Comments

ggrussell wrote on 3/26/2006, 8:32 PM
Not here. I don't even know anyone that could even play it back if I did. What are you using? There are very few HD DVD players on the market and those only accept Windows HD WMV or Divx HD discs. I don't even know anyone with a widescreen TV plus alot of those aren't REALLY HD. The cheaper Plasmas are only EDTV. I don't know anyone that is willing to go in hock to pay as much for a TV as they did for their first car. By the time one buys a HD camcorder, HD player and a real HD TV, I could have a good down payment on a house.
allyn wrote on 3/26/2006, 9:36 PM
i WISH i was editing HDV. that would mean i had enough money to buy an HDV camcorder. :-)
Andy C wrote on 3/27/2006, 4:37 AM
Wingtee,

I've heard horror stories about computer hardware requirements for this. Folks in the know tell me that only a dual-Xeon machine will be man enough for editing HDV. I'm curious to know what you're using.

Andy.
btw, I'm not! A lack of disposable income severely prohibits, although I wish I was.
Spot|DSE wrote on 3/27/2006, 4:26 PM
Folks in the know tell me that only a dual-Xeon machine will be man enough for editing HDV.

Utterly, completely, inaccurate information. We have 24 computers here (training) Only four are duallies, only one of those Xeon. All machines are editing HDV. You want a 3.2 or faster, preferably AMD right now. If you've got a slower machine, use the CineForm codec, and even with a faster machine, you'll prefer it. SATA drives are just fine, no RAID required.

If you bought a boxed version of VMS, and have Platinum, you should have gotten a book on HDV in the box.
HDV Book
At the risk of sounding like I'm trying to sell something (I wrote the book) you might want to check it out. It'll answer most every HDV question you'll have.
wingtee wrote on 3/27/2006, 6:08 PM
There seems to be a lot of misinformation about HDV.

I use a Dell 3.6 Ghz P4 with 2 gigs of RAM. I have Vegas Movie Studio 6.0a Platinum - which I must say has been a remarkable program - only problem I have encountered was making a long 45 minute movie. Most of my movies are 5 - 15 minutes and at this length I have had zero problems with the program.

I save my movies back to my HDV camera and also make a copy in WMV-HD format - which I store on my hard drive. The rendering time for both of these formats is long, so you have to put your movie together, start rendering and go do something else. Personally, I do this at night while I'm sleeping. . Next morning I get up and the movie is complete.

This is definitely the future of home video. Once you see the clarity of HDV compared to SD you'll be sold. Pricing on the Sony HDR-HC1 has already fallen from over $2000.00 to as low as $1300.00. The new Sony HDR-HC3 is going for $1500.00.

DSE - I did get a copy of your book with my purchase of the software and enjoyed it very much.

Andy C wrote on 3/27/2006, 9:54 PM
Interesting info, DSE and Wingtee. I'll bear this in mind when I buy my next PC. I have to confess that I always considered AMD to be the CPU for games and Intel for media rendering.

By the way, I have your book, Douglas but as I've only just received my VMS Platinum I haven't had a chance to read it. I shall look forward to it. It's also good to know you visit these forums now and then.

A friend who also has VMS Platinum has just bought the Sony FX1 and tells me that he cannot preview real-time event transitions in HDV. As far as I know he's got a 3.2Ghz with plenty of fast RAM. Perhaps he needs to strip it down so there's not too much running in the background?
gbrandon wrote on 3/29/2006, 6:14 PM
Im editing HDV and have actually downgraded from Sony Vegas 5.0 (when I used to shoot from a PDX-10) to Sony Movie Maker Platinum (with a Sony A1U). Im having a few issues with platinum though, mostly I cant see the movie preview when I capture, and also it seems a little jittery playing back in platinum, but fine using other software. I think im going to change out my fx-57 processor and get a fx-60 to see how much the dual core will help. Its interesting to read that someone mentioned the amd processor, because it seems like every benchmark I read, the Intel processors get beat by every test, EXCEPT video rendering. Im also curious to see if a dual cpu mb running 2 xeon dual cores would be much better than a single cpu xeon dual core or a 2 cpu xeon single core setup. Anyone have any info on this? Im going to build a new system just for video editing, and am trying to figure out my best investment for my $$.

-Geoff
Andy C wrote on 3/29/2006, 11:07 PM
Geoff,

I agree, all the tests I've seen rate Intel CPUs as better at video rendering. If you're going to swap out your FX-57 for a 60 then keep us all posted. I'm sure there are many of us here who'd like to know how an AMD dual-core CPU performs in VMS. Unfortunately, I don't have deep enough pockets for an FX-60, but it features regularly in my dreams.

If you're going to build a new system then keep us posted on that, too. I'm only guessing, but wouldn't two single-core CPUs be better than a single dual-core CPU? I guess a lot depends upon the dual-socket motherboard. But what do I know? Please tell us when *you* do!

Andy
gbrandon wrote on 3/30/2006, 1:00 PM
I will keep you all posted. I am lurking around in the 2cpu forums and am going to try to have some people there do some benchmarking for me with movie studio platinum.
Last night I captured some hdv with my athlon fx-57 and it showed 100% utilization. I then tried doing some playback and it kept skipping frames inside of moive studio. I then captured using my new notebook with a dual core 2.0ghz with 2 gigs ram and the utilization for capture was 45-48% and playback was fine with no skipped frames.
I want to see the benchmarks for the following:

1) dual core xeon or other intel based dual core cpu (single cpu)
2) dual core fx-60 athlon (single cpu)
3) dual core dual cpu opteron
4) dual core dual cpu xeon

It would be interesting to see if the xeon is even worth it or not. Im guessing, no, since I dont think (but im no sony expert) that movie stuido needs the extra l2 cache for the processes it uses. Right now is a hard time for cpu buying. Intel says 07 will bring us quad core processing and amd is bringing out new stuff as well. Most apps at this time are still written for single core processors, so the benefit is small for most users. Its sort of like the xp x64 bit. Im running it on my athlon, but how many apps are available for it besides database stuff? As far as the cpu benchmarks go,My guess is a dual core/dual cpu intel platform will be the fastest, but by how much over a intel single cpu with dual core?
There is a price/performance point for all of us, and while im willing to go pretty deep, I know Im not going to spend thousands extra to get say... 15% better rendering time. now, 50% better rendering time...heheh..yeah, Id probably say bye bye to the extra $$. Ill keep people posted with what I find out.

Geoff