I am looking to purchase a Mac for video editing with Final Cut Studio, and I am wondering what experience people have with running the suite on different Macs. I don't have Final Cut yet either, and am looking for an affordable at-home editing option.

Will Final Cut work on the Mac Mini?

Do people have experience using Final Cut with only 2GB of RAM or do you need 4GB?

What is the best option for editing on the cheap, and what will I really sacrifice by choosing a cheaper Mac?

Opinions on Mac Mini vs iMac vs Macbooks vs Mac Pro would be greatly appreciated. Obviously everyone knows that a Mac Pro would be the best option, but I'm looking for a more affordable solution and specifics on the limitations of using other Macs.

Thanks for the help!

While I use different stuff now last year while working somewhere I excercised discretionary spending and only bought a Mac Mini for an edit suite.

Given that I had been happily editing on a G4 dual 867 with 1.75GB ram for over 12 months (HDV projects) - I knew the Mini could do it.

It's been working well. It's a Core Duo with 2GB Ram, standard graphics card, standard hard drive with all video captured to a Lacie external firewire drive, 24 inch dell monitor, final cut studio (1).

It handles most tasks fine, editing on the timeline is simple. The only real difference from a higher end machine is rendering and export imes through compressor. It takes quite a while to render (it's not used for sophisticated productions) but cross dissolves and the like don't require rendering so that's fine. Exports to compressor do take quite a while though so the long one's are a "leave overnight" affair.

My G4 dual 867 with 1.75GB Ram edits fine with FC Studio as well (it's a second edit suite now).

I'm running CS4 and Final Cut Studio 3 on a MacBook Pro 17" (4GB RAM, everything else standard). It's pretty fast for a laptop without a lot of RAM.

OSx86 takes some know-how but I have a Mac Pro at 1/3 the cost that was built with pc parts. It stable and edits like a dream w/ Quad 3.3ghz, 8 gb RAM and 3 TB of RAID0 internal storage (Highpoint RAID). Contrary to popular belief everything "just works" once you get the drivers installed and I download my updates from Apple.

I was going for something higher end but you can build something cheaper that will make the Mini's specs look like childsplay.

Alternatively, with the mini you are giving up the option of upgrading anything. It is a completely locked system without a PCIe or upgradable videocard. You essentially married to a system that can never be better than the day you've bought it (assume you maxed the ram).

Just my opinion.
-C

Chris has his own interpretation of Apple's software license... see this thread: http://www.dvinfo.net/forum/non-linear-editing-mac/397803-fcs2-one-machine-fcs3-another.html

On the Macbook, you will need to resort to some tricks to get FCS to install, and some of the components may not work. Not sure if any of this has changed on the newest models. See: http://www.dvinfo.net/forum/non-linear-editing-mac/240120-any-workarounds-install-final-cut-studio-3-07-macbook.html

I use FCS on a 24" iMac dual 3ghz with 4GB and 15" MacBook Pro dual 2.4ghz with 4GB. It runs fine on both of these machines. I have been especially happy with the iMac, which also has a Matrox MXO connected to an external 23" Cinema Display. I'm sure it will work with less memory, but at today's prices there isn't much reason to skimp.

On the Macbook, you will need to resort to some tricks to get FCS to install, and some of the components may not work. Not sure if any of this has changed on the newest models.

Actually Boyd, this advice is in violation of Apple's SLA, since you'd have to edit the plist / delete the requirement check in the contents folder. So you should check to make sure your advice is in line with your conscience and Apple. ;) (Sorry, had to quote you from the other thread).

This will be my last post mentioning the viability of hackintosh since "advice like that shouldn't be dispensed on dvinfo."

-C

The 1.66 Duo Intel MacMini I have with 1gb of RAM works fine for simple projects. I suggest an external drive for the video files, it runs much better with no dropped frames.

It looks like the iMac would probably be my best choice. The Mac Mini seems a little too limited and the Macbook Pros and Mac Pros are too expensive.

I'm considering these:

20-inch iMac, 2.66GHz, 4GB DDR3 Ram, shared NVIDIA GeForce 9400M graphics

24-inch iMac, 2.93GHz, 4GB DDR3 Ram, dedicated NVIDIA GeForce GT 120 with 256MB memory

First of all, I don't care about the screen resolution/size difference so I don't need to hear about the monitor differences.

My questions are:

1. The processors have the same cache and frontside bus, so is it really worth it to go for the 2.93 over the 2.66?

2. I have used Final Cut Studio on a Macbook Pro with the dedicated graphics both on and off, and I honestly couldn't tell much of a difference in rendering times (for example, SmoothCam and other effects). So is it worth it to go for the extra graphics power? What will it really buy me?

Do people have experience using Final Cut with only 2GB of RAM or do you need 4GB?

Running FCP6.0.6 on a white iMac2.16GHz Intel w. 2GB. I'd recommend more than 2GB of RAM (I can only mount another 1GB so I stayed with 2 1GB sticks)

Realtime performance is adequate. Rendering is reasonable. Would a MacPro Tower with 8 cores work better? Of course. Remember that if you have monitors sitting around, part of an iMac is redundant. If you're buying from scratch on a budget, there's nothing wrong with an iMac (although working with HDV natively is SLOW - I capture in ProRes and I'm happy enough - DV is fast).

So is it worth it to go for the extra graphics power? What will it really buy me?

My UNDERSTANDING is that GFX cards buy you realtime power more than rendering speed.

ADDENDUM: And make sure your GFX card meets minimums for Motion if you plan on using it. As well, I only have 128MB video ram and SOME video filters won't render at all due to not enough VRAM. Usually 3rd party stuff.

Wait a few weeks before purchasing an iMac. I expect new models before/around the Win 7 release date. Same with Macbook Pro.

It looks like the iMac would probably be my best choice. The Mac Mini seems a little too limited and the Macbook Pros and Mac Pros are too expensive.

I'm considering these:

20-inch iMac, 2.66GHz, 4GB DDR3 Ram, shared NVIDIA GeForce 9400M graphics

24-inch iMac, 2.93GHz, 4GB DDR3 Ram, dedicated NVIDIA GeForce GT 120 with 256MB memory

First of all, I don't care about the screen resolution/size difference so I don't need to hear about the monitor differences.

My questions are:

1. The processors have the same cache and frontside bus, so is it really worth it to go for the 2.93 over the 2.66?

2. I have used Final Cut Studio on a Macbook Pro with the dedicated graphics both on and off, and I honestly couldn't tell much of a difference in rendering times (for example, SmoothCam and other effects). So is it worth it to go for the extra graphics power? What will it really buy me?

Absolutely wait a few weeks, as the rumor mill is running hot and heavy about new iMacs.

I bought a 1st-gen Intel white iMac refurbished from the Apple store, and I've been very satisfied. After 3+ years, the hard drive went south, but that can happen on any machine. I would have been out of Applecare, anyway, and I replaced it with a terabyte drive just because I could. Other than that, it's run like a champ.

When the new iMacs are released, the Apple store refurb prices for the previous-gen iMacs may get very, very attractive. Just make sure you get a model with a 512MB video card. Both Motion and Color work much better with more video RAM.

Currently, the Apple store offers a Refurbished iMac 24-inch 3.06GHz Intel Core 2 Duo, 24-inch display, 2GB memory, 500GB hard drive and NVIDIA GeForce 8800 GS with 512MB memory for $1599. That's less than you were considering for the new 2.93 /w/ 256MB video.

I'd wait to see if the new iMac's features are compelling enough to justify the cost difference.

Thanks for the advice. I will definitely wait to see what happens.

First of all, I don't care about the screen resolution/size difference so I don't need to hear about the monitor differences. I am amazed that you are indifferent to screen resolution (size is not so important). The 20" iMac only has a resolution of 1680x1050 versus the 1920x1200 of the 24" model. You get nearly 30% more screen with the larger model & when using FCP the more screen space that you have the better which is why so many editors use multiple screens.

It looks like the iMac would probably be my best choice. The Mac Mini seems a little too limited and the Macbook Pros and Mac Pros are too expensive.

I'm considering these:

20-inch iMac, 2.66GHz, 4GB DDR3 Ram, shared NVIDIA GeForce 9400M graphics

24-inch iMac, 2.93GHz, 4GB DDR3 Ram, dedicated NVIDIA GeForce GT 120 with 256MB memory

First of all, I don't care about the screen resolution/size difference so I don't need to hear about the monitor differences.

My questions are:

1. The processors have the same cache and frontside bus, so is it really worth it to go for the 2.93 over the 2.66?

2. I have used Final Cut Studio on a Macbook Pro with the dedicated graphics both on and off, and I honestly couldn't tell much of a difference in rendering times (for example, SmoothCam and other effects). So is it worth it to go for the extra graphics power? What will it really buy me?

I use a 2.16GHz iMac (early 2007) with 3GB RAM and it's fine. If you have the cash, it's always nice to have the extra power, but it's not essential.

The 20" iMac only has a resolution of 1680x1050 versus the 1920x1200 of the 24" model. You get nearly 30% more screen with the larger model & when using FCP the more screen space that you have the better which is why so many editors use multiple screens.

My work around for this is to use the miniDVI port to run a second monitor at 1440 x900 for my bins. My main monitor has Canvas, Viewer, Timeline and the Toolbar while ALL bins are on the second monitor. Works great for me as I like my bins removed from my workspace. My NEXT edit bay will have three monitors: one for Canvas and Viewer, one for timeline and one for bins. Not personally a fan of one monitor, regardless of how big/how much resolution. Again, your mileage can (and probably WILL) vary.

My work around for this is to use the miniDVI port to run a second monitor at 1440 x900 for my bins. My main monitor has Canvas, Viewer, Timeline and the Toolbar while ALL bins are on the second monitor. Works great for me as I like my bins removed from my workspace. My NEXT edit bay will have three monitors: one for Canvas and Viewer, one for timeline and one for bins. Not personally a fan of one monitor, regardless of how big/how much resolution. Again, your mileage can (and probably WILL) vary.I agree that multiple monitors are desirable but the OP made no mention of that & I honestly think that the extra $300 for the 24" over the 20" is money well spent for a system to be used for Final Cut.

Nigel: I agree but I offer that for $300, you could get the miniDVI to DVI adaptor and a second monitor and have significantly more real estate AND a more useful "landscape" formatted screen setup. If the second monitor is used exclusively for bins, it really doesn't matter how accurate the colour is. Only that it is sharp and easy on the eyes. IF that $300 was ALL the extra cash available, either would be a good solution, DEPENDING on how you like to set up your windows in FCP.

I have used FCS2 on the Nvidia 9400 video chipset and it worked great. Of course better hardware will always be faster but to get a barebones edit system you really don't need a massive amount of horsepower.

The thing I found interesting is that FCS3 now says you cannot use the integrated video chipsets even if they are Nvidia. Well actually it just says integrated not supported. I talked to a guy at a Apple store and he told me FCS3 wouldn't even run on the Nvidia 9400. I asked him if he was sure and he said yes. I then went around the store to check out the lower end systems to see if any of them had FCS3 installed. Sure enough a 24" Imac with only the Nvidia 9400 had FCS3 and everything ran great. This even included Motion which seemed to run just as fast as Motion from FCS2 on the same sort of system. Of course non of the 13" MBP or the Mac Mini had FCS3 installed so I couldn't check those but pretty much everything is equal there except for the cpu.

So I'm not sure why Apple is saying integrated video is not supported. They may just be generalizing to cover the Intel integrated video or it could be so people buy better machines to run FCS3. After all a NLE is only as powerful as the system you put it on.


Edit: Nevermind. Now that I checked the Apple specs again it says Intel integrated gpu not supported. The Apple store guy didn't see that I guess.

I am amazed that you are indifferent to screen resolution

Actually, I'm not indifferent to screen resolution, I just understand this difference well and wanted to get information about the other aspects of the computers. I figured if I didn't say that I would just get a lot of responses telling me that I need the higher resolution screen without addressing the other issues. But thanks for starting this discussion of multiple monitors. It's interesting to see how others set up their workspaces. I am primarily interested, however, in the other components of the computers like graphics capabilities and processor speed.


Thanks for all the responses from everyone. This is a lot of really helpful information and will hopefully allow me to make a more informed decision once the new Macs are released (assuming they will be).