Battle Royal: Mac Vs. PC

Mr Pilkington · Post by **Mr Pilkington** » Fri Jul 11, 2003 10:38 pm

WinME... Stable?!¿¡

Does not compute!
**sizzle sizzle**
**Twitch**
**Sizzle**
**Death**

alternatefutures · Post by **alternatefutures** » Sat Jul 12, 2003 12:04 am

Here's an apropriate link:

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,4149,1187732,00.asp

You'll even note the use of the phrase "better hardware" when explaining increases in stability.

madmallard · Post by **madmallard** » Sat Jul 12, 2003 1:57 pm

milatchi wrote:I don't really think that bargain basement hardware has that much to do with Windows crashing as often as it does.

Um. . .well. . .maybe when you can use mac software on pc hardware without the aide of windows, then you'll actually have a way to test that thinking.

Not everything for the Mac is OEM Apple stuff. My RAM is not manufactured by apple or anything. I have 128mb of Samsung RAM and 512 of Joe Blow's RAM I also have a MIDIMan 1296 Audio card (again not manufactured by apple)

to be mac ram you have to meet a different and higher set of qualifications than that of generic pc approved ram. and Midiman isn't exactly 'bargain basement.' They've been in midi controller and high rez audio recording for some time now, and they know their audience has a big chunk of macs.

the Black Monarch · Post by **the Black Monarch** » Sun Jul 13, 2003 8:14 pm

Speed: PCs win this one, hands-down. DW knows his shit in this area.

OS: Really, Windows 2000 and XP are just as stable as any Mac OS. I once saw Win XP say "Hey! That software makes me unstable! Get that shit away from me!" Oh, XP is SO good. And there's Linux, too.

Editing software: Avid Xpress is available on both platforms and ownz j00r soul. Barring that, there's a lot of stuff on PC other than Premiere that can easily hold its own against FCP, and is cheaper, too.

Ease of use: Again, Windows has made tremendous gains with its NT kernel, and is now not that different from the Mac OS.

Price: PCs, easily.

Basically, the advantages once posessed by Macs (stability and ease of use) are no longer theirs. PCs are now either better than or the same as Macs in every category.

This post has nothing to do with me being an official Wintel whipping boy, I swear.

Nightowl · Post by **Nightowl** » Mon Jul 14, 2003 3:38 am

the Black Monarch wrote:Editing software: Avid Xpress is available on both platforms and ownz j00r soul. Barring that, there's a lot of stuff on PC other than Premiere that can easily hold its own against FCP, and is cheaper, too.

Basically, the advantages once posessed by Macs (stability and ease of use) are no longer theirs. PCs are now either better than or the same as Macs in every category.

This post has nothing to do with me being an official Wintel whipping boy, I swear.

Coming from (once again, I know this gets old) a professional film editing standpoint, FCP still works better with 24fps capture when prepping an EDL for cutting motion pictures. I agree that there is a lot of software out there that, when cutting an AMV, makes it pretty much the same using either platform. But until you've worked with 35mm film and transfer, you have no idea what software can do. Premiere simply can't keep up, nor can Avid XPress. Macs still hold a very firm place in the professional film editing world.

And when AMV people talk about 24fps editing, it simply isn't true 24. There's a reason film has a sync ratio. You can read about it, but until you've physically cut film on a flatbed editor and moved to NLE systems, you understand. I cut film on an Aurora based Mac. It's basically what an Avid wants to be, only Avid is now outdated. That's why they've tried moving into the cheapie DV world.

Just try giving a GOOD transfer house five reels of HuffYUV footage to do a negative cut and composites (i.e. dissolves, wipes, etc.). The files would either be rejected outright, or look like crap. Then again, it's really expensive to do a transfer anyway... wait, let me clarify. If you shot something on DV and cut it on a PC with the highly touted HuffYUV, and cut it at 23.972398749283fps, a cheapie DV transfer house MIGHT transfer your film. But it would look ugly. Film editors cut at a true 24fps - the aproximation is for HD, which STILL hasn't matched film quality.

You know, I've rambled into an incoherent conversation that has nothing to do with the current posts. Why do I do this? Because I stay up very late and my thoughts become... what's the word? Oh yeah. CRAP.

Anyway, my point is, PCs are fine for AMVs. If you have a Mac, that's fine too, you can make a video on either one. It truly does not matter. There are specs, and there are tests. Screen tests are VERY important.

Christ, why am I even talking anymore? I need to shut up and go to sleep. If anyone even decides to respond to this post, you're crazy. As crazy as ME!!! YEAH! God, I'm tired...

Oh! I was kinda responding to you, Black Monarch! The reason I responded was because... I liked your Wintel whipping boy comment! That was funny.

Anyway, for a lot of people, AMVs are a hobby. But I KNOW some of you out there in AMV world want to go into professional editing. If you want work, you're going to have to learn how to work on a Mac. Cinema Tools ROCKS for 24fps when combined with the Aurora system. And a one terrabyte RAID. EDLs are actually accurate. And that's important.

Crap. No one here is going into film editing, nor does anyone care. Don't respond to this post. I'm a crazy person who stays up too late and drinks too much. My comments have absolutely NOTHING to do with AMVs, as far as I can tell. I will go to sleep now.

DIUSHFKLDHFLIDSA!!!

-N

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