Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Adobe vs. Apple vs. Avid
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
But how does FCP stand up to Avid's F/MC, Symphony or DS systems?
I think DV Free is probably going to targeted towards the same demographic that free Pro-Tools LE is. Someone a step above the common user that would only use iMovie a few times.
I love Adobe products and still use Windows all day at work (iBook at home), and appreciate good Windows programs.
But that Adobe program doesn't even hold a candle to iPhoto. The layout of it isn't as "friendly" as iPhoto, and just doesn't seem as intuitive. iPhoto is definitely one of my favorite apps on a Mac, and I have yet to see an equivalent for Windows, or an equal 3rd party program for a Mac.
But that Adobe program doesn't even hold a candle to iPhoto. The layout of it isn't as "friendly" as iPhoto, and just doesn't seem as intuitive. iPhoto is definitely one of my favorite apps on a Mac, and I have yet to see an equivalent for Windows, or an equal 3rd party program for a Mac.
I agree. I think the target is the kid that would buy FCPro in his dreams, would buy FCExpress if he had $300, but until then, he's going to use whatever he can get for free. Then, when he's experienced and needs the "real deal", he may go to an Avid product because he has become familiar with the interface.
I think that's the same idea that ProTools and Maya have.
I think that's the same idea that ProTools and Maya have.
You really can't compare a street car to a formula one racer.
Software to software I think FCP is straight on with AVID any version, discreet has a line of stuff that is quite impressive.
I would have FCP or Avid DVexpress any old day, but for a Windows newbie the Avid product might be easier to learn.
I think Avid DVex lacks alot of the of the controlability that is available in FCP. I've used both of them but for fast turnaround a still prefer the Media composer, mainly becuase it is a no nonsense easy to use hardware machine. I've yet to use a full blown loaded dual 1.25 FCP machine.
But hardware wise (where the analogy come in) you can't stick a G4 dual against a purpose built hardware machine. Even if you add the hardware cards available you won't see the same results as a the purpsoe built machine.
The AVID symphony running on NT does suck but that is the software and not the hardware. It is worth the time using the slower FCP loaded than to deal with a NT machine crashing video.
Of course as the engineers say , it is all in who sets up the machine and keep it running. Any editor should be used for editing only, if you start adding games and browsers and excess Adobe products your going to run into issues.
Software to software I think FCP is straight on with AVID any version, discreet has a line of stuff that is quite impressive.
I would have FCP or Avid DVexpress any old day, but for a Windows newbie the Avid product might be easier to learn.
I think Avid DVex lacks alot of the of the controlability that is available in FCP. I've used both of them but for fast turnaround a still prefer the Media composer, mainly becuase it is a no nonsense easy to use hardware machine. I've yet to use a full blown loaded dual 1.25 FCP machine.
But hardware wise (where the analogy come in) you can't stick a G4 dual against a purpose built hardware machine. Even if you add the hardware cards available you won't see the same results as a the purpsoe built machine.
The AVID symphony running on NT does suck but that is the software and not the hardware. It is worth the time using the slower FCP loaded than to deal with a NT machine crashing video.
Of course as the engineers say , it is all in who sets up the machine and keep it running. Any editor should be used for editing only, if you start adding games and browsers and excess Adobe products your going to run into issues.
Photoshop Album isn't just an iPhoto copycat
I like iPhoto a lot, but PS Album does some fascinating things that iPhoto can't. You can create tags (people, location, etc.) and apply them to photos, then search for photos using those tags. It's pretty damn cool.
It will be interesting to see the reaction -- I hope Apple looks at it closely and incorporates some of the ideas.
I like iPhoto a lot, but PS Album does some fascinating things that iPhoto can't. You can create tags (people, location, etc.) and apply them to photos, then search for photos using those tags. It's pretty damn cool.
It will be interesting to see the reaction -- I hope Apple looks at it closely and incorporates some of the ideas.
Avid DV Free SOUNDS GOOD but...
I went to the Avid site and filled in my name to be informed when the free app will come out. Personally, I've been trained on Avid but like FCP better. I am open to feedback about this. I think the people at Apple have done a tremendous job coming up with FCP. I use it for all my DV work.
I went to the Avid site and filled in my name to be informed when the free app will come out. Personally, I've been trained on Avid but like FCP better. I am open to feedback about this. I think the people at Apple have done a tremendous job coming up with FCP. I use it for all my DV work.
Re: Photoshop Album isn't just an iPhoto copycat
You can do this already. Its that little grid in Organize view with the boxes labeled Favorite, Family, Kids, Pets, etc. There are blank ones, too, so you can add more categories as you need them. Select a picture, make sure that the little switch to the left of the grid is set to Assign and just click on the categories that youd like the picture to be placed into. Yes, categories -- multiple. You dont have to limit it to just one. Then, to find them, set the switch to Find and click on the category/ies that youre looking for.
So lets say that you take a picture of your niece playing with her new pet puppy at Christmas. Assign the picture to the categories Family, Kids, Pets, and Holiday. Then, when youre looking for that picture later on, click on any of those categories and that picture, along with any others that match, will either appear alone in the preview pane, or if you have your pictures sorted by rolls and collapsed, the rolls that have pictures that meet that criteria will appear by themselves. If you click on multiple categories, iPhoto finds just the pictures that meet all of those criteria. So if you click on Family and every picture you took at your family reunion last summer pops up, then click on Kids to narrow it down some. Still too many? Click on Pets. You get the idea.
Youre looking forward to a feature that you already have in iPhoto 1.1.
You can do this already. Its that little grid in Organize view with the boxes labeled Favorite, Family, Kids, Pets, etc. There are blank ones, too, so you can add more categories as you need them. Select a picture, make sure that the little switch to the left of the grid is set to Assign and just click on the categories that youd like the picture to be placed into. Yes, categories -- multiple. You dont have to limit it to just one. Then, to find them, set the switch to Find and click on the category/ies that youre looking for.
So lets say that you take a picture of your niece playing with her new pet puppy at Christmas. Assign the picture to the categories Family, Kids, Pets, and Holiday. Then, when youre looking for that picture later on, click on any of those categories and that picture, along with any others that match, will either appear alone in the preview pane, or if you have your pictures sorted by rolls and collapsed, the rolls that have pictures that meet that criteria will appear by themselves. If you click on multiple categories, iPhoto finds just the pictures that meet all of those criteria. So if you click on Family and every picture you took at your family reunion last summer pops up, then click on Kids to narrow it down some. Still too many? Click on Pets. You get the idea.
Youre looking forward to a feature that you already have in iPhoto 1.1.
Re: "free"
Hmmmm, I downloaded iMovie2 for OS X for free when it came out and for some reason (probably the absence of FireWire) I didn't get it with my iBook 366 SE. Now iDVD has NEVER been a free d/l, but Steve stated the size was prohibitive for a d/l.
FCP4 and express
I think Apple should use it's developing resources by building Final Cut Pro 4 and then rename FCP3 as express, instead of spending developer's time to build a slimmed down version of it.
I think Apple should use it's developing resources by building Final Cut Pro 4 and then rename FCP3 as express, instead of spending developer's time to build a slimmed down version of it.
Re: FCP4 and express
From what I can tell, it's not a slimmed down version. Features are just off. It only works with DV footage instead of uncompressed, mjpeg, etc. And it doesn't have the full blown Davinci color corrector. I don't think they wasted much developer time. Probably wasted more time marketing and printing.
From what I can tell, it's not a slimmed down version. Features are just off. It only works with DV footage instead of uncompressed, mjpeg, etc. And it doesn't have the full blown Davinci color corrector. I don't think they wasted much developer time. Probably wasted more time marketing and printing.
Re: Re: Re: FCP4 and express
Why would you market pro level software to consumers? Why give them things they would never, ever, ever use or need? Why severely damage the credibility and reputation of the Final Cut Pro name by making the "last version" a consumer product? Why cut into FCP 4 sales by dropping FCP 3 into the bargin bin?
Lethal
Why would you market pro level software to consumers? Why give them things they would never, ever, ever use or need? Why severely damage the credibility and reputation of the Final Cut Pro name by making the "last version" a consumer product? Why cut into FCP 4 sales by dropping FCP 3 into the bargin bin?
Lethal