|
What computer do I need for the camera
|
|
|
sorceress
Newbie
|
4. November 2004 @ 03:39 |
Link to this message
|
|
I have a Sony Digital8 camera DCR-TRV120E with an USB cable. So far I`ve had 366 MHz PII that was too weak for downloading from the camera. Now a friend offered to give me PIII, 800 MHz, 20 GB, 256 RAM with Windows XP installed. It`s a very good bargain and I`d accept it but I wanted to ask, if I take it, will I be able to use the camera with it? I was thinking about working in Adobe Premiere...
Also, is there a way to compress the video while downloading it? And once compressed, it editing still possible? When I downloaded the video to my dad`s P4 it took 7 GB of space for 15 minutes of material in mpeg format...and the tape is approximately 45 minutes long. There`s no way that I will be able to download it all at once.
Thanks in advance!
|
|
Advertisement
|
 |
|
|
|
12256180
Junior Member
|
7. November 2004 @ 11:46 |
Link to this message
|
|
Hi sorceress -
Don't take this the wrong way but 800 MHz & 20 gig is a fair upgrade for almost anything except video editing. You really need to be breaking into double figures for GHz on yr processor & the more hdd space the better. I run an Athlon XP 2800 at 2.08 GHz and I still have to make sure I'm not trying to do anything else when downloading home movies from my DV camera.
The upgrade should be inexpensive enough, though. You can get lower end AMD CPUs at bargain prices these days & hdd prices have never been lower. The 800 MHz may just do it, but I think it will really struggle. I'd take the kind offer but see if I could upgrade the processor to something a bit quicker/more powerful, then think about fitting a second hard disk.
Hope this helps & doesn't disappoint.
mikeg24764
|
Senior Member
|
8. November 2004 @ 10:08 |
Link to this message
|
|
can anyone tell me what they think is the right processor speed for video editing?
|
|
Streamcod
Junior Member
|
14. November 2004 @ 05:59 |
Link to this message
|
|
i agree with 12256180, that you need good computer speed for editing purposes, i won't tell you to get dual cpu computer for this thing (some tv channels use this speed for fast rendaring and editing too,in other way Real-time editing)
well in my view for good minimum speed for editing you can have 2.00GHz with 512MB memory also good display card with 64MB and firewire card (more than these will be better like 768Mb memory)
if u like amd system i will advise u to get 2700GHz
...:::hmmm want more ask for help:::...
[Streamcod]
|
|
12256180
Junior Member
|
14. November 2004 @ 11:02 |
Link to this message
|
|
I wasn't suggesting a dual CPU system. I said 'double figures' meaning more than 1.0 GHz. Streamcod's recommendation sounds reasonable, though you need to look closely at the rated speeds of AMD processors (e.g. my main PC has an XP 2800 that runs at 2.08 GHz but is said to be equivalent to a 2.8 GHz Pentium). I'm no expert, but I have another PC with a 1.6 GHz CPU (a Duron) that is quite nifty, but I'd be a little dubious about its abilities to manage/manipulate large quantities of digital video. My Athlon XP 2800 + does fine & it's a fairly fast CPU that has dropped a lot in price since the Athlon 64s came out. If you shop around I'm sure you can get an Athlon 2800 or even a 3000 for a bargain price. Pentium CPUs tend to be more expensive, but are well worth it if you're not too bothered about budget issues.
Hard disk drives are big and very reasonably priced at the moment. I know someone who is buying a new system with a 40 GB hdd & this seems miserly by current standards. You can get a 120 GB hdd for about £50 here in the UK. I run two hdd's on the main PC (120 GB & 160 GB - sounds greedy, but I have a LOT of music, video, documents, etc.) A big hdd should mean you won't have to worry about compression, too. Get yourself a DVD burner (now dirt cheap) and some decent media & it shouldn't be a worry even with a modest hdd as a 'holding space'.
A fairly important issue for a video-editing PC will be the graphics card. It doesn't have to be a high end X800 or 6800 or anything mad like that, but do shop around and try to get something with 128 MB on it & maybe a range of features, software & inputs. My Radeon 9600 XT has s-video in/out & came with quite a bit of software. At the moment you can get the Radeon 9800 Pro (an excellent card) at very reasonable prices. If I was buying another card now I'd go for that or a Radeon 9800 XT or a GeForce FX5950. They've all toppled in price since this summer's new high-end cards came out.
Hope this helps.
mikeg24764
|
|
Streamcod
Junior Member
|
14. November 2004 @ 17:32 |
Link to this message
|
|
yep 12256180 i think me and your help is enough
now its time to sorceress to answer,remember sorceress when u use HDD try to use 7200RPM much better for everythin ,speaking of Duron i hate it,i remember when i was working on P2 oh man ... don't remember me
my next target is Athlon 64 'new system'
|
|
sorceress
Newbie
|
25. November 2004 @ 04:10 |
Link to this message
|
|
Well the news is that I managed to get a hdd of 100 GB and I`m happy with it :). As for the processor I`ll look around. I don`t know much about computers except some basic things and I remember someone telling me that if I got a more powerful processor the motherboard might not support it. How true is that?
I will have to see what graphics card I have. The budget is of course very tight - the funny thing is, I don`t play computer games, don`t do much except writing, listening to music, watching movies but I like photography and, well, video. I`ve always thought that since I don`t play all those demanding computer games I don`t need a particularly strong configuration. Who would`ve thought...
|
|
sorceress
Newbie
|
25. November 2004 @ 04:16 |
Link to this message
|
|
Forgot to say thanks for the help :). It`s a little frustrating - I`m an amateur, it`s not like I`m going to do something serious, just some clips, birthday videos etc. I`m trying to find the balance and not waste money on stuff I won`t use, but at the same time to get a decent equipment. I would appreciate any advice.
|
|
woody_223
Junior Member
|
26. November 2004 @ 03:51 |
Link to this message
|
|
if you get your mates computer p3 then there is not really any spec for uprading as it is now dated
p4 or athlon are the two to look at
p4 are more expencive but the best in some respect
athlons are cheaper but still very good
you could get a good system together for about £300 minus monitor, if you can build it yourself which isnt too hard
computer stores are a rip off, and dont ever got to pc world and say i want a pc. you might as well bend over and take trousers down !!!!
there should be plenty of pc in the clasified or on ebay as the resale value of computer is fairly low
hope this helps a little
|
|
Welsh_Boa
Newbie
|
26. November 2004 @ 11:48 |
Link to this message
|
|
My experience was I had a 2.4ghz processor, nice 80GB spare on the hard drive and running off XP.
Video editing worked well for weeks then all of a sudden refused to work (Pinnacle 9) full stop.
Defragmented etc, but eventually had to buy a 7200rpm hard drive - what I couldnt understand was why it had worked for so long and then gave up.
|
|
woody_223
Junior Member
|
27. November 2004 @ 00:37 |
Link to this message
|
|
sounds like a conflict in programs to me
maybe if you installed somthing at that time that pinnacle didnt like.
|
AfterDawn Addict
|
29. November 2004 @ 16:35 |
Link to this message
|
|
I keep locking up my 2.53 p4 with Premiere pro, usually at the worst moments, loosing my work in the process.
Being totally fed up, I bought my current machine with the two Xeon processors, some fast hard drives and a bunch of RAM. It just idles along at three times the speed of the old one.
Premiere Pro still freezes if I slide the time bug along the timeline two quickly, but I have learned to save stuff every couple of minutes.
A reasonable minimum for Premiere is a 3.0 P4 and a gig of RAM. This is what Adobe recommends. Premiere is a serious editing program and requires the same from the system it operates on.
|
|
sorceress
Newbie
|
30. November 2004 @ 08:08 |
Link to this message
|
|
Perhaps I should look for something less professional then...It`s ironic, my dad uses his computer for work and he has 512 MB RAM and a processor that`s probably not stronger than 2, 2.4 GHz. And now I should show up in front of him telling him that he should finance a computer twice as strong because I like to play with video editing in my spare time...Don`t think so. :(
Maybe one day.
|
AfterDawn Addict
|
30. November 2004 @ 17:17 |
Link to this message
|
Hi again sorceress,
Money is always an issue! I mentioned minimum requirements for a program that costs around $600.00. If you are using something like Nero or Ulead then you can get by with a lesser machine. Video editing is one of the most demanding tasks you can ask a PC to do. Running these programs takes a bit of "e-muscle".
|
|
sorceress
Newbie
|
4. December 2004 @ 02:58 |
Link to this message
|
|
Actually Adobe recommends 3 GB processor and 1 GB RAM but they define minimum of 800 MHz (though it`s rather hard to believe) and 256 MB RAM. I was wondering, maybe I could get some older, less "pro" :) version of Premiere that would make less trouble.
Anyway, I think I`m going to get a better computer after all. Don`t know if I`ll pull more than 256 MB RAM but I should get a 2.8 processor and a decent graphics card. Should be enough for some amateur work.
|
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
AfterDawn Addict
|
4. December 2004 @ 05:54 |
Link to this message
|
|
Upgrade your RAM before you add anything else. Any editing/authoring/ripping/burning program is going to be limited in performance by the amount of RAM you have, not by the video card.
I said the reasonable minimum for Premiere Pro was 3.0 and 1 gig. It will run on less. The problem is that during the process, you are adding layer upon layer of effects to the base footage. What you will find is that after you get a few layers added, your computer will begin to misbehave.
|
