PC - video editing - lower end

P

PinataUT

Gawd
Joined
Aug 9, 2004
Messages
775
I got call from a buddy at a local B&M store where he was looking at various boxes.

To give you an idea: they quoted upgrading him to 2G at $260 (I'm guessing the retail installed price of 2 1G chips but who knows).

From a technie who does some video work, I was told to get 'more RAM' and not worry about fancy 3-d video cards.

With a budget of $1000 including video card, what might you recommend?

He was looking at
Gateway model 830GM Minitower
Intel Pentium 4 Processor 630, 3GHz, with Hyper-Threading Technology, 1GB RAM, 200GB Hard Drive, 16X DVD+/-RW and 16X DVD Drives, Windows XP Media Center Edition 2005

A concern I have is fitting any kind of card into that case. I had an HP with a 'free' AGP slot but there wasn't room in the jammed up case for the vid card I got that year as an Xmas present.

Assuming there was room, what's a decent low-end card that will help this enthusiast on a budget do some video editing?

Worth it to lob another $100 to get to 2GB of RAM or is 1G sufficient?

Video card? The B&M had some 5500 sitting around... but I'd rather spend that same $60 or $90 at a decent card from 'egg.

(I'm clueless about this end of the market... getting ready to do fresh install on my xps w/ 6800 ultra go :) )

Thanks for any help or suggestions.

PinataUT
 
Actually I think a lot of the video editing programs do utilize the video card
 
I'm not an expert, but I think you want to look for one that has good MPEG video encoding/decoding features on the card itself. Also, if you do any 3-D video transitions, 3D acceleration on the card will make those go smoother (if the software doing the transitions uses standard 3D APIs to do them, like DirectX).

I've pretty much come to the conclusion that for low to mid-end video editing, a good gaming card equals a good video editing card. GeForce 6600, something like that.

Although having said that, I'd be interested in hearing any corroborating or opposing viewpoints, because this is something that interests me also. I've just been using Windows Movie Maker, Cool 3D, and Nero Ultra (I just use Nero for DVD authoring and some title effects). But I'd like to move up to Sony Vegas, maybe.

Other beneficial stuff besides the vid card:
* 1GB of fast RAM should be enough for casual video editing. Add another stick for heavy-duty compositing and transitions.

* Disk space, disk space, and more disk space. Video editing really chews up the gigs. I have a RAID array of two 120GB hard disks. RAID, set up for a large stripe size (I went with 1024K), is well-suited for this purpose. It makes the videos save and load faster.

* Transcoding DVDs takes forever. The faster your CPU and hard disk, the better. I usually actually transcode to "Image Burner" in Nero, which makes a Nero image file on the hard disk array. Then I burn the image to DVD from there. I found that for some reason, my DVD player likes discs that are burned that way. I've made discs that glitch out in my DVD player (basically coasters) when I've tried to transcode and burn straight to a DVD. I don't know if that's just my problem with my particular DVD player or what. Also I've found that Maxell DVD-R discs seem to work the best. Flawless burns every time. Had terrible results with Memorex, and patchy results with Fujifilm and Sony.

Hope this helps somewhat.
 
The info I rec'd in context:
If he can afford the investment I recommend Final Cut Pro and a Mac. Yes, a Mac. But that makes it pretty much a dedicated video editing machine IMHO. If he goes PC: RAM good, 3D video mostly superfluous. Save $$ on video card and get a ton of RAM and disk space.

I'm seeking clarification on 'ton of RAM' and what a reasonable vid card might be. (Asking my contact and the good folks here who have been very helpful)
 
From everything I've heard, Final Cut Pro rocks for professional use (some say it's in a class of its own, unmatched in the PC world, and I know many Hollywood movies have been made with it)...but it would be WAY overkill for just a low-end casual video editor. Features galore, significant learning curve for novices, and probably a lot of stuff that he'd never use anyway. And FC Pro costs something like $999. Then you'd need a G5 Mac to run it on. Expensive!

There's Final Cut Express, which is to Final Cut Pro what something like Adobe Premiere Elements is to Adobe Premiere. Stripped-down, more consumer-oriented version, something like $280. But of course you'd still need to get the Mac to run it on.
 
Jesus. I use an Athlon XP-M 2600 OC to 2300mhz with 1 gig of Corsair XMS Ram I use to run two ide drives on one channel a 40 and 120 both maxtors. And it was fine! Video editing is over rated.
 
Patman said:
Jesus. I use an Athlon XP-M 2600 OC to 2300mhz with 1 gig of Corsair XMS Ram I use to run two ide drives on one channel a 40 and 120 both maxtors. And it was fine! Video editing is over rated.
Click to expand...

The main part is rendering the finished video. It takes a lot of CPU time to render video. Get a decent processor, don't skimp on RAM, and a fast hard drive will help. A graphics card is mostly fluff. A 9800 or equivilant will suit you just fine.

I have an Athlon 3200, 1GB ram, a Radeon 9800 256mb and a raptor. I can edit home movies with the greatest of ease, and you could pick up a rig like mine for ~ $1000.
 
I would venture to say that the P4 system would be a greater video editing machine, but that's only from first-hand experience between a P4 @ 4.2Ghz and FX-53 @ 2.7Ghz, so the results may be a bit skewed
 
Don't even bother with a 3d video card if it's going to be a video editing machine. I know people who still use the Miro DC-30 (not XP compatible however) and it runs alot of dedicated video processing stuff you wont find on your run of the mill ATI or Nvidia card. I'm sure Miro makes some newer models nowadays, and i'm pretty sure that for the price of a 9800 (pointless for video editing) you can definately get some kind of card that's more suited for video editing.\

-wil
 
It all depends on what software he is going to use?

Does the 1000 have to include the software?

Is it just editing, cut/paste/slice/render?
Or is he going to be putting 3d transitions? Swipes, fades etc?

matrox makes some add in video cards that do wonders with premiere, and usually include a copy of premiere along with it.
Check ebay, rt10 and rt100 i think are the current models.

Those do real time rendering, output to video monitor for previewing.

But the biggest thing is what software does he plan on using?
 
You do not need a gaming card for video editing. 3D transitions and effects can be done easily by any 3D card through OpenGL and DirectX. What matters most is the CPU, RAM and IO. Video encoding will take the most processing power.
 
That was basically my point. You don't need the 3D capabilities of the video card unless you have complex 3D transitions that would benefit from some 3D acceleration.

Otherwise, a medium-range gaming card would do well as a video editing card. Not for the gaming features, just simply for the speed. You don't need anything really fancy -- but you do need a card that will be fast enough to play video smoothly, with no hesitation, especially when compositing transitions and such. My old Radeon 9700 is fine for it.
 
I'd look into a P4, especially if he's going to run Adobe Premiere it takes crazy advantage of hyperthreading
 
n64man120 said:
I'd look into a P4, especially if he's going to run Adobe Premiere it takes crazy advantage of hyperthreading
Click to expand...

QFT, I just read an article where a guy dropped his rendering time on a big video by 2 hours or so by turning on the HT. Dual processors only dropped it by another 1/2 hour or so.
 
Looks like he's got that covered already. 3Ghz P4 with HT. Probably ought to do him just fine.

But wow! I guess I'll have to buy a dual core system now; that's great that at least some apps are already taking advantage of it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top