Advice Please: Fanless Video Card Recommendations

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop, rec.video.production (More info?)

Can I get recommendations on the best consumer video cards(for video
editing) that don't have/need a fan. My PC is too hot and loud the way
it is.

Thanks a lot.

Darren Harris
Staten Island, New York.
25 answers Last reply
More about advice please fanless video card recommendations
  1. Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop,rec.video.production (More info?)

    I'm not an expert but I think all video cards on the market today need/have
    a fan to keep them cool. If you're system is too hot you might look into
    some extra case fans.

    Cheers!
    atarileaf

    <Searcher7@mail.con2.com> wrote in message
    news:1104019199.839328.82410@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
    > Can I get recommendations on the best consumer video cards(for video
    > editing) that don't have/need a fan. My PC is too hot and loud the way
    > it is.
    >
    > Thanks a lot.
    >
    > Darren Harris
    > Staten Island, New York.
    >
  2. Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop,rec.video.production (More info?)

    <Searcher7@mail.con2.com> wrote in message
    news:1104019199.839328.82410@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
    > Can I get recommendations on the best consumer video cards(for video
    > editing) that don't have/need a fan. My PC is too hot and loud the way
    > it is.
    >
    > Thanks a lot.
    >
    > Darren Harris
    > Staten Island, New York.
    >
    Matrox makes cards that have an excellent reputation for video editing.

    http://www.matrox.com

    The Matrox G450 and G550 are dual monitor capable, and they do not have
    fans.
  3. Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop,rec.video.production (More info?)

    <Searcher7@mail.con2.com> wrote in message
    news:1104019199.839328.82410@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
    > Can I get recommendations on the best consumer video cards(for video
    > editing) that don't have/need a fan. My PC is too hot and loud the way
    > it is.
    >
    > Thanks a lot.
    >
    > Darren Harris
    > Staten Island, New York.
    >
    http://www.atruereview.com/zalman/index.php

    http://www.zalmanusa.com/usa/product/view.asp?idx=138&code=013
  4. Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop,rec.video.production (More info?)

    On 25 Dec 2004 15:59:59 -0800, Searcher7@mail.con2.com wrote:

    >Can I get recommendations on the best consumer video cards(for video
    >editing) that don't have/need a fan. My PC is too hot and loud the way
    >it is.
    >
    >Thanks a lot.
    >
    >Darren Harris
    >Staten Island, New York.

    Sounds like you should be looking to replace the machine.
  5. Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop,rec.video.production (More info?)

    "Donald Link" <linkd@mindspring.com> wrote in message
    news:fa2ss0dd4hsj51jn2jcsmno972n0v8r0ej@4ax.com...
    > On 25 Dec 2004 15:59:59 -0800, Searcher7@mail.con2.com wrote:
    >
    > >Can I get recommendations on the best consumer video cards(for video
    > >editing) that don't have/need a fan. My PC is too hot and loud the way
    > >it is.
    > >
    > >Thanks a lot.
    > >
    > >Darren Harris
    > >Staten Island, New York.
    >
    > Sounds like you should be looking to replace the machine.

    That sounds a little drastic to me. If he doesn't have case fans then that
    would definitely help and perhaps a new, and more powerful power supply.
    I've heard underpowered PSU's can cause over heating as well.

    As for the original post I again wouldn't recommend any video card that
    didn't have a fan on it and the Zalman fan mentioned earlier is a good
    product and runs quiet so noise shouldn't be an issue.

    Cheers!
    atarileaf
  6. Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop,rec.video.production (More info?)

    Robert Morein wrote:
    > The Matrox G450 and G550 are dual monitor capable, and they do
    > not have fans.

    I'm using an old G400. When viewing my digicam pics, I use IrfanView.
    This card is actually faster at scaling to fit the screen than the much newer,
    but admittedly low-end nVidia MX440 card I was using previously . I
    would like to get something that is faster still at 2D scaling...
  7. Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop, rec.video.production (More info?)

    With three case fans, and three 10K rpm SCSI drives, I thought I'd try
    to find ways to keep the PC's noise level down. Hence, a card that
    stays cool enough not to need a fan.

    The editing will only involve shading, shadow movements, and lighting
    of sceneries. That's pretty much it. But speed is very important.

    This will be done on a single monitor only, and output to the common
    standards and resolutions of today would be desirable.(I'll be using my
    PC(VGA) and TV mostly).

    Any ideas on how important the amount of ram is on the video card, for
    what I want to do?
    Thanks a lot.

    Darren Harris
    Staten Island, New York.
  8. Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop, rec.video.production (More info?)

    > Typical cut-only editing uses only one specific hardware feature of a
    card:
    > the ability to provide what is known as a "frame buffer", for display
    of
    > video. Some editing programs use SPECIFIC 3D cards to accelerate
    rendition
    > of transitions. However, these cards are keyed to specific editing
    programs.
    > If your editing program does not mention a 3D card, there is
    absolutely no
    > advantage to the use of one.
    >
    > Oddly enough, plain 2D cards are rare now days, because there are so
    many
    > casual game players. This accounts for the appearance of fans on many
    > inexpensive cards.
    > Matrox cards, with half-way exception of the Parhelia, have no 3D
    capability
    > at all. The company specializes in multiple monitor support, and very
    high
    > quality. A Matrox card has a noticeably sharper display than other
    cards,
    > due to special analog circuitry at the output.

    > If you don't care about display quality, an ATI card based on the
    7000
    > chipset works fine, and is available for between $20 and $50.

    I presently have an ATI All-In-Wonder(from a PC I had built in 1998) on
    my system.

    > Because consumer video has at best eight-bit color resolution, and is
    wildly
    > inaccurate, any card will enable you to do color correction to the
    best of
    > your ability.

    What I want to do is more complicated than that. As for video video.
    What if the shading, moving shadows, and changing light are effects
    that I'd like to add to specific areas of video, as opposed to a static
    landscape?

    Would I need a 3-D card then?

    In other words, what if I wanted to put a video of a low flying
    aircraft onto a video of a canyon? To create a shadow of the aircraft
    moving across the rocky canyon floor would require 3-D video card,
    correct?

    (I'm sure a program would have to be written in order to do this).
    Thanks a lot.

    Darren Harris
    Staten Island, New York.
  9. Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop,rec.video.production (More info?)

    <Searcher7@mail.con2.com> wrote in message
    news:1104106410.812655.240470@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
    > With three case fans, and three 10K rpm SCSI drives, I thought I'd try
    > to find ways to keep the PC's noise level down. Hence, a card that
    > stays cool enough not to need a fan.
    >
    > The editing will only involve shading, shadow movements, and lighting
    > of sceneries. That's pretty much it. But speed is very important.
    >
    > This will be done on a single monitor only, and output to the common
    > standards and resolutions of today would be desirable.(I'll be using my
    > PC(VGA) and TV mostly).
    >
    > Any ideas on how important the amount of ram is on the video card, for
    > what I want to do?
    > Thanks a lot.
    >
    > Darren Harris
    > Staten Island, New York.
    >
    It's not important at all.
    Video card capabilities are divided between "2D" and "3D".
    "3D" refers to the ability of a card to do three dimensional computations on
    images conveyed to it in special formats, such as Direct X or Open GL. A
    whole industry has been built up in support of games, animation, and
    modeling. However, this is very different from MOST, but not ALL video
    editing programs.

    Typical cut-only editing uses only one specific hardware feature of a card:
    the ability to provide what is known as a "frame buffer", for display of
    video. Some editing programs use SPECIFIC 3D cards to accelerate rendition
    of transitions. However, these cards are keyed to specific editing programs.
    If your editing program does not mention a 3D card, there is absolutely no
    advantage to the use of one.

    Oddly enough, plain 2D cards are rare now days, because there are so many
    casual game players. This accounts for the appearance of fans on many
    inexpensive cards.
    Matrox cards, with half-way exception of the Parhelia, have no 3D capability
    at all. The company specializes in multiple monitor support, and very high
    quality. A Matrox card has a noticeably sharper display than other cards,
    due to special analog circuitry at the output.

    If you don't care about display quality, an ATI card based on the 7000
    chipset works fine, and is available for between $20 and $50.

    Because consumer video has at best eight-bit color resolution, and is wildly
    inaccurate, any card will enable you to do color correction to the best of
    your ability.
  10. Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop, rec.video.production (More info?)

    It's not a high end system but it's more than the minimum requirements
    listed for "Combustion" if I were to go with that, even without getting
    another video card. At least that's the way it seems.(I presently have
    installed an ATI All-In-Wonder PRO(3D Rage Pro AGP 2X)).

    The motherboard is an Asus CUV4X(AGP Pro/4X), with a 1Ghz CPU attached,
    and support for 3 X 512mb of ram.(If you want me to post the system
    specs, just let me know). The three SCSI drives are 10,000
    rpm/U160.(But my intent is to use a ram disk for this project.

    The project is going to be a lot more difficult than even you say. :-)

    I am studying programming, and really need an app that gives me control
    over individual pixels. The idea is to do what I want slowly and then
    run my creation at normal speed. I don't think there is software that
    will help me do what I want, the way I want to,(which is actually
    relatively simple).

    This is an experimental project that will hopefully lead to a larger
    one.

    Anyway, perhaps I should hold off on getting another card right now.

    Thanks.

    Darren Harris
    Staten Island, New York.
    *******************************************************************

    Robert Morein wrote:
    > <Searcher7@mail.con2.com> wrote in message
    > news:1104118804.995311.151050@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
    > > > Typical cut-only editing uses only one specific hardware feature
    of a
    > > card:
    > > > the ability to provide what is known as a "frame buffer", for
    display
    > > of
    > > > video. Some editing programs use SPECIFIC 3D cards to accelerate
    > > rendition
    > > > of transitions. However, these cards are keyed to specific
    editing
    > > programs.
    > > > If your editing program does not mention a 3D card, there is
    > > absolutely no
    > > > advantage to the use of one.
    > > >
    > > > Oddly enough, plain 2D cards are rare now days, because there are
    so
    > > many
    > > > casual game players. This accounts for the appearance of fans on
    many
    > > > inexpensive cards.
    > > > Matrox cards, with half-way exception of the Parhelia, have no 3D
    > > capability
    > > > at all. The company specializes in multiple monitor support, and
    very
    > > high
    > > > quality. A Matrox card has a noticeably sharper display than
    other
    > > cards,
    > > > due to special analog circuitry at the output.
    > >
    > > > If you don't care about display quality, an ATI card based on the
    > > 7000
    > > > chipset works fine, and is available for between $20 and $50.
    > >
    > > I presently have an ATI All-In-Wonder(from a PC I had built in
    1998) on
    > > my system.
    > >
    > > > Because consumer video has at best eight-bit color resolution,
    and is
    > > wildly
    > > > inaccurate, any card will enable you to do color correction to
    the
    > > best of
    > > > your ability.
    > >
    > > What I want to do is more complicated than that. As for video
    video.
    > > What if the shading, moving shadows, and changing light are effects
    > > that I'd like to add to specific areas of video, as opposed to a
    static
    > > landscape?
    > >
    > > Would I need a 3-D card then?
    > >
    > > In other words, what if I wanted to put a video of a low flying
    > > aircraft onto a video of a canyon? To create a shadow of the
    aircraft
    > > moving across the rocky canyon floor would require 3-D video card,
    > > correct?
    > >
    > > (I'm sure a program would have to be written in order to do this).
    > > Thanks a lot.
    > >
    > > Darren Harris
    > > Staten Island, New York.
    > >
    > What you want to do is cutting edge virtual reality. Definitely 3D
    stuff.
    > Whether the card has a fan is the least of your worries.
    > The learning curve of the software is.
    >
    > The question you need to answer first is, what software package are
    you
    > going to use?
    > Combustion is one possibility:
    > http://www4.discreet.com/files/combustion/combustion3_datasheet.pdf
    > The video card requirement in the "high end configuration" is given
    as
    > "A dual monitor-capable video display card with a minimum
    > of 32MB of VRAM or more, with OpenGL hardware
    > acceleration"
    > Not all OpenGL implementations are equally competent. It's
    interesting that
    > the Discreet does not specifiy a vendor.
    > Nvidia is the leader in this area. They have gamer cards with a
    decent level
    > of performance at a decent price, and the Quadro series, that provide
    > extremely high performance at a very high price. If I recall
    correctly, the
    > Quadros require AGP Pro slot, which your motherboard may not have.
    >
    > Because a 3D processor can have more transistors than a Pentium V,
    it's not
    > reasonable to expect it to run without a fan. The Nvidia 6800 has 190
    > million transistors:
    > http://www.tomshardware.com/mobile/20041108/geforce_6800-02.html
    > Does the rest of your platform have the speed to handle this package?
    > Finally, examine the recommended hardware list for compatible cards.
  11. Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop,rec.video.production (More info?)

    <Searcher7@mail.con2.com> wrote in message
    news:1104118804.995311.151050@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
    > > Typical cut-only editing uses only one specific hardware feature of a
    > card:
    > > the ability to provide what is known as a "frame buffer", for display
    > of
    > > video. Some editing programs use SPECIFIC 3D cards to accelerate
    > rendition
    > > of transitions. However, these cards are keyed to specific editing
    > programs.
    > > If your editing program does not mention a 3D card, there is
    > absolutely no
    > > advantage to the use of one.
    > >
    > > Oddly enough, plain 2D cards are rare now days, because there are so
    > many
    > > casual game players. This accounts for the appearance of fans on many
    > > inexpensive cards.
    > > Matrox cards, with half-way exception of the Parhelia, have no 3D
    > capability
    > > at all. The company specializes in multiple monitor support, and very
    > high
    > > quality. A Matrox card has a noticeably sharper display than other
    > cards,
    > > due to special analog circuitry at the output.
    >
    > > If you don't care about display quality, an ATI card based on the
    > 7000
    > > chipset works fine, and is available for between $20 and $50.
    >
    > I presently have an ATI All-In-Wonder(from a PC I had built in 1998) on
    > my system.
    >
    > > Because consumer video has at best eight-bit color resolution, and is
    > wildly
    > > inaccurate, any card will enable you to do color correction to the
    > best of
    > > your ability.
    >
    > What I want to do is more complicated than that. As for video video.
    > What if the shading, moving shadows, and changing light are effects
    > that I'd like to add to specific areas of video, as opposed to a static
    > landscape?
    >
    > Would I need a 3-D card then?
    >
    > In other words, what if I wanted to put a video of a low flying
    > aircraft onto a video of a canyon? To create a shadow of the aircraft
    > moving across the rocky canyon floor would require 3-D video card,
    > correct?
    >
    > (I'm sure a program would have to be written in order to do this).
    > Thanks a lot.
    >
    > Darren Harris
    > Staten Island, New York.
    >
    What you want to do is cutting edge virtual reality. Definitely 3D stuff.
    Whether the card has a fan is the least of your worries.
    The learning curve of the software is.

    The question you need to answer first is, what software package are you
    going to use?
    Combustion is one possibility:
    http://www4.discreet.com/files/combustion/combustion3_datasheet.pdf
    The video card requirement in the "high end configuration" is given as
    "A dual monitor-capable video display card with a minimum
    of 32MB of VRAM or more, with OpenGL hardware
    acceleration"
    Not all OpenGL implementations are equally competent. It's interesting that
    the Discreet does not specifiy a vendor.
    Nvidia is the leader in this area. They have gamer cards with a decent level
    of performance at a decent price, and the Quadro series, that provide
    extremely high performance at a very high price. If I recall correctly, the
    Quadros require AGP Pro slot, which your motherboard may not have.

    Because a 3D processor can have more transistors than a Pentium V, it's not
    reasonable to expect it to run without a fan. The Nvidia 6800 has 190
    million transistors:
    http://www.tomshardware.com/mobile/20041108/geforce_6800-02.html
    Does the rest of your platform have the speed to handle this package?
    Finally, examine the recommended hardware list for compatible cards.
  12. Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop,rec.video.production (More info?)

    On 26 Dec 2004 16:13:30 -0800, Searcher7@mail.con2.com wrote:

    >With three case fans, and three 10K rpm SCSI drives, I thought I'd try
    >to find ways to keep the PC's noise level down. Hence, a card that
    >stays cool enough not to need a fan.
    >
    >The editing will only involve shading, shadow movements, and lighting
    >of sceneries. That's pretty much it. But speed is very important.

    The speed here will be determined by the CPU, not the video card.
    The video card (through the GPU) offloads many computational tasks
    from the CPU *for 3D* video; mostly high-end 1st person shooters
    (think Half Life 2). The game software is written specifically to
    taker advantage of the capabilities of the video cards for this.
    For picture editing, the work is all done by the CPU within the
    programming of the editing software.
    SO, get a fast CPU, and a mediocre video card for speed.
    >
    >This will be done on a single monitor only, and output to the common
    >standards and resolutions of today would be desirable.(I'll be using my
    >PC(VGA) and TV mostly).
    >
    >Any ideas on how important the amount of ram is on the video card, for
    >what I want to do?
    >Thanks a lot.
    >
    >Darren Harris
    >Staten Island, New York.

    --
    Bill Funk
    Change "g" to "a"
  13. Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop,rec.video.production (More info?)

    On 26 Dec 2004 22:39:23 -0800, Searcher7@mail.con2.com wrote:

    >It's not a high end system but it's more than the minimum requirements
    >listed for "Combustion" if I were to go with that, even without getting
    >another video card. At least that's the way it seems.(I presently have
    >installed an ATI All-In-Wonder PRO(3D Rage Pro AGP 2X)).
    >
    >The motherboard is an Asus CUV4X(AGP Pro/4X), with a 1Ghz CPU attached,
    >and support for 3 X 512mb of ram.(If you want me to post the system
    >specs, just let me know). The three SCSI drives are 10,000
    >rpm/U160.(But my intent is to use a ram disk for this project.
    >
    >The project is going to be a lot more difficult than even you say. :-)
    >
    >I am studying programming, and really need an app that gives me control
    >over individual pixels. The idea is to do what I want slowly and then
    >run my creation at normal speed. I don't think there is software that
    >will help me do what I want, the way I want to,(which is actually
    >relatively simple).
    >
    >This is an experimental project that will hopefully lead to a larger
    >one.
    >
    >Anyway, perhaps I should hold off on getting another card right now.
    >
    >Thanks.
    >
    >Darren Harris
    >Staten Island, New York.

    Given the 1 GHz CPU, a faster video card will be pretty much a howdah
    on a pig. :-)
    What you're santing to do will take massive processing power; that 1
    GHz CPU will have you waiting hours.
    The "minimum" specs on anything means, "This will let you do it."
    Think car; the minimum and the recommended are far apart. A Yugo is
    transportation; it's a "minimum." But is it what you want to use to
    carry your family?
    I'd work on a more capable system before I went looking for just a
    card. This is one of those projects that just cries out "New, fast,
    powerful computer!"
    --
    Bill Funk
    Change "g" to "a"
  14. Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop,rec.video.production (More info?)

    Thumbs up on the Matrox G450 & 500's. Been using a 450 dualie for several
    years now for editing and the stability of this card is a nice plus. Plus
    you can get them pretty cheap on ebay.


    "Robert Morein" <nowhere@nowhere.com> wrote in message
    news:Y6WdnX0w2o--oFPcRVn-tA@comcast.com...
    >
    > <Searcher7@mail.con2.com> wrote in message
    > news:1104019199.839328.82410@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
    > > Can I get recommendations on the best consumer video cards(for video
    > > editing) that don't have/need a fan. My PC is too hot and loud the way
    > > it is.
    > >
    > > Thanks a lot.
    > >
    > > Darren Harris
    > > Staten Island, New York.
    > >
    > Matrox makes cards that have an excellent reputation for video editing.
    >
    > http://www.matrox.com
    >
    > The Matrox G450 and G550 are dual monitor capable, and they do not have
    > fans.
    >
    >
  15. Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop,rec.video.production (More info?)

    <Searcher7@mail.con2.com> wrote in message
    news:1104118804.995311.151050@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
    > What I want to do is more complicated than that. As for video video.
    > What if the shading, moving shadows, and changing light are effects
    > that I'd like to add to specific areas of video, as opposed to a static
    > landscape?
    >
    > Would I need a 3-D card then?

    No, thats till just 2D


    > In other words, what if I wanted to put a video of a low flying
    > aircraft onto a video of a canyon? To create a shadow of the aircraft
    > moving across the rocky canyon floor would require 3-D video card,
    > correct?

    Again no.


    There is little chance you will get into any 3D stuff with video editing.
    Typically you would need specific software to create 3d effects. Anything
    like shading or shadows is just another 2d layer that tags along with
    another 2d layer.

    Seriously, its nearly all processor. Lets take your airplane for example.
    You have your video of an airplane on to video of a canyon. No, problem (We
    will just assume for simplicity that your airplane is already on a
    transparant layer). It a fairly simple render and should be pretty
    straightforward and smooth. Sticking that shadow in there is the hard part
    as it has to keep each pixel of the shadow aligned with each pixel of the
    aircraft its attached to. Should be a fairly slow render even on the fastest
    avail P4.

    In editing the top three things you want.
    1. Processor
    2. Ram
    3. Lots of storage.
  16. Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop, rec.video.production (More info?)

    Perhaps I could have clarified things better.

    When I said speed is important, I probably shouldn't have, since I was
    only referring to the finished work.

    I'm aware that merging the shadow in with the already combined
    airplane/canyon videos would be slow, regardless of what hardware I
    have. But the finished video(Airplane + Canyon + Shadow) should run at
    the normal frame rate.

    >From what I can tell, what I want to do will basically be 2-D in
    nature, and 3-D would entail elements in the airplane/canyon video to
    effect elements(pixels) in the shadow video on the fly. But this won't
    be necessary, unless I'm prgramming some 3-D game.

    Let me explain.

    The whole accuracy thing down to the pixel for this particular project
    would be too tedious and totally uneeded. The reason is because as the
    shadow flies over a rocky terrain(and under the airplane) it will of
    course change in size and shape to account for the uneveness of the
    terrain itself. But realism can be achieved if I only approximate as
    opposed to getting every pixel right.

    Therefore if I have shadow videos with all significant "shape/size
    changes" accounted for, all I'd need is to take into consideration the
    rock and slopes at specific points in the terrain(or should I say in
    the timeline of the video) when the airplane/shadow is overhead, and
    link the correct shadow videos together to get the effect I'll need at
    that specific point, and then making whatever changes I need to on
    subsequent passes until realism is achieved.(After all the airplane/s
    will be flying in a predetermined direction, and every involed pixel
    will darken to the same degree).

    So the video card's rendering will be slow, but since it won't be near
    as slow as all the manual work I'll have to do, it won't be an issue.
    And for the same reason, neither will the CPU.

    So does this mean I can just use my old ATI video card that I already
    have in the system?

    (I'll still want to run the *finished* video from a ram disk, but I can
    see no benefit over running it from a hard drive).
    Thanks.

    Darren Harris
    Staten Island, New York.
  17. Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop,rec.video.production (More info?)

    Searcher7 wrote ...
    > Can I get recommendations on the best consumer video cards
    > (for video editing) that don't have/need a fan. My PC is too
    > hot and loud the way it is.

    Unless you are doing something other than conventional video
    non-linear editing (the topic of this newsgroup), then the video
    card has nothing to do with video editing. You can use the
    oldest, cheapest, slowest video card that is supported by your
    operating system and it will have absolutely no effect, positive
    or negative on video editing.

    Either you are doing something exotic (which you didn't explain)
    or you are unaware of the role of the video card in NLE video
    editing.
  18. Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop,rec.video.production (More info?)

    On Sat, 25 Dec 2004 19:08:25 -0500, "atarileaf"
    <hickorysticks@cogeco.ca> wrote:

    >I'm not an expert but I think all video cards on the market today need/have
    >a fan to keep them cool. If you're system is too hot you might look into
    >some extra case fans.

    By no means all.
  19. Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop,rec.video.production (More info?)

    On Wed, 29 Dec 2004 01:06:58 +0000, Laurence Payne
    <l@laurenceDELETEpayne.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:

    >On Sat, 25 Dec 2004 19:08:25 -0500, "atarileaf"
    ><hickorysticks@cogeco.ca> wrote:
    >
    >>I'm not an expert but I think all video cards on the market today need/have
    >>a fan to keep them cool. If you're system is too hot you might look into
    >>some extra case fans.
    >
    >By no means all.
    I think the original poster thought the noise level would add to the
    level he already had which is kinda of foolish since I have nevery
    notice the video fan motor sound.
  20. Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop,rec.video.production (More info?)

    On 28 Dec 2004 19:50:40 -0800, Searcher7@mail.con2.com wrote:

    >Perhaps I could have clarified things better.
    >
    >When I said speed is important, I probably shouldn't have, since I was
    >only referring to the finished work.
    >
    >I'm aware that merging the shadow in with the already combined
    >airplane/canyon videos would be slow, regardless of what hardware I
    >have. But the finished video(Airplane + Canyon + Shadow) should run at
    >the normal frame rate.
    >
    >>From what I can tell, what I want to do will basically be 2-D in
    >nature, and 3-D would entail elements in the airplane/canyon video to
    >effect elements(pixels) in the shadow video on the fly. But this won't
    >be necessary, unless I'm prgramming some 3-D game.
    >
    >Let me explain.
    >
    >The whole accuracy thing down to the pixel for this particular project
    >would be too tedious and totally uneeded. The reason is because as the
    >shadow flies over a rocky terrain(and under the airplane) it will of
    >course change in size and shape to account for the uneveness of the
    >terrain itself. But realism can be achieved if I only approximate as
    >opposed to getting every pixel right.
    >
    >Therefore if I have shadow videos with all significant "shape/size
    >changes" accounted for, all I'd need is to take into consideration the
    >rock and slopes at specific points in the terrain(or should I say in
    >the timeline of the video) when the airplane/shadow is overhead, and
    >link the correct shadow videos together to get the effect I'll need at
    >that specific point, and then making whatever changes I need to on
    >subsequent passes until realism is achieved.(After all the airplane/s
    >will be flying in a predetermined direction, and every involed pixel
    >will darken to the same degree).
    >
    >So the video card's rendering will be slow, but since it won't be near
    >as slow as all the manual work I'll have to do, it won't be an issue.
    >And for the same reason, neither will the CPU.
    >
    >So does this mean I can just use my old ATI video card that I already
    >have in the system?
    >
    >(I'll still want to run the *finished* video from a ram disk, but I can
    >see no benefit over running it from a hard drive).
    >Thanks.
    >
    >Darren Harris
    >Staten Island, New York.

    From what I can gather from your description of what you want to do, I
    would think that any decent 2D card will do what you want. It's
    certainly worth a try, since you already have a card.
    You don't buy a Countache or a Hummer to learn how to drive do you?
    But why run from a RAM drive? Current hard drives will provide speed
    equal to any video card on the market, or likely to be in the next
    several years; using a RAM drive will *only* add expense with no
    advantage.

    --
    Bill Funk
    Change "g" to "a"
  21. Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop, rec.video.production (More info?)

    Thanks Bill.

    I need to use the ram drive for some other things I want to do in
    connection with this project, and here is where speed is important.

    But I won't get into that since it has nothing to do with the original
    question.

    Thanks a lot.

    Darren Harris
    Staten Island, New York.
  22. Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop, rec.video.production (More info?)

    > Typical cut-only editing uses only one specific hardware feature of a
    card:
    > the ability to provide what is known as a "frame buffer", for display
    of
    > video. Some editing programs use SPECIFIC 3D cards to accelerate
    rendition
    > of transitions. However, these cards are keyed to specific editing
    programs.
    > If your editing program does not mention a 3D card, there is
    absolutely no
    > advantage to the use of one.
    >
    > Oddly enough, plain 2D cards are rare now days, because there are so
    many
    > casual game players. This accounts for the appearance of fans on many
    > inexpensive cards.
    > Matrox cards, with half-way exception of the Parhelia, have no 3D
    capability
    > at all. The company specializes in multiple monitor support, and very
    high
    > quality. A Matrox card has a noticeably sharper display than other
    cards,
    > due to special analog circuitry at the output.

    > If you don't care about display quality, an ATI card based on the
    7000
    > chipset works fine, and is available for between $20 and $50.

    I presently have an ATI All-In-Wonder(from a PC I had built in 1998) on
    my system.

    > Because consumer video has at best eight-bit color resolution, and is
    wildly
    > inaccurate, any card will enable you to do color correction to the
    best of
    > your ability.

    What I want to do is more complicated than that. As for video video.
    What if the shading, moving shadows, and changing light are effects
    that I'd like to add to specific areas of video, as opposed to a static
    landscape?

    Would I need a 3-D card then?

    In other words, what if I wanted to put a video of a low flying
    aircraft onto a video of a canyon? To create a shadow of the aircraft
    moving across the rocky canyon floor would require 3-D video card,
    correct?

    (I'm sure a program would have to be written in order to do this).
    Thanks a lot.

    Darren Harris
    Staten Island, New York.
  23. Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop,rec.video.production (More info?)

    NONE! Get a larger power supply and I bet some of your heat problems go
    away. Fans help too on the drives. But yes it's noisy. Unless you can move
    the case under and away from you. Even a low end Invidia card has a fan on
    it.
    <Searcher7@mail.con2.com> wrote in message
    news:1104019199.839328.82410@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
    > Can I get recommendations on the best consumer video cards(for video
    > editing) that don't have/need a fan. My PC is too hot and loud the way
    > it is.
    >
    > Thanks a lot.
    >
    > Darren Harris
    > Staten Island, New York.
    >
    >
  24. Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop,rec.video.production (More info?)

    Darren Harris wrote ...
    >> Can I get recommendations on the best consumer video cards
    > (for video editing) that don't have/need a fan. My PC is too
    > hot and loud the way it is.

    Just buy a simple video card that doesn't need a fan. You don't
    need a high-powered (in both senses of the word) video card
    for video editing.

    I just assembled a 3.6GHz Pentium 4 system exclusively for
    video editing, and I am using the video system on the motherboard.
    Makes absolutely no difference whatsoever.
  25. Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop,rec.video.production (More info?)

    Richard Crowley wrote:
    > Darren Harris wrote ...
    > >> Can I get recommendations on the best consumer video cards
    > > (for video editing) that don't have/need a fan. My PC is too
    > > hot and loud the way it is.
    >
    > Just buy a simple video card that doesn't need a fan. You don't
    > need a high-powered (in both senses of the word) video card
    > for video editing.
    >
    > I just assembled a 3.6GHz Pentium 4 system exclusively for
    > video editing, and I am using the video system on the motherboard.
    > Makes absolutely no difference whatsoever.

    Thanks a lot.

    And I guess I can get normal speeds(after the actual editing) for what
    I want to do out of the ramdisks.
    Darren Harris
    Staten ISland, New York.
Ask a new question

Read More

Tuner Cards Graphics Cards Desktops Video Graphics