However, as of right now, I have 2 external hard drives and am looking at getting one of the 2 terabyte externals. I learned to run all of my programs from my laptop and keep all my actual footage on the externals. I learned that, by the way, from the lovely members of IndieTalk.com. 90% of the issues I had with my Mac went away as soon as I stopped saving footage to the laptop.

Strange.

Unless there's an actual problem with the internal HDD, the only difference between the two is that externals tend to run significantly cooler. Although this can affect the lifetime of the HDD, it rarely has any other impact.

Personally, I'd be wondering just what's wrong with your internal HDD. I'd fsck it if I were you.

 

[chilipie]

Strange.

Unless there's an actual problem with the internal HDD, the only difference between the two is that externals tend to run significantly cooler. Although this can affect the lifetime of the HDD, it rarely has any other impact.

Personally, I'd be wondering just what's wrong with your internal HDD. I'd fsck it if I were you.

External HDDs don't do anything different, it's more about keeping system files separate from a dedicated scratch drive. You're less likely to lose media in a system crash, and it runs faster because the HDD is only reading the video files, not jumping back between that and the things needed to run the OS. It's especially important if you don't have much memory - the OS will have to start to use virtual RAM, which means even more reading of the main HDD.

 

[knightly]

On the RAM Discussion:

The RAM we initially had had a lifetime guarantee on it as we ended up replacing ~30% of it (thank goodness for triple redundancy in our systems infrastructure... it was big name stuff as well.

Apple charges more for their ram because they may get HYINX, but they get the stuff that passes the Quality Control tests at the best levels possible (we'll call this the 'A' bin at the end of the conveyor belt)... the next bin goes to other vendors who are competing in a much more crowded marketplace (PC's) and have to cut what corners they can to compete... some of these corners are OK to cut a bit... the performance/cost is a trade off that doesn't impact mom/dad reading e-mails and surfing the web.

This process happens with all electronics. Many digital camera manufacturers have made cameras, but sold the slightly inferior boards/chips coming off their line to other companies to produce what amounts to the same camera made with cheaper parts... it was cheaper, but prone to failures and lowered image quality.

Overclocking is a perfect illustration of the "Bins" at the end of the line. When a CPU comes off the end of the line, it gets speed tested until it fails from overheating, then separated into batches of the same speed chips... these chips all went through precisely the same manufacturing everything, but slight variances in the manufacturing processes produce chips of varying tolerances. Overclocking proves that you can take a chip "rated" for one speed and just tell it to run faster... they're all the same chip, they just have different tolerances for failure.

If your equipment is something that you're using to build a career with, you should also make the cost benefit analysis. I'll tell you that from the RAM failing, we've lost data due to the machines flaking out during a write and corrupting the whole file (Terrabyte - size databases, backups and redundancy saved us).

Do you have the storage and bandwidth to backup all your data every night? How much would that equipment cost? How much work are you willing to redo if you have a failure? These questions are legitimate (not snarky) questions that we had to answer as a company and then create a budget and budget justification/ risk analysis for the business office to approve funding. We got the better RAM, because the risk of failure and the business outcomes of that eventuality not only outweighed the cost of the RAM, it justified the expense by offsetting substantial possible losses from client revenue and trust.

Is cheaper RAM an option? Sure. It does increase your risk of data loss, and that's a tradeoff that you need to weigh against the cost. Do you have a backup and recovery schema (if it's between the two, buy the cheap ram and spend on the backup... it's much more important - be diligent and regular with your backups).

My experience with RAM may never bother you, but the original statement that all ram is created equal does not framass with my experience... even from big name vendors and from the same manufacturing line on the same day.