Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Video and Photo Editing questions

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
April 30, 2007 9:30:31 PM

Hi,

I am building a computer, and I would appreciate some assistance in choosing the video card.

My budget is not too high around $1000.

Purpose: Email, Browsing, Photo and video editing. Premiere Pro, etc. NEVER GAMES.

I will be buying the intel e6600, and probably Gigabyte DS3. But how much do I have to spend on a video card, does a video card make a difference for the work I will be doing?

I already have a Seagate 320GB drive, and will be buying a 500GB plus 2GB ram. I already have a Hauppauge capture card as well.

Any specific recommendations on the video card. Or will onboard suffice?

Thanks,
April 30, 2007 10:31:06 PM

your probably better off with a stand alone vid card...even if it is a low end one.

Probably a x1300 or something should work fine I think.
April 30, 2007 10:52:07 PM

seconded
Related resources
a b U Graphics card
April 30, 2007 11:23:57 PM

What specific editing apps?

Just Premier?

then right now save the money and get an X1300 or X1600.

If dealing with something that makes use of video acceleration then you need to be specific because different apps like different vendors' cards.
April 30, 2007 11:46:38 PM

The only advantage a discrete graphics card will give you is that your video subsystem won't be using main memory. That will leave a little more memory and memory bandwidth for the system to use. So, don't spend a lot. As others have mentioned, a X1300 will do just fine. You will see some benefit with the later generation of GPUs because of their enhanced video decoding capabilities, but that will only make a difference in playback.
May 1, 2007 1:32:31 PM

Thanks for all the comments.

To answer one of the questions . . .

What specific editing apps? :

Adobe Premiere Pro
Adobe Premiere Elements
Pinnacle Studio MediaSuite
Sony Vegas
Roxio Easy Media Creator 9 Suite

I like to play around with the different kinds, and if a new one comes out, I sometimes try it.

With respect to photo editing, it is usually Adobe Photoshop, but could be others. Though I did not think this would be driven by a higher end video card.

What x1300 is more reliable? Will more memory in the video card help?

Thanks.
May 1, 2007 4:14:50 PM

The Adobe website has a section for hardware requirements/compatability, Premiere Pro 2.0 looks like any of the "previous" generation(ATI X800) video cards will work.
a b U Graphics card
May 1, 2007 4:15:32 PM

For those apps memory won't matter.

I haven't played with Vegas much, just some random encounters, but I do know that Sony Vegas 7 and below use no hardware acceleration so you just want a cheap, but quality dedicated 2D card, preferably the X1300, but even an X300 would be fine, and you could probably use the latest onboard intel in a pinch, the only reason I would avoid the old nVs is their colour support, however if you could find a cheap GF8300OEM or a cheap enough GF8500, then it would be good too because it supports 10bit per channel colour.

I would say if you can get a passive heatsink X1300 with at least 256MB of real memory (don't get confused by the HyperMemory numbers). Larger amounts of memory may have future use, especially in things like HD work, but I doubt they'd be that important, and more than 256MB means nothing to the apps you listed.
May 1, 2007 5:33:59 PM

Quote:
What x1300 is more reliable? Will more memory in the video card help?

Most X1300s will be basically the same; most manufacturers follow the reference design and the only real difference might be the memory chip manufacturer. In other words, select a brand that you've heard of and haven't heard anything too horrible about and you'll be fine. As was mentioned, look for one with a passive heat sink to keep noise down. You won't be doing anything that will work the card.

Since you are only doing 2D stuff, don't spend extra for more memory. You only need enough memory to hold the 2D image. The large amount of memory on today's cards is there to hold all the information needed to draw objects in 3D space. When you're only doing 2D stuff, more memory will allow you to use higher resolutions, but today's cards have more than enough memory for the highest resolutions you may use. As long as the max resolution in the specs is higher than what you plan to use, you will be fine.
May 2, 2007 8:31:36 PM

I am having a hard time finding X1300's that are silent (passive) in stock in multiple CANADIAN retailers (online or not) that I would like to order all my computer parts from.

So, will the following substitutions also work in my scenario. As they are not too expensive, but seem to be around the same specs:

GF7300 family (256MB mem)
GF7600 family (256MB mem)
GF8600 family (256MB mem)

1500
1550
etc.

Or please recommend others, as it seems low end silent video cards are hard to find, at least in Canada.

Thanks,
a b U Graphics card
May 2, 2007 10:13:23 PM

Quote:
I am having a hard time finding X1300's that are silent (passive) in stock in multiple CANADIAN retailers (online or not) that I would like to order all my computer parts from.


naaming the retailer might help.

Quote:
So, will the following substitutions also work in my scenario. As they are not too expensive, but seem to be around the same specs:

GF7300 family (256MB mem)
GF7600 family (256MB mem)


Just say no to the Gforce 7 series for you functions IMO.

Quote:
GF8600 family (256MB mem)


Good if cheap enough, waiting a week or two they should drop more in price.

Quote:
1500
1550
etc.


Is that the X1550? If so that'd be fine just like the X1300.


Quote:
Or please recommend others, as it seems low end silent video cards are hard to find, at least in Canada.


They are hard to find everywhere unfortunately, but they are the best solution for non gaming, no need to worry about a failing HSF when you leave your computer unattended for a 4 hr final render session.

Nice option, but more than you need maybe (not as much as the GF8600 though);

http://www.ncix.com/products/index.php?sku=23422&vpn=EA... SILENT/TD/256M&manufacture=ASUS
May 4, 2007 11:21:32 AM

If you really are thinking about video editing:
Get a mac. It haves Imovie HD out of the box.

They also have the best video editing and DVD author program in the world: Final Cut Studio.

I switched from Windows to Mac in 2002, beacuse of all the problems I had doing videoediting.

Videoeditiong needs memory: Windows 32bit XP supports 3 gigs and have horrible memory managment.

NTFS filesystem sux, and you will get problem with large files.

AVI file size is limited to 4 gig. Most program can only handle 4 gig.

4 gig is nothing in video edition.
DV is about 25 gig per hour.

Try to get the cheapest mac pro.
You can install windows on mac, since it is X86 machines.

The graphic card really dont have to much to do with video edition.
In XP nothing, since XP is not 3D accellerated.

OS X is 3D accelleraded since 2002 with qurtz extreme.

Quote:
Hi,

I am building a computer, and I would appreciate some assistance in choosing the video card.

My budget is not too high around $1000.

Purpose: Email, Browsing, Photo and video editing. Premiere Pro, etc. NEVER GAMES.

I will be buying the intel e6600, and probably Gigabyte DS3. But how much do I have to spend on a video card, does a video card make a difference for the work I will be doing?

I already have a Seagate 320GB drive, and will be buying a 500GB plus 2GB ram. I already have a Hauppauge capture card as well.

Any specific recommendations on the video card. Or will onboard suffice?

Thanks,
May 4, 2007 1:51:47 PM

Quote:

AVI file size is limited to 4 gig. Most program can only handle 4 gig.

4 gig is nothing in video edition.
DV is about 25 gig per hour.



This is a little misleading...

I have worked with video for years, and I have never yet had to work with a source file 4gb large. I can't imagine a situation where I'd need a 4 GB source file.

If you edit video, it's going to be comprised of much smaller source clips than 4GB. When you do a final render you're going to compress to DV or DVD anyway...

Worst case scenario, if you need a 5 GB source you could split it up into two clips.

But if there's a 4 GB avi file limit, I've never even known about it, and I've been working on video since the mid-90s. Which is at least a small indication of how significant that limitation is in real-world editing.


Quote:
The graphic card really dont have to much to do with video edition.
In XP nothing, since XP is not 3D accellerated.


Not true, Premiere PRO uses the graphic card for real-time acceleration of effects.


Anyway, that's my two cents. I've heard good things about apple's and digital video, but video on the PC has come a long way since 2002 and is certainly a viable video editing platform nowadays, for sure.
May 4, 2007 4:04:12 PM

Quote:
If you really are thinking about video editing:
Get a mac.

He said his budget is around $1000. He can't get a Mac to do what he wants for even close to that.
Quote:

They also have the best video editing and DVD author program in the world: Final Cut Studio.

Final Cut is a very good program, but again, his budget is around $1000. Final Cut Studio alone will cost him more than that.
Quote:

NTFS filesystem sux, and you will get problem with large files.

AVI file size is limited to 4 gig. Most program can only handle 4 gig.

4 gig is nothing in video edition.
DV is about 25 gig per hour.

I've been doing video editing on a PC for several years and have never had any of the problems you mention here. I don't know what kind of DV you're using, but all the DV I've ever seen is 13GB per hour. I can record an hour from my camera and get a 13GB .avi file and my computer doesn't have any trouble with it.

The problems you mention are old problems that Windows used to have dealing with DV, but those problems are now only theoretical or have been solved years ago.
May 4, 2007 5:00:29 PM

1) Ignore Shompa, Dude is spouting BS like a gyzer.

2) Premiere has a few effects & transitions that are gpu based. You have the option of using gpu for accerated desktop playback. From what I've read in the forums this comes into play a lot more once you start working with HDV.

I've used Premiere Pro 1.x & 2 on several systems. In my experience a system with dedicated video card will perform a little better in the DV realm, however integrated solutions from ati & nvidia won't cripple you when working with dv. Intel integrated gpu seems to screw things up.

Although Adobe brags about tapping into the power of modern GPUs, the published information is scant. Aside from the the effects in the GPU bins it is hard to know what you're getting out of it.

Here are a few pny products with the sales pitches:

http://www.videoguys.com/DIY-GPU.html

... and here is a link to adobes list of compatable display cards (way out of date)

http://www.adobe.com/products/premiere/search_result.ht...

Good Luck
!