It looks like you are using an ad blocker. That's okay. Who doesn't? But without advertising revenue, we can't keep making this site awesome. Click the link below for instructions on disabling adblock.
Welcome to the Newschoolers forums! You may read the forums as a guest, however you must be a registered member to post.
Register to become a member today!
So whenever I watch ski edits 99.9% of the time they show the skiers on their Macs, I believe it's better for editing. I am a apple person myself, I just find it way easer to use to a day to day purposes. Thoughts on this? what do you have?
i have a mac, I love it, but it's all about opinion. I think macs are incredibly reliable and good for simpler stuff (besides media based programs). all in all, whatever floats your boat
I can't afford an Apple computer so I'll just stick with my Lenovo which is just as fast and well-built as an Apple plus it has a touch screen for half the price.
They are the same thing. Both are good for editing. It's more importing to have a computer that can handle what you throw at it. Both operating systems can edit video.
It's what OS you prefer, but the only thing that matters is performance.
Also technically macs are PCs, because PC stands for personal computer, which a mac is.
$1k will buy you a much better editing windows based computer than it will a mac. Or just hackintosh the superior pc and get more performance and the nicer OS.
For me, honestly it comes down to one being made out of metal and one being made out of plastic. I like metal things a lot. I also think my apple mouse is one of the raddest things ever made.
Strictly in terms of specs and price/performance, PC takes the cake.
The thing is, you'd have to be an idiot to think that specs are wholly indicative of performance.
I hate all computers universally, but at least when I use an Apple product I don't have the uncontrollable urge to shatter the hollow-piece-of-plastic-shit-with-the-GUI-of-Japanese-vending-machine that entails using every PC ever made.
Like any tool, the fluidity with which it operates in a working scenario is more important than the specs on paper. Depending on a person's preferences and needs, this could rule in favor of either Apple or PC.
lIllIStrictly in terms of specs and price/performance, PC takes the cake.
The thing is, you'd have to be an idiot to think that specs are wholly indicative of performance.
I hate all computers universally, but at least when I use an Apple product I don't have the uncontrollable urge to shatter the hollow-piece-of-plastic-shit-with-the-GUI-of-Japanese-vending-machine that entails using every PC ever made.
Like any tool, the fluidity with which it operates in a working scenario is more important than the specs on paper. Depending on a person's preferences and needs, this could rule in favor of either Apple or PC.
Finally a decent explanation that is reasonably balanced.
Anyways, I like Macs, I currently have an older mac pro, but I am considering building a pc (kind of want to make a racing simulator). I used to have a MacBook pro, and while it was very expensive, I would say Macs all the way for laptops. Lenovo appear to be decent, as so some workstation/business class ones, but in this range there is no price advantage. The MacBook pros are powerful, but also thin and strong. My friends have some nice laptops that rivaled mine, but they were 2 inches thick and plastic. The retina ones are even thinner, which is great for travel, but the metal casing is great. Mine took some tumbles in its day and I never had any issues, and I had seen other ones crack from lesser falls. Kind of rambling, but overall id say get a mac if it is a laptop, if it is a desktop, iMacs are sweet, mac pros are powerful, but you can build a beast of a pc for cheaper and that they can be better for specific uses (gaming, multi gpu rigs, etc.).
I use a Mac but I also prefer aesthetics of an OS and I much prefer the Mac interface than PC. It's all a matter of opinion on here, some people are wholly indifferent to what platform you use, others will bitch about which OS is better to no end. As far as I care, whatever gets the job done is a fine solution.
MWGSo whenever I watch ski edits 99.9% of the time they show the skiers on their Macs, I believe it's better for editing. I am a apple person myself, I just find it way easer to use to a day to day purposes. Thoughts on this? what do you have?
I've tried editing videos off my go pro onto my PC, and none of the software would download properly nor work. At my school I used a Mac and editing was cake. From my experience I'm going to say Mac.
Generally Macs are for rich white kids who dont really understand computers and/or dont want bang for their buck.
You can easily build your own desktop with mid range I7, 16gb of ram, 2gb of vram and a 2 terrabyte 7200rpm hardrive or 500gb ssd for roughly 1500. This same setup from mac will cost u about 2700$. Although I agree that for action sports final cut is probably a better alternative then premiere. The titling is nowhere near as good as after effects. Also I just can't see where that extra $1200 Is going besides into paying extra for the apple name. I know I'm finna get hate for this from alot of white kids on here (gavin Rudy
SIMPLE.Generally Macs are for rich white kids who dont really understand computers and/or dont want bang for their buck.
You can easily build your own desktop with mid range I7, 16gb of ram, 2gb of vram and a 2 terrabyte 7200rpm hardrive or 500gb ssd for roughly 1500. This same setup from mac will cost u about 2700$. Although I agree that for action sports final cut is probably a better alternative then premiere. The titling is nowhere near as good as after effects. Also I just can't see where that extra $1200 Is going besides into paying extra for the apple name. I know I'm finna get hate for this from alot of white kids on here (gavin Rudy
I try not to get into internet fights but this is just so frustrating. We all know about the specs to price difference. Specs are just a tiny part of the equation.
Also, I disagree that Final Cut is somehow "better" for action sports than Premier. It's just a tool, just like a computer is. Use the tool that you are the most comfortable with. A "rich, white kid" with a mac and a gazzilion dollars worth of camera gear can still produce unwatchable crap. Someone with real vision can make a true story that has an impact with an iPhone and Windows movie maker.
Stop obsessing over specs and stereotypes, get the tool and then spend your time using it instead of defending your decision.
cydwhitI try not to get into internet fights but this is just so frustrating. We all know about the specs to price difference. Specs are just a tiny part of the equation.
Also, I disagree that Final Cut is somehow "better" for action sports than Premier. It's just a tool, just like a computer is. Use the tool that you are the most comfortable with. A "rich, white kid" with a mac and a gazzilion dollars worth of camera gear can still produce unwatchable crap. Someone with real vision can make a true story that has an impact with an iPhone and Windows movie maker.
Stop obsessing over specs and stereotypes, get the tool and then spend your time using it instead of defending your decision.
I couldn't agree with you more. At no point did I say that these white kids made better edits with their Macs because I'm well aware they don't and that the equipment doesn't make the filmer/editor. I love Gavin rudys stuff and have nothing but respect for him but I can't help but to disagree with his choice of mac. On top of that, the question was mac vs PC. Unlike the mac users in this conversation I am backing up my opinion with cold hard facts/statistics. But don't get me wrong at the end of the day I've always said the equipment isn't what neccassarily makes an edit great. Guys like unclerian and Gavinrudy prove this with every single t3i edit they drop.
SIMPLE.Generally Macs are for rich white kids who dont really understand computers and/or dont want bang for their buck.
You can easily build your own desktop with mid range I7, 16gb of ram, 2gb of vram and a 2 terrabyte 7200rpm hardrive or 500gb ssd for roughly 1500. This same setup from mac will cost u about 2700$. Although I agree that for action sports final cut is probably a better alternative then premiere. The titling is nowhere near as good as after effects. Also I just can't see where that extra $1200 Is going besides into paying extra for the apple name. I know I'm finna get hate for this from alot of white kids on here (gavin Rudy
Make a notebook as good as a the rMBP 15".
With the size, build quality, finish, battery life, trackpad, screen, performance, support and ecosystem.
SIMPLE.I couldn't agree with you more. At no point did I say that these white kids made better edits with their Macs because I'm well aware they don't and that the equipment doesn't make the filmer/editor. I love Gavin rudys stuff and have nothing but respect for him but I can't help but to disagree with his choice of mac. On top of that, the question was mac vs PC. Unlike the mac users in this conversation I am backing up my opinion with cold hard facts/statistics. But don't get me wrong at the end of the day I've always said the equipment isn't what neccassarily makes an edit great. Guys like unclerian and Gavinrudy prove this with every single t3i edit they drop.
I'm glad you're into my stuff, dude, thanks!
But I feel like you come off a little heavy-handed at times with declaring that it's "wrong" to choose to edit on a Mac. Like Cy said, get over the specs, focus on the end product. You can flaunt and claim your "cold hard facts" and talk about how much better of a computer you can get by going PC, but it makes no difference in the end. Having a faster computer won't make you a better editor. There is zero correlation between a computer's speed and how well you can edit on it, it will just change your efficiency/time. It's in this sense that a high-end iMac is no better than the stock MBP as much just as a PC is no better than a Mac. Changing processors, graphics cards, etc. will make your life easier with quicker render times, playback quality, etc., but should have no inflection on the final product if you are dedicated to your vision for a video.
cydwhitStop obsessing over specs and stereotypes, get the tool and then spend your time using it instead of defending your decision.
I think that video culture has this tendency to look at everything in terms of hierarchy. "This lens is sharper," "that computer has more RAM," etc. While there are obvious reasons why this is important to a person who does this for a living, the downside is that it feeds this sentiment that "better" is something that can be wholly quantified.
Look at music. How much revolutionary and beautiful music has been made with objectively "flawed" equipment? Clipping the signal on tape machines (RZA), guitars that can't stay in tune (Hendrix), 90's samplers that color the sound of anything you send into them (Sigur Rós)...these weren't "making do" with what they had - these people often had access to the best and top of the line equipment and instead chose to use the "inferior" equipment for their artistic qualities and for the way that they interact with that individual's creative process. There is a disorienting amount of diversity in music; there are thousands of 15-year-olds on Soundcloud putting out better work than anything you'll find in a record store. Why? Because they don't make art under the absurd belief that quality = substance. How many videographers do you see rushing to get the newest camera instead of experimenting with lighting, which would have a much bigger impact than any camera can provide.
So sure, PC guys can beat their chest over specs and how little they paid for it. Meanwhile, the people who actually put out good work roll their eyes at all the chest beating. I'm not downplaying the importance of good tools and the economic realities of owning them; I'm simply saying that it's incredibly shortsighted to think that specs are the whole picture. If that were the case, then Leicas would cost $50.
As such, citing specs on any sort of artistic tool is an almost entirely meaningless exercise.
lIllII think that video culture has this tendency to look at everything in terms of hierarchy. "This lens is sharper," "that computer has more RAM," etc. While there are obvious reasons why this is important to a person who does this for a living, the downside is that it feeds this sentiment that "better" is something that can be wholly quantified.
Look at music. How much revolutionary and beautiful music has been made with objectively "flawed" equipment? Clipping the signal on tape machines (RZA), guitars that can't stay in tune (Hendrix), 90's samplers that color the sound of anything you send into them (Sigur Rós)...these weren't "making do" with what they had - these people often had access to the best and top of the line equipment and instead chose to use the "inferior" equipment for their artistic qualities and for the way that they interact with that individual's creative process. There is a disorienting amount of diversity in music; there are thousands of 15-year-olds on Soundcloud putting out better work than anything you'll find in a record store. Why? Because they don't make art under the absurd belief that quality = substance. How many videographers do you see rushing to get the newest camera instead of experimenting with lighting, which would have a much bigger impact than any camera can provide.
So sure, PC guys can beat their chest over specs and how little they paid for it. Meanwhile, the people who actually put out good work roll their eyes at all the chest beating. I'm not downplaying the importance of good tools and the economic realities of owning them; I'm simply saying that it's incredibly shortsighted to think that specs are the whole picture. If that were the case, then Leicas would cost $50.
As such, citing specs on any sort of artistic tool is an almost entirely meaningless exercise.
The argument between operating systems is 100 times worse then any sort of camera gear argument.
Basically if you have a computer that "works" you can create something awesome. There is a point where more advanced programs (ie cinema 4d) where you NEED high specs, but for adobe premiere pro you could edit on a laptop from 2007, it would just be slow. You could create the same video/image no doubty.
lIllII think that video culture has this tendency to look at everything in terms of hierarchy. "This lens is sharper," "that computer has more RAM," etc. While there are obvious reasons why this is important to a person who does this for a living, the downside is that it feeds this sentiment that "better" is something that can be wholly quantified.
Look at music. How much revolutionary and beautiful music has been made with objectively "flawed" equipment? Clipping the signal on tape machines (RZA), guitars that can't stay in tune (Hendrix), 90's samplers that color the sound of anything you send into them (Sigur Rós)...these weren't "making do" with what they had - these people often had access to the best and top of the line equipment and instead chose to use the "inferior" equipment for their artistic qualities and for the way that they interact with that individual's creative process. There is a disorienting amount of diversity in music; there are thousands of 15-year-olds on Soundcloud putting out better work than anything you'll find in a record store. Why? Because they don't make art under the absurd belief that quality = substance. How many videographers do you see rushing to get the newest camera instead of experimenting with lighting, which would have a much bigger impact than any camera can provide.
So sure, PC guys can beat their chest over specs and how little they paid for it. Meanwhile, the people who actually put out good work roll their eyes at all the chest beating. I'm not downplaying the importance of good tools and the economic realities of owning them; I'm simply saying that it's incredibly shortsighted to think that specs are the whole picture. If that were the case, then Leicas would cost $50.
As such, citing specs on any sort of artistic tool is an almost entirely meaningless exercise.
best most relevant post in M&A, something I am so guilty of.
SIMPLE.Generally Macs are for rich white kids who dont really understand computers and/or dont want bang for their buck.
You can easily build your own desktop with mid range I7, 16gb of ram, 2gb of vram and a 2 terrabyte 7200rpm hardrive or 500gb ssd for roughly 1500. This same setup from mac will cost u about 2700$. Although I agree that for action sports final cut is probably a better alternative then premiere. The titling is nowhere near as good as after effects. Also I just can't see where that extra $1200 Is going besides into paying extra for the apple name. I know I'm finna get hate for this from alot of white kids on here (gavin Rudy
Before I bought my Macbook pro, I went to multiple tech and electronics stores and every time they said the GHz was the best indicator of speed and processing ability. I checked multiple laptops and desktops from various companies and Apple always had higher GHz stats. So why didn't you mention that? Am I wrong? Because all of apples computers had over 3 GHz while I found only one other computer with 3 or greater.
And on another note, most people don't know how to build a computer and while it might be very easy to learn, this perspective seems impractical to the average consumer as many don't know where to start and many find it too risky as it seems like it is extremely easy to fuck up while building and something that can get fucked up very easily while using which results in lost files, passwords, account access, etc.
adamwolynBefore I bought my Macbook pro, I went to multiple tech and electronics stores and every time they said the GHz was the best indicator of speed and processing ability. I checked multiple laptops and desktops from various companies and Apple always had higher GHz stats. So why didn't you mention that? Am I wrong? Because all of apples computers had over 3 GHz while I found only one other computer with 3 or greater.
yeah bro sorry but you are wrong. If you were to build your own computer you could easily through a 3ghz or hell a 4ghz processor in that puppy and it would still be roughly 1,000$ cheaper
Dr.LaurentMake a notebook as good as a the rMBP 15".
With the size, build quality, finish, battery life, trackpad, screen, performance, support and ecosystem.
finish is arguably not as nice as well as the trackpad and screen on my computer but in all other ways my laptop is just as good if not better. And it was only 1200$
gavinrudyI'm glad you're into my stuff, dude, thanks!
But I feel like you come off a little heavy-handed at times with declaring that it's "wrong" to choose to edit on a Mac. Like Cy said, get over the specs, focus on the end product. You can flaunt and claim your "cold hard facts" and talk about how much better of a computer you can get by going PC, but it makes no difference in the end. Having a faster computer won't make you a better editor. There is zero correlation between a computer's speed and how well you can edit on it, it will just change your efficiency/time. It's in this sense that a high-end iMac is no better than the stock MBP as much just as a PC is no better than a Mac. Changing processors, graphics cards, etc. will make your life easier with quicker render times, playback quality, etc., but should have no inflection on the final product if you are dedicated to your vision for a video.
I agree with you as I had said earlier in this thread the machine should not make the man whether that be camera gear or editing. And I agree that there are hundreds of examples from stept to eheath to yourself who are better then I at editing tenfold. However the point I was trying to make was simply that PC's give you more bang for your buck and thus I can't see why people would go for something with the same or less capabilities but for a much higher price tag? I mean to be quite honest I tip my hat to mac for their marketing and creating a feeling of superiority and elegance around macs and apple in general. No doubt their products are BEAUTIFUL but beauty doesn't matter when it comes to wanting to render a video, or edit in after effects whilst running premier or even wanting to fork shit up in Team Fortress 2 while playing music whilst rendering a video. Those are time's when you need sheer power (especially the last one hahaha). And I just can't see the logic in paying a thousand plus dollars for a machine that will do all of that just the same as the significantly cheaper alternative.
That "beauty" makes the process easier and more enjoyable for the editor. It's a huge plus, everyone prefers different tools, also Landis made a really freaking good point that we should all remember more
SIMPLE.finish is arguably not as nice as well as the trackpad and screen on my computer but in all other ways my laptop is just as good if not better. And it was only 1200$
You are not coming with any argument, or any factual statement you are just saying "my laptop is just as good"
Well I'm the king of Nigeria. And I want to see your better product.
SIMPLE.No doubt their products are BEAUTIFUL but beauty doesn't matter when it comes to wanting to render a video, or edit in after effects whilst running premier or even wanting to fork shit up in Team Fortress 2 while playing music whilst rendering a video.
Beauty matters a whole lot in our lives, why do people buy make-up, clothes, ect.. or fork up 50 times as much for a design lamp that will output the exact same amount of light with the same bulb as a cheap Ikea lamp? Beauty was important 4000 years ago, why does sex feel so good? It just does, that's the way we're built. In the same way seeing something beautiful gives a feeling of such pleasure that we are simply naturally inclined to deem it more important. Beauty is an intrinsic value of nature, and we as products of nature reflect that. You have not escaped that, you are fighting against that, militantly even, because you have want to be right, another one of one of those essential themes but a more prevalent and damaging one that we take for granted. It is so deeply embedded in our belief system and in our collective psyche that we never even pause to consider it.
i.e. what you say doesn't matter.
Still as the king of Nigeria, I want to see your rMBP beating notebook.
They both do the exact same thing. You can get better specs for cheaper with a pc if you build your own, and better design and service with apple. When you compare a pc to a Mac with the same specs they will perform about the same for everyday tasks, photo and video editing, but I do think pc wins for gaming.
I personal went with a mac because I find the operating system more efficient to work with and for the fast repair service when it's not performing properly. If my Mac has issues or crashes in the middle of an important project I can take it down the road and have a licensed tech fix it quite quickly, compared to fiddling with a custom built pc on my own. And it really sucks to tell a client the project is behind because of computer issues. I can also fit my entire desktop workstation in a padded camera bag or backpack to take it on location for DIT work and editing on location. Not many solid editing desktops are that mobile.
In the end both, Mac and PC do the same job. Its really what OS you are use to and what price you are willing to spend for added design and service
With that being said, it just comes down to if you know computer tech and/or willing to learn.
I could go out to Bestbuy right now and pick up a Mac and be editing as soon as I get it plugged in. Whereas a PC I could get my shit tossed if I knew nothing.
Then there's your geeks who know a lot more about computers than they need to. My PC is watercooled and destroys rendertimes in AE. I did pay as much as a Mac and built it myself but it DID take me awhile to get here. Asked a lot of question. Probably hundreds of hours of learning.
The real answer is, what are you willing to do?
Are you willing to fork over the cash to have your stuff up right then and there with the portability or are you willing to dive into PC culture and learn a little and build your own.
There is no defined winner and this is a dumb topic.
