Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

How do you think FCP compares to MS Pro?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • How do you think FCP compares to MS Pro?

    Wondering what opinions are on this?
    - Mark

    Core 2 Duo E6400 o/c 3.2GHz - Asus P5B Deluxe - 2048MB Corsair Twinx 6400C4 - ATI AIW X1900 - Seagate 7200.10 SATA 320GB primary - Western Digital SE16 SATA 320GB secondary - Samsung SATA Lightscribe DVD/CDRW- Midiland 4100 Speakers - Presonus Firepod - Dell FP2001 20" LCD - Windows XP Home

  • #2
    FCP's on MAC and twice as expensive! It outputs mainly in QT.

    Advantage: does not suffer the heavy load imposed by Windows. It will run on a machine 1/4 the speed of that needed for MSP7 under Windows.

    Functionally, both work with their respective advantages and disadvantages and these probably pretty much cancel each other out, unless you are going in for HDTV.

    That having been said, I've never worked with FCP, nor even a MAC, but my impression is that FCP is possibly slightly up-market from MSP and likely with a less intuitive learning curve, unless you know MAC inside-out.

    FWIW
    Brian (the devil incarnate)

    Comment


    • #3
      As Brian noted FCP is expensive, but it's also pretty nice. They've improved it quite a bit with it now supporting HD and 24P. The one feature I really like is that it can apply Bezier curves and ease-in/ease-out effects to motion paths.

      What I've got a kick out of recently is how much DVD Workshop and DVD MovieFactory's preview windows look like FCP's

      Dr. Mordrid
      Last edited by Dr Mordrid; 27 January 2003, 08:37.
      Dr. Mordrid
      ----------------------------
      An elephant is a mouse built to government specifications.

      I carry a gun because I can't throw a rock 1,250 fps

      Comment


      • #4
        Did y'all know that MTV does all it´s editing in FCP? I think Apple could do some serious business by making FCP available for Windows, just like they did with QuickTime.

        landrover
        -Off the beaten path I reign-

        At Home:

        Asus P4P800-E Deluxe / P4-E 3.0Ghz
        2 GB PC3200 DDR RAM
        Matrox Parhelia 128
        Terratec Cynergy 600 TV/Radio
        Maxtor 80GB OS and Apps
        Maxtor 300 GB for video
        Plextor PX-755a DVD-R/W DL
        Win XP Pro

        At work:
        Avid Newscutter Adrenaline.
        Avid Unity Media Network.

        Comment


        • #5
          My brother swears by Apple Final Cut Pro.

          There's no way I'll ever be able to convert him to Ulead MediaStudio Pro because he's hooked on Apple.

          Plus, he has observed what has happened to me over the years...

          ...especially the nightmare I had about six years ago when I didn't know where the landmines were in consumer video editing...

          ...back then I bought a top-of-the-line Compaq Presario believing my $3,300 expenditure would actually allow me to edit home video.

          ...that's when I learned there was virtually *no* compatibility between retail Compaq computers and the majority of PCI video digitizer boards that were being sold at the time...

          ...I lost so much money on that Compaq fiasco it wasn't even funny.

          ...and the responses I got from Compaq and Pinnacle both were so unbelievably arrogant and insulting...

          After observing all of that B.S., my brother opted for the Macintosh.

          Final Cut Pro has a nice looking interface and it handles a wide variety of video formats.

          It's very powerful.

          It has also gained a huge following.

          I think its success speaks for itself.

          For my purposes Ulead MEDIASTUDIO PRO is what I prefer simply because it's the more WINDOWS-centric of the two applications.

          For other people, WINDOWS-centric would be a *negative.*

          For me, it's a positive because I am used to the Microsoft Windows OS and the right-mouse-click functionality and all of the nuances of Windows programs.

          But I'll tell you this...

          ...if Bill Gates and Microsoft keep pushing WPA and it gets just too miserable to be a Windows user any longer...

          ...by gosh I'll be forced to switch to the Macintosh platform.

          I hope not.

          Jerry Jones
          I found a great domain name for sale on Dan.com. Check it out!

          Comment


          • #6
            I wonder how the speed of FCP on a really fast Mac (I know, oxymoron) compares to MS Pro on a really fast PC.

            Jerry,

            I know how much you dislike WPA, I do to. I still don't like it, but it really hasn't been that big of a problem for me. If you do reformat your C drive often, you will be making some phone calls. But even then, the MS people have always given me the code without any hassle. I don't think it's going away either. Perhaps, just maybe it will even cut down on piracy. And perhaps that extra revenue will go into product development and not Mr. Gates deep pockets!
            - Mark

            Core 2 Duo E6400 o/c 3.2GHz - Asus P5B Deluxe - 2048MB Corsair Twinx 6400C4 - ATI AIW X1900 - Seagate 7200.10 SATA 320GB primary - Western Digital SE16 SATA 320GB secondary - Samsung SATA Lightscribe DVD/CDRW- Midiland 4100 Speakers - Presonus Firepod - Dell FP2001 20" LCD - Windows XP Home

            Comment


            • #7
              My brother is using a 733mhz G4 running Final Cut Pro 3.0 on Mac OS X.

              When he bought it, it was still running OS 9.

              He also has a Matrox RTMac card installed.

              My fastest machine is an AMD 2.0ghz XP2400+ running MediaStudio Pro 7.0 on Windows 2000 Professional.

              Suffice it to say that mine seems to be faster... not surprisingly.

              But I have no idea how mine would compare to the fastest dual processor G4.

              Jerry Jones
              I found a great domain name for sale on Dan.com. Check it out!

              Comment


              • #8
                Mac is Mac and Win is Win and ne'er the twain shall meet. The fact is, Jerry, your bro is getting RT on a 733 MHz singlie machine. Tell me you can do that on a 1 GHz PC!!!!!! Why not? Because of Windows. This is the price you pay for megatonware, designed to slow everything down to a fraction of a computer's capabilities. And this is the main reason I've started to drift away slightly from WIN towards Linux (WPA is another). I do know my ECAD app is a LOT faster under Linux. I would have used MSP under Linux if it were available. When I can get around to it (when? ) I'll try Cinelerra. Who knows, I may be 100% Linux in a year or two?
                Brian (the devil incarnate)

                Comment


                • #9
                  Brian,

                  You write in such a way that really twists and confuses issues.

                  Really.

                  The fact is *not* that my brother is getting RT on a 733mhz single-processor G4.

                  The fact is he can't output *anything* in real time to Firewire.

                  The only boost the Matrox MacRT card provides is real time previews out to an external monitor via analog and only then of *some,* *limited* transitions, filters, and titles.

                  It's *limited* by the number of layers one decides to pile on.

                  So please do not confuse newbies with your writing.

                  You make it sound as if a single processor Macintosh G4 can deliver real time results with a Matrox card when, in reality, there are so many caveats and limitations to that statement it is ludicrous.

                  As for your remark about Windows, that is INCORRECT.

                  With my 2.0ghz AMD processor, I am enjoying *real time* previews of *more* transitions, titles, and filters than my brother is with his single processor Mac... and I'm doing it on Windows 2000 Professional... using nothing but a plain, vanilla OHCI compliant Firewire card and a beta version of Ulead MEDIASTUDIO PRO 7.0.

                  Even if, as you wrote, I were using a slower "1ghz" processor, I could use a Matrox RT2000 or even a Canopus DVRaptorRT and get the very same results on Windows that my brother gets on a Mac... in terms of RT.

                  So, in summary, your statements regarding Macs and RT are flat W-R-O-N-G.

                  :-)

                  Jerry Jones
                  I found a great domain name for sale on Dan.com. Check it out!
                  Last edited by Jerry Jones; 28 January 2003, 06:10.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Yes Jerry, but the RT2000 is obsolete and came out when 1 GHz was fast, so they put everything "on card". Try it with an RT-X1nn series device. Compare modern with modern.

                    Are you saying that Windows does not slow down CPUs with its massive overhead requirement of resources? If so, why do Linux graphics apps run on a PII 400 MHz with 32 Mb of RAM faster than they do in Windows with a massively faster CPU AND more RAM?
                    Brian (the devil incarnate)

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      I can remember way back when GeoWorks (formerly Berkley Softworks) was selling their GEOS operating sytstem.

                      It ran at least 3x faster than Windows at the time, did real multitasking while also being capable of running on systems far below the requirements of Windows.

                      I tried it and was very impressed. Too bad it had to compete with a monolithic monopoly like Microsoft.

                      Dr. Mordrid
                      Dr. Mordrid
                      ----------------------------
                      An elephant is a mouse built to government specifications.

                      I carry a gun because I can't throw a rock 1,250 fps

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Brian:

                        I haven't tried running the latest incarnations of NLE software on Linux in the last 3 months. Maybe when Mainconsept releases their latest version (Beta don't count) of Mainactor for Linux I'll be ready to change over completely.

                        Then again if the Wine project people ever get MSPro working I will leave and NEVER look back.
                        Perspective cannot be taught. It must be learned.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Okay, correct me if I'm wrong here, but this is what I'm getting from this thread.

                          1. Disregarding performance, FCP is at least on par (maybe better) than MS Pro 7 as far as features and usability.

                          2. Although FCP runs well on Macs with current Mac cpus (in the 1GHz range), it does not perform as well MS Pro 7 running current PC processors (2000+ Amd or Intel).
                          - Mark

                          Core 2 Duo E6400 o/c 3.2GHz - Asus P5B Deluxe - 2048MB Corsair Twinx 6400C4 - ATI AIW X1900 - Seagate 7200.10 SATA 320GB primary - Western Digital SE16 SATA 320GB secondary - Samsung SATA Lightscribe DVD/CDRW- Midiland 4100 Speakers - Presonus Firepod - Dell FP2001 20" LCD - Windows XP Home

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Hulk

                            I'd go along with your 1. but not 2. The point that this thread "got from" was that a Windows PC uses the resources inefficiently and that almost any other type of O/S, Linux, GEOS, BeOS or MAC or even OS/2 will run just as well or better with half the hardware resources (CPU speed, disk size and RAM). This is the reason why there is such a craze for speed and hardware. It is not a question of improving performance, but of keeping up roughly the same performance with each successive version of Windows.

                            My first personal computer was a Commodore PET (c. 1977) , although I'd worked with a PDP-11 mainframe before then. It had a CPU speed of 0.5 MHz and a RAM of 8 kb. It was a bit of a toy, granted, but in 1979 I started using the HP-85 which was pro scientific personal computer running on an enhanced native basic crossed with Fortran. It had a CPU of 0.75 MHz with 14 kb RAM. It was used for controlling scientific instruments and calculating the results. This progressed to the HP86, which was slightly quicker. When I decided to switch these instruments to PCs, I had a 4.33 MHz CPU, 5 Mb hard drive and 640 kb RAM. I simply could not get it to compete with the HP86, until I'd upped the performance to an 8 MHz 286 CPU with 287 FP co-processor, and 1 Mb RAM with the high memory paged. It was the 287 that tipped the balance that made it usable for my application. By then, we had 10 Mb of hard disk. 6 years later, we had a 486/487 at 50 Mhz, 4 Mb RAM and, I think, 50 or 100 Mb of disk. We tried to run the same app under Win 3.11 and failed, although there was no problem under DOS. We succeeded with W3.11 only after the Pentium came out and we had upped the RAM to 8 Mb. In W95, we needed a minimum of 200 MHz (we used the Pentium Pro) and a minimum of 16 Mb. My last experience with these instruments was to try it under NT4 with a PII 400 Mhz and 32 Mb and it was on the limit of working.
                            With each successive version of Microsoft O/Ss, the hardware requirements became imperatively higher to maintain the same functionality (read the minimum requirements for XP). This has not progressed the same way with other O/Ss, which is why FCP can run equally well, or better, on a much slower machine with less resources (not to mention with fewer crashes).

                            Windows on a 2 GHz machine is like a Ferrari with the brake pads rubbing on the disks.
                            Brian (the devil incarnate)

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Brian,

                              I see what you are saying. So FCP on a 1.25GHz Mac would be as fast as a Athlon XP2800+ or a P4 3.06 running MS Pro 7 if they were running a typical project file, such as the one Doc created for the MS Pro test?

                              That is the question I am asking in #2.

                              I agree with your comments in the preceding post but, the bottom line is really price vs. performance. I believe many of us have learned from AMD that MHz really isn't all important, performance is the bottom line.

                              If a Mac can do what a PC can do at half the MHz rating, then that's fine. The thing is, that even with more efficient software (ie OS), the PC at twice the MHz (or performance rating is still generally cheaper than the Mac.

                              Now, please don't get me wrong, no Mac vs. PC thread here, they are both great and serve different people well, I'm only asking how FCP and MS Pro compare on their respective platforms.

                              The open archecture of the PC has enabled it to become the dominant computer platform, with that comes the advantages of lots of software, hardware, fast processors, and very competitive pricing. The disadvantage, as you point out, is software bloat, required for that compatibility mentioned above. But, the "PC guys" have managed to overcome the software bloat problem with incredibly fast and cheap cpu's. Five or six years ago there was a legitimate battle between PC and Mac speed. Not now. Brute force has won out over elegance, unfortunately in many ways...

                              I would also point out that each version of PC OS software did increase the usability and/or stability of the platform. YES, at the expense of speed.

                              DOS to Win 3.11 I'll skip Windows 3.0 since I consider it more of a beta for 3.11. 3.11 was obviously a HUGE step forward for the PC, without it occurring when it did, the Mac may well have been the dominant platform. The first GUI for the PC, no more printer drivers for each program, WYSIWYG, etc.. And of course a HUGE decrease in stability.

                              Win 3.11 to Win 95 Another step forward in both usabilty (primarily for plug-n-play, attempt anyway) and a small increase in stability. And another slowdown in performance.

                              Win 95 to Win98/Mil More usabilty refinements (ie features of Win95 begin to actually work) and an increase in stability. Again things slow down as far as performance.

                              Win98/Mil to XP HUGE increase in stability, better usability, and a slight loss of performance. I think the loss of performance is not that large compared to the stability and feature we gained.

                              Mark
                              - Mark

                              Core 2 Duo E6400 o/c 3.2GHz - Asus P5B Deluxe - 2048MB Corsair Twinx 6400C4 - ATI AIW X1900 - Seagate 7200.10 SATA 320GB primary - Western Digital SE16 SATA 320GB secondary - Samsung SATA Lightscribe DVD/CDRW- Midiland 4100 Speakers - Presonus Firepod - Dell FP2001 20" LCD - Windows XP Home

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X