Re: How much different is 4 from 6 really,

Wow!

The rendering aspect being quicker is by in itself a reason to upgrade, but I have to ask, are you sure it was the software that allowed this improvement or your upgrade in hardware?

My titanium powerbook g4 might not be able to handle new final cut software. I dont have the money to upgrade at this time.

As most people, not being able to upgrade all around (i.e. new camera, new hardware, new software) with every new outpouring of the industry, I am reluctant to sparsingly upgrade. For example, I dont want to buy an HDV camcorder, if I cant afford even final cut pro 5.1. Then what good is the camera to me? I can shoot in hd, but I cant edit it.

If I upgrade my software without upgrading my hardware, I might not be able to utilize all the new features. As my machine cant physically handle the upgrades.

If I upgrade my hardware, as a poor college student, i have no money left for either a camera, or software upgrades.

It's this catch -22 which leads me to post the thread question, whats the real difference?

Although I appriciate the thoughtfulness of offering me (a non-paid, yet pro-sumer) a downgrade to I-movie (a fine program im sure, but a kick in the mouth for me by you all "paid professionals") I am happy with my final cut pro 4 and my titanium power book g4, and living on 6 year old cutting edge technology. It works, and I can crank out decent movies, while still learning terms, settings, skills, and experience professionals use and know from the starving artist paycheck.

Dont get me wrong, you all are wonderful, posting tons of useful information, all day long, with no pay for it, for the love of it, but when you talk down to those of us who are in the position you once used to be, dont expect us to take it lightly. Sometimes its almost like you were either brainwashed into thinking you have to have the top of the line equipment or you just wont be able to edit movies at all. Or some of you work for these companies which push upgrades as soon as they can on those of us without the money to afford them. So it makes me wonder why the industry thinks it has to move so fast. Is it to weed out the competition? Is it to bankrupt the poor? Is it to stay ahead of something more than that? Because personally, even those of us who can make a living off of this line of work, can do so just fine with "ghetto rigging" our software, hardware, and efforts in all other areas, to make movies the average consumer of our products finds more than average. In fact so much so they keep calling us back.

Therefore, upgrades although always nice, are not always mandatory. Maybe to stay ahead on feature multi million dollar budget films, but in that case you have the funds to upgrade, and the need for such nit-picky precision. But on the streets, we are doing our best with what we've got.

With that aside.....
Thanks for the breakdowns, and the very useful information.
But I was wondering if the upgrades you mentioned,
such as rendering times cut down, have more to do with hardware than software? or if its more a combination of both?