August 28, 2005

• I think your choice, at least choosing between a windows machine or a mac, has to do with software. Look at the FCP (cheap, works in high def, has integration with the other apple production tools like motion, shake and dvd studio pro), Adobe production suite, Sony Vegas, and the industry standard Avid. If I were you I'd learn on avid since you can move easily to their higher end systems, but FCP seems like they are going to own the market pretty soon. Anyway, if you wanna go mac, then your options are set for you.
• iLife comes with excellent software for all of those uses. Unless you're really serious about doing it, in which case most of the pro apps run on Mac. And, you get 'em (iMovie, iPhoto, iDVD, and GarageBand) for $1299 (for the 17" iMac G5 1.8). Go try 'em out, or if you're near an Apple Store, go for the free training on those apps. Other than that, I'd go AMD just cuz the CPUs are a lot cheaper once you get into the higher speeds.
• I wouldn't call Final Cut Pro an application for editimg home videos... iMovie (also Mac only) is probably too limited in scope though. I've no experience with current PCs (I left my old PC in Europe to die) so can't help you really.
• there's always final cut express, which sits inbetween.. iMovie does a ton of stuff but it is pretty much "look at my home video!" type stuff (albeit not cheesy).
• I use an AMD rig with Vegas and it seems to work out pretty well. I would say the main considerations are speed and disk space. A faster processor is obviously important and you have to have 7200 rpm disk drives at a minimum. AMD usually winds up being a bit cheaper than Intel. Don't believe the hype of Mac vs. PC - it's the software that's important, not the platform, these days. I use Vegas regularly, and it's damned easy to use, Final Cut - not so much, and Premiere - not so much, either. Sorry, that doesn't really answer your question. I would say it's more about how well you know the software you are using, rather than about the software you're going to use. Hardware wise, go with what fits your budget.
• AMD is better on the desktop and Intel for laptops. The fastest AMD chip is the fastest chip for a windows desktop period.
• If budget's a concern at all, going with AMD lets you spend more money on the other bits of hardware. At least that was the reasoning I used when I built my AMD box last year.
• AMD wins hands down on the desktop. Sure, Intel still has a slim lead in the video editing market versus AMD, but the price vs. performance of an AMD chip can't be beat.
• As a cheapskate box-builder, the bang/buck ratio is very important - I've had AMDs in my last two boxes, and my next box will definitely have one of those dual core AMD 64-bit processors. AMDs have been better value for money for me for a few years now. Note: I'm a number cruncher and not a video person or gamer.
• One point worth considering: AMD are generally providing better ongoing support for their motherboards. By that, I mean it's easier to buy a given socket mobo and still be able to get CPUs a few years later. Compare the situation with Socket 754 (AMD) mobos to Socket 478 (Intel) motherboards. I have a coupole of year old 533 MHz FSB Intl Mobo which basically can't be upgraded with any new Intel CPU. OTOH, there are a plethora of CPUs for the AMD motherboards of the same era, like the socket A and 754. If you do go AMD, get a socket 939. You'll be able to get a dirt cheap high-performance CPU now, and wait a year for the dual core CPUs to drop a bunch. This, incidentally, is the biggest advantage of the Wintel/Lintel platform over the Mac: to upgrade Macs, you pretty much throw the old one out and start again. If you select your PC carefully, you can upgrade component by component for a few generations.
• Intel versus AMD: AMD. There is no compelling reason to choose intel unless for a laptop, Intel centrino is very good. Apple versus wintel: I use and prefer mac and I prefer FCP to premiere or avid, but this is a personal choice, and avid is available on both platforms. Bang for the buck is best with pc/amd, although a dual g5 mac also gives quite good value for money. At my company, where we do a lot of video editing we're going to switch from pc to mac since the editors like FCP very much. Mac's can not really be upgraded, but upgrading a PC is in most cases not interesting either. (New cpu? Need a new motherboard, because they switched socket from s478 to s775, need a new graphiccard since they switched from agp to pcie, need new memory since they switched from rambus to ddr2, etc..) Of course, with apple switching to intel, the whole landscape changes.
• Great, all - Thanks a lot. I've a leaning toward AMD from the start, but kinda missed the boat when it canme to thinking about software performance. Again, thanks.
• Pro: looks like the vast majority of editing jobs still look for Avid experience above all else. FCP is generally second on the list. Since Avid is cross-platform, it matters a bit less whether you go Mac or PC, but arguably you'll have an easier time of it on the Mac. Home: iMovie is easy. Haven't tried many of the consumer editing products out there, but Pinnacle Studio seemed kind of dumbed down to me (this is coming from an Adobe Premiere user, though, so I'm used to complexity, memory leaks and unnecessary interface problems). I personally would ignore all the home editing apps out there, but again, once you've gone Premiere/FCP, you don't really want to go back. In sum, for video editing, Mac's the better choice, but you'll certainly be able to do it on both. Software, not hardware, should be your main concern. Same goes for picture editing (though there you only really have one option: Photoshop). Re: AMD vs. Intel: what everyone else said above. Honestly, though, it doesn't matter that much; cost is likely to be a bigger concern that performance once you get into the Athlon 64 / Pentium ranges. Dual core may actually be useful in video editing soon (though that's based solely on conjecture!); if it does, keep in mind that AMD does slightly better with single-application speed, while Intel dual cores are slightly better at running multiple CPU-intensive applications decently (think serial vs. parallel performance).
• AMD vs. Intel As others have stated the price performance ratio is crazy. Compared at the same price point, at any given time, I'm sure AMD will whip the pants off Intel. Mac vs. PC Final Cut Express on a Mac is a joyous experience. I have both platforms, but generally only use the Mac when really workin' "it." The PC generally only gets used for single functions, like running Photoshop, ACID or Cubase as has the functionality of a really clever toaster. Very singular. I just done find application switching/multitasking to be that efficient with Windows. With the Mac it's my Everything Else computer, often at once, platform of choice on which I'll also run Photoshop and Cubase though not ACID as it's PC only. Plus, it's secure and relatively crash-proof. If I could only have one it'd be a Mac, though I'd rather have both. iMovie As a proof of concept, do see how good the iMovie experience was and how useful the Mac was straight out of the box I edited an 11 minute short film and a long-format commercial on it once. No Final Cut, no AVID. Just iMovie. I never pursued marketing the short film but friends and social contacts who saw it privately and sit on board of a regional festival told me to submit it as it'd get in. The client loved the commercial. All this done on a "free" bundled app that got me tight edits and soundtrack synching. Upgrading As someone mentioned earlier, PC are not as upgradable as some thing. By the time most people are ready to make a major jump, like with processor speed, all the other stuff needs to be updated too. Hence every few years I just build a new box, relegate the old one to server status and give away the old server. Macs are nice in that they really do retain higher levels of function for longer. My five year old Powerbook, that I'm using now, still works great for all everyday sort of functions and I'll even do client work on it. This crusty old curmudgeon is still often used for building websites and doing light photoshop work and performs just fine.
• I like AMD personally... we've been intimate. You could wait for the Rev F AMD parts to come out if you're gaga for DDR2, but the 939 parts are out now, pretty sporty, and a heck of a value.
• I prefer AMD over Intel. I get better performance in big number crunching stuff like 3D animation, video encoding/conversion etc. I've always found Intel to be very expensive to upgrade. You usually need a new mobo with the chip. Which can sometimes mean new RAM too. You'd be better off buying a new box than upgrading an Intel CPU. I've had the same AMD based PC since 2000 and I've only upgraded the CPU. It still beats the fastest intel offering (in the work I do anyway). It has saved me a few thousand in PC upgrades as I could keep all my old parts. Now I have to buy a new PC to upgrade to PCI-E, but that's another story.
• AMD vs Intel: AMD wins on cost, period. It's simply more bang for the buck. Intel's (finally) doing some very interesting things that may change that equation, but not for at least one computer generation. The Mac is preferable for video editing, and it comes down to standardization. There's one computer hardware vendor, with a standardized set of Firewire ports, standardized sound hardware, and a very, very good editor available - Final Cut Pro. Plus there are still the standard pro options like Avid. All that adds up to much less hassle for many, many users. Can you do the same things on a PC? Yes. Might it take more fiddling with hardware, general incompatibilities, wasted money spent on disappointing software packages? Definitely yes. Might it cost less than the Mac? Definitely yes. No serious video editor I've ever talked to has really liked Premiere. It always seems to be the reluctantly passable second choice.
• And to bring up the inevitable second part of this discussion, do you already understand the thing about the need for multiple hard drives?
• Premiere is crap. Vegas is great- I use a $400 EMachines PC and Vegas and do pretty much all the same things my roommtate does on his $2000 Mac and Final Cut. (except that Final Cut wastes hours of time pre-rendering everything before you can preview it)
• AMD is better on the desktop and Intel for laptops. The fastest AMD chip is the fastest chip for a windows desktop period. Tell that to my AMD Turion 64 mobile, which is currently kicking the shit out of the nearby Intel systems. I thought I was getting a nice laptop - I ended up getting a computer with more firepower than my home system or anything in my lab... The laptop I'm using was actually reviewed as a potential desktop replacement for video editing. Not that I do any video editing, but still. I don't think there's a compelling reason to buy Intel for anything, at least not until they drop their prices or improve performance.
• (um... last comment referring to the "Intel better for laptops" bit, not the whole "AMD is overall faster" part. Sorry for any confusion there..)
• AMD. That is all.