PC for Pre and Mac for Post?

[Claudio Branch]

I am pretty sure that the majority of people are using PC's for all of their production work. I am curious if anyone out there is using a Mac pipeline for their post production.

 

I am about to replace an old HP video editing machine and I am considering going to Mac for all of my post work. I am presently using Premiere and AfterEffects.

 

Any thoughts or opinions?

[STRAT]

i use both.

 

traditionally, it's been considered the mac's osx and general build is a lot more stable and smoother than XP and pcs. true or not i dont know. but since upgrading my OS to XP64 i find it head and shoulders better in my pipeline than OSX.

 

all of this on a mac oct core.

 

so yeah, i use pc software on mac hardware. i still consider mac hardware 'better' than pc hardware

[Bwana Kahawa]

Currently use a Mac for the whole pipeline (Form Z, Maxwell and Photoshop) Funnily enough , the most stable bit is the post-work in Photoshop or Aperture. No complaints whatsoever with using a Mac - seems a lot easier to fix problems, and looks a fair bit nicer too!

 

Looking to move to a PC for the pre-work in the next few months (3DS Max & Vray), so looks like I'll be in the same boat.

[Crazy Homeless Guy]

You might want to do more research into monitor bit depths, and the quality of the monitor display panel. If you are using an 8bit monitor or better that has a better quality panel than the standard TN in most monitors, and you are closely monitoring your color calibration, then I would say that the results between Mac and Windows environment in terms of color are equal.

 

Then I would look at your video editing and motion software package. The Adobe package is great bang for the buck, and I love it, but I don't know how it stacks up to the big boys in terms of color reproduction, using full bit depths, etc.. etc.. Also, work flow within the software is going to vary a great deal.

 

And then, take into consideration the different work flows at the OS level. There are obvious differences in the way data is displayed and the navigation controls between the different OS's. You may simply feel more inspired, or maybe the process will feel more intuitive using one OS rather than the other. But bottom line here, a high quality file is the same file whether it is on a Windows machine, or a Mac machine.

 

A standard Mac machine is better than a standard Windows machine directly out of the box. This is because Apple pays more attention to the quality of the hardware, the quality of their displays, and making sure their OS had the ability to handle color in a sophisticated manner without upgrading.

 

A standard Windows machine typically puts budget above quality, this is true with both the hardware for Windows machines, and the OS itself. However, if you are willing to do research into the components making up the machine, and the monitor attached to the machine, it shouldn't be a problem.

 

I am not completely up to date on my monitors, but you may want to start researching 10 bit LCD displays. That would be a nice asset for a post production machine. I think they are on the market, but you are going to pay a premium price for them. I really don't know a lot about these 10bit displays though, they could simply be 8 bit display's with 10 bit LUT's. I am starting to talk over my head, so I will just bow out.

Edited January 5, 2009 by Crazy Homeless Guy

[Claudio Branch]

I appreciate all of the comments.

 

My HP editing machine just seemed to be cursed from the very beginning. I don't want another one! Also, I have always been very impressed with the playback quality of Quicktime files on an Apple Powerbook.

 

I am not an advocate for one or the other. I'm just looking for the right future tool for me...