iMac 20" vs 24" and FCP Suite 2

Hello again -

Thanks to those who answered my other post about upgrading my G4. Now I'm looking into iMacs, but am looking for some advice regarding the video card difference between the 20" and 24" models.

Either way, I would opt for the 256 MB version of the available cards, but where I'm stumped is whether or not the difference between the x1600 and Nvidia 7600 would be enough for me to throw down the extra $550.

My projects are simple - photo and DV based and have little to no graphics in them. I'll certainly play with Motion, but graphics aren't the focus of my work. Considering what I'm coming from, I imagine either machine will feel like a gi-normous improvement:

933 MHz PowerPC G4
1.25 GB SD RAM
Panther OS (I think...10.3.9)
GeForce4 MX video card (standard that comes with computer, I think)
very old, yet still kickin' CRT monitor

If anyone has any advice, I'd love to hear it. Basically, I want to know if I'd be content with the 20" for a couple of years until I can afford a Mac Pro. I suspect I will, but if I'm overlooking anything, I'd love to know about it.

Thanks a million for your patience!!!

Lys

If Motion and Color are not in your immediate future than an iMac G5 is just fine. Invest in an external FW Raid. I'd buy a used or refurbished one though. Motion actually runs and installs on an iMac G5 just dandy. And to be brutally honest, Final Cut Express might be a better investment than FCS for what you do. You can always move your FCE projects to FCP when and if you want to.

Michael Horton
-------------------

Thanks Mike!

I'll look into a G5 iMac as well. I don't think I want to go backwards to FCP Express, though, and since I also want to update DVDSP, I figure it's cost-effective to upgrade to the suite rather than each program individually.

I'm kind of excited about Motion. It would be nice to have the ability to incorporate more complicated graphic elements than I do now, though because it's not my main focus, I don't want to spend extra $$ on a system only for that program. Love learning new things and using new tools, don't love spending more than I make on getting them. =)

There's a compromise out there somewhere. Thanks so much for your input!

Then buy used or refurb. Save a bunch of money and still learn and have fun. When you get the machine, wipe the drive clean and install all you need to install. Chances are you will get a good 18 months of good will from it.

Michael Horton
-------------------

I can't recall where, but I recall reading somewhere a comment that Color in FCS2 will not work with Firewire.

Is that incorrect?

Color is software. It will run on a iMac 24inch Intel with the standard card that ships with it.

Michael Horton
-------------------

Mike,

I was thinking doing this as well (about upgrading from my older iMac (the half globe one) that I purchased in '03), and had one question about upgrading FCP.

I have FCP 4.5, and if I upgrade to FCS2? How does that work.

I mean, I've never upgraded since 4.5 was my first leap into FC. And since 4.5 runs on the older operating system, how does the upgrade to FCS2 work?

Is FCS2 upgrade (the $700 one) from 4.5 a full version, and all I have to do is give them my original 4.5 disks?

Or is it a true upgrade that has to be installed on top of 4.5, in which case, 4.5 can't run on Intel Macs can it?

Thanks

FCS2 will cost you $699.00 from FCP 4.5

Cheaper if you order from the lafcpug store.

Just follow directions to install. That simple.

[www.lafcpug.org]

Michael Horton
-------------------

If I depended on my video editing system for a good part of my income, the answer to this question would be simple - I'd get the biggest, fastest, meanest system I could get my hands on. Now, I'm not a person who depends on editing video for a living, but I work for a lot of people who do, so I get a pretty good picture of who is and isn't doing well in the 'biz' and why. These days, those who are trying to save a buck by working with minimum editing hardware are not doing themselves any favors.

For example, let's say you are only able to get $20.00 per hour editing. If you had a system that somehow saved you five-minutes per hour - thats 40-minutes per day or 3.3 hours per week, thats about 14 hours per month, times $20.00 which equals $280.00 per month which equals $3,360.00 per year. That means that, if you buy an new 8-core Mac Monster machine every year, it's essentially FREE! Now, hopefully you're getting quite a bit than $20.00 per hour, and it's a pretty good bet that the faster machine will save you quite a bit more than five-minutes per hour, and allow you to charge more - well, you see where I'm going with this.

These days, editing hardware is no longer necessarily a major investment, when you compare it to your hourly worth as a human being.

Travis
VoiceOver Guy and Entertainment Technology Enthusiast
[www.VOTalent.com]

Travis,

I understand what you mean but the example calculation you did below won't work as described.

Quote

For example, let's say you are only able to get $20.00 per hour editing. If you had a system that somehow saved you five-minutes per hour - thats 40-minutes per day or 3.3 hours per week, thats about 14 hours per month, times $20.00 which equals $280.00 per month which equals $3,360.00 per year. That means that, if you buy an new 8-core Mac Monster machine every year, it's essentially FREE!

The above assumes that you give the client a "fixed hour of editing charge". If you just charge the work time you will be faster and loose money - $3,360.00 per year as you calculated. Adding the new machine to that loss will give you twice the loss. That means you have to work 336 hours more to get the same income compared to the times when you worked with the slow machine. This are 7 weeks per year (assuming that you edit 8 hours 6 days a week).
So working on a per hour contract with a fast machine doesn't make sense.
A conclusion from your example could be to raise the per hour charge to 21.67 dollars (because you're faster) and work the same amount of hours you worked before - but you may loose customers because of the higher price. You can also spend some time to get new customers because you're faster and earn less, but that's not a real good alternative.
As long as it not an "on contract deal" (because you are good) it wouldn't make sense.

Quote

Now, hopefully you're getting quite a bit than $20.00 per hour, and it's a pretty good bet that the faster machine will save you quite a bit more than five-minutes per hour, and allow you to charge more - well, you see where I'm going with this.

See above. That would be even worse ;-)

Quote

These days, editing hardware is no longer necessarily a major investment, when you compare it to your hourly worth as a human being.

I don't want to offend and I totally agree to the "hourly worth as a human being", but math and business are both very relative.

Regards
Andreas

Hi Andreas.

You did not offend, in fact you caught me in a gross oversimplification. I should have said:

(sigh) I think that most of us will agree that a person's value as an editor is dependent, along with other factors, on how much editing that person can perform in a given time period. (I define "editing" here as doing all kinds of post production work using Final Cut Pro, or other Video or Film Post Production applications with a computer.) It stands to reason that the more editing you can perform, the greater your value, hence, the more you are able to charge for your services. Other factors may come in to play here, so your mileage may vary.

In most instances, the value of the time saved by having a faster computer will outweigh many times over any cost savings gained by not purchasing the aforementioned 8-core monster machine.

(another sigh)

Travis
VoiceOver Guy and Entertainment Technology Enthusiast
[www.VOTalent.com]