Adobe Premiere discussions from 2003

[Keith Luken]

Upgrading from 2.8 to dual 3.0 I don't think you will see much, not to mention it gets $$$ quick. Seems Dual XEON boards need a special power supply to supply enough power on the +12V lines. I opted to go from my 2.2 GHz 400FSB to a Single P4 3.0c 800FSB on a i875P chipset. I picked up dual DDR 400 Kingston HyperX CL2 RAM and now have a screaming system. Not the full benefits of dual CPUs, but I can no render and the system stays responsive. And the money I saved I can buy a 3.4 CPU or faster when they come out later in the year. Essentially my upgrade cost me $250 for the MB, $525 for CPU and $215 for 1GB (2 x 512MB) CL2 RAM. The Xeon CPUs woudl be over $600 each and the MB another $300 and the power supply $130. And with the Dual Xeons you would still have only 533FSB. The Gigabyte MB has a TI 1394 onboard which was a nice feature, although the onboard Gb LAN is flakey under XP, so had to stick a PCI Gb card in. Best 2 875 MB options are ASUS and Gigabyte, ASUS has less features and is a tad faster.

[Garret Ambrosio]

Unfortunately the Itanium (I don't know about the Itanium-2) is plagued with performance hits when trying to run 32-bit apps much like the Pentium Pro had trouble with 16-bit apps. From what I've read the AMD Hammer CPU's will not be plagued with perfromance problems when running 32-bit apps. Maybe worth a look. Cheaper to boot.

[Dave Orlando]

I tape using Sony's TRV900 and PD150, captured with Canopus Rex card.

My questions are, should I set the audio on the 150(48k) DVCAM to match the 900(32k)
And can I use the 900 VTR to capture both?

I've experimented a little with this and don’t see any obvious problems.

If you have any other setting hints I sure would like to hear them.


Thanks Dave

[Mike Rehmus]

Not a problem. AFAIK, the 900 will not down-convert your 48 Khz sample rate. I thought the 900 had a 48 Khz sample rate?

[John Garcia]

I am currently working on a short graduation slide show using Adobe Premiere. I ran a test export to see the quality of the video. It looked awesome, but the file size was unbelievably large! About 1 minute of video took up almost 1.5 gigs! Unfortunately, I don’t have 200 gigs to work with, so I just wanted to know if anyone out there could tell me what I could do to achieve a smaller file size, while preserving quality.

I am planing on making the slide show about 10-15 minutes long, and I will be showing the video using a projector. Any help would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks in advance...

John

[Nigel Moore]

When you say "I will be showing the video using a projector", I presume you mean from a PC? Will the PC have the file on it, or are you planning to burn to CD?

You could try exporting to quicktime. The files are generally smaller than native DV/AVI output and the quality is good if you tinker with the settings.

[John Garcia]

Yes, I will be projecting the video onto a screen.

Anyone else have any ideas/techniques?

Thanks for your replies...

[Dave Orlando]

The 900 has 12 or 16bit option, is 16bit a 48k sample rate?

Dave

[Keith Loh]

If you're worried about playback and storage, why don't you output it to VHS and use a VCR?

[Nick Glenister]

I have just created a 2 minute promo of a modified car show, which when exported was 3.5gigs. I used TMPGenc (www.TMPGeng.net) which compressed it down to 128meg as an mpeg2 file. The quality is great and i'm pleased with the results.

Regards

Nick

[John Garcia]

thanks for your replies. I actually managed to compress the same 3 gig file down to 200 mb. and the quality is still there!

All i did was change the compressor to microsoft avi...

Ill try the TMPGeng compressor also though, to see if there is any difference.

Thanks again!!

[Nick Glenister]

<<<-- Originally posted by John Garcia : thanks for your replies. I actually managed to compress the same 3 gig file down to 200 mb. and the quality is still there!

All i did was change the compressor to microsoft avi...

Ill try the TMPGeng compressor also though, to see if there is any difference.

Thanks again!! -->>>

Out of interest John, what codec did you select when you used microsoft Avi? I tend to use uncompressed and then compress with TMPGenc as i mentioned previously but i'm keen to known what compression you used to retain the quality.

Regards

Nick

[John Garcia]

Alright, here are my settings, before (large file) and after (smaller file)

Large file settings:

File type - Microsoft DV AVI
Compressor - Cinepak Codec by Radious
Frame Size - 720x480
Pixel Aspect Ratio - D1/DV NTSC Widescreen 16:9 (1.2)
Frame Rate - 29.97
Depth: Millions, Quality: 100%


Small file settings:

File type - Microsoft AVI
Compressor - Cinepak Codec by Radious
Frame Size - 720x480
Pixel Aspect Ratio - D1/DV NTSC Widescreen 16:9 (1.2)
Frame Rate - 29.97
Depth: Millions, Quality: 100%

I guess the only difference would be the file type. Nonetheless, the file was much much smaller, and for what i'm doing, the quality is more than enough. Hopefully this answers your question.

Ill do a couple more tests to see which compressors produce the smallest file size per quality...

John

[John Garcia]

Yeah, turns out with those settings, the output file size runs about 100mb per minute. Still much better than 1gb per minute. 10x more!

[John Garcia]

actually, you know what guys, I ran 2 seperate files, one DV/AVI and one AVI, although the AVI file is much much much smaller, the DV/AVI file has fairly better quality. But in my case, i really cant tell when I project it. It looks basically the same.

Hope this helps...