Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Advice Please: Fanless Video Card Recommendations

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
Anonymous
a b U Graphics card
December 25, 2004 6:59:59 PM

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.
Anonymous
a b U Graphics card
December 25, 2004 10:08:25 PM

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.
>
Anonymous
a b U Graphics card
December 26, 2004 2:25:06 AM

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.
Related resources
Anonymous
a b U Graphics card
December 26, 2004 4:17:07 AM

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&c...
Anonymous
a b U Graphics card
December 26, 2004 4:40:50 AM

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.
Anonymous
a b U Graphics card
December 26, 2004 4:40:51 AM

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
Anonymous
a b U Graphics card
December 26, 2004 1:38:28 PM

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...
Anonymous
a b U Graphics card
December 26, 2004 7:13:30 PM

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.
Anonymous
a b U Graphics card
December 26, 2004 10:40:05 PM

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.
Anonymous
a b U Graphics card
December 27, 2004 12:36:02 AM

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.
Anonymous
a b U Graphics card
December 27, 2004 1:39:23 AM

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_d...
> 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_680...
> Does the rest of your platform have the speed to handle this package?
> Finally, examine the recommended hardware list for compatible cards.
Anonymous
a b U Graphics card
December 27, 2004 3:07:37 AM

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_d...
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_680...
Does the rest of your platform have the speed to handle this package?
Finally, examine the recommended hardware list for compatible cards.
Anonymous
a b U Graphics card
December 27, 2004 1:20:30 PM

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"
Anonymous
a b U Graphics card
December 27, 2004 1:30:13 PM

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"
December 27, 2004 2:44:58 PM

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.
>
>
December 27, 2004 3:00:56 PM

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.
Anonymous
a b U Graphics card
December 28, 2004 10:50:40 PM

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.
Anonymous
a b U Graphics card
December 29, 2004 12:30:33 AM

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.
Anonymous
a b U Graphics card
December 29, 2004 4:06:58 AM

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.
Anonymous
a b U Graphics card
December 29, 2004 12:48:44 PM

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.
Anonymous
a b U Graphics card
December 29, 2004 5:46:35 PM

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"
Anonymous
a b U Graphics card
December 29, 2004 10:07:59 PM

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.
Anonymous
a b U Graphics card
January 2, 2005 11:02:04 PM

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.
Anonymous
a b U Graphics card
January 15, 2005 12:55:41 PM

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.
>
>
Anonymous
a b U Graphics card
January 15, 2005 1:32:02 PM

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.
Anonymous
a b U Graphics card
January 17, 2005 9:23:24 AM

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.
!