Is my computer sufficient?

D Stanley · Post by **D Stanley** » Tue Mar 04, 2008 9:08 am

I have, for the first time, used VideoStudio 8 SE DVD to create slide show from JPEG photos taken on our new 12MP compact digital camera. I am concerned that my computer seems to be really struggling to cope with this. During the editing stage, the photos and transitions in the timeline are taking a very long time to refresh. In fact, I am unable to move long distances left or right before the drag bar at the bottom stops moving, waiting for the images on the timeline to refresh. If I zoom out, the items in the timeline take even longer to refresh (can be over 2 minutes at a long zoom-out). Viewing of the project is also very jumpy, with some bits being missed as the refresh catches up with the progress of the show. I¡¦ve opened Windows Task Manager and looking at the Performance tab, the computer is spending a lot of time at 100% CPU usage.

My computer has:
a Gigabyte 2004 RZ Series mother board, model 7VM400AM-RZ with a VIA KM400A chipset (Chipsets/ATA/133 RAID/USB 2.0 MS,SD&SC/Audio/Network);
an 80GB HDD (with 6GB free);
480MB of RAM (+960MB paging file) and
an AMD Sempron 2200+1.5GHz processor.

I successfully created a VCD using the default settings of MPEG files; 24 bits, 352x288, 25fps; Frame based; (Video-CD-PAL), 4:3; Video data rate: 1150kbps; Audio data rate: 224 kbps; MPEG Audio layer2, 44.1 KHz Stereo.

Whilst the end result was pleasing, I¡¦d really like better performance during the editing phase. My questions are: ¡§is my computer up to it?¡¨ ¡§Is it inherently incapable, or if is theoretically should be capable, is there anything I can do to improve its performance?¡¨

Any advice anyone can offer would be appreciated.

Thanks,
Don

Clevo · Post by **Clevo** » Tue Mar 04, 2008 10:38 am

It would struggle and you are not even using a full version of Video Studio.

I would say go out and buy some RAM but I doubt todays Ram would fit on your motherboard.

If you are planning on doing more video editing in the future I would recommend a new PC.

Have a look at the minimum specs on the Video Studio Web Site.

2Dogs · Post by **2Dogs** » Tue Mar 04, 2008 3:26 pm

Hi Don,

I'm afraid your pc does sound like it's towards the lower end of what's needed for video editing. My daughter manages to use VS on her Sempron 3400 laptop, however, which has 512MB of RAM.

I would agree with Clevo that fitting more RAM might help a bit - but if it uses the older DDR RAM rather than DDR2, it tends to be a bit pricey. Having said that, I recently picked up 2 x 512MB modules of DDR RAM on eBay for less than US $30.

One thing that could be a problem is the lack of hard drive space - you show only 6GB free. Video editing can eat up drive space, so you should try to make more space available. If you haven't defragmented the drive for a while, you should also do that - it might help a bit.

With a single core cpu like your Sempron, you will also gain some benefit by setting up a dedicated video editing profile, minimising running services. Sjj1805 has a thread about that.

Setting up a Video Editing Profile

Since your slideshow pictures are coming from a 12MP camera, you might also try re-sizing the images - or shooting them at reduced resolution in your camera. As you know, standard DVD resolution is only 720 x 576 (in PAL land) so there's little point in using images with 4000 x 3000 resolution - unless you are using lots of zooming in or panning effects in your slideshow.

Also check that in "File > Preferences" that "Playback method:" is set to "Instant Playback". This will not reduce the final rendered video quality, but will speed up previewing the video.

D Stanley · Post by **D Stanley** » Wed Mar 05, 2008 9:21 am

Thank you very much for your replies. Having given some thought to it, I think I'd prefer to upgrade my aging computer than try to improve it. I now have a further two questions:

Can you recommend specifications , eg. how much RAM, what speed of processor I'll need, etc.
I'm far from a computer expert, so any advice or recommendations you have will be appreciated.

My other question may seem a little silly, but I am wondering if a laptop would be just as good as a desktop. You may be aware of the Australian tax break that if we buy a new laptop, we can arrange to have it paid for out of pre-tax earnings, so with this saving, for the same price as an equivalent-specification desktop, I could get a laptop. I would prefer to do this, but only if the laptop will perform as well as a desktop would.

Thanks again,
Don

lespurgeon · Post by **lespurgeon** » Wed Mar 05, 2008 9:24 am

You are right at the edge of being able to work on that machine. Any $350 computer sold today at BadestBuy or OfficeDespot would be faster (but it would also probably come with vista, which can be trouble unless you have a copy of XP around to replace it).

If you want to try something, buy a USB 2 hard drive. You can get 320 GB for around $100. I buy the 500 GB ones and use them for backup of video projects.

Normally I would not suggest working to a USB drive, but your machine won't take a firewire drive. Adding a new internal drive ($100 will get you 500 GB) would be even better.

I've used up 6 GB of free space in a week of photography (I took 8 GB of flash cards on my last trip and used all of them).

lespurgeon · Post by **lespurgeon** » Wed Mar 05, 2008 9:38 am

D Stanley wrote:Thank you very much for your replies. Having given some thought to it, I think I'd prefer to upgrade my aging computer than try to improve it. I now have a further two questions:

Can you recommend specifications , eg. how much RAM, what speed of processor I'll need, etc.
I'm far from a computer expert, so any advice or recommendations you have will be appreciated.

My other question may seem a little silly, but I am wondering if a laptop would be just as good as a desktop. You may be aware of the Australian tax break that if we buy a new laptop, we can arrange to have it paid for out of pre-tax earnings, so with this saving, for the same price as an equivalent-specification desktop, I could get a laptop. I would prefer to do this, but only if the laptop will perform as well as a desktop would.

Thanks again,
Don

Looks like we happen to be online at the same time.
You have to make some choices. If you spend a bit more, the machine will last longer for you. I don't know AU prices, so I'll have to give USD ideas, but as our government has run the economy down th can, we are getting a lot closer to 1 AUD = 1 USD.

If you are willing to go around $1,000 you can get a machine that should still be OK in 3 or 4 years. Here is what I would look at - desktop first:

Cor2Duo, 8x00 series.
Minimum 2 GB ram, probably 4 GB
2 internal hard drives (7200 RPM), one for Operating System and programs, 1 for data. Program drive can be 75 GB or larger, for Data, I would get 500 or 750 GB.
An integrated video and sound motherboard should be fine for you.
Need Windows I'm guessing. Try to get XP Professional.
In the states, you could put this together for probably $750 - provided you have your own copy of Windows that you would use. I would add a 22" LCD screen and the total would be right around $1,000.

On a laptop, it will cost you more. I just got a new Thinkpad T61p for work - first time my work machine has ever been faster than my home workstation - but that is looking over $2,000 in the states.

I would look at 15" models with a T7x00 processor and at least 1 GB ram. Will only get 1 hard drive - so you will want an external drive as well, Firewire is best if the laptop can handle it. Hope this is of some use.

Clevo · Post by **Clevo** » Wed Mar 05, 2008 10:01 am

D Stanley:

Buying a new PC these days means that it's best to first do some research into what's out there. I recommend getting used to some of the jargon and some of the trends for the future.

I buy PC's in 4-5 year leaps and I try and buy for future trends as much as possible. hence the system I have chosen. I consider myself fairly PC savvy but geeze a few months with your eye off the ball and everything changes.

Whilst I do a lot more video editing these days I also like to play games.

Dell these days seem to have gained a lot of credibility with their systems here in Australia and they offer after slaes services. Personally I source my own components or buy from a PC builder who is willing to build to close to my specifications.

Of course budget plays into it.

As for laptop or PC.... they are just as good as each other but obviously a laptop sacrifices ease of upgradability for mobility. PC I think are cheaper on a per buck basis.

Dell's current entry level desktop PC's for under $2000 seem to be good value

Minimum I would go for:

Intel Core2 Duo E6550 2.33GHz

2GB RAM

180G HDD, SATA (opt for a 400G HD if you can, or both)

2Dogs · Post by **2Dogs** » Wed Mar 05, 2008 10:17 pm

D Stanley wrote:Thank you very much for your replies. Having given some thought to it, I think I'd prefer to upgrade my aging computer than try to improve it. I now have a further two questions:

Can you recommend specifications , eg. how much RAM, what speed of processor I'll need, etc.
I'm far from a computer expert, so any advice or recommendations you have will be appreciated.

Hi Don. One cost-effective approach to upgrading a pc would be to replace the motherboard, CPU and RAM. Since you'd be using the pc for video editing, it would also make sense to get another larger hard drive. You can then keep your original case, power supply, optical drive and use the original hard drive. The new motherboard could have integrated graphics, which are entirely sufficient for video editing. In the US, you could put together such an upgrade for perhaps US $350, with something like a mid range core 2 duo cpu. Trouble is, it would require some computer knowledge. You would have to re-install Windows, for example, and re-register it, load drivers for sound, video, networking and so on, as well as all your software.

One benefit that comes from doing such a "clean install" of Windows is that the resulting installation is more compact - you don't end up with all the crap that most pc makers load on to the system, and this usually translates into noticeably zippier performance from the pc. That was certainly the case with my old P4 pc.

D Stanley wrote:My other question may seem a little silly, but I am wondering if a laptop would be just as good as a desktop. You may be aware of the Australian tax break that if we buy a new laptop, we can arrange to have it paid for out of pre-tax earnings, so with this saving, for the same price as an equivalent-specification desktop, I could get a laptop. I would prefer to do this, but only if the laptop will perform as well as a desktop would.

Thanks again,
Don

Not silly at all! The average laptop uses about one third as much electricity as the average pc - so from an environmental perspective, it would be a good idea. It really depends on how you want to use the pc, and how much you might value the convenience and portability of a laptop over a desktop. Plus, if you get a laptop, you will still have the old pc.

The main drawback with a laptop is the difficulty in upgrading it. People rarely change the CPU, although it's easy to install a larger or faster hard drive.

If it's any help by way of a comparison, my 1.8Ghz C2D laptop renders video about twice as fast as my daughter's Sempron 3400 laptop.

You might also look for a laptop that has a firewire port - otherwise you will need to buy a firewire adaptor for it - they usually fit in the "Cardbus" slot.

DDR2 RAM, such as used in current pc's, is dirt cheap right now. There would be no reason to have less than 2Gb of RAM in a new pc, whether a laptop or desktop. during the "Black Friday" sales over here, I bought a 1Gb stick of laptop DDR2 RAM for $15.

The humblest integrated graphics are fine for video editing - so don't bother looking at laptops with discrete graphics cards. Not worth the extra money and power consumption.

Look for the largest hard drive available - video eats up drive space. You can easily add an external hard drive, of course, but unless it uses an eSata connection, not seen on mainstream laptops yet, it will have to connect via USB or Firewire. That means it will take longer to read and write large files to it than to the internal hard drive. That can slow some things down, but you can usually find ways to work around it.

In general, a desktop pc will cost 1/2 to 2/3 the price of a "comparable" laptop. If the tax breaks are good enough, and the convenience of a laptop appeals to you, it might be a sensible choice. Personally, I like to "surf and soak" sometimes, browsing the web or listening to expat internet radio whilst taking a long bath. I couldn't really do that with a pc....

babdi · Post by **babdi** » Fri Mar 07, 2008 10:26 am

A graphics card with atleast 256 MB ( I prefer 512 MB ) would take the load off the main CPU while playing back videos.

D Stanley · Post by **D Stanley** » Mon Mar 10, 2008 11:07 am

Thank you all for your helpful replies. I went to a computer retailer today to get a basic idea of what is available. As a result of this visit, at this stage, I'm leaning towards a laptop. I'm seeking some help to narrow my options. The computer shop naturally had a limited selection, so I've had a bit of a search online, based on the advice I've received in this forum. I've come up with a list of laptops that use an Intel Centrino T7500 processor, have 2GB of RAM and run at at least 2GHz. The site:
http://www.myshopping.com.au/PT--3_Lapt ... 26_20634_e__
was the only one I could find that allowed me to compare laptops with my chosen specification.
What I'd like to ask is:
Am I on the right track?
Would all of the laptops listed on this page potentially be a good choice for me?
Am I over- or under-specifying?
There are so many choices, it's a bit overwhelming!
Thanks,
Don

2Dogs · Post by **2Dogs** » Mon Mar 10, 2008 6:46 pm

Hi Don,

here are some of my thoughts, for what it's worth.

If you think you'll be capturing video from a MiniDV camcorder, I would suggest one of the laptops with a firewire or IEEE1394 port.

It's good to have lots of USB ports, thuogh you can always add a USB hub.

It's up to you to choose what screen size you want - you pay quite a bit more for a 17" screen, and it makes the laptop a bit less portable. You might consider a widescreen model, however. You can't beat actually looking at the screen in use, however - there can be quite a lot of variation in screen quality.

I would avoid a laptop with a discrete video card - it will be significantly more expensive, but of no benefit for video editing work. If you like playing video games, on the other hand, you might consider one.

Most laptops will come with 2GB of RAM these days, but it's more than likely in the form of 2 x 1GB modules. If you only have two RAM slots, that means you'll have to swap out 1GB modules for 2GB modules if you want to increase RAM. Some laptops have three RAM slots, however, which is handy, since 1GB RAM modules can be had quite cheaply. You'd need to look at detailed specs to know how many slots there were, or else run something like Cpuz.exe from a flash drive on an actual unit in a store to find out.

Given a choice of an extra 200Mhz in cpu speed and a larger hard drive, I would probably go for the larger hard drive. Although you can hook up an external drive for additional storage, you can't beat a big internal drive. Laptop drives now go up to 320GB, so the 250GB ones are not quite as pricey as they were, and 160GB seems to be the new 80GB...

Most laptops will come with built in wifi, which you might find useful. More recent models might be compatible with the newer and faster 801.11n spec.

If you get one without built-in wifi, you can usually add an internal mini pci wifi card later, or certainly use an external cardbus or USB wifi adaptor. Personally, I'd go for built-in from the get-go.

Just about all current laptops will come with a DVD burner. I might use mine in an emergency, but still use my desktop pc for burning discs - since the full size burners in my pc are faster and achieve better write quality. Even now, many laptop DVD burners are only either +R or -R compatible.

As for what make of laptop to go for - I find the budget Toshiba models to be very flimsy, and suffered a burned out motherboard on one a couple of years back. My wife's older Celeron Toshiba lives on, though. Many HP laptops seem to have a fairly sturdy case and decent features. I'm quite happy with my Lenovo at the moment, which seems to have a very well made chassis - the screen hinges look bomb proof.

Post by **Ken Berry** » Tue Mar 11, 2008 12:21 am

Don -- I am currently travelling and so have limited access to the internet and so cannot read all the previous posts in this thread. However, if there is even the vaguest possibility that you will buy a high def camera in the not too distant future, then you would be well advised to future proof yourself by buying a computer, desktop or laptop, which has at least a Core 2 Duo CPU...

D Stanley · Post by **D Stanley** » Thu Mar 13, 2008 10:31 am

Thanks for your replies. I've been comparing laptops with IEEE 1394a FireWire ports, 2 GB of RAM and Intel Core 2 Duo T7500 processors.

There is still a reasonably lengthy list! I'm inclined towards those that I've heard of in laptops, such as HP, Lenovo, NEC and Acer, although perhaps Asus, LG, Fujitsu and Sony are just as good or better. Any comments?

I have some further questions:
It seems unlikely that I will be able to get Windows XP. Will ULead VideoStudio 8 SE DVD work with Vista?

How important is the type of graphics processor, as some use nVidia, some ATI and some Intel?

How important is the CD/DVD type, as most specify "DVD-RW Drive", but a couple specify "Dual Layer DVD +-RW"?

I am intrigued by the price differences for what to me seem like very similar machines, eg. the HP Compaq 8710p with a 17" screen is $1000 more than the HP Pavillion DV2637TX with a 15.4" screen. Yes, the cheaper Pavillion has a smaller screen, but it has an extra 90GB of hard drive space, more installed video memory and a Dual Layer burner. Is a large screen really worth that much, or is the nVidia Quadro NVS320M graphics processor of the Compaq far superior to the GeForce 8400M GS graphics processor of the Pavillion? I don't know what it is that adds the most value and if those things are important.

Any comments that will help me reach a decision will be appreciated!

Thanks,
Don.

2Dogs · Post by **2Dogs** » Thu Mar 13, 2008 2:01 pm

D Stanley wrote:There is still a reasonably lengthy list! I'm inclined towards those that I've heard of in laptops, such as HP, Lenovo, NEC and Acer, although perhaps Asus, LG, Fujitsu and Sony are just as good or better. Any comments?

You need to see the actual units in a store to compare them. Most makes have budget models, and some of those seem very flimsy. You can only really judge the screen quality by looking at it.

D Stanley wrote:I have some further questions:
It seems unlikely that I will be able to get Windows XP. Will ULead VideoStudio 8 SE DVD work with Vista?

Unfortunately not. VS11 certainly does, and I think VS10 can be made more or less compatible, but if you wait till april, you might be able to upgrade to VS12.

D Stanley wrote:How important is the type of graphics processor, as some use nVidia, some ATI and some Intel?

It depends what you are using the laptop for. If you want to play video games or watch 1920 x 1080 high definition h.264 encoded video, it's very important. If you are simply wanting to do standard definition video editing, it's not important at all, and the most basic integrated graphics will do fine. They will be fine for most office type applications too, web browsing and so on.

D Stanley wrote:How important is the CD/DVD type, as most specify "DVD-RW Drive", but a couple specify "Dual Layer DVD +-RW"?

It's possible that the ones that say DVD-RW drive actually have just a "combo" drive - capable of reading and writing to CD-R and CD-RW discs, but of only reading DVD discs. For DVD burners, dual format means the burner can burn to both DVD+R and DVD-R discs, and should not be confused with the ability to write to dual layer discs. Many laptop DVD burners are not dual format, which might be something you need to watch out for.

In general, however, a slimline laptop DVD burner achieves significantly lower burn quality than a "full size" 5 1/2" drive as used in a desktop pc. The maximum burn speed is also usually limited to 8x. I think that burning dual layer discs with a laptop burner would be a pretty sketchy affair.

If you keep your old pc, it might be best to burn your DVD's with that rather than with the laptop.

D Stanley wrote:I am intrigued by the price differences for what to me seem like very similar machines, eg. the HP Compaq 8710p with a 17" screen is $1000 more than the HP Pavillion DV2637TX with a 15.4" screen. Yes, the cheaper Pavillion has a smaller screen, but it has an extra 90GB of hard drive space, more installed video memory and a Dual Layer burner. Is a large screen really worth that much, or is the nVidia Quadro NVS320M graphics processor of the Compaq far superior to the GeForce 8400M GS graphics processor of the Pavillion? I don't know what it is that adds the most value and if those things are important.

Both the nVidia Quadro NVS320M and the GeForce 8400M GS are discrete graphics cards, and will raise the price of the laptops. I can imagine that a higher quality 17" screen would significantly add to the cost of a laptop, since not only is the screen bigger, but the chassis is too.

You just need to decide what you want. Maybe you value a large screen (though don't forget that you can easily hook the laptop up to a separate monitor for those occasions when you need higher resolution)

Maybe you do want to play video games or play high def h.264 video, so a separate graphics card might appeal to you, at the expense of much lower battery life, and higher cost, of course.

In my opinion, it would be foolish to go for a laptop with a small hard drive - these days you should regard 160GB as the minimum, since it doesn't incur much of a price penalty.

In fact if you see a laptop with say a 60GB or 80GB hard drive, it might be a good indicator that the whole machine is a little dated, and perhaps a low-end model.

D Stanley · Post by **D Stanley** » Fri Mar 14, 2008 11:49 am

Thank you again for your helpful response. I would like to ask about what you said:

"If you keep your old pc, it might be best to burn your DVD's with that rather than with the laptop."

In my use of VideoStudio 8 SE DVD, the DVD burning happen together at the Share stage. When you press the button to burn, it begins by compiling / rendering then it burns, all at the same time, one after the other. The problem is that one of the reasons I'm thinking my computer may not be sufficient is the time it takes to render (although the time it takes in editing is by far my greatest concern). Anyway, what I'd like to know is how this would work out in practice. After editing the show on my new machine, would I then copy the project file to the old computer and open it in the Share tab and proceed as I currently do, ie. adding chapters etc. then burning? Would version 11 or 12 be any different in this respect?

I just feel that if I still have to render the show on my old machine, then I have gained something, but not everything I wanted to achieve. Perhaps a desktop may be a better option than a laptop. You also said that:

"In general, however, a slimline laptop DVD burner achieves significantly lower burn quality than a "full size" 5 1/2" drive as used in a desktop pc."

Would this always be the case? What does a "lower burn quality" mean? Would it be possible to attach an external DVD+-RW to a laptop and thereby avoid using my old machine?

Thanks again for taking the time with me. I look forward to your comments.

Don

Alludo USER to USER Web Board