So what computer platform is better for editing HDV? Is it Apple or Microsoft. Oh by the way I don't own stock in either corporation so a lively debate will not offend me. There seems to be an urban legend that the Apple computer is better for video editing.

There seems to be an urban legend that the Apple computer is better for video editing.

It's only an urban legend to those who haven't tried both and made their own decision about the matter.

It's only an urban legend to those who haven't tried both and made their own decision about the matter.

Persoanlly I couldn't work on a PC. What is your choice Nate?

Been there (PC) for years...sadly. Then, a year and a half ago switched everything to Mac. Now, me happy...:-)
Very happy, that is...:-)

Been there (PC) for years...sadly. Then, a year and a half ago switched everything to Mac. Now, me happy...:-)
Very happy, that is...:-)

Me always been very happy.. EXTREMELY HAPPY that is.. Been a mac user for 13 years. tries PC once and I almost killed myself hehe

It's only an urban legend to those who haven't tried both and made their own decision about the matter.

I have both and have had for about 5 years. Frankly, I can't understand the bias toward either. And, it is bias because for practical purposes there is no difference.

OS X -- I like because I know UNIX and feel comfortable knowing where everything is stored. I haven't used the shell in several years, but could if I had to. Clearly it is better looking -- which counts -- but IMHO far more clumsy than OS 9. OS 9 looks like it was designed as a whole by one talented person, while OS X feels likea series of false starts. If you read MacFixit you'll See Apple has had serious problems with OS and appplication bugs for over a year. I still haven't upgraded to Tiger and won't until 10.4.5.

XP -- very realiable compared to OS X. Looks like kid's toy. The fact each window has a Menu bar is critical with new large high rez screen(s). Although Networking stuff is all over the place and not EZ to set-up or fix -- it is far more robust than that from OS X. Very, very fast!

Early this year I bought a very hot Dell laptop and I just placed an order for an iBook. Neither my wife and I care which system we use. And folks getting Office documents have no idea which machine they came from. Neither do we.

Really the choice comes down to which applications you want. If you go OS X there is no only one HDV NLE. But, when you look at performance, and functionality (24p and 24F support), Premiere Pro with AspectHD is the only real choice on the PC.

After Effects and Photoshop and Office are on both as is FireFox.

So I'd start looking at the application and let it determine the machine.

My bias is towards Mac simply because I've used both platforms with Avids for many years in many different post facilities and I've logged the most downtime hours with PC - regardless of NT, 2000 or XP. Also, Mac OS X is so easy to network and share media for "non-IT" guys, and there are no spyware/viruses to worry about.

When you have a client in the suite waiting for his master tape so he can send it out by courier at 5PM, and you get a "fatal error" that you need the facility IT guy to fix, it just doesn't make good business sense to stick with PC. (and its embarrassing)

When it comes to reliability, IMHO a Mac with FCP can't be beat. Apple makes the hardware and software so there are no unknown 3rd party variables or conflicts for tech support. (unless you have a Blackmagic or Kona card - but even then, those products are developed with close support from Apple.)

Plus, Apple hardware just plain looks cool in any edit suite!


Note however, that as of November 2005, Aspect HD does seem to be the best "working" solution for capturing 720P24 HDV from the HD100. This is likely to change soon.

Been editing on PC for about 3 years, using and programming PC's for, maybe 9 or 10. Got a Mac Mini about 9 months ago, yesterday bought a PowerMac and am selling the PC.

I've found XP to be pretty stable compared to previous versions. I think OSX is a little less so - close call - *BUT*, if an OSX application goes down, it usually doesn't take my OS with it. XP on the otherhand can cause everything to just die a horrible death.

I find OSX much slicker - Spotlight is nice. Integration of Keychain with all the apps. Expose is smooth and useful. Machine looks much nicer. The whole experience IMO is smoother, less cluttered and more relaxing - and I do think those things matter.

Was a Mac user and PC user. Once Windows 95 came out I never looked back to Mac again for personal use. I'm in constant contact with Windows and OS9/OSX.

My personal choice is XP for speed and my NLE is Liquid for rock solid stability.

I suppose I'm one of the few who went from a Mac to a PC for video editing. That probably says more for my feelings about Vegas vs FCP than it does about either PC platform though (I love Vegas but never could really figure out FCP).

I used Macs for years and liked them, but switched to PCs about the time I started doing video editing and haven't looked back. (I tried FCP in version 3 and didn't see anything unique enough about it to get my attention.) As far as HDV in particular is concerned, the PC platform was ahead of Macs until FCP5 came out, but that seems to have leveled the playing field. And if you have any thoughts of working with footage from the Panasonic HVX200 you'll probably get better support for that in FCP than most PC-based editing applications, so that's a plus. But overall it's pretty much a draw as far as I'm concerned, and I like the fact that PCs still give you a wider choice of hardware and software at reasonable prices. (Insert standard Mac versus PC pricing discussion here...)

I tried FCP in version 3

Version 3 was a MacOS 9 application that was adapted to run under OSX. FCP 4 brought native OS X support that took advantage of multiple processors and sped performance considerably. They introduced "realtime extreme" in FCP 4 which was a huge improvement over FCP 3 which had to render virtually everything and couldn't send realtime previews over firewire.

Version 3 was a MacOS 9 application that was adapted to run under OSX. FCP 4 brought native OS X support that took advantage of multiple processors and sped performance considerably. They introduced "realtime extreme" in FCP 4 which was a huge improvement over FCP 3 which had to render virtually everything and couldn't send realtime previews over firewire.

Interesting, but I've got realtime DV previews over firewire on my PC laptop, so no big deal there. Now the question is who will have the fastest production time from an HDV timeline to a finished high-definition DVD, once we know for sure how we're going to make those? Sounds like Apple may be a step ahead there as far as H.264 encoding and HD DVD setup is concerned, but they're lagging on support for the currently more useful Windows Media format. (Insert standard H.264 versus Windows Media discussion here...)

Interesting, but I've got realtime DV previews over firewire on my PC laptop, so no big deal there. Now the question is who will have the fastest production time from an HDV timeline to a finished high-definition DVD, once we know for sure how we're going to make those? Sounds like Apple may be a step ahead there as far as H.264 encoding and HD DVD setup is concerned, but they're lagging on support for the currently more useful Windows Media format. (Insert standard H.264 versus Windows Media discussion here...)
That will be Liquid because the DVD authoring is done right from the Liquid timeline and encoded 1:1. This is why I can edit HDV natively now and encode directly to SD DVD from an HDV timeline. What a time saver and my EDL and timeline can stay in place waiting for HD delivery.

It's all good, but Liquid is the fastest of all NLE's from capture to edit to output merely because it's all done within the same app.

It's all good, but Liquid is the fastest of all NLE's from capture to edit to output merely because it's all done within the same app.

Stephen: what's your editing performance like with HDV and what are your editing computer specs? Does Liquid still grind away with "background rendering" instead of letting you see your changes right away? And does it still litter your hard drive with hundreds of obscurely named files, or have they simplified that process? I did one project with Liquid a couple of years ago and haven't touched it since; maybe I'll take another look at the latest demo.

Stephen: what's your editing performance like with HDV and what are your editing computer specs? Does Liquid still grind away with "background rendering" instead of letting you see your changes right away? And does it still litter your hard drive with hundreds of obscurely named files, or have they simplified that process? I did one project with Liquid a couple of years ago and haven't touched it since; maybe I'll take another look at the latest demo.
Kevin,

1 edit suite specs: SYSTEM#1-LE6 P4 3.4HT 1GB Ram-SATA-PCIe X600/256 Sony DL/DVDRW Moviebox Deluxe, Contour Shuttle

RT yellow slice does not require render at all until final output. RT for HDV can be ported out to MovieBox Deluxe or the ProBob SD NTSC or PAL. (That's GOLD amigo). That means you can preview HDV to an SD monitor RT or you can use you dual head video card to monitor RT DVI if you have an HDTV hooked up to your computer.

Media managment still uses it's own database but now the search (and destroy) functions allow you to purge complete by name. I know what you're saying about version 4.5 and 5.0 Edition's media managment. It took a rocket scientist to figure it out.

And for DVCPRO HD? Mac or PC? Is it possible @ an affordable, simple, laptop?

Sounds like Apple may be a step ahead there as far as H.264 encoding and HD DVD setup is concerned

try encoding an h.264 file with the apple encoder, and then tell us how long it took... there are multiple choices for h.264 encoders on the pc side of the fence, nero especially rocks... when it comes to encoding just about any video format, pc's are by far the best choice.

since tommy specifically asked about hdv, i'd suggest that he take a look at this thread: http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?t=54258 ...maybe one of these mac guys will weigh in here and explain why fcp can't handle a native m2t hdv file, hmm? i bet stephen can tell us if it'll drop right into the liquid timeline?

i'd also like to see a mac guy download the fs-4 raw dv file at my codectest.com website, and tell me if there is any mac software that is capable of pulling the second pair of audio tracks out of it.

to put it another way, there are well over 10,000 more software packages available on the pc side of the fence, that will never be written for macs... don't like vegas? try premiere, liquid edition, avid, etc... you can't do that with a mac.

so if you think that mac is for you, just make sure that it'll do everything that you want it to, before you step up to the plate... and for the record, i literally can't recall the last time i saw a bsod on either of my win2k or xp pc's... vegas 5, for instance, has been rock-solid for hundreds of edits per project; i have never been able to crash it.

I'm with your DAN.

As most will find out soon, encoding straight to a DVD from the HDV timeline is better than DVD to DV to DVD or whatever you go out to.

I also wanted to make a NTSC file from a 50i HDV timline. I found that Video Xpress does an amazing Pal to NTSC (yes even better than procoder and DV Atlanits) conversions but would not run from within the HDV timeline.

Well after abit of surfing, there it was a tiny frame serving program on the net that lets me output straight to the encoder from the HDV timeline. And the best thing is it was FREE.

PC's have so many otions when it comes to software.

Paul

...fcp can't handle a native m2t hdv file, hmm? i bet stephen can tell us if it'll drop right into the liquid timeline?....

... download the fs-4 raw dv file at my codectest.com website, and tell me if there software is capable of pulling the second pair of audio tracks out of it....


Yes, m2t's directly import in Liquid 7 and yes the Firestore's raw dv is supported in Liquid just by linking to the file.

Dan, your file has V.O. on one stereo pair and music on the other stereo pair.

In all fairness, don't you have to go into the firestore and tell it what editing app your capturing for? Liquid likes demuxed files or audio embedded but I don't know how FCP likes it's DTE files formatted on the FS4.

And for DVCPRO HD? Mac or PC? Is it possible @ an affordable, simple, laptop?
On PC you've got two choices for DVCProHD (currently) Avid XpressProHD or Canopus EdiusHD.

I'd expect Liquid Chrome HD to follow suit but we'll see what Avid does with Chrome.

Used both, prefer Mac.

I thought we knew the answer to this! Macs are more likely to give you cancer, but a PC will induce low birthweight in pregnant women or...

Oh and FFmpegX,

the second track is Garbage BTW, as in the band, Garbage.

lol... it's that sick brit humour :-)

yes, you can hear all four channels playing with the quicktime player, but it is not capable of exporting the second pair seperately, at least on the pc side of the fence.

i see that ffmpegx claims to be capable of two-pass h.264 encoding, which is cool, hope it works better than the qt player... will it actually export the second pair of audio tracks from that test file? not just play 'em back, but export 'em seperately as well.

dv recording on the fs-4 allows you to choose from a whole bunch of dv formats, and most editors can handle multiple dv formats... raw dv is the only thing that i found that allowed access to the second pair of audio channels... plus it takes up less hard drive space than a type 2 avi.

as frank yap pointed out in that other thread, dvrack also stores native m2t hdv files on it's hard drive, so these aren't just firestore issues.

Hi,

I use Premiere Pro with the Cineform codec for editing HDV. Most of your basic editing is real time with that Codec, very fast and pain free. I recently attended the HDV workshop given by Heath and Douglas Spotted Eagle. DSE uses PC and Vegas with the Cineform Codec. Heath uses MAC. Apparently, there have been some issues with the Apple Intermediery Codec. I sure those problems will be corrected soon. I love PC's, I make my living with music and Video and I have everything I need within the PC platform. Saying that, I could be just as happy with MAC. If you have a close bud, that can show you the ropes on one particular NLE, that might make the choice easy. Experience is more important than platform.

Cheers,
Garius Hill
producer NYC

Perhaps the question then might be, WHAT NLE/Platform Combo works the best for HDV? Is it Pentium/Cineform/Premier? MAC/FCP5? Dual Opteron/Avid? Dule Core whatever/whatever? Maybe this is the area that would give the most usable information. In my opinion, the most important thing to consider first is what fits best. The interface and workflow are like owning a comfortable pair of shoes, why suffer if the fit is not right!

I have Macs for personal and work use, and I have a kick ass PC for gaming.
Ive been using computers since I was 14 (23 years ago), I dont think there is a computer out there I havent used. In my opinion Macs are more reliable and a lot more easy and straight forward, you plug it or install it, and it works. And the way all applications interact and comunicate with each other is simple impresive and not available on the PC side.

And one big issue regarding PCs, if you are planing to go online with the computer housing your NLE, then get a Mac.
It dosnt matter how much you protect yourself, if you use your NLE PC to go online also someting WILL eventualy crawl into your system. And ofcourse all hell will brake loose just before that deadline.

It all becomes rather moot once you realize that the 'guts' of PC's and Mac's are essentially identical - apart from the CPU and OS that is...

And even that situation is about to change sooner than Mac officiandos would like to admit, with the introduction of Intel Dual-core CPU'd Macintoshes in the not too distant future!!

The only difference will then be the OS!!

If some smart cookie was able to break the proprietry code on the CPU that'll prevent an Intel Mac from running Windows... we could have a machine that'd allow either OS to be used, with the choice of the best software from either platform.

My experience in the publishing industry may well have parallels to what's likely to occur in the Videographic industry.

For years Macs ruled the roost, as "the Professionals' computing platform of choice", and PCs were ridiculed and derided as the sort of substandard trash, that the weak minded and unsophisticated sub-intellectuals of human kind's lower classes dabbled with.

With little fanfare; and even less acknowledgement of it's occuring, almost every major publishing house/group/corporation is now firmly PC based, with their Macs only powered up for backward compatability with older files or those few external design sources who can't break free of the mental chains years of self indoctrination have left behind.

PC or Mac? Wouldn't it be better to ask what's the most cost effective and reliable means of dealing with HDV at this particular point.

Maybe once the Intel Macs are out, they'll add the PC based HDV solutions to the Mac platform... but I doubt that Macintosh's will ever (even with Intel CPUs) be cheaper or more cost effective than PCs.

[some comments removed Admin: no platform wars here, please. Thanks --CH]

If some smart cookie was able to break the proprietry code on the CPU that'll prevent an Intel Mac from running Windows

Actually Apple is on record as saying there will not be anything in the design of the Intel Macs which would prevent them from running Windows, however Apple does not intend to offer such software. When the Intel Macs were announced a spokesman conceded that a third party would probably introduce a product that would let the machines boot into Windows.

However Apple has repeatedly said that Intel CPU's from other vendors would NOT be able to boot into OSX. But many people think this will happen eventually due to the huge potential revenue stream. Michael Dell commented that he would be interested in selling machines with OSX pre-installed....

(Putting on my moderator hat) Guys, this discussion has been pretty informative so far but seems to be slowly headed in the direction of a platform war. Please try to keep the comments constructive so we don't end up locking the thread (which is how these threads usually end up unfortunately).

If some smart cookie was able to break the proprietry code on the CPU that'll prevent an Intel Mac from running Windows... we could have a machine that'd allow either OS to be used, with the choice of the best software from either platform.

It's already been done.
http://reviews.zdnet.co.uk/software/os/0,39024180,39235916,00.htm

It's already been done.
http://reviews.zdnet.co.uk/software/os/0,39024180,39235916,00.htm

I had indeed read that article earlier, and I'd also noticed the final comment that mentioned how that the ability to load onto ANY Intel powered machine, that their evaluation copy of OSX for Intel had, would be unavailable after the actual Intel Mac hardware release...

Meaning that unless some clever cookie comes up with some way around the proprietry lock-out, we won't be able to freely load OSX onto ANY Intel PC. Even the evaluation version mentioned, only worked on certain hardware with emulation wrappers for certain applications.

That's the same sort of "phantom-environment" that Windows emulators for Mac have been providing for ages - with all the success of some of histories greatest failures!!

A truly Intel native Mac OSX that could be loaded onto P-IV machines with driver support for non-Intel Mac devices, where you could boot to whichever OS to get the most from each systems' best software...

That was a dream many once shared - it's all meant to be binary information after all!! Why shouldn't every computer (performance constraints aside) be able to load software that may not have been conceived to run on that hardware, but could - if it wasn't for the over-riding need to make BUCKS...

Dan, yes, FFmpeg2 can separate the tracks manually, but seeing as it's shareware, and a tool for MPEG encoding rather than DV editing it's not terribly elegant solution but it can do it should push come to shove.

The h.264 encoding is very good, but I don't know that anyone would use it professionally.

There are plenty of great Mac Program that are unlikely ever to some to PC, and often they're free. FFmpegX is one example, MPEG streamclip is another, BTV pro, LiveCut... on the other hand theres a program like VirtualDub for Windows only that is fantastiv, so it;'s swings and roundabouts really

So what computer platform is better for editing HDV? Is it Apple or Microsoft. Oh by the way I don't own stock in either corporation so a lively debate will not offend me. There seems to be an urban legend that the Apple computer is better for video editing.

Respectively, this sort of question invites the wrong sort of feedback. Asking which platform to use ignores the more important questions. What are your needs for video editing and what is your background? Are you interested in doing it as a hobby or as a profession (to make money)? Will you be editing a lot, or just occasionally? What is your budget? Just as importantly (but only after you've answered these questons for yourself), what is your background in computing and who can you go to for help, other than forums like this one?

In my opinion, the question of computer platform should be one of the last things you ask, not the first. There may be compelling reasons to select either platform, depending on what your needs are.

I've worked with a lot of different computers and many types of non-linear editing systems for PC and Mac (and Amiga, if there are any of you who know what that means). The only clear conclusion I've drawn from all this is that computers (and computer software) in general are user hostile and far too difficult to work with. If your background does not include working with computers, get ready for grief, no matter which platform you choose.

The urban myth is that computers are user friendly. Answer the questions above and you'll get more helpful answers.

Vegas is PC only, so that's what all my computers are. I've used Premiere before, and have seen detailed domonstrations of Avid and FCP. Compared to Vegas, there's no way I could use any of those 3 packages for what I do. The workflow and layout would drive me insane.

At the same time, Windows can be a real pain at times. I agree Macs and OSX look great, and so do some of the newer Linux operating systems. But if they can't run Vegas, I'm not interested.

Respectively, this sort of question invites the wrong sort of feedback. Asking which platform to use ignores the more important questions. What are your needs for video editing and what is your background? Are you interested in doing it as a hobby or as a profession (to make money)? Will you be editing a lot, or just occasionally? What is your budget? Just as importantly (but only after you've answered these questons for yourself), what is your background in computing and who can you go to for help, other than forums like this one?

In my opinion, the question of computer platform should be one of the last things you ask, not the first. There may be compelling reasons to select either platform, depending on what your needs are.

I've worked with a lot of different computers and many types of non-linear editing systems for PC and Mac (and Amiga, if there are any of you who know what that means). The only clear conclusion I've drawn from all this is that computers (and computer software) in general are user hostile and far too difficult to work with. If your background does not include working with computers, get ready for grief, no matter which platform you choose.

The urban myth is that computers are user friendly. Answer the questions above and you'll get more helpful answers.
Great post.
(Yeah, I know what an Amiga is.... and a C64 and Vic20, too. :) )

Another important consideration is "What is your intended output?"
SD DVD?
Broadcast formats?
HD?
Web delivery? Quicktime, WMV, RealPlayer, iPod, PSP ?????

The computers themselves are both fine machines, Apple vs. PC.

However editing software... Compared to Vegas (which is my choice on the PC), FCP on the Apple is the slowest NLE that I've ever seen. I was working on it with an FCP trained editor and nearly pulled my hair out because everything took so damn long to do. (it was the new version, FCP HD Studio or something? on a 2 month old higher end Mac) Having used Vegas, I can't possibly imagine how anyone could work so slowly on FCP and live with it. I guess a Honda Civic is a fast ride if you've never driven a Viper.

Great post.
(Yeah, I know what an Amiga is.... and a C64 and Vic20, too. :) )

Another important consideration is "What is your intended output?"
SD DVD?
Broadcast formats?
HD?
Web delivery? Quicktime, WMV, RealPlayer, iPod, PSP ?????

Terrific point about output formats. HDV is such a new format that most people don't even have a way to watch it, even if they have an HDTV.

Once you've found an editing solution that works for you, you have to decide the best format (see above) to put it in so that you optimize the chances that your clients/friends/family (and even you down the line) can view it.

I've read several questions on this and other sites that ask questions about the best way to get HDV onto regular DVD. That's a valid question, and an important one, if you understand fully that when you decide to use plain, vanilla DVD for output you're not watching high definition any more.

I gave an old Sharp DLP projector to a relative of mine recently when I got a new one. I've been talking to him about the best way to set it up in a family room he's building in the basement. When I heard his plans I asked why he was going to put this front projector into a room without having any high definition sources. He said, "I do - DVD!" I had to tell him that DVD, while digital, is *not* an HD format. I know most people reading this forum know that, but it bears repeating.

Unless you're talking about the most expensive systems, even rendering HDV output to a high definition distribution format like WMV is going to take a beefy computer a lot of time to accomplish. And then, again, not many people are going to be able to watch it in that format either.

I think HDV is the best thing since sliced bread, but you really have to understand what you're getting.

BTW, my first computer was a Commodore 64. Those were the days!!

Joe Clark

Unless you're talking about the most expensive systems, even rendering HDV output to a high definition distribution format like WMV is going to take a beefy computer a lot of time to accomplish. And then, again, not many people are going to be able to watch it in that format either.

If you render to the Windows Media format at 720p resolution and put that on a standard DVD-R disc, it should play in most reasonably current computers. And if someone has $249 to spend for an Avel Linkplayer2 they can play the same video directly to their HDTV, so now they've got a way to view it on their home theater and take it with them to show their friends and co-workers on a computer screen. This is arguably a more useful solution for now than any blue-laser disc format, since it will be many years before blue-laser players are as pervasive as red-laser players are today.

And of course you can encode your HDV projects to widescreen SD DVDs, which almost anyone can play on either a standard DVD player or a computer. This will look better than pseudo-widescreen output from most SD cameras, so it's not a total loss to be downsampling to SD. HDV is useful today for both HD and SD distribution, if you know how to explain the options to customers.

If you render to the Windows Media format at 720p resolution and put that on a standard DVD-R disc, it should play in most reasonably current computers. And if someone has $249 to spend for an Avel Linkplayer2 they can play the same video directly to their HDTV, so now they've got a way to view it on their home theater and take it with them to show their friends and co-workers on a computer screen. This is arguably a more useful solution for now than any blue-laser disc format, since it will be many years before blue-laser players are as pervasive as red-laser players are today.

And of course you can encode your HDV projects to widescreen SD DVDs, which almost anyone can play on either a standard DVD player or a computer. This will look better than pseudo-widescreen output from most SD cameras, so it's not a total loss to be downsampling to SD. HDV is useful today for both HD and SD distribution, if you know how to explain the options to customers.

The player I'm probably going to get for my HDV camcorder is the JVC SRDVD-100. It has a DVI output, whereas the LinkPlayer has only component. It's $400, so it's more than the LinkPlayer, but I really like the idea of being able to just drop in a DVD-R without having to go through the HTPC. Also, it will play back files I've recorded with a MyHD and a specially modified Dish 6000 receiver, although it looks like I'm going to have to do some conversions to make those files compatible.

I agree that red laser formats are the best and most practical option for HDV playback for the near future. It's going to be a messy couple of years before the BluRay/HD-DVD mess gets sorted out. And by then holographic technologies may make both those formats obsolete before they can even get a large enough foothold to become standards. In the end, that may be a good thing.

Meanwhile, HDV is a wonderful format and I will enjoy shooting lots of material that I know I'll want to keep for the future. It's hard for me to look at the SD stuff I've shot over the years, when I compare it to HDV. At least I can use the DV videotapes.

So that we don't wander too far off topic here, all this applies to PCs and Macs. It's just that you have to make sure you understand all the tools you're going to need to get the footage onto a red laser DVD-R.