HD For Indies

Hey all -

was emailing Jarred Land from DVX User and we were discussing why was it that Final Cut Studio wasn't officially supported on MacBooks (nor Minis as well), since they seem to be doing quite well in testing (see test results from other day comparing to MacBook Pro and Dual 2.0 GHz G5). Out of that email exchange, I've come up with 4 explanations/theories of my own as to why no support on MacBooks, even though they run better on many things than a Dual G5. With the exception of #1, I have no proof, it's all conjecture:

Explanation 1: "It don't work."

The obvious and stated reason is stated on this Apple tech support page:

Final Cut Studio is not supported on MacBook
From that page:

If you have a MacBook, the Final Cut Studio (Universal) crossgrade Installer does not prohibit you from installing the pro applications, but this configuration does not meet the minimum system requirements for Final Cut Studio.
See the Final Cut Studio system requirements for complete requirements. (Mikenote: the salient detail is AGP graphics card from the specs)

Note: The integrated graphics processor in the MacBook does not permit float processing in Motion and will result in degraded performance and other issues in Motion and other Final Cut Studio applications.

OK, that's pretty clear. BUT...based on the test results referenced above, that doesn't seem to make a whole lot of sense - even Motion ran, and seemed to run quite well compared to a G5, even for projects with video clips placed in them.

This theory is also supported by the poor game performance, as BareFeats.com documents here - games rely heavily on OpenGL performance, and in some (but not all) circumstances, the MacBook "ain't got it."

Explanation 2: "Not all features will work"

So maybe it's because, even though this preliminary tests show it working fine, further tests will show it flat out doesn't work, or some features don't work? The stated problem from Apple seems to be that it won't support float processing....OK, fine, just use the other modes, which video folks would 98% of the time anyway.

So why not say FCS is supported, but some functionality is limited? It would appear that since the GPU doesn't support floating point math that Float mode won't work. I was about to say Motion is the only app that uses that heavily, but then it suddenly dawned on me that the stated way many plugins work in FCP is to do the math in floating point space then send the results back to 8 or 10 bit (depending on your timeline). But wait, that's the GPU that lacks floating point math, not the CPU. Uh oh, that might be a real problem, since GPU is what is used for RT performance...so the only way to test is to set up identical projects on MacBook and G5 and test for RT performance, but also render out results, time how long it takes, and then compare the results to make sure they match exactly (difference filter in After Effects, for instance).

Explanation 3: "Future Proofing"

This is a benign reason for Apple to fudge a little bit on support - let's say Apple already knows that Final Cut Studio 6 is in the pipeline, and as rumor has long had it, it will take BIG TIME advantage of Core Video to accelerate all kinds of things in FCS to dramatically increase the realtime performance. It would be POSSIBLE (NOT saying it will) to do things like mix codecs on the same timeline, mix frame SIZES on the same timeline, do real time deinterlacing, all kinds of exciting stuff*. Whatever the feature set might be, it would rely heavily on GPU for realtime performance. It would be awkward, and cause all kinds of grief, if MacBooks were introduced and supported in one version, and then X months later were NOT supported with the next version. If YOU were product manager for FCS, wouldn't YOU suggest, if there were any if's or fudges about a non-Pro system's performance on v5.x, and you KNEW that v6 wouldn't run worth a flip or even launch on that hardware, to just mark it as "Don't Go There" for the X months between releases? Keeps life simpler - if you rule it out from the get-go, you won't have users complaining about "abandoning" them later.

Honestly, of all the things discussed so far, this makes the most sense to me if there is any fudging going on.

*....which would require a MAJOR rewrite of the core code - the way I understand it/have been told, the current code locks you into a codec, frame size, and frame rate on a given timeline, and to alter from that would be a "rebuild the building's foundations" kind of a change

Explanation 4: "Market Segmentation" (aka "Sell More High Margin Stuff)

OK, and here's where the conspiracy theorists can put on their shiny aluminum foil hats (helps WiFi reception, right?). IF, and I say IF, MacBooks turned out to run FCS fine (or fine with some limitations, like no float mode in Motion), then why the big stance on Don't Use It? Perhaps Apple is trying to protect the sales of their higher end machines? Since a MacBook (so far, based on preliminary testing) is running about as well as Dual 2.0 GHz G5, and costs about $700 less**, and even worse for Apple, about practically the same as the $1500 more expensive 17" MacBook Pro, and Apple makes considerably higher margins on the G5s and MacBook Pros, and wants their pro users to be running on the "pro" boxes, and the Intel towers are still months away, what to do? I could see someone in Apple saying in a meeting: "We want to sell more G5s, but if these cheapie MacBooks are as fast, how can we discourage them from buying them? Wait - you say you can't run Motion in Float Mode? There you go - it's not compatible with the full feature set, therefore it isn't officially supported - you can't get tech support on a MacBook for Final Cut Studio. The little guys might wing it, but our pro and corporate user base won't go with an unsupported product." I'm not saying that DID happen at Apple, I'm not saying that's the only reason to not support MacBooks on FCS, I'm just saying that is a POSSIBLE explanation.

**(and yes, huge feature and spec differences, but this is roughly speaking)

So that's the evolution of my thinking. I'm not saying it IS any of these, these are just the options that I see out there.

What do you folks think? Post away with the comments link below.

(and to cover his behind, all theories are mine not Jarred's in case anybody gets mad)

-mike