6 ms·

> A task like editing 8K RAW RED video file that might have taken a $5000 machine before can now be done on a $699 Mac Mini M1 or a fan-less MacBook Air that co

> A task like editing 8K RAW RED video file that might have taken a $5000 machine before can now be done on a $699 Mac Mini M1 or a fan-less MacBook Air that costs $999 That’s insanely great. Maybe I am exaggerating but Apple’s M1 might be the best innovation in the tech industry in the past 5 years.

person_of_color 6y ago
Even more than k8s?
- sooheon 6y ago
  Debatable, but for personal computing there is no contest.
jandrese 6y ago
The RAM limitation on the first gen M1s makes this claim a bit dubious.
- macintux 6y ago
  https://www.diyphotography.net/this-700-computer-can-edit-8k-red-raw/ https://www.diyphotography.net/this-700-computer-can-edit-8k...
  - throw0101a 6y ago
    That's nice. But what does CPU/GPU horse power have to do with memory? If I want to spin up a bunch of VMs to do pre-commit test builds in clean environments, and each need RAM for the OS and user land, being able to edit a lot of raw video does nothing for me. I'm generally fine running macOS (or Linux), but sometimes I need to boot up Windows in a VM for specialized apps: how do I assign >16GB of memory to it if I only have 8-16GB of RAM? Even with fast storage I'm enamoured that I may need swap.
    - macintux 6y ago
      So far as I can tell from this thread, the open question was: can these computers edit 8k video? The answer per that video seems to be yes, with limitations. I’m not trying to assert anything about anyone’s needs.
      - deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
    - ogre_codes 6y ago
      Setting aside that you are way off thread here... > how do I assign >16GB of memory to it if I only have 8-16GB of RAM? This is Apple's slowest/ lowest performance M series CPU. Complaining that the CPU they built for the MacBook Air and the lowest end MacBook Pro doesn't have 32GB of RAM misses the entire picture. This is Apple's first and lowest end M series chip, and it's blowing away Intel chips with discrete GPUs and more RAM. Their higher end processors which will be coming out over the next couple years are likely to be much better... and will support 32GB of RAM. In fact since Apple is migrating the entire line-up, it's likely the next generation of CPUs will support discrete RAM so the Mac Pro can offer systems with massive amounts of RAM as the current Mac Pro does. > I need to boot up Windows in a VM for specialized apps Aside from getting ARM Windows running on the Mac hypervisor, Windows VMs seem pretty unlikely. Another possibility is someone porting or creating an x86 emulator to run on the hypervisor. Aside from that, Crossover by Code Weavers or something like AWS Workspaces are your best bets.
      - atq2119 6y ago
        > In fact since Apple is migrating the entire line-up, it's likely the next generation of CPUs will support discrete RAM I've been wondering about how much of the general purpose performance boost of M1 is due to having the RAM in the same package. That has to have benefits in power and latency. So if a future Mx chip supports discrete RAM, it may not seem quite as magical anymore. Then again, Apple's volume and margin is high enough that they could just build a single package with lots of RAM. You wouldn't be able to tinker with it, but it's not like Apple cares about that. Makes you wonder if AMD or Intel will come up with a similar package for x86-based laptops.
  - hyperdimension 6y ago
    Just for the future: you always have the option to formulate an argument in words rather than simply copying-and-pasting link "salvos" to the other. I might even go so far as to say it might promote a better discussion!
  - jandrese 6y ago
    That article is only looking at if the CPU is fast enough to keep up with an import. Basically a toy benchmark. You're going to be butting up against the memory limit in no time once you start actually editing.
rangewookie 6y ago
I did this test last night with my buddy's 6K RED RAW footage. I could play 6K realtime at 1/4 quality, while my fully loaded MBP with i7 + 32GB of ram could only playback at 1/8 quality. Keep in mind real editors NEVER edit raw footage, they use proxies. The really impressive part was that the mac mini did NOT spin up the fan during playback, completely silent. The i7 Macbook Pro sounded like a jet turbine spinning up within 30 seconds. Awesome.
CraftThatBlock 6y ago
It's very easy to perform very well on a specific benchmark when there's dedicated hardware for this. I'm not saying this isn't good, it's great for people editing, but this isn't a general indicator of performance (which is reportedly good!)
- ogre_codes 6y ago
  > It's very easy to perform very well on a specific benchmark when there's dedicated hardware for this. I'd say the same about GPUs as well. It's great for people who game, but beyond a certain baseline, it's pretty pointless for most of us. > I'm not saying this isn't good, it's great for people editing, but this isn't a general indicator of performance Umm, it's also great for people who watch YouTube or Netflix. Zoom calls use the encoder and the decoder. Fundamentally, modern computers do a crapload of video (and audio!) decoding and encoding. Arguably for most of us, it is more important than having a high performance GPU. This is all trebly important when you are using Netflix, YouTube, HBO Max, Zoom, Skype, etc on battery where the specialized encoder uses about 1/3 the power as the CPU.
  - sudosysgen 6y ago
    GPUs, unlike video decoders, are programmable and general in purpose. As for Zoom, YouTube, and Netflix, existing hardware is more than fine enough. No one is streaming 8K RAW for a conference call. Unless you're an editor, you won't see much of a benefit.
    - ogre_codes 6y ago
      > As for Zoom, YouTube, and Netflix, existing hardware is more than fine enough. Didn't suggest these were jobs existing CPUs struggle with. I said the video encode/ decode makes the CPU much more efficient which increases battery life.
      - sudosysgen 6y ago
        But existing CPUs already use accelerated decode for these tasks. They have been for years and years. Those hardware decode blocks just aren't powerful enough for 6K RAW video, but they are fine for YouTube, Netflix, and Zoom, and indeed it's already accelerated. So there is literally no benefit.
Tepix 6y ago
Why are we even talking about 8k video? It's something that almost noone needs and even fewer people have to edit. My guess is most people are still happy with editing their FHD videos. Something that works well on a five year old laptop.
- huangbong 6y ago
  4 years ago “why do we care about 4K” 8 years ago “why do we care about 1080p” etc...
  - hans1729 6y ago
    We'll see about that (with respect to pixel density and efficiency). I'm typing this on a 4k xps 15, and while the display is great, the battery cost is extreme. There would be no meaningful advantage in an 8k-display of the same form factor, so there is far, far less incentive for manufacturers to race to 8k. there will be 8k tvs, sure, but lets be real - the step to 1080p was massive, the step to 4k already couldn't fit in those shoes.
    - marcodave 6y ago
      > the step to 1080p was massive, the step to 1080p I'd say that, for some, could have been seen even as a downgrade. It was possible to use 1600x1200 back in the late 90s and early 2000s, with CRTs. The concept of "high definition" was already known by PC users (gamers and professionals, that is) 4k is a nice upgrade, and I'd say that many professionals already were using it with proper monitors 8k eeh, we'll get there
      - Tepix 6y ago
        We're talking about video editing, not screen resolutions. The step to 1080p wasn't from 1600x1200, it was from PAL/NTSC (640x400 or 720x576). It was the biggest step by far.
  - Tepix 6y ago
    I think diminishing returns will stop 8k from getting mass adoption. Same thing happened to audio players with "better than CD quality". They never caught on because there was no need. 65" 4K TVs start at 74 Watts (max is 271 Watts). 65" 8K TVs start at 182 Watts and go all the way to 408 Watts. For what? An improvement you won't notice unless you get off the sofa?
diggan 6y ago
Since you've been able to edit high-res (haven't tried 8K but 4K and 6K been working fine) footage on commodity hardware (that costs way less than $5000) for... years, via editing software that supports operations via GPU (like DaVinci Resolve), you still think it's the best innovation in the tech industry? Add to it that the M1 is proprietary, only developed for one OS and one company, it feels less like innovation for the industry and more like Apple-specific innovation. Also, the argument that only $5000 could edit high-res footage is false even without the invention of GPU editing. Proxy clips been around for as long as I've done video editing, even though the experience is worse, it's been possible to edit at reduced resolutions for a long time.

person_of_color 6y ago

Even more than k8s?

sooheon 6y ago
Debatable, but for personal computing there is no contest.

jandrese 6y ago

The RAM limitation on the first gen M1s makes this claim a bit dubious.

macintux 6y ago
https://www.diyphotography.net/this-700-computer-can-edit-8k-red-raw/ https://www.diyphotography.net/this-700-computer-can-edit-8k...
- throw0101a 6y ago
  That's nice. But what does CPU/GPU horse power have to do with memory? If I want to spin up a bunch of VMs to do pre-commit test builds in clean environments, and each need RAM for the OS and user land, being able to edit a lot of raw video does nothing for me. I'm generally fine running macOS (or Linux), but sometimes I need to boot up Windows in a VM for specialized apps: how do I assign >16GB of memory to it if I only have 8-16GB of RAM? Even with fast storage I'm enamoured that I may need swap.
  - macintux 6y ago
    So far as I can tell from this thread, the open question was: can these computers edit 8k video? The answer per that video seems to be yes, with limitations. I’m not trying to assert anything about anyone’s needs.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
  - ogre_codes 6y ago
    Setting aside that you are way off thread here... > how do I assign >16GB of memory to it if I only have 8-16GB of RAM? This is Apple's slowest/ lowest performance M series CPU. Complaining that the CPU they built for the MacBook Air and the lowest end MacBook Pro doesn't have 32GB of RAM misses the entire picture. This is Apple's first and lowest end M series chip, and it's blowing away Intel chips with discrete GPUs and more RAM. Their higher end processors which will be coming out over the next couple years are likely to be much better... and will support 32GB of RAM. In fact since Apple is migrating the entire line-up, it's likely the next generation of CPUs will support discrete RAM so the Mac Pro can offer systems with massive amounts of RAM as the current Mac Pro does. > I need to boot up Windows in a VM for specialized apps Aside from getting ARM Windows running on the Mac hypervisor, Windows VMs seem pretty unlikely. Another possibility is someone porting or creating an x86 emulator to run on the hypervisor. Aside from that, Crossover by Code Weavers or something like AWS Workspaces are your best bets.
    - atq2119 6y ago
      > In fact since Apple is migrating the entire line-up, it's likely the next generation of CPUs will support discrete RAM I've been wondering about how much of the general purpose performance boost of M1 is due to having the RAM in the same package. That has to have benefits in power and latency. So if a future Mx chip supports discrete RAM, it may not seem quite as magical anymore. Then again, Apple's volume and margin is high enough that they could just build a single package with lots of RAM. You wouldn't be able to tinker with it, but it's not like Apple cares about that. Makes you wonder if AMD or Intel will come up with a similar package for x86-based laptops.
- hyperdimension 6y ago
  Just for the future: you always have the option to formulate an argument in words rather than simply copying-and-pasting link "salvos" to the other. I might even go so far as to say it might promote a better discussion!
- jandrese 6y ago
  That article is only looking at if the CPU is fast enough to keep up with an import. Basically a toy benchmark. You're going to be butting up against the memory limit in no time once you start actually editing.

rangewookie 6y ago

I did this test last night with my buddy's 6K RED RAW footage. I could play 6K realtime at 1/4 quality, while my fully loaded MBP with i7 + 32GB of ram could only playback at 1/8 quality. Keep in mind real editors NEVER edit raw footage, they use proxies. The really impressive part was that the mac mini did NOT spin up the fan during playback, completely silent. The i7 Macbook Pro sounded like a jet turbine spinning up within 30 seconds. Awesome.

CraftThatBlock 6y ago

It's very easy to perform very well on a specific benchmark when there's dedicated hardware for this. I'm not saying this isn't good, it's great for people editing, but this isn't a general indicator of performance (which is reportedly good!)

ogre_codes 6y ago
> It's very easy to perform very well on a specific benchmark when there's dedicated hardware for this. I'd say the same about GPUs as well. It's great for people who game, but beyond a certain baseline, it's pretty pointless for most of us. > I'm not saying this isn't good, it's great for people editing, but this isn't a general indicator of performance Umm, it's also great for people who watch YouTube or Netflix. Zoom calls use the encoder and the decoder. Fundamentally, modern computers do a crapload of video (and audio!) decoding and encoding. Arguably for most of us, it is more important than having a high performance GPU. This is all trebly important when you are using Netflix, YouTube, HBO Max, Zoom, Skype, etc on battery where the specialized encoder uses about 1/3 the power as the CPU.
- sudosysgen 6y ago
  GPUs, unlike video decoders, are programmable and general in purpose. As for Zoom, YouTube, and Netflix, existing hardware is more than fine enough. No one is streaming 8K RAW for a conference call. Unless you're an editor, you won't see much of a benefit.
  - ogre_codes 6y ago
    > As for Zoom, YouTube, and Netflix, existing hardware is more than fine enough. Didn't suggest these were jobs existing CPUs struggle with. I said the video encode/ decode makes the CPU much more efficient which increases battery life.
    - sudosysgen 6y ago
      But existing CPUs already use accelerated decode for these tasks. They have been for years and years. Those hardware decode blocks just aren't powerful enough for 6K RAW video, but they are fine for YouTube, Netflix, and Zoom, and indeed it's already accelerated. So there is literally no benefit.

Tepix 6y ago

Why are we even talking about 8k video? It's something that almost noone needs and even fewer people have to edit. My guess is most people are still happy with editing their FHD videos. Something that works well on a five year old laptop.

huangbong 6y ago
4 years ago “why do we care about 4K” 8 years ago “why do we care about 1080p” etc...
- hans1729 6y ago
  We'll see about that (with respect to pixel density and efficiency). I'm typing this on a 4k xps 15, and while the display is great, the battery cost is extreme. There would be no meaningful advantage in an 8k-display of the same form factor, so there is far, far less incentive for manufacturers to race to 8k. there will be 8k tvs, sure, but lets be real - the step to 1080p was massive, the step to 4k already couldn't fit in those shoes.
  - marcodave 6y ago
    > the step to 1080p was massive, the step to 1080p I'd say that, for some, could have been seen even as a downgrade. It was possible to use 1600x1200 back in the late 90s and early 2000s, with CRTs. The concept of "high definition" was already known by PC users (gamers and professionals, that is) 4k is a nice upgrade, and I'd say that many professionals already were using it with proper monitors 8k eeh, we'll get there
    - Tepix 6y ago
      We're talking about video editing, not screen resolutions. The step to 1080p wasn't from 1600x1200, it was from PAL/NTSC (640x400 or 720x576). It was the biggest step by far.
- Tepix 6y ago
  I think diminishing returns will stop 8k from getting mass adoption. Same thing happened to audio players with "better than CD quality". They never caught on because there was no need. 65" 4K TVs start at 74 Watts (max is 271 Watts). 65" 8K TVs start at 182 Watts and go all the way to 408 Watts. For what? An improvement you won't notice unless you get off the sofa?

diggan 6y ago

Since you've been able to edit high-res (haven't tried 8K but 4K and 6K been working fine) footage on commodity hardware (that costs way less than $5000) for... years, via editing software that supports operations via GPU (like DaVinci Resolve), you still think it's the best innovation in the tech industry? Add to it that the M1 is proprietary, only developed for one OS and one company, it feels less like innovation for the industry and more like Apple-specific innovation. Also, the argument that only $5000 could edit high-res footage is false even without the invention of GPU editing. Proxy clips been around for as long as I've done video editing, even though the experience is worse, it's been possible to edit at reduced resolutions for a long time.