Ex-technologist, now a filmmaker and mostly a visual artist.
The new chip is great for 422 10bit editing (nvidia/amd and all intel cards except 1 new laptop one don't support that). So hardware acceleration on this is great, the problem is the main RAM. It's enough to do editing with it, but the 8 GB or the 16 GB versions fall short of supporting complex Blackmagic Fusion compositing, which is recommended to have 32 GB as minimum (64 GB recommended on a PC). So if you're using Resolve, and your color grading is not too complex (by using plugins like Filmconvert), it should work with the 16 GB RAM models. But if also using complex Fusion compositions, it's best to wait for the M2. I'd say that the same is true for AE, although for AE, that suggested number is closer to 24 GB of recommended RAM for complex scenes. Premiere itself should run great on 16 GB though, and FCP, being the simplest of the 3 big consumer editors, should do great either way.
Personally, I will be moving to an M2 chip from a Win10 PC when that's available with 32 GB of RAM. I've had it with the PC getting extremely slow after 3 years of usage due to the Registry getting bloated (even if I keep my PC lean with very few apps installed). If the M1 supported 32 GB of RAM now, I would have already jumped ship to Apple pronto.
It would be a tragedy to create proxies when the machine can actually playback these files without a hiccup speed-wise, and only have to use proxies just to save 2-4 GBs of RAM. Besides, proxies won't save you when you do the final export. You will still need the full required VRAM to export. And Resolve is quite slow on 16 GB of RAM. Blackmagic themselves suggest 32gb of ram for resolve, or 64 for fusion if also using that. I've tried both configurations, and the 32GB laptop is by far the faster of the two. 16 GB laptop lags.
None of the new Apple machines introduced today are good enough for video editing. They only go up to 16 GB of RAM. Premiere does just about ok in that amount, but if you add AE, it needs more RAM (they suggest 24-32 GB). Resolve runs better at 32 GB of RAM, and they suggest 64 GB if also using Fusion.
The biggest, and least mentioned problem is that this quoted amount of RAM is a UNIFIED ram, not just RAM for apps. What this means is that the graphics card, and other parts of the machine (e.g. neural engine chips), share that RAM. Mac/iOS might not need more than 8 GB of RAM to run itself and simple apps, but video editing apps require a lot more. Resolve throws 'out of VRAM' errors if you try to add effects on a 4k video, on anything less than a 6-8 GB VRAM gfx card, for example. And people should not have illusions that their eventual native ports of these apps would auto-magically require less V/RAM.
So, yeah. This is a major disappointment for editors. I held high hopes, because the Apple gfx chipsets are the only ones in the market that can hardware-decode 4:2:2 in 10bit h.265 (as found on the new Canons and A7S III), but the amount of RAM they offer is just not suitable for video editing. They needed to offer the option of 64 GB of unified memory for this to be workable.
EDIT: Was just discussing that with my husband, who's a software engineer, and he had the same gripe. You need 32 GB of RAM to run Xcode properly. So with the unified memory model, he'd also need 64 GB to get the same ability as before. Sure, Apple might release some Mac Pro or some expensive iMac with much RAM, but having the MacBook Pro at least not even reach as much RAM, is just weak planning from Apple.
I switched into buying blu-rays (and 4k bds) 2 months ago. I stopped my streaming subscriptions too, including netflix, hulu and spotify (I just use pandora-free for music now). I rather have the highest possible quality at my home, rather than muddy streaming quality (usually HD) that i don't really own. Director of Shazam, David F Sandberg, did an itunes and netflix quality test recently, and he found it lacking compared to a bd/4k disc.
I found nothing wrong with Borat, neither the old one, or the new film. If new Borat felt more crazy, it's because the world is more crazy and more polarized than it once was. But I didn't see any hypocrisy as the article states. I just saw exposure of humanity's decline. But then again, when was humanity "great"? Never. Human violence and insanity was always there, in all of our recorded history. It's just that sometimes it's more visible and exposed, due to socio-political issues. Such as now. But it was always there, lying under falsehoods of religious morality, and such.
High budget indie films, that is. The likes of Primer, Coherence, El Mariachi, etc., which is what readers of this website can afford, are nowhere to be seen...