Minimal Computer Requirements

[Nonsense]

So in terms of being able to edit with Reds 4k raw footage, will have to be buying a new computer here? I have a 2ghz dual core imac and 1.66 gigs of ram. I know i will be able to view the quicktime files and see the "undeveloped" images i shot. But will i be able to render colors and cut with it?

[Movies for the Mind]

I'd like to read an answer to that question myself.....

[Gary Stone]

i'd recommend the fastest macpro you can afford. it offers way more expandability (RAID card, exceed 4GB of ram, ect.) than the imac.

the imac also limits you to firewire 800 connectivity to external media. not fast enough.

you could probably edit the small or medium proxies, but when it came time to render out the 4K (or even 2K) you'll be hating it.

BIG MAC PRO!

[Jesse Johnson]

This is the set-up I'm planning on getting. Hope this helps.

Mac Pro Desktop:

Two 2.8GHz Quad-Core Intel Xeon (8-core)
4GB (4 x 1GB) RAM
2 x 1TB 7200-rpm Serial ATA 3Gb/s
2 x ATI Radeon HD 2600 XT 256MB

Of course, this is only what I can currently afford. The RAM is always upgradeable, but the important thing is that you get an 8-core computer with a really, REALLY good graphics card(s).

Now, as far as I know, footage you edit in 2K and 4K is going to be GPU based, not CPU based, especially in Final Cut. So the better your graphics card, the faster you'll be able to render out footage.

[Brian Reisdorf]

With that iMac, you'll probably be able to cut with the medium (1024x512) proxies reasonably well, and MAYBE be able to edit the High (2048x1024) proxies, though I kind of doubt it.

Using the "developed" footage from REDAlert or REDCine would be about the same if you were going to output it to those same resolutions, maybe even a bit faster because prores422 plays better than the proxies do. HOWEVER, actually rendering out those red files into prores422 on that machine is going to take an eternity. This is where you'll see the biggest benefits of a faster more powerful machine.

Rendering out the best possible images in 2K, from a 4k r3d is about a 4-6 to 1 ratio on a 8-core 3.0ghz mac with 4gbs ram and a quadro 4600. So dependent on settings, you're looking at ~5 minutes to render 1 minute of footage. Times will increase with slower machines.

I didn't mention editing/processing to 4K for the obvious reason that there's still no way to do it even on the biggest macpro out there. Your biggest output is almost certainly going to be 2K.

[Robert P. Hogue]

These are my Three computers:

iMac 24" 2.8Ghz, ATI RADEON 2600 PRO
2GB RAM

Mac Pro Dual 2.8Ghz Clovertown Xeon
Nvidia GeForce 7300GT
500 GB SATA, 4GB RAM
Dual 23" Cinema Display
Fiber Channel Card

Mac Pro Dual 3.2 Ghz Harpertown (8 Core)
Nvidia Quadro FX 5600
1TB SATA, 16GB RAM
Dual 30" Cinema Display
Fiber Channel Card

Trust me, you'll want the higher end video card. The iMac is fine at 720p proxy, sluggish at 1080p. You'll also thank having the expansion card slots in the MacPro. You can probably get away with the base model Mac Pro with the midrange video card quite nicely, but the more you can afford the better - REDCODE is highly GPU dependent. For doing DI finishes, I would definitely go with the Quadro card - it is night and day for running color to do the final color grading - big speed difference from my other Mac Pro.

[Rocco Schult]

some people say the ATIs do perform better in FCS because of the better implementation of the drivers (NVidias support for Apple is lacking or so...)
that's what I read...
Thus, I the NVidias only payoff in 3D and stuff, but not necessarily in Apple apps...

Is that true ? Any experiences here ? Anybody ?