DV Info Net

DV Info Net (http://www.dvinfo.net/forum/)
-   High Definition Video Editing Solutions (http://www.dvinfo.net/forum/high-definition-video-editing-solutions/)
-   -   PC for Uncompressed HD (http://www.dvinfo.net/forum/high-definition-video-editing-solutions/138407-pc-uncompressed-hd.html)

Sareesh Sudhakaran November 25th, 2008 02:16 AM

PC for Uncompressed HD
 
Hi
I'm currently editing my movie shot in HDV and I'll be doing it on Adobe Premiere Pro CS3 native. I'll probably send the timeline to After Effects CS3, render it out to uncompressed HD and then reimport it to AE to do the compositing, green screen and other effects work. I will be mastering it at 32-bit as well, so all the VFX work will be done on 32-bit uncompressed HD footage. Master will be 32-bit uncompressed TIFF Sequence. From that, I'm going to HDCAM SR (Backup), HDV (Backup) and M2V (For DVDs).

I need to build a PC (not MAC please) for this purpose and here are some specs I was looking at:
Intel Quad Core 2.4 Ghz
D45 Intel Motherboard
4GB DDR II RAM 800Mhz
1.5 TB HDD 7,200 - 500GB for Windows and 1TB for work
Graphics Card??

I'm not sure I need a Xeon or an i7 for this job. There is quite a bit of compositing (at least 40% of the movie), titling and some motion graphics. Do I need a graphics card at all? Will this system do the job for me or do I need to invest in a Xeon workstation and an nVidia graphics card?

Thanks, will appreciate any help.

Harm Millaard November 25th, 2008 03:35 AM

It will work, but for uncompressed your storage is a bit limited. Your OS disk could be much smaller and faster, for instance a Velociraptor 150 or 300 GB. Unless you want to work blind, you need a graphics card as well as a display. An ATI 4850 might be a good card. As always, it is a matter of budget. An i7 will give you a significant performance boost and an 8-core system even more, but you pay for being on the bleeding edge.

Jon McGuffin November 25th, 2008 02:23 PM

Yeah, budget is the big key here. I don't have a ton of experience editing uncompressed, but HD in uncompressed is going to take up a HUGE amount of diskspace... You really should be considering more storage space considering how relatively cheap it is today. I also second the better video card here as I believe Premiere is able to work with them quite well - particularly the ATI branded cards... If you're going to go with a single chip quad core, might as well step that up to the next chip faster. In the case of this project, and extra $200 - $500 spent on this system could save you many hours... I'd love to hear what you end up doing and how it ends up working out..

Jon

Justin Hewitt November 25th, 2008 07:01 PM

single point disks will probably not cut it for uncompressed.

check out this article from black magic, who make a card for receiving uncompressed HD

Blackmagic Design: Support Detail

it indicates their view on how disk performance can affect render/playback

Sareesh Sudhakaran November 26th, 2008 07:20 AM

Hi
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Harm Millaard (Post 968635)
It will work, but for uncompressed your storage is a bit limited. Your OS disk could be much smaller and faster, for instance a Velociraptor 150 or 300 GB. Unless you want to work blind, you need a graphics card as well as a display. An ATI 4850 might be a good card. As always, it is a matter of budget. An i7 will give you a significant performance boost and an 8-core system even more, but you pay for being on the bleeding edge.

Unfortunately, the i7 hasn't been released where I'm at....in India! I thought nVidia did better with AE and similar Adobe Products. Am I wrong here? I was thinking about the nVidia 8800 512MB series.

Harm Millaard November 26th, 2008 07:50 AM

The nVidia 8800 is quite a good card. Nothing wrong with it. However, ATI currently delivers the most 'bang-for-the-buck' , especially with the 48xx series. I have never experienced problems with ATI cards in combination with Adobe software, so I can't say that nVidia is better than ATI, but I do know that nVidia cards have died more on me than ATI cards. I don't have large number statistics to prove or disprove one is better than the other. My suggestion is to get the card that has the most attractive price. In performance you will most likely not notice any difference. Your disk setup will be far more crucial for performance.

Jon McGuffin December 3rd, 2008 06:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sareesh Sudhakaran (Post 969217)
Unfortunately, the i7 hasn't been released where I'm at....in India! I thought nVidia did better with AE and similar Adobe Products. Am I wrong here? I was thinking about the nVidia 8800 512MB series.

I believe you have this backwards, I'm pretty sure it is in fact ATI that typically does Adobe products a little bit better.

Chris Swartz December 3rd, 2008 09:17 PM

any quad core will do.

I use a 2.66 with the 1333 bus 9450 I think.

Aja or Blackmagic.

Motherboard is also an issue. Make sure is has enough PCI-E slots.

just use the onboard Intel Raid for a RAID 0. Use at least 4 drives, 6 would be better. Velociraptor would be best, but 4 1 TB WD's at 7200 will work as well.

Nividia 8600GT w/512 ram is what I'm using and it works fine.

If you want to save on drive requirements you could use Cineform which works great, but costs a bit of money. On the other hand 3 or 4 streams of HD in Premiere rocks.

Good luck,

Chris

Sareesh Sudhakaran December 4th, 2008 04:29 AM

Hi
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris Swartz (Post 972600)
any quad core will do.

I use a 2.66 with the 1333 bus 9450 I think.

Aja or Blackmagic.

Motherboard is also an issue. Make sure is has enough PCI-E slots.

just use the onboard Intel Raid for a RAID 0. Use at least 4 drives, 6 would be better. Velociraptor would be best, but 4 1 TB WD's at 7200 will work as well.

Nividia 8600GT w/512 ram is what I'm using and it works fine.

If you want to save on drive requirements you could use Cineform which works great, but costs a bit of money. On the other hand 3 or 4 streams of HD in Premiere rocks.

Good luck,

Chris

Thanks for the info. I was going for something like this:
1. Quad Core 2.93
2. 4GB RAM 800Mhz
3. nVidia 8600 512MB Card
4. Intel Desktop Board D975XBX2
5. 160GB for Windows
6. 640GB for 'work'
7. 1TB for renders, etc
Why do I need AJA or Blackmagic at this stage?
Thanks again!

Justin Hewitt December 4th, 2008 07:46 PM

If I was building a new box for Uncompressed HD, I would do something like .....
(assuming budget allowed)

1. Quad Core 2.93 or AMD Phenom
2. 8GB RAM 800Mhz
3. nVidia 8600 512MB Card
4. Intel Desktop Board D975XBX2 or High end Gigabyte AMD board
5. 160GB for Windows (c drive)

You need.

* Fast write disk for capture
* big Safe harbour disks (external) for storage
* Render Fast read set to destination fast write set.

perhaps

* 4 x 500 GB in a RAID 0 array (used for capture and your read set) (d drive)
* 2 x 1 TB in a RAID 0 array for fast write set for renders (e drive)
* 2 TB external for storage

yes its lots of disks, lots of money, lots of heat , lots of power drain ... but if you want great performance thats the cost ...

Also, keep drives d and E as clean as possible to prevent any fragmentation affects. Also, RAID 0 offers great write speed but no redundancy, so you do not want to store criticals on them ......

OT: Blackmagic is a card for accepting uncompressed HD over HDMI into your PC. You only need a BM card if that is your transfer for capture protocol, camera support obviously required.

Perrone Ford December 4th, 2008 08:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sareesh Sudhakaran (Post 972702)
Thanks for the info. I was going for something like this:
6. 640GB for 'work'

If you aren't going to use RAID, then don't work uncompressed. Seriously.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sareesh Sudhakaran (Post 972702)
7. 1TB for renders, etc

Unless this is a short, you're going to be WAY too small on disk-space. Check this site for data rates:

Uncompressed video - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Note that for 10 bit 1080p 4:4:4, you're rolling 834 GB per hour. If you're anything like me, you'll have several partial renders on the render drive, and perhaps some alternate edits on the work drive. If I was working on a full sized movie, and thinking of working with uncompressed, I'd probably increase my sizes over what you have by a factor of 5-10. Unless you shoot and edit in the camera, you're going to be dumping a LOT of raw footage onto that work drive. Or maybe you intend to cut the entire movie before moving it from HDV into uncompressed.


Quote:

Originally Posted by Sareesh Sudhakaran (Post 972702)
Why do I need AJA or Blackmagic at this stage?

How are you planning to write out to an HDCamSR?

Sareesh Sudhakaran December 10th, 2008 05:42 AM

Hi
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Perrone Ford (Post 973177)
If you aren't going to use RAID, then don't work uncompressed. Seriously.



Unless this is a short, you're going to be WAY too small on disk-space. Check this site for data rates:

Uncompressed video - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Note that for 10 bit 1080p 4:4:4, you're rolling 834 GB per hour. If you're anything like me, you'll have several partial renders on the render drive, and perhaps some alternate edits on the work drive. If I was working on a full sized movie, and thinking of working with uncompressed, I'd probably increase my sizes over what you have by a factor of 5-10. Unless you shoot and edit in the camera, you're going to be dumping a LOT of raw footage onto that work drive. Or maybe you intend to cut the entire movie before moving it from HDV into uncompressed.




How are you planning to write out to an HDCamSR?


Hi
Thanks for the info. I'm editing native HDV (cuts only) and then moving it to AE CS3. Then render out the movie in uncompressed HD, reimport it in AE and work on the effects, titles, etc.

Since I'm using a high-end laptop, can I render out the movie from my laptop to an eSATA 2TB external drive? Can I use this drive to work from my laptop. The effects are mostly motion graphics, nothing fancy.

About HDCAM SR, yes I need to do it finally. But I have no idea how. Would appreciate any help I can get. I'm just going with the flow, I guess.

Harm Millaard December 10th, 2008 04:00 PM

Forget about even a high-end laptop. Not enough muscle. You need a very beefy workstation with tons of hard disks in a raid configuration with a very good raid controller (on board is not good enough) and lots of memory.

Spike Spiegel December 14th, 2008 10:18 AM

perhaps I am missing the point here, but why would you want to go uncompressed AFTER the material has hit the tape in HDV format? The HDV codec has hit your source material and it is super compressed; decompressing is not going to give you more color space or allow the footage to look better.

The only way it would have helped going uncompressed via hdmi or hd-sdi;if you shot the footage live to a capture card and recorded it uncompressed. Otherwise, imo, it is a waste of space.

Sareesh Sudhakaran December 15th, 2008 11:02 PM

Hi
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Spike Spiegel (Post 977971)
perhaps I am missing the point here, but why would you want to go uncompressed AFTER the material has hit the tape in HDV format? The HDV codec has hit your source material and it is super compressed; decompressing is not going to give you more color space or allow the footage to look better.

The only way it would have helped going uncompressed via hdmi or hd-sdi;if you shot the footage live to a capture card and recorded it uncompressed. Otherwise, imo, it is a waste of space.

Hi
I shot it on HDV on a 111E, JVC. No option of HD-SDI on that model.
I wanted to render out uncompressed HD for two reasons:
1. Color Correction and Green screen work better in HD than HDV.
2. I might get a theatrical release and want to keep my master that way.
I understand the footage is not going to look any better, but i can keep the losses at any stage to a bare minimum.


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 10:46 AM.

DV Info Net -- Real Names, Real People, Real Info!
1998-2019 The Digital Video Information Network