Bare Minimum editng setup

BluePatriot said:
What is the absolute bare minimum setup you need to edit HMC150 footage and is anyone currently editing with that minimum?
Click to expand...


I'm sure there is a "bare minimum" somewhere down the line, but pinpointing what exactly that is would be extremely difficult. For native editing of the .MTS files that the camera produces, my 7 month old Quad Core with 4g RAM seems to handle it just fine, but my 3 yr old dual core laptop with 2g RAM lags big time. However, if I transcode with Cineform it handles it beautifully. Are you currently able to edit HDV? If so, you should be able to edit the footage from the HMC150 with no problem if using Cineform. I only mention the transcoding because thats the only way you are going to efficiently edit it with a bare minimum system.

Anyone editing on a lower grade system than a 3 year old Pentium Dual Core with 2g of RAM?
 
Last edited:
DaFireMedic said:
I'm sure there is a "bare minimum" somewhere down the line, but pinpointing what exactly that is would be extremely difficult. For native editing of the .MTS files that the camera produces, my 7 month old Quad Core with 4g RAM seems to handle it just fine, but my 3 yr old dual core laptop with 2g RAM lags big time. However, if I transcode with Cineform it handles it beautifully. Are you currently able to edit HDV? If so, you should be able to edit the footage from the HMC150 with no problem if using Cineform. I only mention the transcoding because thats the only way you are going to efficiently edit it with a bare minimum system.

Anyone editing on a lower grade system than a 3 year old Pentium Dual Core with 2g of RAM?
Click to expand...

I've done tests on my laptop, as I haven't gotten my HMC150 yet. It has a laptop CPU roughly equivalent to a single core P4 3.0 ghz and 2 gigs of RAM. In other words, it's similar to yours but with a weaker CPU.

Some MTS files play OK (interlaced footage), 1080P footage plays very, very poorly though. I wouldn't want to edit the native footage, wouldn't handle it well. This is in Vegas 8.0.

However, transcoded HD footage edits acceptably (plays perfectly, but a few layers makes it stutter, though it is workable). I'd say mine is near the bottom of what you need.
 
Are you asking for the minimum to edit it natively?

Or edit the AVCHD footage on a transcode?

There's a difference -- also what platform?
 
i'm working on a dual core processor with 3gb of ram on my HP and i can edit the footage natively in vegas 9.0 pretty well
 
David S. said:
Are you asking for the minimum to edit it natively?

Or edit the AVCHD footage on a transcode?

There's a difference -- also what platform?
Click to expand...


I'm curious about straight from the card to the computer without the use of some other software like Raylight or Cineform.

I have three machines to edit on, the most powerful of the three being a dual core 1.6 ghz with 2gb of ram running Vista Home. From what I've read, the Dual and 2 is the bare minimum power you need, but I have no way to check until the camera arrives.

And if I need to purchase a new computer, I need to keep cost as low as possible (which means a lesser machinethen a quad core) and still be certain it has the horsepower to cut the AVCHD footage.

Also, If I do have to resort to Neo Scene, does the quality of the AVCHD footage drop as much as the transcode to DVCPro HD .

Thanks for the help.
 
green thumb said:
i think the GPU (video card) is very important
Click to expand...

Really? Most graphics cards these days concentrate on 3D performance, which would really be of no use in the video world. I kind of suspect that the low-end graphics cards would do just fine, but I am open to correction there - anyone have any facts to go on here?

I am in the process of specing out my new system, and was shooting for a reasonably good NVidia card (9600GT) - but I was thinking that was a luxury more than a necessity.

Chris.
 
right, graphics card isn't very important here. Its processor speed and memory.
 
i just figured that since games and other applications run so much better with a good GPU, video editing would too. i am too lazy to go search for the facts, haha. i still somewhat stand by my statement and will not be skimping on the video card in my next machine. just my two cents:thumbup:
 
As far as GPU goes... It really depends on the video editing software. Some use it for preview, others use it for just about nothing. Vegas, I know, doesn't use it for anything at all - it uses only the processor editing things. Premiere does, however. I'm not sure about FCP or Edius.
 
GPU processes FX Plugs filters, transitions and effects in Final Cut Pro

I bet we'll see more companies off loading rendering and codec handling to the GPU in the future.
 
BluePatriot said:
I have three machines to edit on, the most powerful of the three being a dual core 1.6 ghz with 2gb of ram running Vista Home. From what I've read, the Dual and 2 is the bare minimum power you need, but I have no way to check until the camera arrives.
Click to expand...

It is unlikely that you will be able to edit the native AVCHD without transcoding.

BluePatriot said:
Also, If I do have to resort to Neo Scene, does the quality of the AVCHD footage drop as much as the transcode to DVCPro HD .
Click to expand...

Not according to Cineform...:thumbsup:

They say that quality will actually improve for some purposes, such as Keying because it tanscodes to 4:2:2 color space. Look at Cineforms website, as obviously it doesn't pull out any new chroma information that wasn't already there, but uses some type of interpolation.

From my experience, I can't tell the difference quality wise with the native files after transcoding. While not truly lossless, it is a "visually" lossless codec, and plays back far better than any of the other visually lossless codecs I've tried (including Lagarith or Huffyuv). I like it.
 
Cineform's claim is half BS, re IMPROVING quality...

Cineform's claim is half BS, re IMPROVING quality...

( edited to attempt to fix formatting -- this system by-default assumes everything is a huge single line??? )

if all you do is transcode from AVCHD,
cut some non-necessary footage off,
& publish,
it CANNOT improve quality, because it can't put image-data in where there wasn't any in the original capture.

Obviously. ( yet their claim suggests so! )

However, it can *reduce the loss* of quality,
as one adds transforms, effects, transitions, fades, blurs, etc,
by giving the file more "space" in which such things can be done,
without obvious degradation.

---

As for GPU being A Good Thing:
Apple makes clear that some parts of their video-editing apps
( including Express, btw ),
simply won't work,
without an nVidia GPU.

Photoshop's another where GPU makes one HELL of a difference nowadays,
from what I've read.

GPU streaming processor makes SSE look mickey-mouse,
& taking advantage of that makes apps *much* faster. Cheers,
 
Last edited:
I'm thinking of getting a new home computer and that it would be nice to be able to edit some of my hmc 150 footage for personal projects. I'm a cameraman not an editor. The last time I edited something it was AB roll editing with beta machines. I'd like some reccomendations for a system that would be lower cost and be realitively easy to learn.

Thanks
 
After searching the boards its looking like Edius Neo might be the low cost champ for entry level AVCHD editing.
 
Hi guys,

CPU is VERY important only with those programs which use it fully (as Premiere).
Read here and here.
GPU is much more powerful then most CPU. The latest nVidia cards which offer CUDA support can be of great help in AVCHD native editing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top