New Mac Pro Mini Version 2

[goMac]

I'm not flaming but what percentage do you think of the nMPs being sold today will ever run 4k? Don't get me wrong, I get why they marketed as such. But marketing and reality often aren't the same.

I really would like to hear how people are using 4k and selling it to support their purchases. I mean on one hand, every other advice about the nMP given is to go with a iMac because of needs. So why doesn't the same logic apply to all things 4k? Where is the true gain working with 4k over 1080P cameras in the mainstream? Besides Hollywood, who really needs it?

Another interesting fact would be to find out how many people in hollywood or with hollywood needs are shooting with 4k? -100, 1,000, 50,000, 100,000 1,000,000? I suspect the later to be on the extremely high side of production even over the next couple years given how much commercial 4k is out there now.

I've looked at cameras and I could easily afford 10 1080P for the price of one 4k. I can't buy 10 Mac minis for the price of one nMP. So why the uproar over price? Seems it would be right in line or a great deal compared to other 4k technology.

Retina. The second coming of 4k won't be for video editors, but for high resolution displays. I'd bet the Thunderbolt Display is going to go Retina sooner than later, and that will push it to or beyond 4k resolution. It won't be long before Apple's standard display for the Mac Pro is 4k, and I'd bet third parties will follow.

Millions of people are buying Retina Macbook Pros that have reached close to 4k resolution.

Graphics people, developers, and designers are all going to want to go Retina.

----------

I thought there was a standalone 295X but I guess that was just a rumor. Course with a Mac Pro there'd be two GPUs either way, albeit with two x16 lanes rather than one on an X2.

Huh. You know, that would be interesting if they got the two GPUs to logically address themselves as a 295X2. Maybe for easier Crossfire support someday? I dunno. Just spitballing.

 

[handsome pete]

I'm not flaming but what percentage do you think of the nMPs being sold today will ever run 4k? Don't get me wrong, I get why they marketed as such. But marketing and reality often aren't the same.

I really would like to hear how people are using 4k and selling it to support their purchases. I mean on one hand, every other advice about the nMP given is to go with a iMac because of needs. So why doesn't the same logic apply to all things 4k? Where is the true gain working with 4k over 1080P cameras in the mainstream? Besides Hollywood, who really needs it?

Another interesting fact would be to find out how many people in hollywood or with hollywood needs are shooting with 4k? -100, 1,000, 50,000, 100,000 1,000,000? I suspect the later to be on the extremely high side of production even over the next couple years given how much commercial 4k is out there now.

I've looked at cameras and I could easily afford 10 1080P for the price of one 4k. I can't buy 10 Mac minis for the price of one nMP. So why the uproar over price? Seems it would be right in line or a great deal compared to other 4k technology.

Well 4K is more than just a video production resolution. Just having the resolution for your desktop/monitor is a tremendous upgrade for any design professional. So if we're including that in our 4K discussion, then I'd imagine a large portion of Mac Pros will use 4K.

But back to video. On the consumer front I do think 4K is a waste of time, at least at this point. Nothing is broadcast in 4K and the quality return isn't anything like the jump from SD to HD (on the home video front at least). I don't think it will stay as gimmicky as 3D, since it's more of a natural evolutionary step, but it will be a while before it's worth it. It definitely already has its firm place in the high end market and is cheap, all things considered.

Also, what 4K cameras are you comparing to 1080p cameras? Resolution aside, are they both on the same tier product wise? 4K will certainly flood the consumer product market in the near future even if there is no significant value increase behind it. The GoPro already shoots a lower framerate version and I would expect the next iteration to fix that.

 

[Larry-K]

iMac, Macbook Pro, iPhone and iPad are their flagship products in their main categories. iPhone overall.

Clearly, you don't understand the concept of a "Flagship Product".

 

[goMac]

Well 4K is more than just a video production resolution. Just having the resolution for your desktop/monitor is a tremendous upgrade for any design professional. So if we're including that in our 4K discussion, then I'd imagine a large portion of Mac Pros will use 4K.

The good news is as we reach the limits of human vision, the resolution race will drop off, and hopefully computer hardware can catch up.

 

[handsome pete]

I'm hoping that's exactly the case, but I'm doubtful. Part of me thinks Apple might opt to keep the 4-core Ivy Bridge-EP setup, but then offer Haswell-EP/DDR4/enhanced GPUs for the 6c model and up. Maybe differentiate the product lines by labeling the 4c model as its own product. "Mac" vs "Mac Pro", something like that. Perhaps put a price premium on the Pro line for the new technology being introduced and keep the 4c at the same $2,999 or maybe offer a slight price drop on it.

It wouldn't be very "Apple" of them to just drop the 4c and offer the 6c at $2,999. That would be sweet as hell, though. If that happened I'd have an extra $1000 for other things

They could possibly still offer the 4c and drop the Mac Pro down to the $2499 starting price it was at before.

Or they could just ignore reality and put the 4c at $3000.

The jump in cores at the high end is expected, but why is everyone automatically assuming they're just going to get rid of the 4 core low end? Or if they keep it, they'll stick with Ivy? Is there not going to be a 4 core E5-16** v3 version to use?

 

[goMac]

The jump in cores at the high end is expected, but why is everyone automatically assuming they're just going to get rid of the 4 core low end? Or if they keep it, they'll stick with Ivy? Is there not going to be a 4 core E5-16** v3 version to use?

I think there will be a 4 core Haswell-EP, but I would be surprised if the processor was offered at the same price point as the Ivy 4 core. I don't think the price list is out yet, but again, I would be surprised if the actual 4 core part doesn't see a price drop.

 

[MacProCard]

Well 4K is more than just a video production resolution. Just having the resolution for your desktop/monitor is a tremendous upgrade for any design professional. So if we're including that in our 4K discussion, then I'd imagine a large portion of Mac Pros will use 4K.

But back to video. On the consumer front I do think 4K is a waste of time, at least at this point. Nothing is broadcast in 4K and the quality return isn't anything like the jump from SD to HD (on the home video front at least). I don't think it will stay as gimmicky as 3D, since it's more of a natural evolutionary step, but it will be a while before it's worth it. It definitely already has its firm place in the high end market and is cheap, all things considered.

Also, what 4K cameras are you comparing to 1080p cameras? Resolution aside, are they both on the same tier product wise? 4K will certainly flood the consumer product market in the near future even if there is no significant value increase behind it. The GoPro already shoots a lower framerate version and I would expect the next iteration to fix that.

I was referring to 4k video. But out of curiosity, will the final product in photoshop be noticeable really to the human eye? Like what changes should I be able to detect in the finish product from a photoshop project done on 4k?

B&H has intro 4k cameras for around $2,000. You can pick up a no-frills 1080p camera for $200. So all things considered, the nMP seems to be an excellent deal in the 4k world for the average consumer.

 

[fuchsdh]

I'm not flaming but what percentage do you think of the nMPs being sold today will ever run 4k? Don't get me wrong, I get why they marketed as such. But marketing and reality often aren't the same.

I really would like to hear how people are using 4k and selling it to support their purchases. I mean on one hand, every other advice about the nMP given is to go with a iMac because of needs. So why doesn't the same logic apply to all things 4k? Where is the true gain working with 4k over 1080P cameras in the mainstream? Besides Hollywood, who really needs it?

Another interesting fact would be to find out how many people in hollywood or with hollywood needs are shooting with 4k? -100, 1,000, 50,000, 100,000 1,000,000? I suspect the later to be on the extremely high side of production even over the next couple years given how much commercial 4k is out there now.

I've looked at cameras and I could easily afford 10 1080P for the price of one 4k. I can't buy 10 Mac minis for the price of one nMP. So why the uproar over price? Seems it would be right in line or a great deal compared to other 4k technology.

I can't answer all your questions, but I can at least give my professional view--and we're a small post house that does non-profit work primarily, so I wouldn't even consider myself "mainstream" in terms of high-end volume that 4K involves.

4K means you can push in on subjects, pan and scan images when they're broadcast in 1080P or 720. It can help save noisy shots as well. Sadly these aren't issues with just bad recording; when clients change their mind on what should in a shot or the storyboards, you find yourself enjoying the latitude. 4K on devices like GoPros is also a godsend even if you're working with regular HD outputs--that means a lot more information can be cropped to stabilize shots.

4K video isn't just resolution, as well; lots of the cameras shoot full 10 or 12 bpc color, and have greater latitude for post-processing, color grading and adjustment. From the standpoint of the sort of "effects" work I have to do--cleaning up logos that the client suddenly found out they can't use, tracking in a screen replacement with their new webpage design--the extra pixels make tracking or mattes far easier.

As for "running 4K", do you mean 4K playback? All the new Mac Pros are capable of that. You aren't going to buy a nMP if you want to watch 4K movies produced by someone else. But that's not a real argument I think anyone is having. I don't think people are selling nMPs to their clients for 4K--they're selling workflows, which happen to include the nMPs or whatever gear and tech on the backend to digest, log, and play with that footage. The client really doesn't care if you cut their spot on a PowerMac G4 running After Effects 3 if the end result looks good. Whether or not it's worth the money is the business' concern.

EDIT: One more thing, in regards to cameras--most people really aren't buying these cameras. They rent them, and factor that rental cost into the day's shooting rate. Our studios use AF100s as stock cameras and when the need arises get Blackmagic 4Ks or F3s.

Also, $2000 is nothing in terms of recouping costs. More of an issue is if you break one of the $20,000 lenses that goes in front of that camera.

 

[goMac]

4K means you can push in on subjects, pan and scan images when they're broadcast in 1080P or 720. It can help save noisy shots as well. Sadly these aren't issues with just bad recording; when clients change their mind on what should in a shot or the storyboards, you find yourself enjoying the latitude. 4K on devices like GoPros is also a godsend even if you're working with regular HD outputs--that means a lot more information can be cropped to stabilize shots.

Yeah, 4k gives you a lot more room to edit even if you're only deploying at 1080p. It's the same reason I like high resolution cameras. If I'm doing cropping to get rid of elements I don't want, I have more pixels to work with before I start losing quality.

 

[handsome pete]

I was referring to 4k video. But out of curiosity, will the final product in photoshop be noticeable really to the human eye? Like what changes should I be able to detect in the finish product from a photoshop project done on 4k?

B&H has intro 4k cameras for around $2,000. You can pick up a no-frills 1080p camera for $200. So all things considered, the nMP seems to be an excellent deal in the 4k world for the average consumer.

I think you're confusing 4k deliverables and 4k monitor resolution. Photographs and still images are already (and have been for quite some time) being acquired/created in resolutions far greater than 4k. They are just never delivered at that high resolution because there's not much of a point (unless we start talking about printing). The increased resolution just gives the designer more latitude to work with. Same can be said for 4k video. While I think it's of negligible benefit for home viewers on their 60" screens, it's undoubtedly coming and should have more staying power than 3d. So I think you'll see more consumer camcorders gaining higher resolutions (and smartphones may not be too far behind). But seeing as it's already "cheap" for the mid to high end user, it's already being widely used not only for future proofing, but because of the additional latitude it offers for grading, vfx, etc. Even though the deliverable might be 1080p, 4k offers a lot in the production workflow up until then. And we haven't even mentioned just the added benefit of being able to work with 4k monitors alone. Even though 4k video acquisition/editing is still relatively new (on the consumer end), just the increased monitor resolution offers a lot of new freedom for a designer's workflow.

The Mac Pro really isn't doing anything special regarding 4k. Any workstation out there can handle 4k, including the old Mac Pro and older versions of Final Cut. However it's obviously a selling point for Apple to mention it since things like PCIe flash storage really push the abilities to work with higher resolution/file size formats.