Battle Royal: Mac Vs. PC

gambitt · Post by **gambitt** » Mon Jul 14, 2003 7:56 am

stop the hate, tolerate.

the Black Monarch · Post by **the Black Monarch** » Mon Jul 14, 2003 1:14 pm

Ok, so you're saying that if anyone should be fortunate enough to actually come into posession of the original film upon which a movie was shot, the editing should be done on a Mac. That's fantastic.

Bill Gates: "Bend over and take it, bitch!"

Me: "Yes, master! Bend me over even farther!"

LMFAO

alternatefutures · Post by **alternatefutures** » Mon Jul 14, 2003 4:32 pm

Considering Vegas and now Premiere Pro (amazing how much Adobe caught up with that) handle 24p, what's FCPs advantage again? Also, considering both PCs and Macs are digital, the whole thing about film being a higher resolution doesn't play into this AT ALL. The Mac doesn't have some magical process whereby a transfer will retain all the information from a peice of film. Sure, Apple's FCP used to have an advantage a year ago, but today it doesn't. Right now the only thing Apple has a clear, technical advantage over the PC is in the print industry.

Lyrs · Post by **Lyrs** » Mon Jul 14, 2003 4:48 pm

I wouldn't mind using either a Mac or a PC if it provided me with the features i wanted at the right cost.

/end

Nightowl · Post by **Nightowl** » Mon Jul 14, 2003 11:30 pm

alternatefutures - all I'm saying is that until you've used the software and seen the results, of which I've dealt with XPress and FCP, and witnessed tests regarding Vegas (which will never be a fully capable of managing a frame specific EDL), FCP was the quickest and resulted in the best quality. For the money, it is the most complete, hassle free system FOR CUTTING FILM.

I was a little tired last night, so I'll back up. I was talking about two completely different processes which are both popular today.

And just so everyone's clear, I did state several times in the last half of my post that that particular post had absolutely nothing to do with AMVs or straight to video projects. I was simply pointing out that Macs, with certain hardware not provided by Apple, still have a distinct edge in a very profitible community. It was initially a response to what Black Monarch said that fell apart as I fell asleep.

I think it got posted because my forehead hit the keyboard.

Anyway, back to the two processes. First, there's the classic EDL method of cutting film. We're talking about negative cutting, not 24p. If you're cutting 24p you're working with digital content to begin with and it's a helluva lot easier to sync up ratios with a format that never leaves the digital domain. With film, it has to be precise or else your negative cutter could, quite possibly, cut into even a single frame because the EDL was off. Adobe never got that quite right. Vegas and XPress simply aren't build to handle it. Those are video editors. And I'm not talking about finding the original film prints of anime in order to make an AMV, I'm talking about producing a feature length film from start to finish.

Because 24p hasn't quite toppled film as of yet, due in part to how disgusting the last two Star Wars films looked, we still must edit using EDLs in the film industry. In editing, the system that dominated was Avid.

Now, we have FCP. It's more efficient and it's far more accurate when - yes, I said when - it's teamed with the right hardware. I haven't touched Premiere Pro yet, and I won't make a comment about it one way or the other because I honestly have no idea how it will work. I refuse to get excited over a piece of software I've yet to test drive. It's like saying "Shit, dude! That new brush uses hair off Seabiscuit, so I hear! It's gonna rock your world!" Nothing can be proven or disproven until its release into the world. Even then, I doubt I'll try it, in which case, I'll have no reason to bash it, as I would have never used it.

Moving on.

The second process would be shooting on digital video and printing to film. Once again, an uncompressed Aurora print to film simply looked better than anything to come from a PC. There were many PC methods that crushed several Mac methods, but there was a definite champion. And all the specs in all the world couldn't possibly predict what something will look like when you're printing back to film. This print to film process does include an original scan of 35mm motion picture film that is then composited and reprinted back to film. There was an advantage using the Aurora based Mac. It was fucking gorgeous. That's why I bought the damned system, it looks incredible.

My original post was intended as a "hey guys, look, Macs aren't being replaced any time soon" type thing. Hell, I take no side, I just know what looks good. I do use PCs and Macs together, they both have their places in the world. For instance, I would never, in my wildest dreams, attempt to do CG on my Mac. Wait, take that back, I did attempt it, and it was painful. I also won't use a 24fps uncompressed editing station to compose an AMV. I will more than likely never compress anything on the Mac station. But still, that system and it's one purpose - to compose FILMS - has gotten me more work than any other system in my studio.

At the end of the day, whatever looks best and pays the rent is what I'll continue to go with. The real world is not made of specs, there is no black and white, and I'm going to sleep because I've talked way too much. I hope I clarified myself a bit... sorry for the... er... whatever the hell the previous post was.

Once again, this post had absolutely nothing to do with AMVs. Go on with your business, and ignore the arrogant filmmaker.

-N

the Black Monarch · Post by **the Black Monarch** » Wed Jul 16, 2003 3:24 pm

Lyrs wrote:I wouldn't mind using either a Mac or a PC if it provided me with the features i wanted at the right cost.

/end

I guess that rules out Macs

J89idsioss · Post by **J89idsioss** » Mon Jul 21, 2003 3:00 am

milatchi wrote:I have seen many a PC clone go bad *cough* "Magitronic" because of hardware but I don't think this is why Windows crashes like it does.

Excuse me 'cause I haven't read the rest of this thread yet.

But anyways...

An interesting thing I've discovered working with my EMachine (Worst parts ever used in a PC) is that even with my horribly degraded hardware, my PC rarely ever crashes unless there's an extra Microsoft program running (The OS and say.. Word). This even includes Explorer (File Browsing &/or Internet).

Hmm... I smell a rat. I've replaced almost all of my Microsoft Programs with other alternatives and now... No Crashes! (Except when browsing folders).

This is what has convinced me that it's mostly always Microsoft's software that's at fault, and rarely software.

It would be interesting to see a port of Mac OS onto PCs. Maybe it would reveal the truth behind Windows.

So I say hardwar wouldn't be problem if an operating system was written properly. Oh well.

klinky · Post by **klinky** » Mon Jul 21, 2003 3:15 am

Poorly made hardware = no good. If there are signaling issues at the hardware level or the hardware doesn't function properly it's going to cause problems no matter what software you're running.

Your problem sounds more like a conflict. Just becuase your computer seems to crash when running all sorts of MS code doesn't mean all PCs do. I can run IE, Office, MS Paint, Notepad, Calc, VB, Explorer, MS Money all fine. No crashes.

If you want something close to Mac OS X then install Linux. If you really want OS X, go get a Mac. I don't think any System is going to come out for the PC anytime soon.

~klinky

J89idsioss · Post by **J89idsioss** » Mon Jul 21, 2003 3:23 am

Sorry I just needed to get the hate out...

BTW I'm using 98 (Don't say anything I know it's the worst ever made)

I've had better experiences with other computers using Microsoft code, but when I then installed the programs I use on my friends' computers, I never heard a complaint about crashes. They are using 98.

Another thing that I forgot to mention is that MS programs leak resorces like crazy under 98... Other programs leak diddly squat.

I'm working on replacing my computer at the same time as I type this. (Freedom! Later ya POS EMachine!)

Heh.

klinky · Post by **klinky** » Mon Jul 21, 2003 3:40 am

Well you're using a 5yr old OS

. That's what you get.

2K/XP are going to give you a better time. I used to have to reboot everyday or else 98 would get dog slow. I can leave my computer on for weeks now and it acts just like it booted up. Also my server just logged about 1.5months of uptime with Win2k.