|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||
 |
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
August 17th, 2010, 05:03 AM
|
#1 |
|
Regular Crew
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Marlboro, NJ
Posts: 85
|
Help with requirements
I am looking to get new smaller camera (currently using Canon XH-A1 w/Tape).
I would like to know what you guys think if my current computer could handle AVCHD and what NLE to use. I am using Premiere Pro CS3 which cant import AVCHD Computer: windows XP service pack 3 Inter dual core 1.86 ghz 2 gb ram 2.5 TB hard drive space Will I have any issues? and how do I get it into computer for editing? Thanks Howard |
|
|
|
August 17th, 2010, 07:16 AM
|
#2 |
|
Major Player
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Rochester,NY USA
Posts: 285
|
Here is my experience for you to compare to your laptop. My old Laptop with dua core 2.0 GHz, 2 gig rams. The laptop will cut the fơotage fine and playback kinda jerky but acceptable. When comes to rendering the video, it will take a long long time to render. You really nêed to have a better laptop than what you got now.
Render 1 hrs video to Mpeg2 take 3+ hrs Render 8 minutes AVCHD take 8+hrs. |
|
|
|
|
August 21st, 2010, 03:41 PM
|
#3 |
|
Trustee
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Coronado Island
Posts: 1,472
|
I get the feeling that the evolving standard for editing AVCHD is in the range of CS5 (64 bit), Win 7 64 bit, Intel i7, at least 6 GB RAM, 12GB is better. This sort of system will provide the performance you are used to with DV, HDV, etc.
If you are going to the expense of upgrading, might be wise to go for the gold. It's only gonna get worse :)
__________________
Bob |
|
|
|
|
August 22nd, 2010, 07:21 AM
|
#4 |
|
Regular Crew
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Beersheba, Israel
Posts: 111
|
I’m completely agree with Robert.
I use a similar software-hardware combination (the 64-bit Sony Vegas 9 running on the 64-bit Windows Enterprise 7 platform, an overclocked Core i7 CPU and 12 GB of memory), and it munches my high quality AVCHD projects at the 1:4 pace. And by the high quality, I mean the full range (32-bit) pixel format, the best full-resolution video quality, and 2-pass encoding at the 80 Mbps variable bit rate. |
|
|
|
|
August 22nd, 2010, 10:28 PM
|
#5 |
|
Major Player
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Fredericksburg, VA
Posts: 282
|
What if you were to use proxies...
is your final output to be hi-def or standard def? proxy > standard def output could buy you some time until you upgrade the computer hardware? Not sure, someone can correct me. transfer HD footage to computer, Vegas timeline for instance. render to mpg2 edit the mpg 2 version output to DVD, standard def? or spend the days rendering to HD using reverse proxy step. |
|
|
|
|
August 23rd, 2010, 04:39 AM
|
#6 |
|
Regular Crew
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Beersheba, Israel
Posts: 111
|
Yes, correct, proxy files (being much smaller than the full-resolution versions) can save you time for editing process (if you're working on a system with limited processing power) and allow you to preview your project with higher frame rates.
Still, this proxy editing cannot help you to reduce time needed for rendering: you have to replace the proxy clips with full-resolution files before rendering (unless your destination format is SD, and you don’t need to replace them). As one old computer technicians’ wisdom goes: “You cannot cure a hardware problem with a software solution”… |
|
|
|
|
| ||||||
|
||||||
|
|
