Apple to develop new mouse!

[Brant Collins]

New mouse will be out soon

[Guest Daniel J. Ashley-Smith]

Mac.... ugghhh....

[Tenolian Bell]

Steve Jobs pretty much kept Apple and Pixar seperate. They complimented each other but one was not obligated to other.

 

Its likely Jobs will use Disney for content. This will provide guaranteed content for iTunes, the iPod, and Apple's future media ambitions.

 

Mac.... ugghhh....

 

When you pull a new Macintosh from its elegant box. Push the power button and hear the dong, immediately without additional software you are able to.....

 

-Edit HDV

 

-Encode and Decode H.264

 

-Create Music Compositions

 

-Record Audio Programs

 

-Store and Manage 250,000 Photo's

 

-Customize image capture from still camera

 

-Photo Editing

 

-Author Website

 

-RAW Image Viewer

 

-PDF Viewer

 

-Still Screen Shots

 

-Write documents, create graphic presentations, convert documents into PDF

 

-Font Library

 

-Integrated Oxford Dictionary and Thesaurus

 

-Print Center with PDF support, built in faxing, and hundreds of printer drivers

 

-Store, Organize, and View thousands of songs and videos

 

-Music can be streamed to home stereo system, playback can be random or organized which ever way the user chooses

 

-Author and Burn DVD

 

-DVD Player features HD-DVD, 5.1 surround sound, Audio Equilizer, Video Color Control, plug into your television

 

-Instant Message

 

-Audio Conference with 10 people

 

-Video Conference 4 people

 

-Create multiuser e-mail client

 

-Address Book that allows e-mailing business cards and shows maps of address

 

-Calender that integrates Events and To Do List with other applications

 

-WiFi internet connection

 

-Bluetooth device sync

 

-Play Chess

[Guest Daniel J. Ashley-Smith]

Macs are good for people who don't know a great deal about computers. They're even changing over to pentium processors, because they finally gave into the fact that PC processors are faster.

 

Mac.... uhghgh...

[Brant Collins]

I can do more on my Powerbook than a full blown Avid

I have not used a PC in 10 years MACs are my bread and butter

[Tenolian Bell]

Macs are good for people who don't know a great deal about computers.

 

People who purchase a $1200 iMac and not a $500 Dell definitely have knowledge of what they are buying.

 

They're even changing over to pentium processors, because they finally gave into the fact that PC processors are faster.

 

Not true.

 

When the PowerPC 970 (G5) was introduced in 2003, at the time it was faster than the comperable Pentium 4. The lead did not last long as the Pentium quickly caught up and surpassed the PowerPC. IBM did not update PowerPC at the same rate Intel and AMD update their processors.

 

Right now the IBM Quad Core PowerPC 970FX is the fastest multithread processor for desktop computers. Which is currently used in the Quad Mac.

 

Intel has not really been doing well in desktop processors the past couple of years. AMD has been kicking their arse. Where Intel really excels is at latop processors. Apple was not able to get passed its aging Motrola PowerPC 7447a (the G4). Laptops are out selling desktops. The Intel chips Apple is using are not based on the old Pentium architecture, but the totally new Intel Core technology.

 

Intel is dropping its Pentium architecture which has hit a performance brick wall. The question is will Intel's new Core desktop architecture out perform the G5.

 

There is good evidence Intel and Apple are collaberating on Intel's newest chip architecture, which will provide some enhanced abilities for OS X.

 

 

 

I can do more on my Powerbook than a full blown Avid

 

No need for hyperbole.

 

Plus most Avid systems I've seen are running on Mac's.

[stephen lamb]

I'd like to add my thoughts on the volitile subject...mac vs PC. i own both a MacG5 and a custum built PC running AMD's 64 bit 4800+. The PC is two years newer and obviously runs faster than the mac. But i love both, and each machine is useful for different things. I do all of my multimedia/video editing/ compositing on the mac, and i use my PC for 3D VFX creation, and of course...games :D both machines are sweet, and though i used to argue one over the other, its really a silly debate. just depends on what you need your machine to do, and if you are in a collabrative group of people, what are they running?

Steve

[Gordon Highland]

immediately without additional software you are able to.....

-Edit HDV . . . etc.

Well. . . sorta. Let's not presume, or forget that little thing that separates us from those who think it's some kind of magic pill ? talent! <_< If they demonstate a willingness and the patience to hone their craft, sure. Drives me crazy, these folks that think they're filmmakers all of a sudden just cuz they have the tools. I'm not arguing your point, I'm a lifelong Mac guy and love what the software allows me to do. But I've put in the years.

[Tim J Durham]

Macs are good for people who don't know a great deal about computers. They're even changing over to pentium processors, because they finally gave into the fact that PC processors are faster.

 

Mac.... uhghgh...

...and as the cicadas return every 17 years...

[Thomas Worth]

Well. . . sorta. Let's not presume, or forget that little thing that separates us from those who think it's some kind of magic pill ? talent! <_< If they demonstate a willingness and the patience to hone their craft, sure. Drives me crazy, these folks that think they're filmmakers all of a sudden just cuz they have the tools. I'm not arguing your point, I'm a lifelong Mac guy and love what the software allows me to do. But I've put in the years.

It appears to me that no-budget filmmakers using Macs generally put out material that is not on the bleeding edge of technical achievement. This may be more of a reflection of the person's inability to grasp deeply technical issues, hence their choice of the Mac (although it could be said this is more of "keeping with the pack" rather than wanting an "easy to use" computer). It may also be simply because their is not a lot of specialized software for the Mac like VirtualDub or AviSynth (just two examples, there are many more). I own several computers including a Mac, but keep the Mac around for exchanging files with clients and not so much for my own creative purposes.

 

So then the question is, "what is talent?" If you are referring to character and story progression, then that is less of a technical aspect of filmmaking and left to be discussed on another web site. If you are talking about the visual aspect of filmmaking, a subject more at home on a site like this, then I have to say that your options are greater on a Windows machine than on a Mac.

 

If you had to cut down a tree and could choose between a pair of scissors and a chainsaw, which would get the job done better and faster? It would still be possible to cut down the tree with the scissors, but with the chainsaw you would have a much nicer, cleaner cut. Not to say that the Mac is a pair of scissors and the PC a chainsaw, but there is still more obscure, purpose-written software for the PC than there is for the Mac. Therefore, I can't recommend the Mac at all, unless it's for someone who, you guessed it, isn't very technical or has a need to maintain compatibility with other Mac-based outfits. Compatibility issues between Macs and PCs are pretty much nonexistent to the tech-savvy who, like all filmmakers, must be excellent problem solvers.

 

I just think that anyone who has the desire to push the envelope visually will need specialized tools. For example, my article about slow motion shows how to achieve the effect using Adobe After Effects, which is available for both the Mac and the PC. However, there are tools that do a better job with the effect that I do not mention in the article because they aren't cross-platform. It's a shame, but in this instance you are limited to an inferior looking effect simply because the best tools for the job aren't available.

 

I used a Mac for 10 years, and still do. I love the Mac and always will. But the results are what counts, and I get better results with the superior tools available on Windows. It's too bad, but that's life.

[Tim J Durham]

It appears to me that no-budget filmmakers using Macs generally put out material that is not on the bleeding edge of technical achievement. This may be more of a reflection of the person's inability to grasp deeply technical issues, hence their choice of the Mac (although it could be said this is more of "keeping with the pack" rather than wanting an "easy to use" computer). It may also be simply because their is not a lot of specialized software for the Mac like VirtualDub or AviSynth (just two examples, there are many more). I own several computers including a Mac, but keep the Mac around for exchanging files with clients and not so much for my own creative purposes.

 

http://millimeter.com/news/video_finishing...tain/index.html

 

Director Anthony Minghella decided early in preparation for Cold Mountain that the production and postproduction of the movie would be unorthodox in several respects. He decided principal photography on the Civil War-era piece would take place in Romania, and he agreed to editor Walter Murch's plan to edit the entire movie on Apple's Final Cut Pro in Romania. This made Cold Mountain the highest profile studio feature film to date to be edited entirely in Final Cut Pro.

(...)

In all three cases, Minghella never thought twice. "When you work with collaborators like John Seale and Walter Murch, you don't quarrel with their ambitions," he told Millimeter. "I trust them both more than anybody I can think of. Both men are so technically sophisticated and bold in their work historically, why would I discourage their desires to try something new? Besides, from the director's point of view, Final Cut Pro was a wonderful tool.[b[ My entire production company is Macintosh-based and all my equipment is Mac-based, so when I was traveling during the posting of this film, I was able to travel around with the film on my hard drive in various configurations.

[/b]

 

and:

 

http://www.apple.com/shake/stories/

For the past three years WETA Digital, New Zealand?s foremost visual effects facility, has used Shake (Apple) software as the primary film compositing system to handle the enormous visual effects requirements for New Line Cinema?s and Peter Jackson?s adaptation of J.R.R. Tolkien?s epic ?Lord of the Rings? trilogy. WETA is simultaneously producing all three films in the trilogy: ?The Fellowship of the Ring,? ?The Two Towers? and ?The Return of the King.? To date, Shake has been instrumental in helping WETA tackle more than 1,000 compositing-intensive effects shots on the projects.

 

But what do Anthony Minghella, Walter Murch and Peter Jackson know? Clearly not much about computers. How many hundreds of examples like this would you like to see? The high-end of Hollywood (and NZ!) are Mac users.

 

To imply that creative people are somehow stymied by choosing the Mac platform is ludicrous on its' face.

[Thomas Worth]

To imply that creative people are somehow stymied by choosing the Mac platform is ludicrous on its' face.

But the example of Final Cut Pro is, in my opinion, not a very good one for the reason that editing software is not very complex (as compared to compositing programs which give more control), nor does it require vast technical knowledge. Besides, in the realm of motion picture production, editing a feature film on Final Cut Pro results in little more than an EDL and a tape reference for the negative cutter. The negative is cut traditionally, and in the case of a D.I. the film is generally timed with a much more capable system. So, the "online" portion of the process is handled with more powerful computers and software. To give you an example of how insignificant the choice of an NLE is, Jonas Akerlund edited Spun (2002), an extremely visual film (he's a music video director), on a tape-to-tape machine. It also went through a D.I.

 

As for your example of Shake, I can't really argue the point because I don't know much about the software (I stick to mainly After Effects / Combustion). It could be true that such a package levels the playing field between Macs and PCs in the compositing arena, but I can't say for sure until I test it myself. Plus, the software is very expensive for the average DV filmmaker.

 

The shame, to me, is that Mac OS X is a Unix based OS. It used to be that the most powerful software for film and video ran on SGI or other machines, because of the ability of Unix to harness the power of the hardware. In addition, there are many open source video tools available that with a little work I bet could be compiled and run on Mac OS X. I wish I knew C, because I would take a stab at it!

[Tim J Durham]

But the example of Final Cut Pro is, in my opinion, not a very good one for the reason that editing software is not very complex (as compared to compositing programs which give more control), nor does it require vast technical knowledge.

 

THAT'S THE POINT!

 

You can plug in a Mac and START WORKING!!! RIGHT OUT OF THE BOX!

 

Many (can't say "most"- don't know of any actual studies done) big-name producers, directors, editors, writers:

 

http://www.macworld.com/news/2004/04/12/writers/

 

own and use Macs- BY CHOICE- they could use anything they want and what they want is a Mac. No- they're not generally plowing through some home-brew compositing program, they're doing the work that people in the film business do. Writing, editing, storyboarding, sound mixing, etc.

 

Ofcourse there are some highly specialized, technical functions that can only be done on a PC and there are plenty of people who are doing that stuff. But that's not likely what people going through film school are aspiring to. They generally want to write, direct, produce, shoot movies.

 

Not spend three weeks compositing a 10-second sequence for an Alpo commercial. I'm not saying this isn't common, it's just not something I aspire to.

 

So to say you don't recommend anyone new to the film business buying a Mac, I certianly DO recommend it, and for the reason that they are so easy to use. Why would you want to blow so much time just having to learn about computers? That's time that should be spent being creative.

 

I don't know much about computers and I don't WANT to know. I just want to get my ideas down. I can do that and MUCH more on my Mac. When I need to do a 40-layer spinning matte effect with 3 1/2 twists, I'll give you a call.

 

 

 

 

 

(not saying I wouldn't call you UNTIL... just sayin I don''t need your highly specific PC-only skills just yet)

B)

[Guest Trevor Swaim]

Shake has been used on every film that recieved an acadamy award for visual effects for the last 10 years. It only runs on macs and linux systems. Final cut pro has been used to edit many major motion pictures including the afor mentioned cold mountian and the recent film Jarheads. I "switched" about 5 years ago, I know windows very well and don't miss a thing about it. all the software I need is available for the mac, and it is usually the best software you can get.

[Tenolian Bell]

I've heard that sentiment from computer Geeks, they want challenging difficult to use software, and consider that bleeding edge.

 

While to me excellent software design means I don't have to deal with difficult software. The software designer did all the work and figured out how to make this application intuitive and as easy to use as possible. The end result is most of the user's attention can concentrate on the work at hand and not the computer itself.

 

Too bad we can never seem to have a good conversation about computers. Well sometimes we do, but most of the time we teeter off into ridiculous....

 

I can do more on my Powerbook than a full blown Avid

 

It appears to me that no-budget filmmakers using Macs generally put out material that is not on the bleeding edge of technical achievement. This may be more of a reflection of the person's inability to grasp deeply technical issues, hence their choice of the Mac

 

The shame, to me, is that Mac OS X is a Unix based OS. It used to be that the most powerful software for film and video ran on SGI or other machines, because of the ability of Unix to harness the power of the hardware.

[Brant Collins]

I just posted the disney/apple logo as a joke ha..ha.

 

I admire Steve Jobs for showing that good design and good content can win. It may have taken a while but Pixar and Apple are both good models for creative industry

[Thomas Worth]

I admire Steve Jobs for showing that good design and good content can win. It may have taken a while but Pixar and Apple are both good models for creative industry

You gotta love the guy. He's definitely making everyone take a hard look at the Mac as a serious tool. But the allure brought on by clever advertising isn't a good enough reason to use a Mac. I'm not saying there's not good reasons, I'm saying advertising is not one of them.

 

Like I said, I love Macs, and own one. But for my style of filmmaking (and as a tinkerer), I desire more control over the tiny details. That's just me. I don't expect everyone to adopt my style.

 

Long live Mickey. :rolleyes:

[Brant Collins]

3D is still weaker on the MAC than PC...mainly AutoDesk..If 3d Studio and Auto CAD had an OSX version that would be big. Keeping my eyes on MODO 3d shows promise.

 

But I got my degree in Fine Art and minored in TV Broadcasting(edited liner tape-to tape, even used a TOASTER) But my art teacher said learn the basics the rest is just learning the tools(brushes, software, etc) that work for your style.

 

Guys that work for me asked me if they should take Photoshop of FCP classes at the local college..I said I would rather see them take 2d design, color theory, or photography classes first.

[Thomas Worth]

Guys that work for me asked me if they should take Photoshop of FCP classes at the local college..I said I would rather see them take 2d design, color theory, or photography classes first.

That's good advice. No technology will help you if you don't understand the basics of the things you mention. I know a guy who has made several DV movies and still doesn't know what a "long" lens is. He also uses a Mac. :P

[David Sweetman]

I love Avid because it makes sense. It gives much more control over effect rendering and parameters, and, being a long-time PC user, I enjoy a program that many may find "tougher" to use.

 

What I find incredibly annoying is the Mac interface. It is designed in such a way that it insults my intelligence. I am very fluent with both programs, and knowing both, I much prefer to cut on Avid.

 

I understand why people would prefer FCP, but for me, Avid is the way to go, hands down.

[Tenolian Bell]

3D is still weaker on the MAC than PC...mainly AutoDesk

 

This is true now, but looking through the lens of history this wasn?t always so. Time and chance have a way of changing things.

 

In the beginning of digital Visual Effects Silicon Graphics was the main hardware foundation. But in the early 90?s desktop PC?s began to match SGI machines in power and performance. SGI stubbornly kept its prices too high in-spite the of fact that cheaper desktop PC?s were equaling its performance.

 

The desktop machine of choice was the Macintosh which for the time had a stable and capable operating system in Mac OS 7. Microsoft had licensed graphic user interface code from Apple but was having a rough time building a user friendly operating system.

 

Most of the older film and video software used today (Avid, Pro-Tools, Photoshop, After Effects, Premiere)started at version 1 exclusively on the Macintosh. The Mac was poised to dominate film and television as a digital tool.

 

The problem was there was a lot of unrest and infighting in Apple?s upper management. The company had lost focus and leadership. The Macintosh line was way over extended with too many models and the company refused to license Mac OS to other computer manufacturers.

 

Microsoft launches Windows 95 and sold it to everyone. Many say Windows 95 was inspired by Mac OS others claim it was a bad copy of Mac OS. But either way Microsoft got it right enough to dominate the market.

 

Apple begins to disintegrate from the inside. Which is interesting because the company launches a few key products which are entire industries today. During this time Apple in conjunction with Kodak launched the first consumer digital still camera to work with a computer, the Apple QuickTake 100. Apple launched the first Personal Digital Assistant called a Newton. Apple launched one of the first multimedia computers, The Macintosh TV. All of these products were failures. Business analyst looking back say these products were too expensive and before their time. The market wasn?t ready for them yet.

 

Software developers such as Avid and Adobe could see that Apple was a sinking ship, Windows adoption rate and market share were skyrocketing. So they began to port their applications to Windows NT.

 

As new software companies were being created they saw little future in Apple or Mac OS and would only build their application for Windows.

 

By 1997 Apple was nearly going out of business. What saved the company ultimately was the return of Steve Jobs and a British designer named Jonathan Ive who created the candy colored iMac.

 

 

The big dog in 3D is AutoDesk. From what I have read Autodesk never developed its applications for the Mac OS. Autodesk always developed for IBM UNIX and MS-DOS. AutoCAD was always a DOS application and naturally migrated into Windows once it was developed.

 

Discreet primary development base was Silicon Graphics work stations. After being bought by AutoDesk then began development for Windows NT.

 

Alias|Wavefront was established by Silicon Graphics, so obviously all software development was for the platform. In the late 90?s Silicon Graphics began to build Windows NT based work stations and Alias software was ported to Windows. After the introduction of Mac OS X Alias ported Maya to the Mac.

 

Alias is now owned by AutoDesk. Which means the majority of development will be for the Windows platform. Some applications are being ported the Mac but none of them are optimized to work with OS X API?s.

 

Until any of these 3D software modelers are optimized for OS X, none of them will run as well as they will for Windows.

 

 

 

He's definitely making everyone take a hard look at the Mac as a serious tool.

 

The Macintosh was the first computer on the market with a graphical user interface driven operating system.

 

Its always been a serious tool.

[Guest Daniel J. Ashley-Smith]

Intel has not really been doing well in desktop processors the past couple of years. AMD has been kicking their arse.

Where the hell did you get that from? AMD *were* kicking pentiums butt, but it's changed around now. And plus from a lot of experience with AMD's they can't handle work load, they fry. Hence why they were so cheap. Although they have gotten a lot better now.

 

With Macs you don't have nearly as much flexibility. It's more like buying a games console more than anything.

 

Macs are more user friendly, that's all. Simple use only.

Edited January 27, 2006 by Daniel J. Ashley-Smith

[Tenolian Bell]

Take a look at a reputable benchmarking chart

 

http://www23.tomshardware.com/cpu.html

 

AMD beats the pants off Intel in every measure.

 

 

Flexibility can mean many different things, by what measure of flexibility?

[Brant Collins]

http://www.luxology.com/modo/

This is a 3d app to keep an eye on, for the MAC. Very Model and render only but has a plan to add animation

[Chien Huey]

With Macs you don't have nearly as much flexibility. It's more like buying a games console more than anything.

 

Macs are more user friendly, that's all. Simple use only.

 

Some of it comes down to cost. Now before all the PCs guys start harping on about how you can buy a $500 Dell - I'm talking about total cost. Two examples:

 

I grew up around computers (PCs) and worked in IT for 8 years as a programmer before switching to the film industry. So when it came time to buy a new laptop for editing and general use - I bought an HP with a hi-res widescreen, 100GB HD, 1GB RAM for under $1000. For me, to get an equivalent Powerbook would cost over $2500 (probably more). But for me the cost ends at the $1000 because I'm highly comfortable with PCs and I can run Avid Xpress on it (okay so more $$$ for software).

 

For the person who doesn't have that type of background or maybe even a slight computer phobia. Buying a Mac that's easier to use and generally runs pretty reliably makes sense because even though they're paying more for the Mac, the time that they're not spending on the phone with HP/Dell/IBM/whoever support is easily worth the difference. Not to mention, the opportunity cost of not being able to edit/animate/etc while they're on the phone.

 

I can't speak to software comparisons except for Avid and FCP. I know both, they're both fine products. I prefer Avid. Though today I was editing in a nice FCP bay for a corporate video gig and it was mighty nice too.