[PBAddict]

I am planning to upgrade my Pismo to a new Powerbook and at the same time move to Final Cut Expess. I would be grateful if someone can advise on the following:

1. Is the 4200 rpm drives that Apple using faster enough to capture video.
2. Should I partion Drive and keep a 30GB portion exclusively for Video, or will this not make a difference.
3. Is Firewire 400 fast enough to capture video from camcorder and write to external Firewire drive at the same time.
4. What external FW drive would you recommend that is still small enough in size to be portable, but fast enough for video
5. How much memory should I put in Powerbook.
6. Would current 12 inch PB run FCE acceptably ( speed and screen size) or would you go for 15"

Thanks for the help

[juanpacolopez]

Originally posted by PBAddict:
I am planning to upgrade my Pismo to a new Powerbook and at the same time move to Final Cut Expess. I would be grateful if someone can advise on the following:

1. Is the 4200 rpm drives that Apple using faster enough to capture video.
2. Should I partion Drive and keep a 30GB portion exclusively for Video, or will this not make a difference.
3. Is Firewire 400 fast enough to capture video from camcorder and write to external Firewire drive at the same time.
4. What external FW drive would you recommend that is still small enough in size to be portable, but fast enough for video
5. How much memory should I put in Powerbook.
6. Would current 12 inch PB run FCE acceptably ( speed and screen size) or would you go for 15"

Thanks for the help

The drive in my Tibook is plenty fast for capturing both firewire and analog sources... never had a problem with it.

The only thing I'd be worried about is the screen size. I think the 12" is really entirely too small for doing any sort of serious Final Cut work (speaking for FCP... never used FCE myself but I assume it's very similar as far as interface). The 15" is what I consider to be "enough" room... but sometimes I find myself longing for a nicer external monitor. Keep in mind that once you go from the 15-17, you only add about 50 pixels vertically... so you might be able to have like, 1 more track in final cut displayed... the 15" is plenty wide for both displays and the timeline, so I don't think the extra space in the 17" is really worth it for editing... though someone else who's used it personally might be better suited to answer this one.

If you get the 12", I'd get the MAX ram (640Mb)... as Final Cut eats it for breakfast (as does OSX). If you go for the 15, I'd say 768Mb would be the minimum for decent editing... but I'd say go for 1Gb if you can afford it.

I'm not entirely sure whether or not FW400 is fast enough to capture and write at the same time... never tried it... anyone else?

On the final question.... I don't think partitioning your drive differently would offer any benefits, unless perhaps you want to set up a separate swap partition.

[tooki]

Partitioning could, at worst, decrease performance. At best, it won't help much. I wouldn't bother.

FireWire is fine for capturing, even over the same bus. DV video is 3.6MB/sec, so even if it has to flow from the camera to the Mac and from the Mac to the external hard drive, that's still only 7.2MB/sec, well below the 50MB/sec that FireWire is capable of. (And keep in mind that the data flow from camera to Mac is a special mode called "isochronous," where the necessary 3.6MB/sec are reserved and guaranteed.

tooki

[marumari]

I agree with the earlier comments - I think that if you're seriously going to be editing video, that the screen on any Powerbook is going to be insufficient. Your best bet is to buy either a used 15" Powerbook or a new 12" Powerbook and then spend the extra money on a high resolution LCD display (like the 19" Dell ones that are quite high resolution and are reasonably priced).

[solagratia1600]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by tooki:
[B]Partitioning could, at worst, decrease performance. At best, it won't help much. I wouldn't bother.

How does drive partitioning reduce performance? I want to know, since I always partition my drives for apps and work use.

thanks.

[PBAddict]

Guys,

Thanks for the help, I remember in the early days of FW400, it was not possible to capture and right to a FW drive at same time, I think it had something to do with the speed of the system bus and processor, I guess this is now solved. But would be grateful if anyone has any practical experience of doing this and also advice on good fast enough and portable FW drive.

[juanpacolopez]

Originally posted by PBAddict:
Guys,

Thanks for the help, I remember in the early days of FW400, it was not possible to capture and right to a FW drive at same time, I think it had something to do with the speed of the system bus and processor, I guess this is now solved. But would be grateful if anyone has any practical experience of doing this and also advice on good fast enough and portable FW drive.

Best idea for a portable drive:

Buy a nice 7200 (or even 10k) RPM IDE drive... Buy a firewire enclosure... put the drive in the firewire enclosure, plug it in.

This will (in my opinion) provide you with the cheapest/fastest/most reliable solution around.

[GENERAL_SMILEY]

Right now I am capturing from a Sony DV Walkman to a Lacie 48 GB (I think) drive - one of those ones with the rubberised edges, not sure how fast it is. (Big advantage is it is firewire powered, even when the laptop is running off battery, while the DV walkman runs on standard sony cam batteries.)

I have a 17 AL, only 512 mb at present - haven't had any problems so far - dropped frames etc...

Not sure about the advantages, of the bigger screen, but it looks fscking cool.

[juanpacolopez]

Originally posted by GENERAL_SMILEY:
Right now I am capturing from a Sony DV Walkman to a Lacie 48 GB (I think) drive - one of those ones with the rubberised edges, not sure how fast it is. (Big advantage is it is firewire powered, even when the laptop is running off battery, while the DV walkman runs on standard sony cam batteries.)

I have a 17 AL, only 512 mb at present - haven't had any problems so far - dropped frames etc...

Not sure about the advantages, of the bigger screen, but it looks fscking cool.

No doubt it looks cool And you have the bragging rights of having the only 17" laptop.

That being said, compare it side-by-side to a Ti sometime. You have tons of extra width, but very little extra height in the display. The only thing I find myself wanting more space for in FCP is for additional tracks at the bottom, which the 17" won't help much with.

It would be pretty nice for watching DVD's or any widescreen content though, I'll definitely give you that.

[tooki]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by solagratia1600:
[B]

Originally posted by tooki:
Partitioning could, at worst, decrease performance. At best, it won't help much. I wouldn't bother.

How does drive partitioning reduce performance? I want to know, since I always partition my drives for apps and work use.

thanks.

The worst-case scenario is that two tasks (e.g. one system tast and one user task) are occurring simultaneously on two separate partitions, forcing the drive heads to continuously seek between the two areas in use.

Yes, the worst-case scenario for an unpartitioned drive could have the same behavior. The difference is that partitioning forces part of the data to be far away on the disk.

Essentially, partitioning is like folders, except that they force data to be on separate areas on the disk. Partitioning used to be necessary, both to meet filesystem limitations (like HFS's 2GB limit under System 7) and block-size problems (reducing "slack"). Nowadays, those are non-issues: HFS+ supports up to 4TB drives with a default 4KB block size, essentially eliminating slack. So on an HFS+ drive, partitioning basically is fixed folders that serve only an organizational role. I maintain that said organization can be better obtained by using folders.

Now, using separate drives most certainly can improve performance (especially if the drives are on separate buses, which allows both drives to communicate simultaneously).

tooki

[solagratia1600]

Tooki,

thanks for the explanation, that's really helpful information. When you explained about the slack problem, is that the same with drive fragmentation? (I understood that part of the reason to partition drive is also to reduce fragmentation of drive, since system drive and work drive can be used separately- that means the work drive would be the most fragmented one, and only the work drive needs to be cleaned up periodically)

thanks.

Originally posted by tooki:
The worst-case scenario is that two tasks (e.g. one system tast and one user task) are occurring simultaneously on two separate partitions, forcing the drive heads to continuously seek between the two areas in use.

Yes, the worst-case scenario for an unpartitioned drive could have the same behavior. The difference is that partitioning forces part of the data to be far away on the disk.

Essentially, partitioning is like folders, except that they force data to be on separate areas on the disk. Partitioning used to be necessary, both to meet filesystem limitations (like HFS's 2GB limit under System 7) and block-size problems (reducing "slack"). Nowadays, those are non-issues: HFS+ supports up to 4TB drives with a default 4KB block size, essentially eliminating slack. So on an HFS+ drive, partitioning basically is fixed folders that serve only an organizational role. I maintain that said organization can be better obtained by using folders.

Now, using separate drives most certainly can improve performance (especially if the drives are on separate buses, which allows both drives to communicate simultaneously).

tooki

[Axo1ot1]

The standard layouts in FCP 4 are much better than the ones in FCP 3. I think FCE is based on 3 and not 4, so the screen size might end up sucking until FCE 2 or whatever. If you want to get an idea of what FCP 4 (and I assume FCE) will look like on a smaller screen you can do it on a computer with a higher resolution monitor. Hold down Shift-Control-Option-Command and click the Tools menu, then Internal Tools, then Screen Size Override. This will enable you to 'trick' FCP into thinking it is using a monitor of a resolution of your choosing. Once you've made your settings select a window layout and see if the arrangements are to your liking. You can do your own layouts as well.

I am pondering a 17 inch Powerbook right now too, and I have to say that after routinely working with 2 monitors (1280x1024 and 1024x768) that the 17 inch screen seems to be adequate for my needs (at least while I'm away from my desk. I will certainly get a second monitor for it, though). If you go with a 17 incher then tmight think about getting a FireWire 800 drive while you are at it. It would be nice to have the extra speed for insurance

I also highly recommend getting a portable 2 button mouse (Like the kensington Pocket Mouse Pro). This is indespensible when it comes to editing.

[dlindsay17]

FCP editing on the 17" powerbook is a breeze. The nice wide display is almost necessary...going back to the 15" just feels cramped. Heck the display is even bigger than my 17" apple studio display CRT.

[juanpacolopez]

Originally posted by dlindsay17:
FCP editing on the 17" powerbook is a breeze. The nice wide display is almost necessary...going back to the 15" just feels cramped. Heck the display is even bigger than my 17" apple studio display CRT.

Yeah... as I said before, the 15" is what I consider to be "acceptable" for FCP... note that I didn't say "good"

It's defintiely useable... but I don't see how it would work on a 12"... the resolution just does NOT permit enough horizontal space IMO.

The only thing I want more rez for is for more tracks on the bottom half of the default layout (which I still use)... and I don't think the 17's extra 46 pixels are enough.... anyone move from a 15-17 for FCP... how much difference does it make?

[capetown]

Can you guys give me an indication of how useable fcp4 is on an alpowerbook - speed wise.

Cutting clips, transitions, audio, keyframing.

I am happy to leave the mac to render while i'm surfing? Can it handle rendering and surfing? How well does it multitask.

I currently use vegas video 4 on a dual 2ghz athlonmp.

I can continue to use the pc while rendering in near realtime.

I don't expect that kind of speed, but can it multitask, and handle slow tasks elegantly?

Thanks