# Video Editing on Computer Questions



## Chucky (Jul 21, 2002)

I am going to get a Sony Digital 8 Camcorder and edit the videos on my Dell PC. I will be using Pinnacle 8 DV editing software. How big should my Hard drive be to cache these videos before burning them to CD? I have a 40 Gig right now with about 15 Gig free. After another month, I will only have about 10 Gigs free. I was thinking of going with a 120 Gig. Also, will 1GHz be adequate for CPU speed? I don't wanna buy a new CPU if I don't hafta. 

Does anyone have an experience doing editing this way? What are your opinions?

Thanks in advance.

Chris


----------



## Chris Blount (Jun 22, 2001)

You definitely need more hard drive space. Every hour of video from your digital camcorder will take up about 12 GB. Then you will need more to do any actual editing and burning to a DVD. My advice, go for the 120 GB hard drive. You will thank me later.

You do not need to upgrade your CPU but just expect some long wait times when rendering your finished videos. When transferring from your digital camcorder, you should not have any trouble with dropped frames. I was running a 750 MHZ AMD T-Bird and had smooth video.

Just be prepared though. Video editing and burning DVD's takes a lot of patience to learn and master. Be ready for lots of face time with your monitor.


----------



## raj2001 (Nov 2, 2002)

I use Adobe Premiere 6.5 and After Effects 5.5 and I have two 120 Gig drives - one for my captured video, and one for my OS and to store outputted MPEG's, and for other stuff. I don't use Premiere's built in encoder, instead, i use TMPGEnc pro. You can also use the encoder built into DVDIt but be prepared to wait and also remember that with DVDit you have no control over the encoding settings. I personally don't use DVDit as I have a much better authoring package to use....

For good advice on video editing and encoding, check out:

http://www.vcdhelp.com

They have alot of useful guides for encoding MPEG's for various cd and DVD formats.

1GHz should be OK for occasional editing. Video rendering takes long anyway, and I just leave my stuff overnight on my machine (2GHz P4). If you're into serious editing and need fast render times, you should consider getting a few diskless PC's with gigabit ethernet and setting up a renderfarm.

If you like Linux, Cinelerra supports renderfarms and is available from http://heroinewarrior.com/cinelerra.php3


----------



## MarkA (Mar 23, 2002)

Get the 120GB, you'll end up needing it. I know my 950MHz Athlon is plenty fast, but a 1GHz Athlon is a LOT faster then a 1GHz Pentium III. But I'd say it's still more than adequate, though possibly a little slow. RAM matters more than CPU for this (to a certain point)


----------



## Mike123abc (Jul 19, 2002)

There is never enough disk space. I use an 80GB drive for just video editing, it will fit one project but definitely not big enough for 2. MPEG-2 encoding is what uses all the CPU up. But, I usually just let the project run over night. With a 1.9 GHZ and TMPGenc it would take up to 36 hours. I use a 2.4 GHZ now and works a lot faster (512 cache helped a lot).


----------



## gcutler (Mar 23, 2002)

How many projects will you be running concurrently? I have two machine with an additional 80GB drives devoted to editing (including TMP and TEMP files goto 80GB drive). I have never run out of space with the 80GB drive drives. I have even run 2 small projects concurrently and the 80GB drive was fine. 1 Big Project on 80GB is fine, two may be pushing it.

As for CPU, I had a Dell 4100 with 512MB Ram (P3/1GHz) and a Dell 4500 with 512MB Ram (P4/2GHz). When capturing it was not a big deal, but when encoding, I found the 1GHz to take around twice as long to do the encoding (the Ram at 512MB was enough to make sure that there was minimal memory swapping, and then the CPU difference became the issue). I replaced the 4100 to a Dell 4550 with 512MB Ram (P4/2GHz) and I waste alot less time. 

When it comes to video editing, get as much memory as you can afford (More than 512MB may not be necessary) and get as fast a CPU as you can. The Latest version of the encoding SW I use now takes advantage of the HT technology that comes with the Pentium4/3.06GHz that will supposedly increase performance. Don't know anyone who has a 3.06GHz, but the more powerful the CPU the less time it will take.


----------



## Chucky (Jul 21, 2002)

FWIW, I have 512 MB--The max my MB will support.

I plan on mainly taking the video from the camera and puting it on a video CD. I will edit if necessary.

Also, I am working on building a new PC, but it will be about a year before it is done. Building it as money allows. The CPU/MB will be the last things to go in it.

Thanks for the replies.

Chris


----------



## MarkA (Mar 23, 2002)

Problem. Video CD picture quality is terrible. It's REALLY, REALLY bad. I usually record back to MiniDV, though at the price of MiniDV tapes, a DVD burner might be cheaper


----------



## Chris Blount (Jun 22, 2001)

> _Originally posted by Chucky _
> *
> 
> I plan on mainly taking the video from the camera and puting it on a video CD. I will edit if necessary.
> *


To be frank don't waste your time with Video CD's. When you finally do get a DVD burner you will only be doing the videos all over again. Like Zac said, they do look really bad. Once you see how great your camera video looks on DVD, you will wonder why you even bothered with Video CD's.

Also, as raj2001 mentioned above, download yourself a copy of TMPGenc http://www.pegasys-inc.com/e_main.html . It's one of the best and easiest to use MPEG encoders out there right now. Much better than what you will get with your Pinnacle software.


----------



## raj2001 (Nov 2, 2002)

Actually, video CD's aren't all that bad for distributing videos to friends, given the relatively high cost of DVD-/+R media. The resolution is about VHS quality, and many times the artifacts show, but it's certainly more durable than VHS.

Super Video CD's (480x480 MPEG-2) aren't that bad either, they are almost the quality of premium channels on DSS, but you can get less than 30 mins per CD and some DVD players (like my Panny CV52) have trouble playing them.


----------



## MarkA (Mar 23, 2002)

True raj. VCDs are wonderful for sending people CHEAP copies of your family videos. But they aren't nearly good enough for keeping your videos on.


----------



## raj2001 (Nov 2, 2002)

> _Originally posted by Zac _
> *True raj. VCDs are wonderful for sending people CHEAP copies of your family videos. But they aren't nearly good enough for keeping your videos on. *


Of course not 

I always keep the original tapes I shoot safely tucked away. The finished product is put on DVD and also stored on MiniDV tape. I was also thinking of getting a D-VHS deck and seeing if I could use that with the firewire port on the PC.


----------



## Chucky (Jul 21, 2002)

OK- Maybe I will get a DVD burner instead.

How does this one sound? http://www.bestbuy.com/detail.asp?e=11178892&m=488&cat=511&scat=0

I have a Toshiba SD-2700 DVD player. Will the burned discs play?

Chris


----------



## Chris Blount (Jun 22, 2001)

> _Originally posted by Chucky _
> *
> I have a Toshiba SD-2700 DVD player. Will the burned discs play?
> *


The answer to that question is at this site:

http://www.vcdhelp.com/dvdplayers.php

Just do a search for the Toshiba SD-2700 and it will tell you which formats it will play. It looks like if you burn DVD-R/RW, it will play them.


----------



## gcutler (Mar 23, 2002)

> _Originally posted by raj2001 _
> *Actually, video CD's aren't all that bad for distributing videos to friends, given the relatively high cost of DVD-/+R media. The resolution is about VHS quality, and many times the artifacts show, but it's certainly more durable than VHS. *


Prices have really dropped. Good quality will cost you $3.50/each via 10 pack. And if you want to go spindle they are easily below $2.50 each. And if you want to go budget&spindle of 100+ media (which I would not want to do for stuff I want to keep long term) you can go down to $1 each.


----------



## gcutler (Mar 23, 2002)

> _Originally posted by Chucky _
> *OK- Maybe I will get a DVD burner instead.
> 
> How does this one sound? http://www.bestbuy.com/detail.asp?e=11178892&m=488&cat=511&scat=0
> ...


One benefit is that worst case, a new DVD player that will work with everything is only around $100 (or less). Many of my friends went DVD early on and had some 1st and 2nd generation DVD players and those I've only had a 50-50% success rate with. (Some will not play at all, some will play but will error or fail to play all of DVD). My First Generation RCA would play -R but not -RW and would only play certain brands of DVD-R. Middle generation Sony plays everything fine. And the new Sony I bought (to replace the RCA) plays everything as well. But the RCA from day one had problems playing some DVDs, so I knew it was a questionable one.

I had a TDK DVD-R with a messed up recording (made a mistake when authoring so menus messed up, nothing wrong with movie or media) If I still have it I can mail it to you and if it works (minus messed up menus) then that is proof that a DVD-R works in the player. But I think I may have tossed it?


----------



## Chucky (Jul 21, 2002)

Would it be worth the extra $200 to get a MiniDV Camera instead of a Digital 8?


----------



## raj2001 (Nov 2, 2002)

> _Originally posted by gcutler _
> Prices have really dropped. Good quality will cost you $3.50/each via 10 pack. And if you want to go spindle they are easily below $2.50 each.


Actually I have seen them lower than that at some online stores. But they still cannot beat $14.95 for 200 cd-r (which I got at CC a few months ago. That's my point. Until the media drops to a price where it's lower than 50 cents per disc, i'll be using VCD for distribution copies. People who I distribute to don't care, and I've been giving them VHS before anyway.



> And if you want to go budget&spindle of 100+ media (which I would not want to do for stuff I want to keep long term) you can go down to $1 each.


I would stay away from budget DVD-R. Budget CD-R and budget DVD-R are two different beasts. I've bought 50 blank DVD-R media from CD-Recordable.com (shortly before they went belly up). While they burned without a hitch on my Pioneer A04, (at 1x though) they only played back on my Pioneer A04. I even replaced my DVD player (for other reasons too) and the discs still refused to play. They did, however, play for a few minutes on my Playstation 2 before pixellating and becoming unwatchable (imagine rain fade). I bought TDK from CC and Memorex from CompUSA and they burned and played without a hitch, on every single player I tried.


----------



## raj2001 (Nov 2, 2002)

> _Originally posted by Chucky _
> *Would it be worth the extra $200 to get a MiniDV Camera instead of a Digital 8? *


That decision is ultimately up to you. Digital 8 uses regular 8mm tapes. Currently, 8mm tapes cost less than MiniDV. This may be important to you if you want to save money on tapes. However, that is not guaranteed to remain that way.

Furthermore, D8 is a proprietary format made by Sony. MiniDV is used by nearly every other manufacturer. The quality is the same, since it is digital, and the interface to editing software using Firewire would be identical. D8 camcorders also play 8mm analog tapes. If you have a library of old 8mm tapes and want to play them on your new camcorder, D8 wouldn't be such a bad investment.

My experience though has been that the MiniDV camcorders built by Sony are of better quality than the D8 models. This has nothing to do with the format itself, but rather that the D8 models tend to be on the lower end and the MiniDV models on the higher end.

Basically it is a VHS vs. Beta issue.

Edit: Also, if you don't have your heart set on Sony, you can probably find other brands using MiniDV for the same price as you would be paying for the Sony D8. I have both the Panasonic PV-DV-401 (for touristy things) and the Canon XL1 (for more serious work) and both are excellent camcorders.


----------



## Augie #70 (Apr 24, 2002)

> _Originally posted by Zac _
> *Problem. Video CD picture quality is terrible. It's REALLY, REALLY bad. I usually record back to MiniDV, though at the price of MiniDV tapes, a DVD burner might be cheaper  *


I bought tapes from here pretty cheap and delivered as promised.

For what it's worth:

http://www.tapeguys.com/defaultsecure.htm


----------



## pernar (Jan 20, 2003)

I buy my blank Verbatim DVD+Rs from Sam's Club - $23 for a 12 pack. Not a bad deal.


----------



## gcutler (Mar 23, 2002)

Spindel or in Jewel Case?


----------



## Chris Blount (Jun 22, 2001)

I tried the Verbatim DVD+R's from Sam's club and ended up selling off the disks I didn't use. They didn't work in some players. 

I am very wary about buying cheap DVD blank media. You get what you pay for. I have tried different brands but the most compatible I have seen so far are the Fuji DVD+R's. They have worked in every player I have tried them in along with all of my relatives and friends whom I have sent DVD's to. I just purchased a spindle of 25 Fuji DVD+R's at Best Buy for $47 minus an $8 rebate. A package of 10 with jewel cases usually cost $34.95.


----------



## gcutler (Mar 23, 2002)

I've found TDK -R to be the most reliable in the -R range. But Imation on a spindle seemed pretty good (about 90 cents less per disc than the Jewel Cased TDK suspect much of the price difference may be the jewel case)


----------



## raj2001 (Nov 2, 2002)

> _Originally posted by Chris Blount _
> *I tried the Verbatim DVD+R's from Sam's club and ended up selling off the disks I didn't use. They didn't work in some players. *


Generally I think that's the fault of the DVD+R format and not necessarily that of verbatim. Verbatim media is of good quality, I've had a couple of verbatim DVD+RW media and they worked fine, when I had DVD+RW.

The DVD+R(W) format was touted as being "the compatible, rewriteable format", and was touted as being superior to DVD-R(W). Being the early adopter that I am, I went out and got a new DELL PC (I was going to buy a new PC anyway) with a DVD+RW drive, and was told that I could get +R functionality later on by means of a firmware upgrade, when +R discs became available in the US.

So I waited and waited, and eventually I began hearing rumors that there would not be a firmware update for DVD+RW PC drives, because of a limitation of the hardware itself. Eventually this rumor was confirmed to be true, and needless to say I was angry. Over in the discussion forum at DVDplusrw.org, there was talk about class action lawsuits against companies that fooled the public about firmware upgrades. Eventually some gave in (I think Philips and Sony, not sure) and people got replacement drives. Having bought my drive via DELL, I had to go to them. They said that they couldn't help me and that I had to buy a new drive. I also began reading compatibility reports of DVD+R media, and while some looked good, other times it fell short of DVD-R. The final push was that the movie studios use DVD-R (although they use a different type called "authoring" DVD-R) for their proof discs.

Needless to say, after getting burned, and got permanently turned off the DVD+R(W) format. I was NOT going to pay $15 per disc that I could only use in a few players. I then went out and bought a Pioneer DVR-A04, sold the DVD+RW drive on ebay and have never looked back.


----------



## gcutler (Mar 23, 2002)

With all the information, it is almost impossible to get a straight answer on which media is better.

From what I've read (and who knows if it is true). The DVD-R is compatible on more regular players than the +R, but the DVD+RW is more compatible than the -RW. And the +RW allows you to not have to close the the DVD, so a +RW using up 1/2 the space will finish much quicker than a -RW because the -RW has to close off the rest of the DVD. But I've also read that the no need to close feature was not implemented in many drives so the difference was back to compatibility.

Both my sony dvd players play DVD-R and DVD-RW (but one of them supposedly will not play +R). So my decision was made (and the -R/-RW drives seem to be cheaper). And while I do some RW, most of the stuff I'm converting I never plan to modify so I -R about 10 times for every -RW I burn.

But for those who do not want to gamble, the +-R/+-RW drives are getting more common so you don't need to choose except when buying the media each time.


----------

