So I currently have a AMD dual core 5000 at 2.4 with 4 gigs of ram and a GT8600 card running a 1080p 42" hdtv and a 22inch monitor at 1680x1050 and a gt6200 running a 19 monitor at 1440x900
And I have purchased a second (which I plan to use to render while I continue working on other editing) that one is an intel quadcore 6600 at 2.4g per core, 4 gigs of ram, and an GT8600 running a 19 monitor at 1440x900 and a 22inch at 1680x1050.

Both have sata HD's running windows Vista and Vegas 7.0, and a sata2 drive for captures, I plan to have a third sata drive internally just for renders so for the best performance on rendering time should I put in a esata card and run two or more esata drives on each? or get an upgrade on something else? What about software programs? would going to an intermediate format like cinform, be worth it in rendering times? what are the best ways to maximize system performance while keeping the overall budget in mind?

I am shooting a Canon XHA1 mainly, currently in 24F but am also contemplating shooting in 60i and using something to convert to 24P after possibly dvfilm, is that good or bad? I would prefer to stay in HD for as much as possible downsampling only when getting ready to produce SD DVD's

What formats are the best to render too? straight uncompressed 1080 at 60 is incredibly large files, so that may not be the ideal even though it is uncompressed, but if not using that what would be the next best in terms of best quality at a decent compression? and what about printing back to tape for archiving? would it be best to render and than print to tape two copies and keep them as masters for when I need to or want to use the hd to make Blu-ray discs? in the future? Is keeping smaller wmv files on harddrives a decent alternative to keeping very large files on the main system? and can those wmv files at full 1080 be used to make decent SD DVD's? Also, what is a good way to get vegas files to a flash format? it seems that is a good way to showcase video online, wmv and even quicktime allow people sizing options which produce poor oversized images, flash seems to control that.

Sorry I know I have lots of questions, I am relative inquisitive and am just starting to absorb all the info around and am trying to do things right from the get go so I figure the best way is to hear from people who have far more experience and have been through many of the pitfalls of getting started.

I am just starting to watch the VASST Vegas videos and think they will be a tremendous help on the software end of it, I watched the Vasst XHA1 video and found it amazingly well done and instructional.

Thanks in advance.

Stephen Eastwood
http://www.StephenEastwood.com

What's the difference between SATA and SATA2? And how do I know which one I have?

What's the difference between SATA and SATA2? And how do I know which one I have?

I think SATA 2 might be the same as SATA150 which is faster than the initial SATA.

But this is coming from a guy that still has ATA133 drives and no SATA drives. :-)

One of the better answers I have found so far on that topic.


"First, what SATA2 products have you two encountered? I'm looking hard for SATA2 enclosures for new versions of external SATA RAID solutions i've been working on for over a year now, for use with Final Cut Editing on the G5.

Second, to answer your questions, SATA2 allows for twice the throughput of SATA(3GB/sec). I'm sure it doesn't actually perform at that rate, but to know, you'd have to have several drives in a RAID connected via a single SATA2 connection. Otherwise, you're drives are your speed bottleneck, whether you've got them connected via SATA1 or SATA2. (I expect RAID solutions exactly like I described to come out this year, most likely using SATA2 cables to run to external stacks of drives, just like the XSERVE).

SATA2's real value is as a cheap connectivity solution that will hopefully make the more expensive options (FibreChannel, SCSI, even FW800) obsolete.

That's what I'm hoping for anyway. I just wish they'd hurry up."