Core 2 duo & editing [Archive] - Digital Photographer Philippines

Mel Enriquez

11-12-2006, 07:01 PM

My last notebook, the 4 year old ECS a928 w/c uses a desktop P4 1.8ghz processor conked out early this year. Shop says it will cost me P13,300 to fix it and there are no guarantees the refurbished board will also conk out in time. Those desknotes uses desktop cpus and they get hot. Mine lasted 4 years before the heat probably fried the graphics chip. The notebook can still be used and works well, except you have an LCD that turns into a LSD induced view in 10-30 min of use. You can use it for text, but not for graphics or video. But the Mall prices are outrageous for brand names. Generic ones are ok, but they don't have the higher HD size I want or the faster CPU.

So, when I had the money, decided to go for a notebook. I could have gone for a desktop but I needed a portable one so I can work outside the house. And since I do video, I might need one to do an SDE or an onsite edit and presentation.

Canvassed the local shops for a core duo. 3-4 months ago, core duo was still few here, though it has become widespread in the USA. The malls had outrageous prices for the core duo. Laptop King at Gilmore practiced bait and switch tactics and that forced me to ask a friend to get one for me from the US.

Did my research and settled for a Dell 1505. By the time were ready to order, the prices went down further and I could already get the core 2 duo as the core duo was being phased out. 120gb and the 160gb also became mainstream (up from 60-80gb).

Basic specs of my Dell 1505 are:
- Intel T7200 (2ghz 4mb cache) core 2 duo.
- 1 gb 533 DDR2 ram
- 15.4" WSGA LCD
- 160gb 5400 rpm (Hitachi)
- wifi- b/g, 10/100mbit ethernet,
- 4 x USB 2.0, 1394 (firewire)
- 8x dvd -R/+R /RW
- 1 x 85wh batt & 1 65wh batt
- Win XP media center (home)
- Has MS works, MS Office 2003 BE trial, MusicMatch, etc.

Paid U$1,438 including 2 year warranty. I figure, the way I will use it, 2 years is like 4 years of use. This unit will be used heavily (10-16 hrs/day) mostly for video editing w/c will tax the HD, CPU, ram, and LCD heavily!!!

It took me about 3 days removing all the DELL junk softwares in there. I had to go slow because some programs are related to some Dell utilities and some of them cannot be launched directly. I also had to check how my own softwares would run and be installed without problems. But when got those junk out (maybe 15 or so stuff), the notebook ran quickly, much, better.

Now, I didn't do RAW conversions yet, but those jpg sure snapped and were fast in changing in front of my eyes when I apply some filters to them! I'll post more when I do some photo stuff. But I did a controlled test on video and if it passes video, I can tell you, those raw and jpgs are peanuts!:Dum: I can tell you that the pictures on the LCD was just fine! Very nice. Sharp and contrasty. I noticed that LCD does show how bad a shot can be and the texture of the photo can unnerve you if you are not careful or mindful that this is what LCD does vs CRT.

I have an issue with brightness, so I have to remember the settings vis-a-vis with my "calibrated" CRT so that when I edit on the notebook it won't be over or under simply because I got my screen too dark or too bright. Same goes for video editing. On video, though, the saturation is muted, almost pale. I have to remember that. But the stills where great. And the contrast on an LCD makes the pictures even "sharper" to look at. Those L lenses look good with this notebook!

I managed to get some HD video footage in the past from the Net and I tried running them. Great!!! For the first time, I saw the clips without my screen stuttering or stopping! And my 1680 x 1050 LCD did justice to those 1080i footages! Later, when I get my HC3 from my friend, I am going to d/l some of my own wedding videos and see how that camera did!

Now, I didn't do a test on how fast raw conversions or images with 10 filters on, but I can tell you I did test it using video with moderate to heavy filters. And video is more demanding than stills. Here are my results:

Rendering a 3:28 min mtv DV footage to an mpeg2 video on an external USB 2.0 enclosed HD (200gb 7200rpm seagage momentus).

-> 7:22 (both cores running)
-> 28:14 (single core running)

With my old 1gb AMD 2200 (single core) 2.5 year old desktop,

-> 43:49

Prior to removing the junk, I had a previous 1hr 3min DV footage for rendering to mpg2 that had an estimate of 6hr 38min to finish. I never manage to do it, because the thing crashed, so I don't know if it will really give me that time. But I can tell you that this notebook gave me 1hr 12 to render this footage!!!

In short, this machine is about 6x faster than my desktop!

My friend has a 1.66ghz core duo and if she brings here Dell notebook I will do the same test and see how long it will render with a slower processor. But I am sure, it will be at least 4x faster.

But the fun doesn't stop there. I expect to lower my Meralco bills by P800-900/month. Why you ask? Because my notebook consumes about 75watt max, maybe 90watts peak on usage. Actually, it's much less if I were to look at my meters here. My desktop's crt is already 100 watts, not counting a 100-150watt cpu consumption. The core 2 duo's thermal dissipation is about 35 watts at full throttle. In idle mode, I see that my system uses only 12-18 watts!!!

So, the machine does not just look cool, it also runs cool! My cpu runs between 40 C to 58 C only. The HD is around 49 C. The gpu is about the same, though I've seen it go over 50 C one time. I still have to see the whole thing go over 60 C!

Summary

I want to discuss other details but dont' want to bore you guys. In fact, I've written a long one already.:) Let it be said, however, that if you intend to shoot lots of raw files (or edit video), it's best to get a core 2 duo (or even the earlier core duo). That be it a desktop or a notebook. We are talking big, big, big time savings here. And I am not talking moving and launching many apps. I'm talking cpu, ram, hd, lcd intensive tasks. My video tests shows that min and even hours can be saved!!! With this machine, I was able to do in just over an hour, a render that would have taken me maybe 7 hours!!!!!!!!:Evil:

If you plan to get a new PC get a core duo or core 2 duo. No not a Pentium D or just any dual core. They are fast but not as fast as CORE DUOs. The era of P4 is over. All hail the multiple core era!

Me? I am enjoying this thing! I still am not comfortable with using the keyboard and other stuff, but man, this Dell 1505 is such a sweet machine!

If you have any questions, fire away!

-

john_villavicencio

11-12-2006, 08:40 PM

how long is your battery life?

Aris Guerrero

11-12-2006, 08:56 PM

very nice read here mel. thank you for posting this.

looking forward to a core duo system maybe in the next few months. :)

willy_palacios

11-13-2006, 12:44 AM

thanks for the "short" test & review :)
Now i'm sold to a C2D I guess it's time to give up my long time AMD :Grin:

Eric Dino

11-13-2006, 01:34 AM

zandy_marantal

11-13-2006, 02:02 AM

migsguerrero

11-13-2006, 02:05 AM

@Eric, not at all coz you wont be recording anything on the 3CCD capture. That is if you get to make the footage work on the 1CCD cam.

Mel Enriquez

11-15-2006, 01:44 PM

how long is your battery life?

I got the 9-cell 85 whr batt and it goes for about 4-4.5 hours. The 6 cell one goes for around 2.5 hours. It really depends on what you do. I can assure you that if you are just browsing the web and typing you'd get 2.5-3 hours with this thing easy using the standard 6 cell batt. 4.5 hours is possible with the 9-cell one.

Others have noted that if you watch a dvd, you can go at around 2 hours with the 6 cell and maybe 3.5 hours with the 9-cell.

Mind you, there are other variables in place. You have to factor if you have your wi-fi running or not (that affects batt life too) and how bright your screen is set.

Though I haven't tested it yet, I'm confident, I can get about 2.5-3 hours on the 9-cell batt even with heavy editing and some rendering.

.

Mel Enriquez

11-15-2006, 02:49 PM

Congratulations on your new notebook Mel!

I also got an E1505 a couple of weeks back and I love it! The only thing though is that I think you paid a liitle too much.

Mine has a similar spec as yours but only paid a little over $900.

Intel T7200 (2ghz 4mb cache) Core 2 Duo.
- 2 GB 533 DDR2 ram
- 15.4" WSXGA+ LCD with Truelife
- Video Card 256MB ATI MOBILITY™ RADEON® X1400 HyperMemory™
- 80gb 5400 rpm
- wifi- b/g, 10/100mbit ethernet,
- built in blue tooth
- built in memory card reader
- 4 x USB 2.0, 1394 (firewire)
- 8x dvd -R/+R /RW
- Win XP media center
- 1 x 6 cell battery
- 2 year warranty

There's always good deals to be found with Dell. You just have to keep your eyes open as their prices fluctuate from time to time and they also give out coupons which you can readily find on deal sites such as fatwallet. http://www.fatwallet.com/forums/messageview.php?catid=18&threadid=666189&highlight_key=y&keyword1=e1505

By the way, there's a utility called Dell de-crapifier that would get rid of all the software junk for you automatically. http://www.yorkspace.com/pc-de-crapifier/

--- used that and also did manual uninstalls.

If it's still within 30 days of purchase, ask your friend to call Dell and tell them he would be returning the laptop because you found a better deal on their site. They usually credit the difference or offer some form of concession (mostly gift cards).

HTH.

Unfortunately, nakiusap lang ako sa kaibigan ko. I have no control on this.

BTW, mine comes with 160gb HD 5400rpm, and a 6-cell & a 9-cell batt. The unit was bought first week of Oct so we were not able to get the best deals of Nov. Dell had a 30% about 10 days ago.

If you had bought a month earlier from our purchase date (2nd week of Oct), I would have gotten only a 1.83ghz 2mb core duo (yonah) then, 100gb 5400 HD. If I had had it bought last week this Nov, or so, I would have gotten the same thing I have now maybe for U$1,100. That's the way it goes:Mad:

By next year, maybe that price will get one a 2ghz 7200 with a 17" WUXGA with 200gb HD, and maybe the vid card is an ATI x1600, 16x dual layer DVD writer for U$1,100.

Mel Enriquez

11-15-2006, 02:55 PM

Hi Mhel,

Thanks for posting a very informative topic. Guess What? Jason Magbanua is also using a Dell Laptop for his on-site video editing. I just don't know what model he bought. He also suggested to the WPPP Photo Congress Delegates last October 06 - 09, 2006 to at least have a 1CCD video camera to be used during image capture on the way to the reception so that we can save on batteries of our 3CCD Video Camera. I just want to know if there will be a difference in the image quality if we capture the original image on 3CCD video camera and use a 1 CCD video cam for the downloading of the footage to the laptop? Hope you can shed some light on this. Best Regards.

I did a wedding about a month back with Dino Lara and that's what he said too. Hhe said that Jason had a core 2 duo notebook too. And a good reason too. His o,d AlienWare notebook, good as it is, is a snail compared to these new machines. They really are FAST!:Angry:

As for using lower end vidcams for playback to PC, No difference. Once it's on tape, your 3-ccd won't go down in rez or in color simply because you got a lower end camera for transfer. The camera is reading or acting only as a player and not a recording instrument. If it were used to shoot, well, that sensor and 1-ccd limits or advantages will be the one recorded on tape. But if only used as a player, it will just give what it reads to the PC, w/c is a high quality 3-ccd low light footage.

With that in mind, I migt get my friend's old JVC camera grv-33u if only as a player.

.

Mel Enriquez

11-15-2006, 03:24 PM

For photographer's out there, I did some light benchmarks on raw conversions using PS CS2.

3 sec for converting each RAW files from my 6 mp D60. Maybe it will be 3.2-3.5 sec for an 8mp raw file? Not sure. Anyway, I tried, corting my old wedding shots in raw (86 of them) and that's the average I got. No sharpening, no correction, just straight conversion to jpg.

Is this fast? Well, I haven't connected that external drive to my desktop yet, but I distinctly remember I got 14-16sec per raw files to convert it to jpg.

Well, if you have 100-400 raw files to process do the math! On 100 files alone at 15 sec/file, that 1,500 sec. That's 25 min or processing. or 1:40 min if 400 files. And this is assuming, just straight conversions. No, filters, sharpening, exposure compensation, WB corrections etc.

With a core 2 duo, 100 files is just 300 sec or 5 min! A 400 file will just finish in 20 min!

In terms of CS2 eding, it's fast. Filters and other stuff's effect is almost instantaneous. Nice. :D

For video, I did the same test and this is what I got with my friend's older 1.66 ghz core duo Dell notebook with my old wedding footage that runs on 3:29 to play.

1.66 ghz core duo - 10:10
2.0ghz core 2 duo - 7:14
AMD 2200 desktop - 43:49

All had 1gb of ram and processes the same files from an external USB 2.0 enclosed 7200 rpm Segate 200gb HD.

So, the 2ghz C2D is 6x faster than my desktop. The 1.66 CDuo is 4x faster than my desktop.

Is this fast? You bet!! Think of the time saved! Not only that, the power I use will be no more than 75 watts all in all. My desktop monitor alone is 100 watts! Even an LCD monitor is 35-50 watts, not counting the cpu unit w/c is around 75-100 watt by itself. If you have those nvidia gpu's add another 75-100 watts to power those cards! So, a notebook is not just fast, it runs cooler and lower in electricity too. I will post later next month to tell you guys how much my Meralco bill has gone down!

SUMMARY

Again, if you just type or browse, even a single core would do. But if you buy a notebook or desktop now, get a core 2 duo or AMD's X2 or their turion X2's. They will save you not just time, but on electricity. Even the lowest model will do. These low end model core duo or core 2 duo's can be had between 45k-60k on the generic Verified BY Intel (VBI) designs. They are also good though you don't get the brand name. They are made by ASus, Compal, Winstron, etc or the top 5 notebook makers in the world w/c are sourced by Compaq, HP, Dell, etc anyway.

If you want a brand name, you can get a Asus, or something simlar for 56K-70K depending. They usually have 80gb HD and 14" LCD and 512mb ram, running 1.60-1.66-1.83ghz core duo chips.

If you edit video like me, cpu power is a must. So is a large HD for those video files. Try to get a 2ghz if you can. 2.16ghz is U$225 more, and that bit extra may be too much to pay. The video card is not much of an issue for video, though if you can spring for an ati or nvidia gpu, it will help. But basically, gpu are for games. Still, it's nice to get even a basic gpu.

I predict that in 3 months, brand names will be in the 50-65k range, and the generic notebooks will be in the p40-55k range with more extras (e.g. built in web cam, BT, etc). Of coure those 17" or more exotic designs will cost between P70-100k. If you want to save money, get them from abroad. Knocks of P20k easy. My unit, even if it is expensive as pointed out by Zandy, is still 20k-35k cheaper at least if I had gotten it here from the Mall or other shops. But of course, if it conks out, I have to make sure I can get it serviced by sending it back.

But in the end, getting a core duo (not dual core by intel such as the pentium D) is the way to go IF you plan to upgrade (desktop or notebook) or get a new unit. It is really a pleasure to use. I have never been excited with processors since the 386 came out, and this is one time that these processors are not just marketing gimmicks. They really deliver the goods and the performance gains are really dramatic.

.

egayfaro

11-15-2006, 03:29 PM

Mel Enriquez

11-15-2006, 04:19 PM

Mel, Have you tried before a videocam with a hard drive? I dont know how effective the MPEG2 format result it will gives you. With that no more time consuming in transferring your data unlike the cassette tape. I know how important every minute every hour in doing an on-site editing.

Thanks.

No, haven't used one. Thought about it, and even considered the Sony SR1. But decided against it. Even SD (min-DV/DV) cameras saving to a HD I am not for it. Well, maybe that's too harsh. Maybe I can consider it if I have to. For sure, using a DVD for storage is a no-no!:Dum:

The reason is not just the loss in IQ, w/c is really minimal if you consider that you are going to route it to DVD disc anyway w/c is the same file. But the issue in the long run is archival.

Ok. It's convenient. No more tapes, and you get to transfer those 3 hours footage in just a few minutes instead of hours. But when the HD is full, what then? Where will you store these files? DVD discs? Well, I am very leary and wary of DVD discs for archival permanence or stability. Tape is still the best, and they can last a long, long time if stored properly. See those Todas or old show re-runs on channel 13? They use those betacam tapes and they still play back. I bet your old 20-30 year old beta tapes will still play if you only stored it right and you still have the player. But discs? They are not proven and I am not going to gamble on them to keep memories.

So, it means that if you buy a HD cam, then you are still going to need a min-DV tape cam for archival. Why not just go tape all the way?

As for the issue of onsite AV editing. Well, a HD is going to be good. Saves you time converting them to files from tape. But if you put all your camera there, you are not just taking a hit in resolution or IQ in terms of higher compression and thus more artifacting and other issues, you are limiting yourself if you are in the higher end market. There's not much 16:9 HD cam and one with good low light performance or with lots of pro features such as better manual overrides.

As for HDV and HD cams like the SR1, well, they are well and good, but you are not talking mpeg2 here but another file format w/c is another headache because it's basically an mpg4 but with very little NLEs still being able to edit it. You also need a very, very fast PC or notebook in the core 2 duo or quad core because these videos are very compressed and requires a fast computer to run.

Also the earlier versions do not sample well. They are in the 9-14mbits in quality/speed w/c is lower than the sony 1080i HDV w/c is at 25mbits. In short htey are heavily compressed and will have problems in IQ when stretched to the limits.

Then there's the issue of archival again. Where to put these files afterwards? So, you need tape again to back up these files. So, why not use tape instead and be done with all the problems? Cheaper too.

Pros in the high end, like Jason use Firestore or other external portable drives attached to the camera. Tettered is more apt to call it. Of course this is added cost, but if only to cut down on transfer time to PC.

This Dec, I have a client who wants their xmas party shot and no edits. They want to get the discs immediately after the party. I don't have Firestore or as such. What I'll probably do is tethter the 2 cams to 2 notebooks and record both to tape and to notebook the night's event. It's a set camera thing, so I am not worried about having to move my cams and my notebook. Will be set up in set positions. In this way, I am recording straight to tape and HD, and once the party is over, I simply burn the mpg2 files to DVD discs. This is why HD can be good in the camera.

In the future, I have no doubt that in 3 year's time, most HDV cameras will record to HD. Some, like Panasonic will even record to regular SD cards no different from those used in digital still cameras. I am no talking about the expensive P2 storage here. Panasonic is poised to release such a camera this Dec or early next year. They can record about 30 min 4gb SD and 1 hr on 8gb SD on best quality. I think you can get 2 hours if you increase compression, but you take a hit in IQ. These are HDV cameras I believe.

But then again, the question is, once it is done, how do you backup or archive? So, you go back to tape again. :)

.

Louie Aguinaldo

11-15-2006, 09:34 PM

Mel Enriquez

11-15-2006, 11:45 PM

Just sharing also how pleased I am with the core 2 duo.
I just got a new PC with the E6600 Core 2 Duo Processor rated at 2.4ghz, with 2 gig ram
-
compared to my previous PC with Pentium 4 3.0ghz with HT also with 2 gig ram.

With the older PC, it took 29 seconds to convert a raw image from a Canon 1Ds II (16.6 megapixels) into a 48mb tiff file. With the core 2 duo the time was reduced to 11 seconds per image. I love the speed!

Louie,

That is some interesting benchmark! You almost halved your processing times! Imagine if they have the e6800 here! That is a 2.9ghz cpu.

But I guess I am preaching to the choir. Like you, I too am pleasingly amazed at the speed of these new processors. It's a time saver and productivity enhancer. No I take that back - it's a productivity multipilier.

.

zandy_marantal

11-16-2006, 01:52 AM

Eric Dino

11-16-2006, 04:02 AM

Mel Enriquez

11-16-2006, 07:13 AM

@Mel

Thanks for sharing your real life experiences with the C2D processor. I have yet to use mine in tasks other than web browsing :) though the I am planning to upgrade my main workstation to an E6700 when the price goes down some more.

Anybody needs a Pentium D 930 3Ghz dual core processor? :Grin:

regards,

He he he! Tempting, but all P4 designs are basically gas guslers! I mean electricity hogs! Your D930 basically eats around 240-300+ watts as a cpu alone!:Dum: Couple that with a 100 watt video card and a 100 watt CRT, well, there goes your Meralco bill!

Pentium Ds are fast, but not as fast and efficient as the core duos. You can still use that for most tasks. My thing is that I use mine mostly for video editing so performance and lowest power usage is a must. It's not a minor thing. I can't wait to see that Meralco bill next month!

.

Mel Enriquez

11-16-2006, 07:27 AM

@ Migs & Mhel,

Thanks for your inputs, really appreciate it. The 1CCD Video Camera will just be used as a player in downloading the raw footage captured on 3CCD Video Camera to the laptop. Sometimes, one has to really discern why there is a price drop, The Intel Core Centrino was on Sale last month here in the Philippines and just last week I found out that the Intel Core Duo Dell is already on-sale at Php 59.95k for the simple reason that the Intel Core 2 Duo is now out in the market. Even the earlier models of the Macbook Pro is now on sale because the newer and better models are now standard specifications in line with our work both in Photo & Video Coverage. Patience is really a virtue when it comes to investment with our productivity tools. Until then. Best Regards.

Eric,

True, prices are dropping fast. But you really can't wait too long. I'm glad I didn't, even if it did cost me a bit more. I have some edits to do and just yesterday got a Dec gig where I will need portability.

If you get the CD and not the C2D, that is still good. The C2D is said to be 15-20% faster but if you ask me, in real world conditions, with video rendering, it's probably only 5% faster, and you won't notice it for every day tasks. I'd say get that cheap CD model and save some money.

If you ask me, take advantage of Dell's 17" core duo models. You can assemble one for about U$800, U$950 tops. It will likely be a 1.83ghz yonah core duo, with maybe 80gb-100gb HD, 1gig ram. If you are lucky, it might even be a WUXGA (the highest rez) LCD. It's not going to be as portable as our 15" model, but it sure is a nice to use a large screen to see your work!:Grin:

Oh, I just remembered, one issue I have with these notebooks and LCD is brightness. The colors seem good and neutral. needs some calibrating, but due to differences in ambient light, you must remember to work in an environment, where the ambient light is the same and your LCD setting set properly. Otherwise, you might get fooled to think that your photo as you edit is too bright or too dark.

It also helps if you know how to read your histogram. I notice that ambient lights plays tricks on your brigthness or gamma levels or at least your perception of it as you look at the LCD. Good thing, color is basically right (at least, I think so). I will try to print out using some papers I know as that is what I compare it with.

Color saturation of photos are a bit subdued. It's not as saturated compared to my eye. One must also be careful of pumping in saturation too much as it can fool your eye. Again, you can calibrate that via software. But better check it out first as you may find your print output too saturated compared to what you see. The default setting seem fine to me.

So, for color accuracy, brightness, saturation, one must control the settings in a typical non changing ambient lighting condition. This is my first LCD since my old notebook conked out and that one basically bahaved like my crt very closely. But these new ones with higher rez and ultrabright screens tend to play tricks with my eyes. One must be careful make sure that you get your settings right to prevent print problems.

.
.

Rhyan_Tiangco

11-23-2006, 10:54 PM

Mel Enriquez

11-24-2006, 01:18 AM

Hey Mel, i'm planning to buy a PC for the purpose of PP and video editing. What kind of video card do i need? Can a 128MB ATI Radeon with TV out is good enough? The specs of my prospect PC is as follows:

1.86GHz Core 2 Duo
Asus MBoard
80GB SATA Seagate
2GB RAM

Well, i'm not sure about what video card to use if i'll be utilizing this PC for both PP and video editing as well.

Also, are LCD monitors better than CRT? My plan is to buy 17" Samsung Flat screen CRT as it has a longer life and is definitely much cheaper than an LCD of the same size. I also don't like the color output of the LCD when you look at the wrong angle. I have a small budget. The highest I can have is I guess no more than 40. This includes a Wacom graphire 4 (6x8 in -> is this the right size guys? :) ).

Rhyan,

The video card isn't that much critical for video and photo editing. Most of the expensive video cards are basically for video games. My old AMD desktop didn't have a dedicated video card. I only used the onboard video card circa 3 years ago and I didn't have any problems with video editing.

But in this round, I got the ATI X1400. Again, not a speed demon for games, and will have a slight impact on video. I wish it were a X1600, but I can live with this. This is still better than any video card 2-3 years ago.

Today, I tested this, and in Sony Vegas, the preview wasn't helped at all by this video card. Not that it is slow, but I still can't go even a quarter screen on preview edit with it on good rez. It could be vegas, but definitely, it's not the video card, much less the cpu.

But I ran a m2t or HD foorage on it and it was great. No delays, and the image was brilliant in my Bright 1650 x 1050 15.4" monitor. But that's the core 2 duo magic there, more than the video card.

Now, as for photos, well, LCD's can be very unforgiving, unlike analogue CRTs. They make the images very sharp and you can see the noise of your sensor. Trick is get the highest resolution LCD you can. Most notebooks, are in the 1200 x 850 or so range. I noticed that it can make the images a tad soft. This is why I went for this one even if I had to pay over U$100 extra. It was worth it.

Color seems muted to my eyes, but I am more worried about exposure. LCDs tend to play trick in your eyes, with birghtness/exposure.

Going back to color, I still prefer analog better. Maybe when I get the handle on LCD, I will change my mind. I think it's because, digital LCDs are too harsh and don't give color gradations well. There's also contrast and handling ambient light. But the future is with LCD or non-CRT monitors. So, best I start adapting. I am glad I got this high rez LCD with a nice bright screen (drawback is the glare). But I should be careful about exposure/brightness as it is still tricky for me to judge it consistently. An external TV might help, but I still haven't gone and set up my stuff yet.

17" LCD is large for notebook or desktop. But I'd worry more on the resolution of the screen and other issues than size.

Finally, 1.83ghz, even for a core duo (not core 2 duo) is already fast. Trust me! I have used a 1.66 core duo and my 2.0ghz core 2 duo and comapred to my desktop (AMD 2200) they are 4x and 6x faster than my desktop. I presume, that your 1.83ghz will be 5x faster than my desktop. Still plenty fast if you ask me. You won't notice the speed differences in photo editing. It's in video editing where the faster cpu will shine.

If your render is 2 hours on a clip, a 6x faster cpu will make your cpu render it in 20 min. If your cpu is 5x as fast, then it's a 24 min render. A 1.66ghz core duo is around 30 min. So, you have to find out if a 4 min difference is too much or too little for you. 1.83ghz is just right for the price. If I were to get one here at P58-60k, I'd get that PC Express built one with a 15.4" bright screen, 1.83ghz core duo (yonah), 80gb HD and ATI x1600 gpu for P58k. Best speed/price. Oh, try to get the WXGA or wide 16:9 or 16:10 screen. I get more real estate in editing than the old 4:3 screen.

If you intend to edit HD in the future, well, get the fastest cpu you can get within reason. 2.0ghz is within reason to me. Paying U$225 extra for the 2.16ghz version is unreasonable to me. HD, in multiple layers can crawl your cpu to a snail's pace. I haven't tried it, yet, but my guess is 3 layers or at least 2 hard filters will slow it down considerably. Soft glows and/or color correcting filters can slow down render times dramatically.

I use Vegas for video editing, and it is stingy in RAM. I only put 1gb in my notebook. Now, if I were to do lots of photo editing, well, better get more ram. Your 2gb is already very good. But my vegas can live and run fast even with 512mb.

I hope I have helped. :)

Rhyan_Tiangco

11-24-2006, 05:58 AM

Mel Enriquez

11-24-2006, 09:11 AM

Hey, thanks Mel. I thought there is a special video card that you need for video editing aside from the video card that has a tv out. I have a 21" standby tv here which i think i can use for video editing.

As for the 17" monitor, i really am more of a photo than a video guy so i really like to edit on big screens. :)

Well, I'll stick to the 1.83GHz C2D for now. Maybe the next upgrade i'll have is mac laptop. Although that would be YEARS from now. hehe. :)

Thanks again Mel.

Trust me, even a 1.6ghz core 2 duo is going to be as fast if not faster than a 3.0ghz Pentium D dual core. And if you really look into it, the power savings is tremendous. We are talking hundreds of watts difference between this and the old P4 design. This is nothing to sneeze at in Meralco bills.

Running mobilemeter in my notebook, it says my draw is 46 watts max. When idling (doing nothing), it says 18-19 watts. Makes sense because the thermal dissipation of the T7200 and the other chips is around 33-35 watts only. Now, use that old CRT and you are already 100 watts on the monitor alone! Even today's LCD is around 35-50 watts draw. A P4 design chip will probably eat around 250 watts alone on idle! And it's not as fast or efficient! Couple that with your CRT and we are talking over 300 watts of consumption easy. This means that you

If you think this is a fluke, my charger/adapter is rated 65 watts only. My old desktop is probably using about 250 watts with the CRT! 65 watts vs 250 watts! If you consume over 300 watts, then in 3 hours, you would have hit 1KWH already! And a notebook can throttle down to 15-20 watts when idle.

So, if you can spring for a notebook, go for it. Remember, you get an original MS Windows OS, a 2.5 hour UPS (the battery), and an LCD. I calculated that if I were to assemble a desktop, it would come to about the same price as a notebook! Maybe the HD is not as big, but you can always use a regular HD via usb 2.0 enclosure. Even the "genric" VBI (Verified By Intel) notebooks w/ OEM brand names will do. If there's any concern at all, it's just the quality of the display w/c the lower end may not be as accurate or brilliant.

If you intend to go desktop, you won't get better power savings than a notebook even for a core 2 duo (I recommend the E6400 for the best bang for the buck). A recent test using the new 965 chip set tacks them at 94 watts idle and about 128 watts top speed. Add the LCD consumption of 35-45 watts and you get a fair idea of your electricity consumption.

I have a hard on with power because my electric bill is P4k/mo because I run my PC about 15-16 hrs/day on avg. By going notebook, I expect to drop that to P3k or so a month. That difference can pay for the DSL bill!

You are right. I might go mac too once they release the next version of their OS, that's the one that can run both windows and apple software without re-booting. I can't switch now because it will take me 1 year to learn FCP. It took me 6 months to learn a new video editor and another 3 months to be proficient with it. Another 3 months to start exploring the advanced features. So, I am not eager to switch if I cannot do it in incremental steps.

Photo editing is not much a problem with apple. You also have PS there.

.

Mel Enriquez

11-24-2006, 09:20 AM

Cesar Parroco

02-11-2007, 03:31 PM

This thread is relevant to me at the moment since I’m building my new desktop PC. I am convinced by the power of Core 2 Duo and the suggested Video Card set-up with it.

However, I’m quite confused in the Hard Disk configuration area which I believe is also vital in an overall system performance especially on video editing and heavy Photoshop. I have two(2) 200 GB and would like to get your views on how will I configure it.

Should I go for a RAID 0 CONFIGURATION (Total Disk space for the two drives will only be 200GB) and put all my programs, pictures, cache disk in one directory ?
Drop RAID , make one drive to store the program files and the other physical drive as my cache / data?
Make a RAID 0 configuration, divide it into two virtual drives make the 100GB as a program file and the 100GB as my data drive. Put a smaller Physical Drive just for the Cache.Which of the three configurations you think would be faster in terms of video editing and photo editing?

Thanks in advance

jerrytieng

02-11-2007, 03:48 PM

Hi Cesar, if money were no object:

Drive C:
- Boot disk and Windows binaries
- RAID 0 (2x 80Gb drives)

Drive D:
- temp drive
- 1x 80Gb Drive

Drive E:
- Application Binaries : Photoshop, etc..
- 1x 160Gb Drive

Drive F:
- Data Drive
- RAID 1+0 (4x200Gb or 8x 200Gb)

In order to gain speed, you would want to maximize disk thoroughput and reduce contention between different parts of the system while reading from the same hard disk.

RAID 0 doesn't afford performance improvements, instead it provide you with data redundancy as your data is mirrored. RAID 1 will improve performance as data is stripped over 2 physical drives, but once 1 of the 2 hard disks goes, so does everything else.

Dropping RAID and having multiple physical disks is a good way to obtain performance without the redundancy.

Virtual drives are a no-no for me as it's the same disk head assembly splitting it's time between 2 partitions.

As a reference, I'm configuring a new data server with the ff setup:

Drive C:
- Windows binaries
- 2x 80Gb SATA II
- RAID 0 through a 2-channel controller (controller #1, shared with Drive D)

Drive D:
- Application binaries
- 2x 80Gb SATA II
- RAID 0 through a 2-channel controller (controller #1, shared with Drive C)

Drive E:
- Temporary files
- 2x 160Gb SATA II
- RAID 0 through a 2-channel dedicated controller (controller #2)

Drive F:
- Log files, sequential writes
- 4x 300Gb SATA II
- RAID 1+0 through a 4-channel dedicated controller (controller #3)

Drive G:
- Data files, random reads, writes
- 24x 160Gb SATA II
- RAID 1+0 through an external JBOD Drive array attached using an HBA controller

34 drives for this mid-level setup - the idea here is to increase data thoroughput by having as many spindles serve data.

I believe video editing will require the same kind of thoroughput, if not more.

Cesar Parroco

02-11-2007, 09:06 PM

Looks like an overkill Jerry for a personal/hobby use.

OT - all the while I thought your profession is a photographer (Oh man! I love your Sinulog images and admire your jaw dropping equipments)

You're good, as well in this stuff.

Thanks.

Nat Pagayonan

02-11-2007, 09:19 PM

i'm one of those salivating for Dell laptop with hi-res LCD....i'm planning to get one soon....i've used a Dell workstation in my previous job (mainly for CAD purpose) which has a 21-inch hi-res LCD and 2gb ram and i was very impressed. i've been looking for that particular LCD in a comsumer market but i could not find one...one laptop (Inspiron 9400) Dell is currently selling with 17-inch LCD and 1900x1200 native resolution is i believe enough to satisfy my eyes.

what i like about Dell is ...you can 'custom' order the laptop you want...

http://configure.euro.dell.com/dellstore/config.aspx?b=&c=uk&cs=ukdhs1&kc=N4XENT04&l=en&oc=N02946&rbc=N02946&s=dhs&sbc=ukdhsftdhpnotebook1

zandy_marantal

02-12-2007, 02:33 AM

RAID 0 doesn't afford performance improvements, instead it provide you with data redundancy as your data is mirrored. RAID 1 will improve performance as data is stripped over 2 physical drives, but once 1 of the 2 hard disks goes, so does everything else.

I think it's the other way around Jerry :)

Brent_Co

02-13-2007, 11:49 AM

Recently joined the C2D bandwagon. And it is FAST indeed! Running E6600.

Here's my crazy setup:
E6600 2.4ghz (overclocked a bit to 2.7ghz)
ASUS P5W64 Professional
Corsair 2GB XMS2Pro
Western Digital RE 320GB (server class)
GECube X1650 256mb graphic card
NEC DVD writer
Enermax Liberty 500
all housed in a Lian Li V1000.

Saving up for more hard drives and a Wacom Intuos 3.

Rodel Ramos

04-09-2007, 01:16 PM

Rhyan,

The video card isn't that much critical for video and photo editing. Most of the expensive video cards are basically for video games. My old AMD desktop didn't have a dedicated video card. I only used the onboard video card circa 3 years ago and I didn't have any problems with video editing.

But in this round, I got the ATI X1400. Again, not a speed demon for games, and will have a slight impact on video. I wish it were a X1600, but I can live with this. This is still better than any video card 2-3 years ago.

Today, I tested this, and in Sony Vegas, the preview wasn't helped at all by this video card. Not that it is slow, but I still can't go even a quarter screen on preview edit with it on good rez. It could be vegas, but definitely, it's not the video card, much less the cpu.

But I ran a m2t or HD foorage on it and it was great. No delays, and the image was brilliant in my Bright 1650 x 1050 15.4" monitor. But that's the core 2 duo magic there, more than the video card.

Now, as for photos, well, LCD's can be very unforgiving, unlike analogue CRTs. They make the images very sharp and you can see the noise of your sensor. Trick is get the highest resolution LCD you can. Most notebooks, are in the 1200 x 850 or so range. I noticed that it can make the images a tad soft. This is why I went for this one even if I had to pay over U$100 extra. It was worth it.

Color seems muted to my eyes, but I am more worried about exposure. LCDs tend to play trick in your eyes, with birghtness/exposure.

Going back to color, I still prefer analog better. Maybe when I get the handle on LCD, I will change my mind. I think it's because, digital LCDs are too harsh and don't give color gradations well. There's also contrast and handling ambient light. But the future is with LCD or non-CRT monitors. So, best I start adapting. I am glad I got this high rez LCD with a nice bright screen (drawback is the glare). But I should be careful about exposure/brightness as it is still tricky for me to judge it consistently. An external TV might help, but I still haven't gone and set up my stuff yet.

17" LCD is large for notebook or desktop. But I'd worry more on the resolution of the screen and other issues than size.

Finally, 1.83ghz, even for a core duo (not core 2 duo) is already fast. Trust me! I have used a 1.66 core duo and my 2.0ghz core 2 duo and comapred to my desktop (AMD 2200) they are 4x and 6x faster than my desktop. I presume, that your 1.83ghz will be 5x faster than my desktop. Still plenty fast if you ask me. You won't notice the speed differences in photo editing. It's in video editing where the faster cpu will shine.

If your render is 2 hours on a clip, a 6x faster cpu will make your cpu render it in 20 min. If your cpu is 5x as fast, then it's a 24 min render. A 1.66ghz core duo is around 30 min. So, you have to find out if a 4 min difference is too much or too little for you. 1.83ghz is just right for the price. If I were to get one here at P58-60k, I'd get that PC Express built one with a 15.4" bright screen, 1.83ghz core duo (yonah), 80gb HD and ATI x1600 gpu for P58k. Best speed/price. Oh, try to get the WXGA or wide 16:9 or 16:10 screen. I get more real estate in editing than the old 4:3 screen.

If you intend to edit HD in the future, well, get the fastest cpu you can get within reason. 2.0ghz is within reason to me. Paying U$225 extra for the 2.16ghz version is unreasonable to me. HD, in multiple layers can crawl your cpu to a snail's pace. I haven't tried it, yet, but my guess is 3 layers or at least 2 hard filters will slow it down considerably. Soft glows and/or color correcting filters can slow down render times dramatically.

I use Vegas for video editing, and it is stingy in RAM. I only put 1gb in my notebook. Now, if I were to do lots of photo editing, well, better get more ram. Your 2gb is already very good. But my vegas can live and run fast even with 512mb.

I hope I have helped. :)

Sir Mel, question.

Before kasi, there is a special board you have to buy for video editing such as pinacle pro one editing/capture card, the canopus, the matrox. In today's breed ba ng pc such as the one you are saying, the Intel C2D, kailangan pa rin sya or hindi na. Pwede na bang editing software na lang like the Vegas you are using or the Adobe Premiere 2.0.

Please reply sir for enlightenment.

Mel Enriquez

04-09-2007, 11:12 PM

Sir Mel, question.

Before kasi, there is a special board you have to buy for video editing such as pinacle pro one editing/capture card, the canopus, the matrox. In today's breed ba ng pc such as the one you are saying, the Intel C2D, kailangan pa rin sya or hindi na. Pwede na bang editing software na lang like the Vegas you are using or the Adobe Premiere 2.0.

Please reply sir for enlightenment.

If you are editing DV, and unless you use 4-7, or more layers of complex filters, (glow, streneous color correction, 2-5 PIP, etc), a core 2 duo would do. Simple fades, dissolves, color correction and even some glow doesn't slow me down with my core 2 duo.

Now, some video editing programs use the video editing card's cpu power for rendering. I believe Premier Pro can do that and some Avid Liquid can do that. But we are probably talking about a P10,000-25,000 video card here, and I doubt if the speed increase is that dramatic.

Still that is cheaper than a P65,000-75,000 matrox cards w/c is tied up to a version of a software. Since they are not related to the software company, once version 10 comes out, that matrox card is not a guarantee that it will work with future software versions. Look at HDV and the how the old versions of matrox can't handle it. I know of a couple of people who spent for such cards, 2 years ago, and some of them even have a card that (pinnacle one) is not making anymore.

Now, in fairness, if you do get newer cards, you'll be better. But up to what point?

Also in fairness, even the fastest core 2 duo may not be enough for complex layers in HDV. DV maybe, yes, but HDV will eventually need a quad core. And quad core is coming. In fact, we will be able to get them at sometime this year.

If I had P70k to spend on a card, I'd rather buy a quad core system w/c will not be obsolete. Sure it may not be fast later on, what with mpeg4 getting in the picture but if that is so, then you'd have to buy another video card anyway as it is not currently supported. At least my quad core, can render this newer compression formats.

Unless you really, really, really need it. And you can justify and explain the ROI, I'd shy away from dedicated video cards. I'd just stay with core2 duo, or quad cores. Heck, I can even get that e4300 1.80ghz and overclock that to 3.5ghz with the proper board, and I will get more out of it.

And I would appreciate it if you drop the "Sir" in Mel :)

Rodel Ramos

04-11-2007, 09:35 PM

If you are editing DV, and unless you use 4-7, or more layers of complex filters, (glow, streneous color correction, 2-5 PIP, etc), a core 2 duo would do. Simple fades, dissolves, color correction and even some glow doesn't slow me down with my core 2 duo.

Now, some video editing programs use the video editing card's cpu power for rendering. I believe Premier Pro can do that and some Avid Liquid can do that. But we are probably talking about a P10,000-25,000 video card here, and I doubt if the speed increase is that dramatic.

Still that is cheaper than a P65,000-75,000 matrox cards w/c is tied up to a version of a software. Since they are not related to the software company, once version 10 comes out, that matrox card is not a guarantee that it will work with future software versions. Look at HDV and the how the old versions of matrox can't handle it. I know of a couple of people who spent for such cards, 2 years ago, and some of them even have a card that (pinnacle one) is not making anymore.

Now, in fairness, if you do get newer cards, you'll be better. But up to what point?

Also in fairness, even the fastest core 2 duo may not be enough for complex layers in HDV. DV maybe, yes, but HDV will eventually need a quad core. And quad core is coming. In fact, we will be able to get them at sometime this year.

If I had P70k to spend on a card, I'd rather buy a quad core system w/c will not be obsolete. Sure it may not be fast later on, what with mpeg4 getting in the picture but if that is so, then you'd have to buy another video card anyway as it is not currently supported. At least my quad core, can render this newer compression formats.

Unless you really, really, really need it. And you can justify and explain the ROI, I'd shy away from dedicated video cards. I'd just stay with core2 duo, or quad cores. Heck, I can even get that e4300 1.80ghz and overclock that to 3.5ghz with the proper board, and I will get more out of it.

And I would appreciate it if you drop the "Sir" in Mel :)

Ok. Ill drop the sir. Follow up question. I think you mentioned Vegas as your editing software. Any idea if Adobe Premiere Pro 2 runs in Intel core 2 duo processor without the editing board. And can I make a DVD output from it. Another thing, how can you capture the video without the editing board. Forgive my ignorance. Please reply for my enlightenment.

Thanks Mel.

Mel Enriquez

04-12-2007, 08:05 AM

Ok. Ill drop the sir. Follow up question. I think you mentioned Vegas as your editing software. Any idea if Adobe Premiere Pro 2 runs in Intel core 2 duo processor without the editing board. And can I make a DVD output from it. Another thing, how can you capture the video without the editing board. Forgive my ignorance. Please reply for my enlightenment.

Thanks Mel.

Yes. Almost all modern NLEs run in multi processors or multi cores. Basically, it's the photo editing softwares, and video editing softwares that really can take advantage of multi cores. Games can use it too, but very, very few games at this time support it, hence, their need for video cards for their polygon rendering.

Yes, Adobe Premier Pro 2 supports it. Making a DVD authoring is another thing. Most NLEs are video editing. You need another software to make the dvd disc itself. Some software like Pinnacle have their dvd authoring built in (it's really separate, they just integrated it into their time line so it seems as its the same software).

As for capturing, well, unless you are using hi-8 or video-8, or vhs as your medium or camera, then you do need a capture board. But if you are in the 21st century and using DV/mini-DV, then all you need is your camera, a firewire card (cheap now at around P350-500), a firewire cable and of course your PC. Your NLE software has a provision to capture the video from your camera. I believe even your Windows XP (I am assuming you are using that) has a software (MS Movie, if I am not mistaken) that can capture that footage from DV/mini-DV.

-Mel

Rodel Ramos

04-12-2007, 10:07 AM

Mel Enriquez

04-12-2007, 10:36 AM

Thanks Mel.

Im am very much enlightened. Ang dami kong natutunan sa yo because of your unselfish attitude. I hope you continue with your sharing.

Yung firewire card , I must admit bago sa kin and I am very glad to know that. Ang alam ko lang mamahaling board ang meron nun.

As for DVD authoring software, I heard of Adobe DVD Encore. (Heard lang. Not familiar).

Sa premiere (6.0) pwede mag capture, Cguro naman, pwede din sa pro 2. The first thing I will do is to buy the firewire card. Pwede na maisingit sa budget.

By the way, is it a must to have a separate data disc (another disc for the video capture).

Thanks.

I am always willing to share as others here. To me, information and these things are free. But you have to do the legwork to make it so.

Encore does dvd authoring. Ulead also have their own. Sony uses DVD Architect. Roxio has their own. It depends on which you like best.

The firewire card is cheap. I think P450 at Compex. It may even come with a firewire cable already. If not, the cable is now down to about P150. These stuff used to be expensive. About 4 years ago, a firewire card is over P3,000 and some cables are P500-800!!! Got my firewire card about 3 years ago cheap for P850 when it was selling for P1,800 or so. If you have a notebook, most notebooks have a firewire port.

I don't know what you mean by another data disc. But if you are talking of a hard disk (HD), then I can say, yes, if not today, but in 6 months for sure you will need another HD. You see a DV file in the form of .avi, is around 13gb per hour of footage. So, if you are like me who shoot events like weddings using 2 cameras or more, we typically use about 4-6 hours of footage. Do the math and you will see we will run out space soon.

The good news is the HD prices are going down. Well, it may remain the same but for the same price you will get more. A 320gb used to be in the P6,000+ range about a year and a half ago. Now I believe it is just around P4,800 or so. The thing is, if you can afford it, get the largest you can get, with no lower than 250gb if you can. Video files take up a lot of space.

Rodel Ramos

04-12-2007, 11:01 AM

Mel Enriquez

04-13-2007, 09:17 AM

Yes it s the HD. I forgot something. In editing board, eg. pinacle pro one, there is video/audio out that can be connected to an external recorder (dvd/vhs).

How it can be done in the core2duo setup. Does it mean that the only output I can make for it is the DVD disc from the DVD writer or meron na rin ba nabibili audio/video out RCA type that can be incorporated in a PC.

Thanks again and more patience pls. Im really interested in the latest video editing set up (PC).

Your questions have nothing to do with the computer being a core 2 duo or not. You can use an old Pentium III and it would still work as long as you have the proper gear and you know what you are doing.

I don't mean to insult you and really I don't. But if you don't know what a dvd authoring software does, or how a dvd writer is connected to the scheme of things, its best to first do a research. Then come back to ask. Your fundamental understanding must first improve before we can proceed.

Finally, if you are still using RCA cables, then I presume you are still using older cameras. I would not like to go in this route because it is a dead end route and there are simply too many variables to get in check before anything can be made meaningful. To answer them would mislead you further. For example, what breakout box are you using? What OS? How did you format your HD? What does your breakout box support? Is it a box or is a card? What software does it support? Is it that generic so that Pinnacle, or Ulead can still use it or access it or does it force you to use its own software?

So, I wouldn't even want to answer questions pertaining to analogue transfers. You are on your own with this one.

Finally, IF you are really interested in the latest video editing setup, you wouldn't even be asking anything about analogue setups (unless you need to transfer old stuff but then see my previous 2 paragraphs). And the latest may not be the best or may not have longevity. Those who got those Pinnacle Pro 1 are now stuck with a deadend card that will go nowhere. All that for P70k about 2 years ago. Same with Matrox.

Again, I am not saying you shouldn't get these cards. But you better have a good reason for getting them because they cost a lot and they can be obsolete not in 3 years, but in one year. I'd rather put my money on a quad core system now. I bet I'll even have lose change if I go this route.

If you just want to have something now, any decent core 2 duo setup will do. I bet you won't even hit P50k for one. Just get another quad core when it comes. As for the earlier machine, IF you do lots of video editing like I do, you are going to need at least 2 machines anyway. You can be editing on one and either capturing and/or rendering on the other. This saves you lots of time. So, you won't really be wasting money. And if your NLE is like mine, I can even FARM my processing so that my main machine is being assisted by the other machine in rendering via ethernet or wireless.

Good luck with your research!

-Mel

Rodel Ramos

04-13-2007, 10:44 AM

Thank you Mel.

Thinking of upgrading my P4 to core2duo setup so I can try editing. Maybe I will not spend 50 thou anymore because there are only few part Im going to replace (The processor, main board and an additional hard disc, I think you recommend 320 Gig), hope my video card still works in the future.

If my budget permits and I decide to venture on NLE editing, I pray that you ( expert) can assist me in setting up when Im ready to upgrade.

Mel Enriquez

04-22-2007, 11:48 AM

I have been using my DELL 1505 notebook for over 6 months now. Indeed my electricity bill has gone down by an average of P800/month. There was even a month where it went down over P1,000, but that is Feb and Feb has only 28 days.

The editing is also nice. I can use more filters now without fear. A 3min clip mpeg2 typically can be rendered in 4:30-5 min without filters or with simple cuts and dissolves. Maybe the delay is more to the I/O as video is taken on and off the slow 5400 HD of my notebook. With some more filters, maybe 6-7:30 min. Heavy filters (glow, extensive color correction, cropping, etc) goes for 10-15 min tops. I am talking DV (avi) files here.

With HDV or m2t files, its tougher to get a preview that is smooth in playback while editing with 3 or more filters. I think we need a quad core or 8 cores to edit native HDV files. Another more sane solution is proxiing. that will do for now till NLEs mature further or quad cores become affordable.

I just don't know if they will put quad cores in notebooks as fast as they will do for desktops. I hope they do. And I mean desktops, not just servers. I, and maybe many do like notebooks now for a desktop. Or maybe Intel can develop their next cpu with video optimizing features. This may sound not useful or meaningful now, but the success of utube shows there are lots of footage out there (silly or useless they may be) that needs editing. For internet use, dsl or ordinary dial up, even a pentium II will do. But photo and video needs the power to crunch those images.

I heard that Intel will give a substantial drop in price for their quad core this April 22. I will be watching this closely as I want to update my 3 or 4 year old AMD desktop to something more usable now.

For now, photo processing and video editing is now manageable. It's even a pleasure using my notebook doing these stuff. My only problem now is 1gb is now a small. It's a good thing the price of ram has gone down drastically the past month. When I get the money, I want to upgrade my system to 2gb. My NLE is starting to eat up RAM due to the filters and layers I can now put in it.

I'm almost sure that there will be a quad core notebook next year. My current 1505 will look old by then. But even 2 years from now, this thing is still good and can do many stuff for DV editing. And if I use proxies, I can even handle HDV well with a 2ghz core2duo.

Intel did a great job with the C2D. It's nice to have a renegade team doing something different because innovation is the key to a high tech company's survival. And you need a managed deviant thinking group to come up with solutions normally the company wouldn't even dare try. Kudos to the Israeli team who worked on many of the foundations of the core 2 duo. And thank you Intel for coming up with a fantastic product, that is not just a marketing hype (like HT), but a true innovative and productive line that is most useful to us consumers.

olivertrivilegio

04-23-2007, 04:32 PM

Cesar Parroco

04-23-2007, 07:29 PM

Mel Enriquez

04-23-2007, 08:30 PM

Sir Mel, ask ko lang po is C2D not a quad core? Kasi as I understand, its 2 dual core that means its already a quad core. Pls. enlighten me on this sir. Thank you very much. Just reading your post gives me a lot of information. I'm also doing simple video editing. I uses pinnacle & adobe premier pro, for dvd output I uses adobe encore & nero 7 , great stuff.

No, it is not. C2D or Core 2 Duo and CD or Core Duo are Intel trademarked names. Both are dual cores. The Pentium Ds are dual cores, too, but that is as far as it goes. The C2Ds are a class beyond what any Pentium 4 or Pentium Ds can ever hope for. Under the hood of the C2Ds is an efficient, well designed, low power cpu with 2 cores.

Quad cores are 4 cores ("quad") in one single chip. I believe Intel codenamed this batch as Kentsfield. There are more in the works and by 2008, we will even see 8 cores.

Most editing softwares or NLEs can do multi-threading so Pinnacle and even adobe premier pro.

How good are these C2Ds? Well, I made a mistake on my times in rendering. I just finished a render today of some clips and I was surprised that a 22min clip can render in 19 min! It had simple cuts, fades, and color correction, some brightening. The higher nos I got before was due to the fact that I forgot to factor that in my 2 camera setup, the other HDV camera was recording in widescreen while my VX-2000 was 4:3 (tv). I forgot that the conversion from 16:9 to 4:3 adds considerable time rendering.

In short, C2Ds really are fast! I am not just getting 1:1 rendering time (i.e. 1min clip = 1 min render), I can even get 1:0.8 ratios if the edits are simple cuts, dissolves and no complicated filters or layers!

olivertrivilegio

04-23-2007, 09:14 PM

Thanks for explanation sir, now I know. More power to you.

Mel Enriquez

04-23-2007, 09:31 PM

Dedicated Video Card is required if you are doing professional services. I have seen how the dedicated Matrox card works with Adobe Premiere. If you don't have it, what you are editing are just low-quality clips and previews and then the CPU/graphic card will render the final video after you did all your editing and this takes time even on my C2D 2.6,2GBRAM,7950GT card desktop.

With Matrox Card, it renders the final video in real-time, so you can plug-in a TV in one of the supplied and view the final result immediately.

It is no longer required. Maybe 3-4 years ago, but not anymore. You can still get one but why spend so much money only for it to be obsoleted in just a few months? Those who got the Pro 1 are now in a dead end as Pinnacle no longer makes them or will give an upgrade. Those with the older matrox 2500 are stuck in Premier v6 and 6.5. Even the newer matrox card of mostly can't do HDV. Even if they can, you aren't sure if your matrox card will work with version 2 or 3 or 4 of Adobe Premier.

And if you have a matrox you got for DV, how can you edit using it with HDV? How about when h.264 or mpeg4 becomes mainstream as a file format for editing? How about native m2t files or cineform proxies?

This is the disadvantage of dedicated cards. And they are darn expensive too.

It is also misleading to say that, "If you don't have it, what you are editing are just low-quality clips and previews and then the CPU/graphic card will render the final video after you did all your..." Well, if I have native m2t files in HDV in my HD, how can you say that is low quality clip? Even a DV file is as good as it can go even with 5x compression by default. Besides, I wouldn't mind editing proxies if the final render will use the original HDV versions anyway.

A dedicated video card merely allows you to shorten render times by offloading the cpu of the task of doing those video calculations needed for rendering. Most can give you 1:1 times, even with multiple layers and filters. But quality of output is not affected if you don't use a dedicated card. It just takes longer without it. So, if a clip can be rendered 1:1 in a matrox, maybe you'll just get a slight lag without it with a c2d depending on filters used. Maybe you'll get a 1:1.5 or 1:2 or 1:3 hit at the most. I'm talking DV or SD here, not HDV or those high def footage.

This is why we are looking forward to quad cores and 8 cores. At DVinfo, someone has already tried the quad cores and dual quadcores (2 quadcores in one m'board) using Sony Vegas and the speed improvements are significant. They get 1:0.7 or better render times and this is using HDV clips, not DV, native files, no proxies! No matrox or dedicated video cards are involved.

With the advent of multicores, I wouldn't even think of getting a dedicated card now. With video formats in HD (HDV, mpg4, QT, h.264, AVCHD, etc) you don't really want to be stuck with a dedicated video card that is so expensive but cannot support the newer formats nor the software maker like Adobe moving into its own software updates where your card won't be able to go because it doesn't know what adobe is thinking.

Getting a good cpu is much smarter. It is not tied to a particular software, file format or whatever. If C2Ds are too slow, the wait is not long for the quad core price drop (april 22 I believe). Then there's 8 cores by next year. Or assemble one 2 x quadcores in a two-cpu slot board. Not the best way to go, but it's an interim solution before the 8-cores come.

Rodel Ramos

10-31-2007, 07:20 PM

Mel Enriquez

10-31-2007, 11:15 PM

Good day sir. What do you mean by "bait and switch tactics by Laptop King at Gilmore". Do you mean they will show/demo a good unit and they will switch it to a poor unit (can I use the word "lemon"). I enter in their store last week canvassing for a laptop. I told the salesperson that i will use it in video editing and they are recommending the MSI brand C2D laptop for P37,000. ++. All I can remember about the specs: 2 gig memory, 60 gig hdd, with firewire and other common features. I will wait for your reply because if in case I will buy, its all hard earned money that I will use kaya ayokong magmadali at lalong ayokong magsisi sa bandang huli. I need expert advice from someone like you. TIA.

Rodel,

It means that they will advertise for unit, say a Dell 1505, but when you arrive there, they will say they ran out of it, and will offer to sell you an Acer or something else. In time, they will get their comeuppance. One store at Gilmore closed shop some time ago because of this practice. Used to advertise heavily at Buy & Sell with low prices. You call, and they will tell you to just come over. It's in stock. When you arrive, they will say, it just ran out. How about this other model instead? It's a waste of your time or if you are gullible, you will just buy that thing they are offering you.

Actually, for the past several months, I have been recommending to my friends, either The BLUE or the NEO for the budget conscious. Asus is good, but the prices is a bit higher. I still would not touch an Acer and a Compaq. But that's just me.

So far, the Neo's that my friends have bought are ok. One is about 8-9 months old, the other about 3. There is a local tech support for these 2 models, and the one doing it for BLUE is just at Gilmore. I saw Neo being serviced at Megamall. So, you have a local presence, even if these are not big name brands.

BTW, my DELL 1505 just celebrated it's 1st year. I still have 1 year more of warranty (I got extended warranty). I will probably open it to service it myself (cleaning) as I have done for my friend. It does pick up dust from the intake at the bottom. I bet there's lots of dust in the fan now. :Grin:

If you are doing video editing, go for a notebook because you do SDEs or you are on the move all the time. But if you are basically at home, a desktop now will offer you lots of power now, unlike last year same month, where the desktop and notebook were even. A desktop quadcore cpu system now can be had for no more than P30k. 40k if you put in there an LCD monitor. It will save you time in rendering because that will halve your processing time! I just rendered a 6 min higlight from a HDV source video to mpeg2 in 42 min using the same DELL 2ghz 2gb ram (up from 1gb last year). That has some filters so it was slower, but I have no doubt in my mind, based on other's performance that a quad core would have made that render only in 21 min.

Oh, the Q6600 OC'd well if you get a good motherboard! So, you can still chop some more times there. You don't have to hit 3ghz or the max. Just 2.6ghz or 2.8ghz would give you some serious muscle to cut down render times.

If you do decide to get a notebook, do not forget to make sure you have a firewire port. Some notebooks are darn low cost but they don't have a firewire port.

I'd stay away from Vista for now (if you can) too just so you won't have problems. When they release their service pack 1, maybe I'll consider it. If you can, stick to Win-XP.

Check out the other stores. Laptop King is no longer the lowest cost on the block. I went to the other side of the street and I got as low as P32k for a dual core notebook. Some let you use credit cards with a slight hit on the price. I see the NEO Endura 531-NLE / NL2, for example, from PC Express, for only P34K. It has 1gb of ram, 80gb HD.

If you want MSI, the MSI VR320 H2, is 80gb HD, 1gb ram, and better GPU to boot for P34k. Also at PC Express. BTW, if you visit the store, you can still haggle and get the price to go down a bit. They normally don't devulge the other freebees and stuff on their web site. So, with the other stores.