The folks at Apple are a never ending source of amusement. Look at the IPod. A chance to listen to music in a compressed format with cheap earphones. Why not buy a mini-disc player and a set Etymotic earbuds. Of course, most of the music on IPods probably benefits from compression.
Want to enjoy fewer advertisements and more features? Click here to become a Hardware Analysis registered user.
I enjoy both my Apple and my PC. There's no way my PC could touch my Mac for video editing, well not at the same price anyway. As was said by the author just before he spit in Apple's face, it's a pointless debate so I won't debate it.
ive alwase had pcs, pully cos i can build them, so i get them cheap, for vidio editing, macs win hands down, and the new vertion of the sound editing softwere, macs win to, but there not compatable enough for me to buy one yet, although im getting more and more tempted every time i have to wait for my windows to stop laging or help my frieds when there pcs totaly crash. if your an older person whos never had pcs, (my mum) i might actuly have to suggest a mac, o, i duno, or care, i wana go to sleep
Ya know what? I see apple as a nice workstation that i would hope shouldnt crash. I also know of a little thing called LINUX which, by partitioning a hardrive on some of these computers im seeing, by installing it I could go light years away from crAPPLE hehe...
Go LINUX if you want a fast reliable workstation, or gaming rig. (compatability sucks tho)
Athlon 64 3000+
1 gig pc3200 Kingston (i went cheap) KVR
Sorry - but PCs win for performance in all categories. Including video editing.
With macs, you've got final cut pro. With PCs, you have endless choices for software.
The pros who insist on using a mac only do so because they don't know anything else.
Video editing consists of five steps.
Capturing - be it from Mini DV, a live source, or high quality digital/traditional film. Macs and pcs do this the same.
Cutting - deciding what you want to use and where to use it. All this involves is time, a good eye for detail and aesthetics, and maybe a little creativity. The only difference between macs and pcs is the user interface. If you love the interface of final cut pro and other such things on a mac, that's fine. But there are far more options, many of them much more customizeable, on the pc.
Filtering - adding in fades, blurs, adjusting color levels, adding special effects, etc. For most people, a few fades and maybe some text. Perhaps adjusting the brightnes and contrast. Again, the only difference here is the user interface. For the "pros" you're going to be dealing with a lot of filters and special effects, much more complex, things you'd see in movies. Possibly involving 3D models or separate video streams filmed in conjunction. On the mac, you'll find yourself constantly hopping from one piece of software to another, using different effects from different sources. On the pc, you can easily import virtually any type of filter you'd want using one or two different programs, and a little thing called the internet. Program doesn't have the filter you want? Google it. Chances are someone has already written one that does exactly what you want. There's a good chance it's free, too. Still not finding what you want? You can easily write your own if you know a bit about programming, math, and what you want to get done - this is another thing that separates the pros form the regular people, the "pros" and the artists that sewar by macs for video editing. Once you've got your filters, performance becomes and issue. PCs win HANDS DOWN for performance in EVERY ASPECT. A $X PC will ALWAYS outperform a $X MAC. For most people, about 20% of the time is spent capturing, cutting, and filtering, while 80% of the time is spent rendering and compressing. For professionals, it can get up to as high as 50/50 or even as low as only 10 percent of the time being used to set up the video, with the other 90 percent being used to render.
muxing - Adding in the audio. No, this is not called "dubbing"! Dubbing is the process by which you overlay EXTERNAL audio onto a video or audio stream. 99% of the work done is muxing, laying the audio you already have onto the video track. This involves filtering, adjusting timings, etc, and may indeed involve dubbing in external voice overs or corrections or effects if those aren't matching up to the video well enough. For most people this step is automatic, with no filters. For the "pros" and artists, it usually involves a lot of needles filters that don't really do much, or a lot of "artistic" effects. Fine, it's "art". But the dumbest thing they do is try to simulate surround sound form a mono or stereo source. So many of them do it. They juts play around until they like the sound of it. Real professionals would use multiple microphones (some of the artists and "pros" do too, but SO many do not) and actually have multiple discrete audio tracks to work with. If you really want to do a good job, you'll watch the video along with the audio track once you're "finished" and then adjust anythign you think is wrong before the next step. This step can also be cpu intensive if you've got complex filters, but it's never as cpu intensive as applying and adjusting filters and the next step.
exporting - whether you want a dvd, an avi, a .mov, or an mpeg clip, you've got some choices to make. Luckily, on the mac, your choice is much easier to make. .mov or dvd? With the mac, you'll find yourself hopping to different programs for this step. With a pc, you've got a plethora of options and software that will do it all. If you want a high-quality divx version of your video, no problem. If you want a dvd, no problem. vcd? kvcd? mvcd? svcd? xcd? mini dvd? No problem, they're all just implementations of mpeg. What about mpeg 4? That's divx. And xvid. Well, the mac has h.264, the next generation standard. Oops, so does the pc. And the pc does it better too. There are free implementations, or you could buy 3rd party filters (such as Nero's implementation). You can even download programs on the pc that'll interface with the dll's purchased from 3rd parties, giving you complete control over the codec. (NOTE: as of now, MPEG-4 AVC/H.264/MPEG-4 PART 10 is NOT stable or consistent in its quality - I would not consider it for imporatnt uses yet) Now, you can convert your video to dvd or vcd in a few hours. Or you can spend a few days doing it in mpeg 4. Or you could od it in mpeg 4 in a few hours if you want. This is where performance comes in. The PC wins hands down in every computational aspect when compared to the mac, no matter what apple says. It's a simple fact. There is no way to change this than for apple to start lowering prices and offering higher performance machiens more quickly. This part of the process CAN be cpu intensive if you really care about quality, or it can be just a few hours of work. (If you want to make a DVD, the main video and audio is compressed into mpeg2. Your menus are a completely different matter, and for those of you thinking the mac is better in this respect, you're wrong. The industry standard is a little program called Scenarist. Look it up.)
The two main differences between the mac and pc for video editing are performance and user interface.
Most of the "pros" who preach for the mac are just too accustomed to the user interface of their software to ever even try to learn anything else. And as for performance? The pc wins hands down. It's just a fact.
The Commodore Amiga wins hands done!!! The Amiga was and still is the greatest computer for graphics and audio editing. Unfortunately Commodore bit the dust and the current Amiga technology is funked out since it is being engineered buy some Europeans. When, I used my Amiga 500 and Amiga 1200 all the bloody time the magazines would periodically have speed tests comparing the Motorola chips to Intelís counterparts i.e. 80486 vs. 68040 and the Motorola chips always won hands done. They use to use a comparison of how many MIPS the CPUs generated and Intel chips would be about 15% behind the Motorola counterpart. That was 1988 to 1992 for me and Apples where always to expensive and did not have enough business oriented software. AMD chips have always been able to add 2+2 quicklier than any if the Intel chips have.
Someone else said that all you need to do is install Linux 64bit and you will beat out everyone elses programs in a performance comparison. I really wish Someone would release a more contrived version of VM ware and sell it from the Gran'stand so people can get cross platform interaction from the begining.
PCs outperforming Apple is hardly fact. Especially when it comes to floating point operations often used in graphics and video.
I am not saying Apple's benchmarks are unbiased, but one poster says to compare "apples to apples" not "apples to oranges". Okay, lets look at a non Apple based benchmark. http://www.top500.org lists the most powerful computer clusters around the world. Where do the PowerPC 970 rank here? Two in the top 10. Where did Opterons rank? There highest ranking was 17, and they even were using more processors than the 970's in the top 10.
Don't call something a fact without data to back it up.
That means, if the two major decisions for video editing are user interface and speed...the Mac wins on both counts.
it's interesting tho, I've always though of Apple being a friendly computer manufacturer, untill I started using their programs. I've found where Apple has locked software to only work on a apple that's come out in that season, and the next season, they've crippled the software only to be used in that season. A classic example of this is Final Cut pro 3 and 4. In FC3, you can use a PCI video card, that comes with a G3, but in FC4, you need to have an AGP card, in which supprise supprise; a G4 has. This means you need to upgrade your hardware to use anything newer, an advantage of PC's cheap mainboard architecture over Mac's all in one wonders. You can hack FC4 to work on a G3, but this was the first of many such Apples hidden greed at work. So you can see, from using a system, you start to see big holes in it. Just like with Micos*ft's NT (XP) and 9x platforms. Hehe, at least there is linux to save us all i wonder if Apples main architecture is still a Intel processor per chance....
Don't you know that Adobe Premiere isn't available for the Mac??? At least, it's not in active development. You can't fairly compare a left-behind pile of a program to the actively developed Windows version. Now, Final Cut Pro is VERY popular. If you don't like it, you can use Avid.
_Why Not_ benchmark the premiere (no pun intended) Windows vid program to the top Mac program???
Having said that, I look to Bare Feats for more reliable benchmarks.The positive message that comes out of this is that Apple finally has a supply of chips that keep the Macs _in the ballpark_ of performance. The Power Macs are fast and efficient multiprocessing machines. They are also very well engineered.
Incidentally, OS X is very, very powerful. Shake your head sadly at anyone who suggests the generalization that "Windows is powerful, Macs are easier to use" that suggests Macs are somehow crippled. If Unix is not powerful enough for you, you're pretty much out of luck. And people who haven't touched a Mac since 1997 shouldn't probably comment on them (I'm not talking about Sander here).
Floating point operations are usually higher on the Power PC benchmarks and that is where the Mac dominates. Take a look at NVIDIA and ATI GPUs they are so blinding fast due to there FLOP counts.
I think the reason the Mac wins a lot of those benchmark tests is due to the OS being multithreaded, isn't it multithreaded? That is why the Amiga blew everyone out of the water for ten years until outside software advanced a little; Windows, Finder, Linux.
Correct me please if I made a misstatement? Isn't OS-X multithreaded?
The current Amigas that are powered by Power PC chips are blinding fast also.
Thanks, Aexander E. Calvo AMIGA POWER
p.s.----This discussion topic has obviously raised several readers eyebrows.
Avid Express is also available and actively developed for the Mac.
I can make SVCDs just fine on my Mac. I use three applications for .avi, .mov, .mp4, mpeg2, VCD, and DVD. Quicktime Pro ($30), Roxio Toast $70, iLife (included w/Macs). I just bought Popcorn to back up DVDs. I was doing this using free utilities, but I got a good deal on it ($20).
For those of us who care about user interfaces and efficient work flow, we'll happily keep our Macs. You keep running your virus checker. But, I'm a Mac user. What do I know about viruses? Oops. I left my firewall turned off again. For the last four years. Course we all know, any day now. There will be a Mac virus. Any day now. Think about how much spyware I must have on my machine. Hmm. . . none. Yeah. Well . . .
I am a former Win user. Win ME made me see red. Then I sold my Compaq. I got one of the original white iBooks in 2001 and was immediately hooked. Back then, some of the criticisms were actually true. Few games. Interoperability problems (Mac > Windows), slow web rendering. That was back then.
Much better for me than Windows. Yes, I've used XP. A lot. Yes, I love the cute speech bubbles and search doggie. Well, not really. And orange and blue. That's clever. That's not garish or anything. Oh, yeah. The olive theme. Yup. I know. I can change the ui to look like OS X. Or better yet, I can use a real Mac.
And, horror of horrors, I'm a Mac user _and_ an expert user. Wow. Not even an oxymoron.
I lack for nothing on the Mac. Hard for many to believe. No, I can't use Beekeeper Pro. But I don't have bees, and so far it hasn't been a problem.
my school used apples....I always had to fix them...of course i always had to fix pc's too (mostly for my friends) Every time i use a mac I cant help but wonder what takes it so long to start up and once it starts up why does it run so much crappier than I can make a pc run?...most of hte ppl that have probs w/pc's are people that dont know anything about spyware or how to prevent it w/o slowing down your computer. Mac doesnt have any excuses
Apple - aethetics, user freindly, environmentally unfreindly (unlike before...why apple WHY), and gets the stuff it specialises at done best
PC - Can be cheaper, can be user freindlier, can be environmentaly freindly, can be specialised, can be powerful, can be faster, can have more style....
power mac g5...cooks the books? if it does fine, people in the pc market do that all the time anyway with user polls....most apple users are reknowned to be cocky, annoying, know nothing and to be idiots....not to mention rich in some cases......BUT if youre one of those whos either a pro, knows what youre doing, or your mac beats whatever pcs can offer in your specialisation or desire ...i tip my hat to you cuz theres too many people who try to copy you.... (that includes the dude who posted just above me)
edit: apple doesnt offer a single product to me that appeals to me or can do better than what i do on my PCs for what i do....thats unfortunate and i wished they did have a aproduct that did cuz then id buy it...
my one and only single complaint against mac users.......whats wrong with two buttons are they that too confusing for you?
An xbox360 and a 12" iBook....
And a kawasaki er-6n to mod instead
I think it boils down to people that like Windows better than OS-X or vice-versa. One day they try to use an Apple and they figure it out much quicker than they can figure out Windows. Now, for the bench mark thing one of the previous gents stated that one whould compare apples to apples not apples to oranges. They should do that now. If a given platform acomplishes something quicklier than the other platform one should consider the operating system also. The Mac is faster at certain things than a PC and the PC is faster than a MAC with a lot of other things.
The G-5 chip is an extremely powerful chip. But, skewed bench mark results are annoying in the sense that they take advantage of the ignorant folk.