[Tim Wilson]

I’m just about where you are, David. Almost all of my apps are Win. About two-thirds of them are available on the Mac, but why spend 3 or 4 thousand dollars or more to replace apps that are still in their prime?

[David Hartwell] “My question is: with equal processors (Harpertown or clovertown for that matter) RAM and graphics, how does a Mac running AE or C4D on XP via Bootcamp compare to a PC running those same apps?”

There’s no meaningful difference at all.

A couple of things to note:

1) The Bootcamp beta under Tiger had a minor performance penalty, around 5%: on a 60 minute render, that’s 3 minutes. Again, not really worth talking about.

The release version of Bootcamp running under Leopard has zero penalty. You’ve now got a Windows machine with the same specs as the Mac.

2) 3D apps are much more pleasant to use on PC because the display cards are soooooo much faster. I’m amazed that Mac users aren’t swarming Cupertino with torches and pitchforks. I think it’s truly scandalous.

3) [David Hartwell] “Most users out there who have experimented with Bootcamp are either gamers or weekend photoshop users. I’d like to here from someone for whom AE (and other really intensive graphic apps) is their bread and butter.”

First, there are few more intense graphic applications than games. The issues running games under Bootcamp have everything to do with slow video cards with limited support for advanced display technologies. So don’t dismiss gamers’ experience as not applicable so fast.

(Rise up fellow Mac users! Join me on the ramparts and demand better display cards!)

I don’t have any proof of this, but my own poking around suggests that, after games and productivity apps, the most common use of Windows on Mac machines is architecture apps, notably, ArchiCAD.

With zero performance penalty, other than screen responsiveness, what’s not to love? Architects, far more than AE-ers, are obsessed with the look of things. They’ve been thrilled to hop on pretty, pretty Macs, and still use the only software that matters to them, which will be on Windows until the sun goes nova.

Okay, and 3D guys. They’re willing to use slower video cards because the processor speed is fine. The real world once again overwhelms the stats. 🙂

Seriously, not something to sweat. Real artists doing real heavyweight work are digging it.

4) There are ways to run Windows and the Mac OS at the same time, which I’m enjoying more than I thought I would. Related to that, running virtualization apps on laptops, is the only way — despite Apple’s claims otherwise — to get access to all the touchpad’s features. The big one missing is tapping the trackpad to click. Heinous.

5) For virtualization in our world, skip Parallels, a performance pig and only has access to a single processor. Much better to go with VMware Fusion, which performs significantly better and uses all the processors you’ve got.

Anyway, I know that only the first part of this actually answers your question, but I’ve been thinking about this stuff a lot.

One of the things I’ve been wondering is if we need a forum to deal with the whole Windows on a Mac thing. I’m certainly up for it if folks feel like it would be useful….

tw

Tim Wilson, Creative Cow
My Cow Blog
Join my LinkedIn network

[Tim Wilson]

There’s no difference at all.

How much memory do you have?

[Tim Wilson]

[beenyweenies] “This is a FAR cry from “some specific workflows that you’ll never encounter may have mild compatibility issues” wouldn’t you say?”

We erred on the side of caution, which isn’t the worst thing I think. As you say, looking before leaping is good advice.

But you’re right about overstating. I put in a word with the Droid, and the post has already been updated along the lines we’re talking about.

I say THAT in my capacity as a Cow feller. 🙂 Thanks for reminding us to keep it real.

Tim

Tim Wilson, Creative Cow
My Cow Blog
Join my LinkedIn network

[Tim Wilson]

[Adolfo Rozenfeld] “Would you say that Apple should visit their developer site more often, or take their Mac user base seriously?”

Exactly.

Don’t forget that Adobe’s are the only true suites out there. (FCS is less of a suite, and has a leg up re: getting early builds.) So they have more plates spinning than anyone. They also know that people absolutely depend on their Adobe dynamic apps to be absolutely rock solid, all day every day.

Last winter/spring, they had the biggest software upgrade in the history of software underway. There was no way they could — or should — change the timetable of that process so close to the end.

Last but not least, *application* developers often wait until they have the shrinkwrapped version of the software before final testing.

Mine is only one perspective, but it came from a long time (way too long, actually) in the belly of the development beast. I wrote about it here.

It’s different for driver developers, who only tap a small part of the OS. They can have stuff whipped right out. It’s different for companies with only one product, who can focus all their efforts on it. Much, much different for bigger teams with multiple products.

That said, my guess is that Adobe got an early look at a version of Leopard they trusted, which is why they were able to say so quickly that so many of the suite applications have zero issues.

So here’s the fun part: toward the back of that PDF, here’s what they have to say about CS3 and Leopard:

Does Adobe recommend running Production Premium or Master Collection before its updates are available?

A. Yes, we are comfortable recommending this. Our testing revealed a few issues in specific workflows when running the video professional applications on Mac OS X Leopard. Many video professionals would not encounter these issues on a day-to-day basis.

They also post the link to the knowledge base so you can check the issues out yourself.

Look, they’re conservative about saying it’s ready. They SHOULD be conservative about it.

But if Adobe is “comfortable” recommending that you go for it before the updates have been fully tested with the released version of Leopard, I recommend that you take their recommendation.

PS. All of this is speaking in my role as a user, NOT in my role as a Cow fella.

[Tim Wilson]

Hello John,

I’m so sorry to hear you’re having trouble! We’ve sold many, many copies of Serge’s disk and haven’t heard any other reports yet.

Do me a favor and drop a line to the DVD team, with a complete description of your problem. Send it to training at creative cow dot net.

Thanks so much for buying from us! We’ll try to get you up and running as quickly as possible.

Best,
Tim

Tim Wilson, Creative Cow
My Cow Blog
Join my LinkedIn network

[Tim Wilson]

Hmmm….how long did it take this one to show up? I couldn’t see that your account is moderated.

PS. It’s 8 posts. 🙂

[Tim Wilson]

I don’t remember if Kim mentions this in his article, but when he’s not shooting, he’s teaching in colleges and high schools. That said, while his advice re:zooms is aimed at youngsters, it’s something that pros understand. The higher up the skill and experience ladder, the fewer pointless zooms you see. The lower down, the more. Especially given the magazine’s distribution into schools, I think it’s a point worth stating aloud.

I agree with him that, in general, a cut is more natural than a zoom. I wouldn’t say that our eyes don’t zoom, but our primary visual style is usually cuts. The example I use with the same kinds of youngsters is driving: look out the window, check the speedometer, look in the mirror — cuts. Look at the monitor, look at the keyboard, look for the mouse — cuts.

Zooms work best I thinkas a dramatic device within a shot, like dissolves between scenes. Frame the shot. Cut to another.

Same with crane shots: a storytelling device. Budding cinematographers shouldn’t plan on shooting a whole feature with nothing but cranes….although I’ve never seen one before, so why not?

While they can certainly do things that our eyes can’t, the original reason for long and wide lenses is to provide something like the different ways we look at the world. The way we naturally change focal lengths make it easier to meaningfully illustrate depth of field WITHOUT a camera than with one. Look out the window. Now look at the screen in the window. When you look one way, the other is out of focus.

Tripods? Called the neck. :-)The fact is that I’ve been in conditions where my neck wasn’t enough to stabilize my visual platform, and all I have to say about that is, kids, don’t do drugs.

In context, I think Kim very much covers these bases — the use of bridal tuile to create depth of field in shots that have none, chiaroscuro lighting (hardly natural), and so on.

But to your first point, Peter, I’d rather see youngsters learn HOW to cut and WHY to zoom. And I’d rather see work where the cinematographer knows the difference too.

And thanks for the kind words on the magazine. We think this issue came out especially well.

Best,
Tim

Tim Wilson, Creative Cow
My Cow Blog
Join my LinkedIn network

[Tim Wilson]

[tdellaringa] “Doesn’t seem to be any good online tutorials that I can find.”

You’re kidding, right? Start with the “Library” link at the top of this page, which will take you to nearly 500 of the web’s best AE tutorials.

I now return you to your regularly scheduled forum….and tutorial…programming.

Tim Wilson, Creative Cow
My Cow Blog
Join my LinkedIn network

[Tim Wilson]

[Rick Mac] “[MuffinMan9o9`] “Hey. I am very new to Sony Vegas and am pretty unexperienced. I have Sony Vegas 7. I am wondering how to edit someones face (or whatever) onto someone / something in a video clip.”

What you are wanting to do is very advanced.”

If you all want to do is edit somebody’s “whatever” onto someone’s face, it’s a very straightforward process called motion tracking — set a point of interest on the original video, use the tracking feature to create a set of position keyframes, then attach you object to the keyframes.

That’s what it looks like they did with that video. Attaching the helmets to the bodies was pretty short work.

If it really is somebody’s face you want to swap out, this can indeed be crazy difficult. You’re getting into a combination of much more advanced motion tracking (adding scale and rotation to the position keyframes, at the very least), along with rotoscoping — in simple terms, creating a moving mask.

Take a look at the products from Imagineer, which are designed to make these tasks much easier. They don’t work as a plug-in for Vegas, but moving between Vegas and the standalone application is pretty straightforward. Take a look at Motor and Mocha. Once you have some idea of what they can do, line them up against what you WANT to do, then try swinging by the Imagineer forum here at the Cow to ask for details.

Always glad to see someone swinging for the fences. Good luck!

Tim Wilson, Creative Cow
My Cow Blog
Join my LinkedIn network

[Tim Wilson]

Also, the bandwidth for over 1.3 million posts in our library, viewed by 500,000 visitors every month. Our internet bill alone is staggering.

Tim Wilson, Creative Cow
My Cow Blog
Join my LinkedIn network