Video editing, encoding, rendering..the difference

[pat]

Ok guy..just to clear up something that you dont seem to understand. At first it was P4 that was faster for encoding, which was right but now the P4 is faster at anything video, which is not true.

Video editing is not encoding. encoding is not rendering rendering is not editing.. So saying tha the P4 is better at encoding doesnt mean that it is better at rendering and editing.

Video editing is when you take a movie, take some parts out, put new parts in, add title, transitions, sounds, music,...

You need mostly a fast HDD here, and either a P4 or an AMD will perform good here. You dont work with rawe data here, but rather with timed event. So, basicly tell your computer to take that file, a x time you insert that sound, a x time you put that fade, and so on. The fast HDD come in handy when you sneek thru the video file to find some parts to edit, ...


Video rendering is when you finished piecing the parts of your movie and you want to have them assembledto create your movie.

Here to, a fast hdd will help as it has to read and write often on the disk. A fast CPU helps here too, and which one is better is hard to tell, as it depend of which apps you use and which codec is used. for the same movie, it can take 15 minutes with one application while the other may need 1 hours to do the same. Pinnacle Studio8 is a slow renderer, and Version9 add a better codec that cut rendering time in half on the same machine.

Video encoding is when you take an AVI movie and transform it into a Divx one or an mpeg movie to an AVI one.

The P4 is better here because of its higher clock. Encoding is a streamlined task that is well served by the fastest clock that the longer P4's pipeline has. A 2.8 P4 will outperform the 2800+ AMD... but maybe not the 2.8 Ghz overclocked AMD.


Now that you know the difference, I should see another post that says that P4 perform better at editing... because it is not always the case.

Ouf.. I think I stoped that soon enough to prevent some guru to start saying that the P4 is better at video taping, or video cassette recording... or at american funniest home video-ing, or at music video,...


-Always put the blame on you first, then on the hardware !!!

 

[endyen]

I agree with you, as far as you went. The problem is, you stopped short. At divx, P4c(e) is king. At xvid, amd wins. If an app is well optimized for SSE2, the P4c(e) will win, but not like it did against the xp chips.
64 bit is still somewhat of an unknown. As far as sound goes, benchmarks have shown that Amd64 wins. It seems logical to think that the same would hold true for video.

 

[pat]

Yeah, I know that AMD win at some benchmark in encoding, but I was talking in general. The extra register in AMD 64 may be why they perform better in 64 mode. They can put more data in register to be processed for each clock cycle, and I guess that when programs will start to be optimized for 64 bits, the should crunch faster than they do now. But we will have to wait for the 64 bits apps to see.

OTOH, I downloaded the 32 bits version of POV (persistance of vision) as well as the 64 bits. I havent had the time to do some benchmark, because I've uninstalled Win64 to free an HDD, but I look forward to reinstall it and do some test later.

-Always put the blame on you first, then on the hardware !!!

 

[Simpleton]

I HAVE A QUESTION REGARDING THE SPEED THAT I WILL GAIN USING TWO HDD WORKING ON VIDEO CAPTURING OF VHS ANALOG TAPES TO BURN THEM INTO DVD'S.

What kind of configuration the two hard drives have to be at in order to have the process done faster?I have two hard drives which are not SATA and they are of different sizes. One is 120 gigs ide-ultra ata 100 with 8 mb buffer and the other 80 gigs ide ultra ata also 8 mb buffer.

My system is Athlon 64 bit based (SOCKET 754) windows xp

Right now I have only one hard drive installed.Before I install the second one I need to figure out the configuration in which the two of them will be working and also how to use them.

Thanks.

 

[mozzartusm]

Ah, but you stopped short also because I along with my Jedi Mindtrick am superior to all of you. The computer matters not for it is the power of the Jedi Knight that produces the faster and far superior benchmarks.

Sorry about that, must have been an ACID flashback. No, now that I think about it, I never used LSD. Ah, but one of the 7 voices in my head once had a serious drug problem. So maybe it was an acid flashback after all.

To save us both time, assume I know EVERYTHING :tongue:

 

[pat]

Yeah, I know that you are not crazy, it is only the voices in your head that drive you nut!!!

-Always put the blame on you first, then on the hardware !!!

 

[pat]

Having the 2 drives on different channel, and the burner as slave on the primary channel(slave of the OS drive).

Capture and edit on the second HDD. That will prevent you to have dropped frame if the OS start to do something on the system disk. And you may have better succes for burning the movie if the source ans the burner are not on the same IDE channel

RAID is out of question because you will loose too much (40 gigs) by doing so.

-Always put the blame on you first, then on the hardware !!!

 

[Simpleton]

PAT...does the second HD installed on the secondary IDE channel must have the same OS installed? or will only serve for data and no OS is needed.

After the installation and booting up the computer...do I have to do some configuring for the computer to accept the second HD?...or it is just plug and play.

Thanks for your time.

 

[pat]

No, you dont need a separate OS on it, it will be use by the OS as another place for storage. If the disk is brand new, it may not show up with the other drives. You just have to go in Administrative tool, computer management, drive management (from memory, may varie) and setup the new drive

-Always put the blame on you first, then on the hardware !!!

 

[Simpleton]

Thanks PAT..good advice.

 

[Simpleton]

About the posting you made in this thread concerning video encoding and its relationship to faster processors performing better on that particular task.

I just run into some information concerning the Video Capture Card I just purchased(Hauppauge PVR 150) which has Hardware Encoding build in. According to Hauppauge tech support the speed of the Processor is not important here ever since the capture Card (PCI CARD) does all the encoding work... freeing the CPU from doing that task.

If the card does not come with hardware encoding then the software will...and the CPU will have to do all the encoding.

I wonder if that is correct.

 

[tweebel]

You're right, most tv cards don't support hardware encoding and come with software mpeg capturing which means the CPU has to do the job.

<P ID="edit"><FONT SIZE=-1><EM>Edited by tweebel on 02/04/05 00:54 AM.</EM></FONT></P>

 

[pat]

You're right, but this is real time encoding, meaning that the encoder wont encode faster than the live feeding, be it either software or hardware encoder.

Any CPU above 1 Ghz should be able to encode mpeg2 feed from a live video signal.. I guess. I've used an AIW with an Athlon XP1600+ at 1.4 GHz ad it would capture without any frame lost. Unless you start to either play something or asking something to your HDD. Hardware encoder wont need a powerfull CPU, as you said, encoding is done by the hardware encoder. But it still need some fast HDD to keep up with the feed from the encoder.

By encoding here, I was talking about taking an already encoded file en re-encode it as another format. See, the encoding wont happen in real time, usually faster than realtime as it already have the file present.

Let say you have a wall to paint, but they are still building it. So you start painting, but you paint faster than they can built. So you have to wait for the wall to be built. So this is live encoding. But, once the wall is built, and painted, an you want to paint it again, it will be faster because you dont have to wait for the wall, it is already there. This is file encoding.

-Always put the blame on you first, then on the hardware !!!