Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 4 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: New Mac Pro: What it means for Phase, Leaf  (Read 11919 times)
yaya
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1120



WWW
« Reply #20 on: June 11, 2013, 12:10:09 AM »
ReplyReply

Speaking of the power supply, anyone know if is internal or external?

External would really, really suck.
the large 3-pin female socket on the back suggest that it's internal
Logged

Yair Shahar | Product Manager | Mamiya Leaf |
e: ysh@leaf-photography.com | m: +44(0)77 8992 8199 | www.mamiyaleaf.com | yaya's blog
MarkoRepse
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 184


WWW
« Reply #21 on: June 11, 2013, 01:37:34 AM »
ReplyReply

Interesting concept so much more mac mini. And what if you want only one video card?
Logged
hjulenissen
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1666


« Reply #22 on: June 11, 2013, 02:10:35 AM »
ReplyReply

Some are still alive in the previous era ...
Or they choose substance over style...
Quote
That is what is there TB2. If you want a new specialized card, just connect it, not caring anymore if you have an empty slot, or you have the appropriate slot. In this way, you can create much more sophisticated equipment, which was not possible until now. (In the era of box pc) I mean, expandable with cards.Now It will be a very advanced units like more separate computers.
Start to think differently Cool
http://www.anandtech.com/show/7049/intel-thunderbolt-2-everything-you-need-to-know
"Thunderbolt 2/Falcon Ridge still feed off of the same x4 PCIe 2.0 interface as the previous generation designs. "

According to my understanding, high-end GPUs tends to appreciate more bandwidth than that offered by TB2.

From a purely ergonomy perspective, I hate having umpteen boxes/cables cluttering my desktop or floor, I would much appreciate to be able to insert the thing into some slot and forget about it. That could be a 19" rack, a tower PC cabinet or whatever.

-h
Logged
kikashi
Sr. Member
****
Online Online

Posts: 3914



« Reply #23 on: June 11, 2013, 02:48:47 AM »
ReplyReply

5.  What about the vast majority of people who would be well served by a single CPU and video card? 

iMac?

Jeremy
Logged
Craig Lamson
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 760



WWW
« Reply #24 on: June 11, 2013, 05:35:47 AM »
ReplyReply

iMac?

Jeremy

No thank you.
Logged

Craig Lamson Photo
www.craiglamson.com
design_freak
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1074



« Reply #25 on: June 11, 2013, 05:52:58 AM »
ReplyReply

Lenovo also has to have customers  Roll Eyes
Logged

Best regards,
DF

-------------------------------------------
WORK HARD AND BE NICE TO PEOPLE
-------------------------------------------
TMARK
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1834


« Reply #26 on: June 11, 2013, 06:25:47 AM »
ReplyReply

iMac?

Jeremy

I know many people who use iMacs for tethering and MacPros for production.  They work great.
Logged
BJL
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5121


« Reply #27 on: June 11, 2013, 09:37:09 AM »
ReplyReply

I am guessing that, as so often with Apple, there will be a small proportion of potential customers who are genuinely disadvantaged, because for example they need to add fast expansion cardds like graphics cards beyond the twin high end graphics cards already provided ...

... and the great majority of us will greatly enjoy the vast reduction in bulk and weight, because we no longer need or want internal expansion now that we have more modular extrnal options from USB3, Thunderbolt 2, and NAS via dual GB ethernet ports.

I expect that the internal power supply can also be reduced in weight and bulk, since it no longer needs to have surplus capacity for multiple added drives and cards that in most cases are not present. Instead, extra power is provided on an "as needed" basis, bundled with the USB3 or Thunderbolt2 drives and such that need it.

And about USB3: some comments seem to ignore its presence, and talk as if only the currently limited and pricey Thunderbolt peripherals are the only options, but isn't USB3 fast enough for a lot of disk storage needs?
« Last Edit: June 11, 2013, 09:39:53 AM by BJL » Logged
Steve Weldon
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1445



WWW
« Reply #28 on: June 11, 2013, 09:48:11 AM »
ReplyReply

iMac?

Jeremy

Last time I checked the Imac is using a mobile processor, doesn't allow changing video cards, and the monitor is less than ideal.  In short it's another packaged solution with the performance and most limitations without any of the advantages of a MBP..

Intel desktop processors are very popular in the PC world because they perform very well for their cost, there are many pre-configured choices, you can configure your own from a host of quality components, all while keeping the costs down.  In contrasts the Imac costs more than most PC desktop builds and the Macpro while great if you need it.. furthers the gap.  Of course they know if they offered the desktop processors the pricing on their other systems would appear very skewed.
Logged

----------------------------------------------
http://www.BangkokImages.com
TMARK
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1834


« Reply #29 on: June 11, 2013, 10:13:59 AM »
ReplyReply

Last time I checked the Imac is using a mobile processor, doesn't allow changing video cards, and the monitor is less than ideal.  In short it's another packaged solution with the performance and most limitations without any of the advantages of a MBP..

Intel desktop processors are very popular in the PC world because they perform very well for their cost, there are many pre-configured choices, you can configure your own from a host of quality components, all while keeping the costs down.  In contrasts the Imac costs more than most PC desktop builds and the Macpro while great if you need it.. furthers the gap.  Of course they know if they offered the desktop processors the pricing on their other systems would appear very skewed.

Steve, the iMac with i7 processors work fine for stills.  Performance is rather like a MBP, and like the MPB you just run a second calibrated monitor and external storage.

I don't really care what platform PS/C1/LR runs on, and for motion many custom PC builds are really stellar for editing, compositing and color grading.  From my perspective as a (former) business owner producing motion and stills, I'd rather go with Macs.  My experience is that paying a 25% premium for Apple hardware that simply works (and it does, for the most part) is a bargain.  My time is worth more than that 25% Apple markup, as well as the frustration and cost of hiring someone to implement a custom PC system, and constant support issues.  I know there are people such as yourself that have the skills and time to make and maintain a killer system (which is awesome, by the way!) but I'm not that guy. Wish I were.  So for me, Apple products were (and are) my go-to move.

I would also say that for 85% of photographers (yes I pulled that number out of my hat) an iMac is more than enough.  I guess if you do lots of stitching or heavy PS work on large 8x10 scans, you may need more capacity.  But for, say, a wedding shooter doing a little video?  An iMac would do it.

Disclosure:  I don't have an iMac.  We had two we used as location work stations for client viewing and tethering.  This is for stills, mind you.  We had a DIT station for motion, for logging clips etc.  This was a MacPro.
Logged
fredjeang2
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 786



« Reply #30 on: June 11, 2013, 11:09:33 AM »
ReplyReply

The only reason that could maintain today somebody
To mac in motion pp pipeline is prores and fcpx.
Fcpx is not for everyone but prores is good.

« Last Edit: June 11, 2013, 04:13:53 PM by fredjeang2 » Logged
Wayne Fox
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2810



WWW
« Reply #31 on: June 11, 2013, 04:49:53 PM »
ReplyReply

Speaking of the power supply, anyone know if is internal or external?

External would really, really suck.


I love the idea of external.  Shove it out of the way somewhere, no heat from the power supply in the actual CPU tower.  I'm gonna want this thing sitting on my desk Smiley
Logged

KevinA
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 898


WWW
« Reply #32 on: June 11, 2013, 05:33:29 PM »
ReplyReply

I like external too. It's all I bother to use. Just pick up your drive and plug it in to another computer. Use it with the laptop then use it on your desk top. No problem with external, Thunderbolt is very good.
Logged

Kevin.
BJL
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5121


« Reply #33 on: June 11, 2013, 06:02:42 PM »
ReplyReply

The three-pin female 110V socket shows that the power supply is internal, so truly "one fan to cool them all". The best picture I have found is this one from the good summary at http://www.slashgear.com/slashgear-101-mac-pro-2013-11285989/:



By the way: clearly 6 Thunderbolt ports, not two as some source had it. Which with daisy chaining of six devices per port for a total of 36 means that you could attach one of every Thunderbolt peripheral currently available!
Logged
Craig Lamson
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 760



WWW
« Reply #34 on: June 11, 2013, 06:55:02 PM »
ReplyReply

I love the idea of external.  Shove it out of the way somewhere, no heat from the power supply in the actual CPU tower.  I'm gonna want this thing sitting on my desk Smiley

Ive got enough on my desk.  I don't need to look at my computer.

Logged

Craig Lamson Photo
www.craiglamson.com
Steve Weldon
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1445



WWW
« Reply #35 on: June 11, 2013, 08:14:45 PM »
ReplyReply

Steve, the iMac with i7 processors work fine for stills.  Performance is rather like a MBP, and like the MPB you just run a second calibrated monitor and external storage.

I don't really care what platform PS/C1/LR runs on, and for motion many custom PC builds are really stellar for editing, compositing and color grading.  From my perspective as a (former) business owner producing motion and stills, I'd rather go with Macs.  My experience is that paying a 25% premium for Apple hardware that simply works (and it does, for the most part) is a bargain.  My time is worth more than that 25% Apple markup, as well as the frustration and cost of hiring someone to implement a custom PC system, and constant support issues.  I know there are people such as yourself that have the skills and time to make and maintain a killer system (which is awesome, by the way!) but I'm not that guy. Wish I were.  So for me, Apple products were (and are) my go-to move.

I would also say that for 85% of photographers (yes I pulled that number out of my hat) an iMac is more than enough. 
I guess if you do lots of stitching or heavy PS work on large 8x10 scans, you may need more capacity.  But for, say, a wedding shooter doing a little video?  An iMac would do it.

Disclosure:  I don't have an iMac.  We had two we used as location work stations for client viewing and tethering.  This is for stills, mind you.  We had a DIT station for motion, for logging clips etc.  This was a MacPro.

1.  Sure, but the MBP has the advantage of being truly portable so adding the cost of an external monitor to the equation provides that compensation.  With the Imac you're just replacing one screen with another and absorbing the cost of the replaced monitor.   There are no advantages to compensate.

2.  This is a myth.  First, Mac hardware uses the very same CPU, chipsets, memory, etc, etc as a PC.  They both 'just work' equally.   What gives the Mac an advantage towards having less issues is Mac's are built from a very limited number of components compared to a PC and require less drivers, supposedly allowing more time and validation going to each.;  Drivers are built into the Mac OS, but can come from MS or the OEM (or both) with PC's.  With PC's you have the choice of thousands of pieces more of hardware.   It's wishful thinking to believe they'd be as well validated, in some cases they are but in most not.    Personally I think the OEM's put the most resources/effort into drivers for their 'workstation)premium)' lines than for their cut rate bargain lines.  As they should.     So, what's an advantage to one could be a disadvantage to the other.  Either way it's easily something you can choose through a bit of education or even paying attention.

Let's take this a bit further.  You say Mac's have a 25% premium.  As accurate a number as I could come up with.     But it's more about the buyer.  What is their motivation?  Price, or less problems?    I'd say that when given a choice, consumers tend to shop price first.  Apple simply doesn't allow this.  They tell you what to buy and how much you're going to pay for it.  In return they provide you a solid well validated product.  But this doesn't mean you couldn't do better with a PC.  You can.  But to do so requires a bit of knowledge and more.. keeping up with the industry.  I can easily build PC's with a higher grade of hardware than Mac's come with.  Many of my customers are cost no object buyers, they simply want the best PC money can buy for their needs.  Not for someone else's needs.  If a certain video card would benefit them more, then they'll buy that video card.  If it won't, either because it's not as powerful as another video card, or because their work flow can't make use of the advantages.. then it is not the best buy.  For them.

3.  Enough for what?  I'm not being flippant.  I just think there are better ways to match a computer to a user.   Most computers sold today will allow the running of CS6 and LR.  For some this will be enough.  Others will want more storage, or more connectivity, or a better screen, or cooling for a demanding environment, or with a certain look that matches a new desk.  PC's allow that customization.  Mac's allow 'some' customization, but at a much higher cost.  But what really makes a computer suitable for a professional user comes down to time economics.

A $500 machine from Tiger will eventually arrive in one piece.  It will run CS6 and LR.  Perhaps not very fast, and perhaps it won't store as many images or video footage as they desire.. but it will work.  But when you get into productivity time is money.  If, at the end of the day, I can finish my work an hour sooner.. if a machine will do that for me.. then it's worth the cost of upgrading.  To me.  For others 60 minutes extra per day is worth a lot less.  So sure, a Imac might process pictures for 85% of the users out there.  But does it maximize their own personal economy of time?  Probably in less than 10% of the cases.  In the rest I could show them how to have just as reliable a machine, or even more reliable.  Which fits their needs better, and will allow them to do X amount of work in Y minutes less per day.  I can do this because of the vast number of choices available when custom building a machine.  And almost always for less cost.  The more someone needs in the way of hardware. the more I can improve their economy of time.

To do this effectively I have to know both computers and photography at the customers level.  Or at least have resources at their level.  And frankly, photographers at this level make more with photography than building PC's.  I'm just in a unique place where I have the time.   Why some people think some kid making $8 an hour at Best Buy can effectively guide them to an effective purchase is beyond me.  But this is where Apple does well.  They strive to only sell quality well validated gear.. customers can count on this even if the level of gear is above or below their economy of time.  With PC's it's certainly possible to do as well or even better.  But it's more easy to do worse                                         
Logged

----------------------------------------------
http://www.BangkokImages.com
EricWHiss
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2372



WWW
« Reply #36 on: June 11, 2013, 11:02:11 PM »
ReplyReply

Am I the only one that thinks this looks like a garbage can or even one of those TV ashtrays that are supposed to suck in the fumes? I've been Mac for years but wonder about the design of this one.
Logged

Authorized Rolleiflex Dealer:
Find product information, download user manuals, or purchase online - Rolleiflex USA
BernardLanguillier
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7770



WWW
« Reply #37 on: June 12, 2013, 04:25:34 AM »
ReplyReply

One thing is sure, this is going to trigger tremendous innovation among peripherals vendors.

The question is how we can elegantly manage the things we would have done using internal bays within the Mac Pro.

The answer is going to be Thunderbolt 2 devices able to mix flexibly storage (2-4 eSATA bays), optical drives (1 bluray drive should be sufficient) and PCIe cards slots (typically 2 full length slots?) in a stylish and silent package that would match the design of the new Mac Pro.

I can picture easily a similar cylindrical design with one level able to host 4 eSata drives/optical drives and one level below able to host a few PCIe cards.

I believe all of us working with large amount of data have been using external arrays anyway so that box is a given (I currently use a 6bay/12 TB SCSI320 Raid 5 unit for live data and a 10 bay/40 TB NAS for back up).

Cheers,
Bernard
Logged

A few images online here!
fredjeang2
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 786



« Reply #38 on: June 12, 2013, 04:26:48 AM »
ReplyReply

1.  Sure, but the MBP has the advantage of being truly portable so adding the cost of an external monitor to the equation provides that compensation.  With the Imac you're just replacing one screen with another and absorbing the cost of the replaced monitor.   There are no advantages to compensate.

2.  This is a myth.  First, Mac hardware uses the very same CPU, chipsets, memory, etc, etc as a PC.  They both 'just work' equally.   What gives the Mac an advantage towards having less issues is Mac's are built from a very limited number of components compared to a PC and require less drivers, supposedly allowing more time and validation going to each.;  Drivers are built into the Mac OS, but can come from MS or the OEM (or both) with PC's.  With PC's you have the choice of thousands of pieces more of hardware.   It's wishful thinking to believe they'd be as well validated, in some cases they are but in most not.    Personally I think the OEM's put the most resources/effort into drivers for their 'workstation)premium)' lines than for their cut rate bargain lines.  As they should.     So, what's an advantage to one could be a disadvantage to the other.  Either way it's easily something you can choose through a bit of education or even paying attention.

Let's take this a bit further.  You say Mac's have a 25% premium.  As accurate a number as I could come up with.     But it's more about the buyer.  What is their motivation?  Price, or less problems?    I'd say that when given a choice, consumers tend to shop price first.  Apple simply doesn't allow this.  They tell you what to buy and how much you're going to pay for it.  In return they provide you a solid well validated product.  But this doesn't mean you couldn't do better with a PC.  You can.  But to do so requires a bit of knowledge and more.. keeping up with the industry.  I can easily build PC's with a higher grade of hardware than Mac's come with.  Many of my customers are cost no object buyers, they simply want the best PC money can buy for their needs.  Not for someone else's needs.  If a certain video card would benefit them more, then they'll buy that video card.  If it won't, either because it's not as powerful as another video card, or because their work flow can't make use of the advantages.. then it is not the best buy.  For them.

3.  Enough for what?  I'm not being flippant.  I just think there are better ways to match a computer to a user.   Most computers sold today will allow the running of CS6 and LR.  For some this will be enough.  Others will want more storage, or more connectivity, or a better screen, or cooling for a demanding environment, or with a certain look that matches a new desk.  PC's allow that customization.  Mac's allow 'some' customization, but at a much higher cost.  But what really makes a computer suitable for a professional user comes down to time economics.

A $500 machine from Tiger will eventually arrive in one piece.  It will run CS6 and LR.  Perhaps not very fast, and perhaps it won't store as many images or video footage as they desire.. but it will work.  But when you get into productivity time is money.  If, at the end of the day, I can finish my work an hour sooner.. if a machine will do that for me.. then it's worth the cost of upgrading.  To me.  For others 60 minutes extra per day is worth a lot less.  So sure, a Imac might process pictures for 85% of the users out there.  But does it maximize their own personal economy of time?  Probably in less than 10% of the cases.  In the rest I could show them how to have just as reliable a machine, or even more reliable.  Which fits their needs better, and will allow them to do X amount of work in Y minutes less per day.  I can do this because of the vast number of choices available when custom building a machine.  And almost always for less cost.  The more someone needs in the way of hardware. the more I can improve their economy of time.

To do this effectively I have to know both computers and photography at the customers level.  Or at least have resources at their level.  And frankly, photographers at this level make more with photography than building PC's.  I'm just in a unique place where I have the time.   Why some people think some kid making $8 an hour at Best Buy can effectively guide them to an effective purchase is beyond me.  But this is where Apple does well.  They strive to only sell quality well validated gear.. customers can count on this even if the level of gear is above or below their economy of time.  With PC's it's certainly possible to do as well or even better.  But it's more easy to do worse                                        

Steve, good and accurate explainations.

A few years ago, the choice would have been clear
In what image work is concerned: Mac.

During many years, Mac has been the no-brainer
Working machine, while peecees were for the
Secretaries and kids gamers. Unless you were runnin
An Autodesk soft under Linux.
But Pcs have changed, so has Mac.

Now the power balance is on the peecee side
And even usability since the windows op aren't
The garbage anymore they used to be.
I don't even run an anti-virus in my PCs anymore
And no prob in years of use.

There is simply too much power and customization
Available today and at lower cost to be ignored.
But as T and you pointed, a peecee needs to be well
Configured.

I beleive that Mac is going to target a mass market
Each time more while the big power for demanding
Tasks is going to be pcs. It's already happening.

In what motion imagery is concerned, Mac is more
A burden now than a racional choice, unless you
Are a fcp user and-ir wants to write prores.
But with DNxHD 444 that's not even as attractive
As it used to be.  fcpx aint for the pro crowd anymore
And more generaly, a proprietary system, non cross
Platform in 2013 Seems to me a complete paradox.
We don't need codecs that can be used in a system
Only. When RAWvideo will be the norm soon, the
Need for prores writting will be close to zero. Bye bye
Controvertial and problematic QT container too.
People will work on high-end peecees cheaper in RAW
Video real time, master in JPEG2000, fx in openEXR.

But the Mac design cool factor in an advertising agency
Will remains attractive enough.
 
« Last Edit: June 12, 2013, 04:45:54 AM by fredjeang2 » Logged
Craig Lamson
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 760



WWW
« Reply #39 on: June 12, 2013, 07:37:18 AM »
ReplyReply

Fred,

I don't think the new Mac Pro is going to reverse the trend in video to go PC.  You got that correct.  Apple is making a big gamble on a new way of thinking and I don't think it wins short term.  Personally I love the design and quality of Apple products but in this case I think they put form over function. Apple has done this before and won, like the original iMac , and on the flip side they also lost, with products like the Cube.

In my opinion real strength in Apple is the ecosystem and OS's.  Single point tasks like video editing are pretty much OS blind.  You spend most of your time in the application.  But for the rest of life the OS plays a much bigger part.

I was a windows diehard for decades, an outcast to my creative clients who were all mac users.  They all
 just plugged in thier machines and worked.  I built boxes, struggled to keep the early digital capture devices working and watched windows make a mess of color management.

Windows got better and the hardware leveled off.  W7 is a very stable and mature OS.

Then I switched to Mac.  Leaving the hardware aside, I fell in love with the OS and ecosystem.  Ok, sure, you need to totally buy in to make it work but when you do its really seamless and I think an easier way of working , on the rest of life...outside of a point application like video edit or even Photoshop.

I now have a boatload of Mac stuff, but I'm still left with a self built box, hacked to OSX.  I really wanted to make that a Mac.  To say I'm disappointed with the new Pro is an understatement. And I agree with Steve, Apple is leaving a giant hole in its product lineup for people like me.  I don't need 12 cores, but I want it all in one box. An iMac, which is a dandy machine, does not work for me because I don't want the Apple monitor. A Mini, which I'm using right now, is a great everyday system, but its not a photography workstation.  A Macbook Pro into the NEC 271, been there, done that but still not as good or convenient as my ivy bridge hack with everything all in a single box.

And sure I have a big NAS box externally, but I'm really not interested in more boxes. 

Unfortunately Apple passed me over this time around.  That's not to say this new pro won't revolutionize the way the PC world looks at desktops.  And lets be really honest, desktops are dying in the mainstream. 
Logged

Craig Lamson Photo
www.craiglamson.com
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 4 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad