>
>
> I'll be putting together a system to be used only for video conversions
> (vcr
> to dvd), would it be worth going to 64 bit technology or should I just
> stick
> with a fast 32 bit system with lots of ram? any opinons graciously
> accepted.
> :-)
>
> thanks,
>
>

"Gary Bettan" <video***@videoguys.com> wrote in message
news:44bc3650.497374203@news.optonline.net...
> On Mon, 10 Jul 2006 01:43:07 GMT, "James" <muzicia***@xyahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
>>Just scored a computer with a Soyo SY-P4I865PE Dragon 2 V1.0 mobo, which
>>holds up to 4 gigs of DDR 400 ram.
>>
>>Any thoughts/opinions on this mobo?
>>
> Not that familiar with the mobo. As for RAM, video editing
> applications need a bare minimum of 1GB of RAM. But, with only 1GB
> you'll run into bottlenecks that can slow performance. We recommend
> you get 2GB of RAM for you video editing computer.
>
> Here is a link to our recommeded systems page. we offer you advice on
> what you need for the best results.
> http://www.videoguys.com/system.htm
>
> For even more in depth information check out our DIY articles. You'll
> find links to them on the page I provided above.
>
> Gary
> Videoguys.com
>
> Videoguys.com   http://www.videoguys.com
> The Digital Video Editing & DVD Production Experts
> 800 323-2325 or Free DTV tech advice (516) 759-1615
>
> All DTV purchases include our 30 day customer assurance program
> and FREE tech support


"Ken Bouchard" <k_bouch***@adelphia.net> wrote in message
news:1a2dncTKsISDN1jZnZ2dnUVZ_u2dnZ2d@adelphia.com...
>
>
> I'll be putting together a system to be used only for video conversions
> (vcr
> to dvd), would it be worth going to 64 bit technology or should I just
> stick
> with a fast 32 bit system with lots of ram? any opinons graciously
> accepted.
> :-)
>
> thanks,
>
>

Ï "John Miller" <john_NO_@_SPAM_enosoft.net> Ýãñáøå óôï ìÞíõìá
news:12chfltbhq3e8e2@corp.supernews.com...
> "with lots of ram" - there is a false belief that you need huge amounts of
> RAM.  You can get by with 512MB and 1GB is plenty.  If you are thinking of
> more than 1GB, don't - spend the money elsewhere - such as on a faster
CPU.
> A lot of people (especially with a vested interested - such as retailers)
> claim you need >1GB for video editing.  I have challenged them to provide
> hard numbers - no replies.  The important thing for RAM is to make sure
you
> have the optimum arrangement for the motherboard - e.g., 2 x 512MB instead
> of 1 x 1GB etc.
>
> This is from a post on rec.video.desktop where I show that even 512MB is
> ample:
>
> I find the claim that 1GB is the minimum quite laughable.
>
> As I type, I have Premiere Pro chugging away creating an MPEG2 file from
two
> DV AVI sources with titles and picture-in-picture.  I am monitoring its
> memory usage with Task Manager on a dual core Pentium D 2.8GHz with 1GB
RAM.
>
> CPU Use - 50% (kinda disappointing...maybe due to using a USB2.0 external
> drive rather than Firewire)
> Peak Mem Usage - 236,404K (i.e., 0.23GB)
> Commit Charge (i.e, total mem use by all apps etc) - 469MB
>
> Apps running:  Premiere Pro, Outlook, Outlook Express plus a lot of
services
> etc.
>
> So even a 512MB could cope without having to thrash to disk all the time
> (especially if not running the other apps)
>
> I'd like to see the claims for 2GB backed up with some hard numbers...
>
> Any editing systems that require that much memory at a given time sound
> rather suspect to me as far as quality of programming goes.

          | we've got puzzled looks.

"Jeff Rife" <we***@nabs.net> wrote in message
news:MPG.1f32aff29e5d325398a63f@news.nabs.net...
> John Miller (john_NO_@_SPAM_enosoft.net) wrote in rec.video.dvd.misc:
>> "with lots of ram" - there is a false belief that you need huge amounts
>> of
>> RAM.  You can get by with 512MB and 1GB is plenty.
>
> I'm not sure what DVDs *you* are editing, but the last project I created
> with Adobe Encore 2.0 was using 850MB of RAM while I was working on it.
> It was painfully slow even with 2GB of RAM in the machine...I'd hate to
> think what it would have been like if it had to swap with only 512MB of
> real RAM.
>
>>                                                     If you are thinking
>> of
>> more than 1GB, don't - spend the money elsewhere - such as on a faster
>> CPU.
>
> No, this won't help nearly as much.  After about 2.5GHz, you won't see any
> real increase in speed for the actual editing process, although rendering
> out to another format will be helped.  But, don't spend money for a
> bleeding
> edge 3.4GHz CPU...live with a 3.2GHz and spend the money you save on RAM
> and real fast hard drives.
>
> --
> Jeff Rife | Radio Shack...you've got questions,
>          | we've got puzzled looks.

> "Jeff Rife" <we***@nabs.net> wrote in message
> news:MPG.1f32aff29e5d325398a63f@news.nabs.net...
>> John Miller (john_NO_@_SPAM_enosoft.net) wrote in rec.video.dvd.misc:
>>> "with lots of ram" - there is a false belief that you need huge amounts
>>> of
>>> RAM.  You can get by with 512MB and 1GB is plenty.
>>
>> I'm not sure what DVDs *you* are editing, but the last project I created
>> with Adobe Encore 2.0 was using 850MB of RAM while I was working on it.
>> It was painfully slow even with 2GB of RAM in the machine...I'd hate to
>> think what it would have been like if it had to swap with only 512MB of
>> real RAM.
>>
>>>                                                     If you are thinking
>>> of
>>> more than 1GB, don't - spend the money elsewhere - such as on a faster
>>> CPU.
>>
>> No, this won't help nearly as much.  After about 2.5GHz, you won't see
>> any
>> real increase in speed for the actual editing process, although rendering
>> out to another format will be helped.  But, don't spend money for a
>> bleeding
>> edge 3.4GHz CPU...live with a 3.2GHz and spend the money you save on RAM
>> and real fast hard drives.
>>
>> --
>> Jeff Rife | Radio Shack...you've got questions,
>>          | we've got puzzled looks.
>
>

          |  wasteland much like Utah, but unlike Utah, Mars
          |  was eventually made livable."
          |         -- Professor Farnsworth, "Futurama"

"Jeff Rife" <we***@nabs.net> wrote in message
news:MPG.1f38439b756fcaa898a640@news.nabs.net...
> John Miller (john_NO_@_SPAM_enosoft.net) wrote in rec.video.dvd.misc:
>> Any app that uses that much memory is a disgrace.  There's no excuse for
>> it.
>> How much video does 850MB represent?
>
> Less than 2GB on the final DVD, with the average bitrate about 4Mbps.
>
>>                                       Why doesn't the software make more
>> intelligent use of the host system's file system?  Pure and simple -
>> sloppy
>> programming.  Adobe are notorious for it.
>
> And yet, you're bragging about how little memory you need to run Premiere
> Pro, also made by Adobe.
>
> Still, if you understood anything about audio and video editing (and DVD
> creation), you'd know why so much memory is needed.  The primary reason is
> to give the user preview and feedback of how the finished product will
> look and sound.
>
> --
> Jeff Rife | "In those days Mars was a dreary uninhabitable
>          |  wasteland much like Utah, but unlike Utah, Mars
>          |  was eventually made livable."
>          |         -- Professor Farnsworth, "Futurama"

          |  wasteland much like Utah, but unlike Utah, Mars
          |  was eventually made livable."
          |         -- Professor Farnsworth, "Futurama"

"John Miller" <john_NO_@_SPAM_enosoft.net> wrote in message
news:12d29cv87ht9d90@corp.supernews.com...
> Adobe are notorious for bloatware.  Acrobat is an example and, based on
> what's been posted, so is Encore.  I still think 300MB is a lot for an NLE
> to use at any one moment.
>
> As it happens, I know a lot about audio and video editing - been doing NLE
> since 1995 and I write commercial software for video editing - so I know
> what the OS can do and I know what crap Adobe have built into their later
> offerings.  I know that they - along with Ulead and others - continue to
> use old, off-the-shelf code - such as Video for Windows - do not fully
> embrace DirectShow and - like the Mac world - add fluff instead of working
> on the core of the software to make it quick and versatile.  I can achieve
> in realtime (without special RT hardware) what these "cutting edge" NLEs
> can only dream about - why, because I went back to the basics, identified
> the real bottlenecks in video editing and wrote my own encoding/decoding
> engine from scratch.
>
> 850MB is a sh*t load of RAM and there is ABSOLUTELY NO NEED to have all
> the video loaded all the time - smart programmers would make use of the
> features built in to the OS.  If you don't know what those are, don't
> worry.  But Adobe sure as hell should.
>

> You've just been duped and conned into believing that because it's video,
> it needs a lot of memory.
>
> Show me the hard figures - show me the CPU usage used by the application,
> the memory usage (not for the whole system, just the
> "Jeff Rife" <we***@nabs.net> wrote in message
> news:MPG.1f38439b756fcaa898a640@news.nabs.net...
>> John Miller (john_NO_@_SPAM_enosoft.net) wrote in rec.video.dvd.misc:
>>> Any app that uses that much memory is a disgrace.  There's no excuse for
>>> it.
>>> How much video does 850MB represent?
>>
>> Less than 2GB on the final DVD, with the average bitrate about 4Mbps.
>>
>>>                                       Why doesn't the software make more
>>> intelligent use of the host system's file system?  Pure and simple -
>>> sloppy
>>> programming.  Adobe are notorious for it.
>>
>> And yet, you're bragging about how little memory you need to run Premiere
>> Pro, also made by Adobe.
>>
>> Still, if you understood anything about audio and video editing (and DVD
>> creation), you'd know why so much memory is needed.  The primary reason
>> is
>> to give the user preview and feedback of how the finished product will
>> look and sound.
>>
>> --
>> Jeff Rife | "In those days Mars was a dreary uninhabitable
>>          |  wasteland much like Utah, but unlike Utah, Mars
>>          |  was eventually made livable."
>>          |         -- Professor Farnsworth, "Futurama"
>
>

"Ken Bouchard" <k_bouch***@adelphia.net> wrote in message
news:1a2dncTKsISDN1jZnZ2dnUVZ_u2dnZ2d@adelphia.com...
>
>
> I'll be putting together a system to be used only for video conversions
> (vcr
> to dvd), would it be worth going to 64 bit technology or should I just
> stick
> with a fast 32 bit system with lots of ram? any opinons graciously
> accepted.
> :-)
>
> thanks,
>
>