|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||
 |
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
December 23rd, 2007, 12:59 PM
|
#1 |
|
Major Player
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Seattle WA
Posts: 376
|
Vegas, EX1, and Computer specs
I plan to use Vegas 8.0a with an EX1 and my computer specs are dual 3.2 with 2GB RAM. The India review thread has me convinced that I am going to have to drop a large chunk of $$$ on a new machine to be able to edit effectivly and effeciently. My big concern is that Vegas is optimized for dual processors and is suppose to handle 1920x1080 on the timeline. I have tested sample footage and end up with 8fps to 15fps at bbest in preview. What are the right specs on a machine for Vegas and the EX1? Is Vegas able to make use of a Quad processor or for that matter a dual quad? Any insight would be helpful, also if anyone has a machine running Vegas and is using an EX1 with it, What are your machine specs and frame rates during editing.... I would like to have the machine perform as realtime as I can get, as if I was still working with SD.
As a comparison, Does FCP Studio 2 actually see or use the full specs of a new intel Mac like the dual core Quad (8 procs) and 16GB RAM? Or do you need hardware to go realtime... I have been with Vegas since version 3.0 and love it and would like to keep using it, however if it will not utilize the type of computer specs needed to handle this new workflow in a more realtime fashion, I may have to switch things up.. |
|
|
|
December 23rd, 2007, 01:39 PM
|
#2 |
|
Obstreperous Rex
|
Moved from EX1 to Vegas.
|
|
|
|
|
December 23rd, 2007, 04:41 PM
|
#3 |
|
Major Player
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Sweden
Posts: 263
|
Well... It does handle 4 threads, which means a quad core cpu will be perfect...
A dual quad, I dont know, but i think not. Because in the option in Vegas 8a, the maximum rendering threads is between 1-4. About preview windows, look very carefully which preview quality you have choosen. There is an option draft, preview, good and best. And every option have 4 more options... to play in realtime without any FX or track motion you should be able to play it realtime with settings "preview, half" I think... But if you beginning to add FX or track motion, there is no software or hardware who can play preview in realtime. And thats the truth..... There is of course high end computers and hardware for fantasy money which can buy you better preview.... Toy Story used 117 dual and quad-processor, high-powered computers from Sun Microsystems for rendering. Total it took 800.000 computer hours to generate the film of 114,240 frames. If the producers began rendering Toy Story today on an average one-processor home computer, and the computer was used exclusively for the purpose of frame rendering, the animation would be complete in approximately 43 years. OK, the film was complete animated... But you see the point with adding FX and using track motion on your movie... It will consume alot of computer power which the human been not have yet..... Soo choppy, bad fps preview, is nothing unusual.. You can RAM preview with selected area (shift-B) to see a clip in realtime, or prerender video... well.. god luck.. |
|
|
|
|
December 23rd, 2007, 04:52 PM
|
#4 |
|
Major Player
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Richmond, VA
Posts: 221
|
I always edit in "preview" mode and have no problems and get much better performance over "best".
I only switch to "best" when I am doing color grading. |
|
|
|
|
December 23rd, 2007, 06:22 PM
|
#5 |
|
Major Player
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Seattle WA
Posts: 376
|
Thanks guys, I guess I have been spoiled for way to long with SD and can preview in Best Quality in realtime with Fx and transitions etc. Just wish the experience was similar with HD. I use RAM preiview often when needed. the lack of full 30fps is frustrating sometimes when you are trying to sync exact frames or Fx to music. I am planning on a Dual Quad core with hopes that a future version of Vegas maybe version 9 or 10 will handle more than 4 threads. I think for timeline playback with basic transitions HD should be able to be previewed in best mode at full fps. once more processing power is utilized. I have heard others on other forums using Vegas say they have no issues running HD with best preview in Vegas at full 30fps. They never disclose there machine specs but I would love to know exactly how they are doing this as it sounds others are having the same issue as I am.
|
|
|
|
|
December 23rd, 2007, 06:37 PM
|
#6 | |
|
Major Player
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Fresno, California
Posts: 528
|
Quote:
You can build a fairly cheap quad core system with a decent amount of ram. Make sure that you get very fast hard drives (Our systems use a WD raptor 10,000 rpm drive for the OS and programs, and SATA 3.0 drives for the video). Use your current computer for your internet browsing and game playing. Only use the new computer to edit and maybe for photoshop, but you want to have as little "garbage" running on there as possible. Going quad core and 4GB of ram with fast hard drives should give you your 30fps at best settings no problem. Kit |
|
|
|
|
|
December 23rd, 2007, 07:47 PM
|
#7 |
|
Major Player
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Sweden
Posts: 263
|
hehe, Kit Hannah...
Did u see that what kind of CPU's they used ? When we didnt know about dual CPU, the industry was using them... In the beginning the only different from now, is the price... but they existed... They DID use dual AND quad CPU's, and 117 of them.... Today the industry like Pixar, uses about 3000 computer in rendering farms for dedicated rendering... And every computer case have 14 CPU's in them... When finishing "Cars" each frame of the movie (and there are 24 every second) took an average of 17 hours to render. Some of them took days. So obvious, your quad core wouldn't render a movie like that on a day......... But of course you are right, the price then and now.... regards Kim |
|
|
|
|
December 23rd, 2007, 08:03 PM
|
#8 |
|
Major Player
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Sweden
Posts: 263
|
But remember, Now I am talking about animated 3D movies only. Not regular camera film....
I owned a Intel Core 2 Quad Q6700 3700MHz, 12GB RAM 1333MHz, a Raptor 10.000rpm, Win XP Pro x64...Dedicated for Vegas 7e and photoshop. And guess what, doing a complexed project using track motion and fx didnt make your preview go 30fps. Only on "Draft-quarter".... I realized that todays tech, aren't enough, if you aren't a millionaire..... Course, using the computer for "regular" video editing from filming and etc., use photoshop and so on, was like being Flash Gordon... no problem at all.... |
|
|
|
|
December 24th, 2007, 12:46 AM
|
#9 | |||
|
Major Player
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Fresno, California
Posts: 528
|
Quote:
Quote:
Not even standard definition with really heavy fx is going to run smooth at "best setting". But if we're talking about just a native clip without, there's no reason things cannot run smoothly. Quote:
And hehe, Kim. You are very naive to think that 12 years ago, those "dual core" and "quad core" cpu's they were using are anywhere near the speed and specs of today's processors. The original SUN SPARCstation's, which were clustered for the rendering, were only in the neighborhood of 33-200mhz, thats "Megahertz" Not "Gigahertz". Albiet, the cluster probably provided a substantial amount of processing power, but it's nowhere near today's specs of processors, including higher bus speeds, utilizing much faster and more ram, cache, and much faster cores overall. I'm sure they had some great technology back then, but technology has progressed a great deal since then, but it does not take 12 years for that technology to hit the consumer market. Here is an excerpt from http://findarticles.com/p/articles/m..._4/ai_17812444 "For the movie (Toy Story), Pixar created a networked bank or "cluster" of 117 Sun(TM) SPARCstation(TM) 20 workstations -- each containing at least two microprocessors, and running on Sun's Solaris(TM) operating environment -- to handle the critical task of "rendering" each of the 114,000 frames in the 77-minute movie." And here is another excerpt from http://everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=1499557 regarding the SPARCstation 20: "Specifications Production dates: 1994-1996. Support was officially ended in 1997 when it was replaced by the Sun Ultra 2. Model Number: Way too many to keep straight - this was produced in at least 30 different variations. Application architecture: sun4 System architecture: sun4m Processor: 2 MBus slots, many options available. Unlike the SPARCstation 10, the 20's MBus runs up to 50MHz, which can help performance considerably. Each slot can hold a single or dual processor module, and up to two can be installed, for a maximum of 4 CPUs. Most dual-processor modules are double-width, and will block the adjacent SBus slots, but there are single-width/dual-CPU modules. Speeds from 33MHz through 200MHz are available, in at least two families (Sun/TI SuperSPARC and Ross HyperSPARC), both with and without cache. The modules don't have to match exactly, but figuring out which non-matching combinations will work is black magic. RAM: Up to 8 SIMMs, 512MB maximum. Two of the SIMM slots have an extension to one side, and can also hold VSIMMs for the SX framebuffer. Graphics: Onboard CG14 (also known as SX, accelerated 24-bit), 4 SBus slots. The SX needs a VSIMM, either 4MB or 8MB to operate. The 8MB version supports higher resolutions and refresh rates. 2 VSIMMs can be installed for dual-head, doing this requires a rather hard-to-find extender card which fits into an SBus slot. SBus graphics options: BW2 (mono, no acceleration), CG3 (8-bit color, no acceleration), CG6 (8-bit color, accelerated), CG8 (24-bit color, no acceleration), ZX (24-bit color, accelerated 3D, abysmal 2D performance). Others exist, but are poorly known. Floppy: Standard Sun-type 1.44MB or 2.88MB floppy. Hard Drives: 2 bays for SCA style SCSI (20MB/sec) hard drives. These drives are mounted on drive sleds for faster insertion and removal. The sleds are the same type used on the SPARCstation 5, different from the spud brackets used in the later Ultras. These bays can accommodate only low-profile (1" and less) drives. In theory there's no capacity limit, but many operating systems designed for an older machine have trouble with larger drives. New, high-speed disks may be too hot, as well. Audio capabilities: Integrated Crystal Semiconductor CS-4231 sound chip. 8-bit, 22050 kHz (radio quality) for both input and output. No MIDI synthesizer though it's possible to emulate one in software. (See TiMIDIty). This system has integrated phono style microphone, line in, line out, and headphone jacks. Expansion: Internal CD-ROM, narrow SCSI. This is an odd form factor, mounted on rubberized clips. As far as I know, only the standard, default, 2x Toshiba drive exists, if you want a faster one it has to be external. 4 SBus expansion slots External ports: 1 Sun Type 4/5/6 keyboard port 1 PC-style parallel port 2 RS232 high-speed serial ports, mini-HD male (230kbps maximum) 1 RJ45 Ethernet port (Sun Lance) 13W3 video port for onboard SX framebuffer. 1 50 pin Fast SCSI port " So please, Kim, compare apples to apples here, not 12+ year old technology with today's. Kit Last edited by Kit Hannah; December 24th, 2007 at 01:23 AM. |
|||
|
|
|
|
December 24th, 2007, 02:59 AM
|
#10 |
|
Major Player
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Sweden
Posts: 263
|
Hehe, Kit Hannah, I also said:
Today! the industry like Pixar, uses about 3000 computer in rendering farms for dedicated rendering... And every computer case have 14 CPU's in them... and STILL 17hours+ to render each frame. Thats the point, comparing apples with apples.. Todays tech with tech, 12 years old.... Aren't you seeing the point? Regards Kim, Happy marry Christmas Kit, hope you'll have a great holiday |
|
|
|
|
December 24th, 2007, 03:26 AM
|
#11 | |||
|
Major Player
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Fresno, California
Posts: 528
|
Quote:
Quote:
I do see your point, but I was not comparing the personal computers to today's rendering farms, I'm comparing and backing up what I said before, that today's processors are a hell of a lot faster than the ones they used to use. It appeared you were stating that they were using the dual and quad cores of today 12 years ago. That's exactly what it looked like you said, so that's what I was going off of. Quote:
Jason, the bottom line is that if you build a decently fast computer, and have "basic" transitions and effects on your timeline, you'll be fine previewing in best @ 30fps. If you're doing a ton of CC, adding an unsharp mask, and a bunch of other stuff to the timeline without rendering, you'll have some issues. Sorry for our little debate in the middle of your discussion, but everybody have a wonderful Christmas, even you Kim :-) |
|||
|
|
|
|
December 24th, 2007, 03:57 AM
|
#12 |
|
Major Player
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Seattle WA
Posts: 376
|
No problem Guys, I actually was into the debate... I am just going to buy the most I can with what I have and hope it will be enough to last me another couple of years.
|
|
|
|
|
December 24th, 2007, 04:10 AM
|
#13 |
|
Major Player
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Sweden
Posts: 263
|
Great, Good luck with your new computer, Jason Bodnar...
And yes Q6700/QX6700 is a hell of a machine, specially for rendering... And like Kit said, It would be no problem previewing in higher quality when doing basic transitions and FX's. I got a little lose there.... =/ And thanx kit, soon it is opening time of Christmas gifts here in Sweden... Hope I get that tripod I was wishing... =) And also, a happy rendering for u all ! |
|
|
|
|
December 24th, 2007, 05:16 AM
|
#14 |
|
Regular Crew
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Hoofddorp, The Netherlands
Posts: 75
|
What do you think about this one:
Intel QX9650 4 Gb RAM nVidia 8800 Ultra (perhaps 2 for dual screens) with multiple WD Raptor 150 GB 10k in Raid 0 and a couple of 1Tb disks for storage or perhaps a setup based on: 2 x QUAD core XEON E5355 8 Gb RAM regards, Erwin |
|
|
|
|
December 24th, 2007, 12:42 PM
|
#15 |
|
Major Player
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Fresno, California
Posts: 528
|
Erwin,
Definitely. That would be perfect. Just remember, you don't need super expensive video cards because it won't affect the render times. That would be a nice setup though. And windows in most cases won't support more than 3-4 GB ram unless you go 64bit, but whatever program will have to utilize and support more ram. Kit |
|
|
|
|
| ||||||
|
||||||
|
|
