Why do you think apple computers are used in almost all TV/Movies?

[hevnsnt]

Why do you think that more film producers use apple computers? I mean this really doesnt represent the real world.

 

[bmacd]

probably for the same reason that most producers use a Mac for...seems to be a powerful processing machine. I don't know enough about Macs to answer this...

-=bmacd=-

 

[bmacd]

any kudos for copying my thread

-=bmacd=-

 

[theNEOone]

because they look pretty on people's desks.


=|

 

[tweakmm]

1) They look cool(read: cliche)
2) I bet a much larger percentage of film producers use apple computers compared to the regular population

 

[Amused]

Because the majority of artsy-fartsy designer types use Macs. And the majority of set designers are artsy-fartsy types.

 

[PowerMacG5]

1) They are much better looking than your run of the mill PC
2) In the media, Mac's are used at a much higher percentage than for most other users
3) (subjective) Mac OS X is just that much better (let the flames commence).

 

[her209]

macs make people hot all over

 

[PowerMac4Ever]

Apple has people who actively place their products on TV shows and movies. A lot of shows/movies don't buy the Macs and Apple doesn't let them keep the computers. Once the shooting is done, Apple takes the computers back (for the most part).

 

[hevnsnt]

Originally posted by: bmacd
any kudos for copying my thread

-=bmacd=-

yeah yours got me thinking

 

[Koing]

Same reason why you see a lot of Sony stuff in 'most' films. Just product placement and it looks good most of the time.

Koing

 

[HappyPuppy]

Why did they use Reeses Pieces in ET instead of M&M's? Because Reeses donated the product.

 

[hevnsnt]

yeah but that is 1 example.. I cant remember many movies that used a PC..

.....
.....

I guess Wargames did..

 

[DougK62]

There was a time when Macs were superior for image and sound editing, so everyone in those businesses used them. Now, PCs are better than Macs in these areas but people still hold on to Macs because they're used to them.

 

[PowerMacG5]

Originally posted by: DougK62
There was a time when Macs were superior for image and sound editing, so everyone in those businesses used them. Now, PCs are better than Macs in these areas but people still hold on to Macs because they're used to them.

That's not true. Mac's are still superior for audio, video and image editing. Look at Final Cut Pro. Nothing comes close to it. I will admit windows/linux based computers (Macs are PC's BTW, so calling something a PC then a Mac doesn't make sense) are catching up, but still have a gap to close before they are equivalent.

 

[RaynorWolfcastle]

Originally posted by: Marauder911

Originally posted by: DougK62
There was a time when Macs were superior for image and sound editing, so everyone in those businesses used them. Now, PCs are better than Macs in these areas but people still hold on to Macs because they're used to them.

That's not true. Mac's are still superior for audio, video and image editing. Look at Final Cut Pro. Nothing comes close to it. I will admit windows/linux based computers (Macs are PC's BTW, so calling something a PC then a Mac doesn't make sense) are catching up, but still have a gap to close before they are equivalent.

Adobe Premiere + After Effects? I have a hard time believing that Apple completely owns all audio, video and image editing considering the number of PCs out there.

 

[MazerRackham]

It's because Steve Jobs wears turtlenecks exclusively.

 

[PowerMacG5]

Originally posted by: RaynorWolfcastle

Originally posted by: Marauder911

Originally posted by: DougK62
There was a time when Macs were superior for image and sound editing, so everyone in those businesses used them. Now, PCs are better than Macs in these areas but people still hold on to Macs because they're used to them.

That's not true. Mac's are still superior for audio, video and image editing. Look at Final Cut Pro. Nothing comes close to it. I will admit windows/linux based computers (Macs are PC's BTW, so calling something a PC then a Mac doesn't make sense) are catching up, but still have a gap to close before they are equivalent.

Adobe Premiere + After Effects? I have a hard time believing that Apple completely owns all audio, video and image editing considering the number of PCs out there.

Why do you think Apple still holds a percentage of market share? Yes, there are loyal customers, but people in the mainstream will not pay a premium for a Mac if a PC did everything it did. Look at Pixar, converting to Mac's from Sun. They did this for a reason. Like I said, windows/linux based computers are catching up, but aren't quite there yet.

 

[JoeKing]

Apples been catering to the industry longer, Final Cut Pro is simply BETTER than any other video editing software, though avid is getting pretty close. With production studios a $1000 diffrence between the PC and MAC isn't that big of a deal so they'll go with what they know. Given enough time PCs will make they're way into the mainstream. I believe the director that does most of Britney Spears and many other pop music videos uses avid on a PC.

 

[brigden]

For the same reason Dell's are used when you see a PC.

 

[DougK62]

Originally posted by: Marauder911

Originally posted by: DougK62
There was a time when Macs were superior for image and sound editing, so everyone in those businesses used them. Now, PCs are better than Macs in these areas but people still hold on to Macs because they're used to them.

That's not true. Mac's are still superior for audio, video and image editing. Look at Final Cut Pro. Nothing comes close to it. I will admit windows/linux based computers (Macs are PC's BTW, so calling something a PC then a Mac doesn't make sense) are catching up, but still have a gap to close before they are equivalent.

PC is commonly accepted to mean IBM-compatible.

There is software for the PC that will do just the same thing as Final Cut Pro does on the Mac. People still use the Macs and their software because they're familiar with it. The software can do the same things, what makes the IBM-compatible computers superior is the horsepower they have compared to the Macs.

 

[mpitts]

Apple is one of the few computer companies that can benefit from placing their product in a TV show or movie. Immediate brand recognition.

If it were a Dell or HP PC, would you have even though twice about it?

 

[mpitts]

Originally posted by: DougK62

Originally posted by: Marauder911

Originally posted by: DougK62
There was a time when Macs were superior for image and sound editing, so everyone in those businesses used them. Now, PCs are better than Macs in these areas but people still hold on to Macs because they're used to them.

That's not true. Mac's are still superior for audio, video and image editing. Look at Final Cut Pro. Nothing comes close to it. I will admit windows/linux based computers (Macs are PC's BTW, so calling something a PC then a Mac doesn't make sense) are catching up, but still have a gap to close before they are equivalent.

PC is commonly accepted to mean IBM-compatible.

There is software for the PC that will do just the same thing as Final Cut Pro does on the Mac. People still use the Macs and their software because they're familiar with it. The software can do the same things, what makes the IBM-compatible computers superior is the horsepower they have compared to the Macs.

I don't want to get into a huge pissing match, but the speed difference is not that great.

Plus the Apple platform is generally more stable when working with the large files that go along with creating and editing movies/tv shows.

 

[PowerMacG5]

Originally posted by: DougK62

Originally posted by: Marauder911

Originally posted by: DougK62
There was a time when Macs were superior for image and sound editing, so everyone in those businesses used them. Now, PCs are better than Macs in these areas but people still hold on to Macs because they're used to them.

That's not true. Mac's are still superior for audio, video and image editing. Look at Final Cut Pro. Nothing comes close to it. I will admit windows/linux based computers (Macs are PC's BTW, so calling something a PC then a Mac doesn't make sense) are catching up, but still have a gap to close before they are equivalent.

PC is commonly accepted to mean IBM-compatible.

There is software for the PC that will do just the same thing as Final Cut Pro does on the Mac. People still use the Macs and their software because they're familiar with it. The software can do the same things, what makes the IBM-compatible computers superior is the horsepower they have compared to the Macs.

Alright, I am not in the mood to argue anymore, but will make one comment. While I do believe Apple's advertising tactics with the G5 were a bit unorthodox (claiming it was the fastest Personal Computer, when it definitely is not), you cannot state that an IBM-compatible computer has that much more horsepower. When you start to render video, the power of RISC, and inefficiencies of CISC roar their heads.

 

[floccus]

I don't really think there is that big of a difference. Its just that Macs are easy to spot as a Mac while a PC can be from many different vendors and thus you don't identify it as one brand over another. There is also the whole idea of product placement. More often then not, if you look at the credits, it will credit Apple or some other vendor for machines to be used. Its marketing, plain and simple.