Hi guys. I couldn't think of any other category to put this post but here because Philip has already blogged about the new macs. Anyway, I've been wondering about what you video professionals think about this new MacBook Pro with the retina display. As someone who is in great need for an upgrade from my aging iMac and needing a laptop, do you think the 2.3GHz model with 16GB of ram would suffice for editing, grading and doing some basic VFX on mostly DSLR footage and possibly footage from the soon to be released Black Magic Cinema camera?
I think that the new macbook pro is very interesting but very expensive as well. But all the features are very promising: Intel i/ quad core, nivida video card, SSD drives and 8 or 16 GB of RAM, it should be more than enough for video editing, even with footage bigger than full HD. And of course, the retina display.
Do you really think it's that much more expensive then the regular macbook pro? If you configure the regular macbook pro with the same (or similar) specs and features as the retina model, the prices are very similar I think.
Apple is always expensive, that's a fact but as a Apple devices owner myself, I accepted that long ago because I can recognize some great quality in their product. About the new MBP, the problem for me, if we wanna call it that way, is that the cheaper model comes only with a 256 GB ssd drive and has less hardware options than the more expensive version. So you can rapidly spend 3k$ or more to have the hardware you wish, so yes for me it is expensive compared to the normal mac book pro line.
It is with a certain heavy heart that I bought a MacBook Pro Retina recently, for my wife - the Accountant. She almost bought the ordinary one, with a DVD drive. At least she won't outgrow the puny 256B SSD. I paid £800 for my 512 SSD, and haven't really regretted it 18 months (!) later. However, I see that Apple still charge £800 for this pleasure, when I can get a similar SSD for my Pix or for Thunderbot for about £250 - that's harsh. So, we must rely on the 'Mac Fixers' to install 16GB RAM and third party SSDs, thereby invalidating warranties, to get cost efficient performance. But it has to be said, the time taken, the cost of maintaining, rescuing and generally dealing with the PC laptops we've used completely outweighs their initial cost. Our 'Cost of Ownership' by sticking to Apple has been very low. The Retina is very, very good - very nice, works well, feels like it will last another 6 years in the hands of an accountant. All the PCs we owned over the last 6 years are now recycled. The Blackintosh MacBook could be rescued for £200, the MBP with the dicky graphics card SHOULD have been replaced by Apple, but other than that, the whole family is working well and earning its keep. I'll own a Retina soon, no doubt. It does everything, everywhere. It works a little bit faster than I do, which is fast enough for me. However.... If I were to switch to Adobe CS6 and DaVinci Resolve, would I switch to a PC tower? Hmmm, probably not, unless I were to be doing Post Production for other people - the PC camp still pwns the super-fast performance crown, and if you're working for somebody else, you don't want to be watching render bars on time the client IS NOT PAYING FOR. So, room for both. And yes, the Retina MBP is phab for what it is.
Hey I had forgotten about this post until I saw this last reply. I did buy the 2.3GHz MBP retina with 16GB of ram. I am really really pleased. I just finished editing a project in 2K RAW shot on RED using it and it was a flawless experience. I even took it downtown to edit sitting at a café with a usb3 drive hooked up to it and I could easily sit there for a few hours running on battery. Though I didn't measure the battery life much this is how I felt, free from restrictions of a power supply.
I got the 2.7ghz with 16gb of ram and it runs like a dream totally flawless. Use it everyday and it hasn't missed a beat and I know it's going to be the same for time to come. Apple products are most definitely over priced, but the quality of the products are second to none. Unfortunately for my wallet I am a die hard Apple fan. Lots of my mates abuse Apple products but I can't honestly fault the products I own.
Each to his own. I prefer a big tower with big reliable and repairable hardware and a small ultralight for light stuff and remote file checks. Both comes for the price of the new use and throw away mac in a decent win configuration. I really don't want to start a war. It just seems some people still think win is instable. Win7 is very robust. Actually i had a lot of hardware and software problems with apple stuff in the past two years. But can't remember when one of my win systems let me dow. There are also some reports about broken mac pro retinas out there. If i remember right Philip had to get it replaced twice already and is unable to charge his iphone5 on #3 currently. Maybe just bad luck, maybe a sign of latest quality developements. Due of the fact the new mac pros have soldered ram, glued battery and display etc. anyone buying it should consider the fact that it might be a direct flight to trash after the warranty ends. If this is ok for you then this might me a nice light and mobile solution. In the end they are just tools and no customer will ask on what kind of machine it was cut on.
Both Mac and windows systems work well, I think that often it depends about how you use it. My first apple laptop was a PowerBook G4. I used it for 6 years. Now I have a 2009 MacBook Pro with dual graphic card that still does the job, including with the last various software updates. And I don't plan to change it anytime soon. The new retinas are cool but unless you're doing heavy "Full HD/raw/2k or more" video editing, I don't really see the reason to spend so much money.
As i said they are just tools Btw, Full HD/raw and 2k productions are daily task in a professional setup Time is money. One of the reasons why in a professional enviroment it doesn't really matter if hardware cost +/-1000 as long as it works efficient, reliable and saves time or produces a better output. Calculated on 2-3 years it makes not much difference on a daily calculation.
And therein lies the rub and a great quote from Sam Goldwyn of MGM regarding Charlie Chaplain: "We're overpaying him, but he's worth it." No matter how much we may 'like' a platform, business is business. If you do, say, After Effects or 3D for a living, you simply have to buy a PC. AND THEY AIN'T CHEAP when it comes to Motion Graphics. I've seen many case histories where a decent PC editing/motion graphics platform can and often does make a Mac look cheap (and wimpy). On a separate tangent, do we think Apple's going to return to the Tower market? Is Thunderbolt actually fast enough for monster GPU acceleration? Or will FCPX continue to be sculpted to fit MBP/iMac hardware? (visions of a few Mac Minis bolted onto a chain hanging off your main machine)
I wouldn't be surprised if Apple decides to discontinue the Mac Pro Line. They are heading to more thinner device every year, so I don't think that the Tower will find a place. They even update their Mac mini, while the Mac Pro is stacked on the Apple Store with the same specs of two years ago.
I have heard rumours of a Mac Pro update in 2014 - surely not that long to wait unless its a whole new beast based on a novel architecture? Point being, if I had a business that needed tower systems, I won't put it on hold for Apple, I'd be unpacking my shiny new Dell or whatever. Haven't we passed the tipping point where the iMacs outperform a 'nude' MacPro yet? The trouble is that the future of editing seems tied to the GPU, precisely where a slotted tower can shine.
