Yeah. This isn't anything major video editing, it's basically titles in the front of preexisting vids.
If this is all you are doing, IDE will be fine. We just bought 24 SCSI drives for our company and had to research whether we really needed SCSI... we did. This SCSI idea trickles down from the pro editing equipment manufacturers. We are using Avid and ProTools. The difference is on those systems, you are doing heavy editing where all raw footage is loaded and stored on the drive, broken into hundreds even thousands of pieces and rearranged in the edited form you have specified. The computer has to check the edl list for timing parameters of edits and pull all these little pieces of video and audio from the raw footage rearranging them into the final cut. The final cut is not stored on the hard drive, just the edl list. If it stored the final cut, it would increase the HD space necessary by the shooting ratio or ratio of used to thrown out materials. When you watch the final cut, the hard drive is pulling all the cuts from the raw footage in real time according to the edl list. It also has to be prefetching the next cut while playing the previous. Thats a lot of HD work and this is why the seek time of SCSI is good for these systems. But remember the minimum configuration for these systems is video and 8 tracks of audio with up to 256 virtual audio tracks.
IDE drives have a faster continues data flow then SCSI, so for Video editing you would be better off using an IDE drive
Probably true for what he is doing but you can see from the explanation above that it is not true if you are doing heavy professional editing.
In our case, we send out the edl list on a disk to the optical company to actually do the physical work of the final cut according to the edl so our computers aren't used for that. In your case, you probably have a final conformation step or something to put the final cut together before outputting your video. But this step isn't done while watching the video so you are not fighting the HD for resources between putting the edit together and output to your screen. In this case the high sustained data rate of IDE will again be more advantageous for getting the job done quickly.
Anyway, the point is your system isn't doing nearly this much work. If you are doing light editing or just playback with overlayed titles, you really don't need to spend the money on SCSI IMO.
At the rate I see IDE disks die at work, I'll pay the extra cash for quality SCSI hardware.
In an office, computers hold critical information that can't be lost (hopefully it is backed up) and causes employee downtime. Editing workstations only hold job specific data for a few weeks then the final product is output and all other materials purged from the machine. Work data is all in the edl and is backed up daily. Quite a big difference in the way they are used. Failure is not as big an issue and when you can buy 3-6 IDE drives for the cost of 1 SCSI it becomes a financial issue. The opinions you are expressing are job specific and don't apply here. You guys need to look at the purpose for which he asked the question and not just turn it into a debate about the speed of SCSI vs. IDE. That info is available in a million places on the internet.
Facebook
Twitter