iMacs, Mac Pros, PCs, oh my!

[Chugach3DGuy]

I've been noticing more businesses and people using the newer iMac machines as editing workstations over Mac Pros and/or PCs. Is anyone else seeing this too?

I've tended to keep away from "all-in-one" style computers due to their lack of expansion and upgrading capabilities. However, with the rapid pace of current technology and the progress being made in processing, data storage and throughput, are traditional desktop style workstations becoming a thing of the past? With more and more video being shot to solid state media or memory cards, there isn't as much need for breakout boxes and interfaces with tape decks. I do almost all my short form projects and motion graphics on my laptop. I work long form projects on my desktop, but with the introduction of things like Thunderbolt, it seems like I could save some money in the long term by opting for something like an iMac instead of a Mac pro.

What say you, B-rollers?

 

[Necktie Boy]

I think you see many using on-in-all boxes because of the cost. The older Mac's don't have the T-bolt, which means no add ons. But I think it's still important to be able to see your timeline on a proper monitor.

With the newer Mac's with T-bolt, it does open the door for external monitoring, harddrives, and other T-bolt accessories. The question is do these new machines have the power that you are looking for? I think the cap on memory may be a problem.

At the TV station that I freelance at, use iMacs in the edit bays, and in the newsroom for editing. 27 inches in the edit bays, 17 inches at the desk. These are older iMac's without the T-bolt. They were able to have more Mac this way. The downside is they are unable to monitor an external video. And on many occasions, the video is too hot or off white.

They also use MiniMac's in the live trucks. Talk about being under powered.

 

[marstaton4]

Pretty much everything said above this is accurate in my opinion. I will say that if you are editing in DVCPro or DVCPro HD I would definitely consider the macmini as it is quite an easy codec for the machines to edit. If you are considering something that uses h.264 maybe you should step it up to something a little beefier.

These newer machines really are powerhouses compared to some of the lower end machines of the past, and can probably do most of what you need.

Some issues may be server connectivity, I know our Grass Valley setup that is 5 or 6 years old at this point uses fiber channel I believe for access to our media servers. Not sure if gigE can deliver the throughput necessary, I'm also not sure that it can't.

And if you are just running a solo operation I would say definitely try the macmini first and get a blackmagic studio 3d thunderbolt box which has SDI and analog in both directions for less than $1k. In my current setup I've got a 2 disc striped RAID array which gives me plenty of speed for what I need to do.

The things I would be concerned with an imac are if the monitor goes out you may be up the creek, and also I'm not sure if heat is a concern with lots of rendering in that kind of form factor, could be a non issue.

 

[Douglas]

I can edit on my 17" MacBook Pro when I need to. But, I can work twice as fast on my four-year-old Mac Pro with it's dual 23" monitor setup and other features not found on an iMac or notebook.

The cost of a computer is nothing compared to how much time the right setup can save me. If I can be even 10% more productive on one computer vs. another, then that translates to thousands of dollars every year.

My advice is not to spend too much time looking at the upfront costs, instead, consider how productive each one will make you at getting your work done.

I can't buy more time. But I can buy tools that use my limited time more efficiently.

 

[Lensmith]

I can't buy more time. But I can buy tools that use my limited time more efficiently.

Great quote and a valuable perspective to consider.

I've been doing some work for a law firm and the selling point, at least it seemed to get me the gig, was they didn't have to go anywhere to make revisions in the final product. I came to them with my MacBook Pro. They saw the piece, suggested the cuts, then saw the piece with the changes they wanted without ever having to leave their office!

Though. in this case, the time being saved was the client's and not mine.

 

[Douglas]

I'll bet it saved you time, too. It's a perfect example of how the right tool in the right place can make all the difference. I wouldn't want to edit on a notebook all the time, but it sure comes in handy sometimes.

 

[Ruff]

Currently a 27" iMac 16GB Ram. But the big change is I now replace my machine every 2 years.

 

[The Thing on The Sticks]

I am actually a big proponent of editing on the macbook pro. Enough so that I just upgraded to the latest model last week. For most projects that are not graphics heavy it is a no brainer and it gives you the ability to work on location just about anywhere. I once cut a series of vo sots while the reporter drove back to the station on something that broke late. Walked in plugged into their system and fed to server inside of 3 minutes.

With the new thunderbolt connection you can chain displays so if you are setting up a location suite you can use multiple 27"displays in addition to an external raid.

The times they are a changing and I think as things progress we will see more and more edit systems being run off of laptop or pad type cores with peripherals connected, as opposed to the pc towers we are all currently used to.

 

[Chugach3DGuy]

So I suppose this would also bring into question the validity of spending less money in the short term, but spending more often to upgrade equipment every 2-3 years instead of every 4-6 years. Does anyone think shifting to this kind of plan would help an editor or agency or freelancer be more nimble and able to more readily adopt newer technology to stay ahead of the competition? Or would you see it as an unnecessary waste of money?