Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Mac Pro is not overpriced.

airdrop said:
Totally agree, Photoshop on mac is much much slower than on Win, and the new release of Adobe CC aka 2014 is even worst (the slowest Photoshop ever - on nMP & iMac 27).
I using PS 7-10h/day (including after work activities) - so I know ;)
Click to expand...

Photoshop has been getting worse year over year on both platforms. All of Adobe's applications need to be rewritten a la Final Cut from the ground up. But it's unlikely to happen, especially now that Adobe can just milk subscribers rather than make a case for upgrading.

If you're running CC on a Mac or a PC, you're not getting the best exploitation of your hardware possible. I'm hoping Pixelmator and PS alternatives at least provide a kick in the pants for Adobe down the line. Unfortunately for After Effects the only quasi-competitor is Motion, which Apple doesn't really seem intent on changing roles.
 
fuchsdh said:
Photoshop has been getting worse year over year on both platforms. All of Adobe's applications need to be rewritten a la Final Cut from the ground up. But it's unlikely to happen, especially now that Adobe can just milk subscribers rather than make a case for upgrading.

If you're running CC on a Mac or a PC, you're not getting the best exploitation of your hardware possible. I'm hoping Pixelmator and PS alternatives at least provide a kick in the pants for Adobe down the line. Unfortunately for After Effects the only quasi-competitor is Motion, which Apple doesn't really seem intent on changing roles.
Click to expand...

I mostly use a combination of Gimp, Krita (windows/Linux) and Corel Painter now instead of CC. As for After Effect, Nuke and HitFilm seems nice.
 
In the UK, with current exchange rates, the base level Mac Pro is about $430 more here than in the US, and that's before the 20% VAT that adds another $800 or so if you can't reclaim it as a business expense. US sales taxes are much lower than 20%.

We get ripped off by most computer/electronics vendors though.

M.
 
tuxon86 said:
I mostly use a combination of Gimp, Krita (windows/Linux) and Corel Painter now instead of CC. As for After Effect, Nuke and HitFilm seems nice.
Click to expand...

From my vantage point Nuke and Hit just don't exist. The only "alternatives" to AE seem to be the tier-above—Smoke and Nuke et al. I don't know any post houses in my area that actually pay for those setups—if they need it they outsource it. Maybe that might change like how BM is breaking into even the prosumer market with Resolve, but I dunno. Doesn't seem to be in those companies' interests to "cheapen" themselves while they have the lock-in for the companies paying obscene sums.

Part of the problem is AE is perhaps just as broad in use-cases as Photoshop has gotten—you have the keying and CC folks, the motion graphics folks, the broadcast graphics, the compositors and effects guys, all using the same tools. But *everyone* using it is getting shafted by its speed and the general inscrutability of improving performance (turn on multiprocessing? Depends. Can this effect even be multiprocessed? I don't know until I render, et al.)

Premiere Pro seems to be getting all the love these days since they're trying to gobble up disaffected FCP7 people.
 
fuchsdh said:
Premiere Pro seems to be getting all the love these days since they're trying to gobble up disaffected FCP7 people.
Click to expand...

That's pretty much a done deal by now. Unless Apple totally reinvent how to edit movies, I don't see them getting all those that jumped ship back.
 
tuxon86 said:
As for After Effect, Nuke and HitFilm seems nice.
Click to expand...

Neither of them is really a competitor to AE unless you're talking straight up compositing/VFX. And if that's the case Nuke is a node based system, a new beast altogether. An expensive one too ($8000+ USD). I don't really know much about the other one.
 
tuxon86 said:
That's pretty much a done deal by now. Unless Apple totally reinvent how to edit movies, I don't see them getting all those that jumped ship back.
Click to expand...

For the most part, I'd agree. There is a small but significant portion of editors I know around me though who have switched back though because Premiere ultimately wasn't what they wanted, or they didn't feel its integration with other Adobe apps was enough to keep them using it, or the CC controversy.

The biggest plus for Apple is it's asking a lot less in costs. Spending $400 for FCP, Compressor and Motion is less than a year of CC for many businesses or individuals. I dunno if that's really going to cause much more of a drift back though. Apple just blew things up too quickly for its own good and shot its lead to pieces. That they've been evolving the file handling significantly from 10.0-10.1 shows that they really should have spent another year with X in beta.

I would say Apple did significantly reinvent portions of editing for the better, though. Premiere is basically the continuation of the FCP7 methodology, whereas FCPX asks different things and has a different workflow. For many projects I find it better, although I still don't get to use it often enough to fully "retrain" my instinct. In that respect it probably still would have lost some market share even if they had handled the transition gracefully; I know many many many editors who just want to cut on the same system until they die, and they become stagnant and inflexible.
 
handsome pete said:
Neither of them is really a competitor to AE unless you're talking straight up compositing/VFX. And if that's the case Nuke is a node based system, a new beast altogether. An expensive one too ($8000+ USD). I don't really know much about the other one.
Click to expand...

Nuke starts at about $4k. :)
 
tuxon86 said:
Or you buy a real portable workstation like HP sells... Especially if you're a photographer or artist and your main tools are from Adobe which run perfectly under windows.
Click to expand...

Which HP workstations are portable enough to toss in your backpack? And how does that save you from carrying external drives, mouse, keyboard etc? I mean, that was the topic I replied to.
 
Last edited:
handsome pete said:
Neither of them is really a competitor to AE unless you're talking straight up compositing/VFX. And if that's the case Nuke is a node based system, a new beast altogether. An expensive one too ($8000+ USD). I don't really know much about the other one.
Click to expand...

Ae, is leader when it comes to motion graphics. They dont have much competition except for apple's motion. As for compositing, nuke is by far more advanced program then Ae is in terms of compositing and fx. Ofcourse Ae can do some compositing and nuke can do some motion graphics. But they are 2 applications that specialize in different area's.
 
beaker7 said:
Bought a T7610 with 2 E5-2697 v2 CPUs for under $10K.
Click to expand...


Really that must mean it has a 5,4 Ghz (clock speed doesn't really matter so it could be lower) 24 Core processor, or dual 12 core with 128GB RAM, 2TB PCIE SSD, AMD GPUS with 24 GB VRAM. I don't think so. a 2TB PCIE SSD itself would cost 10,000$. I tried maxing out the computer you named and it costed 34,000$ And the biggest PCIE SSD was just 250GB "large".
 
Last edited:
stefmesman said:
Ae, is leader when it comes to motion graphics. They dont have much competition except for apple's motion. As for compositing, nuke is by far more advanced program then Ae is in terms of compositing and fx. Ofcourse Ae can do some compositing and nuke can do some motion graphics. But they are 2 applications that specialize in different area's.
Click to expand...

What is your opinion on Autodesk Smoke?

----------
Intelligent said:
Really that must mean it has a 5,4 Ghz (clock speed doesn't really matter so it could be lower) 24 Core processor, or dual 12 core with 128GB RAM, 2TB PCIE SSD, AMD GPUS with 24 GB VRAM. I don't think so. a 2TB PCIE SSD itself would cost 10,000$. I tried maxing out the computer you named and it costed 34,000$ And the biggest PCIE SSD was just 250GB "large".
Click to expand...

Clock speed does matter a lot when your application is CPU bound and core limited. This is why some application have better performance on 4 core than on 12.
 
Intelligent said:
Really that must mean it has a 5,4 Ghz (clock speed doesn't really matter so it could be lower) 24 Core processor, or dual 12 core with 128GB RAM, 2TB PCIE SSD, AMD GPUS with 24 GB VRAM. I don't think so. a 2TB PCIE SSD itself would cost 10,000$. I tried maxing out the computer you named and it costed 34,000$ And the biggest PCIE SSD was just 250GB "large".
Click to expand...

Dual E5-2697 v2 processors, Quadro K6000, 512 GB SSD, etc a pinch under $10K. AMD GPU...no CUDA so useless for GPU rendering. Renders twice as fast as the nMP I have sitting here for Smoke.
 
stefmesman said:
Ae, is leader when it comes to motion graphics. They dont have much competition except for apple's motion. As for compositing, nuke is by far more advanced program then Ae is in terms of compositing and fx. Ofcourse Ae can do some compositing and nuke can do some motion graphics. But they are 2 applications that specialize in different area's.
Click to expand...

I know. That's what I was saying. AE and Nuke really only compete in the compositing realm and even there they are two completely different tools.
 
tuxon86 said:
What is your opinion on Autodesk Smoke?

----------
Click to expand...

Smoke is a tool that does compete with nuke. But i find nuke to be more advanced, even though smoke is still used alot with commercial production. 90% of the big post houses currently run nuke or a proprietary tool. A smoke artist costs more to hire then a nuke artist. The lack of updates to smoke in comparison to nuke is also a negative. Seems to me that smoke is about to become the next fusion. It will be pushed out of the market unless autodesk steps up thier game, but they are not well known for doing that.

Nuke may cost 4000, but you wont get the 3d camera tracker or denoise tools, planartrack and steadynesd, wich are tools that you really need to have at times to make your life easyer. I would say that nukex is the actual price you should be looking at. Wich is 8k.
 
Last edited:
iBug2 said:
Are you kidding me? First of all why are you linking an out of date product? There are newer "workstation laptops" from HP. The one you linked is less powerful than a current MacBook Pro.
Click to expand...

Why do you think it's about you? Maybe you should take a break.
You asked for some exemple of a portable workstation I gave you one.
And lat time I checked the Mac Book Pro don't use a Xeon processor or a Quadro GPU so....
 
tuxon86 said:
Not a mac hater at all...
And your second statement is equally false and has been for many year.
Click to expand...
You say my second that my second statement is false.
Its originally a mac product, is that false?

The first version which were never public in 1988 etc. was for Macintosh the first public version was Photoshop 1.0.
Photoshop 1.0 was released on February 19, 1990 for Macintosh exclusively.
The first version for windows was Photoshop 2.5. Which was released in 1992.

How can i be false "for many year". Its not like someone traveled back in time and released for windows before it was released for mac, because that is impossible, so it didn't happen.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back