| Sign in: |
| Members log in here with your user name and password to access the your admin page and other special features. |
|
|
|
|
|| SportsShooter.com: Member Message Board
iMac's, graphics cards, and video editing
Alex Witkowicz, Photographer
 |
Denver | Co | USA | Posted: 6:45 PM on 07.16.09 |
->> I'm starting to experiment more with the 5D2 video, and my current machine has become pretty sluggish (3 year old MacBook), so I'm thinking about upgrading to something faster.
I'm looking at both the 24 inch 2.66GHz and the 2.93GHz iMac's. Are the slightly faster processor and better graphics card in the 2.93 version really worth the extra cash?
Compared to RAM, how much do graphics cards and processor speed really affect things like video editing, Photoshop, Lightroom, etc.?
Alternatively, would I be better off just getting the 20 inch, 2.66GHz iMac and upgrading it with 4GB's of RAM and a huge hard drive?
Thanks for your input. |
|
Alex Witkowicz, Photographer
|
Denver | Co | USA | Posted: 11:55 AM on 07.19.09 |
| ->> Anybody...? |
|
Kevin M. Cox, Photographer, Assistant
 |
Galveston & Houston | TX | US | Posted: 12:33 PM on 07.19.09 |
->> Hey Alex, I'll chime in since no one else has. I have no clue if the jump from 2.66 to 2.93 would be worth it for video editing.
However if you are going the iMac route you will want the 24" over the 20". The 24" model has a much better screen. The 20" has a cheaper TN panel that is only 6-bit color and uses dithering to display 8 bit color while the 24" has an 8 bit panel that is of higher quality and has better viewing angles. (By all accounts I can find online it is an H-IPS panel but I'm not 100% on that and it could also be an S-PVA panel. Either way it is better than a TN panel.) |
|
Kirby Yau, Photographer, Assistant
|
San Diego | CA | USA | Posted: 1:01 PM on 07.19.09 |
| ->> Alex have you looked into the Referb 24" Imac 3.06Ghz? Its $1,849.00. 1TB HD and 256mb more VRAM for just $50 more than the 2.93 you were looking at. |
|
Khai Le, Student/Intern, Photographer
|
Riverside | CA | USA | Posted: 1:26 PM on 07.19.09 |
->> From what I've read a faster processor trumps a better graphics card in video editing/encoding so I'd spring for the faster processor iMac.
Are you editing footage straight from the camera (H.264) or converting to an intermediate codec (AIC,XDCAM,ProRes)? |
|
Andrew Kornylak, Photographer
|
Atlanta | GA | USA | Posted: 1:39 PM on 07.19.09 |
->> Alex
The weak link for video editing is often the speed of your drives and the drive interface. A fast internal SATA drive or RAID on a external SATA (eSATA) drive will go a long way toward making your video editing smoother, more so than incremental improvements in graphics card and processor speed.
Unfortunately the iMac does not have a PCI or Express slot to install an eSATA adapter. You have to get a Mac Pro or a MPB for that. It does have FW800 which will be OK for editing 5D2 video.
All other things equal, processor speed increases video editing performance pretty much linearly, so you won't see too much difference.
The graphics card quality would be important for things like 3D rendering or processor-intensive rendering where the software will offload to the graphics card for that work, but its not so much a consideration for video editing. It's a moving target though. The ability of OSX and FCP to better utilize the graphics cards always improves.
Kevin is right about the 24" monitor though. So, that forces your hand. Unless you are willing to get the MacPro or MPB, get the 24" 2.66 iMac (or a refurb), buy as much 3rd party RAM as you can afford, and consider a dedicated fast drive for your editing, internal or external. |
|
Return to --> Message Board Main Index
|