Laptop for HD editing

[chris]

I'm think about something like this one running Vegas 9:

http://cgi.ebay.com/NEW-HP-Pavilion-Laptop-DV6-2066DX-Dual-Core-6Gb-320HDD_W0QQitemZ260564219156QQcmdZViewItemQQptZLaptops_Nov05?hash=item3caad67514

There are quad cores but they're $2,000 and up.

[Bill Pryor]

Here are the specs on what I'm using--sort of, since mine's now 2 years old. So this one's faster, but not a lot different.
http://www.apple.com/macbookpro/specs.html

I don't know much about PC stuff but that 5400 rpm internal drive seems too slow. Everybody says you need 7200 for editing. FPC may be more of a hog than Vegas, but that price seems way too cheap for a reliable editing laptop. Have you checked the Vegas site to see what their technical recommendations are? My long past experience with technical requirements for software running on PCs is that if they say X is required, better go with XX. Sort of like the way the tripod manufacturers rate their heads--if it says it's good for 20 pounds, it'll be cool with 10 pounds.

[chris]

I don't know much about PC stuff

Well, you do now. Apple switched to fairly standard PC hardware some time ago.

Checking with Sony is a good idea, but you know the HD video I want to edit and that's pretty new.

[Bill Pryor]

What does Vegas have that's comparable to ProRes 422? Avid has their version of it, so Sony probably does too. I'd start by finding out what they say about minimal requirements for HD editing, then go up from there. When Avid first started making their software for PCs, they were recommending some high end HP systems. Apple wants you to use the MacPro, but lots of people are using the iMacs quite successfully. In fact, that could be an option for you if you want a screen big enough so you can live without a second monitor but don't want to have a big box stored in a closet. Except that you'd have to switch to Avid or FCP, so I guess that wouldn't be such a good idea. It's hard to beat the iMac, though, in what you get for the money. And that new 24" screen is pretty damn nice.

[RonH]

I disagree on the value of the iMac as a pro desktop computer. Consumer-grade specs, very limited expandability, huge disagreements (even lawsuits) been going on for some time on the quality of the screen for professional application usage, not very exciting graphics performance. All of the lack-luster performance of a laptop without the easy portability. Don't get me wrong, I've used them for jobs and made good money doing it, and would still like to have one to replace the aging Mac Mini we have in the home office (not to be confused with my business office at home).

That said as personal opinion, people are obviously making good videos with iMacs. The iMacs today are far better performers than the desktop Macs Walter Murch used to cut Cold Mountain. Having a team of techies to get through issues helped, too. But given the desire and tenacity, a talented editor can make magic happen with a relatively disappointing tool set and a limited budget.

If you look you can find a bevy of people who have Vegas running on Mac laptops satisfactorily. It's not what I'd do, but then short of slightly better compatibility with Sony SxS card files, I haven't found any feature sets in Vegas that would make me choose it as an editor over other applications. I haven't found it to be a staple in pro editing studios, and if I didn't want to make the investment in the mainstream apps like Avid or FCP, I think I'd go the Adobe route for better cross platform, application support and development future. Again, just my personal preferences. If I had to use a laptop for editing, I'd buy the most powerful and stable one I could wrap a credit card invoice around. I use a completely different evaluation process for what I buy for my business than for what I buy for myself, and devaluation and future proofing is part of the criteria. If top of the line specs today are bottom of the barrel specs tomorrow, middle of the road today is even worse by next week.

[Bill Pryor]

I know personally 5 people doing professional work with iMacs, one uses it for color grading using Color and has done work for a number of indie features, another does high end corporate work, another has done a 35mm feature film on an old MacBook Pro (with me doing post work). Nobody I know has had any problems because it's an iMac or a laptop. It's natural to want the biggest, best, most professional, but that doesn't mean you're going to achieve any better results. Same for the MacBook Pro, which I use. Lots of people in the LAFCPUG use iMacs and laptops as well. Most people using these configurations also have other monitors. As far as expandability, if what you buy works, that's all you need. Most pros upgrade every 3 years anyway. If a computer has enough power to do the job, I don't see any reason not to use it. If you're in a commercial edit suite with clients hanging over your shoulder, that's a different story. If I were going to buy a new system today, I wouldn't hesitate to go with the iMac or laptop. It's true that Vegas isn't as mainstream in studios as FCP and Avid, but again I know an editor who uses Vegas exclusively these days for some pretty high end work and makes more money than I do using what many of us scorn. My brief acquaintance with it showed me that it's much more like Avid than FCP, and in fact one Avid editor moved right in and cut a show with minimal learning at this guy's studio.I

[chris]

I didn't want to make the investment in the mainstream apps like Avid or FCP...

Apparently Apple doesn't know FCP is mainstream or doesn't care. They just laid off most of their FCP team and there are rumors they're selling the app to someone else.

Feel the love.

[Bill Pryor]

To make it worse, Steve Jobs said all is well with FCP, meaning the opposite is likely true. Maybe the guys who did all the work and got laid off will buy it and make it better.

[RonH]

Bill, you're correct people are doing good work with iMacs, but I already said that. My biggest issues with the iMac is limited RAM expansion, no external SATA support, and the low-cost monitor is tied to the CPU. I'm never comfortable knowing the monitor could have problems (and they currently are having some big issues with that) and I have to lose my CPU to get it fixed. Didn't like it with the old upright Macs, don't like it with any computer. My primary 12-bit monitor cost as much as my CPU, but outputs accurate color I can go to press with reliably.

My MacPro has the ability to have massive internal SATA storage without the issue of external cabling. And I can hook up external SATA RAIDs as well when necessary. I can choose what graphics card I want and how many monitors to use (2 always, sometimes 3). I like the flexibility. I also like being able to stuff as much RAM as I need in it and have 8 cores of processing help get work done as fast as I can. Not all my work is video editing; sometimes I work on print, large banners, signage, big image editing with files as large as 500mb. Sometimes I need a bunch of apps open at once... one contract had me working between Quark and InDesign, with Photoshop and Illustrator open as well. And I had mail and a couple utilities up as well. An iMac with 4gb RAM and a low-powered video processor can't deal with large image files and multiple monitors efficiently, and since I'm a one-man show, it's all about what I can get done in a day I can enjoy. If my living depended on editing HD video, I'd want the robustness of a system designed for heavy processing rather than hope a product built to consumer specs lasted. If I lose a few days because my computer went down, that's more than the difference in price, and Apple's service record with the iMac has not been stellar. I like industrial tools to be built to industrial specs. It's my money, so why not?

Apple selling FCS doesn't worry me any more than GE selling NBC. Apple bought it from Macromedia; if they sell it to someone else, that group will probably keep it going, maybe even improve it. I personally believe it's far too widely used professionally for it to be removed from the market. If it dies, I can either keep using the version I have (my work doesn't even begin to tax its capabilities) or try something else. I've been using PCs for communication work since before Aldus started selling PageMaker, and long before Windows. I've seen lots of products I liked come and go, get better or be made worse. They're just tools.

[chris]

if they sell it to someone else, that group will probably keep it going

Probably. But for an app that's already criticized for being behind industry trends, further delay is going to exacerbate that problem. I don't see that development as any kind of positive for FCP users. Laying off 40 people does not indicate to me all is well. That's a huge hit on a single app software team.

My opinion, and nothing recent has changed it, is that Apple is getting ready to discontinue their desktop line all together. I realize the Apple faithful reel in horror at that suggestion, but I don't think the pro market is all that much of their business anymore. If you add up all the pro sales, those would barely make a blip on a scale that shows iTunes sales.

I don't know they're going to do that, but I could see them doing it. They have iTunes, iPhone, iPods...really, what do they care about the pro market? Nostalgia? I don't think that will mean much. The pro market in anything is fairly thin slice of the pie.

Not saying it's going to happen, but I might have a Plan B just in case.

[RonH]

Niche markets are extremely lucrative if managed properly, and the halo effect from iPod/iPhone/iTunes has contributed to much of Apple's steady desktop market growth. The dime Apple makes from a each song sale on iTunes fosters iMac and MacBook purchases with dramatically higher margins (which in turn drive more song sales). I don't know what makes people watch the steady-to-dramatic growth of the single most successful personal computer brand in the world and declare them to be mismanaged and in decline.

I don't know what info you have seen or heard that Apple is abandoning desktop computing altogether, but I wouldn't read too much into a software product layoff. Jobs is famous for shaking up and reallocating business resources, and for buying competing and complimentary technology for integration and or development of entirely new products that negate the old ones. To my mind, the iPad introduction, the recent move of Valve's Steam online gaming service to the Mac, the expectation of Intel's brand new 6-core Gulftown processor in the Mac Pro (rumored as potentially as early as next week) and the recent developer release of another 10.6.3 beta all would seem to contradict the idea that Apple is getting out of the desktop computer market space. You must be getting some pretty hairy insider info to watch that kind of desktop market business activity and yet presume they'll be closing the computer factories to sell gadgets and songs.

Apple's recent announcement of their $40 billion in cash sounds like their Plan B. Mine is to breathe in and out regularly, and hang on to the stock I bought at $16 back in the '80s (when John Dvorak wrote the Mac was dead) that today stands at $224.

[chris]

Not necessarily. Market share numbers in an overall declining market are not relevant. What Apple head honchos are looking at are numbers like these from Q1 2009:

Mac Sales: 2,524,000

iPod Sales: 22,727,000

iPhone Sales: 4,363,000

The iPhone sales represent an 88% increase year over year. The margins in iPod and iPhones blow out any desktop, not counting residual income from iTunes and the AppStore. When you look at the whole, the margin on desktops and pro software is a rounding error.

Apple has no allegiance to the desktop market and I'd look for them to be the first to abandon it in favor of higher margin markets where they're better positioned to dominate.

If you look at the appliance trend (smart phones, netbooks, media players) in foreign markets, where these trends started, the appliance market has continued to grow exponentially and the desktop market has continued to shrink, sometimes geometrically.

But I understand the nostalgic attachment to yesterday's technology. It was hard for a lot of people in video to accept the DSLR trend and I remember people in another forum arguing that real movies would never be shot on video in our lifetime.

http://www.cinema5d.com/news/?p=2818

[RonH]

By this logic, Canon will abandon the video camera market because people are buying their DSLRs.

Okay, chris, whatever you say.

[chris]

At least I base my analysis on numbers and not the conventional dogma I pull out of my butt.