New Arm M1 Mac Mini a pro editing machine?

Yep, found an article saying this. It doesn't even have HDMI 2.1. Maybe Braw's capability has gone to their heads. It will be interesting to see how it does in 12k post production with many adjustments and effects. Maybe somebody can send a screen capture video or that to Apple, and suggest maybe they should review Steve's decision, and reintroduce a little cube computer in the Mac Pro environment?

The interesting thing is, the cylinder Mac, that was popular, and it would be interesting to see how that would handle a full-blown 12k Braw scenario with the latest hardware.

So, the reality is, that there is room for a little transportable Mac Pro. Hmm, the designer in me has just come up with a very good solution, but laptops are more practical. Just deleted that. Anybody know of a company wanting a more stylish competitor to an iMac? Maybe a good chunk of corporate desktops, and consumer?

I don't see any connection between editing and HDMI 2.1. I do see the absence of 10G Ethernet option and just 2 TB ports as limitations for "pro editing".

Braw is such a nifty codec that most of the time when someone says “I decode 12K footage” they don’t actually produce 12K output. Decoding 12K braw at 1/4th resolution is nice but a long stretch from actuallly working with 12K worth of data in processing.

Misha. HDMI 2.1 allows more higher end modes with deep bit depth. If they going say pro, they could at least put in a better video port.

Hendrik,. Braw is a bit of a easy codec. When you got more than enough support for a regular codec you can support that in a new codec.

Misha. HDMI 2.1 allows more higher end modes with deep bit depth. If they going say pro, they could at least put in a better video port.

Hendrik,. Braw is a bit of a easy codec. When you got more than enough support for a regular codec you can support that in a new codec.

The bit-depth of your GPU output is absolutely irrelevant to editing video.

Yep, found an article saying this.

Apple isn’t selling the first M1 Mac Minis as “pro editing machines”. Get real. They’re relatively inexpensive Minis, selling for US$700 and $900, that cap out at 16GB of RAM. Who cares what some uninformed article that you found says. This whole thread is a pointless exercise in straw man debate.

Misha. HDMI 2.1 allows more higher end modes with deep bit depth. If they going say pro, they could at least put in a better video port.

Hendrik,. Braw is a bit of a easy codec. When you got more than enough support for a regular codec you can support that in a new codec.

The bit-depth of your GPU output is absolutely irrelevant to editing video.

So, you want to run it in a 16 bit monitor, what resolution do you get? Pro spec now encompasses 8k 240fps 16 bit. It's just a ridiculous article. But, you got to ask, if it can't even do the latest HDMI, and such x86 PC machines start at under a few hundred, how good is it? It will be interesting to see how much back bone and how much straw it has. There is a company making an upcoming mini PC based camera, this would be a great platform for them to use instead. But $700, is a joke, it should start at $300 and go up to $1000 or so dollars. If only they could have done a double height version with the extra features and mount modules for drives and disks. The Mac cube was a very nice looking machine, and we could do with something more. In the future, something like this or an iPad, could become powerful enough to be a mainstream post unit. The current line of manufacturing node shrinkage is heading towards 2nm. Hydrogen is around 0 1 mm, but I say too much. But no, at that scale the individual election becomes something more significant and individually addressable, which is just going be totally beyond most experts today.

There are no 16-bit monitors out there. If there were they won't be used for editing, just for grading. You don't feed a grading monitor the output of your GPU unless you're a youtube star. Youtube is 8-bit.

Case closed.

We are in a post production forum....

You might like an external lut, but the reality is that it's better to get an product whoes output conforms.

The reality is for many, you grade with editing as part of the post process on one machine, one display. Not everything is rich people with top end products, like the 16 bit Dolby vision. Also, it is important to have 16 but monitors due to a number of tricks the human visual system plays, which become apparent on very large screens at larger fields if view, which induce local adaption, where staggered levels can be seen. That is going become more prevalent in coming years with printable and low cost wall TV's. Thee us a need to move to 16 bit delivery, the current 10 bit dyes not even cut it today. But this is forwards looking, about what you going have to use what you buy today fir in the next 5-10 years of its life, without environmentally trashing it early. The scaring thing is, that 5 years out we might start to see post chains hardly anything today can cope with as we go to the new high end proposed 3D high frame rate standards, holographic and auto 3D display technology, which is supposed to soon start coming. Tobe prepared to do deep bit depth 8k is the least one can prepare for in the next 5 years. Also, I want to do high megapixel photography and posters, nice side line on the low end. So, a great display would be helpful for thar as well.

It is interesting but a pity that it does not support eGPUs and more RAM.
I think as soon as you do something more advanced with FX the 16GB shared ram will fill up and you get an GPU memory Error.

As already mentioned here: they seem to be testing the water with small machines first.

Well, my original proposal was for small blade segments where you could dynamically just stack things like a mini, on their sides together, to replace gpu's, insert optical drives, and parallel cpu units, with massive ventilated cooling out the back, 60+ together. Everything your older lineup couldn't do, but they didn't go with that.

An article ai googled says they are targeting the pro market with this. But frankly, make it twice as high and 4 times better, and that would be ok. Apple has successfully kept itself from becoming the true dominant force in computers over the decades. As much as one might have wished otherwise, they have pursued big profit and part market domination.

An article ai googled says they are targeting the pro market with this. But frankly, make it twice as high and 4 times better, and that would be ok. Apple has successfully kept itself from becoming the true dominant force in computers over the decades. As much as one might have wished otherwise, they have pursued big profit and part market domination.

Where does Apple say that these Minis, priced at $700 and $900, with a 16GB RAM cap, target the “pro [film editing] market”? Who wrote this article that you used to title this thread, and what is the link? Does this article exist? If it does exist, why are you taking such a patently ridiculous claim seriously?

Forget professionals. A lot of amateur still photographers are moving to 32GB of RAM, let alone pros, and let alone for moving images. Forget moving images. Nobody in his right mind is going to try to make a soundtrack for a professional feature film with 16GB of RAM. Unless you’re a masochist, you can’t even make a music score mock-up with 16GB. Try more like 64GB and up.

Here in the real world, one interesting discussion that’s going on is a comparison between these Minis and the iPad Pro, not a discussion about using them to edit feature films. The only places that the latter discussion is taking place is in your head and in some unidentified internet article that you claim to have read.

Let’s see this article that is the basis for this entire thread. Where’s the link?

As anyone who is aware of the history of the Mac Mini knows, there is indeed a pro market for these two computers. It just isn’t the one that some article that you say you read fantasises about, and that you are using as a straw man to “refute” and bash Apple.

Probably this article:

https://www.eoshd.com/apple/apple-m1-promises-full-quality-8k-prores-playback-in-davinci-resolve-17-without-dropping-a-single-frame/

And the shots of Davinci Resolve 17 on the Mac Mini page. Though there are no pro claims there. Just spec stuff and the usual marketing speak, "Screaming fast" and "more plug-ins than ever before."

Not that interested in Resolve on that since I'm a Windows user, but I've always like the form factor of the Mac mini and the low cost is making me think of getting one for streaming, etc in the bedroom to replace my aging, whining Dell. I like the connectivity options for my external drives, etc. And cheap.

Probably this article:

https://www.eoshd.com/apple/apple-m1-promises-full-quality-8k-prores-playback-in-davinci-resolve-17-without-dropping-a-single-frame/

And the shots of Davinci Resolve 17 on the Mac Mini page. Though there are no pro claims there.

As you know, that article doesn’t even suggest that these two M1 computers are “pro editing machines”. In fact, it says the opposite:

“Although for the foreseeable future Apple silicon will remain in small & light consumer Apple devices, who knows where the path may lead in the future.”

Still waiting to see the article that this thread purports to refute, if it even exists

I've always like the form factor of the Mac mini and the low cost is making me think of getting one for streaming, etc in the bedroom to replace my aging, whining Dell. I like the connectivity options for my external drives, etc. And cheap.

In late 2018, I purchased the new Mac mini. I love the footprint. However, you do need an external graphics card if you're going to use it for graphics-intensive purposes. At the time, I was working on a pilot's license and wanted to run a simulator called X-Plane, so I added a Vega 56 card in an Asus XG Station Pro enclosure. At the moment, I don't have a good feel for how much the M1 machines improve graphics performance. In any event, the mini is a great little computer if intensive graphics aren't an issue. Like you, I also like the price of these M1s.

Historically, one of the main professional markets for the Mac mini, if not the main market, has been the server market. That is sometimes said to be the reason for the mini's physical design. Think server racks. I'm curious about whether that market is one of the targets for these M1s.

In about a week or so these machines will get into the hands of consumers, and we'll see what the real world performance is actually like.

I'm not expecting to do massive color grades or heavy VFX stuff on them, but getting a rough cut together in Resolve or Premiere should be quite doable even on a Mac Book Air.

If I'm traveling, I don't want to be dragging my workstation everywhere I go. These new ARM Macs seem like they could be the perfect solution for location editing.

At the moment, I don't have a good feel for how much the M1 machines improve graphics performance. In any event, the mini is a great little computer if intensive graphics aren't an issue. Like you, I also like the price of these M1s.

Historically, one of the main professional markets for the Mac mini, if not the main market, has been the server market. That is sometimes said to be the reason for the mini's physical design. Think server racks. I'm curious about whether that market is one of the targets for these M1s.

Yeah, I don't think I need great graphics performance for streaming the Criterion channel or MUBI or attaching a superdrive for DVD. I know a few graphics guys here that love them because they're quiet little desktop units. Since those guys didn't like the Apple glossy monitors they'd get Eizos and pair 'em with a Mac mini. I hadn't thought of them as servers. These days, at the hospital, we just get big servers and use VMWare to turn them into a million little virtual servers and desktops...


Kays, what do you use for a monitor? Or are you thinking of using a laptop to connect to the Mac mini?

Looks like it's coming, there is already a beta for the new machines.

Yeah, I don't think I need great graphics performance for streaming the Criterion channel or MUBI or attaching a superdrive for DVD. I know a few graphics guys here that love them because they're quiet little desktop units. Since those guys didn't like the Apple glossy monitors they'd get Eizos and pair 'em with a Mac mini. I hadn't thought of them as servers. These days, at the hospital, we just get big servers and use VMWare to turn them into a million little virtual servers and desktops...


Kays, what do you use for a monitor? Or are you thinking of using a laptop to connect to the Mac mini?

We need to see tests of the M1 Mac minis, but I can tell you that the 2018 would work well for what you're talking about. Last year, I was given a 2014 mini, the 2018's predecessor. It has a 1TB Fusion Drive (flash for the OS and apps, but not data) and I use it as a local server. It's also very capable for streaming. The 2018's integrated graphics is quite sufficient for routine Lightroom and NLE use, no external graphics card needed. I imagine that there are a lot of people using one to make YouTube videos. It's just not up to intensive graphics demands. A gaming computer, it ain't.

We'll know how these first M1s shape up soon enough. There will be no shortage of YouTube videos showing how they perform with photo and video editing. I'm just not holding my breath on lightly compressed, let alone Raw, 4K footage, and I won't be surprised if there is a noticeable performance difference, at least initially, between integrated Mac apps like Logic, Final Cut, Motion and Compressor and third party options.

On the history, there are large server operations that use the mini. Minis used to be routinely bundled with Apple's free, dedicated server software, MacOS Server. Wikipedia says that this changed in 2014, at which point MacOS with add-on server functionality, also called MacOS Server, was released. It sells for $20.

I suspect that Kays is talking about the laptop M1s, although you could use an M1 mini with an iPad as display via MacOS's Sidecar function. One of the reasons that I purchased a 2018 mini is that I have monitors at home, at the business that I'm involved in and in another country where I normally (ex-Covid) spend several months a year. It's a snap to move the mini between those locations. Fits easily in a backpack or small travel bag. You could just carry a mini around with one hand, but there's no handle and the smooth aluminium finish is a bit slippery

Probably this article:

https://www.eoshd.com/apple/apple-m1-promises-full-quality-8k-prores-playback-in-davinci-resolve-17-without-dropping-a-single-frame/

And the shots of Davinci Resolve 17 on the Mac Mini page. Though there are no pro claims there. Just spec stuff and the usual marketing speak, "Screaming fast" and "more plug-ins than ever before."

Not that interested in Resolve on that since I'm a Windows user, but I've always like the form factor of the Mac mini and the low cost is making me think of getting one for streaming, etc in the bedroom to replace my aging, whining Dell. I like the connectivity options for my external drives, etc. And cheap.

What I said was reasonable, not containing a number of things made up here, which behaviour shouldn't be entertained.

Probably this article:

https://www.eoshd.com/apple/apple-m1-promises-full-quality-8k-prores-playback-in-davinci-resolve-17-without-dropping-a-single-frame/

What I said was reasonable...

What you said, it now appears as part of an attack on the content of that article, sprinkled with some Apple bashing, flies in the face of what the article says in plain English:

“Although for the foreseeable future Apple silicon will remain in small & light consumer Apple devices, who knows where the path may lead in the future.”

Lord knows how you managed to turn that into a claim by the writer that the first M1 minis are "pro editing machines".

We'll know how these first M1s shape up soon enough. There will be no shortage of YouTube videos showing how they perform with photo and video editing. I'm just not holding my breath on lightly compressed, let alone Raw, 4K footage, and I won't be surprised if there is a noticeable performance difference, at least initially, between integrated Mac apps like Logic, Final Cut, Motion and Compressor and third party options.

It should also be noted that the Intel Mac mini can be used with an external graphics card, but it appears that the M1 minis can't. This was flagged by several tech sites the day of the launch, and some articles say that they have had it confirmed by Apple.

This is the Mac mini Intel/M1 specs page. Scroll down to "Accessories" on the M1 specs. The Blackmagic eGPU is not on the list, and nor is support for eGPUs generally: https://www.apple.com/mac-mini/specs/

Nor is the Blackmagic eGPU included in the Accessories lists for the M1 laptops.

The Intel Mac mini specs specifically include, under Accessories, the Blackmagic eGPU.

I use a 2018 Intel Mac mini, with a Vega 56 card, for video editing. There is not a chance that I would use that computer for more than very basic editing without the external graphics card. If these $700/$900 entry level M1 minis, with their integrated graphics and maximum 16GB of RAM, do dramatically better, great. I'm not putting money on it. Let's see the tests.

The only concern is price. Apple is not a company that's going to "pass the savings" to the consumer. If the new M1 Minis were faster/more capable than their Intel counterparts they would be more expensive, end of story.

Good Luck

BMD states this about M1 and DR.
Today, Blackmagic Design has announced DaVinci Resolve 17.1 which was built to support the newly released M1 powered Macs. DaVinci Resolve 17.1 Beta 1 offers universal app support for M1 powered Macs to provide better performance on small laptops. [b]Plus the unified memory architecture on M1 enables DaVinci Resolve 17.1 to leverage the power of CPU and GPU processing more effectively, avoiding the need for PCI Express transfers. As stated by Blackmagic: “Significantly, the combination of M1, Metal processing, and DaVinci Resolve 17.1 offers up to 5 times better performance when compared to previous generation computers”.[/b] DaVinci Resolve 17.1 is also compatible with macOS Big Sur and is initially only available for Mac.

https://ymcinema.com/2020/11/13/davinci ... r-m1-macs/

Ricardo Marty

We need to see tests of the M1 Mac minis, but I can tell you that the 2018 would work well for what you're talking about. Last year, I was given a 2014 mini, the 2018's predecessor. It has a 1TB Fusion Drive (flash for the OS and apps, but not data) and I use it as a local server. It's also very capable for streaming. The 2018's integrated graphics is quite sufficient for routine Lightroom and NLE use, no external graphics card needed. I imagine that there are a lot of people using one to make YouTube videos. It's just not up to intensive graphics demands. A gaming computer, it ain't.

I would prefer the 2018 mini because the processor is tested (unlike the m1) and I could run Bootcamp. However, that model is pricey. Maybe it will get cheaper in the face of M1's. Interesting is that $899 Intel minis were available on the Apple site yesterday and now I'm only seeing the $1099 ones. Perhaps people are stocking up....

On the road, I manage with my 2018 Macbook pro (with that hateful keyboard). Not very powerful, but mainly I'm using Capture One and PS on it. I don't have time for Resolve on the road, but if I did it would be editing only.

It looks like there's fairly strong demand for the M1s. Online, the earliest delivery date that I'm seeing for the laptops is December 1. The mini is better, next Friday. It looks like the first shipments of M1s will arrive this Tuesday, although some people say that they have notifications for Monday delivery.

I expect that we'll see benchmarks and YouTube videos on music, photo and video performance this coming week. Personally, I want to see what Anand Tech has to say. Absent tests, it's all guesswork.

It looks like there's fairly strong demand for the M1s. Online, the earliest delivery date that I'm seeing for the laptops is December 1. The mini is better, next Friday. It looks like the first shipments of M1s will arrive this Tuesday, although some people say that they have notifications for Monday delivery.

I expect that we'll see benchmarks and YouTube videos on music, photo and video performance this coming week. Personally, I want to see what Anand Tech has to say. Absent tests, it's all guesswork.

BMD said that DR17.1 has 5 times more performance in M1. But it doesn't say on which M1 macs. I Can't wait till windows arm version comes up.

Ricardo Marty

Interesting is that $899 Intel minis were available on the Apple site yesterday and now I'm only seeing the $1099 ones. Perhaps people are stocking up....

B&H is also showing nothing under $1100. However, OWC is offering the Intel Mac mini for $900, at least for the moment: https://eshop.macsales.com/configure-my ... FS3XXXX0XG

I hate hat “up to 5 times more…”
My immediate reaction is “down to what?” Only very stupid readers will interpret that as “5 times better”.
You might have one single task only where you get that much. It could be even slower during your average working day without being a false claim. Yes, I’m quite happy with my eGPU for the mini, makes it useable for Resolve. But when connected to my iMac, I get up to 85% extra for very few processes. Some tasks show now gain at all.
So, let’s wait for realistic tests instead of marketing language (for which I don’t blame BM in particular, everybody does it since psychologists found out that it works).

Some people may find this AnandTech article useful:

Apple Announces The Apple Silicon M1: Ditching X86 - What To Expect, Based on A14
https://www.anandtech.com/show/16226/ap ... -deep-dive

As usual, a good overview from Marques Brownlee that explains why this is pretty interesting, but may also come with costs. Also, he essentially underscores why we need to see test results. I would think that he now has at least one of the M1s, and will be fairly quick with a hands-on follow-up:

BMD states this about M1 and DR.
Today, Blackmagic Design has announced DaVinci Resolve 17.1 which was built to support the newly released M1 powered Macs. DaVinci Resolve 17.1 Beta 1 offers universal app support for M1 powered Macs to provide better performance on small laptops. [b]Plus the unified memory architecture on M1 enables DaVinci Resolve 17.1 to leverage the power of CPU and GPU processing more effectively, avoiding the need for PCI Express transfers. As stated by Blackmagic: “Significantly, the combination of M1, Metal processing, and DaVinci Resolve 17.1 offers up to 5 times better performance when compared to previous generation computers”.[/b] DaVinci Resolve 17.1 is also compatible with macOS Big Sur and is initially only available for Mac.

https://ymcinema.com/2020/11/13/davinci ... r-m1-macs/

Ricardo Marty

For me, what's interesting about this Blackmagic statement is not the marketing claims (we'll know soon enough what tests show), but that Petty is keen to support Apple's M1 computers and is early out of the gate in doing so. As Marques Brownlee says in the video above, Adobe is aiming for first quarter of 2021. As far as I know as a Capture One licensee, Capture One doesn't even have a public target date.

If the M1 Mac mini max out with 16Gb RAM can efficiently edit a 2 hour timeline and color grade 6K BRAW clips (NR and all), it will be amazing. I doubt it will but I look forward to test pretty soon. And if it will, I think it's worth the price. It's to be seen.

BMD states this about M1 and DR.
Today, Blackmagic Design has announced DaVinci Resolve 17.1 which was built to support the newly released M1 powered Macs. DaVinci Resolve 17.1 Beta 1 offers universal app support for M1 powered Macs to provide better performance on small laptops. [b]Plus the unified memory architecture on M1 enables DaVinci Resolve 17.1 to leverage the power of CPU and GPU processing more effectively, avoiding the need for PCI Express transfers. As stated by Blackmagic: “Significantly, the combination of M1, Metal processing, and DaVinci Resolve 17.1 offers up to 5 times better performance when compared to previous generation computers”.[/b] DaVinci Resolve 17.1 is also compatible with macOS Big Sur and is initially only available for Mac.

https://ymcinema.com/2020/11/13/davinci ... r-m1-macs/

Ricardo Marty

For me, what's interesting about this Blackmagic statement is not the marketing claims (we'll know soon enough what tests show), but that Petty is keen to support Apple's M1 computers and is early out of the gate in doing so. As Marques Brownlee says in the video above, Adobe is aiming for first quarter of 2021. As far as I know as a Capture One licensee, Capture One doesn't even have a public target date.

At least we know that BMD and Apple have a very tight working relationship. Apple usually shows their machines mostly with DR and FCPX and nothing else. Wonder why that relationship doesn't show in other areas.


Ricardo Marty

The only concern is price. Apple is not a company that's going to "pass the savings" to the consumer. If the new M1 Minis were faster/more capable than their Intel counterparts they would be more expensive, end of story.

Good Luck

?

It already was at a premium price. I think the point is these aren't the premium Arm chips we are likely to see in a Mac Pro, and while the M1 might be alright for the 2k space, professional has moved on to much higher demands.

The OS looks tempting, but this is not the hundreds of processors 1KW mini I proposed, it's a garage band or you tube like toy. I'm sure Apple could do better, but they probably don't want to make something that resembles the bandi (was it?). They should have started this out in an Apple TV product running Mac os, as a home media/console machine, and have higher versions in the mini family. Even as a wannabe home machine, it still brings across the iTunes crowd and IOS app eco system. Unlike the 1980's attempt. It would already have wings.

Mac Mini Pro. Like a tall little tower, with a series of hot swappable bays in the back. Pop the little swing out from panel, and whole lot of front accessible docking spaces for ports and drives. That would be an ARM editing solution at 20-30cm high size.

Ricardo. 5x more performance in memory transfer can be interpreted in a few ways. One memory where unevened access by comparing devices, clog up memory performance, so have to be evened out. Multiple different memories unified to appear as one for access purposes, so that each gets full bandwidth until another part requires to access a memory that doesn't belong mg to it, what I'm using in design (re-edit, I might point out, that there are memory chips that allow multiple access through different ports). Now, on a heavy work load, where this is a factor, that could speed things up a little or a lot, depends on what's been done, but that 5x might only average out with every other task to 1/5th more, even 5%, and rarely 5x, unless there is some common function needed which really advantages using it etc.