I sat down with Apple last week in New York to take a closer look at the new MacBook Pro with Retina display. I was barely through the door when I asked about the Mac Pro's impending upgrade in 2013, which CEO Tim Cook addressed in a recent email. For those of you not already painfully aware of the stall in Mac Pro development, the last Mac Pro update came in July 2010. Slight speed improvements (a 20% performance gain in FCPX) were quietly announced on June 11. Apple reps assured me that a major upgrade was indeed coming next year, just as Cook said it would in his leaked email. The rest of that email, addressed to a Mac Pro user, also put the answer in context of Apple's larger message to the pro community: "We've been continuing to update Final Cut Pro X with revolutionary pro features like industry leading multi-cam support and we just updated Aperture with incredible new image adjustment features. We also announced a MacBook Pro with a Retina Display that is a great solution for many pros." Improved Final Cut Pro X + MacBook Pro with Retina display = Video Editing. Get the picture?
Which brings me back to the new laptops. Up close, they are indeed lovely to behold and as thin, sleekly designed and lightweight as advertised. The 5.1 million-pixel displays have a 178-degree viewing angle and that extra layer of glass on top of the screen is now gone. The quad-core Intel Core i7 processors and Flash storage is also very impressive, boasting four times the throughput of previous HDD models. This means copying time is faster and you can get up to nine streams of 1080p ProRes video on your laptop in real time, something you couldn't do before when editing multicam on a spinning HDD. We looked at Final Cut Pro X running on the new 15-inch MacBook Pro in a typical editing view and it was all there: the magnetic timeline, a pixel-accurate, windowed 1080p video view and nine scaled versions of ProRes clips. We then looked at four streams of 8-bit uncompressed 4:2:2 footage, which was running off the internal Flash storage. That's certainly a first. Scrubbing through, you immediately had a better sense of the content at a glance. The 768 GB of total storage, with options for additional external drives, two Thunderbolt ports, two USB 3 ports, and an SDXC card slot complete the package.
So do you think you still need that 17-inch display? Until now, most folks wouldn't dream of editing on anything less than a 17-inch laptop, and many may still wonder why Apple is abandoning the 17-inch MacBook Pro in its new lineup. Resellers like Videoguys, for example, recommend a 17-inch screen as a bare minimum. "If you are going to edit on a laptop, you need the screen real estate for your timeline, preview windows and tools," says Videoguys' Gary Bettan. "For me I simply can't get everything I need on the screen with a smaller screen."
A better way to do it, Apple thinks, is with more pixels in a laptop that's faster, smaller and two pounds lighter.
Looking at Aperture on the new laptop also brought home the pixel-heavy point. When viewing images pixel-for-pixel you now get to see much more of the image on the screen, a much more efficient way of working. Aperture also has improved one-click white-balance tools that are surprisingly sophisticated and pretty darn easy to apply.
The price for all this new technology is high, but as Apple pointed out, the new 15-inch Retina-display MacBook Pro starts at a lower price point than the older 17-inch did.
Topics: Blog Technology Useful Tools final cut pro Final Cut Pro X Mac Pro MacBook Pro retina display
Did you enjoy this article? Sign up to receive the StudioDaily Fix eletter containing the latest stories, including news, videos, interviews, reviews and more.
Actually you are losing screen space. The new 15″ only shows 1920×1200 desktop. Yes, pictures zoomed in will look better with retina, but… 17″ @ 1920×1200 is better than 15″… The new Retina displays just scale the image.
The old 15-inch had a 1920×1200 display. This one is actually 2880-by-1800-pixel resolution. Seeing is believing.
So, is it good for editing? Or is it bad for editing? I don’t see a second page or conclusion. I don’t care what resolution the thing is, I like a decent canvas to work on. The resolution of my 2011 17 is perfect. Why did they have to do away with the 17? Why do they constantly mess with people that try to make a living using their crap? And is there a conclusion to this article I missed?
i edit just fine on my 15″ retina pro, i just scale the resolution down to 1920 x 1200…
I am so torn on which one to buy? I video edit, and play the occassional PC games like skyrim, crysis 3, etc. I also photo edit on an amateur level. I’m concerned about the lack of upgrade ability on the new retina’s as well. Would it be better to just buy the old MacBook Pro 17″ i7 and then upgrade an SSD into it myself?
Thanks for any advice. This will be my first macbook pro as I’ve always counted on 17″ Dell XPS and adobe premiere or vegas.
I am drooling over the new Mac Book Pro w Retina display. It is my number one laptop recommendation for Videoguys customers wanting to edit FCP, FCPX, Avid or Adobe. Love the NVIDIA graphics and the multiple thunderbolt & USB3 ports.
I also want to hear some feedback from older editors who are using the new retina display models.
My eyes started going when I turned 40. Even with glasses, I get
fatigued much faster. Even with higher
resolution, that’s going to be pretty small print and icons on the screen. Not
sure how well it will work for me. But I can’t wait to try!
I agree with Murphy. To add to the confusion (unless you are an Apple fanboy and already know the answer) Gary Bettan claims it is his number one laptop recommendation for editors, then tells us he can’t wait to try it. A monkey throwing darts at a chart could be more valid.
Wow, I’m stunned to read these ravish reviews. Never touching one, I have my doubts. The simple fact that firewire is no longer on board is ridiculous to me, I know you can get the thunderbolt adapter, but when you’re working on a laptop, that’s all you need is more congestion at the ports. Also, these rave reviews about the retina display don’t tell the users that the screen is not color accurate. The colors are over done to make the image pop more, but the fact of the matter is when you are working in broadcast, it’s not a matter of what it looks like on the screen, but what it looks like on the users screen. Apple continues to push down the road of being aesthetically pleasing while negating usuability. Also, you can only max out at 1 gb of video ram into a laptop because of it’s size and heat issues. Not something video editors what to hear.
email Tim Cook wishes he could write: “Just add a monitor or 3 if you’re old and tired. 15,680,000 pixels should be enough for you, whiners.” http://www.macrumors.com/2012/06/20/retina-macbook-pro-can-run-three-external-displays-simultaneously/
I agree this article had absolutely no content whatsoever – click bait.
First, thank you for website and magazine! Secondly, thank you for a positive spin on the Mac Book Pro with Retina display (which I purchased but have yet to receive). Reading the nay-sayer’s comments made me nervous about my decision to go this route. I am an “older” editor myself who can’t wait to see these results.
Amen Murphy! Apple all but decimated FCP with a glorified version of iMovie. Never thought I’d ever be in the position to possibly have to bail from Apple which forces me to choose from some scary NLE alternatives on a PC.
Hi, Joseph. Nice to see you here! Color accuracy was always an issue with editing on a laptop screen, but now any MacBook Pro with Thunderbolt or USB 3.0 is capable of true broadcast monitoring for $300 or less from AJA, Decklink, or Matrox, probably more to come. It’s a new paradigm, and it’s not just FCPX, even though I still believe it’s the most robust editing app currently on the market.
I
can tolerate a 15” screen.
My
older 15” MacBook Pro gets used for editing when on location (although I did
need my bifocals).
Where
Apple has failed me, as professional videographer is FCPX.
I
draw the line at FCP7.
When
my current Macs die, I’ll either be returning to Avid or trying out Adobe.
* that was unintentional *
I really look forward to know what you think about the retina MBP (for editors and motion graphics artists), and of course I also can’t wait to know what Steve Martin thinks about it. Are you going to talk about it on MacBreak Studio?
My eyesight is bad enough, now I have to look at the mouse type made smaller? I would buy a 27″ display to go with this laptop for serious editing. Also, I would not use FCPX, but stay with FCP 7 or go back to Avid Media Composer, the program that saw me through the best days of my career when a system cost $90,000 per seat and kept the riff-raff out of the business 😉
I would love to try it out and talk about it on MBS – stay tuned….
“even though I still believe it’s the most robust editing app currently on the market”.
The believers will always be with the Lord. I presume it makes sense… I love my thinkpad w520. The screen is not top notch but once calibrated (Rec709) colours accuracy is really good. But I do love even more my Lightworks nle. When I have to deal with FCP on a MBP it just feels like having to build a florentine dome with flashy legos. Not to mention that with the saved money I can have a giant ice cream cone ! As you can see video editing and religion rarely mix nicely. That’s why I will nonetheless pay a careful attention to retina’s promises and potential. Cheers.
Where did you hear that the color isn’t accurate? Thats a deal breaker for me and most people.
But as for your other comments “firewire” pointless with two USB 3 onboard
(plus if you need firewire there’s adaptors for thunderbolt and USB 3)
Also bro saying the best laptop graphic card on the market isn’t enough for a video editor isn’t the smartest thing to say. That card is way overpowered, you no longer need large huffing puffing PC to efficiently edit videos or work After Effects.
But as for the color, I want to know if there is truth behind that?