FCP on iMac

[Rafael Amador]

[Geoff Addis] ” I guess that one can argue that future versions of FCP will make use of multicore technology, but when will that arrive?”
FC does use multicore technology although is limited to 4 cores (if I’m not wrong).

An iMac is perfect for XDCAM editing, he only shortcoming is connectivity .
rafael

http://www.nagavideo.com

[Ben Holmes]

Hi Geoff

I think this question has been answered a lot here – so let me give you a brief rundown:

1) The iMac has limited connectivity. Although you use a tapeless workflow, you cannot see an output on a video monitor (unless you use a DV-type camera via firewire) and so CANNOT properly monitor your footage at full resolution or gamma. I’m guessing from your question you don’t care about this, so I won’t labour the point here why this is bad. You COULD use an IOHD, or V4HD, but these require the FW800 port, so you’d have to use more esoteric storage options, like ethernet – which although a good option for shared storage networks, is less convenient for stand-alone setups.

2) Forgoing the video output, you can use the FW800 port to connect a fast-ish array, perfectly capable of compressed HD footage. If you send an iMac to OWC, they can fit an eSata port on the back of the iMac, so you can use a much faster eSata array.

3) Although FCP only uses 3Gb RAM, other software will want to use some, so I recommend getting an iMac with 8Gb RAM – Apple’s prices are not too bad now.

4) On a recent job, a core i7 2.93 Ghz (quad core) iMac with 8Gb RAM I was using beat an 8-Core 3.0Ghz (early 2008) Mac Pro we also had there. These machines are the best for price/performance I’ve ever seen, with a great screen as well.

Most of the arguments against the iMac (which are totally valid for pro users) are the lack of connectivity and upgradeability. If, however, you want a fast machine for NOW, can live with the storage limitations (btw – the idea of using an external drive for the system sounds dangerous to me, I’d use the internal for this, and a good quality external array for video) then the quad core i7 iMac with the 1Gb gfx chip and 8Gb RAb (around $2400 + taxes) is a great machine.

Should Apple ever see fit to upgrading FCP for proper 64-bit, multiprocessor support, the choices might swing the other way.

One other point – if you already have a Mac Pro system, purchasing a cut-price, more recent Mac Pro to use with your existing monitors etc. could be cheaper than a shiny new iMac.

Edit Out Ltd
—————————-
FCP Editor/Trainer/System Consultant
EVS/VT Supervisor for live broadcast
RED camera transfer/post
Independent Director/Producer

https://www.blackmagic-design.com/casestudies/detail.asp?case=therydercup

[Don Walker]

If you were to go the OWC route, and have a ESATA port put in your Imac then you would also have the FW 800 port available to run a AJA IO HD if you had the desire for a broadcast monitor. However they run more than the IMac would in price. You might could use your old MacPro as a footage server, if it was properly configured, and if the current editions of the IMac’s ethernet port can handle jumbo frames. Earlier versions of the IMac could not, but that might have changed.
don walker
Texarkana, Texas

John 3:16

[Zane Barker]

[Geoff Addis] “processor speed is king and that FCP can only use 4GB RAM”

I disagree I am of the opinion that fast media drives are king. Processor Speed is important yes but when i switched from FW800 to eSata a few years ago my render times cut nearly in half because of the faster drives.

[Ben Holmes] “If you send an iMac to OWC, they can fit an eSata port on the back of the iMac, so you can use a much faster eSata array.”

Yes but is loosing ALL warranty from Apple on your machine worth that. I say NO.

[Geoff Addis] “My workflow is soley from EX1r so importing does not require any special interface and if I have my operating system on an external drive”

Im going to say that is a BAD idea. Your camera uses FW and you say you want to boot from an external drive. For best performance that eternal would need to be FW. Making your camera and your OS share the same FW bus on capturing is probably more risky then making your media drive and the camera share the same FW bus on capture.

If you want to go with the iMac then go with the 27″ and get the 2nd hard drive that is solid state and use that as your OS drive. and use the larger drive for your media. But keep in mind that adding the second drive will add at least 750 to the price tag putting you more then the base MacPro. And you could put an even better internal raid in that MacPro.

**Hindsight is always 1080p**

[Geoff Addis]

With reference to Zane’s comments: in my case ingest of clips will be via the EX1’s USB connection using the camera as a card reader for the SxS cards; I will not need firewire for that. Also, as I said before, for my work flow I have proved that using an external drive for the operating system does not impact on performance, neither does the use of a non RAID hard drive. Although these comments relate to native EX1 clips, they may not apply to all formats eg. non compressed, but my workflow is based on EX1 or, occasionaly HDV via firewire.

Please don’t get me wrong, I am not committed to using an iMac as against a MacPro, but as a past systems engineer I want to establish what will be the most effective and efficient configuration for my use based around the ingest and editing of EX1 footage. This computer will be for personal home use, I don’t need all the bells and whistles of a broadcast or film based production environment; I know that I will not be able to achieve 100% accurate colour calibration, but my video will be seen mainly on home LCD/Plasma receivers/displays or projectors and are unlikely to be broadcast so a carefully adjusted second computer display should be adequate – if I need greater accuracy then I will be able to correct in my studio environment. I hope that explains where I am coming from, keep the comments coming in as I suspect many others will have the same type of work scenario.

Thanks,

Geoff.