Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

MaxwellsMac · Jul 12, 2008, 10:32 AM

So, I've been using a Santa Rosa 2.2 MB for a few months and I love it but now that I've upgraded to Final Cut I find it a bit lacking in the video editing dept. I just picked up a refurb MBP from the Apple store which before I actually take out of the box wanted to get a couple opinions on. It's the first MBP that was C2D. The 2.16 from 2006. At 1299.00 it seemed like a great deal. My question is do you guys think this is actually a step backward due to the limitations of the chipset?(less ram, slower processor, slower front side bus, etc...) If I keep the Pro I'll need to sell the macbook to help cover the cost.

Also, if I do go ahead and make this transition I want to transfer my 250G HD from the Macbook to the MBP. I know the drive is physically compatible so there's no problem there but can I just transfer it without doing anything to the drive or do I need to transfer all the info to an external via SuperDuper and then wipe the drive before putting it in the MBP and then use migration assistant? I realize the the MBP will need to be upgraded to Leopard as well. I know these are a ton of questions but any and all opinions are welcome! I really don't want to take a step backward here but I'm assuming that the MBP would at least probably be a better choice for Final Cut, yes? Thanks!

imitchellg5 · Jul 12, 2008, 12:59 PM

Depends. If you're using Motion, the MBP would be an upgrade. MacBooks can run Final Cut itself pretty well, but it's not very fun on the 13" screen. You can just put the MacBook's HD in the MBP and it should work just fine. Migration Assistant won't help because the drive has to be inside the computer. The only thing that would make me wonder about stepping back is the 3Gb of RAM max on the MBP vs the MacBook's 4Gb. If you're using more than one of Studio's apps at a time, you'll probably notice the difference, if you're just using Pro or Motion one at a time, you might not notice the difference.

OreoCookie · Jul 12, 2008, 04:16 PM

Motion and FCPro use the GPU for previewing so it is indeed an upgrade. Congrats

mduell · Jul 12, 2008, 05:22 PM

Originally Posted by OreoCookie

FCPro use[s] the GPU for previewing so it is indeed an upgrade.

You sure about that? I thought RT Extreme was just on the CPU; Motion and Color of course make use of the GPU.

OreoCookie · Jul 13, 2008, 07:58 AM

Originally Posted by mduell

You sure about that? I thought RT Extreme was just on the CPU; Motion and Color of course make use of the GPU.

FC uses the GPU currently for plugins (you can find this on the web page you've linked to), the reason why Apple recommends fast a GPU to run Final Cut is because Motion is a part of Final Cut Studio. Motion will use the GPU to render video, too.

But you're right, in the current version of Final Cut Pro itself, a faster GPU will not help. I think this will change in the future, though, seeing the new technologies snow leopard will bring.

mduell · Jul 13, 2008, 12:09 PM

Very interesting; from that page: "Then extend your repertoire even further by bringing in third-party filters based on the FxPlug standard — the same format used to produce the extraordinary real-time effects in Motion. Dozens of leading developers support the FxPlug standard for real-time GPU-accelerated plug-ins at 32-bit float quality."
I wonder when they started that; for a long time the ATi chips only supported 24-bit float operations.