Sign In
Register
Help
Hi all,
I am looking to purchase a Mac for the purposes of using Final Cut Pro. While I am not currently making professional movies, I want a computer that will be able to handle the rigor of the program. I also would like to be able to display the picture on an HDTV display (so that DVI port is key). Can anyone tell me their thoughts on the recently updated Mac Mini 2.0 GHX Intel Core 2 Duo? Is this a good machine to buy if I already own a 50" HDTV that can display up to 1080i via DVI? I like that it is a bargain, but I'd like to know if it is going to be a poor choise for video editing or not.
I am also considering the Macbook Pro (17"), but it is much pricier. I am not without a PC, so it's an investment. Will that machine offer me a lot more in the area of video editing than the Mac Mini 2.0 would allow?
Many thanks, sorry for the rambling. Fell free to message me with any insights, or reply to this thread.
Page 1 of 1
Considering the Mac Mini 2.0 GHZ or Macbook Pro
MultiQuote
#2
smax013 
- Veteran
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 2,480
- Joined: 06-July 07
Posted 23 August 2007 - 11:44 PM
Quote:
Hi all,
I am looking to purchase a Mac for the purposes of using Final Cut Pro. While I am not currently making professional movies, I want a computer that will be able to handle the rigor of the program. I also would like to be able to display the picture on an HDTV display (so that DVI port is key). Can anyone tell me their thoughts on the recently updated Mac Mini 2.0 GHX Intel Core 2 Duo? Is this a good machine to buy if I already own a 50" HDTV that can display up to 1080i via DVI? I like that it is a bargain, but I'd like to know if it is going to be a poor choise for video editing or not.
I am also considering the Macbook Pro (17"), but it is much pricier. I am not without a PC, so it's an investment. Will that machine offer me a lot more in the area of video editing than the Mac Mini 2.0 would allow?
Many thanks, sorry for the rambling. Fell free to message me with any insights, or reply to this thread.
Hi all,
I am looking to purchase a Mac for the purposes of using Final Cut Pro. While I am not currently making professional movies, I want a computer that will be able to handle the rigor of the program. I also would like to be able to display the picture on an HDTV display (so that DVI port is key). Can anyone tell me their thoughts on the recently updated Mac Mini 2.0 GHX Intel Core 2 Duo? Is this a good machine to buy if I already own a 50" HDTV that can display up to 1080i via DVI? I like that it is a bargain, but I'd like to know if it is going to be a poor choise for video editing or not.
I am also considering the Macbook Pro (17"), but it is much pricier. I am not without a PC, so it's an investment. Will that machine offer me a lot more in the area of video editing than the Mac Mini 2.0 would allow?
Many thanks, sorry for the rambling. Fell free to message me with any insights, or reply to this thread.
I will admit that I am no expert in the area of making videos, but I am pretty sure that the biggest factor in such things is processor speed and drive speed.
Assuming that I am correct in that sense, the Mac Mini should be comparable to a MacBook Pro as the processor is not that much different and they both use slower and smaller 2.5" laptop drives. The potential advantage of the MacBook Pro is that it has a Firewire 800 port and can use an ExpressCard to add an eSATA port. Both those options can get you faster drives than you could other wise get on a Mac Mini, I believe. The other difference is that the MacBook Pro has a MUCH more powerful graphics system, but I don't believe that the graphics system is too heavily involved in the processing/encoding of movies/videos...but I could be wrong.
Where I believe you would really see difference in encoding of movies/videos is if you went to a MacPro with say multiple quad core processors. I believe the MUCH bigger horsepower increase in a MacPro would definitely pay off in video editting.
#3
MacCheetah3
- Power User
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 6,645
- Joined: 02-April 01
Posted 24 August 2007 - 12:31 AM
Hi
I'll make it easier for you. The Mac mini is a good product and capable of many things but Final Cut Pro -- Especially the latest versions -- it is not...
Taken from Apple - Final Cut Studio 2 - System Requirements[/color
I'll make it easier for you. The Mac mini is a good product and capable of many things but Final Cut Pro -- Especially the latest versions -- it is not...
Taken from Apple - Final Cut Studio 2 - System Requirements[/color
Quote:
(Final Cut Studio is not compatible with integrated Intel graphics processors)
(Final Cut Studio is not compatible with integrated Intel graphics processors)
#4
smax013
- Veteran
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 2,480
- Joined: 06-July 07
Posted 24 August 2007 - 03:25 AM
Quote:
Hi
I'll make it easier for you. The Mac mini is a good product and capable of many things but Final Cut Pro -- Especially the latest versions -- it is not...
Taken from Apple - Final Cut Studio 2 - System Requirements[/color
Hi
I'll make it easier for you. The Mac mini is a good product and capable of many things but Final Cut Pro -- Especially the latest versions -- it is not...
Taken from Apple - Final Cut Studio 2 - System Requirements[/color
Quote:
(Final Cut Studio is not compatible with integrated Intel graphics processors)
(Final Cut Studio is not compatible with integrated Intel graphics processors)
Thanks...that definitely makes it easy! /forums/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/grin.gif
#5
Benfrain
- Newbie
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 2
- Joined: 15-June 01
Posted 24 August 2007 - 07:19 AM
Not so fast Batman. Despite what the specs say, Final Cut Studio will run on a Mini (I know because I do it most weeks). However, this is with a couple of caveats. 1. You must have 2GB memory 2. It doesn't like 'Color' (that's 'Colour' for those with an appreciation of the Queen's English /forums/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif) or Motion very much as those two apps' are very graphics processor heavy - the Mini is puny in this respect.
So, bottom line. If you are doing mostly Final Cut Pro work (not effects based) and don't mind waiting a few seconds longer for everyday transition renders then the Mini with 2GB is more than adequate. However, you will need an external Firewire hard drive (forget External USB2 drives - they're poo) for all your capture and render.
So, bottom line. If you are doing mostly Final Cut Pro work (not effects based) and don't mind waiting a few seconds longer for everyday transition renders then the Mini with 2GB is more than adequate. However, you will need an external Firewire hard drive (forget External USB2 drives - they're poo) for all your capture and render.
#6
smax013
- Veteran
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 2,480
- Joined: 06-July 07
Posted 24 August 2007 - 08:55 AM
Quote:
Not so fast Batman. Despite what the specs say, Final Cut Studio will run on a Mini (I know because I do it most weeks). However, this is with a couple of caveats. 1. You must have 2GB memory 2. It doesn't like 'Color' (that's 'Colour' for those with an appreciation of the Queen's English /forums/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif) or Motion very much as those two apps' are very graphics processor heavy - the Mini is puny in this respect.
So, bottom line. If you are doing mostly Final Cut Pro work (not effects based) and don't mind waiting a few seconds longer for everyday transition renders then the Mini with 2GB is more than adequate. However, you will need an external Firewire hard drive (forget External USB2 drives - they're poo) for all your capture and render.
Not so fast Batman. Despite what the specs say, Final Cut Studio will run on a Mini (I know because I do it most weeks). However, this is with a couple of caveats. 1. You must have 2GB memory 2. It doesn't like 'Color' (that's 'Colour' for those with an appreciation of the Queen's English /forums/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif) or Motion very much as those two apps' are very graphics processor heavy - the Mini is puny in this respect.
So, bottom line. If you are doing mostly Final Cut Pro work (not effects based) and don't mind waiting a few seconds longer for everyday transition renders then the Mini with 2GB is more than adequate. However, you will need an external Firewire hard drive (forget External USB2 drives - they're poo) for all your capture and render.
Sure thing, Robin. Even though it was not a post for my benefit, I certainy like learning new things! /forums/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif
#7
mdawson
- Veteran
-
- Group: Members
- Posts: 3,768
- Joined: 31-August 04
Posted 24 August 2007 - 07:09 PM
While, as others have already stated, the Mac mini can run Final Cut Pro, the Mac mini is an entry-level system for casual users and it was never intended to be used with processor-/GPU-intensive professional software. The Mac minis integrated graphics subsystem is definitely not up to the task of anything that requires a powerful GPU and its lack of dedicated VRAM means that much more of your system RAM will be siphoned off for GPU-intensive tasks. That can be quite problematic given the 2 GB cap for the Mac mini along with the memory demands of OS X alone.
The MacBook Pro has faster processors than the Mac mini, twice the memory capacity, a real GPU and 128 to 256 MB of dedicated video memory. As it was designed for pro users on-the-go, the MacBook Pro has more to offer for handling professional-level software.
Video-editing software is disk-intensive and both the Mac mini and MacBook Pros 5400 rpm drives are not ideal for disk-intensive tasks. You would definitely need to offset work to a faster external FireWire hard drive. While FireWire 400 is up to the task, FireWire 800 provides you with more breathing room, but it is not available on anything less than an iMac for desktops; the MacBook Pro does include FireWire 800.
Ideally, for what you wish to do, you would be better off with an iMac or Mac Pro. Unless you have a real need for portability an iMac would be a much better choice than a MacBook Pro and you can get a 24-inch model for less than the least expensive MacBook Pro. Unless you have quite a bit of time on your hands to wait for processes to complete, I would steer clear of a Mac mini as the only high demand task for which it is well suited is as a digital hub unit.
Lastly, all Macs have DVI outthe laptops and iMacs have mini-DVI ports and require adaptersso that will not be an issue for you regardless of what you finally decide.
The MacBook Pro has faster processors than the Mac mini, twice the memory capacity, a real GPU and 128 to 256 MB of dedicated video memory. As it was designed for pro users on-the-go, the MacBook Pro has more to offer for handling professional-level software.
Video-editing software is disk-intensive and both the Mac mini and MacBook Pros 5400 rpm drives are not ideal for disk-intensive tasks. You would definitely need to offset work to a faster external FireWire hard drive. While FireWire 400 is up to the task, FireWire 800 provides you with more breathing room, but it is not available on anything less than an iMac for desktops; the MacBook Pro does include FireWire 800.
Ideally, for what you wish to do, you would be better off with an iMac or Mac Pro. Unless you have a real need for portability an iMac would be a much better choice than a MacBook Pro and you can get a 24-inch model for less than the least expensive MacBook Pro. Unless you have quite a bit of time on your hands to wait for processes to complete, I would steer clear of a Mac mini as the only high demand task for which it is well suited is as a digital hub unit.
Lastly, all Macs have DVI outthe laptops and iMacs have mini-DVI ports and require adaptersso that will not be an issue for you regardless of what you finally decide.
Page 1 of 1
