Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Video Editing System...what do you think?

Tags:
  • Homebuilt
  • Video Editing
  • Systems
  • Product
Last response: in Systems
Share
July 19, 2006 2:37:33 AM

What do you guys think?

Beginners Video editing system:

Antec Sonata with 380W power supply
AMD Athlon 64 3500+ Orleans 2000MHz HT Socket AM2 Processor
BIOSTAR TFORCE4 AM2 Socket AM2 NVIDIA nForce4 ATX
NEC 16X DVD±R DVD Burner Black IDE/ATAPI Model ND-3550A - 30.99
2 x Western Digital Caviar SE16 WD2500KS 250GB 7200 RPM SATA
2 x SAMSUNG 930B-Black Black 19" 8ms LCD Monitor
BIOSTAR TFORCE4 AM2 Socket AM2 NVIDIA nForce4 ATX RoHs compliant
PNY VCG66256XPB Geforce 6600 256MB DDR PCI Express x16 Video Creative Sound Blaster Live! 24bit 70SB041000000 7.1 Channels PCI
pqi POWER Series 2GB (2 x 1GB) 240-Pin DDR2 SDRAM DDR2 533 (PC2 4200) Unbuffered Dual Channel Kit System Memory Model
Processors

Minus rebates and discounts: Total = $996

More about : video editing system

July 19, 2006 8:11:06 AM

Suggested Changes:

Mobo: Asus M2N-E

RAM: Corsair XMS2 2GB (2 x 1GB) DDR2-800

Video: eVGA Geforce 7600GT

Power Supply: Antec Truepower 430W <--- this may not even be big enough. I might even move up to the 480W version.

Video editing systems need at the VERY LEAST, 2 things. First, a good video card. I'll be blunt, the 6600 you picked sucks. Second, it needs a good power supply to to give that video card juice. A 380W supply is not good enough for a video editing system. I know you said beginner's video editing system, but a beginners system doesn't have to mean slow.

The board and RAM you don't HAVE to change if your budget really won't allow for it, but DEFINITLY change the video card and power supply. Rendering anything with that 6600 is gonna take awhile.
July 19, 2006 1:43:22 PM

Quote:

Video editing systems need at the VERY LEAST, 2 things. First, a good video card. I'll be blunt, the 6600 you picked sucks.
.
.
.

Rendering anything with that 6600 is gonna take awhile.


Video editing is more about the speed of the processor than the video card. Having a GeForce 6600 or a 7600 isn't going to do much for video editing. If you are talking about 3D rendering, then the video card does come into play.

If possible, spend more money on faster RAM DDR2 533 will hinder your PC a little bit. Try going for DDR2 667 or 800 RAM.
Related resources
July 19, 2006 1:46:12 PM

Quote:
What do you guys think?

Beginners Video editing system:

Antec Sonata with 380W power supply


Why not get the Sonata II? It come with a 450w PSU.
July 19, 2006 2:10:48 PM

Ok i agree you need faster ram. You getting some raptor hard drives? Major bottle neck if you want more FPS use a raptor. Video card does suck. I have had many probles with nvidia 6xxx and video editing. x1800 or 7900 would be much better
July 19, 2006 3:46:48 PM

I already have the orignal Sonata ($30 at a special event). As for the PNY 6600...I just got it new for $60 and not sure if I want to keep it or return it. I read that Geforce GPU are better for editing than ATI. I do plan to get the Corsair and a better motherboard as suggested and will be using Sony Vegas editing software.
July 19, 2006 4:07:29 PM

Quote:
I already have the orignal Sonata ($30 at a special event). As for the PNY 6600...I just got it new for $60 and not sure if I want to keep it or return it. I read that Geforce GPU are better for editing than ATI. I do plan to get the Corsair and a better motherboard as suggested and will be using Sony Vegas editing software.


If you can swing it (esp. after AMD's price cuts forthcoming) get a dual core processor as well.
July 19, 2006 4:32:16 PM

here is what i would recommend, (it;s what i use for editing video0

Asus A8N32-SLI
AMD Opteron 165
1GB OCZ GX XTC PC-3500 DDR
320Gb Seagate 7200.10 SATA II Drive
Antec Neo HE 500

stuff that i put in becuase i am a bastard and have money

ATI X1900XT 512MB
Antec Sonata
120mm Silenx x2
HDA X-Mystique 7.1 DDL
Plextor PX716A DVDRW DL
Viewsonic VX2025WM

i would seriously consider the opteron as it's awesome for encoding video into a compressed format like divx or x.264, and the 165 model is probably around the same price point as the 3500 plus it's dualcore.

BTW i OC'd my chip to 2.4 on the stock HSF with no issues.

anyway that is my 2 cents, but definietly get atleast 2GB of ram.
July 19, 2006 4:33:27 PM

Quote:
Ok i agree you need faster ram. You getting some raptor hard drives? Major bottle neck if you want more FPS use a raptor. Video card does suck. I have had many probles with nvidia 6xxx and video editing. x1800 or 7900 would be much better


not always true. the New Seagte 7200.10 series are very fast drives.

Example:

i was encoding a 45 minute dvd quality content using divx 6.02 i hit between 80-90 FPS.
July 19, 2006 4:47:06 PM

Quote:

Video editing systems need at the VERY LEAST, 2 things. First, a good video card. I'll be blunt, the 6600 you picked sucks.
.
.
.

Rendering anything with that 6600 is gonna take awhile.


Video editing is more about the speed of the processor than the video card. Having a GeForce 6600 or a 7600 isn't going to do much for video editing. If you are talking about 3D rendering, then the video card does come into play.

If possible, spend more money on faster RAM DDR2 533 will hinder your PC a little bit. Try going for DDR2 667 or 800 RAM.
agree with you on the video card stuff. the gpu doesnt matter, mostly the video memory and ramdac. Going from a 6600 to a 7600 with the same amount of memory doesnt improve anything.

Quote:
I have had many probles with nvidia 6xxx and video editing. x1800 or 7900 would be much better

there's a wide range of video card options from a 6x00 series to a x1800 or 7900... why do you recommend the most expensive from the lineup?
July 19, 2006 6:20:48 PM

Quote:
agree with you on the video card stuff. the gpu doesnt matter, mostly the video memory and ramdac. Going from a 6600 to a 7600 with the same amount of memory doesnt improve anything.


The GPU does matter, although I admit it doesn't matter nearly as much as I said it did earlier.
July 19, 2006 8:41:37 PM

Quote:
agree with you on the video card stuff. the gpu doesnt matter, mostly the video memory and ramdac. Going from a 6600 to a 7600 with the same amount of memory doesnt improve anything.


The GPU does matter, although I admit it doesn't matter nearly as much as I said it did earlier.

Why would the GPU matter when it comes to video editing? I can understand video playback, but editing?
July 19, 2006 9:40:19 PM

it depends, normally no. but if you have any 3d scenes or gpu powered transitions then it does.
July 20, 2006 1:52:41 AM

Quote:
it depends, normally no. but if you have any 3d scenes or gpu powered transitions then it does.


So you are saying that if I was doing video editing and decided to add in some complex scene transition, like a "water effect" or "particle effect", to cut from one scene to another, then a video editing program will use the GPU to speed up the rendering process?

Note: I am aware of ATI's Avivo, but I believe that is still in development, unless I missed some news about it.
July 20, 2006 2:21:18 AM

Quote:
it depends, normally no. but if you have any 3d scenes or gpu powered transitions then it does.


So you are saying that if I was doing video editing and decided to add in some complex scene transition, like a "water effect" or "particle effect", to cut from one scene to another, then a video editing program will use the GPU to speed up the rendering process?

Note: I am aware of ATI's Avivo, but I believe that is still in development, unless I missed some news about it.

First, it depends on which video editing program you're using and what type of transitions and effects you're using. Adobe Premiere Pro 2.0 has some effects and transitions that will use the GPU, an example is the page peel transition.

But the CPU is doing way more work than the GPU is. Let's say you capture DV footage from any digital camcorder. You put two scenes on the timeline and put a GPU-accelerated page peel transition between them. Here's what the computer's doing:

1. Read 1st DV stream from disk and decompress it frame-by-frame
2. Chroma upsample and convert each frame from DV's 4:1:1 color space to 4:4:4 color space.
3. Read 2nd DV stream from disk and decompress it frame-by-frame
4. Chroma upsample and convert each frame from DV's 4:1:1 color space to 4:4:4 color space.
5. For the stream that will be mapped onto the page peel transition, convert the color space to RGB from YUV.
6. Compute all the vertices of the page peel object.
7. Send the page peel vertices and the DV stream to the GPU to texture-map it frame-by-frame onto the moving page peel object
8. Receive the texture-mapped page peel back from the GPU, convert it back to YUV color space
9. Overlay the 2nd rendered page peel DV stream onto the 1st DV stream together to make the transition
10. Recompress the resulting video stream frame-by-frame back to DV and write it to disk.

9 of those steps above are CPU, only step 7 is GPU.

And that's only for about 10 % of the available transitions and effects. The rest are not GPU-accelerated.

There are 3 things to video editing:

1. CPU horsepower. The more clock, the better the processor, the more cache, and the more cores, the faster the render.
2. Size of RAM. The more RAM the better. Premiere Pro munches on 1GB for breakfast, 2GB for a decent sized timeline.
3. Size of hard disk. DV video eats 12GB per hour in raw form, when Premiere Pro conforms the audio that'll eat another 1.5GB per hour. Then you need 5GB to prepare your MPEG-2 encoded video and another 5GB to prepare the DVD. Add in still graphics and titles, jumpbacks or other B-roll video and you'll easily use 40GB for a single 1 hour project, and that's with just single-camera work. If you use multiple cameras it can double.

Even with massive CPU power, things can get slow. If you combine several effects and transitions together with title and graphic overlays, rendering can be rather tedious. Especially if you're trying to get a certain look to the final video and keep changing things and have to constantly re-render.

Professional video editors who run into this problem typically pick up a dedicated video editing card like the Matrox RT.X2. This is a PCIe card that has a dedicated processor to real-time render all the effects and transitions, and also has analog (i.e. composite/S-video) inputs and outputs to capture analog footage and preview your timeline on a real TV. This card doesn't replace the video card -- it's in addition to it.
July 20, 2006 2:25:14 AM

Quote:
it depends, normally no. but if you have any 3d scenes or gpu powered transitions then it does.


So you are saying that if I was doing video editing and decided to add in some complex scene transition, like a "water effect" or "particle effect", to cut from one scene to another, then a video editing program will use the GPU to speed up the rendering process?

Note: I am aware of ATI's Avivo, but I believe that is still in development, unless I missed some news about it.

First, it depends on which video editing program you're using and what type of transitions and effects you're using. Adobe Premiere Pro 2.0 has some effects and transitions that will use the GPU, an example is the page peel transition.

But the CPU is doing way more work than the GPU is. Let's say you capture DV footage from any digital camcorder. You put two scenes on the timeline and put a GPU-accelerated page peel transition between them. Here's what the computer's doing:

1. Read 1st DV stream from disk and decompress it frame-by-frame
2. Chroma upsample and convert each frame from DV's 4:1:1 color space to 4:4:4 color space.
3. Read 2nd DV stream from disk and decompress it frame-by-frame
4. Chroma upsample and convert each frame from DV's 4:1:1 color space to 4:4:4 color space.
5. For the stream that will be mapped onto the page peel transition, convert the color space to RGB from YUV.
6. Compute all the vertices of the page peel object.
7. Send the page peel vertices and the DV stream to the GPU to texture-map it frame-by-frame onto the moving page peel object
8. Receive the texture-mapped page peel back from the GPU, convert it back to YUV color space
9. Overlay the 2nd rendered page peel DV stream onto the 1st DV stream together to make the transition
10. Recompress the resulting video stream frame-by-frame back to DV and write it to disk.

9 of those steps above are CPU, only step 7 is GPU.

And that's only for about 10 % of the available transitions and effects. The rest are not GPU-accelerated.

There are 3 things to video editing:

1. CPU horsepower. The more clock, the better the processor, the more cache, and the more cores, the faster the render.
2. Size of RAM. The more RAM the better. Premiere Pro munches on 1GB for breakfast, 2GB for a decent sized timeline.
3. Size of hard disk. DV video eats 12GB per hour in raw form, when Premiere Pro conforms the audio that'll eat another 1.5GB per hour. Then you need 5GB to prepare your MPEG-2 encoded video and another 5GB to prepare the DVD. Add in still graphics and titles, jumpbacks or other B-roll video and you'll easily use 40GB for a single 1 hour project, and that's with just single-camera work. If you use multiple cameras it can double.

Even with massive CPU power, things can get slow. If you combine several effects and transitions together with title and graphic overlays, rendering can be rather tedious. Especially if you're trying to get a certain look to the final video and keep changing things and have to constantly re-render.

Professional video editors who run into this problem typically pick up a dedicated video editing card like the Matrox RT.X2. This is a PCIe card that has a dedicated processor to real-time render all the effects and transitions, and also has analog (i.e. composite/S-video) inputs and outputs to capture analog footage and preview your timeline on a real TV. This card doesn't replace the video card -- it's in addition to it.

which is why my cpu is an opteron.
July 20, 2006 9:25:38 PM

Why wouldn't a 380W power supply be enough for this build? It's an Antec brand..Truepower.
July 20, 2006 10:42:13 PM

Quote:
it depends, normally no. but if you have any 3d scenes or gpu powered transitions then it does.


So you are saying that if I was doing video editing and decided to add in some complex scene transition, like a "water effect" or "particle effect", to cut from one scene to another, then a video editing program will use the GPU to speed up the rendering process?

Note: I am aware of ATI's Avivo, but I believe that is still in development, unless I missed some news about it.

First, it depends on which video editing program you're using and what type of transitions and effects you're using. Adobe Premiere Pro 2.0 has some effects and transitions that will use the GPU, an example is the page peel transition.

But the CPU is doing way more work than the GPU is. Let's say you capture DV footage from any digital camcorder. You put two scenes on the timeline and put a GPU-accelerated page peel transition between them. Here's what the computer's doing:

1. Read 1st DV stream from disk and decompress it frame-by-frame
2. Chroma upsample and convert each frame from DV's 4:1:1 color space to 4:4:4 color space.
3. Read 2nd DV stream from disk and decompress it frame-by-frame
4. Chroma upsample and convert each frame from DV's 4:1:1 color space to 4:4:4 color space.
5. For the stream that will be mapped onto the page peel transition, convert the color space to RGB from YUV.
6. Compute all the vertices of the page peel object.
7. Send the page peel vertices and the DV stream to the GPU to texture-map it frame-by-frame onto the moving page peel object
8. Receive the texture-mapped page peel back from the GPU, convert it back to YUV color space
9. Overlay the 2nd rendered page peel DV stream onto the 1st DV stream together to make the transition
10. Recompress the resulting video stream frame-by-frame back to DV and write it to disk.

9 of those steps above are CPU, only step 7 is GPU.

And that's only for about 10 % of the available transitions and effects. The rest are not GPU-accelerated.

There are 3 things to video editing:

1. CPU horsepower. The more clock, the better the processor, the more cache, and the more cores, the faster the render.
2. Size of RAM. The more RAM the better. Premiere Pro munches on 1GB for breakfast, 2GB for a decent sized timeline.
3. Size of hard disk. DV video eats 12GB per hour in raw form, when Premiere Pro conforms the audio that'll eat another 1.5GB per hour. Then you need 5GB to prepare your MPEG-2 encoded video and another 5GB to prepare the DVD. Add in still graphics and titles, jumpbacks or other B-roll video and you'll easily use 40GB for a single 1 hour project, and that's with just single-camera work. If you use multiple cameras it can double.

Even with massive CPU power, things can get slow. If you combine several effects and transitions together with title and graphic overlays, rendering can be rather tedious. Especially if you're trying to get a certain look to the final video and keep changing things and have to constantly re-render.

Professional video editors who run into this problem typically pick up a dedicated video editing card like the Matrox RT.X2. This is a PCIe card that has a dedicated processor to real-time render all the effects and transitions, and also has analog (i.e. composite/S-video) inputs and outputs to capture analog footage and preview your timeline on a real TV. This card doesn't replace the video card -- it's in addition to it.

Okay, I understand now. Thanks.
!