Video editing is better on the Mac? Really?

[UglyLittleSpud]

It's been a long standing opinion that the Mac is a better machine for editing video, but after using Premiere CS4 on Win7 lately I'm not really seeing how this is the case? Is this just another leftover myth from the Macs graphic design/publishing heyday or are there reasons I'm completely missing?

I've used FCP for about 5 years now, and am pretty agnostic over platforms. I'm no Mac hater, nor am I a Windows fanboy - I just don't see that much practical difference in performing editing tasks between the two.

Maybe someone here can enlighten me..

 

[Winni]

Maybe someone here can enlighten me..

I think you already saw the light yourself. The world out there uses Windows everywhere, not Macs. And since 64-Bit Windows 7 performs better on Apple hardware than their own Mac OS X, it is very obvious that those are all just leftover marketing myths.

 

[GeraldButton]

after using Premiere CS4 on Win7 lately I'm not really seeing how this is the case?

Macs for video editing are decent machines this is true, as for the best at video editing? I don't know about that. Now, im an Adobe guy not a Final Cut one, I have never really enjoyed the Final Cut Suite, but lets face it, Premiere on Mac is garbage compared to it's Windows counterpart.

To just add to the whole discussion, Macs good for video editing? Yes, if you use iMovie then it is a very good machine for the end user, my wife LOVES iMovie. If your an amatuer or professional? You may, or rather WILL hit some snags.

Then again, it really does come down to personal preference. If you love video editing on PC well do it on PC more power to you, same goes for the mac. If you love editing on a Mac well edit on a Mac.

This is a big myth about Macs, id say it's a 50/50 split on whether or not it's really true or false.

 

[tonyburkhart]

With the hardware being equal, the software capabilities are the same. Go with what you're satisfied with.

I do believe it's old leftover marketing hype, but realize the facts in the statement too.

 

[danimal99]

I don't know, but I find FCP/FCE to be way more intuitive and efficient to use than Premiere.

And my setup is a Windows 7 quad core desktop at home and my 13" MacBook Pro, so it's not like I'm a fanboy of either. (I do prefer to use my MBP 80% of the time, however, as this Win desktop is more and more being relegated to be just my gaming machine.)

If FCP was available on Windows then I might have a quandary, but as it stands there is none.

 

[notjustjay]

It was definitely true a few years ago. It may not be so true now.

In fact, this is why I switched. I'm a hobbyist video editor, I do this stuff for fun, not for a living. In 2003 I had a brand new, high-powered widescreen Dell laptop, and I was using Ulead Media Studio Pro to edit video. I'd done a number of projects so I had a good idea of how long certain workflows take, what's possible, what's not. One thing that I knew was not possible was a full-screen, full-quality realtime preview. Whenever I was called upon to present a finished piece, I needed to give my machine time to render the whole timeline in order to avoid frame skipping and other glitches. And free stuff like Windows Movie Maker? Puhleeeeze.

I had a friend with a Titanium PowerBook, by then it was already a few years old. One time during a busy evening at an event we were both volunteering at, I was asked if I could do a quick project on-the-fly. I had to say no -- there was no time to edit and then wait for the timeline render, set it up for playback, etc. Instead, my friend did it on his TiBook. I was blown away -- when did he have time to render the video? Wait, that was all in real time? Wow, what kind of expensive software did he need to pull that off? That was iMovie? It was free?!

I kid you not, that incident left me shaken -- what else could his machine do that I was missing out on? I bought my own PowerBook a few months later and I haven't looked back since, but I know that things have improved by leaps and bounds on the Windows side.

 

[IntelliUser]

If you can put up with the monstrous Windows OS, there isn't much difference. Besides the lack of a full professional video editing suite in the $1000 price range.

 

[thunderclap]

I became a Mac user nine years ago when I felt Apple had the better system and products for video editing. But about six months ago I moved from my top of the line iMac to a self built system to a Hackintosh. I actually run Windows 7 as my dominant OS now, but keep the Mac side going for video editing.

I haven't tried Premiere on Windows yet but it is my understanding that it is a true 64-bit app unlike FCS. That alone piques my interest.

My big issue with Apple these days is that it seems like they've all but abandoned their computers and software in favor of iPhone and iPad. The top of the line iMac now is a Quad Core. My Hackintosh is an i7 and I built this system for less then what Apple is charging. I also don't like that Apple is completely disregarding Blu-Ray because of "licensing fees". I don't buy it. I think they just don't want anything to compete with their iTunes HD store. Period. If they're not going to put the energy into keeping their computers up to date then don't make it so damn difficult for people to build their own or install the OS X on other systems.

Apple has really been turning me off lately because it seems like they have complete disregard for what the users want. I hope they get their act together. If they do I will happily switch back.

 

[spinnerlys]

...

If they're not going to put the energy into keeping their computers up to date then don't make it so damn difficult for people to build their own or install the OS X on other systems.

...

Apple will not release a Mac OS X version for non-Apple branded machines. It didn't work well in the 90s why should it now? Just because more users are aware of Mac OS X and want it?


Back to the topic:

I work at two editing companies, one has a complete Windows environment, the other uses Mac OS X for its editing computers.
Both companies use Avid Media Composer, and I always have the feeling, that it takes me longer to finish a simple task (capturing a tape) on Windows than on Mac OS X.

The only advantage to the company using Windows as their environment is that they have a Unity system, which works better in networked environments than EditShare does, the solution being used with the ac OS X environment.

The company using Mac OS X has projects of up to 1300 video tapes (Digi Betacam and DV) with lots and lots of multi-cam groups (I must have made 5000 or more groups in the last year or so), and the project comes to a halt (it's 600MB in size) via the EditShare environment. That is the only disadvantage of the Mac OS X company I found til today, but that is even platform independent, as Unity and EditShare can be used with Windows AND Mac OS X.

What it all comes down too, is personal preference. And cost.

A friend of mine wrote her diploma thesis about the editing environment of a multi-national broadcast network, and came to the conclusion, that replacing the entire Avid environment running on Windows (30 or more editing PCs at the headquarters) with Mac Pros and iMacs using Final Cut Pro, including server storage of up to several tens of TBs, and including the re-education of their editors using Final Cut instead of Avid, would be several times cheaper than staying and upgrading the Avid system over time.

 

[GeraldButton]

Another big issue with Apple and video editing is Final Cut itself. What I mean by that is were Apple is so damned closed in on who knows what about them barely ANYONE knows if they are working on updating there professional software. That's why I will not make the full switch to Final Cut Suite.

In July or August past when Final Cut was updated no one really saw it coming, and let's be honest, it wasn't a massive upgrade from the previous version, 3 video editors I know personally who DO use Final Cut Studio have yet to upgrade to it, they have all told me it's not to much an upgrade to justify the purchase.

At least with Adobe they give out SOME information on there new software, We know CS5 is getting closer and closer, no release date yet but hey, better then what Apple tells us.. which is most of the times NOTHING.

 

[Aldaris]

Ultimately...

It depends on your individual workflow, and which system you know better. At this point in my life I see windows, as a plague and I avoid it. There was a time when I could do just about anything on a PC, but over the last few OS releases windows is a stranger to me. On the other hand, give me a mac, and I can do just about anything, including running various editing setups and workflows. So in the end it's whatever's your poison.

 

[Aldaris]

What it all comes down too, is personal preference. And cost.

A friend of mine wrote her diploma thesis about the editing environment of a multi-national broadcast network, and came to the conclusion, that replacing the entire Avid environment running on Windows (30 or more editing PCs at the headquarters) with Mac Pros and iMacs using Final Cut Pro, including server storage of up to several tens of TBs, and including the re-education of their editors using Final Cut instead of Avid, would be several times cheaper than staying and upgrading the Avid system over time.

I'd be interested in reading this...

 

[spinnerlys]

I'd be interested in reading this...

It's in german and behind closed doors at the library of the university and the network. It's not made to be official, it was for internal purposes, and in the end the network stayed with Avid, as the lobbyists lobbied enough.

 

[thunderclap]

Apple will not release a Mac OS X version for non-Apple branded machines. It didn't work well in the 90s why should it now? Just because more users are aware of Mac OS X and want it?

Just because it didn't work then doesn't mean it won't now. In fact, it works very well now. A lot of people out there have Hackintosh's that work flawlessly. I'm one of them. All I'm saying that instead of Apple trying to break Hackintosh systems just let it alone and accept the fact people are doing it and will continue to do it.

But you're right... this involves its own thread.

To get back on topic I will state that I think Apple needs to step up and actually do something with the FCS software. If I hadn't gotten the upgrade for $120 I wouldn't have upgraded. There really is nothing new that justifies the $300 price tag.

 

[spinnerlys]

Just because it didn't work then doesn't mean it won't now. In fact, it works very well now. A lot of people out there have Hackintosh's that work flawlessly. I'm one of them. All I'm saying that instead of Apple trying to break Hackintosh systems just let it alone and accept the fact people are doing it and will continue to do it.

But you're right... this involves its own thread. ...

A little derailment:

I could work, but with a lot of work on Apple's site, especially drivers. As I understand, the drivers used for Hackintoshing are made by others than Apple, and that could not fit into Apple's philosophy if the would decide to sell the OS alone.
Where would the money come from then? The Macs are quite profitable, and Apple is a hardware company. But this has been discussed to death several times.
If you want to see other views, look at MRoogle.

 

[AWalkerStudios]

I have Avid Media Composer and FCP here on my MBP. I'd say that pro editors are more likely to be found on Mac hardware because they are considered more stable. You definitely don't want dropped frames while capturing telecine reels. Time=money and there's no room for waste on large productions. Of course there are expensive windows boxes which are capable of running Avid just fine, so really it's just preference. I like having the option to switch from Avid to FCP to Premier with out switching machines so it's Mac video editing for me.

 

[LethalWolfe]

Just because it didn't work then doesn't mean it won't now.

Apple can't sell professional apps at bare bones prices w/o selling hardware to subsidize them. Color, for example, used to be a $25k app and Apple just included it in FCS at no extra cost.

In fact, it works very well now. A lot of people out there have Hackintosh's that work flawlessly. I'm one of them. All I'm saying that instead of Apple trying to break Hackintosh systems just let it alone and accept the fact people are doing it and will continue to do it.

How well do Hackintosh systems work w/xSan, EditShare, Blackmagic, AJA, etc.,? Do third party companies like Blackmagic and AJA support Hackintosh systems? For a pet project I have no problems w/Hackintoshes but when my career depends on my gear saving a few bucks to frankenstein a machine isn't worth it to me.

To get back on topic I will state that I think Apple needs to step up and actually do something with the FCS software. If I hadn't gotten the upgrade for $120 I wouldn't have upgraded. There really is nothing new that justifies the $300 price tag.

Considering $300 is nothing if your machine is working for you I think there are a lot of reasons the upgrade is worth the price. Heck, we have a dozen or so editors using FCP at work and just getting access to the new ProRes codecs and Color round tripping improvements would speed up our workflow so much that the upgrade would pay probably pay for itself in a week.



spinnerlys,
I wish the paper you mentioned was available as well. From a pure hardware/software acquisition stand point I'm not surprised that FCP and a mix of iMacs and Mac Pros would be cheaper than Avid software and hardware. Avid has never been, nor positioned itself as, the cheapest option but as offering the most productive and reliable solutions. Whether or not the differences between FCP and Avid are differences that make a difference depends of course on the user's specific needs.


Lethal

 

[spinnerlys]

spinnerlys,
I wish the paper you mentioned was available as well. From a pure hardware/software acquisition stand point I'm not surprised that FCP and a mix of iMacs and Mac Pros would be cheaper than Avid software and hardware. Avid has never been, nor positioned itself as, the cheapest option but as offering the most productive and reliable solutions. Whether or not the differences between FCP and Avid are differences that make a difference depends of course on the user's specific needs.


Lethal

It's a lengthy paper, and in german.

But there might be other papers like these in other languages, which could be available though.

As my main working environment is Avid, I only dabbled in FCP two years ago, and was quite taken with the way of trimming in FCP, which I couldn't grasp at that time.

But one thing that I find superior to Avid is the re-linking feature as it allows to actually select the file you captured, instead of Avid's way of scanning the drive and finding nothing at various times, even though the material is there.

Btw, does anyone know a Combustion like environment for colour correction? I found Color to be quite a handful for a first time user, and Combustion has a really good interface and of course I grew accustomed to it since I got it in 2004 or so.
It just does not really work that good with my current MBP.

And the graphics card in the current MBPs are not really OpenGL capable, meaning they don't really get the most out of it.
I had better experiences with my 3Dlabs VP870 from 2002/3 with Combustion than with the current 9600M GT. And both times it was just DV material and this time only colour correction (Avid's tool might be quite good, but not that good to use), and I get worse fps now (Dual Core 2.8GHz with 4GB RAM) than in 2003 with 2GHz (Athlon, single core) with 2GB RAM.
What a drag. And a rant.

 

[AWalkerStudios]

spinnerlys, if you want a color tool with a great UI, try out Red Giant's Magic Bullet Looks Builder. Very simple to use and produces some great results. I have it running through FCP and Avid. You apply the filter to a clip in either program and it launches it in the looks stand alone app. Changes show up back in your time line.

 

[DaReal_Dionysus]

It's been a long standing opinion that the Mac is a better machine for editing video, but after using Premiere CS4 on Win7 lately I'm not really seeing how this is the case? Is this just another leftover myth from the Macs graphic design/publishing heyday or are there reasons I'm completely missing?

I've used FCP for about 5 years now, and am pretty agnostic over platforms. I'm no Mac hater, nor am I a Windows fanboy - I just don't see that much practical difference in performing editing tasks between the two.

Maybe someone here can enlighten me..

To be completely honest on this subject you will need to look at the only real system that is the standard for video editing and that would be AVID for both platforms. I would have to say it's really a matter of preference and nothing more. I have used Avid on MAC and PC, I find the performance to be quite equal on either machine. As for CS4 I wouldn't use that as my deciding factor as Premiere is a long ways away from being a professional grade product. It lacks serious color correction abilities and really is not good for a workflow pipeline.

IMO you should use what you are most comfortable with and what you can afford to make a good product. I do believe you can achieve that on MAC or PC.

Good Luck,
Neon

 

[lag1090]

I prefer FCP over Premiere or Avid, so that would pretty much restrict me to the Mac platform.

It pretty much just boils down to what you prefer to use.

Premiere does have a much better project file management implementation than FCP, IMO. I'm unsure how many people find FCP's "shove everything into some folder by default" way of doing things to be better, but I personally like being prompted for a new project folder save location.

 

[kockgunner]

Just because it didn't work then doesn't mean it won't now. In fact, it works very well now. A lot of people out there have Hackintosh's that work flawlessly. I'm one of them. All I'm saying that instead of Apple trying to break Hackintosh systems just let it alone and accept the fact people are doing it and will continue to do it.

But you're right... this involves its own thread.

To get back on topic I will state that I think Apple needs to step up and actually do something with the FCS software. If I hadn't gotten the upgrade for $120 I wouldn't have upgraded. There really is nothing new that justifies the $300 price tag.

So they'll only make $129 per license compared to the few hundred dollars per machine.