I was wondering what the recommended specs were to capture and or play HDV. (1080i) Here are my PC specs right now.

-2.6 GHz Intel Celeron Processor.

-526 MB of RAM, DDR, 333MHz, PC2700. I just bought another 526 MB stick of RAM off eBay. I should get it within the week. So I pretty much will have 1 GB of RAM.

-64 MB of on board video memory. I am going to be getting a ATI Radeon 9250 256 MB DDR PCI graphics card. I can only get PCI becuase my motherboard doesn't have an AGP slot. It's the regular PCI slot, not PCI-e.

Will my updated machine be good enough? When ever I try to play a downloaded 1080i HDV clip recorded from a Sony HDR-HC1, it plays all slow and skips. I'm hoping the extra 512MB of RAM I'm getting will help this out a lot. I'm also hoping the ATI Radeon 9250 will be fast enough to play the HDV. I already know that the ATI Radeon 9250 has a high enough resoultion for 1080i HDV video. It goes well over 1920x1080, even though the Sony HDR-HC1 records HDV in 1440x1080.

What do you guys think? Will my system will be powerful enough for just basic HDV editing? Powerful enough for just 1 HDV stream in editing?

I have a 2.6 Ghz P4 (not celeron) and it works good enough (processor use between 60% and 80%). I only have 512 MB system memory that will not be the problem. I personally think the small amount of cache on the celeron cripples it.

I DO see a difference according to what program you use though. While Windows Media player needs more proc power than say vlc player. About capturing i wouldn't know. Harddisk overall fast enough for that, but i don't know about proc and mem.

That has been discussed in-depth already.

No way you're machine will be able to without an intermediate codec. Dual processors is not enough for editing true HDV. Read about it...

Lars, you must definetely be using an intermediate codec when editing. No way your system has enough muscle...2 GB RAM is almost not enough.

Read the question please. I think he asks if his computer is fast enough to PLAY it back and RECORD it to his PC and PUT it back on the camcorder, NOT EDITING.

Editing in real time for sure will not be able, also with my computer that's not possible. but does it HAVE to be possible? It is handy yes, but RENDERING doesn't have to be real time.

So instead of having a hardware codec you can also wait a little longer and have plenty diskspace (for the rendering).

I said i can play it back real time and probably will be able to record it from the camcorder to the harddrive. In those two ways no rendering is asked of the processor just processing data and decoding at playback.

I will be editing the HDV footage once it's on my computer. So I guess I'm going to have to use a intermeadiate codec.

I will be editing the HDV footage once it's on my computer. So I guess I'm going to have to use a intermeadiate codec.

Selim,
What NLE software will you be using?
Your 2.6 will definitely be too slow for normal intermediary editing, but there are applications which will support proxies, so it's like editing DV.
Your final output can be HD, but it's a slow render on such a slow machine. RAM allocation isn't nearly as important as people make it out to be. You'll be more interested in processor speed and the FSB, plus your hard drive controller speed. These are all the more important factors.
You can do HDV on a slower, older machine, it's just a little more work, and a lot more time, even when working with proxies.

Adobe Premiere Pro 1.5.1.

Unfortunately, Premiere Pro 1.5.1 won't support HDV on that speed of proc...darn. It'll 'work', but that's just masochism.
you might want to consider downconverting to DV for now, and picking up a faster proc as you can afford. We're using the new AMD 275's with great success. The new X2's look pretty sweet too, I just bought a mobo and proc, will be building up a new system this weekend w/it.

I can't wait until I build my first system! But unfortunately, I don't have any money to build it. When I do, I'm only going to the best parts. So I'm going to save up, buy a nice expensive motherboard. Save up more, then by 2 processors for that nice motherboard. Then a 512MB Nividia Quadro FX 4400 Graphics Card...OK, now I'm dreaming. But I'm going to make it the best it can be. It will take some time and a lot of money, but it'll be worth it in the longrun.

All right, now that its out of the bag, How much computer do you need to get close to real time editing, and not an eternal - more then 12hr for 1 hour of video w color corr., transitions, etc. to render with HDV on either Adobe PPro or Vegas?
Are the Dual Cores the way to go? Intel or AMD? Everyone says AMD, but on THG it seems to show that the Intel is faster at encoding and rendering.
Finally, how do these systems (software+Hardware)compare to FCP5 on a 2.5-2.7g G5 Mac? I need to get a new system. I'm a WinTel guy, but everyone raves about FCP & the Mac, so I could buy that for my editing, but looking around here, it seems they have bugs/issues as well. Sorry to ask so many dumb ?, but any help would be most appreciated - thanks

Are the Dual Cores the way to go? Intel or AMD? Everyone says AMD, but on THG it seems to show that the Intel is faster at encoding and rendering.
Finally, how do these systems (software+Hardware)compare to FCP5 on a 2.5-2.7g G5 Mac? I need to get a new system. I'm a WinTel guy, but everyone raves about FCP & the Mac, so I could buy that for my editing, but looking around here, it seems they have bugs/issues as well. Sorry to ask so many dumb ?, but any help would be most appreciated - thanks

I'd say either AMD or Intel Dual core processors will give greatly improved encoding performance. Whether one is radically superior to the other... how important is a milli second to you? There's other things like MMX instruction set support, chipsets, FSB, etc. that play a part as well. Price is gonna be more worthy of consideration IMHO than brand.

I know I'll get crucified by all the Mac afficiandos for saying that you should stick to the PC. If you already got PC you can always network the one you have to help improve render times (network rendering), extra back-up and use of applications that don't require extra licenses for running on 2 machines (if you go Mac you'll have to get ALL new software...).

Now for the bit that'll really get 'em hot under the collar... I just think Mac's are over-rated. I work with them all day long, and can't wait to get home and use my PC instead. All I hear from my co-workers is "Photoshop's better on the Mac," and similar malinformed bunkum. Mind you, when they think no-one else is listening, they ask if I'll give them 'free' software for the new PC they've just bought. What a bloody hyde!!

AS for FCP. It looks feels and operates very much like Premiere Pro. I wondered what all the fuss was about... Whoopdie Doo!!

BTW, not long now until the first Intel powered Mac fellas!!

How much computer do you need to get close to real time editing, and not an eternal - more then 12hr for 1 hour of video w color corr., transitions, etc. to render with HDV on either Adobe PPro or Vegas?

Using Edius software on an Intel dual-core processor running at 3.0 GHz, encoding edited HDV (in Canopus HQ format) back to an HDV 1080i file takes 4+ hours per hour of timeline, while encoding to Windows Media at 720p takes about 7 hours. Sometime in the next few months Canopus will supposedly ship a real-time output encoder for their Edius NX and SP hardware cards.

Sounds like output from FCP5 back to HDV may be significantly quicker than typical PC-based HDV editing options. Anyone on a Mac care to report some real-world results for that?

Kevein, What model Intel Dual Processor do you have? They don't hype the speed spec's anymore, but most the dual core processors seem to run at <3ghz. Are you over clocking, and how's the temp?

I am editing HDV in real time on my system. It's a bit chunky when I scrub over un-rendered transitions but usually only while it caches it - Subsequent scrubs over them seem just fine.

My machine specs are:

Intel P4 dual core overclocked to 4GHz (had to put in liquid cooling for that).
4GB ram
ATI x850 PCIe video card

Well now that the new Apple Power Macs came out today, does this change anyone's ideas about the best computer to buy for HDV editing? Or are we still saying PCs?

Kevein, What model Intel Dual Processor do you have? They don't hype the speed spec's anymore, but most the dual core processors seem to run at <3ghz. Are you over clocking, and how's the temp?

Paul: I'm using the Intel Pentium D 830 running at the standard clock speed of 3.0 GHz, with 2 GB of DDR400 memory and large ATA hard drives with 8-16 MB caches.

FYI, Canopus recently announced a new "Speed Encoder" for rendering from an Edius HDV timeline to a finished HDV file in near real time on sufficiently powerful PCs.

As far as the new Macs are concerned, the dual dual-core model looks impressive...but I doubt it will change anyone's opinion about whether to use Macs or PCs for HDV editing. If you're not already hooked on Final Cut Pro you probably won't switch now, and if you are you'll be happy to have the option to buy some kick-a$$ hardware. I like what Apple's been doing lately, but not enough to give them several thousand dollars of my hard-earned money.

I ordered a Intel Pentium 4 3.2GHz processor. (Prescott core, 800MHz FSB, Socket 478) I should get it in a couple of days. Like I said in the first post, right now I have a Intel Celeron 2.6GHz processor with 128KB Level 2 Cache. The Pentium 4 has a 1MB cache, and is faster. So this should set me up for the next couple of years for my HDV editing. Next will be a new graphics card. I'm looking at the ATI Radeon X700 Pro AGP 8X and am hoping to buy next month.

If you had say 2600 dollars to play around with to buy the hardware before you got around to the software, what would you guys buy for HDV editing, where would youput your resources? Thanks:)

If you had say 2600 dollars to play around with to buy the hardware before you got around to the software, what would you guys buy for HDV editing, where would youput your resources? Thanks:)

Right now, today?
I'd put my money on the AMD X2 system in the price range you have to work in. We just bought 4 of the X2 4400 systems, and love them for HDV work.

Right now, today?
I'd put my money on the AMD X2 system in the price range you have to work in. We just bought 4 of the X2 4400 systems, and love them for HDV work.

Yes... If you weren't an AMD fanboy, you could also look at any dual-core processor - but AMD gets the nod as far as Dual-core performance at the moment.

Lots of fast Hard disk space in a nice RAID array is another area worth investigating.

A decent (doesn't have to be 'state of the art') Graphics card...

And a really, really, really good large size monitor that will support HD resolutions - assuming; of course, that you already have a nice big HDTV!!

Try to consider the sorts of circumstances that your material will be viewed under... i.e. for WMV9 HD material, the most likely viewing device will be 4:3 computer monitor, with RGB colour space. MPEG2 for copying back to cam for review on HDTV, or conversion to DVD which can be viewed on computer monitor, 16:9 HDTV or 4:3 TV.

It is worth being able to see how your work looks on each sort of viewing device, that is the most likely device that your target audience will be using...

If you don't have the HDTV, then try to work out a monitor compromise... because at some point - the sooner the better - you're going to need the HDTV.

Don't go berserk on RAM, as it's not as pivotal in the HDV editing experience as CPU and hard disk performance. 1Gig usually does fine, 2Gig is nice... 4Gig is not gonna be noticed!!

Take a look at devices such as the Avel linkplayer 2, or even the X-Box 360 when it comes out as being viable 10/100Mbit networkable devices for allowing full resolution viewing of HD material stored on your computer on a large screen HDTV. As they are equiped with DVD drives, one can also write HD WMV9 files to standard DVD for playback. Down the track, this could be the best, cheapest and most accepted HD distribution method...

anywayz, that's my thoughts on extra hardware that might be worth thinkin' 'bout. Happy Hunting!!!

Yes... If you weren't an AMD fanboy, you could also look at any dual-core processor - but AMD gets the nod as far as Dual-core performance at the moment.

Lots of fast Hard disk space in a nice RAID array is another area worth investigating.

A decent (doesn't have to be 'state of the art') Graphics card...

And a really, really, really good large size monitor that will support HD resolutions - assuming; of course, that you already have a nice big HDTV!!

Try to consider the sorts of circumstances that your material will be viewed under... i.e. for WMV9 HD material, the most likely viewing device will be 4:3 computer monitor, with RGB colour space. MPEG2 for copying back to cam for review on HDTV, or conversion to DVD which can be viewed on computer monitor, 16:9 HDTV or 4:3 TV.

It is worth being able to see how your work looks on each sort of viewing device, that is the most likely device that your target audience will be using...

If you don't have the HDTV, then try to work out a monitor compromise... because at some point - the sooner the better - you're going to need the HDTV.

Don't go berserk on RAM, as it's not as pivotal in the HDV editing experience as CPU and hard disk performance. 1Gig usually does fine, 2Gig is nice... 4Gig is not gonna be noticed!!

Take a look at devices such as the Avel linkplayer 2, or even the X-Box 360 when it comes out as being viable 10/100Mbit networkable devices for allowing full resolution viewing of HD material stored on your computer on a large screen HDTV. As they are equiped with DVD drives, one can also write HD WMV9 files to standard DVD for playback. Down the track, this could be the best, cheapest and most accepted HD distribution method...

anywayz, that's my thoughts on extra hardware that might be worth thinkin' 'bout. Happy Hunting!!!

Umm....You don't know me very well, I guess. I've almost always been an Intel fanboy, until AMD came out with dual core. In the past, when AMD was starting to get into the vid market, I did buy 2 systems for a major studio I was helping outfit for Cakewalk, and they made some press on it, but otherwise, I've always been an Intel guy.
In this month's PC World, all their tests also show AMD kicking Intel's butt on every test for speed for the buck, and speed at any cost in identical classes.
Of the nearly 30 systems we own, only 6 of them contain AMD procs. Most of them are HT systems. The X2's are fairly evident as the best value currently. The 275's probably aren't the best value out there, but we enjoy the 2 systems we have. (Tyan 2895 mobos with 8 drive SATA RAID 0)

Umm....You don't know me very well, I guess. I've almost always been an Intel fanboy, until AMD came out with dual core.

Sorry Douglas!! My 'fanboy' comment was not aimed at you... it was meant more as a generic sort of statement; so that whoever was reading would know that regardless of allegiances to a particular brand computing platform... that the dual-core processors beat hyperthreaded CPU's hands down.

I've actually never owned an AMD processored machine, and I've got four Intel CPU'd PCs at the moment - but; I'm never averse to switching platform or processor if it becomes viable!! Actually the main reason I wouldn't consider AMD powered machines before the advent of dual-core was the VIA chipset that was used on nearly all AMD based MOBO's... but I believe the dual-core AMD boards aren't using VIA any more - or at least you can get a board without VIA on it!!

I have no problem with anything. I just built a new PC for editing HD. First, the camera. I have the Sony HVR-Z1U and I record everything in HD. As far as editing, I user Premiere Pro 1.5.1 as well as Sony Vegas 6. The Hardware: I'm running Intel's newest P4, the 840 D Extreme edition, you know, the $1000.00 one. I run 2 gig of dual channel DDR2 Corsair RAM, on Asus's latest MB. I have a PCIX 7800 GT Extereme video card with 256MB ddr2. My primary system drive is WD 74 GB SATA running at 10,000 RPM, my main data drive for editing and storing my work is two WD 250 GB SATA's running in a RAID 0 configuration, both drives are 7200 RPM. The system runs without a hitch.