Mac or PC?

[Steve Crisdale]

Originally Posted by Tim Dashwood

It's already been done.
http://reviews.zdnet.co.uk/software/...9235916,00.htm

I had indeed read that article earlier, and I'd also noticed the final comment that mentioned how that the ability to load onto ANY Intel powered machine, that their evaluation copy of OSX for Intel had, would be unavailable after the actual Intel Mac hardware release...

Meaning that unless some clever cookie comes up with some way around the proprietry lock-out, we won't be able to freely load OSX onto ANY Intel PC. Even the evaluation version mentioned, only worked on certain hardware with emulation wrappers for certain applications.

That's the same sort of "phantom-environment" that Windows emulators for Mac have been providing for ages - with all the success of some of histories greatest failures!!

A truly Intel native Mac OSX that could be loaded onto P-IV machines with driver support for non-Intel Mac devices, where you could boot to whichever OS to get the most from each systems' best software...

That was a dream many once shared - it's all meant to be binary information after all!! Why shouldn't every computer (performance constraints aside) be able to load software that may not have been conceived to run on that hardware, but could - if it wasn't for the over-riding need to make BUCKS...

[Dylan Pank]

Dan, yes, FFmpeg2 can separate the tracks manually, but seeing as it's shareware, and a tool for MPEG encoding rather than DV editing it's not terribly elegant solution but it can do it should push come to shove.

The h.264 encoding is very good, but I don't know that anyone would use it professionally.

There are plenty of great Mac Program that are unlikely ever to some to PC, and often they're free. FFmpegX is one example, MPEG streamclip is another, BTV pro, LiveCut... on the other hand theres a program like VirtualDub for Windows only that is fantastiv, so it;'s swings and roundabouts really

[Joseph Clark]

Originally Posted by Tommy James

So what computer platform is better for editing HDV? Is it Apple or Microsoft. Oh by the way I don't own stock in either corporation so a lively debate will not offend me. There seems to be an urban legend that the Apple computer is better for video editing.

Respectively, this sort of question invites the wrong sort of feedback. Asking which platform to use ignores the more important questions. What are your needs for video editing and what is your background? Are you interested in doing it as a hobby or as a profession (to make money)? Will you be editing a lot, or just occasionally? What is your budget? Just as importantly (but only after you've answered these questons for yourself), what is your background in computing and who can you go to for help, other than forums like this one?

In my opinion, the question of computer platform should be one of the last things you ask, not the first. There may be compelling reasons to select either platform, depending on what your needs are.

I've worked with a lot of different computers and many types of non-linear editing systems for PC and Mac (and Amiga, if there are any of you who know what that means). The only clear conclusion I've drawn from all this is that computers (and computer software) in general are user hostile and far too difficult to work with. If your background does not include working with computers, get ready for grief, no matter which platform you choose.

The urban myth is that computers are user friendly. Answer the questions above and you'll get more helpful answers.

[Glenn Thomas]

Vegas is PC only, so that's what all my computers are. I've used Premiere before, and have seen detailed domonstrations of Avid and FCP. Compared to Vegas, there's no way I could use any of those 3 packages for what I do. The workflow and layout would drive me insane.

At the same time, Windows can be a real pain at times. I agree Macs and OSX look great, and so do some of the newer Linux operating systems. But if they can't run Vegas, I'm not interested.

[Nick Jushchyshyn]

Originally Posted by Joseph Clark

Respectively, this sort of question invites the wrong sort of feedback. Asking which platform to use ignores the more important questions. What are your needs for video editing and what is your background? Are you interested in doing it as a hobby or as a profession (to make money)? Will you be editing a lot, or just occasionally? What is your budget? Just as importantly (but only after you've answered these questons for yourself), what is your background in computing and who can you go to for help, other than forums like this one?

In my opinion, the question of computer platform should be one of the last things you ask, not the first. There may be compelling reasons to select either platform, depending on what your needs are.

I've worked with a lot of different computers and many types of non-linear editing systems for PC and Mac (and Amiga, if there are any of you who know what that means). The only clear conclusion I've drawn from all this is that computers (and computer software) in general are user hostile and far too difficult to work with. If your background does not include working with computers, get ready for grief, no matter which platform you choose.

The urban myth is that computers are user friendly. Answer the questions above and you'll get more helpful answers.

Great post.
(Yeah, I know what an Amiga is.... and a C64 and Vic20, too. :) )

Another important consideration is "What is your intended output?"
SD DVD?
Broadcast formats?
HD?
Web delivery? Quicktime, WMV, RealPlayer, iPod, PSP ?????

[Dylan Couper]

The computers themselves are both fine machines, Apple vs. PC.

However editing software... Compared to Vegas (which is my choice on the PC), FCP on the Apple is the slowest NLE that I've ever seen. I was working on it with an FCP trained editor and nearly pulled my hair out because everything took so damn long to do. (it was the new version, FCP HD Studio or something? on a 2 month old higher end Mac) Having used Vegas, I can't possibly imagine how anyone could work so slowly on FCP and live with it. I guess a Honda Civic is a fast ride if you've never driven a Viper.

[Joseph Clark]

Originally Posted by Nick Jushchyshyn

Great post.
(Yeah, I know what an Amiga is.... and a C64 and Vic20, too. :) )

Another important consideration is "What is your intended output?"
SD DVD?
Broadcast formats?
HD?
Web delivery? Quicktime, WMV, RealPlayer, iPod, PSP ?????

Terrific point about output formats. HDV is such a new format that most people don't even have a way to watch it, even if they have an HDTV.

Once you've found an editing solution that works for you, you have to decide the best format (see above) to put it in so that you optimize the chances that your clients/friends/family (and even you down the line) can view it.

I've read several questions on this and other sites that ask questions about the best way to get HDV onto regular DVD. That's a valid question, and an important one, if you understand fully that when you decide to use plain, vanilla DVD for output you're not watching high definition any more.

I gave an old Sharp DLP projector to a relative of mine recently when I got a new one. I've been talking to him about the best way to set it up in a family room he's building in the basement. When I heard his plans I asked why he was going to put this front projector into a room without having any high definition sources. He said, "I do - DVD!" I had to tell him that DVD, while digital, is *not* an HD format. I know most people reading this forum know that, but it bears repeating.

Unless you're talking about the most expensive systems, even rendering HDV output to a high definition distribution format like WMV is going to take a beefy computer a lot of time to accomplish. And then, again, not many people are going to be able to watch it in that format either.

I think HDV is the best thing since sliced bread, but you really have to understand what you're getting.

BTW, my first computer was a Commodore 64. Those were the days!!

Joe Clark

[Kevin Shaw]

Originally Posted by Joseph Clark

Unless you're talking about the most expensive systems, even rendering HDV output to a high definition distribution format like WMV is going to take a beefy computer a lot of time to accomplish. And then, again, not many people are going to be able to watch it in that format either.

If you render to the Windows Media format at 720p resolution and put that on a standard DVD-R disc, it should play in most reasonably current computers. And if someone has $249 to spend for an Avel Linkplayer2 they can play the same video directly to their HDTV, so now they've got a way to view it on their home theater and take it with them to show their friends and co-workers on a computer screen. This is arguably a more useful solution for now than any blue-laser disc format, since it will be many years before blue-laser players are as pervasive as red-laser players are today.

And of course you can encode your HDV projects to widescreen SD DVDs, which almost anyone can play on either a standard DVD player or a computer. This will look better than pseudo-widescreen output from most SD cameras, so it's not a total loss to be downsampling to SD. HDV is useful today for both HD and SD distribution, if you know how to explain the options to customers.

[Joseph Clark]

Originally Posted by Kevin Shaw

If you render to the Windows Media format at 720p resolution and put that on a standard DVD-R disc, it should play in most reasonably current computers. And if someone has $249 to spend for an Avel Linkplayer2 they can play the same video directly to their HDTV, so now they've got a way to view it on their home theater and take it with them to show their friends and co-workers on a computer screen. This is arguably a more useful solution for now than any blue-laser disc format, since it will be many years before blue-laser players are as pervasive as red-laser players are today.

And of course you can encode your HDV projects to widescreen SD DVDs, which almost anyone can play on either a standard DVD player or a computer. This will look better than pseudo-widescreen output from most SD cameras, so it's not a total loss to be downsampling to SD. HDV is useful today for both HD and SD distribution, if you know how to explain the options to customers.

The player I'm probably going to get for my HDV camcorder is the JVC SRDVD-100. It has a DVI output, whereas the LinkPlayer has only component. It's $400, so it's more than the LinkPlayer, but I really like the idea of being able to just drop in a DVD-R without having to go through the HTPC. Also, it will play back files I've recorded with a MyHD and a specially modified Dish 6000 receiver, although it looks like I'm going to have to do some conversions to make those files compatible.

I agree that red laser formats are the best and most practical option for HDV playback for the near future. It's going to be a messy couple of years before the BluRay/HD-DVD mess gets sorted out. And by then holographic technologies may make both those formats obsolete before they can even get a large enough foothold to become standards. In the end, that may be a good thing.

Meanwhile, HDV is a wonderful format and I will enjoy shooting lots of material that I know I'll want to keep for the future. It's hard for me to look at the SD stuff I've shot over the years, when I compare it to HDV. At least I can use the DV videotapes.

So that we don't wander too far off topic here, all this applies to PCs and Macs. It's just that you have to make sure you understand all the tools you're going to need to get the footage onto a red laser DVD-R.