Quad-Core or Hardware Encoder? - Page 2 at DVinfo.net

Go Back   DV Info Net > Cross-Platform Post Production Solutions > High Definition Video Editing Solutions

High Definition Video Editing Solutions
For all HD formats including HDV, HDCAM, DVCPRO HD and others.


Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old June 26th, 2009, 01:17 PM   #16
Regular Crew
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Canton, NC
Posts: 48
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter Manojlovic View Post
HDV exports usually are required only for spitting back to tape.
Well, pretty much everything I edit goes back out to tape eventually anyway. But I don't always export HDV from the timeline. For most projects, I do use an intermediate codec and export to that codec, then downconvert that file for DVD and so on. I sometimes export to HDV on shorter projects for various reasons. For example, on the photo montage, I knew I needed a playable video that night, and I knew that I could play the M2T file directly from the church's computer if I needed to, which I did. If I had brought a Canopus HQ file and tried to play that, it just wouldn't have happened.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Peter Manojlovic View Post
(eg, using high rez photos aren't necessary, and bog the system down).
I think in the case of the photo montage, it was necessary to use high res photos. I was adding zooms & pans across areas of most of the photos. If I had started with the photos already at HD resolution, I would lose quality when I zoomed into them. I probably could have reduced them to 75% of their original size and been okay, but they still would have been pretty large.

What Matrox card did you add to your system?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pete Cofrancesco View Post
I seem to be the only one to hold the view that down converting doesn't increase the quality enough to justify the huge jump in time it takes to edit, render, export, resize, and encode.
Oh, I totally agree that downconverting from HD does not increase the quality of the SD enough to bother doing it. In fact, to my eyes, it doesn't increase the quality of the SD output at all. But I don't edit in HD just to increase the quality of the SD. I edit in HD sometimes because the client specifically wants an HDV master along with their SD DVDs. If the client requests it, then they do pay me enough to justify the extra time. But yes, sometimes I do edit in HD for personal reasons, usually because I want to make an HD master than can be used in the future (perhaps to create a Blu-Ray version down the road). Usually, I am still paid enough that I can afford the extra time it takes to do so, but I won't do it if it's going to interfere with another project. I don't edit everything in HD, and I would never edit in HD if I didn't intend to produce an HD master that might be used later on.
Doug Chambers is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 26th, 2009, 09:49 PM   #17
Trustee
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: USA
Posts: 1,555
sounds like we're both in agreement then.

I've priced out an i720 system for around $800. Which is a bargain compared to a Power Mac @ $2,500

I hate being behind the tech curve but I fight the urge to get a new system every couple of years.
Pete Cofrancesco is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 27th, 2009, 03:37 PM   #18
Major Player
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Hamilton Ontario
Posts: 769
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doug Chambers View Post
What Matrox card did you add to your system?
It was the Matrox RT.X2..Fortunately, i knew in advance to buy a validated system..
You need to double check your current machine, with their approved systems....

It will avoid headaches in the long run...

It's a catch22...I cut and edit HDV with ease, yet my current clientelle aren't paying for HD delivery..The delivered SD product is quite nice, but the time for downconvert offsets any gains made..Of course, Matrox easily downconverts, but i am not impressed with the output quality..

Good luck!!

Last edited by Peter Manojlovic; June 27th, 2009 at 08:42 PM.
Peter Manojlovic is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 28th, 2009, 11:29 AM   #19
Inner Circle
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Minnesota (USA)
Posts: 2,171
Newegg has a nice combo deal going for a 3GHz Phenom II and motherboard:

Newegg Phenom II and Motherboard Combo Deal

At 209.99, that's a lot of bang for the buck.
Robert M Wright is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 29th, 2010, 06:15 PM   #20
Major Player
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Northern Ireland
Posts: 904
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ron Evans View Post
IF you want a SD DV output just change project settings and output realtime to DV.
Ron Evans
Ron, I use edius 5 to edit my HD ex3 footage, so to make an SD DVD just change my project settings to SD and export from that for a SD DVD.
Anthony McErlean is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 29th, 2010, 07:19 PM   #21
Inner Circle
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 3,943
Edius 5 will make an SD DVD from the timeline even from a HD project. The issue most have is a quality argument of which is the best way to downconvert HD to SD. Myself and others feel that there are a number of ways that produce better quality than straight from the timeline. There are lots of threads on this on the GV Edius forum. The way that produces the highest quality output is using VDub. I prefer to export a HQ file and let TMPGenc create and downconvert at the same time which produces files almost as good as the Vdub approach but is a little faster and is done in one step. Both these methods produce a file that is better than the encode from Edius timeline. However unless you are critical of the SD DVD output you may not notice the difference !!! I use DVDLab for SD authoring and DVDArchitect for Bluray so always want a file anyway so do not use the disc creation from the Edius timeline.

Ron Evans
Ron Evans is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 29th, 2010, 11:43 PM   #22
Major Player
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Melrose Park, Illinois, USA
Posts: 936
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doug Chambers View Post
I'm currently editing on a 2-year-old system with a dual-core processor & 3 GB of RAM (4 GB is installed, but Windows only sees 3.25 GB), with Adobe Premiere Pro CS3. When I built the system I was shooting & editing SD only, but over the past 2 years I've moved toward mostly HD editing.

Now rendering times are getting to be just way too long for HD projects. Especially when I have to downconvert edited HD video to SD MPEG-2 for DVD authoring. On a recent project, a 2-hour video, conversion to SD MPEG-2 took almost 16 hours (with 2-pass encoding...8 hours for each pass). Fortunately, most projects are not that long, but rendering still eats a LOT of time.

I want to upgrade my hardware, but I'm not sure which route to take for the most benefit. I've thought about upgrading my motherboard and processor to a quad-core system, keeping everything else the same. But then I started reading up on hardware video encoder cards which claim to encode HD & SD video faster than real-time. So far I've been reading up on the Grass Valley Firecoder Blu and the Matrox CompressHD. Haven't really read that much on them, so I'm not sure how well either would integrate with Premiere Pro, if at all. It would be nice to have something that can speed up rendering on the timeline as well as speeding up final output.

Anyway, I thought I'd ask all you knowledgeable folks which way you think I would see the most benefit and reduction of rendering times: Quad-core processor upgrade or dedicated hardware encoder card? And what hardware would you recommend?
I agree with those who recommend a processor upgrade over a hardware-accelerated card. The hardware-accelerated cards are worth it only if you have a LOT of videos (this means hundreds or thousands of hours, not just a bunch of hour-long videos) to process, IMHO.

Your two-year-old system is using an AMD processor rather than an Intel processor. If that processor is of the Socket AM2 type, depending on the make and model of your system's motherboard you may be able to update its BIOS (downloadable from the Web site of the motherboard manufacturer) to make it (Socket AM3) Phenom II-compatible. Be sure to get the correct BIOS for your make and model of motherboard (and the board revision, if applicable). Update the BIOS with the existing CPU still in place, before you install the new CPU. Otherwise, your system might not work correctly or POST at all with the new CPU installed.

After the BIOS update is performed and the new Phenom II CPU installed, you may want to think about how you attained the 4GB of RAM in your existing system. Most two-year-old systems get their 4GB of RAM by filling up all four memory slots with 1GB modules. The trouble with that is nearly all 1GB modules in existence at the time such systems were manufactured or built were double-ranked. And many dual-channel DDR2 systems running four 1GB double-ranked modules might not have been able to (or could not) run their memory modules at speeds faster than DDR2-667 speed. That was partly due to the limitations of the systems' motherboards or memory controllers and partly due to the JEDEC recommendation of limiting full DDR2-800 or DDR2-1066 speed support to one double-ranked module per channel. In fact, some motherboard BIOSes would set the default memory speed to DDR2-667 when all four memory slots were populated with double-ranked DDR2-800 or DDR2-1066 modules in order to ensure stability (although it was easy enough to manually set the memory speed to the full DDR2-800 if such a speed were desired); however, if all four slots were occupied by double-ranked DDR2-667 or slower modules, the memory would operate at their stock speeds. After the processor upgrade, I would look into replacing the four 1GB modules with two 2GB modules - if only because the latter setup will allow you to expand the memory to 8GB if you ever want to go that high.

On the other hand, if your AMD system is a Socket 939 platform (rather than a Socket AM2), you have it much worse: There had never been any CPUs with more than two cores that were ever manufactured for that socket type. Worse, these systems use DDR1 memory, which is now obsolete and any memory upgrades will cost much more money than what DDR2 memory currently costs. (And that's not to mention that 4GB is the practical maximum for the Socket 939 memory controller since the largest unbuffered DDR1 memory modules ever manufactured were 1GB modules.) In this particular circumstance, the only upgrade would be a complete CPU/motherboard/memory overhaul.

Of course, if you have to replace the motherboard and memory in addition to the CPU, perhaps it would be a good time to switch from AMD to Intel?

Last edited by Randall Leong; January 30th, 2010 at 04:36 AM.
Randall Leong is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 30th, 2010, 03:16 AM   #23
Major Player
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Northern Ireland
Posts: 904
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ron Evans View Post
Edius 5 will make an SD DVD from the timeline even from a HD project. The issue most have is a quality argument of which is the best way to downconvert HD to SD. Myself and others feel that there are a number of ways that produce better quality than straight from the timeline. There are lots of threads on this on the GV Edius forum. The way that produces the highest quality output is using VDub. I prefer to export a HQ file and let TMPGenc create and downconvert at the same time which produces files almost as good as the Vdub approach but is a little faster and is done in one step. Both these methods produce a file that is better than the encode from Edius timeline. However unless you are critical of the SD DVD output you may not notice the difference !!! I use DVDLab for SD authoring and DVDArchitect for Bluray so always want a file anyway so do not use the disc creation from the Edius timeline.

Ron Evans
Thanks Ron,

I always use VDub as well and then bring it back into edius again (Anton's method) and have found it produces a very good quality SD DVD.
Just when I saw that post about changing the project settings for SD, I thought, its worth a try, even to see what it looks like compared to the VDub way.

I must experiment with TMPGenc as well, I didn't think of that.

Thanks again Ron.
Anthony McErlean is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 30th, 2010, 12:31 PM   #24
Regular Crew
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Canton, NC
Posts: 48
Wow, can't believe it's already been eight months since I started this thread. Seems like 8 minutes. I finally got my "upgrade" done just last week. I say upgrade, but I basically replaced everything except the computer's case and the drives. I went with an Intel i7 quad-core processor (the 920 model), and moved up to Windows 7 64-bit so I could use more RAM (6 GB). I haven't really had time to put it through its paces yet, but I did one quick HD to SD encode as a test and saw a significant improvement. Where the old system did just a few frames per second (barely), this one was going along at just below real-time. Encodes to SD MPEG-2 for DVD from SD files chug along at about 3 times real-time, so I'm happy with that. I've seen some benchmarks for similar systems that are quite a bit faster, but on those the processor was overclocked, and I'm nervous about even trying that. For now, I'm satisfied.
Doug Chambers is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 30th, 2010, 06:50 PM   #25
Major Player
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Melrose Park, Illinois, USA
Posts: 936
Doug,

Congrats on the essentially new system.

When you said that SD DVD compression from SD files "chugs along at about three times real-time", did you mean that it took about three minutes of processing for every minute of video, or did it actually take about 20 seconds of encoding for every minute of video recorded?
Randall Leong is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 30th, 2010, 08:01 PM   #26
Regular Crew
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Canton, NC
Posts: 48
Sorry, didn't make that clear. I should have said it chugs along at about three times FASTER than real-time, so yeah about 20 seconds to encode a minute of video.
Doug Chambers is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 30th, 2010, 09:48 PM   #27
Major Player
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Melrose Park, Illinois, USA
Posts: 936
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doug Chambers View Post
I should have said it chugs along at about three times FASTER than real-time, so yeah about 20 seconds to encode a minute of video.
That's still 50% to 100% faster than what my current Core2 Quad Q9450 rig with 4GB of DDR2-800 memory could muster with the same content. (Relatively speaking, if an i7-860 or 920 could encode an hour of SD-DV content to MPEG-2 in 20 minutes, my Q9450 would take 10 to 20 minutes longer than that to do the same thing.) There goes my already half-empty wallet...
Randall Leong is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 31st, 2010, 06:22 AM   #28
Major Player
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Northern Ireland
Posts: 904
My current system Q9550, 8GB Kingston HyperX 8500C5 1066MHz, Win7 Ultimate 64bit
can encode and burn a 2hr 40min project from the Edius SD Timeline to DVD in about 55mins.
Anthony McErlean is offline   Reply With Quote
Old January 31st, 2010, 08:25 AM   #29
Major Player
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Decatur, AL
Posts: 858
This coming May, my current editing system will be 4 years old. Yikes.

It's a Dual Core 2.8 GHz with 800 MHz fsb and 2MB cache
2GB 533 MHz RAM
256MB video card
C:/ 160GB HD
D:/ 250GB HD
Running Production CS2.

Without a doubt I need to upgrade my system before moving into the HD world!

Right now I'm working very hard on getting out of debt (last thing is the house, and should have it paid off in about 15 months) and in the meantime I'm waiting for some important pieces to fall into place before I take the HD leap:

(1) Canon to release their new prosumer camera so I can compare it to the Sony NXCAMs and make a decision on camera upgrade (from GL1 and XL1s).
(2) Intel to release their 6-core processor, which may mean a decrease in quad core prices, so I can build a monster system with like 24GB RAM and a 2GB video card :)
(3) Adobe to release CS5, which hopefully with include that new GPU access architecture.

I've also held off this long in getting into HD video because of all the competing formats. On a certain level, I viewed this as a VHS BETA war, or HD DVD vs BLU RAY war with respect to HDV, AVCHD, and all the storage types P2, SxS, SD, miniDV etc.

And indeed, the Blu Ray HD DVD had a winner.

So what does the future hold for HDV vs AVCHD? Who knows, but maybe there will be a clearer picture in a few months.

I forgot, I'll also have to look into getting some sort of Grass Valley or Matrox card too.... so many choices!
__________________
Kyle
KR Productions; www.kyleroot.com
Kyle Root is offline   Reply
Reply

DV Info Net refers all where-to-buy and where-to-rent questions exclusively to these trusted full line dealers and rental houses...

Professional Video
(800) 833-4801
Portland, OR

B&H Photo Video
(866) 521-7381
New York, NY

Z.G.C.
(973) 335-4460
Mountain Lakes, NJ

Abel Cine Tech
(888) 700-4416
N.Y. NY & L.A. CA

Precision Camera
(800) 677-1023
Austin, TX

DV Info Net also encourages you to support local businesses and buy from an authorized dealer in your neighborhood.
  You are here: DV Info Net > Cross-Platform Post Production Solutions > High Definition Video Editing Solutions

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

 



Google
 

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 01:09 PM.


DV Info Net -- Real Names, Real People, Real Info!
1998-2017 The Digital Video Information Network