suggestions on hardware set-up

[Raymond Tuquero]

Honestly … I have found alot of benefit for the 8-Core MacPro is quite a nice for many editors.

But if you only, occasionally need alot of demand from the computer, then the iMac Quad is a good choice. I have tested out HD Footage in ProRes on the Quad iMac and it runs pretty well.

What you should consider is speed.
-Speed of external information. Since you were talking about an external raid, I would recommend you look into eSata. The MacPro’s can have an eSata adapter plugged in that gives you a faster speed for your demanding files.
-Speed of graphical demand. I did notice a big difference if you are working on like AE and Rendering out some complex Photoshop. As for rendering times on FCP, the quad iMac stayed pretty close to the speed of the MacPro.

I think a new computer would be best. Your old Macbook Pro will just frustrate you later, though you could get by with the Macbook Pro … you will still get the frustration.
And you have to have more reason to go for the iMac besides it’s beautiful display and processor. I would think long term to make sure you will be happy with your machine for years to come and will meet your demanding creative needs.

Good luck with your choice.

-Raymond Tuquero-
Houston Based Freelancer
http://www.rtuqvidere.com

[Michael Sacci]

the one place that the iMac (any of them) will fall short is the HD bus, FW 800 is fine for normal editing even with ProRes HD, but getting more than 3 streams to run smooth is about the limit for multicam. 2 cameras transcoded to ProRes should be fine.

AVCHD is not used natively in FCP7, it has to be transcode via Log and Transfer, which you can do in FCP6 also. It is AVC-Intra that in now native, totally different cameras and codec (both based on H264).

The iMac would be much faster the the MBP but it has limits the come up pretty quickly, drive options and external monitors options are the first. But if your needs are meet within these limitation it is a great. performer. So once again this is not right/wrong thing, it is better/best thing.

Do you have the 30″ monitor already? if you do I would really look into a MacPro, a lot more growth.

[Rick Fetters]

I have seriously thought about the Macpro but with my use, (hobby not pro), and not needing “broadcast standard” levels of output, just internet distributed levels; I just can’t seem to justify the cost. The new quad iMac w/i7 is almost as fast as a quad Macpro. The main difference being the capability for expansion, which I know is an important distinction. I think the 70-80MBs of a FW800 should be able to give me three streams of ProRes LT, that is all I will need for the foreseeable future.

thanks for your advice

rick

[Jerry Hofmann]

Mutlicam requires a lot of horse power… Might look at a refurb from Apple… they are like new machines with full warranty, and will blow the doors of any iMac down the line. GRaphics cards MATTER more and more too, and you’d be stuck with what’s in the iMac now and forever, as you would with any of the laptops…

FW 800 is an aging technology, and you can’t use eSata or SAS with an iMac. Only the Macbook Pro 17″ can you use them with or any of the towers. Rendering times on an 8 core tower will just creamte those on the iMac… You want to run pro software, you need pro hardware to do it with…

Buy the MacPro. You’ll be extremely happy.

The world is quickly going to compressed files for delivery… The MXO2 with Max would be a wonderful addition, but likely overkill for tapeless workflows. I’d look at a Mac Pro, the HD card that Matrox sells to speed up those compressions to H.264. https://www.matrox.com/video/en/products/compresshd/

Matrox’s MXO is a dandy solution and AJA’s external monitoring solutions are excellent. https://www.aja.com/products/io/io-express.php This box also goes in for those times you might need to capture from tape… MXO is out only… but it can use a computer display as a true HD monitor… tough choice for sure.

NONE of the products above will work with an iMac.. getting the idea here? It’s just not expandable into a system for a professional…

Jerry

Apple Certified Trainer

Author: “Jerry Hofmann on Final Cut Pro 4” Click here

8-Core 3.0 Intel Mac Pro, Dual 2 gig G5, AJA Kona SD, AJA Kona 2, Huge Systems Array UL3D, AJA Io HD, 17″ MBP, Matrox MXO, CD’s

[Petteri Evilampi]

Keep those hardwares You already own. Just get FCS2, install it to both Your Macs. Use laptop for transcoding AVCHD to some useable editing codec (dvcpro-hd, pro-ress) and edit with Your G5. Buy e-sata card and raid-system.
Cheap, but WORKS!

[Steve Oakley]

the MXO2 and mini and the new LE ( $1k 🙂 ) are all input/output. not sure why you even mentioned the MXO

while its easy to spend other people’s money 😉 the tower is a system you’ll be able to build off of. lots of internal storage, upgrade the graphics card, RAM ect. another words its got a good 5 year life span as a primary machine. OTH the iMac has a much shorter left span as a primary machine, and just doesn’t have the connection options. if they at least where putting a laptop type PCIe34/54 expansion port on it… you’d have some options. since they don’t, you don’t 🙁

Steve Oakley
DP • Editor • VFX Artist
http://www.practicali.com

[Rick Fetters]

I mentioned the MXO2mini with the Max option because of the possibility of using my existing Macbook pro laptop with its PCI slot. The function of the the Matrox unit would be for external monitor, input and transcoding/compression acceleration. I thought this might be useful considering the relative lack of power of the laptop and my aging G5. I do not have any experience with this or similar units.

Really, the only difference between the new quad iMac and the Powermac is ….
– upgradeable GPU
– expansion possibilities, i.e. eSATA connection

The pluses of the iMac are…….
– a display that is almost on the same level as a $1,500 30″ACD
– i7 quadcore cpu same as MP
– ATI 4850 GPU
– portable to some extent, in that I could take it with me on car vacations and edit in the field.

I think the MP has a useful life similar to the new iMac with the exception of the upgradeable GPU,
which might give it another year of useful service. But I see the iMac as being an 800-900 computer with a 1100-1200 display that can now be reused with the new port as a standalone display when its usefulness as a primary computer has elapsed. So when thinking in these terms, the MP is 2 to 2.5 times the cost of the iMac. Yet, I’m still thinking about it;)