Fast Video Processing, What's Needed?

[larrytucaz]

I just got a Dell Zino HD because I need something that would process video studio editing (at the home level) quicker than my 4 year old PC, a Pentium 4 with 2 Gigahertz (no dual-quad core etc) and 512 megabytes RAM. The new PC is an AMD dual core with 1.5G and 2G RAM. The video clips are VGA, 640x480 and 30fps and are MPEG in format.

It is faster, but not as much as I was hoping. Whereas the old one would take, say, 7-10 minutes to create a 3 minute video clip, this one does it in about 3-4. That's a real improvement. However, I was hoping that PCs had progressed to where it would take, say, 1 minute or even 30 seconds to create such a clip. Apparently I was wrong.

The other thing, too, was the old one had a propsensity to require me to process a resulting video file because it couldn't "preview" what I had so far without the program studdering. I'd have to make a "final" video file--waiting as long as that took--and play it just to see how I was doing so far. The new PC still requires this too, although not as much as the other one did.

Note: I am running Windows Movie Maker--okay, not the best software, but my Corel VideoStudio 11 I purchased hasn't arrived yet.

Are there PCs out there that can do it that quickly, or have things not arrived to that point yet? Am I a prime candidate for a "gamer PC," and how quickly could it process something like that?

 

[Blain]

Did you read any articles or threads about video editing hardware requirements before purchasing the Dell Zino HD?

 

[Ayah]

That thing looks like a nettop.
You're essentially trying to video edit on a router.

 

[larrytucaz]

(Blain) Thanks for replying again.

Well, according to the system requirements section for the Sony Video Studio Software link, that's a program some have recommended, here's a comparison:

*It suggests 800MHz processor, 2.8 for HD content. I have 1.5G dual-core, heck, even the old single-core 2GHz Pentium 4 would cover that

*256 Meg RAM (512 for HD). I have 2G of RAM, heck the old one has 512 and I just bought more to make it 1G.

So it would seem that the Dell Zino HD, while hardly the cutting edge product out there (it's not a quad-core with 2.5G each chip or so), nonetheless should easily meet the requirements. And again, while the Dell Zino HD may not be the cutting edge out there, it's still much more than the old one. I'm not so much disappointed in it, myself, so much as observing (apparently)--wow, it seems as if you need a octo-core (8 chips) 20G each chip, 512 G of RAM to be able to handle the job.

I say all of this acknowledging that the Sony software isn't what I've been using, but I wouldn't imagine little old Windows Movie Maker having MORE system requirements.

LRH

 

[Fox5]

The Zino HD is a tiny, low-end computer, essentially Dell's answer to the Mac Mini. It would make a great home theater PC (playing back movies/videos on an hdtv). Most laptops are faster than the Zino HD.

That 1.5Ghz athlon dual core is only around the level of the P4 per core (a bit better perhaps), so you basically just doubled up on cores and halved your video processing time.

The system can play older games, and possibly some newer games at the lowest settings.

You do however luck out that the Zino comes with decent ATI integrated graphics.


Cyberlink's MediaShow Espresso can transcode video files from one format to another using the graphics chip, and should be much faster than the cpu.
http://www.cyberlink.com/products/mediashow-espresso/overview_en_US.html

That's only for transcoding, you'll need Cyberlink's PowerDirector for actual video creation/editing. (I think they sell bundle suites as well)
http://www.cyberlink.com/products/powerdirector/overview_en_US.html

I don't think any other companies have products on the market that will make use of gpu acceleration, though. Adobe's CS4 products (premiere would probably be the one you're interested in?) also have some type of gpu acceleration, but it doesn't sound as extensive.

To be honest though, at this point in time, there's no substitute for a fast cpu. You really should have gone for a quad core system.

 

[BTRY B 529th FA BN]

Are you looking for hardware suggestions?

My sig rig 2 will be my AVCHD NLE machine for .MTS files when rig 3 is done. Something with Hyper threading would be a good start> or a Q9x50 775lga chip. Basically the more cores the better for any type of video editing is the general rule.

 

[Fox5]

(Blain) Thanks for replying again.

Well, according to the system requirements section for the Sony Video Studio Software link, that's a program some have recommended, here's a comparison:

*It suggests 800MHz processor, 2.8 for HD content. I have 1.5G dual-core, heck, even the old single-core 2GHz Pentium 4 would cover that

*256 Meg RAM (512 for HD). I have 2G of RAM, heck the old one has 512 and I just bought more to make it 1G.

So it would seem that the Dell Zino HD, while hardly the cutting edge product out there (it's not a quad-core with 2.5G each chip or so), nonetheless should easily meet the requirements. And again, while the Dell Zino HD may not be the cutting edge out there, it's still much more than the old one. I'm not so much disappointed in it, myself, so much as observing (apparently)--wow, it seems as if you need a octo-core (8 chips) 20G each chip, 512 G of RAM to be able to handle the job.

I say all of this acknowledging that the Sony software isn't what I've been using, but I wouldn't imagine little old Windows Movie Maker having MORE system requirements.

LRH

Windows Movie Maker works, doesn't it? Requirements are requirements to run and complete, they make no mention of time.
If you want faster, you either need a faster computer (you literally just went from 1 core to 2, with barely any speed up per core), or buy one of the two programs I mentioned (Cyberlink PowerDirector 8 or Adobe Premiere CS4) and I'm not even sure if they support gpu accceleration for every task, or just a few special effects. It sounds like they just support the encoding part and a few special effects.
And even then, powerdirector 8 doesn't mention support for the hd3200 IGP, only the HD4200, so unless you got the upgraded graphics on your Zino (hd3200 is standard), it may not even accelerate powerdirector.
Adboe Premiere Pro Cs4 seems like it will work, but needs a free add-on software from AMD/ATI, and appears to only support faster AMD/ATI gpus at the moment, but is supposed to get hd3200 support eventually. I wouldn't bet on that though.

 

[0roo0roo]

That thing looks like a nettop.
You're essentially trying to video edit on a router.

bahahaha

yes you need a fast multicore processor+ram+fast drive +multithreaded video editor/encoder.

gpu encoding is h264. and low quality, its fast and only good enough for ipod/portable encodes.

i think you misunderstand system requirements, those are bare minimums, set so the max customer base can buy, aka even the dodgiest user experience is acceptable. and well it does run fine on your system in that it spits out a file after a while. thats all thats required to get the min spec.

you care about speed? get a real system, faster hd's, i5/i7 processor..preferably quad core.

movie maker multithreaded?

remember, the min req for windows xp is 64mb ram


imagine running a system with 64mb ram.....
ouch

 

[openg123]

afaik, no non-linear systems support gpu encoding right now. Adobe Premiere CS5 might support it with CUDA enabled nvidia cards; google "Mercury Playback Engine".

There is hardware accelerated encoding to h264 with Matrox's CompressHD card currently, though.

Like others have said, your new system does meet the MINIMUM requirements, but the more cores the better. It's all in the CPU to render (for now).

 

[larrytucaz]

The Zino HD is a tiny, low-end computer, essentially Dell's answer to the Mac Mini. It would make a great home theater PC (playing back movies/videos on an hdtv). Most laptops are faster than the Zino HD.

That 1.5Ghz athlon dual core is only around the level of the P4 per core (a bit better perhaps), so you basically just doubled up on cores and halved your video processing time.

{snip}

To be honest though, at this point in time, there's no substitute for a fast cpu. You really should have gone for a quad core system.

I sort of figured as much. I did, by the same token, figure that I would gain considerable improvement over a 4 year old non-dual/quad core PC with 1/4 the memory (though I'm waiting on 1Gig DDR to arrive anyway to double it) and only 64 meg of AGP 4x video.

It was a bargain, only $230 with the slightly better processor (it has 1 of 3 options, I got the middle-most one basically) and Windows 7 Professional AND Office 2007 Professional. Not a bad deal. (I am not sure how that happened, whatever--no complaints.)

Well, maybe then, I now have the excuse to get yet ANOTHER computer (hee hee), a "gamer" PC if you will, and demote the Dell to "everyday" usage. Heck, until Saturday, the 4 year old Pentium 4 single-core 2Gig with 512 of memory (due to be 1G anyday) was my "better" system, so I'm moving up.

LRH

 

[0roo0roo]

well that was the considerable improvement, its slightly faster and 230 dollars
but still, you get what you pay for. the cpu does the brunt of the work during encoding. once you got the video ready for encode extra rams not going to speed things up much.

 

[Rifter]

YGTBFKM

In case you are serious.....

Let me get this straight, you bought a nettop to replace a old desktop PC for video editing and even due to some miracle it is twice as fast you want something faster?

Why did you not just spend the cash on a new quad desktop to start with? Who told you a nettop is good for video work? Anything with a quad core will make that nettop look like its standing still.

Whats your budget for a desktop and we can make suggestion?

 

[0roo0roo]

anyways thats nothin, if he were encoding h264 hd...egads that net top would die...

 

[BaboonGuy]

Wait until March of next yr, 2010. Then get a 6-core i7 980X 12 threaded video encoding MONSTER.

 

[Tech_savy]

Looking for something new, then you must check these links. My personal favorites...

http://www.pronto.com/mpm/shop/gaming-computer

 

[larrytucaz]

(Rifterut) Well, I'm not THAT serious right now, as the video thing is something I only do every now & then--around Christmas-time, to be exact, and I otherwise don't really mess with it much. But by 10 months from now, I may be looking. No sense buying now when there will be even better by then I can get.

I have never heard the term "nettop," that's a new one--but it makes sense. My instincts told me this wasn't my type of PC--not that I regret buying it necessarily. I say this because I have always bought full-sized desktops in sizable cases so as to make it easy to swap-add internal hard drives or PCI-cards (it didn't have enough USB ports so I added a USB 2.0 card to add 4 more). If the network card stops working, no big deal--swap it for another one you can get for 10 bucks, heck I have spares lying around, makes it a cinch. Power supply fails--same thing. I've ALWAYS done it that way, so this was a most major departure for me.

I got it because people were raving about it, talking about how fast it was, it seemed to be highly regarded. So I was like--for $230, what the heck, I'll try it out. It has so far done okay for me otherwise, yet here I am--typing this on my old PC on my wife's desk (hee hee). Old habits die hard I guess--by that I mean that I'm so used to Windows XP and the programs I use on it that it's hard to get used to a whole new Windows 7 system sometimes.

The rest of you, thanks for your help-tips, I will refer to this thread when the time comes, and please have some mercy on me--it's been awhile since I investigated to find out what the "going rate" for modern CPUs, memory chips, graphics cards etc are. Heck I had always heard that integrated graphics systems were for losers, now I'm hearing they're much better than they used to be. Integrated audio, USB ports and 10/100 networking--sure. But graphics? Heck if I understand it all.

 

[Rifter]

That makes more sense. For $230 it is alot of PC with a really low power useage and for surfing/e-mail office etc will be more than fine, not so much for video work though. I thought the main purpose of the PC was for video work.

When you build the PC what will the purpose of it be, any gaming or mostly general use with some video work? then we can make suggestions on CPU and GPU to look/wait for.

 

[betasub]

larrytucaz: re your comments on integrated graphics - I'm sure you don't accept that they are just "for losers". In the past they were the best way to go cheap when working on a tight budget. With modern low-end add-in cards being so cheap, that doesn't apply so much. Nowadays their low space/power/cooling requirements are becoming more and more desireable for small&stylish builds. Don't try telling me you & your friends weren't seduced by the Zino's appearance?!

 

[piasabird]

Suggestions are usually a bare minimum requirement, that will barely run the software.

A new quadcore might be nice. The newewt I7 quads would probably be best. I dont know if this is something that hardware encoding would help for or not. Some TV type cards would sometimes have this option.

I am a little cluless in this area.

 

[0roo0roo]

(Rifterut) Well, I'm not THAT serious right now, as the video thing is something I only do every now & then--around Christmas-time, to be exact, and I otherwise don't really mess with it much. But by 10 months from now, I may be looking. No sense buying now when there will be even better by then I can get.

I have never heard the term "nettop," that's a new one--but it makes sense. My instincts told me this wasn't my type of PC--not that I regret buying it necessarily. I say this because I have always bought full-sized desktops in sizable cases so as to make it easy to swap-add internal hard drives or PCI-cards (it didn't have enough USB ports so I added a USB 2.0 card to add 4 more). If the network card stops working, no big deal--swap it for another one you can get for 10 bucks, heck I have spares lying around, makes it a cinch. Power supply fails--same thing. I've ALWAYS done it that way, so this was a most major departure for me.

I got it because people were raving about it, talking about how fast it was, it seemed to be highly regarded. So I was like--for $230, what the heck, I'll try it out. It has so far done okay for me otherwise, yet here I am--typing this on my old PC on my wife's desk (hee hee). Old habits die hard I guess--by that I mean that I'm so used to Windows XP and the programs I use on it that it's hard to get used to a whole new Windows 7 system sometimes.

The rest of you, thanks for your help-tips, I will refer to this thread when the time comes, and please have some mercy on me--it's been awhile since I investigated to find out what the "going rate" for modern CPUs, memory chips, graphics cards etc are. Heck I had always heard that integrated graphics systems were for losers, now I'm hearing they're much better than they used to be. Integrated audio, USB ports and 10/100 networking--sure. But graphics? Heck if I understand it all.

nettop is basically a netbook level pc. it fits in such a small box because its bascally a subnotebook in a box and of course it makes the price possible. igp are ok for browsing. for games they are as they've always been, junk. depends what you need. integrated audio is getting decent though, depending on the chipset you get, but the one in a nettop is still probably junk.