[adsmaho]

i want a powerbook because of its size, portability but i also need to do some serious editing on fcp, cinema tools, ae.
can the powerbook pull if off wiht reasonable speed?? is it realiabe?

or is powermac substancially better??

[seanyepez]

Power Macs are substantially better for the programs you're going to be using, but a 1-gigahertz PowerBook will run them adequately.

[Mastrap]

For serious editing work you should always get a PowerMac. You'll want at least 2 monitors and the ability to preview on a PAL, or in your case probably NTSC, monitor as well. Add to that a coupe of drives and the PB is second best by far.

I use FCP for quick n' dirty rough cuts and it's fine on a portable.

[melman101]

I guess it depends on what kind of system you need. If you need portability, then you need a powerbook obviously. If you need speed and a fast desktop then obviously the powermac is the way to go.

I just recently purchased a 12" G4, with Superdrive. I use Final Cut Pro on it, and it works just fine. Plus the ability to hook up an external monitor in either mirror or dual monitor support is an added bonus. I am very happy with my machine.

Sincerely,
Mel

[AssassyN]

As stated, I'd say that for "serious" work like you mentioned, it'll be next to impossible to pull off in a satisfying manner of a notebook of any kind. Of course the 17" PB could handle it, and get the job done, but it won't do it as quickly or as seamlessly as a Dual G4 PowerMac would. However, if portability is a must and you're willing to deal w/ some slow spots in your work, the 17" PB could do it.

[javabeans]

How about getting both...the PM for serious editing and the 17" PB for taking things enroute? Of course if you have the $

[katorga]

I don't do video editing, but I do a LOT of code compiling. I find my powerbook Ti 800 is fine for 95% of what I do.

For desktop use I bought an iCurve laptop stand to lift the powerbook out of the way and bring it into line with my 19" LCD. Works great as a dual head workstation (and its SUPER quiet compared to my PC desktop).

I'm slowly saving up for, and acclimating my wife for, the purchase of a 23" cinema display to make this the perfect setup.

If Apple ever releases a dual processor Pbook, I'll never look at a desktop again.

[k2director]

Where do you guys get this drivel about a PowerBook being only "adequate" for video apps, and a PowerMac being necessary for "serious" work??

A 1ghz Powerbook (either 15 or 17") can be a PHENOMENAL video platform, it depends on the kind of projects you're doing.

Are we talking editing in Final Cut? Tons of projects are edited in DV video, which a PB handles without breaking a sweat. Also, tons of projects don't require a lot of rendering--if yours does, then you'll see an appreciable speed up of renders with a dual PowerMac, but for cuts-only editing, a PB will function just the same. Even with heavy rendering, a 1Ghz PB is NOT slow by any means. Honestly, I used to edit lots of video on a 500Mhz G3 Powerbook, running at 1024x768 screen res. I got plenty of productive work done, and my newer Ti 1Ghz blows that system away, of course....

Cinema Tools? For most of the work you'll do with CinemaTools, it works exactly the same on a Pbook as a PowerMac.

AfterEffects? That's the app that makes the biggest case for a dual G4 Mac, since everything you do in AE has to be rendered, and so a faster system can really speed up your work. Still, a single 1 Ghz G4 PowerMac was a respectable mid-level system just a year ago, so a 1Ghz PowerBook today is still going to be a solid workhorse for AfterEffects work.

If raw performance is your ONLY criteria, then of course get a stocked-up dual 1.4 Ghz PowerMac. But if portability means anything to you (and it certainly does to me, and many others), then the Pbook blends great power, with mobility.

Case in point: my standard work configuration is a 1Ghz PB with SuperDrive, 60 gig internal drive, 60 gig bus-powered Firewire external drive (fits in your palm), and a Sony PC-5 handheld DV camera (which I use as a playback deck for logging video from DV tapes).

The whole system fits in a medium sized shoulder bag, and weighs about 7-8 pounds (including the bag). It requires no external power. I can take it anywhere--was in San Francisco last week, am in LA this week, and back to SF next week, and then to Washington DC after that. I'm editing video daily, with rendering, and burn a DVD every few days. Never feel the need for anything more, though every once in a while, I'll consider getting a Cinema Display to attach to the Pbook when I'm home (and I'm always free to do that if I want).

True, there are projects that would require a desktop Mac--installing an uncompressed capture card, HD video, extremely heavy rendering, etc. But many projects don't have these needs, and in these cases, the Pbook can be ideal.

[chrisutley]

Dude, how do I get on a career path to do what you do? I want to travel, shoot video, and edit on my PowerBook.

I'm already out of school, but I'm willing to go back. Good websites for people in the profession???

Originally posted by k2director:
Where do you guys get this drivel about a PowerBook being only "adequate" for video apps, and a PowerMac being necessary for "serious" work??

A 1ghz Powerbook (either 15 or 17") can be a PHENOMENAL video platform, it depends on the kind of projects you're doing.

Are we talking editing in Final Cut? Tons of projects are edited in DV video, which a PB handles without breaking a sweat. Also, tons of projects don't require a lot of rendering--if yours does, then you'll see an appreciable speed up of renders with a dual PowerMac, but for cuts-only editing, a PB will function just the same. Even with heavy rendering, a 1Ghz PB is NOT slow by any means. Honestly, I used to edit lots of video on a 500Mhz G3 Powerbook, running at 1024x768 screen res. I got plenty of productive work done, and my newer Ti 1Ghz blows that system away, of course....

Cinema Tools? For most of the work you'll do with CinemaTools, it works exactly the same on a Pbook as a PowerMac.

AfterEffects? That's the app that makes the biggest case for a dual G4 Mac, since everything you do in AE has to be rendered, and so a faster system can really speed up your work. Still, a single 1 Ghz G4 PowerMac was a respectable mid-level system just a year ago, so a 1Ghz PowerBook today is still going to be a solid workhorse for AfterEffects work.

If raw performance is your ONLY criteria, then of course get a stocked-up dual 1.4 Ghz PowerMac. But if portability means anything to you (and it certainly does to me, and many others), then the Pbook blends great power, with mobility.

Case in point: my standard work configuration is a 1Ghz PB with SuperDrive, 60 gig internal drive, 60 gig bus-powered Firewire external drive (fits in your palm), and a Sony PC-5 handheld DV camera (which I use as a playback deck for logging video from DV tapes).

The whole system fits in a medium sized shoulder bag, and weighs about 7-8 pounds (including the bag). It requires no external power. I can take it anywhere--was in San Francisco last week, am in LA this week, and back to SF next week, and then to Washington DC after that. I'm editing video daily, with rendering, and burn a DVD every few days. Never feel the need for anything more, though every once in a while, I'll consider getting a Cinema Display to attach to the Pbook when I'm home (and I'm always free to do that if I want).

True, there are projects that would require a desktop Mac--installing an uncompressed capture card, HD video, extremely heavy rendering, etc. But many projects don't have these needs, and in these cases, the Pbook can be ideal.

[katorga]

If widescale wireless access ever becomes a reality, then the desktop will become and endangered species.

I'd like to see a laptop/desktop hybrid solution: 1-2 970 class CPU's in the laptop, 2-4Gb RAM capacity, 15-17" LCD, and a 5+ hr battery life. Combine that with a high speed link to an external "processor pack" that adds a couple of expansion slots, some USB, firewire and 1-2 more CPUs.

Going out? undock the laptop and carry a good portion of your processing power with you. Staying home? Plug in and double your power (and add access to more displays, raid arrays, etc.)

All in a nice clean design a la the PB 17". Maybe the expansion module could be a matching "slab" like the old component stereo systems.

[Mastrap]

Originally posted by k2director:
Where do you guys get this drivel about a PowerBook being only "adequate" for video apps, and a PowerMac being necessary for "serious" work??

Very few "serious" projects are shot on DV. I produce commercials and while we have used DV when appropriate the real stuff that you'll see on the TV is still mostly shot on film and will be shot on film for the foreseeable future.

In order for a Mac to handle video it has to be compressed by the camera first. To give you an idea, standard DV compresses the data to a fixed rate of about 3.5 MB/sec. While this is close to broadcast quality, it's still a huge jump in quality to uncompressed video.

So while you can indeed make a very good living with a PB and a DV camera and while such work is in no way not professional and/or serious it is also at the lower end of the quality range.

[makkystyle]

Very few "serious" projects are shot on DV. I produce commercials and while we have used DV when appropriate the real stuff that you'll see on the TV is still mostly shot on film and will be shot on film for the foreseeable future.

While I agree that film is still the preferred method for high-quality video needs, I completely disagree that "very few serious projects" are shot on DV.

I know for a fact that the majority of SkyNews on location broadcasts are done with Canon XL1s DV Camcorders. Here in Ireland several of RTE's programs are solely shot on DV. And this is the case for many other production houses throughout the world. Using DV doesn't make you any less "serious" than a film user it only means you have different needs. Needs like being able to edit on the go and hence needing a powerbook. Needs like a smaller camera that you can carry alongside your powerbook so you can do most of your production on the road.

[Mastrap]

Originally posted by makkystyle:
Using DV doesn't make you any less "serious" than a film user it only means you have different needs.

That's why I said:

and while such work is in no way not professional and/or serious it is also at the lower end of the quality range.

[k2director]

Mastrap,

You say very few "serious" projects are shot on DV. Well, what's a "serious" project? Do you mean a commercial project, as in: something that is a commercial endeavor (done to make money)? Well, in that case, I'd argue that the MAJORITY of non-linear editing done in the world today (and I'm not counting student films here), is done in DV or in other compressed formats.

What kind of commercial video projects are shot on DV? Let's see: Virtually every industrial video, corporate video, informational video and wedding video out there these days. Many cable shows are shot on DV as well--everything from the stuff you see on Tech TV to CNET TV to reality tv shows (other than the top top tier stuff), and of course HUGE numbers of documentaties. DV video is the preferred format of choice for all of this stuff (and there's a lot more of these projects being made than broadcast television commercials.

In addition to the projects shot with DV cameras, there's the whole spectrum of content that gets shot on a different format like film, or beta tape, and then **transfered** to DV for editing purposes, but not final finishing. You know that the VAST majority of Avid editing systems (what many people would consider to be systems for "serious" projects) can't edit uncompressed video, but have to compress it, and edit it in that compressed form, and then take the project file or EDL to a top-tier uncompressed finishing system and use that system to assemble the uncompressed footage according to the edit? Well, DV is a perfect format for all that so-called "offline" work, because you can play it on just about any kind of Mac/PC, instead of having to use an Avid which has its own proprietary compression hardware and standards, etc.

A HUGE amount of editing work is done with compressed, offline media--and I'm talking for major TV shows and commercials now--and DV is a great format for that kind of work.

Working with uncompressed media--which a PowerBook CANNOT do, agreed--is only necessary for a minority of projects when you consider all the pro video work being done in the world, and even when it's required, and usually much more cost effective to edit an uncompressed project in a compressed form, and assemble it uncompressed (usually on a specialized system, since they cost a lot of $$) only as a last step.

And for that compressed editing work (it could be for a major feature film, or major TV commercial...whatever), the PowerBook is as well suited as any other system....

[HasanDaddy]

I use my Ti 1 ghz for FCP editing (and TONS of rendering)

Even the 500 mhz Ti runs FCP GREAT

I will say though that rendering times on a Dual machine are AMAZING....

but the 1 ghz portable processor gets the job done EXTREMELY well

The only computer that is truly questionable for video editing is the iBook --- its a good computer, but it can only go so far with FCP....the 1 ghz PowerBook can accomplish anything that a PowerMac can accomplish though (even if its at a lower speed)

[MacNStein]

Yeah, are we talking a matter of seconds or even fractions of a second in most amateur/semi-pro rendering work? Heck, even if it's just a matter of a couple minutes, the flexibility and portability of the new PBs far outweighs the perceived need for a PM. I get many customers who ask me if it's worth giving up portability to go with a dual PM for video editting, and I ask them one simple question, "do you run or plan to run Shake or AE extensively"?

I do quite a bit of semi-pro work on my PB 12 (weddings, discussion format stuff, documentaries, etc.) and it's very fast in FCP and AE. The only Mac being sold right now that wouldn't do this type of work seemlessly is the iBook, and I very seldom recommend it to anyone... except for a college kid wanting something for writing term papers, web surfing, and a little gaming.

[dialo]

I do 'serious work' (if by serious you mean paid) using a powerbook. Most everything I do is motion jpeg 800x600, and the powerbook works wonderfully. I am not hurting for speed.

For those of you doing 'serious work' that can't be done on a powerbook, what exactly do you think you are doing? If you are doing a 30 second spot with lots of effects, you have your ram previews that aren't really happening any faster on a tower. Hell, I don't find any prohibitive difference in combustion between a powerbook and a dual gig pentium. Sure After Effects might be faster at rendering on a dual 1.42 than a 1 Ghz, but in all of my upgrades my workflow hasn't really changed due to processor speed increases.

If you are doing longer work with lots of effects, you are doing stuff like 40% of what I do, and the powerbook is fine.

If you are rendering 3D animations from programs like cinema 4D, then you are doing stuff like 30% of what I do, and it's going to take a long time not matter what system you are on. Thank god OS X allows you to work on anything else while it's rendering.

And if you are just doing cuts and color correction, how in god's name are you going to say you need a faster machine? For what? Slicing faster?

That said, a fast powermac would be nice and is certainly faster. Is it necessary? Absolutely not. Where were you people two years ago when 1Ghz would have been a dream?

[Riemann Zeta]

Doubtless the PM would be faster (dual versus single processor on SMP-aware apps.), however, the convenience of a PB cannot be understated. Get the 1GHz Ti with maximum RAM and use two monitors (internal LCD + external LCD). That is what I do, and it has worked wonderfully.

Edit: Oh, I assumed that you would be using DV when you mentioned 'serious' editing work. If you are using, say HD*1080, then you might need something a tad (sarmasm) more powerful.

[dialo]

Originally posted by Riemann Zeta:

Edit: Oh, I assumed that you would be using DV when you mentioned 'serious' editing work. If you are using, say HD*1080, then you might need something a tad (sarmasm) more powerful.

Of course, if he's doing that he'd be in trouble not already knowing the answer to his question.

[tooki]

I must object to the DV format being considered less than broadcast quality. Consumer-grade DV camera quality is about as good as old analog broadcast cameras, and broadcast DV cameras (like DVCPRO and DVCAM) are most decidedly not of mediocre quality! (The only significant differences between consumer DV format and the pro DV formats is how timecode is stored and whether drop-frame is used. DVCPRO puts the timecode on a separate control track, while consumer DV and DVCAM embed it. The physical formulation of the magnetic tape is different, too, since broadcast has more stringent requirements.)

Just because video is compressed doesn't mean it's bad -- 3.6MB/sec is more than capable of transmitting a fantastic SD (standard definition) image.

Most of the TV stations around here have switched from various iterations of Betacam to either DVCPRO or DVCAM. I think that $100,000 cameras recording to $11,000 DVCPRO VTRs counts as broadcast quality (and yes, it gets broadcast to a market of over 1 million), and yup, that's 3.6MB/sec video!

tooki

P.S. I'm not saying that broadcasters should start using $400 MiniDV cameras. Instead, my point is that the DV format is capable of full broadcast-quality video. Whether a given camera or VTR can actually generate that good an image is a separate discussion. The CCD (or CCDs), analog-digital converters, compression chips, precision of the tape drive, and the overall quality of the support circuitry obviously have significant impact on the final picture quality.

[real]

Originally posted by Mastrap:
Very few "serious" projects are shot on DV. I produce commercials and while we have used DV when appropriate the real stuff that you'll see on the TV is still mostly shot on film and will be shot on film for the foreseeable future.

In order for a Mac to handle video it has to be compressed by the camera first. To give you an idea, standard DV compresses the data to a fixed rate of about 3.5 MB/sec. While this is close to broadcast quality, it's still a huge jump in quality to uncompressed video.

So while you can indeed make a very good living with a PB and a DV camera and while such work is in no way not professional and/or serious it is also at the lower end of the quality range.

WHAT?
Thats only if you have a HD deck and have to be working(visual effects, Color correction) at 1920X1080, you can do projects in DV then send out the EDL for the HD, D1 layoff. I have done many a project in this very same way. The only HD I touched was in After effects(but not really I was working at 960X540, 50% of HD)That is rendered at HD 1920X1080.The Image sequence sent off with a EDL from FCP.Why work a with uncompressed D1 or HD if you dont have to, its a waste of your resources(CPU, Disk, Pocketbook).Yeah you have to get it transfered to DV, or even DVCPro. I would listen to K2director hes been doing the moblie thing for years.
I work on both a Dual 800 and a 12" PB and both do there job, I wouldn't want a powerbook for a 2k film res composite I would use the Dual 800. The real question is how long are you willing to wait for a render. If you have 3 or 4 projects going at once then I would go for a Powermac.

The powerbbok can put it off butthe powermac will do it faster. Real simple.

real