Macs vs. PC for video editing, which is better?

Zarxrax · Post by **Zarxrax** » Sat Feb 22, 2003 9:41 pm

I doubt many professionals would use Premiere on a PC just because it's so fooking unstable... If Adobe could make a solid piece of software, then they might have something...

klinky · Post by **klinky** » Sat Feb 22, 2003 11:59 pm

The thing the Mac has to it's advantage right now is FCP ;O.

The Mac is still slower then a PC. The G4 doesn't have automagical properties that make it so much l33ter then the PC. There isn't like the "super video processor" section. >_> <_<. If apple released FCP for the PC. I think we'd see the PC take over what with it's cheapness and speed.

But that's not going to happen. I'll give the Mac the nod for high-level multimedia king with FCP. But Adobe apps on the PC are much faster then those on the Mac. PC = Adobe media king.

People who talk about the Mac hardware being better then the PC, it's just not true. What you can do on a Mac, you can do on a PC. Probably cheaper and faster. Easier >_>. Well that's up to debate. I've not used a Mac much. The PC is not that hard to use >_> <_<. So long as you get good hardware.

That is one of the main reasons Macs have been good at certain tasks, since they're "closed boxed systems". Apple only makes them, there is a select few parts and add-ons for them. But really there isn't a whole lot you can upgrade your Mac with. >_> <_<. There are those exspensive PCI add-in cards or whatever to convert your G3 to a G4 :p

Anyways...

Macs just aren't as exciting as PCs. :p

~klinky

Zarxrax · Post by **Zarxrax** » Sun Feb 23, 2003 12:20 am

Something interesting to note, if you ever watch the premiere tutorial videos on adobe's site, they are always from the MAC version

Nightowl · Post by **Nightowl** » Tue Feb 25, 2003 5:07 pm

And here I JUST NOW found this thread.

Macs dominate the editing world, simple as that. The processing cards for broadcast quality video and film editing are better in every which way - just take a look at the Aurora card. This is a card that costs $8000 at MOST with ALL the features, and can capture at a TRUE 24fps - not some 23.xxx aproximation. There's another NLE that started out and is still currently more popular on a Mac - AVID.

The whole "PCs are faster" thing is relative. I've run a few speed tests using Premiere, After Effects, and Final Cut Pro, all compressing the same bunny action movie data. The Mac software was consitantly faster. In some cases, such as Premiere-related output, the tests were a lot closer. And in FCP 2.1, it was actually slower. But a dual 1ghz Aurora based Mac NLE with a scsi RAID array will rip the SHIT out of a 2.1 ghz Athlon with an ATA RAID array.

There is a very good difference between Final Cut Pro and Premiere, and it's the same difference between PCs and Macs - one is prosumer level at best, the other is Professional. It's true that video editing professionals use Macs. I'm sorry, but it's a well known fact. If you want examples of professional editors in the industry using Macs today, I'd be happy to name some well known offenders. If you want some professionals using PCs, that'll be a little tougher... most of the editors that use PCs are working in news stations and get fired once a month. It's a bizarre world, this editing business.

All in all, not a single argument on this entire thread has been all that good. Macs are better video editors - this can be proven through use in the professional world and application of use - i.e. 24fps realtime editing structure. If you go into the professional world claiming you understand Premiere and work on a PC, well... good luck getting work. You MAY be able to find some wedding video stuff, at best.

Regardless, PCs are cheaper. Significantly cheaper. They're great to start out on for someone who doesn't care or has little in the means of funding. And they're fine for AMVs. But don't you believe for a second that anyone can take their PC AMV knowledge and apply it to the real professional world of editing. In the professional world we use Macs, we don't use 99% of the effects provided with a software package, and we almost NEVER cut to the beat.

And 24fps is the reality. Aproximations are pointless.

-N

jonmartensen · Post by **jonmartensen** » Tue Feb 25, 2003 5:48 pm

I personally don't care that "pros" use macs, that is not the kind of argument that persuades me to think macs are better for video editing.

Other arguments do, though. PC's get much more power for the money, from what I can see. But when you go beyond the basic hardware from "popular/common" manufacturers and look at the high end products, Macs win out on processing video in a high quallity format. I don't know about 3d rendering in a networked setup. I think PC's do rather well nowdays.

I just wanted to say that, "The big dogs do it" or "MAc is just generally accepted bythe Professional community as better" is not a good argument. So it's true, that doesn't make it a good argument.

Nightowl · Post by **Nightowl** » Wed Feb 26, 2003 5:57 am

jonmartensen wrote:I personally don't care that "pros" use macs, that is not the kind of argument that persuades me to think macs are better for video editing.

I don't know about 3d rendering in a networked setup. I think PC's do rather well nowdays.

You're absolutely right - it is a shitty argument. I know I've used it, and I'll probably continue to use it (only if I have valid information to back it up), but it's still a shitty argument.

And PCs do currently dominate 3D rendering in a network setup, save a few very high profile systems that should not even be considered Mac or PC - then again, most good graphics houses contain both PCs and Macs, so who knows - perhaps we should all just use both systems for what they are - creative tools, etc.

And here I write this on my PC while my Mac renders out some video frames... yeah for cross-platform! Be one with the computer! Computers are our friends!

-N

Mask of Destiny · Post by **Mask of Destiny** » Wed Feb 26, 2003 3:22 pm

Actually until recently both Mac and PCs were used by only a small portion of the editing community. Most video editing was done on custom workstations Avid workstations and other such ilk. For a while the Amiga held a chunk of the market with Video Toaster, but it's been dead for over 10 years so I would imagine it doesn't hold any apreciable portion of the market.

It wasn't until the release of FCP that desktop computers were really considered a respectable editing platform again. In response to this Adobe tried to address the complaints about Premiere 5 with Premiere 6. Never having used v.5 I can't say how successful they were. I can't personally make a good comparison of FCP with Adobe's offerings, but from the reviews I've seen FCP has an easier to use interface. I would also imagine that's not nearly as buggy as Premiere.

As far as raw awesome power is concerned the PC clearly wins the day. The main problem with current Macs is they simply can't match the memory bandwidth of PCs. The fastest Macs still only have a 133MHz FSB and both processors in the dual systems use the same bus so the only thing that can take advantage of the extra memory bandwidth the DDR provides are things like the Hard disk controller which can do DMA.

As far as internal clock speed is concerned, looks can be decieving. Back in the days of the P3, a G4 Mac could get the same performance in Photoshop as a P3 PC running at twice the clockspeed. The reason being that Photoshop is highly optimised for Altivec and Altivec is much more advanced than SSE.

RDRAM actually does have better performance than DDR RAM, but the extra bandwidth is useless on Athlon based systems and generally speaking the extra performance isn't worth the extra cost on P4 systems. For a detailed comparison of the two RAM technologies I suggest you go over to arstechnica.com and look at the article they have there.

Nightowl · Post by **Nightowl** » Wed Feb 26, 2003 5:20 pm

Just so you know, Avid systems were and still are based on Mac systems - you can use PC now too, but the high end cards require Macs. You see, Avid is a card based system - Avid doesn't make computers. They have hard drives and capture cards and base units and all these little pieces that go together in a gigantic $60k build it yourself editing beast. But they're dying. Aurora has stolen more business from Avid over the past few years than you can imagine. Anyway, "raw awesome power" doesn't make a damned bit of difference in the editing world. I have a PC with a 2.1 Ghz Athlon and my Mac processes video twice as fast unless it's something like MPEG compression. Then the PC dominates. It's all relative - specs don't mean jack shit in the real world. They certainly don't affect me.

-N

Mask of Destiny · Post by **Mask of Destiny** » Wed Feb 26, 2003 10:54 pm

But a dual 1ghz Aurora based Mac NLE with a scsi RAID array will rip the SHIT out of a 2.1 ghz Athlon with an ATA RAID array.

Not exactly a fair comparison. If I understand correctly a lot of the rendering gets unloaded onto the Aurora card and generally speaking SCSI RAID tends to get a lot better performance than IDE/ATA RAID. Of course things in the computer world are rarely ever fair. I'm guessing that Aurora card you're using is probably not available for the PC giving the Mac a rather large advantage for professional editing platforms.

However, I would imagine that this card is also rather expensive and probably out of the budgets of many if not most of the editors here. I mean even a off-the-shelf PowerMac is going to set you back quite a bit more than a whitebox Athlon system and if you don't have a card for real-time effects rendering than raw power does make a difference even in real-world scenarios. This is evident in some of the Mac vs. PC benchmarks in Premiere that someone mentioned a while back.

So I suppose the question should really be qualified. Are we looking for the best platform for a professional who can afford to buy custom hardware or are we looking for the best platform for a hobbyist willing to spend some cash, but not a fortune.

Thanks for the info about the Avid systems. My information on those was more or less third hand.

Nightowl · Post by **Nightowl** » Thu Feb 27, 2003 3:32 am

Heh, you're right, it isn't a fair comparison! The reason I used those two particular types of systems is because those are the two particular systems I own. And you're right, the Aurora is Mac only. But as far as realtime professional video cards go, it's surprisingly inexpensive - $2k. Yes, for the rest of you out there, prices on professional equipment are relative - Mark of Destiny here knows this, I'm sure. But yes, again, the card is more than likely out of most people's budgets on the .org.

As for benchmarks, I've still yet to trust them - when someone is doing a benchmark test, most of the testing is typically biased - this goes for Mac and PC users. There's always something out there - be it specs, or benchmarks, or what have you - that will back up your argument. There are some After Effects filters that render a lot faster on my out of the box G3 than on my Athlon, and some on my Athlon that crunch faster than the Aurora based system. I don't like to base my decisions on benchmarks or specs or any of that - I base my decisions on how a system works for me.

Though, yes, I am a professional, so my other problem is that I can no longer differentiate the arguments and I get confused. It happens to us all at one time or another!

So in the end I guess the argument really boils down to which system are you more comfortable with.

Or if you plan to upgrade to a professional level system eventually - but considering that you'd probably go ahead and buy a whole new base system if you did that anyway and, well, the point is moot.

Or get both systems - that way, you get it all : )

-N