Hi--

>Nice website on Ithaca -- got some good pics on it. When I hear of "New
>York" I think of traffic and noise. People have told me about upstate and
>other areas but it's a lot different once you see pictures of the area.

250 miles o' beeyootiful scenery 'tween here an' there...;-)
Now, if only it had San Diego's weather...;-)

>My choice of using a Mac was based on the kind of work I was doing. Cost was
>a factor, but also important was reliability and flexibility. I work with
>tight deadlines everyday and depend a great deal on a WYSIWYG environment.
>
>I was working with a linear system and needed an NLE setup. Being familiar
>with the Mac system I went with that. Anything in NLE beats linear.
>
>Prior to the Mac I worked with an Amiga and Newtek's Toaster. Prior to that,
>an Atari Mega 4. Before that it was CP/M and programming DBase III
>applications on a PC. I'd had a heck of a lot of experience with quite a few
>operating systems, starting in the wonderful '80s where 48k of RAM was
>something to brag about. Amazing how things have changed. Was interesting
>while it lasted, but I'm glad I don't have to write code or solder printer
>cables anymore.
>
>Didn't care for the Mac GUI when I first saw it. Thought it was goofy. Not
>computer-like at all. Then I started working with it at the Star-Bulletin
>and realized what this "new" machine could do, especially with Photoshop.
>
>When it came down to getting an NLE, there were only a few systems out there
>that were truly broadcast capable. Only one of these systems was within my
>budget and it also had a good upgrade path Media 100. And all the better
>NLE's were only on the Mac. So it was an obvious choice. The other leading
>NLE was Avid, but that was in the high five-figure range.
>
>PC's were cheaper. But they weren't reliable in video applications at that
>time and none could do full-screen video. One writer referred to it as "the
>dance of the postage stamps". Newsgroups were filled with complaints about
>PC's and compatability problems. Very few complaints came in about Mac
>systems. Buying a Mac certainly cost more. But the time I've saved in
>avoiding the pitfalls have made up for the several hundred dollars extra
>that was spent in the beginning.
>
>I was able to set up the Media 100 editor and create a presentation in eight
>days. And with no prior experience in NLE systems. Very little chance I
>would have been able to do that on a PC in 1997.
>
>Since then a lot of presentations with Media 100 and Premiere. Also cut a
>few commercials for broadcast and am now doing video reports for our
>newspaper. The system has been, for me, very stable and cost effective.
>
>It shares files very well with our newspaper's mac-based publishing system
>and it's done a bunch of other things including critical color work for
>brochures, posters and other publications, a couple of websites, and some
>large displays for a shopping center. Critical color was one of the
>shortcomings of PC systems. Only now has color management come to the PC
>world but it's not yet fully implemented.
>
>So for me the tool does a whole lot more than just video. It's more like the
>core of a multimedia solution, capable of handling a wide range of tasks for
>some real picky clients (and some of them can be extraordinarily nasty!).
>
>Anyhow, so much for the long note.
>
>The big problem for is that there are only 24 hours in a day and just one of
>me...!
>
>Dean.

Thanks for the comments. I was not only responding to you, but to
some other threads in which "Mac is king, regardless of the facts...!" ;-)
Obviously you have many solid reasons for your choice. But FCP is often
presented in the threads as unquestionably "better" than similar-priced
solutions when in many ways it is not. I often edit long 3-camera shoots,
with large amounts of image correction needed. This would drive one nuts
using FCP. So, for me, FCP appears to be an overpriced cuts +
simple-transitions editor (though I may be wrong...;-). Anyway, your
comments reminded me that people in these groups come from two directions:
those with access to REALLY-EXPENSIVE top-grade cameras, editors, etc.;
and those who approach this medium from the bottom end looking up,
selecting cost-effective (cheap... ;-) solutions that can do the job.
Also, some people lean towards trying to perfect things during production,
with relatively little needed in post to polish the product; others prefer
a looser shooting style, knowing that many ills can be corrected in post.
Sometimes the conclusions reached about the preferable solution are
therefore different... (I have been ranting a lot, lately...;-)

>> I don't understand this point of view, since it ignores even
>> cheaper, even more intuitive, even faster-rendering, even
>> more versatile systems which were around before FCP, and
>> which until recently had better CODECs for less error in
>> the rendered video (and therefore were even a bit more
>> "broadcast" ready than FCP...). The myopia of the Mac crowd
>> (and their odd clinging to their more expensive and less
>> able editing solution in the face of evidence of the
>> existence of other more able and less expensive systems)
>> does truly amaze me... Anyway, enough said on all this
>> (use whatever you like, of course!) - but one cannot
>> help observing that the power of belief over evidence
>> can be truly amazing... ;-)