Terje A. bergesen
Forum Replies Created
-
LOL. No, you can not. I don’t think there is such a link at all. Now, if you know anything at all about computers, you do know that it is so, but that sounds very overbearing. Let me try it another way.
The expensive graphics cards are special-built CPUs (often called GPUs) designed to deal with 2 and 3D rendering. The majority of work is in the 3D rendering engine where it does things like surface reflections, light, sprite animation in 3D space etc, in hardware. In video editing you do nothing of this, so the graphics card has no impact.
The only area where some graphics cards assist when it comes to video is that some of them have MPEG decoders in hardware. This means that if you play an MPEG video (DVD) on PCs with this type of hardware, some of the MPEG decoding is offloaded to the GPU. This means that your CPU is less involved when you watch video. When you do video editing however, the CPU isn’t particularly busy doing MPEG decoding, it is busy doing mpeg encoding. Very few graphics cards support this, and none of them are supported on Vegas.
The main supplier of graphics and other cards for video editing is Matrox, they have the RT.X2 series. The only software that supports these cards is Premiere Pro, in fact, the cards are shipped with Premiere.
If you feel that there is information you are missing here, feel free to contact me or reply to this post, but you have nothing to gain from investing a lot of money in an expensive graphics card for video editing. Get one that supports two or more monitors and has video out and you’ll be fine. If you want to start doing 3D modelling in software like Maya or similar, you should get an expensive 3D card.
—
Terje A. Bergesen -
You are correct, for video editing, there is no advantage to buying into an expensive graphics card. There are some software packages that can offload some of the rendering problem to the GPU, you can see some of these on the Matrox website for instance. For SD video, you really don
-
Thx for the info. Now I just have to grab 64bit XP before Microsoft stops supporting it.
—
Terje A. Bergesen -
OK, but that doesn’t really answer my question 🙂
—
Terje A. Bergesen -
[marmels] “graphic cards has alot to do with rendering any video”
No, the graphics card has nothing to do with rendering the video.
—
Terje A. Bergesen -
Since Vista is a many-headed monster I’d like to avoid for a year or two, any chance Sony will release Vegas 64bit for XP 64bit?
—
Terje A. Bergesen -
Apparently there is a problem with that since the Canon doesn’t include the pull-down information in the HDV stream and therefore Vegas doesn’t remove the pull-down when capturing.
The solution seems to be Cineform HDLink.
See: https://www.pana3ccduser.com/showthread.php?t=15583
—
Terje A. Bergesen -
That is very odd. You are using the MainConcept MPEG-2 renderer? When I render on my dual core AMD box with MainConcept CPU usage jumps to 100% and stays between 95 and 100% for the duration of the render. Even with just a simple DV-AVI on the timeline, no cuts or fades.
I typically wouldn’t recommend rendering to a USB or a networked drive. The latter will typically be too slow (depending on your network) and the former will engage the CPU too much in storing to disk (taking away from render speed). Rendering to your SATA drive should be fine though.
In Preferences->Video, what is your max number of rendering threads?
—
Terje A. Bergesen -
Weird really. What I would try to do is the following:
1 – Download DVD Decrypter and “decrypt” your JVC DVD to a folder
2 – Import the DVD from that folder into Sony VegasNot sure if that will help, but worth a try as a work-around.
-
[Terry Esslinger] “There seems to be a conflict of opinion. Some sources say that DVD-R are more compatable. I guess its whatever seems to work for you.”
You are right that DVD-R has a slightly higher compatibility rate that DVD+R, this is not particularly noticeable with newer media today, but it is an issue with RW media.
The reason I burn DVD+R is that the disk it self has far higher quality than a DVD-R disk, probably a much longer shelf life, and less chance of errors etc. So, the reason I use +R is not that it is more compatible, but that it is of significantly better quality. There are some good articles on the web that details the technical reasons for the +R quality superiority.
The compatibility issues I saw seems to have gone away with improved media. There is nothing in the +R burn process that would make it less compatible, but the material (dye etc) used in the +R media is different from the material used in the -R media. It seems once the process of producing the +R media improved, compatibility issues were significantly reduced.
Its strange that an exact duplicate of the disc (Verbatum-R) made on a duplicating tower seems to work fine.
Not that strange. Though the DVD copier creates an exact copy of the DVD data wise, it probably burns it differently. The quality of the end result depends on how well the laser in the burner is able to change the reflective properties in the dye of the DVD (extremely oversimplified). Different burners will do this with different quality. Also, the speed with which you burn the disk will have an impact, half the speed means the laser has more time to “make it’s mark” as it were.
So, the DVD coming out of your Pioneer burner may have exactly the same data, but the data may be burned “better” on the DVD it self. This means that the DVD player getting the disk will have fewer read errors, and therefore a better picture.