Sounds like you've been doused, under the gallows?

Myself, I prefer "gassy to flatty," as Manuel used to refer to the choices (which caused the Spanish Ambassador in the U.K. to complain at the time that this character in Fawlty Towers had set Spain's reputation back 25 years...).

And the guy wasn't even Spanish....

Thankfully, early on, the car manufacturers didn't put a large horse's butt on the front of our cars because that's what folks were used to seeing when driving the buggys around.

Sorry John, they did:



The 1899 Horsey Horseless

"If not, it will interpret the fields in between to get 50i."

Vegas will not do what you seem to be implying.
It will split 25p into 25PsF but NO motion interpolation etc is done regardless of any setting.
Depending on the display device 25PsF could look smoother than 25p. That's be simply because the display device is incorrectly displaying 25p NOT because the 25PsF has more temporal resolution. Both 24p and 25p is pretty close to an unwatchable juddery mess if it's ever displayed as such. Cinema projectors use a two blade shutter which means the eye is flashed twice with the same frame. The way 25p is displayed as 25PsF on a CRT is a close approximation to that.

Bob.

The 1899 Horsey Horseless
Have a look at the very first line in my initial post in this thread ;-)

Computers are not getting faster anymore.
For video editing at least, I would disagree. There are companies out there squeezing a lot of performance out of GPUs... and it was only in the past few years that GPUs became easier to program for editing applications.

The CPUs also do more work per clock cycle due to SSE/2/3/4, etc. etc. The rendertest.veg results reflect this.

The 1899 Horsey Horseless

They didn't dare beat that horse, because the head was also the fuel tank!

<*(8^))

For video editing at least, I would disagree. There are companies out there squeezing a lot of performance out of GPUs... and it was only in the past few years that GPUs became easier to program for editing applications.Yes, and that is precisely what I said in my post you are responding to. But, for many things that cannot take advantage of the parallellism of threads, cores, multi-CPUs, and the cousin of that last one, the GPU, there has been zero performance enhancement. This is why some people complain about performance when looking at timeline playback (no help from the things mentioned) or some fX that apparently don't use multiple cores or CPUs.

Avid spit-polished the timeline Media Composer code for smooth navigation and trimming, don't think anyone can beat that on any same hardware.

Avid made this a top priority, I'm sure SCS could do that too if they saw the value of it.

CPU clock speed is no longer a good measure of performance. Due to physical limitations, 4Ghz is currently about as fast as you can get a processor to go without it burning up. They way around that has been mostly by processing more instructions per clock cycle. Any current processor will absolutely run circles around a six-year-old machine despite the old machine having a higher clock frequency. John Meyer, it's about time you pried open your wallet and bought a new machine. :)

"This is an interesting thread, because what was unclear suddenly became crystal clear, only later on to turn as unclear as a glass of muddy water.."

Like String Theory. Sometimes I think I understand it then 'poof', something logical interferes. Sometimes all my strings are in phase, sometimes they aren't.

"...John Meyer, it's about time you pried open your wallet and bought a new machine. :)"

He is. We're waiting anxiously to see what his i7 does for video.

We're waiting anxiously to see what his i7 does for video. I've got salesmen from both Boxx and Polywell working on my specs. Nothing too fancy; just top legal clock speed, good mobo, and built by people who know how to do it. For me, as always, the important tweaks are going to be in the software. Most client computers I work on have 50% or more of their performance sucked up by poor configuration choices; anti-virus software; and a seemingly infinite list of flotsam software all of which insists on running stuff in the background, and some of which -- like AV software -- actually hooks the disk interrupts and really messes things up.

The Polywell guy is looking into some AMD chip, but I'll probably stick with the i7.

I've found that most of the other background processes don't make all that much of a difference. AV software and distributed computing applications (and viruses) do make a significant difference. Everything else only makes a 1% difference.

Those other programs likely make Windows take a lot longer to fully boot though... annoying.

I've found that most of the other background processes don't make all that much of a difference. AV software and distributed computing applications (and viruses) do make a significant difference. Everything else only makes a 1% difference.I agree with you almost 100%. I went through a period where I tried all of the "Black Viper" site ideas for improving performance, and as you correctly point out, most of them don't make a difference you can feel or measure, and some of them can create problems down the road.

I did find, however, that turning off the office app background indexing did actually make a difference. Also, while I have often posted about how defrag doesn't help anything -- and I stand by that -- reducing the total number of files on the drive DOES make a performance difference. This often gets done when a person does degrag as part of the Windows "cleanup" command. So, emptying the Internet browser cache is important.

Finally, killing all the automatic updates is extremely important. I've been on client computers when these things have decided to kick in, and the whole computer becomes moribund.

Years ago there was a columnist/consultant named Brian Livingston who got into this stuff and we used to exchange tips. He was, for awhile, a goldmine of information and I read his column religiously. Unfortunately, his consulting business took him in a different direction and he no longer published tips that were as useful. However, he still publishes an e-newsletter that you can subscribe to:

Brian Livingston's Windows Secrets