Are there issues with quad cores and 8.0c?

Hulk wrote on 3/8/2009, 3:46 PM

I am wanting to upgrade to a Core 2 Duo Quad from my dual and know that a lot of people here use 8.0c with a quad. Every now and then I seem to come across a post that talks about the issues with 8.0c and quads?

Are there issues or is this just for users with certains setups much in the same way there are always some people that have various issues that the majority of users do not have?

- Mark

Back to post

Comments

cliff_622 wrote on 3/9/2009, 9:19 PM

HDCAM SR - it's around 800 megabits or so at 4:4:4.

V4 can edit HDCAM? I don't edit either I was told that the next version will do HDCAM SR. I know very little about it, I was just told by a Sony employee that it will do it without any "special hardware".

It's cryptic but I guess we will find out what that means. (or doesn't mean...lol)

I just want to render plain old AVCHD and HVD without disabling my processor in THIS version of Vegas.

CT

farss wrote on 3/9/2009, 10:30 PM

Just think about what you were told for a minute.

Someone hands you a couple of HDCAM SR tapes and says "Here, edit this".
First thing you are going to need is a VCR that'll play them. Nothing special, it's just another VCR. They weigh a fair bit so you might need a stronger desk. They COST a small fortune, like over $100K. Still it's only money and it plays a tape just like any VCR so it's not special.

Then you've got to be able to capture the HD SDI comong out of it and as you said that's at 800Mbits / sec. Your disks MUST keep up, nothing really special there either, you can buy the kit at most good PC suppliers. It just costs a bit of money. Maybe someone has built a magic box that crunches that bandwidth down using some advanced codec, maybe AJA. Bravo, that could save you a lot on those disks and HD SDI card. And maybe V9 will work with that codec, so OK but you still need that darn VCR.

That's one way to look at it.

Or you can render anything out to uncompressed 1920x1080 using Vegas. Bring that back onto the timeline and edit it. For my money you're "editing HDCAM SR". Without uber fast disks and CPUs it'll be painfully slow but you are editing it. I've done this many times when I needed the best possible quality and I did it on an old P4 system and with V7, as a paying job. No reason I couldn't have done it with V4 either, you can run it at 2K x 2K res.

Bob.

Christian de Godzinsky wrote on 3/10/2009, 12:42 AM

Hi,

I think blink3t (among other peopled sadly affected by his strong in my view biased opinions) has something generally against AVCHD - as a format.

It has been shown multiple times that AVCHD provides excellent results (even better than HDV - at a lower bitrate), and renders fine WITHOUT any intermediates, as long as the software copes with it. Nevertheless, AVCDH IS a demanding format, but properly written SW works with any "demanding" format - if properly written...

I can throw ANY number of AVDCH tracks on my timeline, and it renders completely fine every time with pristine results - as long as I am on Vegas 8.1 (running on a quad core QX9650 and 8Gbyte of DDR3 ram - vista 64 ultimate).

Vegas 8.0c is flawed in such a way that if you let it use all 4 cores for AVCDH rendering the system chokes and Vegas probably crashes. This is a fault recognized by SCS. Please, do NOT blame the AVCDH format for that. 8.1 works perfectly with AVCDH and all 4 cores.

Christian

rmack350 wrote on 3/10/2009, 10:45 AM

- as long as I am on Vegas 8.1 (running on a quad core QX9650 and 8Gbyte of DDR3 ram

I think the general problem with ABCDE is just that it's terribly resource intensive, not that the format is inherently flawed but that it's unwieldy. But the same was said about HDV just a while back.

You're kind of making the point yourself. A lot of people aren't too eager to buy a new system or rebuild the one they've got to accommodate AVCHD, and 8.1 is still a little immature compared to what people are used to.

Robert Mack