4 ms·
Video/Photo editing
by latenightcoding 4y ago
Video/Photo editing
- seabriez 4y ago$1500 to edit photos 20% faster? Was it slow before?
- ulfw 4y agoif you're dealing with 45-61MP RAW files yes. More RAM and more GPU and CPU speed help. Of course.
- seabriez 4y agoI'm a photographer, and almost no one deals with 45-61MP RAW files. You're talking about a subsegment of photographers, subsegment of those who deal with making very large images, almost no one. It's your money lol, I just don't understand why you justifying so hard spending money on this incremental update.
- ulfw 4y agoI use 45MP RAW files from my Nikon Z7. Guess I'm almost no one. Thanks for the helpful comment. "lol"
- dagmx 4y agoIf you're doing it professionally, then that adds up. This is such a ludicrous argument. If something is faster, it's faster. What's the problem?
- akrymski 4y agoI don't recall owning a computer that was too slow to run Photoshop. 4k video editing - I admit is a valid use case, not something I've ever had to do. But I doubt most people buying these are video editors.
- grecy 4y agoI have a 2014 MBP with an i7 and 16GB of RAM. RAW photos straight off my Sony A7iii bog down Lightroom, but not horribly so. Once I try to scroll through a few hundred of them and apply bulk edits things slow more. Photoshop is fine unless I open more than about 10 large files simultaneously. Editing 1080p video in Final Cut Pro I can bog it down from time to time. 4K is utterly unworkable unless I let it convert it all to ProRes - even then it's quite slow. I should also mention during all of this the fan is absolutely screaming, and battery life is about 30-40 minutes - it's essentially un-useable for demanding tasks on even a warm day and when not plugged in All-in-all it's acceptable, but I will get a used M1 MBP as soon as I can afford it.