Why is apple considered better at video and audio?

[Mongoo]

Pro tools is on pc too, but even then why is pro tools so reviered? And what does final cut pro got over any other pc video program? Like how about final cut pro vs. Vegas or Premeire?

 

[notfred]

Why is apple considered better at video and audio?

Because that is what Apple does. Apple puts a huge amount of effort into things like color calibration and video encoding. Hell, look at the other company that Steve Jobs runs and tell me he doesn't have a passion for graphics.

 

[AyashiKaibutsu]

Because final cut pro is for mac.... and people who use it are noobs generally and that's macs primary market share.

Documentary on it: Here

 

[drag]

Mac users are all noobs?

Hardly. AyashiKaibutsu is just another troll that doesn't have a clue what he/she/it is talking about.

Macs are built specificly for that sort of tasks. They've had gigabyte network standard on powermacs since 2000 (good for moving large images around). They had firefire first. They had USB first for that matter, but Firewire is specificly designed for video.

Dual proccessors are better for video editing stuff then single proccessors. Back in the day, before PATA got somewhat competative with SCSI, PowerMacs had scsi drives.

Better color monitors then PC's. Bigger monitors, better sound. etc etc etc.

For a long time the only thing x86 had going for it was price. Then later on it caught on with CPUS, and surpassed Macs considurably.

Nowadays it's mostly traditional. You've been using Macs for the past 10 years, why go and use Wintel? Most video editing/artsy fartsy people don't give a crap about building their own computers, they'd rather just get work done. So they use what they know and that's Macs.

When the rest of the equipment your using is 25,000-50,000+ dollars WTF do you care about buying a 2500 dollar Mac vs 1800 PC? You buy what you know, you buy what is easier to use and is easy to use with your equipment.

Now that x86 is more powerfull and generally cheaper, Wintel computers are getting more and more and more popular and Mac's market share in the area is shrinking. But it's still very considurable. They aren't as dominate as they use to be, but I know if I had a choice I'd pick a Mac running OS X over a PC running Windows XP any day of the week for video editing and other art stuff.

Just remember computers geared for Gaming and being as cheap as possible are not neccisarially good (or bad) for other purposes.

 

[Childs]

Originally posted by: Mongoo
Pro tools is on pc too, but even then why is pro tools so reviered? And what does final cut pro got over any other pc video program? Like how about final cut pro vs. Vegas or Premeire?

FCP, DSP, and Motion are better than their PC counterparts in both function and price. Saving some money on hardware doesnt mean squat if you have to spend twice as much on software, and especially if the software isn't as good. Another reason, creative professionals have been Mac users since the beginning. If you want someone talented working on your project you probably get someone who has been doing it for awhile, and more than likely they've been doing it on a Mac. For the most part it wasn't until recently (10 years or so) that the creative apps have been on the PC.

 

[Farvacola]

Originally posted by: AyashiKaibutsu
Because final cut pro is for mac.... and people who use it are noobs generally and that's macs primary market share.

Documentary on it: Here

LOL, SO STUPID! Final Cut Pro is extraordinarily difficult to use, but the end result is awesome! NEWBS? HA!

 

[Bateluer]

All I know is that I can build a PC for about 1000 dollars less than the top end Dual 2.5Ghz G5 machines, including a monitor unlike the Apple, which will outperform the Apple. There are far superior tools on the PC for editing video that can produce results just as good, in less time.

Apple being better than PC at video/graphics editting is a myth being kept alive by Apple. Kinda sad really.

 

[drag]

Originally posted by: Bateluer
All I know is that I can build a PC for about 1000 dollars less than the top end Dual 2.5Ghz G5 machines, including a monitor unlike the Apple, which will outperform the Apple. There are far superior tools on the PC for editing video that can produce results just as good, in less time.

Apple being better than PC at video/graphics editting is a myth being kept alive by Apple. Kinda sad really.

No it's not.

70-80% of those that spend their time actually dealing with high end video/graphics have neither the desire, time, or knowledge to build their own computer and wade thru the minefeild that is a proper Windows install.

Macs do it and they do it easier. They may only have 90% of the performance of a similarly priced PC but for most people that's a non-issue.

The Dual G5 setups are realy realy NICE. The older dual G4's sucked compared to a fast AMD setup, but the g5's are actually competative. And it was about time, too, because Apple was beginning to losing those customers in droves. the only myths that Apple can keep alive are those that exist in the heads of Appl Fan-boys everywere.

And all fan-boys should be ignored.

 

[n0cmonkey]

I'm a n00b!

If someone knows Apple hardware/software, why would an x86 based PC be easier or better?

 

[Looney]

Macs do it and they do it easier. They may only have 90% of the performance of a similarly priced PC but for most people that's a non-issue.

90%? I think you're a little off there.

And better color monitors than PC? Before the cinema displays, i don't think Apple even had their own monitors. At least if they did, i've never seen one on all the Apple that i've seen.

And i think somebody already answered the reason why... it's because it's what people know. They've been using the Macs for so long, been justifying to themselves why they've been using them for so long, most don't even consider PCs.

 

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: Hardcore

Macs do it and they do it easier. They may only have 90% of the performance of a similarly priced PC but for most people that's a non-issue.

90%? I think you're a little off there.

And better color monitors than PC? Before the cinema displays, i don't think Apple even had their own monitors. At least if they did, i've never seen one on all the Apple that i've seen.

And i think somebody already answered the reason why... it's because it's what people know. They've been using the Macs for so long, been justifying to themselves why they've been using them for so long, most don't even consider PCs.

A lot of the original Apple computers had their monitors built in.

I have a friend that spent something like $50k on music hardware. He had the choice of using the brand new P4 to drive all of it, or buying a powermac. He got the powermac and understands why I love my iBook/powerbook. Definitely a good purchase, and apparently one of the cheaper pieces of hardware.

 

[drag]

Originally posted by: Hardcore

Macs do it and they do it easier. They may only have 90% of the performance of a similarly priced PC but for most people that's a non-issue.

90%? I think you're a little off there.

And better color monitors than PC? Before the cinema displays, i don't think Apple even had their own monitors. At least if they did, i've never seen one on all the Apple that i've seen.

I know for you computers didn't exist more then 2 years ago, but for a lot of other people they were running full color displays with GUIS and multichannel sound when everybody on PC's were still using DOS and getting all exicted about 256 colors and the brand new sound cards that just came out from a new company called creative.

(beleive me when I say that there were plenty of monitors that were designed to work with computers other then PC's. I have spent many hours fishing around for adapters to make older monitors work with newer computers and newer PC-only monitors work with older computers)

That's what I am talking about. Geez do you guys have no concept of history or anything predating Windows 98?

Then you don't haven't seen many Apple's have you? Don't worry, your not alone. That's one of the reasons that most people were suckered into thinking that Windows 95 was actually something neat.

and Windows 98

and Windows 2000

and Windows XP

and probably Longhorn, when that thing will be released sometime in the post-apocalyptic world of 2006-2008

And i think somebody already answered the reason why... it's because it's what people know. They've been using the Macs for so long, been justifying to themselves why they've been using them for so long, most don't even consider PCs.

Could that "somebody" be ME?

Nowadays it's mostly traditional. You've been using Macs for the past 10 years, why go and use Wintel? Most video editing/artsy fartsy people don't give a crap about building their own computers, they'd rather just get work done. So they use what they know and that's Macs.

If you actually read my comments instead of getting your panties in a bunch about your favorite cpu company, then you'd realise that that's the one of the very first freaking thing I said.

 

[n0cmonkey]

Originally posted by: drag

Originally posted by: Hardcore
And i think somebody already answered the reason why... it's because it's what people know. They've been using the Macs for so long, been justifying to themselves why they've been using them for so long, most don't even consider PCs.

Could that "somebody" be ME?

Or me in the GH version of this thread.

 

[drag]

Look to see what I am talking about check out this ancient thing.
The Quadra 950.

Originally released in 1992 for a retail price of eight and a half grand. It replaced the Quadra 900, which could do most of what that computer could do and was released a couple years earlier, that computer was the first Mac with built-in ethernet.

It sported a 33mhz cpu.
Maximum RAM support of 256megs.
With a upgraded video card it could support up to 1152 x 870 resolution at 8bits or 64x480 at 24bit (same as 32bit colors)
ran Mac OS 7 (upgradable to Mac OS 8.1), which was a fully mature and modern GUI OS (for it's time)
had seperate internal and external SCSI busses. Sported a CDROM at a max speed of x2. Maximum read speed (from hd) of 4.4MB/s
Built in ethernet.

so on and so forth. This is a top of the line Mac aviable in 1992. This is the same year that Windows 3.1 was released and was the hey-day of the Apple...
Windows 3.1 was a 16bit single user OS built on top of Dos. Mac OS 7 was a full multiuser, multitasking, 32bit OS with all the niceties like virtual memory.

(Quadra 900 was released a couple years earlier and was mostly the same thing...)

These are the type of computers that I learned to use Photoshop on. (that was so long ago!)

After that came the first PowerMacs and such. Very nice stuff, eventually came the PowerMac G3's, at that time they were still very competative with x86 computers, but after that and people started paying more and more and more for gaming on x86 computers is when Apple lost the performance edge very badly.

But all that is ancient history.

Originally posted by: n0cmonkey

Originally posted by: drag

Originally posted by: Hardcore
And i think somebody already answered the reason why... it's because it's what people know. They've been using the Macs for so long, been justifying to themselves why they've been using them for so long, most don't even consider PCs.

Could that "somebody" be ME?

Or me in the GH version of this thread.

heh.

 

[tahoe1]

Don't forget the Video Toaster for the pc. Although it's used a heck of a lot more in live broadcasting, it's also a very capable video editor. It's been doing realtime-everything ever since it's Amiga days. All these new realtime features Motion is tauting is old-school to Video Toaster users. If you want realtime, live video-painting, no rendering of anything whatsoever, unlimited uncompressed video streams, the Video Toaster is the real heavyweight. It ain't cheap (maybe $6k-$7k for the pc and VT software/hardware). But, considering you pretty much get a whole tv station in return, it's a bargain. It's a professional tool with professional capabilities.

 

[theblackbox]

Final Cut Pro excels at what it does because it is built around the hardware, which is a big advantage over the pc software that has to build around the OS. As long as apple keeps all the q&a and development internal and force users to buy their specific hardware, final cut will excel.

Personally, I find Final Cut much easier to work with then avid. These days though, i use premiere pro 1.5, since adobe rewrote premiere it is a much quicker and easier way to handle video to me.

Hardware only helps when it comes to rendering. I did some of my best work on an older g4 500, while it took longer to process, it was enjoyable work.

The big thing is the market. We use what we have available. If someone sticks me in a video bay with apple equipment, i can't go and tell them, oh, well pc software would be better, because to them it may not be, and vice versa.

It's like ati vs nvidia, amd vs intel, and all. Each has it's benefits.

 

[junthin]

Originally posted by: theblackbox
Final Cut Pro excels at what it does because it is built around the hardware, which is a big advantage over the pc software that has to build around the OS. As long as apple keeps all the q&a and development internal and force users to buy their specific hardware, final cut will excel.

Personally, I find Final Cut much easier to work with then avid. These days though, i use premiere pro 1.5, since adobe rewrote premiere it is a much quicker and easier way to handle video to me.

Hardware only helps when it comes to rendering. I did some of my best work on an older g4 500, while it took longer to process, it was enjoyable work.

The big thing is the market. We use what we have available. If someone sticks me in a video bay with apple equipment, i can't go and tell them, oh, well pc software would be better, because to them it may not be, and vice versa.

It's like ati vs nvidia, amd vs intel, and all. Each has it's benefits.

1. As stated before the reason why Apple is considered better for video and audio is because Apple controls both the hardware and software aspects for their main video and audio editors. With such vertical market control of their product, they will not have programming issues and conflicts with diverse hardware like in the PC arena. (i.e. programs made for a "lowest denominator" hardware, that is not standardized) That just makes the Apple (Mac) platform perform better (look at console games vs PC games as another example of specified programming).

2. Also, the current market has a lot to do with it. If people are already using Mac's, more than likely they will upgrade to Macs. And since Apple had a foothold initially in the video/audio industry the same users are just upgrading to the latest and greatest by Apple.

Exact same reason why some Oil Companies (Exxon, anyone?) is still running Windows NT4 for their computers, and will be upgrading to Windows 2000 *soon*. They are just using whatever was good for them then, and are slow to change.

However, reason number 1 is why I think Apple still has a strong hold in the video/audio industry since X86 PC prices and performance has improved dramatically in the past decade.

Just my ignorant non-fanboy opinion. Hope that helps.

 

[sandorski]

Way back around 1985(give or take a bit) Apple was the defacto leader in Graphics design, Audio work, and especially in Desktop Publishing. Atari and Amiga also had very advanced Graphics/Audio capability(Amiga's were still being used for Video Production in major Media Cos in the mid 90's). All three had OSs that most of us use today, but were 10 years ahead of anything available for x86. The Amiga had excellent Multitasking for the time, not sure if Atari or Apple had them then. The x86 PC was way behind them all being little more than a Lotus 123, DBaseIV, Wordperfect Office machine with good upgradeabilty to poor Audio or Video capabilities.

With a good 10+ year lead on x86, Apple was able to get even further ahead and with such a long Monopoly on that Market it has continued to still be preffered to a very large extent. x86 will likely be the dominant platform sometime in the future, but we should recognize Apple's accomplishments(and Atari/Amiga) and realize that without them pushing the envelope there would be much technology we take adantage of today that may not yet exist if not for them.

 

[MonkFishFPS]

Been using a Mac in both design and print for almost ten years now, and believe me, the Mac makes using Photoshop, Quark, Freehand and Illustrator so much easier. And that's the whole point, Macs make things flow, so you can get on with designing or whatever and not be too concerned with the hardware or OS. I can use these programs twice as fast as on a PC because it's like a learned language of flow. Things just work, as Honda would say.

Expense, lack of support for games and a few other things made me decide to build my own PC, at about a quarter the price of an inferior Mac. I'm happy with XP, except when it comes to creative software and ease of use of the OS. And from other designers/printers in the area, I hear nothing but complaints when it comes to OSX, with most of us still using either 8.6 or 9.2.2. It seems Apple is becoming less Apple in terms of the OS.

I do have great respect for the PowerPC chip however, and it would be great to see these appear on the PC one day, although I'm not sure it can technically be done. I had a 400Mhz G4 perform certain operations nearly as fast as the AMD 1800XP I had until recently.

If Apple and Microsoft could come together and design a joint OS then it would be amazing.

 

[Looney]

Originally posted by: drag

Originally posted by: Hardcore

Macs do it and they do it easier. They may only have 90% of the performance of a similarly priced PC but for most people that's a non-issue.

90%? I think you're a little off there.

And better color monitors than PC? Before the cinema displays, i don't think Apple even had their own monitors. At least if they did, i've never seen one on all the Apple that i've seen.

I know for you computers didn't exist more then 2 years ago, but for a lot of other people they were running full color displays with GUIS and multichannel sound when everybody on PC's were still using DOS and getting all exicted about 256 colors and the brand new sound cards that just came out from a new company called creative.

That's what I am talking about. Geez do you guys have no concept of history or anything predating Windows 98?

WTF? That's like 15 years ago. What does better color reproduction and better Apple monitors 15 years ago have to do with what people choose today?

Then you don't haven't seen many Apple's have you? Don't worry, your not alone. That's one of the reasons that most people were suckered into thinking that Windows 95 was actually something neat.

and Windows 98

and Windows 2000

and Windows XP

and probably Longhorn, when that thing will be released sometime in the post-apocalyptic world of 2006-2008

Ah, the typical mantra of the Apple boys. They can't truly say their system is superior to PCs, so instead they chant 'we were first, we were first'. Yes, here's the cookie for being first, but too bad Apple didn't know how to successfully use it or market it. Why should Microsoft reinvent the wheel?

You know what, if you're happy with your system simply because you know it's from Apple and believe they were first and the most innovative, then go ahead. I'll rather live in reality and use my system which i know is far superior to Apple for what i do.

And i think somebody already answered the reason why... it's because it's what people know. They've been using the Macs for so long, been justifying to themselves why they've been using them for so long, most don't even consider PCs.

Could that "somebody" be ME?

Man, you mac heads really do personalize all Apple comments that are made huh? No, it was not directed at you, it was an observation at why the industry is so slow to adapt.

 

[drag]

Originally posted by: Hardcore

Originally posted by: drag

Originally posted by: Hardcore

Macs do it and they do it easier. They may only have 90% of the performance of a similarly priced PC but for most people that's a non-issue.

90%? I think you're a little off there.

And better color monitors than PC? Before the cinema displays, i don't think Apple even had their own monitors. At least if they did, i've never seen one on all the Apple that i've seen.

I know for you computers didn't exist more then 2 years ago, but for a lot of other people they were running full color displays with GUIS and multichannel sound when everybody on PC's were still using DOS and getting all exicted about 256 colors and the brand new sound cards that just came out from a new company called creative.

That's what I am talking about. Geez do you guys have no concept of history or anything predating Windows 98?

WTF? That's like 15 years ago. What does better color reproduction and better Apple monitors 15 years ago have to do with what people choose today?

Did you actually read what I said, or do you just like to look silly when posting on the internet?

The guy asked why Apples are superior in video and art.

I basicly said, they are NOT, they use the same hardware as PC's, with a different CPU and generally better OS. But people use them because they are TRADITIONALLY used for video and art.

Face it, that computer kicked a 386 + Win3.0's rear end when it came to all things graphical. That's why it was used. People used apples then, so generally they still use apples now.

Then you don't haven't seen many Apple's have you? Don't worry, your not alone. That's one of the reasons that most people were suckered into thinking that Windows 95 was actually something neat.

and Windows 98

and Windows 2000

and Windows XP

and probably Longhorn, when that thing will be released sometime in the post-apocalyptic world of 2006-2008

Ah, the typical mantra of the Apple boys. They can't truly say their system is superior to PCs, so instead they chant 'we were first, we were first'. Yes, here's the cookie for being first, but too bad Apple didn't know how to successfully use it or market it. Why should Microsoft reinvent the wheel?

You know what, if you're happy with your system simply because you know it's from Apple and believe they were first and the most innovative, then go ahead. I'll rather live in reality and use my system which i know is far superior to Apple for what i do.

Woopy, your a "mister reality" arent' you?

Well I live in reality, too. I pay and learn to use what I considure best, and Windows just isn't it.
I don't use apple or Windows. I use Linux (which if you looked at my very obvious sig...), which is probably the least innovative as far as it comes to brand new technology.

That's not the point. As far as I am concerned Apple OSes are generally superior in most respects to Microsoft ones.

If you like Windows, that's great. I don't realy care a whole lot. It's a personal choice, not a religion. Stop being so up tight when somebody hints that the computer you use may be less then ideal.

And i think somebody already answered the reason why... it's because it's what people know. They've been using the Macs for so long, been justifying to themselves why they've been using them for so long, most don't even consider PCs.

Could that "somebody" be ME?

Man, you mac heads really do personalize all Apple comments that are made huh? No, it was not directed at you, it was an observation at why the industry is so slow to adapt.

No, but I did freaking say it, didn't I?

You say: I think somebody already answered the reason why.... it's because it's what people know.*
I say: I already said that, I was the first to say it.
You say: Even though I replied to you, and was using a point that you already made in a agrument against you, I wasn't realy talking to you, but in the industry in general. Therefore you a Apple-fanboy living in a fantasy world.

(*although if you go to point 1 in this comment, were your getting all excited about "WTF does a computer from 15 years ago have anything to do with today", maybe you don't get the concept as much as you would like to beleive)

 

[skace]

There are tons of tools on the PC for editing video and audio / etc. Absolutely tons. But I won't get into that.

So I'll say this: Business Standards.

 

[Childs]

Originally posted by: skace
There are tons of tools on the PC for editing video and audio / etc. Absolutely tons. But I won't get into that.

So I'll say this: Business Standards.

Lots of tools on the PC sure, but they aren't really that great. This is basically a quantity vs quality thing. PC guys like saying they have all these choices, but they really don't because most of those options are crap. Mac guys don't have a lot of options, but what options they do have are excellent.

Think about it, when someone asks for a suggestion on a particular task, there are few real options. People don't list all the crappy options, only the cream of the crop. On the Mac side, they just have the cream of the crop, because their market is too small to sustain crap. At this day in age there is little difference between to two when you really think about it.

 

[Koing]

Well you would be suprised at how many people get on with simple editing programs on cheap hardware. That is all that some people want.

BUT that isn't the question asked here.

It has been pretty much argued here. It is what people know. If it was reversed and MS and Intel captured the video and audio market then people would be using that today. It would be what THEY would teach and have their companies work on. No different from today but the difference is that Intel and AMD are doing it fast.

I saw a feature on FCP and it looks better for the more 'hardcore/ advance' editor to use it for video. Plenty of real time stuff but the hardware is pricey but not so to people who use it to make money.

Now to wait and see what the G5 laptops perform and look like!

Koing