Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

PC HDV Editing: DUAL Processors?

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
April 2, 2005 11:32:53 PM

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

Hi,


To edit 1080i HDV on a PC, will a single 3.2GHZ processor wilth a gig ram
and super fast hard drives suffice or does one need dual socket motherboards
with two 3GHZ processors on them like pinnacle suggests?

TIA

jeff
April 2, 2005 11:32:54 PM

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

A related question - I've seen some posts talking about high quality
encoding taking 10 x real time in some cases (maybe worse) - so if
that's true, seems to me that someone would have developed a way to
utilize networked PC resources to assist.

I have 5 PCs in my house, but I sure don't have a 5-CPU motherboard (if
you get my drift).
Anonymous
April 3, 2005 12:49:50 AM

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

Sure, feed your machine 2 gigs of RAM - it'll help.

VideoGuys have some good recommendations for HDV editing workstations:
http://www.videoguys.com/HDV.html

My 2 cents: your system would be best with large, VERY fast drives.
Think 10,000 to 15,000 rpm, connected via the fastest interface you can
muster - be it SATA or Firewire.

Hard drives are ALWAYS the bottleneck in systems - HD footage is going to
require a lot more back and forth to disk.

Your processor sits idle most of the time. When it's active, it's usually
waiting on data from the drives.
A dual processor system is a nicety but I'd wager the drives make the bigger
difference by a large margin.

Perhaps someone here has compared this in person.

C.



"jeff" <jeff@aol.com> wrote in message
news:XQG3e.14466$tg1.11837@fe12.lga...
> Hi,
>
>
> To edit 1080i HDV on a PC, will a single 3.2GHZ processor wilth a gig ram
> and super fast hard drives suffice or does one need dual socket
> motherboards with two 3GHZ processors on them like pinnacle suggests?
>
> TIA
>
> jeff
>
Related resources
Anonymous
April 3, 2005 12:49:51 AM

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

"C.J.Patten" <cjpatten@KNOWSPAMrogers.com> wrote in message
news:D 5CdnWOhua1V1tLfRVn-hA@rogers.com...
> Sure, feed your machine 2 gigs of RAM - it'll help.
>
> VideoGuys have some good recommendations for HDV editing workstations:
> http://www.videoguys.com/HDV.html


These are good suggestions. Real-time HDV editing requires dual processors
of high speed, lots of RAM, and a fast disk drive system. I know people
with such systems (e.g. Canopus and Pinnacle HD), and they insist anything
less is disaster.

I am sticking with non HDV until everything catches up to making HDV rather
standard.
Anonymous
April 3, 2005 1:49:36 AM

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

To be clear, the Videoguys DO suggest a single 3.2GHz P4HT (800MHz FSB) with
1.5GB RAM, fast GPU and RAID will do for 720p.

Certainly, faster is always better and they recommend a dual Xeon or Opteron
system with 2GB DDR2 RAM for 1080i.

C.

"Alpha" <logos1@trip.net> wrote in message
news:114ul6ir56mv412@corp.supernews.com...
>
> "C.J.Patten" <cjpatten@KNOWSPAMrogers.com> wrote in message
> news:D 5CdnWOhua1V1tLfRVn-hA@rogers.com...
>> Sure, feed your machine 2 gigs of RAM - it'll help.
>>
>> VideoGuys have some good recommendations for HDV editing workstations:
>> http://www.videoguys.com/HDV.html
>
>
> These are good suggestions. Real-time HDV editing requires dual
> processors of high speed, lots of RAM, and a fast disk drive system. I
> know people with such systems (e.g. Canopus and Pinnacle HD), and they
> insist anything less is disaster.
>
> I am sticking with non HDV until everything catches up to making HDV
> rather standard.
>
>
>
Anonymous
April 3, 2005 1:49:37 AM

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

"C.J.Patten" <cjpatten@KNOWSPAMrogers.com> wrote in message
news:0bydnU4dSb5WxNLfRVn-qA@rogers.com...
> To be clear, the Videoguys DO suggest a single 3.2GHz P4HT (800MHz FSB)
> with 1.5GB RAM, fast GPU and RAID will do for 720p.
>
> Certainly, faster is always better and they recommend a dual Xeon or
> Opteron system with 2GB DDR2 RAM for 1080i.
>
> C.


Agreed. If you look at the vendors websites for Canopus and Pinnacle, they
are pretty clear that true real-time requires high end dual processor large
ram workstations with optimized video cards for almost anything HD.
Anonymous
April 3, 2005 3:50:59 AM

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

This is called distributed computing.

With HUGE computations - SETI search for aliens kind of stuff - that takes
YEARS to crunch, distributing tasks across even the internet speeds the
process up. There isn't much DATA to transfer, just a lot of number
crunching on relatively small amounts of data.

With something like DV - and HDV moreso - it's not the number crunching,
it's moving massive amounts of data - that's the biggest bottleneck.

I don't have any formulae or even rules-of-thumb for determining when
distributed computing is feasible.

Some kind of mathematical matrix that took in to account the MIPS for each
workstation, network bandwidth, file bandwidth etc would be needed.

My HUNCH ... unless you have an expensively fast network, several
multi-processor workstations with expensively fast drives and ridiculous
amounts of RAM, you aren't going to see a real benefit to distributed
computing for processing HDV.

I have heard of network render-engines but they usually involve things like
3D rendering - like SETI, lot's a number crunching but relatively little
actual data being moved compared to HDV.

I'd like to hear from folks who've done this though! Anyone from ILM around?

C.



"Gary" <midicad2001@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1112497878.752078.39420@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
>A related question - I've seen some posts talking about high quality
> encoding taking 10 x real time in some cases (maybe worse) - so if
> that's true, seems to me that someone would have developed a way to
> utilize networked PC resources to assist.
>
> I have 5 PCs in my house, but I sure don't have a 5-CPU motherboard (if
> you get my drift).
>
Anonymous
April 3, 2005 6:57:32 AM

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

hmmm..

ok.. the 'editing' process is not that hardware intensive. It's the playback
and realtime functions that require hogher speed. Which method are you going
to use for capture / playback? There will be some requirements there such as
drive throughput that your capture system will want fulfilled. If you start
by choosing the hardware, the CPU requirements will be easy to match.
"jeff" <jeff@aol.com> wrote in message
news:XQG3e.14466$tg1.11837@fe12.lga...
> Hi,
>
>
> To edit 1080i HDV on a PC, will a single 3.2GHZ processor wilth a gig ram
> and super fast hard drives suffice or does one need dual socket
> motherboards with two 3GHZ processors on them like pinnacle suggests?
>
> TIA
>
> jeff
>
Anonymous
April 3, 2005 12:54:51 PM

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

You are right. This is usually done for 3D rendering rather than
compositing or compression though.

"render farms" are hired for this specifc task in a lot of cases,
particualrly so with films like toy story, and a lot of "pixar style" stuff.


"C.J.Patten" <cjpatten@KNOWSPAMrogers.com> wrote in message
news:bY6dnR2pL-Wz9dLfRVn-gg@rogers.com...
> This is called distributed computing.
>
> With HUGE computations - SETI search for aliens kind of stuff - that takes
> YEARS to crunch, distributing tasks across even the internet speeds the
> process up. There isn't much DATA to transfer, just a lot of number
> crunching on relatively small amounts of data.
>
> With something like DV - and HDV moreso - it's not the number crunching,
> it's moving massive amounts of data - that's the biggest bottleneck.
>
> I don't have any formulae or even rules-of-thumb for determining when
> distributed computing is feasible.
>
> Some kind of mathematical matrix that took in to account the MIPS for each
> workstation, network bandwidth, file bandwidth etc would be needed.
>
> My HUNCH ... unless you have an expensively fast network, several
> multi-processor workstations with expensively fast drives and ridiculous
> amounts of RAM, you aren't going to see a real benefit to distributed
> computing for processing HDV.
>
> I have heard of network render-engines but they usually involve things
> like 3D rendering - like SETI, lot's a number crunching but relatively
> little actual data being moved compared to HDV.
>
> I'd like to hear from folks who've done this though! Anyone from ILM
> around?
>
> C.
>
>
>
> "Gary" <midicad2001@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1112497878.752078.39420@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
>>A related question - I've seen some posts talking about high quality
>> encoding taking 10 x real time in some cases (maybe worse) - so if
>> that's true, seems to me that someone would have developed a way to
>> utilize networked PC resources to assist.
>>
>> I have 5 PCs in my house, but I sure don't have a 5-CPU motherboard (if
>> you get my drift).
>>
>
>
Anonymous
April 3, 2005 5:27:12 PM

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

jeff wrote:
> Hi,
>
>
> To edit 1080i HDV on a PC, will a single 3.2GHZ processor wilth a gig
> ram and super fast hard drives suffice or does one need dual socket
> motherboards with two 3GHZ processors on them like pinnacle suggests?
>
> TIA
>
> jeff


I just found out that Adam Wilt has an article titled " HDV: A Hands-On Test
Drive" at www.dv.com (you'll need to register but it's free) that you might
be interested in reading.

Mike
Anonymous
April 3, 2005 8:02:44 PM

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

Network Rendering has been in use here in both 3D apps and compositing apps
like Discreet Combustion or After Effects. Although it *is* distributed
computing it has been dubbed 'network rendering' for most apps I have used
in the last ten years.

both 3d apps and compositing apps have had a net render capability for many
years.

With DV the data amounts are really nowhere near massive. This is done all
the time.


"Karl Woolley (Virgin.NET)" <karl.nospam.westminster@virgin.net> wrote in
message news:vbO3e.4253$Br.273@newsfe2-win.ntli.net...
> You are right. This is usually done for 3D rendering rather than
> compositing or compression though.
>
> "render farms" are hired for this specifc task in a lot of cases,
> particualrly so with films like toy story, and a lot of "pixar style"
> stuff.
>
>
> "C.J.Patten" <cjpatten@KNOWSPAMrogers.com> wrote in message
> news:bY6dnR2pL-Wz9dLfRVn-gg@rogers.com...
>> This is called distributed computing.
>>
>> With HUGE computations - SETI search for aliens kind of stuff - that
>> takes YEARS to crunch, distributing tasks across even the internet speeds
>> the process up. There isn't much DATA to transfer, just a lot of number
>> crunching on relatively small amounts of data.
>>
>> With something like DV - and HDV moreso - it's not the number crunching,
>> it's moving massive amounts of data - that's the biggest bottleneck.
>>
>> I don't have any formulae or even rules-of-thumb for determining when
>> distributed computing is feasible.
>>
>> Some kind of mathematical matrix that took in to account the MIPS for
>> each workstation, network bandwidth, file bandwidth etc would be needed.
>>
>> My HUNCH ... unless you have an expensively fast network, several
>> multi-processor workstations with expensively fast drives and ridiculous
>> amounts of RAM, you aren't going to see a real benefit to distributed
>> computing for processing HDV.
>>
>> I have heard of network render-engines but they usually involve things
>> like 3D rendering - like SETI, lot's a number crunching but relatively
>> little actual data being moved compared to HDV.
>>
>> I'd like to hear from folks who've done this though! Anyone from ILM
>> around?
>>
>> C.
>>
>>
>>
>> "Gary" <midicad2001@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:1112497878.752078.39420@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
>>>A related question - I've seen some posts talking about high quality
>>> encoding taking 10 x real time in some cases (maybe worse) - so if
>>> that's true, seems to me that someone would have developed a way to
>>> utilize networked PC resources to assist.
>>>
>>> I have 5 PCs in my house, but I sure don't have a 5-CPU motherboard (if
>>> you get my drift).
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
Anonymous
April 3, 2005 8:02:45 PM

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

Cool! Had no idea!

Any examples of set ups that work for this? (firewire network, megabit or
gigabit ethernet?)

Just curious.

C.

"nap" <gospam@yourself.com> wrote in message
news:EsU3e.14885$zl.11708@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
>
> Network Rendering has been in use here in both 3D apps and compositing
> apps like Discreet Combustion or After Effects. Although it *is*
> distributed computing it has been dubbed 'network rendering' for most apps
> I have used in the last ten years.
>
> both 3d apps and compositing apps have had a net render capability for
> many years.
>
> With DV the data amounts are really nowhere near massive. This is done all
> the time.
>
>
> "Karl Woolley (Virgin.NET)" <karl.nospam.westminster@virgin.net> wrote in
> message news:vbO3e.4253$Br.273@newsfe2-win.ntli.net...
>> You are right. This is usually done for 3D rendering rather than
>> compositing or compression though.
>>
>> "render farms" are hired for this specifc task in a lot of cases,
>> particualrly so with films like toy story, and a lot of "pixar style"
>> stuff.
>>
>>
>> "C.J.Patten" <cjpatten@KNOWSPAMrogers.com> wrote in message
>> news:bY6dnR2pL-Wz9dLfRVn-gg@rogers.com...
>>> This is called distributed computing.
>>>
>>> With HUGE computations - SETI search for aliens kind of stuff - that
>>> takes YEARS to crunch, distributing tasks across even the internet
>>> speeds the process up. There isn't much DATA to transfer, just a lot of
>>> number crunching on relatively small amounts of data.
>>>
>>> With something like DV - and HDV moreso - it's not the number crunching,
>>> it's moving massive amounts of data - that's the biggest bottleneck.
>>>
>>> I don't have any formulae or even rules-of-thumb for determining when
>>> distributed computing is feasible.
>>>
>>> Some kind of mathematical matrix that took in to account the MIPS for
>>> each workstation, network bandwidth, file bandwidth etc would be needed.
>>>
>>> My HUNCH ... unless you have an expensively fast network, several
>>> multi-processor workstations with expensively fast drives and ridiculous
>>> amounts of RAM, you aren't going to see a real benefit to distributed
>>> computing for processing HDV.
>>>
>>> I have heard of network render-engines but they usually involve things
>>> like 3D rendering - like SETI, lot's a number crunching but relatively
>>> little actual data being moved compared to HDV.
>>>
>>> I'd like to hear from folks who've done this though! Anyone from ILM
>>> around?
>>>
>>> C.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> "Gary" <midicad2001@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>> news:1112497878.752078.39420@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
>>>>A related question - I've seen some posts talking about high quality
>>>> encoding taking 10 x real time in some cases (maybe worse) - so if
>>>> that's true, seems to me that someone would have developed a way to
>>>> utilize networked PC resources to assist.
>>>>
>>>> I have 5 PCs in my house, but I sure don't have a 5-CPU motherboard (if
>>>> you get my drift).
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
Anonymous
April 4, 2005 4:14:50 AM

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

"C.J.Patten" <cjpatten@KNOWSPAMrogers.com> wrote in message
news:-NqdnQRaxvYfic3fRVn-jQ@rogers.com...
> Cool! Had no idea!
>
> Any examples of set ups that work for this? (firewire network, megabit or
> gigabit ethernet?)
>
> Just curious.
>
> C.


Well... my first one was on Windows for Workroups... And I had to kick it to
get it started. !

but a simple 100BaseT does work ok. There are options you can configure to
minimize the amount of data going back and forth..

the faster the better.

In my tool kit I have the following apps whichoffer network rendering:

Discreet Combustion 4
Adobe After Effects
Discreet 3DSMax
Maya.. (not used a lot here)
Anonymous
April 4, 2005 10:24:13 PM

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

More interesting reading from Canopus.

HDV Education
http://www.canopushdv.com/abouthdv/index.html

These are compatible mainboards for hardware assisted HDV editing (note
"hardware assisted") Visit the manufacturer's website for processor details.

First link is for Edius NX card, second for Edius SP for HDV
http://www.canopus.us/US/products/EDIUSNX_for_HDV/pa_ED...
http://www.canopus.us/US/products/EDIUS_HDV_SP/pa_EDIUS...

Specs for hardware assisted HDV editing - complete system using Edius SP for
HDV. Note the use of SATA drives which are fine for most HDV editing. When
working with more layers of realtime and with full HD SCSI Ultra 320 drives
are suggested.
http://www.canopus.us/US/Products/EDIUS_SP_WorkStation/...

Though many are working with single P4 3.2GHZz 800 HT processors using OHCI
cards the factors that come into play are what one can do in realtime vs.
what one has to render. Mostly the differences are like the original
differences between DV SD editing and true uncompressed SD editing. A system
capable of pushing around the DV video signal comfortably may not be able to
push around the 28MB/xec uncompressed as well when using multiple layers and
effects, etc.

--
Larry Johnson
Digital Video Solutions
webmaster@digitalvideosolutions.com
http://www.digitalvideosolutions.com
877-227-6281 Toll Free Sales Assistance
386-672-1941 Customer Service
386-672-1907 Technical Support
386-676-1515 Fax


"jeff" <jeff@aol.com> wrote in message
news:XQG3e.14466$tg1.11837@fe12.lga...
> Hi,
>
>
> To edit 1080i HDV on a PC, will a single 3.2GHZ processor wilth a gig ram
> and super fast hard drives suffice or does one need dual socket
> motherboards with two 3GHZ processors on them like pinnacle suggests?
>
> TIA
>
> jeff
>
!