Mac Mini for DV editing?

[Robert Giampa]

I just read about the new Apple Mini Mac

 

(here: http://www.apple.com/macmini/specs.html )

 

and it seems like an interesting option for someone like me who uses an older PC and Premiere to edit. I am not a pro editor, but sometimes make music videos that I like to edit myself. I would like to get into final cut pro for editing because it just seems so much better.

 

I was wondering if any of you good people can tell from the little amount of info available on this unit if it would make a decent editing machine after throwing a gig of RAM into it. The video card it comes with seems underpowered, but is this an issue? I come from a 3D modeling background where the video card you use is pretty much more important than your actual CPU speed..

 

Any help or comments would be great! Thanks!

-Robert

[Boone Hudgins]

I'd say go for it. The Mac Mini was designed for people switching from PCs on the cheap. It's only $500, VGA support, etc, with the possibility open to add a Cinema Display at any time. Of course it only has a G4, so it won't be as fast as the iMac G5, but if you're using a PC, it's probably at least comparable with what you have now. I don't believe editing programs rely that much on video cards to render. In the early days of digital video editing you had to buy a video capture card that took rendering duties from the CPU. It may still be a good idea with PCs. I believe it was the Apple G4 that bragged to have real-time rendering for DV, making those cards obsolete. Meaning, it should render video faster than a PC.

 

If you're going to go through with it, I'd make sure to go to Crucial, get a bunch of RAM, and put it in yourself. It's way cheaper than having Apple do it. If you don't have a firewire drive, look out for one of those. You'll have plenty of room for it. You can usually get Final Cut Express preinstalled for $100 when you buy a new Mac, but if you're interested in reverse telecine, you'll have to go for Final Cut Pro. Looking for FCP 4 used might be a good idea, but make sure it has Cinema Tools.

 

If you go through it, let me know how it goes.

[Phil Rhodes]

Hi,

 

> I would like to get into final cut pro for editing because it just seems so much better.

 

Depends what you're doing. FCP is better for longform stuff, and if you have to talk to an Avid; Premiere is probably a smarter choice for music promos because it talks so well with After Effects FCP and Shake play well too, but Shake is hellishly expensive. I wouldn't personally push you either way but don't go for FCP because it has the gloss of the moment on it.

 

> The video card it comes with seems underpowered, but is this an issue?

 

No, not at this level.

 

> cinema display

 

Now that I definitely wouldn't do. When they came out, they were the best LCD monitors available; now they've been significantly superseded and you're paying the Mac tax for not a lot.

 

> Of course it only has a G4, so it won't be as fast as the iMac G5, but if

> you're using a PC, it's probably at least comparable with what you have

> now.

 

That's rather a sweeping statement - the one-and-a-bit-gig G4s probably equate to something like an Athlon XP2400+, which is perfectly usable for basic stuff. Personally if I were going for a Mac I'd get a single, fast G5, then you can always throw a second processor in it later if the need arises and end up in the same sort of territory as the big dual Xeon servers that people render on.

 

Phil

Edited January 13, 2005 by Phil Rhodes

[Robert Giampa]

First, thanks for your response!

 

If you're going to go through with it, I'd make sure to go to Crucial, get a bunch of RAM, and put it in yourself.  It's way cheaper than having Apple do it.  Looking for FCP 4 used might be a good idea, but make sure it has Cinema Tools.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Ok, by , Crucial, I am assuming you mean the Crucial video card? I would love to do that, but I'm not sure you can upgrade anything on the Mac Mini besides the ram and peripherals. If you can, I would definitely go for the better card. I'm used to working on PCs myself, so I have no problem changing cards, adding ram etc. It amazes me that people will pay someone so much extra money just to open the computer case and pop something into a slot! haha I guess computers can be scary to those of us who didn't grow up with them. I will definitely look for final cut pro, even though I am not going to reverse telecine. We shoot the footage on 16mm, then telecine and edit back out to Mini DV or dvd. Pretty low end haha. That said, I always like the options and power that Pro programs offer. There's always something you JUST CAN'T DO with the lower end programs that ends up driving me nuts :)

[Alvin Pingol]

Ok, by , Crucial,  I am assuming you mean the Crucial video card? I would love to do that, but I'm not sure you can upgrade anything on the Mac Mini besides the ram and peripherals.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

He's saying you should buy your RAM through Crucial, an established and reliable source of memory, instead of Apple, who'll charge you an arm and a leg for the same stuff.

 

The Mini Mac uses PC2700 DDR SDRAM, which Crucial carries. See link:

http://www.crucial.com/store/listModule.as...kage=allModules

 

However, I am not aware of the exact module used (I would guess 184-pin, but don't quite me on that!).

[Boone Hudgins]

Yeah, I was talking about Crucial RAM. The Crucial website does a pretty good job of getting you the RAM you need for your particular computer; it's tough to get the wrong chip. And yeah, I'm a PC user that's used to doing it myself, too.

 

To reply to a few things that Phil Rhodes said, or rather, to further explain myself: The G4 was pretty much tailor made for video editing (strangely). It was the biggest argument for upgrading from a G3 when it first came out. The fact that, when paired with FCP (4 at the time), there were literally no render times for most effects in DV. That was the claim, anyway. That's why I made the, surely, lofty statement. Of course, I'm really wanting an iMac G5 right now, and may buy one soon, but for $1500 less--or $1400, if you buy the top-of-the-line--the Mac Mini is looking pretty sweet. Esepecially to PC owners that already have VGA monitors and USB keyboards.

 

And about the cinema displays, they're better than most, but I'm not very knowledgable about pro monitors. I do know that they're all currently greater than HD resolution, which is the highest resolution you can work on with FCP.

 

And FCP works well with After Effects. Not on Adobe's behalf, I imagine, but Apple manages to be very good at playing nice with everybody (especially in sound recording). And even if not, Apple currently makes Motion. While it's not as robust as After Effects, it's apparently a very great approach to one-man-army-style special effects, in HD, in real time. It's $300.

 

I cut my teeth with Final Cut 2, and having to use Premiere at school (and teach with it), I really miss the former. Especially with how good it's looking right now. Final Cut Express is better than Final Cut 2.

 

And to Robert, reverse telecine is a very usefull tool in editing film. You can edit 24p, which is helpful if you're changing speeds of shots in post, and other things. You can always convert it back to 30p or 60i or whatever you want if you're going back to video, and (although there's some argument in another post about whether or not this is true), 24p MPEG files for the web and DVD.

 

Premiere does it, actually. That's one thing it has over FCP, since it's half the price.

[Robert Giampa]

Again, thanks for all the info! My head is starting to spin!

 

And to Robert, reverse telecine is a very usefull tool in editing film.  You can edit 24p, which is helpful if you're changing speeds of shots in post, and other things.  You can always convert it back to 30p or 60i or whatever you want if you're going back to video, and (although there's some argument in another post about whether or not this is true), 24p MPEG files for the web and DVD.

Premiere does it, actually.  That's one thing it has over FCP, since it's half the price.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

All of this talk made me look up reverse telecine in order to understand what you guys are talking about... and my head is definitely spinning! I know this isn't an editing website, so I will refrain from asking the billions of questions going through my mind right now! All of the various different pulldown ratios and tech specs drive me nuts because I am such a beginner!

 

I think the benefit of switching to FCP for me would be the cut down render times. I am so sick of waiting an eternity (in reality less than 30 seconds to 1 minute) to preview something at a different speed or backwards, or with some color correction.

 

Anyway, if anyone wants to see the video I made using premiere, check this link: http://www.satisfactionmusic.com/4.html

I did the cinematography (first time!) and editing (first time).

I got around the lip sync timing issue by doing quick cuts, something that is encouraged in videos or so I hear! :)

Thanks!

[Phil Rhodes]

Hi,

 

> And about the cinema displays, they're better than most,

 

Not anymore, they're not, particularly in light of Sony's recent offerings. As I say, there was a time when they were the best available, but that time is well past - they're pretty average, or even below average, for contrast and viewing angle these days.

 

Sony's "x-black" stuff has vastly better contrast and, critically, response times - watching video on a cinema display is, ironically, pretty unpleasant.

 

> I do know that they're all currently greater than HD resolution,

 

Sorry, but that's not true - the two larger-sized cinema displays are both 1920x1200, which is exactly equal to HD resolution given that the displays are actually 16:10 in aspect ratio and you lose a strip top and bottom when displaying a 16:9 frame, ending up with 1080 lines. This is how most LCDs work - few exceed these numbers.

 

Phil

[Boone Hudgins]

I looked it up. The 20" is slightly less than HD (1680x1050), and the 23" is 1920x1200. Only the 30" is greater than HD. It's 2560x1600, which is around a 2k, correct? Anyway, I was just speaking in the capacity of the video he'd be editing. But, it sounds like I'll have to look more into it.

 

I just had a two-and-a-half hour render the other day on, like, three minutes of video on Premiere. I'd like to get rid of that.

 

I saw your video a few months ago, Robert. I really liked it. In fact, the sync issues reminded me of a Weezer video. Just say it was deliberate. And it did what a music video is supposed to do: it got me interested in the band. I just found out not too long ago that Daniel Brummel from Ozma likes Satisfaction.

[Phil Rhodes]

Hi,

 

> 2560x1600, which is around a 2k, correct

 

Depends which bit of the 2K you're interested in. That's bigger than a full 2K frame scan, but then the largest possible flat image area you're ever going to be interested in is 2048 by 853 for super35.

 

Phil

[Boone Hudgins]

Just giving myself a frame of reference.

 

Oops, no pun intended.

[Robert Giampa]

I just had a two-and-a-half hour render the other day on, like, three minutes of video on Premiere.  I'd like to get rid of that.

 

I just found out not too long ago that Daniel Brummel from Ozma likes Satisfaction.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Yeah those guys are all friends... I don't know Daniel, but I am friends with Jose.

 

And render times SUCK!

[Phil Rhodes]

Hi,

 

Buying a Mac won't save you from the dreaded render - what d'you think, they're magic or something? In fact, the contrary is probably true: you're liable to get more horsepower for your money with almost anything else, notwithstanding the respectable whizziness of a decent dual G5.

 

Phil

[Boone Hudgins]

From my experience with Final Cut and Premiere, I'd recommend Final Cut. Not just because of the supposed real-time rendering (which I can't substantiate, of course, but would love to check out), it just works more to my liking.

 

Personally, I'd like to switch to Macs entirely, simply because I'm ready for a change. And if that's what somebody wants to do, the Mac Mini makes it a good time to do so, it seems. I think I'm going to hold out for an iMac G5, though. 64-bit processing is interesting me.

 

I suppose the best way to tackle render issues would be to set up a little render farm with a server and a RAID array hooked up to a SAN on your editing computer. I mean, in a home DV editing situation.

[Mark Allen]

My 2 cents. Having used Final Cut and Premiere (both from version 1) - Final cut would be my preference by far. It's true that Premiere has some AE integration - however, final cut can do a bunch of things of it's own and with motion starting to steal more and more of shake's abilities) it will get better even. You could use Automatic Duck for your AE integration, but frankly - if something is complex enough to be done as a separate shot in AE... then just do it as a separate shot and import it back in - it's almost just as easy... all the color grading stuff and basic roto'ing - all that can be done right in Final Cut.

 

If you are thinking about effects stuff..... I'm gonig to suggest maybe thinking G5. Yes, a G4 will work - but it's a really cheap solution and so you can't expect the same results that you'll get with a G5 (or dual G5 for that matter). On my dual I can nearly playback uncompressed HD footage with zero additional hardware and no upgrades from the stock (and that's just a dual 2, not the dual 2.5) - however - you don't have to go that far. The mac mini is very cool - but I still look at the low end iMac G5 and ponder what an awsome deal that is.

 

Motion (which was mentioned here) relies heavily on the graphics card. The real time stuff is all based on how fast your processor is.

 

There are other places to get RAM, I buy all my ram from www.macsolutions.com - other people recommend www.mushkin.com.

 

By the way - if you've worked on PCs, the one thing I must say is that you would appreciate the dsign of the G5 tower. It is so unbelievably nicely designed on the inside - add drives without even a screw driver - it's a beautiful thing. I've not opened up a mac mini or an iMAc g5.

 

Anyway - I do not think you'll be dissapointed - plus there is the bonus of the iLife package - iDVD is one of the most incredibly useful apps I've ever used ...and free. iMovie you'll never use if you go FCP.

 

Have fun. But... essentially - yes, I edited an entire feature (and a bunch of short things) on a G4 using final cut which had the same specs as the mac mini but more RAM and it worked very well.

[Carlos M. Icaza]

I went to Macworld yesterday just to see the Mac Mini. it is the best design I have seen in an personal computer in a long time. It is small, the size of a two inch thick dvd. hardly weighs anything and does not run hot. And talk about the iPodShuffle. Apple knows how to get it right.

 

Although it is one of the most excellent computer designs I have ever seen, and having ordered two of them, I would not recommend this unit for Final Cut Pro Editing.

 

 

Several reasons, and above all #1. It only has a 32mb of VIDEO RAM, and the biggest hard drive you can get inside of the unit is an 80gig Ultra ATA, not even a SATA HD which the G5's uses. Yes, it has firewire, but it is only a firewire 400, instead of the new firewire 800, and if you really wanted to do some serious HD editing, when moving foward, you will want the fiber optic card with the x-raid, which you would not be able to do so connect. (I would guess that by the time you are needing an x-raid, you are into serious editing and making some serious $$$).

 

NOW ! If you want to learn how to use FCP and do some home editing and play around with iLife, sure go ahead. I think the MacMini will serve its purpuse.

 

But for real FCP editing where you have gigs and gigs of footage that you need to work from, go with a dual G5, and you can install two 400gig SATA drives and have almost a tb of HD to work with.

 

 

I currently own a Dual G5 with 8Gigs of RAM, and with almost 2 tb of hd, and I also own a powerbook g4 1.2gigahertz speed. THERE IS A HUGE DIFFERENCE between them when editing.

 

My $0.02 as always.

 

Carlos.

[Robert Giampa]

Carlos-

Thanks for the tips. Of course, if I had a three or four grand set aside I would get a hot rodded G5 with the best of everything haha. What I will be using this system for would be videos like this one which I made with a friend:

 

http://www.satisfactionmusic.com/4.html

 

This is exactly the sort of thing I would be editing... I edited it on my pc, which is the following:

P4 1.9 ghz

1 gig of ram

windows 2000

80 gig external firewire drive

some crappy gforce 4 mx card

Premiere 6.0

 

Do you think the Mini Mac (with 1 gig ram) would be better or worse for this type of thing? Not effects heavy by any means, and all of the telecined footage imported from mini dv tapes. I won't be doing any HD editing or anything. The most intense it will probably get would be some green screen stuff, which I could possibly do in after effects if I needed to, but not very likely. Like I said, pretty simple stuff. I am not too worried about storage space expandability because of external drives. I just wonder if the video card would be too underpowered to really run FCP4 somewhat smoothly. I know it's probably not going to be a superfast dream machine, but I do want to give FCP a shot. I appreciate all of your guy's opinions!

Thanks!

-Robert

[Tenolian Bell]

A Mac mini will be fine for editing basic DV, and that is what you asked in your original post. When Final Cut 1.0 came out we were editing with 800 MHZ G4's. A 1.25 or 1.4 Gig G4 is fine.

 

For DV editing you don't need the latest fancy monitor.

 

The new version of iMovie which is apart of the iLife apps that come with OSX, will edit HDV and 16X9 natively. So if we are now going to call MPEG recorded video HD, theoretically every new Mac sold can edit HD out of the box.

[Tenolian Bell]

- the one-and-a-bit-gig G4s probably equate to something like an Athlon XP2400+, which is perfectly usable for basic stuff.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

The processor argument is kind of a hard one to make. Especially since Power PC and x86 don?t really share a 1:1 relationship. A 1.4 Gig G4 and a 1.4 Gig Pentium don?t necessarily mean the same thing. As their architecture and the entire way they process information are different. Their is more to the story of a powerful processor than clock speed alone. Intel just used that as marketing hype.

 

In fact Intel?s chase of the clock speed has cost them. IBM?s newest Power PC architecture puts a good dusting on anything Intel has right now. So much so that the next Xbox from Microsoft is using an IBM processor derived from the same model as the Mac G5. Sony is also using an IBM Power PC cousin for its up coming Playstation 3.

 

On pure clock speed none of these are as fast as x86, but a different story on real processing power.

[Carlos M. Icaza]

Ditto Tenobell.

 

Robert, for simple editing and not much fanfare, as I originally posted it, the mac mini will work. Will even run Final cut express HD like a charm.

 

I played with the unit on Friday, it is small, very small, and you can use your current keyboard, monitor, mouse, etc.... And, and when you do, get your ram from a place like memoryx.com, they are probably one of the cheapest guys around town here in the Silicon Valley area.

 

Enjoy,

 

Carlos

[Adam Frisch FSF]

It'll work fine. I've edited on my little 12" Powerbook 1000Mhz for almost a year now with no problems. I even have the slower 4200 rpm discs in it which they don't recommend, but I haven't seen any problems yet.

 

I love my little computer - it's my portable factory. I do my DVD showreels on it (DVD Studio Pro is an awesome program), I burn them in my built in Superdive, I design the covers and so on. I even color-correct some shots I'm not happy with in FCP. Or do aspect ratio conversions.

 

I can't imagine living without it. It has saved me so much money it's not even funny - I used to have to go to a professional DVD coding house to do my reels and it cost a fortune.

[Alvin Pingol]

IBM?s newest Power PC architecture puts a good dusting on anything Intel has right now. So much so that the next Xbox from Microsoft is using an IBM processor derived from the same model as the Mac G5. Sony is also using an IBM Power PC cousin for its up coming Playstation 3.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

In addition to this, Nintendo's current console, Gamecube, already uses a custom PowerPC-based microprocessor unit called "Gekko." (specs)

 

Sorry, I'm a gamer! :rolleyes:

[Boone Hudgins]

The only thing I really have to add is to make sure you have a USB keyboard. A lot of PCs still come with PS/2 keyboards that won't work with Macs.

[Sam Wells]

I'm not interested in mini-Mac for editing but I AM now curious about it for gallery-type installation applications.

 

Phil, which SONY would you recommend as an alternative to the Apple 23" Cinema Display ?

 

Also, out of perverse curiosity, has anyone actually SEEN HDV playing back on a Macintosh yet ? Good, awful, what ?

(this would be material that was NOT shot or edited in that format).

 

thanx,

 

Sam

[Phil Rhodes]

Hi,

 

Anything with "X-black" printed on the front. I'm working with a pretty decent one at the moment which doesn't, but is OK anyway - I'll check the model number tomorrow.

 

Phil