Editors: What editing system do you prefer?

[The Bandit]

I've been a Final Cut person since version 3 -- I learned to cut on an old Media100 system in college. I bought my first Mac in '02 to work on my senior thesis documentary... shooting it on a low-end DV camcorder, but at the time my Windows editing option was Premiere 6.5 -- a program that seemed to crash at least once every five minutes.

I don't do a lot of editing anymore, I'm more interested in taking stills with my DSLR.... but I do co-own a Panasonic HVX-200 with two friends. I've been using it to help a friend in grad school with some of her video projects... Final Cut could have better support for the MXF format the camera uses (it shoots DVCPRO HD to a P2 memory card, it has a DV tape deck but only for SD) -- it imports the files without a problem, but doesn't retain metadata about the camera settings that are stored with the file.

Pat -- I assume $3500 is a Mac Pro config? It's very easy to get "big eyes" when configuring one of those systems... I bought a Dual 2.7 GHz G5 in '05 and found that I really overkilled the purchase. The upside to this is, when my living situation and needs changed, I was able to sell the system, recoup a good deal of the purchase price and pick up a notebook (C2D 2.0 GHz MacBook -- with a couple external hard drives is all that I personally need at this point... but I wouldn't recommend it for serious high-def work)

Jim

[Pat H]

Pat -- I assume $3500 is a Mac Pro config? It's very easy to get "big eyes" when configuring one of those systems... I bought a Dual 2.7 GHz G5 in '05 and found that I really overkilled the purchase. The upside to this is, when my living situation and needs changed, I was able to sell the system, recoup a good deal of the purchase price and pick up a notebook (C2D 2.0 GHz MacBook -- with a couple external hard drives is all that I personally need at this point... but I wouldn't recommend it for serious high-def work)

Jim

Yeah, Mac Pro tower with 2 dual core Xeons. I know it's a bit overkill, but I want something that's going to handle HD video (for editing) without stalling or delayed/choppy preview. It may be too much for my needs right now, but I don't want to have to buy a new one 3 years down the road if my needs increase. I like to keep a PC for at least 4 years (sometimes even 5), so I configure them to the max to begin with.

[resevilfan86]

The dual core Xeons SHOULD be able to run Microsoft Word *crosses fingers*

[Pat H]

The dual core Xeons SHOULD be able to run Microsoft Word *crosses fingers*

MS word, maybe, but I may have a problem with Powerpoint

[resevilfan86]

MS word, maybe, but I may have a problem with Powerpoint

Haha yea, but thats a Microsoft problem

Actually I shouldnt be talking down Powerpoint, it has gotten me through so many years of school that I've lost count lol.

[SilentNight]

I'm shooting using a Canon XH-A1 as well as a Sony HDR-HC7 and I use Final Cut Studio Pro on my Apple G5 tower. I started editing on imovie and using idvd to output the final product which was great for a time but beings I do a lot of stuff for work I needed something more.

I used to have a Canon XL2 before upgrading to the two cameras I am currently using.

[Pat H]

I'm shooting using a Canon XH-A1 as well as a Sony HDR-HC7 and I use Final Cut Studio Pro on my Apple G5 tower. I started editing on imovie and using idvd to output the final product which was great for a time but beings I do a lot of stuff for work I needed something more.

I used to have a Canon XL2 before upgrading to the two cameras I am currently using.

Nice setup, I'm thinking of getting a Mac, not too sure yet. And the HC7 really caught my eye at first because of the slow mo recording. But in the end I went with the Canon HV20 for the 24p. I wish there was a cheaper cam that could do both.

[resevilfan86]

Hey just wanted to point out, the whole thing about 24p is because of hollywood movies are recorded that way. But 60p is great for home use. In fact 60p is better if ALL movies were to be recorded that way. Just thought Id let ya know.

[Pat H]

Hey just wanted to point out, the whole thing about 24p is because of hollywood movies are recorded that way. But 60p is great for home use. In fact 60p is better if ALL movies were to be recorded that way. Just thought Id let ya know.

Yeah home use is one thing, but for someone like me that wants to get into the TV industry, the more "filmy" the footage looks, the better. And native 24p is a way to make that happen w/o applying a slew of lossy filters in post.

[resevilfan86]

lol 24p does not make film look like film, FILM makes film look like film...you no what, nevermind i give up

[Pat H]

lol 24p does not make film look like film, FILM makes film look like film...you no what, nevermind i give up

"Filmish" is a better word . Saying that only film looks like film is stating the obvious (I have a small editing business btw, so you're not talking to an amateur lol), but 24p video has that "dream-like" look to it and significantly changes the feel of the image. Is it going to make your next home move look like a Hollywood blockbuster? No. But it gives you a little bit of a different option other than the hyper-realistic look of 1080i.

Btw, a good number of newer documentaries are shot on 1080p24.

[resevilfan86]

"Filmish" is a better word . Saying that only film looks like film is stating the obvious (I have a small editing business btw, so you're not talking to an amateur lol), but 24p video has that "dream-like" look to it and significantly changes the feel of the image. Is it going to make your next home move look like a Hollywood blockbuster? No. But it gives you a little bit of a different option other than the hyper-realistic look of 1080i.

Btw, a good number of newer documentaries are shot on 1080p24.

Lol thats great you have ur own editing business, that just surprises me EVEN MORE that I had to talk up Macs to you so much in the past but o well. Just as long as you dont use "Shitsta" I think you should do okay. And FYI many people in hollywood, including George Lucas, has been trying to get them to upgrade to 60fps for filming but the upgrades would be VERY costly. Honestly I dont see how a slower film rate makes an improvement on picture but yea as I said I give up trying to explain lol.

[Pat H]

that just surprises me EVEN MORE that I had to talk up Macs to you so much in the past but o well.

lol, the only reason I'm not Mac obsessed is because I just don't get the whole notion that "macs are better for video, imaging, etc." If I use photoshop, for example, what makes it any better of a program if I'm running it on OS X instead of XP? And as far as video, people praise Macs for final cut. Well, I'm not a big fan of FCP's interface, and I find Vegas much more user friendly, yet just as fully capable in the hands of a professional (it has multi track, color correction, surround mixing, etc., just like FCP).

So basically, I would (and prob will) buy a Mac for the expandability between both windows only and mac only programs, but as for them somehow being "better", that's not the reason. And so far I haven't found one person who could explain exactly why they are so much better for editing and imaging, except to claim that they crash less, which isn't an issue for me since I have minimal software installed and a lot of diagnostic programs that I always run.

But as far as the frame rate goes, if 60fps is what you prefer, then good for you lol. I just prefer 24 because when I compare the two, I like the look of the lower frame rate better (very subtle difference, but it is there IMO). But who cares, video is video

[MrE]

lAnd as far as video, people praise Macs for final cut. Well, I'm not a big fan of FCP's interface...

I prefer OS X over Windows but agree that FCP interface sucks. I was really excited to hear that Premiere Pro CS3 would be coming to Mac (I used to be a Windows user before Oct 2004 and used to edit with Premiere Pro). Now, all I need to do is buy a Mac Pro and the Adobe Master Collection and I'll be set! Dynamic Link

Its funny because I tend to edit more in AE than FCP. I always do the soundtrack in FCP and that has become the extent of its use for me.

[resevilfan86]

lol, the only reason I'm not Mac obsessed is because I just don't get the whole notion that "macs are better for video, imaging, etc." If I use photoshop, for example, what makes it any better of a program if I'm running it on OS X instead of XP? And as far as video, people praise Macs for final cut. Well, I'm not a big fan of FCP's interface, and I find Vegas much more user friendly, yet just as fully capable in the hands of a professional (it has multi track, color correction, surround mixing, etc., just like FCP).

So basically, I would (and prob will) buy a Mac for the expandability between both windows only and mac only programs, but as for them somehow being "better", that's not the reason. And so far I haven't found one person who could explain exactly why they are so much better for editing and imaging, except to claim that they crash less, which isn't an issue for me since I have minimal software installed and a lot of diagnostic programs that I always run.

But as far as the frame rate goes, if 60fps is what you prefer, then good for you lol. I just prefer 24 because when I compare the two, I like the look of the lower frame rate better (very subtle difference, but it is there IMO). But who cares, video is video

You are thinking solely for the software/program portion. Im talking OS and hardware. Mac systems get much more efficiency from their Intel Processors than Windows does. Windows has a lot of crap running in the background which slows your system down. That is another reason besides the better software.

Lol and I thought you weren't an amateur , why do you need your software to be more "user friendly" when you can have real tools to do what you need and want.

Also here is an interesting link you might want to read....
http://www.apple.com/pro/profiles/1741films/