Frage von spideworld:
Hello people
I now have some time on my Mac Book Pro matters digitized (; DV) and cut (; Final Cut), and I will switch to Mac Pro, (; Two 2.4GHz Quad-Core Intel Xeon "Westmere" (; 8 cores), 12GB (, 6 x 2 GB) 1 TB 3Gb / s Serial ATA with 7200 rpm, ATI Radeon HD 5770 1 GB) to be able to edit HD footage problems in the future... The recorded material is, of einerCanon60d. Now I have my views, what a classic editing system with Mac Pro to include everything. Among other things, I came across the I / O NLE editing cards, ect additional memory with an external HD. ect.
Now imagine me the following questions: What do I need for my cut mandatory system if I digitize HD footage and will edit it? What should I look for in an editing system? Stupid asked: Is not it enough just when I have a G5, with the standard interfaces and the Final Cut Studio?
Thanks for the info!
Spideworld
Antwort von Jott:
Absolutely you need even just a MacMini. You must own the Canon stuff anyway convert to ProRes, and that is not demanding enough for real-time average synonymous in the easiest Mac. Necessary follow on Final Cut Pro / Mac informed before the purchase, with a detailed plan on what you really want.
The problem s.G5: this generation of computers is too old to run with current software useful. But if you have an older Final Cut Pro version that already runs there and ProRes can you maybe that's enough already. And even if not: change in the Intermediate Codec. sound out the first time whether you without any expenditure already come to the goal. It always strikes that even large production studios proudly refer to their "HD editing system with Mac G5," although this Calculator - considered purely as hardware - are long since vintage.
Antwort von Piers:
I am facing a similar decision has to upgrade my Final Cut Pro we meet again. After a long search of info for me I've come to the following conclusion.
1. Cheap alternative: iMac 27''with the 2.93GHz quad-core Intel Core i7 (2180, - EUR)
2. expensive option: MacPro 3.33 GHz with the 6-core Intel Xeon "Westmere" Processors (3600, - EUR)
The variants with the dual processors (8-Core/12-Core) are for Final Cut Pro rather not the best, because Final Cut Pro itself uses only one processor. So it makes more sense to have a Processor in a Box, which is clocked higher. Therefore, the 6-core of the "sweet spot" of the Mac Pros. Only costs 200EUR more than your target 8-core is in use fixed a lot!
Only Compressor and Final Cut Pro applications outside use multiple cores.
If you need novideo cards or other card-based peripherals, the iMac is of course a lot cheaper. But that is dispensed for example, on Serial ATA ext. HDD's. But if you work eg with FW800 raids, which the system would be my choice. An 8-core, I would not set me up to date.
Antwort von Axel:
We do not know, waiting for the next FCS, which is reportedly about to be released, and then a system needs.
So either wait a couple of weeks and buy a less well-equipped hardware confidently, since, as my outpost stated that the current Final Cut Pro is very modest requirements.
Antwort von Jott:
The variants with the dual processors (8-Core/12-Core) are for Final Cut Pro rather not the best, because Final Cut Pro itself uses only one processor. Amazing how stubborn this assertion holds. I cut right now s.einem 12-Core and rejoice in the fact that Final Cut Pro running with all twelve seeds at 85 to 90% and renders - if you will notice from rendering anything, so fast is this
Antwort von spideworld:
hello guys
best answer thanks for your quick. I was now the thing with the 8 cores surprised too! synonymous thought that gives a decent performance boost if I would set the.
should I wait demfall until the new final cut studio is out? regardless, I need not all bells and whistles with i / o card, or other additives, unless I have another material?
grüsse spideworld
Antwort von Piers:
The variants with the dual processors (8-Core/12-Core) are for Final Cut Pro rather not the best, because Final Cut Pro itself uses only one processor.
Amazing how stubborn this assertion holds. I cut right now s.einem 12-Core and rejoice in the fact that Final Cut Pro running with all twelve seeds at 85 to 90% and renders - if you will notice from rendering anything, so fast is this Well have, keep looking for weeks and benchmarks compared. Since I myself have no such system, I have to rely just on the "print" statements. And they are unanimously of the opinion, Final Cut Pro itself runs only on one CPU. Now I have unfortunately deleted all bookmarks and found only this one still is representative:
"In my experience, a faster four-core workstation will often equal and sometimes exceed the performance of a slower eight-core machine in real-world, day-to-day editing. Speed still matters. Other apps, like encoders will often, use all available cores, so that gives the edge to having more cores. "
Antwort von Jott:
You gotta believe anything, I could tell nonsense. The best watch yourself: on to hopefully competent dealer or Apple Store. The multi-processor usage - for example ProRes rendering - you can let themselves with a nice graphic view.
I am not a technician and have ultimately only a "trick": Final Cut Pro and OS via Software Update to keep absolutely up to date, the whole thing on synonymous current hardware, not on an old G5 - gladly accepted, because it is so nice to Final Cut Pro can complain! ;)
Antwort von Axel:
Whether Compressor is fast or not, is not it more important. Feels like it is with his delayed reactions in clip selection and its much-delayed reactions in batch encoding even more still a PPC program that is emulated via Rosetta. Or anyone has other experiences? It is my opinion not important, as long as FCS3 Bosselt and in the background. Without slowing down the foreground processes. An unremarkable but good innovation of this (or was it already the last?) Version.
