Photographers - check out the new Apple iMacs

[Koing]

Originally posted by: randomlinh

Originally posted by: Eug

Originally posted by: randomlinh
But I hate the whole argument of mac is better for video/photo/design work. These people don't even use color as a reasoning, just "because it's better" and it irks the hell out of me. I will give them Final Cut if they do video, but barely since you really want to run it on something like a mac pro, and that's just insanely priced.

And these people just basically use Adobe software.

Final Cut Studio should run extremely well on the 27" iMac (Core i5 or Core i7), especially if you have an external FW 800 hard drive.

It'll run, then the next version of Final Cut needs more power. I dunno, I just could not get away from the fact I couldn't do upgrades. Like I couldn't pop in a new video card to make Aperture run faster, I was stuck. A Mac Pro introduces such a high cost...

I'm just more annoyed at the fact people in general don't give founded reasons for why they NEED a Mac and just CAN'T FUNCTION with a PC. If they prefer it, I don't really care. I like OS X. I like Apple's aesthetics. And if that's what ppl want, own up to it, don't give me some BS answer.

Anyway, this is beside the point. The iMac is sleek and cool looking, but dang it, give us back a matte and 16:10 option =)

Originally posted by: shortylickens
WHY is it the so-called "standard"? Because people use it? Why do they use it? Because its the standard.
Fucking brilliant.

They really, REALLY need to start teaching logic courses in kindergarden and keep going until the final year of college.

It's the standard because it was cheaper and easier than AVID. Apple seemingly was able to build a system that "just worked" and looked good. It just so happens Final Cut was good too... it got popular, used very widely... and a "standard" now. Maybe not in the sense of an ISO standard, but as explained, in the same sense of how Word is "standard"

I prefer using my MacBook at home for general web browsing, some siple video editing, and light useage. It works very well for what I do.

I like how my Mac just works (PC user for about 12yrs ) and like how it's snappy with 4GB of ram and when I get it out of sleep it doesn't take ages to grind out. I rarely ever reboot it and I just sleep it. My other laptops always took a f0cking age to get out of sleep .

It's 16:9 as it's moving towards the media centric crowd that want to watch movies without borders, BUT most films are wider then 16:9 anyway...and coupled with the fact that the 27" would need blu ray to be up ressed and it doesn't have a blu ray drive. It has a boat load of sceen space though!

Koing

 

[randomlinh]

Originally posted by: Koing
I like how my Mac just works (PC user for about 12yrs ) and like how it's snappy with 4GB of ram and when I get it out of sleep it doesn't take ages to grind out. I rarely ever reboot it and I just sleep it. My other laptops always took a f0cking age to get out of sleep .

Yeah, I'll give you that, I've had 90% more success w/ sleep on OSX than windows (hackintosh aside, heh). Though, I'm finding Windows 7 seems to finally have caught up.. so far. Tho, my Windows boxes have justed worked for me too

It has a boat load of sceen space though!

but but... it the wrong direction! hah. actually, I wonder how tall it is. a 27" 16:9 makes up for the height loss in resolution, it might actually not be too bad. But the 23" 16:9 I bought my dad.. ugh. It drove me nuts, ha.

 

[Deadtrees]

Originally posted by: Koing

Originally posted by: randomlinh

Originally posted by: Eug

Originally posted by: randomlinh
But I hate the whole argument of mac is better for video/photo/design work. These people don't even use color as a reasoning, just "because it's better" and it irks the hell out of me. I will give them Final Cut if they do video, but barely since you really want to run it on something like a mac pro, and that's just insanely priced.

And these people just basically use Adobe software.

Final Cut Studio should run extremely well on the 27" iMac (Core i5 or Core i7), especially if you have an external FW 800 hard drive.

It'll run, then the next version of Final Cut needs more power. I dunno, I just could not get away from the fact I couldn't do upgrades. Like I couldn't pop in a new video card to make Aperture run faster, I was stuck. A Mac Pro introduces such a high cost...

I'm just more annoyed at the fact people in general don't give founded reasons for why they NEED a Mac and just CAN'T FUNCTION with a PC. If they prefer it, I don't really care. I like OS X. I like Apple's aesthetics. And if that's what ppl want, own up to it, don't give me some BS answer.

Anyway, this is beside the point. The iMac is sleek and cool looking, but dang it, give us back a matte and 16:10 option =)

Originally posted by: shortylickens
WHY is it the so-called "standard"? Because people use it? Why do they use it? Because its the standard.
Fucking brilliant.

They really, REALLY need to start teaching logic courses in kindergarden and keep going until the final year of college.

It's the standard because it was cheaper and easier than AVID. Apple seemingly was able to build a system that "just worked" and looked good. It just so happens Final Cut was good too... it got popular, used very widely... and a "standard" now. Maybe not in the sense of an ISO standard, but as explained, in the same sense of how Word is "standard"

I prefer using my MacBook at home for general web browsing, some siple video editing, and light useage. It works very well for what I do.

I like how my Mac just works (PC user for about 12yrs ) and like how it's snappy with 4GB of ram and when I get it out of sleep it doesn't take ages to grind out. I rarely ever reboot it and I just sleep it. My other laptops always took a f0cking age to get out of sleep .

It's 16:9 as it's moving towards the media centric crowd that want to watch movies without borders, BUT most films are wider then 16:9 anyway...and coupled with the fact that the 27" would need blu ray to be up ressed and it doesn't have a blu ray drive. It has a boat load of sceen space though!

Koing

That's exactly how my PC works though I have 6GB of RAM.
If getting out of sleep takes ages, you might be using hibernation sleep. Regular sleep only takes a few seconds.

 

[alfa147x]

Originally posted by: TheDrake
Yeah, I never understood that either. Heck, you cant even mount the darn thing to a wall. Many many reasons why apple only has 5-6% of the market in the US and IIRC its even less worldwide. Its always funny to me how they try to compete with microsoft, but they arent even in the same league.

Yes you can

http://store.apple.com/us/product/M9649G/A

 

[theblackbox]

Originally posted by: gar655

Originally posted by: shortylickens

Do you know why all those editors use Apple computers for their movies? Because the average film-maker knows as much about computers as the average geek knows about film making.

No. It's because Final Cut Pro is the defacto standard video editing tool for 90% of film makers and it doesn't run on Windows

Well maybe not 90%. I don't know. I pulled that number out of my @ss. But Final Cut Pro is the most widely used, especially by the independent studios and peeps on their own.

Final Cut only recently gained the upper hand in the pro market. this is due to the fact Avid has had their head up their ass with codec issues for a while now with media composer, Symphony is, well Symphony, and Discrete/Autodesk Smoke is barely making a dent. If Autodesk would get their stuff together, between Smoke and Nuke they could get a bigger share with Shake on the downturn.

Final Cut is by far the most affordable of the pro software, and it handles the widest variety of formats, which is hard to beat.
Once Media Composer 4 comes into full swing, we'll see how the indie market feels about windows, otherwise you have a bunch of indie film makers on the festival circuit cranking out movies with Sony Vegas.

 

[theblackbox]

Originally posted by: shortylickens
I have not bought into the crap that Apple makes the best computer for photographer and movie makers.

Do you know why all those editors use Apple computers for their movies? Because the average film-maker knows as much about computers as the average geek knows about film making.

i always love to hear PC people talk about how people that use Apple don't know much about computers, like it's rocket science or something to build a system. (which, honestly, isn't much harder then snapping legos together)

People use apple because the solutions in place are more efficient and more capable then the similar windows and linux solutions. has nothing to do with not knowing how to stick ram in a box, or plug in a cable or two.

some people prefer their solutions to work, and depend on something reliable.

It's sad when the best editing solution for the indie film maker using windows is Sony Vegas since it is more stable and reliable then Premiere, and costs much less then the pro solutions in windows.

Shake has been one of the standards in compositing for a while, and even though it is no longer supported is still one of the best, if not the best compositing solution, on mac and linux. the closest windows comes is Nuke. And now you can pick up shake for about 300 bucks. Apple product that costs at least 10 times less then it's closest windows competitor. go figure.

 

[theblackbox]

But I hate the whole argument of mac is better for video/photo/design work. These people don't even use color as a reasoning, just "because it's better" and it irks the hell out of me. I will give them Final Cut if they do video, but barely since you really want to run it on something like a mac pro, and that's just insanely priced.

And these people just basically use Adobe software.

saddest part about the mac pro is up until last year, that wasn't the case. the previous generation of Mac Pro, based on the 54xx xeon was one of the best deals on a workstation class machine, dell and hp couldn't even come close.
this year, though, they raised the prices, lowered the specs, and i most certainly agree with you.

Even Final Cut at this time doesn't really benefit from the Mac Pro and it's full ability. heck, it's still 32bit.

But, on the other hand, AE running parallel processes shines on the dual quad core machines with a good amount of ram.

 

[theblackbox]

WHY is it the so-called "standard"? Because people use it? Why do they use it? Because its the standard.
Fucking brilliant.

if you don't want to call it the standard, because it really isn't the standard, it's the CHOICE of a higher percentage of production houses at this point. why? at this point it is the most capable of the NLE's available on the market, has the most compatibility with different formats, and is stable and reliable.

Avid was the "standard" but then people realized it was just the standard because people used it and when they needed a better solution, went with Final Cut.

you should stick to what you know.

is this where you went?

kindergarDen

maybe along with logic they should teach spelling?

 

[finbarqs]

I always thought AVID was the standard in film editing for major film productions...

 

[randomlinh]

I always thought AVID was the standard in film editing for major film productions...

it was/is? Final Cut Pro has made some pretty big gains though. It could be we just hear more about it because of the massive onslaught of smaller companies now that distribution and creation has come down in cost/access significantly.

 

[Kaido]

Yeah, Final Cut is being taught at most places I've seen (checked out a number of colleges recently). It's the "standard" because it's more commonly used than other apps by more people (probably because it's readily available at any Mac store & priced affordably) from wedding photographers to commercials to small movie productions. I'd really like to see some solid numbers to see where things are actually at though.

FCP is starting to make it's way into big feature films too - The Curious Case of Benjamin Button was cut on it, as was the new X-Files movie. Avid still holds reign in Hollywood afaik tho. I think it's just for budget & training reasons - Final Cut Pro may be more flexible, but so many people already have Avid & are trained on it. Avid is also a much more mature product, but FCP is catching up pretty nicely. And there's only one version of FCP, unlike Avid which has multiple versions.

For me, FCP offers a lot of functionality, and I can actually afford it. I also plan on working with RED equipment in the future, so RED -> RedRocket -> Final Cut Studio is a pretty easy workflow. I think it really just comes down to what tools you have available, and what you can work with (or enjoy, or have training on it).

 

[oogabooga]

I always thought AVID was the standard in film editing for major film productions...

AFAIK it still is. It's not completely unheard of for a hollywood production to use finalcut though, and a lot of places that do media probably will expect Final Cut experience.

In colleges (at least mine) I think they teach Final Cut. Having an avid studio is expensive and probably out of reach of any undergrad program I'd guess. I don't think my school taught Avid, though I was paid to work in the maclab in the arts department only. Maybe some grad programs do? That I'm just guessing on.