Skip navigation
Currently Being Moderated

Which Is Best . . Mac or PC ??

May 9, 2012 7:28 PM

I am considering purchasing Adobe Production Premium CS6 and considering a new computer at the same time.  Which platform would be best with this product bearing in mind that I have equal experience with both Mac and PC platforms and have previously used Avid and FCP but have zero experience with Premier Pro or After Effects and a little experience with Photoshop on both Mac and PC.

 

Thanks to all who respond.

 
Replies
  • Currently Being Moderated
    May 9, 2012 7:39 PM   in reply to drdimento

    Both are very capable. I prefer PC. For me, it is a much more affordable platform, and is much more scalable for use with Premiere Pro. Many more options on the GPU side of things as well.

     

    Mac hardware is expensive and configurations are rather rigid, compared with a PC which you can assemble as you see fit. This is a great advantage when customizing a system to run PPro.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    May 9, 2012 9:14 PM   in reply to drdimento

    At this point in time I am switching to a PC from Mac. I dont care to rely on Apple for professional software or hardware anymore.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    May 9, 2012 9:23 PM   in reply to drdimento

    There are a lot of differences between Mac and PC....however, for Premiere Pro SPECIFICALLY, the big thing that hangs you up is the selection of a proper GPU since Apple doesn't certify but a couple of different cards. That makes a huge difference even though it is only a single issue.

     

    There are some slight differences INSIDE Premiere Pro whether you go Mac or PC. There are a handful of effects and transitions that are NOT included in the Mac version (compatibility issues) but that ARE included in the PC version.

     

    Some folks on these boards with more expeerience working in Premiere Pro on the Mac have decided to transfer over to the PC lately to gain that and other advantages. PC is more open and compatible, Mac is more closed and limited, but the point of the Mac closed system is no guessing. It comes at a cost, having that sort of non-guessing experience, but you have to choose for yourself.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    May 9, 2012 10:07 PM   in reply to drdimento

    There are also codec differences between the two. If someone requests a ProRes file from you, you can only write ProRes on the Mac and even then you need to buy Compressor or Motion for $50 from the App Store to get the codecs.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    May 10, 2012 11:21 AM   in reply to drdimento

    Most professionals I know are switching to Avids free DNxHD that runs on both Mac and PC and leaving Prores behind.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    May 10, 2012 11:24 AM   in reply to lasvideo

    UT is also a free and lossless codec that works both on PCs and Macs.  It's not an 'industry' codec by any means, but it does work on both platforms, it costs nothing, and it is lossless (something neither Prores nor DNxHD can claim).

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    May 10, 2012 7:12 PM   in reply to drdimento

    have been ANY movies edited/produced on Premiere Pro ??

     

    http://tv.adobe.com/watch/moving-to-adobe-premiere-pro-/monsters/

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    May 11, 2012 10:33 AM   in reply to drdimento
     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    May 11, 2012 10:40 AM   in reply to Jim Simon

    Actually Jim, it turns out Act of Valor was cut in Avid then brought into Adobe for After Effects.

     

    When we first started out, we had no idea how much footage we would be shooting for the movie, because the 5D lends itself to a different type of shooting style than traditional filmmaking, and we had a lot of cameras available on set.  So preparing for a worst case scenario, we setup our Avid system with a huge 16TB external array.  Since we were using DNxHD36 files for the offline, our nearly 200 hours of source material ended up being less that 3TB of Avid media.  So once we were finished with principal shooting, I replaced that oversized solution with a basic internal array of four 2TB drives, which met our needs for the rest of the project.

     

    Since there was no way to automate the syncing process between the different cameras and separately recorded audio, that became a labor intensive process for our assistant editors, spearheaded by Siobhan Prior.  While Scott Waugh was out directing the shoots, this work was done on the main Avid system.  Once he finished shooting and was editing full time, it became clear that we would need more than one system.  Instead of using a Unity to share the project with an assistant editing station, we just duplicated the media to a second array, and manually synced the project bins on a daily basis.  This worked reasonably well, and we have continued to use that process on the Avid based commercials we have made since then.  Hard drives are cheap, shared storage solutions are not, (especially Avid ones) so we just make duplicate copies of everything.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    May 11, 2012 10:43 AM   in reply to lasvideo
    Since there was no way to automate the syncing process between the different cameras and separately recorded audio, that became a labor intensive process for our assistant editors,

     

    Well, perhaps they should have used Premiere Pro for the cutting. (Merge Clips)

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    May 11, 2012 10:44 AM   in reply to Jim Simon

    Maybe next flim 

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    May 11, 2012 3:17 PM   in reply to drdimento

    I do not know how old you are but there was this show back in the 90's called "Home Improvement". The main character, played by Tim Allen, kept trying to boost all his tools and would say: "More power!"

     

    Well, that's the part I like about a PC. You can always add more power and reach stratospheric levels if you want. Today's top of the line Mac Pros still sell with a Radeon 5770 or a Radeon 5870 video card. Those are two year old models. Whatever gain you get from having two Xeon processors, you lose by having such low level cards. The best CPUs you can get in a Mac Pro are Xeon X5670. My i7-3930K running at 4.3 GHz and last year's GTX580 would probably give it a run for its money... and it doesn't cost nearly as much.

     

    If you want to look at lower price range, you've got the iMac. The top of the range model sells with a very good video card (Radeon HD6970), but not as good as an NVidia GTX580, and comes with I5 cpu. Which one? Apple can't even be bothered to tell you. But wait, it can be upgraded to a fantastic quad core i7. Which one? There are an awful lot of i7 processors. Again, Apple will gladly take your money but can't be bothered to tell you what you are getting... at least not in the store section of their web site.

     

    Do the smaller but more expensive MacBook Pro appeal to you? Again, you are left in the dark about what CPU you get. But don't worry, it's a quad core i7. Doesn't that make you feel better? As for the video card, the best you can get is a Radeon HD6770.

     

    Quad cores i7 CPUs range from the i7-960 and i7-2600 to the i7-3770K.

     

    Please, do not mistake me. I sound very harsh but I am not saying that Apple computers are bad machines. They are great computers. But for the money? A PC beats a Mac any day. And not only that, they can be upgraded: more power! Apple thinks people are still fine buying spending between $3,000 and $5,000 on a Mac Pro equipped with a two year old video card.

     

    To the Mac folks, I am sorry if I upset you. But I am a PC through and through. I have built every single one of my machines for nearly 20 years now. And I wouldn't want anything else but my own machines built to my own specs.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    May 11, 2012 5:03 PM   in reply to drdimento

    The problem with a Mac is that Apple believes it knows best what's good for you. And when it comes to the latest Mac Pro, Apple believes that you are fine with a two year old mid-range card. Let's be serious, the Radeon HD5770 was not worth running home and bragging about when it first came out. It was good but not great.

     

    I tried PPBM5 last night and my machine will rank in the top 20 once the list is uploaded. There are only 3 points difference between the 14th position (2 x Xeon X5650) and my machine. And only 1 point between the 16th place (2 x Xeon E5660) and my PC. Not only that, both of those computers use RAIDs. I don't because I don't need a huge amount of storage for my projects. I have a regular 7200 RPM 3 Terabyte HD for backing up data once in a while.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    May 12, 2012 5:44 AM   in reply to drdimento

    The only reason to use a Mac is if you are working on the same projects with other editors who use Macs. Right now I need both Mac and PC but can only afford one. I also don't want to buy a Mac with FCP 7 that has been discontinued for over a year. I with things were more compatible with the two platforms.

     

    Edit: Next month I'll access to both and test out workflows between the two and how long it takes. For today, though, a producer will be here with a bunch of work from FCP that we will finish and be ready for broadcast tomorrow.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    May 12, 2012 7:32 PM   in reply to Nicol Simard

    Nicol Simard wrote:

     

    Well, that's the part I like about a PC. You can always add more power and reach stratospheric levels if you want. Today's top of the line Mac Pros still sell with a Radeon 5770 or a Radeon 5870 video card. Those are two year old models. Whatever gain you get from having two Xeon processors, you lose by having such low level cards. The best CPUs you can get in a Mac Pro are Xeon X5670. My i7-3930K running at 4.3 GHz and last year's GTX580 would probably give it a run for its money... and it doesn't cost nearly as much.

    If you're willing to upgrade a PC by tearing it apart and adding stuff to it, you can do the same to a Mac Pro.  I'll grant you the prices are high; Apple charges a premium for their hardware, but if you crack open a Mac Pro and look at the elegance inside the case, you'll understand why.

     

    Love them or hate them, Macs aren't quite the "closed system" everyone believes from a hardware perspective.  If you want to upgrade them and have the ability (and cash) then you can.  That includes faster nVidia cards instead of AMDs, etc.  Will you get support from Apple if you do that?  Nope.  But it's not clear that the PC crowd understands how priceless Apple's tech support actually is, in the rare event you need it.  So that bit could safely be forgotten about.

     

    Then there's the Hackintosh community, which can build a PC just as fast as any of your Windows rigs, but run OS X on it instead.  That breaks Apple's EULA, but it doesn't stop people from doing it; they just know they won't ever get support from Apple.  The ultimate question is: is Premiere Pro optimized to run as quickly on OS X as it does on Windows.  So far, the answer has been, "No."  The Adobe app guys still have a lot of learning to do when it comes to coding a proper OS X app.  And it may not really be worth their time.

     

    jas

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    May 13, 2012 5:36 AM   in reply to Jason Van Patten

    "The Adobe app guys still have a lot of learning to do when it comes to coding a proper OS X app.  And it may not really be worth their time."

    Jason from my conversations with old time UNIX (read OSX) programmers, they say that UNIX was designed to be a great multitasking system but does not have great multithreading capabilities which is what is required in today's CPU's and code.  So the problem is not Adobe's they probably have done their best.  Changing the UNIX microkernel is way beyond Apple's capabilities.  This may be one of the reasons that Apple seems to be abandoning the high end.

     
    |
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    May 14, 2012 3:23 AM   in reply to Bill Gehrke

    Bill Gehrke wrote:

     

    Jason from my conversations with old time UNIX (read OSX) programmers, they say that UNIX was designed to be a great multitasking system but does not have great multithreading capabilities which is what is required in today's CPU's and code.

    Well Bill, I'm one of those old UNIX hacks (not a programmer, but user/admin).  UNIX has been threading long before Windows was even properly pre-emptively multitasking.  Apple has a number of applications (think: QuickTime Pro) that will absolutely pin all available cores in the machine, and speed up the work it's doing relative to the number of cores.  So I find their statement to be suspect, at best.

     

    jas

     
    |
    Mark as:

More Like This

  • Retrieving data ...

Bookmarked By (0)

Answers + Points = Status

  • 10 points awarded for Correct Answers
  • 5 points awarded for Helpful Answers
  • 10,000+ points
  • 1,001-10,000 points
  • 501-1,000 points
  • 5-500 points