Nov 16, 2018 - I've been using a Mac mini as my primary home computer for the last. Not editing video on this thing or using it as a media server — you can.
Pinnacle Studio is the easy to use video editing software to capture memories with over 1,800 effects, useful editing tools, music, titles and other content. You'll also enjoy the benefits to share movies on YouTube, web, DVD, and more. However, Pinnacle is Windows only video editing platform.
As far as we know, there is NOT Pinnacle for Mac in the schedule, or at least you can't find Pinnacle Mac on its homepage. I hope that this could answer all of these questions:. Does Pinnacle Studio make a version for the Mac?. How to install Pinnacle Studio 14 on a Mac?.
Is there a program like Pinnacle Studio for Mac? Again, all answers are NOT. My suggestion is to find a Pinnacle Studio for Mac alternative. One helpful option is Wondershare Filmroa for Mac(Originally Wondershare Video Editor for Mac) (Mountain Lion, Lion supported). It's a good program like Pinnacle Studio for Mac to enhance and edit your video with an array of visual effects (not as much as Pinnacle but enough to use), transition, titles, and all regular video editing tools.
Video Editor lets you export video to all popular video formats, share on YouTube and burn video to DVD for watching on TV. Check the video tutorial about how to edit videos on Mac first. Why choose Wondershare Filmora (originally Wondershare Video Editor) as the Pinnacle Mac video editing software? Here are the reasons. Step 1: Drag and Drop Your Ideas The program comes with an intuitive and drag-and-drop interface. You can easily drag and drop content to edit immediately. Plus, whatever you want to, you will find the right tool at your fingertips including visual effects, transitions, titles, trimming, cropping, rotating, audio editing (video track, voiceover and background music), etc.
Step 2: Support All Popular Video/Audio/Graphic Formats Broad format support gives you the most convenience to spice up your videos in Video Editor. No conversion required.
It'll save you time and money to compose a masterpiece quickly and easily. Following formats are fully supported:. Video Formats: MOV, MP4, TS, TRP, M2TS, MTS, TP, FLV, AVI, DAT, WMV, MKV, DV, MOD, TOD, VOB, 3GP, ASF, F4V, M4V, MPG, EVO.
Audio Formats: M4A, AAC, AC3, AIF, AIFF, APE, AU, FLAC, MKA, MP2, MP3, OGG, WAV, WMA. Image Formats: BMP, JPG, PNG, GIF, TIF, ICO Audio editing feature is indispensable for Pinnacle Studio Mac alternative. Video Editor includes practical and easy to use audio tools. Whatever it's the audio track of video, voiceover or background music, you can edit it in no time with trimming, mixing, audio effects, etc. Step 3: Share on YouTube, Computer, DVD and Anywhere Video Editor provides you with even more options to share your movies.
Movies are made to share, and the sharing possibilities are endless, and most important is that all is at your fingertips. Format: Save videos to local for later playback in different formats like MOV, MP4, M4V, MKV, WMV, FLV, etc.
Device: Output optimized videos for playing on portable devices like iPod, iPhone 4, iPad, Zen, Zune, PSP, etc. YouTube: Directly upload videos to YouTube to share your video creations, also send messages to your Twitter and Facebook friends. DVD Creation: Burn the finished videos and photos to DVD or save as DVD media, DVD folder or ISO image files to burn with other tools. Will you be giving Video Editor a try? Don't miss this great Pinnacle Mac alternative. And if you are using a better program like Pinnacle Studio for Mac, let's know in the comment.
Diana Please Please help me. I just purchased a MAC on April 4 and am so frustrated at this point.
I have tried loading Pinnacle onto the Mac using Parallels/bootcamp. I have Windows 7. I also have 5 external drives. I partioned the MAC. When I was sucessful in loading Pinnacle, all I would get is the NGStudio crashing.
I have installed and uninstalled many many times. Currently I cannot even get Pinnacle reinstalled.
It thinks I have it open?? I am at the point of trying to take the MAC back even though others have told me Pinnacle will work. I love Pinnacle except when the NG studio crashes. Can you give me some information on how you installed and set up Pinnacle. I would love to have both.working.
Click to expand.Sorry to hear about your MBP, such a nice machine. I'm planning on one of those myself for when I'm out of the house. The good news is that your display, magic mouse and keyboard will work fine with the Mac mini. I do a lot of graphics work on my Mac mini and some of my projects approach 1 GB in size - those typically take a few extra seconds to render but not really enough to be annoying. And that's with the base model, yours should be much faster. I also use Safari, iTunes (movies don't lag at all!), Numbers and Pages (Apple offerings), and most of the standard Apple apps and I've been very happy with this machine.
I was a bit concerned when buying it, due to the 'entry level' description, but this little workhorse has impressed me. The RAM is upgradable on my machine but I don't see the need to do so at this time. Note: I used to build my own computers during the 13 years I spent using Linux and the Mac mini runs circles around most of the machines I built. I was told by others to get the higher end Mac mini if I was planning to do any heavy video editing or compiling, but you seem to be looking at that model anyway, so I don't think you'll have any problems. Sorry to hear about your MBP, such a nice machine.
I'm planning on one of those myself for when I'm out of the house. The good news is that your display, magic mouse and keyboard will work fine with the Mac mini.
I do a lot of graphics work on my Mac mini and some of my projects approach 1 GB in size - those typically take a few extra seconds to render but not really enough to be annoying. And that's with the base model, yours should be much faster. I also use Safari, iTunes (movies don't lag at all!), Numbers and Pages (Apple offerings), and most of the standard Apple apps and I've been very happy with this machine. I was a bit concerned when buying it, due to the 'entry level' description, but this little workhorse has impressed me. The RAM is upgradable on my machine but I don't see the need to do so at this time.
I was told by others to get the higher end Mac mini if I was planning to do any heavy video editing or compiling, but you seem to be looking at that model anyway, so I don't think you'll have any problems. 2012 Mac Mini base model; upgraded to 16GB RAM and a 250GB SSD drive.
I am typically running LightRoom, Photoshop, NIK editors, Premiere Pro, After Effects, Handbrake, Safari, and Photos at any given time (yes, often most of these are running at the same time, because I'm lazy and hate waiting for apps to open when I need them) without issue. I work with raw images from a Canon 70D and H.264 video files. It's a very capable system and I wouldn't hesitate to recommend it as a workhorse. As a bonus, the 2012 model is not only upgradeable with RAM and HDD/SDD, but it still includes a firewire 800 port while also including USB 3.0 and thunderbolt. I have a couple of HDD enclosures that support firewire 800, so it's nice to have it available still if I want. I've picked up the Mac Mini 2.8Ghz, 8Gb RAM, 1Tb Fusion Drive last night. My Macbook Pro is repairable (graphics card issue that affected a batch of 2011 MBP's, so free repair) and I needed something whilst it is in for repair at the Apple store.
I'm hoping that this Mac Mini will perform reasonably well when I come to edit sessions later today. If it does I'll keep it. If not then I'll return it and see what else I can get that works a little better. If yesterdays problems taught me anything it's that I need a 2nd mac to use as a backup. Hi Mark, I use a 2012 i5 (2.5Ghz) Mac Mini with 10gb ram and the stock 500gb hdd.
I use it for editing Nikon NEF files from a D600 (24mp) using Lightroom and Photoshop. I also use it to edit HD video from the D600 using Final Cut Pro X. Photoshop performance - I have no issues with this at all, and the times I've created large composites (like you, not really above 500mb) it has handled them without issue. Lightroom performance - from what I've read Lightroom likes a powerful processor, and doesn't utilise multi cored processors above 4 cores particularly well (i.e.
There is little performance gain going from 4 cores to 6 or 8 etc. Especially when weighed against the extra cost).
The gain to be had from the faster processor is in the creation of previews, rendering the file when viewing the raw in the develop module (it takes my machine about 2s to display the image sharp, which can be frustrating with a lot of images to edit), and in exporting the files. Lightroom apparently only utilises the GPU in the Develop module.
I notice next to no lag when applying a change meaning once the image has been rendered after the aforementioned 2s wait, making adjustments to the image runs smoothly. My machine has Intel HD4000 graphics. I also use the Nik suite of plugins. Creating the initial TIFF takes a while (perhaps slowed by the hdd, the files created are big).
Once the file and plugin are loaded, making adjustments is quick once again, and saving the file back to Lightoom is once again a bit slow. I've heard that the Nik plugins are GPU aware so once the file and plugin are loaded then performance may well be quicker (inc. Saving) with a better GPU. Final Cut Pro X - editing the footage is smooth. Scrolling along the edit line and having the waveforms and thumbnails render is laggy, but useable. I wouldn't want to use my machine on a daily basis for editing, let a lone for large projects (I use it for up to 10min sequences). Rendering of some transitions can take a while.
Exporting of footage is quick. A friend has a quad core i5 iMac and it runs everything in FCPX a lot more quickly. Quad cores definitely makes a difference! I plan to up the ram to the maximum of 16gb at some point., especially for the integrated graphics. I also want to install a 1Tb SSD and keep the 500Gb in the machine to store my music collection. The SSD will allow the machine to boot and load programs more quickly, I'm not sure if it will significantly improve performance once using any particular program. It would seem we live quite close to each other, I'm in Ealing W.
My wife's family live in Oxford so we regularly whizz by High Wycombe on the M40. SayCheese wrote: 'I've picked up the Mac Mini 2.8Ghz, 8Gb RAM, 1Tb Fusion Drive last night. My Macbook Pro is repairable (graphics card issue that affected a batch of 2011 MBP's, so free repair) and I needed something whilst it is in for repair at the Apple store.' You definitely made the right choice by getting the fusion drive option. Trying to run Yosemite or El Capitan using a 5400rpm internal drive can be an exercise in frustration.
The fusion drive transforms it into a completely different experience. I think you'll find the Mini to be a very capable Mac! You made the right choice by returning the inferior mac mini and getting the tricked out mini. When I read in your previous comment that you went with less RAM, and the fusion drive, I thought to myself that you made the wrong choice. Kudos for returning it. I'm a full time pro wedding photographer and have used the 2012 mac mini (SSD drive, 16GB RAM) for a while now and it's a great machine. I use Adobe CS6 collection along with Lightroom 5.
My only gripe is that I wish it had more thunderbolt ports so that I could connect to TB drive storage as well as a 2nd display. Also, I feel like LR6 did not live up to it's reputation for being much faster for me, and I believe it's due to the lack of graphic processor on the mini.
So I went back to using LR5 which is fine. Based on the conclusion from this person's recent tests I reckon you made a good purchasing choice: From the conclusion it would seem quad core gives the most optimal performance. More cores than that has limited performance benefit considering the extra cost outlay. Quad core benefit's performance most when exporting the images.
For all other tasks, CPU speed is more significant. An SSD gives the feeling of an overall responsive system so is definitely a good thing to have. GPU speed provides no benefit to Lightroom performance.
![Can You Use A Mac Mini For Video Editing Can You Use A Mac Mini For Video Editing](https://cdn2.macworld.co.uk/cmsdata/features/3449141/best_mac_for_video_editing_imac_retina.jpg)
Going up to a quad core machine with a 512Gb SSD (all other specs similar too) requires you to get a 27' iMac which would have been an increased spend of £400 (using Apple prices for memory). The quad core 27' iMac is an amazing machine and would make for an amazing Lightroom performance experience, but if you already have a screen you like then a saving of £400 goes a long way towards a new camera lens. Based on the conclusion from this person's recent tests I reckon you made a good purchasing choice: From the conclusion it would seem quad core gives the most optimal performance. More cores than that has limited performance benefit considering the extra cost outlay. Quad core benefit's performance most when exporting the images. For all other tasks, CPU speed is more significant. An SSD gives the feeling of an overall responsive system so is definitely a good thing to have.
GPU speed provides no benefit to Lightroom performance. Going up to a quad core machine with a 512Gb SSD (all other specs similar too) requires you to get a 27' iMac which would have been an increased spend of £400 (using Apple prices for memory). The quad core 27' iMac is an amazing machine and would make for an amazing Lightroom performance experience, but if you already have a screen you like then a saving of £400 goes a long way towards a new camera lens.