When I bought my pc, about 2 years ago, I agonised over which CPU to get. I intended to use the pc for CAD work and video editing.
Researching the matter on sites such as Anantech and similar, it seemed that the Pentium 4c line would be best at the number crunching that largely comprises video encoding, so I opted for a P2.8c machine.
To my disappointment, however, I could only achieve a maximum setting of 89% on the MPEG capture slider when capturing direct to MPEG from my miniDV camcorder.
Anything more than that resulted in the transcode buffer filling up and there being a slight disturbance in the captured video when the camcorder was paused as the transcode buffer was flushed.
To achieve even this, I have to reduce the number of windows services to an absolute minimum (13, including VS8), closing down all uneccesary programs. The windows default services configuration will only allow me to reduce the services count to 15, so I set up a "bare bones" hardware profile, with things like networking and so on disabled.
Although I now work more or less exclusively with AVI files, and render my projects to MPEG before burning in accordance with the recommended method, I would still like to know from users' own experiences what the minimum spec pc's are, (both AMD and Intel based) in order to be able to use the 100% quality setting.
I've read posts from those fortunate enough to be able to afford a Pentium Extreme Edition $1000 CPU, but I'm more interested in the regular CPU's.
My motherboard will not allow any CPU overclocking, altough I have been able to overclock my (humble) MX440 video card by a useful 25%. That shows a definite benefit for gaming, but nothing noticeable for VS8.
Thanks in advance for your input!
Minimum PC for Direct MPEG2 Capture
Moderator: Ken Berry
Minimum PC for Direct MPEG2 Capture
JVC GR-DV3000u Panasonic FZ8 VS 7SE Basic - X2
-
DiscCoasterPro
- Posts: 250
- Joined: Mon Aug 29, 2005 10:42 pm
Hello 2dogs. I also have a P4 2.8 Northwood computer. I am using a seperate hard drive for capture though. Its a WD 250G external USB/FW drive with a 8m cache and 7200 rpms. I also am running a gig of memory in dual channel and a SATA drive for my OS. My video card is an ATI 9600xt. I don't know how many of those differences actually effect capture, except the hard drive for sure. Not to mention, there must be a ton of things that can make one 2.8 computer different from another besides cpu speed. Chipsets, FSB speed, is it online or offline (broadband) is the hd fragmented .. and on and on ... I'd just go with the folks who know and suggest avi captures though.
The only other thing I shouldn't merely assume is that you are capturing via firewire and not usb2. I know you said DVcamcorder, but it was worth a mention.
I haven't had any problems capturing to mpeg. I've been experimenting with a lot of different programs and I am just a newbie at this. In fact, I didn't even know there was some kind of percentage slider in VS.
There is a little freeware program called "EnditAll" that was originally made by Ziff Davis and was offered first by PC magazine. It is supposed to be very good at shutting down unneeded programs running in the background. There is no website for it that I know of, but if you're interested do some searches for it, I'm sure it will turn up. If you're really needing something like this and don't find it, PM me and I'll dig up a copy I have somewhere.
I did change the way I was saving captures to avi though because it just lets ya do more editing. I also export lots of times to DVD Workshop for menus and such, then I render and burn in Workshop at highest quality, and shrink to fit my single layer DVD with DVDShrink.
I guess there's more than one road to Rome .. lol ... too bad they don't make the maps so we can read em
dcp
The only other thing I shouldn't merely assume is that you are capturing via firewire and not usb2. I know you said DVcamcorder, but it was worth a mention.
I haven't had any problems capturing to mpeg. I've been experimenting with a lot of different programs and I am just a newbie at this. In fact, I didn't even know there was some kind of percentage slider in VS.
There is a little freeware program called "EnditAll" that was originally made by Ziff Davis and was offered first by PC magazine. It is supposed to be very good at shutting down unneeded programs running in the background. There is no website for it that I know of, but if you're interested do some searches for it, I'm sure it will turn up. If you're really needing something like this and don't find it, PM me and I'll dig up a copy I have somewhere.
I did change the way I was saving captures to avi though because it just lets ya do more editing. I also export lots of times to DVD Workshop for menus and such, then I render and burn in Workshop at highest quality, and shrink to fit my single layer DVD with DVDShrink.
I guess there's more than one road to Rome .. lol ... too bad they don't make the maps so we can read em
dcp
Hi DCP,
thanks for your response!
As you say, there are indeed a multitude of settings that will affect the result. Since I now work mainly with AVI clips, it's not such a burning question any more, but I still wonder what it takes for a pc to capture direct to MPEG at the best possible quality - i.e. 100% in the capture properties dialogue box.
I haven't yet tried the Enditall program you mention - but it possibly sounds like something that shuts down all uneccesary processes. I doubt that I can gain any more action from the CPU in that respect since I've already disabled all uneeded services by running services.msc in XP and configuring my video editing "bare bones" profile.
I do capture with a firewire cable from my camcorder, and I always defrag my hard drives. I have DMA enabled and write-back caching disabled on the capture drive, which is a physically separate drive from the one containing the operating system (XP Home Edition SP1)
I have the drop frame counter enabled, and do not see any evidence of dropped frames when capturing.
My drives are nothing fancy - both 160Gb 7200rpm EIDE, one Seagate and the other a Western Digital. I think they both have 2Mb caches.
My pagefile is also on another partition, but experiments with different pagefile locations and sizes, as well as the use of different capture drives made no discernible difference to my 89% upper quality limit when capturing direct to MPEG.
Enabling or disabling Hyperthreading in BIOS also made no measurable difference.
I've also played around with different configurations of my two 256Mb PC3200 RAM modules, in single and dual channel mode - but again, no measurable differences resulted.
If you care to, you might check your system with the quality slider at 100%. (if it's not already at that setting) By default, VS8 (and probably VS9) works out an optimum setting, usually about 70 or 80%.
thanks for your response!
As you say, there are indeed a multitude of settings that will affect the result. Since I now work mainly with AVI clips, it's not such a burning question any more, but I still wonder what it takes for a pc to capture direct to MPEG at the best possible quality - i.e. 100% in the capture properties dialogue box.
I haven't yet tried the Enditall program you mention - but it possibly sounds like something that shuts down all uneccesary processes. I doubt that I can gain any more action from the CPU in that respect since I've already disabled all uneeded services by running services.msc in XP and configuring my video editing "bare bones" profile.
I do capture with a firewire cable from my camcorder, and I always defrag my hard drives. I have DMA enabled and write-back caching disabled on the capture drive, which is a physically separate drive from the one containing the operating system (XP Home Edition SP1)
I have the drop frame counter enabled, and do not see any evidence of dropped frames when capturing.
My drives are nothing fancy - both 160Gb 7200rpm EIDE, one Seagate and the other a Western Digital. I think they both have 2Mb caches.
My pagefile is also on another partition, but experiments with different pagefile locations and sizes, as well as the use of different capture drives made no discernible difference to my 89% upper quality limit when capturing direct to MPEG.
Enabling or disabling Hyperthreading in BIOS also made no measurable difference.
I've also played around with different configurations of my two 256Mb PC3200 RAM modules, in single and dual channel mode - but again, no measurable differences resulted.
If you care to, you might check your system with the quality slider at 100%. (if it's not already at that setting) By default, VS8 (and probably VS9) works out an optimum setting, usually about 70 or 80%.
JVC GR-DV3000u Panasonic FZ8 VS 7SE Basic - X2
-
GeorgeK
Re: Recommended CPU speed for Analogue Video to MPEG2 captur
2Dogs,
I have posted a simular request for information in the posting;
However if I have read you posting correct, you are trying to capture DV footage on your DV camera to your computer as MPEG, and not as AVI files of DV Type 1 or Type 2. Is this correct? And "why would you want to do this?" Is it hard drive space?. We all have our reasons why we want to do what others may feel as strange. You see, I like to use DV format as the compression on the video is much less (I belive only five times that of raw video) and thus the quality is much higher. DV footage also has the advantage in that once in DV format, there is no further loss while editing. Any further losses only occur when encoding to a higher compression format like DVD MPEG2. To my research, DV footage is 25,000 Bits Per Second while DVD footage is mostly between 4,000 and 9,000 Bits Per Second, which my maths, means a lot more video information is lost.
The bad (or good, depending on how you see it) is that most of us cannot afford large, widescreen High Definition TV screens which would allow us to see the difference in quality. I am sure that my low budget standard PAL TV sure does not. In fact, yesterday, I was watching a VCD I had created some time ago, and it looks close to the quality of the DVDs I am currently burning. However, as I hope one day, before my live is over, to watch my TV on a truely 1920x1080 (i or p) HDTV, I would like to have my recorded video look the best then as I can store and create it now, thus I try to capture 720x576i SD (ie AVI DV type 1) video, while looking forward to a HDTV Camera like Panasonic's offering for the semi professional.
Now to get back to the present day, and current reality, I would just like to be able to capture 720x576 8000CBR video from my WinFast XP2000 tuner card (Composite or S-Video). So what hardware is required to achieve this at 100% quality?
I find that my Pentium 2.0Ghz will only allow me to capture at 80%, and sadly, you have stated that your even having difficulty with a 2.8GHz computer. Though, I have read that it can be achieved on a computer with a > 2.8GHz CPU.
So, do you have DMA set and write behind cache unselected? In Device Manager, select the properties for your IDE controllers and the Advanced Tabs. I am sure you will have set these. Ulead has a web site which provides a list of improvements and I have searched the web or other tips, but only Uleads have been helpful to me.
All the best on your hunting...
My recommendation, if you can, is to capture from your DV camera in DV format and then edit in DV, rending to DVD (ie MPEG) only when creating the final output file or DVD disk. Once you have finished the DV project burn the project and DV files to DVD data disks for backup. This has always worked for me.
PS 1) I too have a MX440 video card
2) I have found that if I capture MPEG2 using Ulead, then I get no audio/video sync problems.
I have posted a simular request for information in the posting;
I have a JVC DL820 camera, which has its issues but does have an analogue video (S-Video and Compsite video) input that I can us to transfer my analogue tapes to DV by also attaching the video camera to the computer via firewire and this directly passes the analogue video (from, for example, my Hi8 Camera to my PC. As the analogue to video conversion is peformed by the camera, my computer has no problems in receiving the DV data stream and writing it to a file (via UVS 9).Recommended CPU speed for Analogue Video to MPEG2 capture
However if I have read you posting correct, you are trying to capture DV footage on your DV camera to your computer as MPEG, and not as AVI files of DV Type 1 or Type 2. Is this correct? And "why would you want to do this?" Is it hard drive space?. We all have our reasons why we want to do what others may feel as strange. You see, I like to use DV format as the compression on the video is much less (I belive only five times that of raw video) and thus the quality is much higher. DV footage also has the advantage in that once in DV format, there is no further loss while editing. Any further losses only occur when encoding to a higher compression format like DVD MPEG2. To my research, DV footage is 25,000 Bits Per Second while DVD footage is mostly between 4,000 and 9,000 Bits Per Second, which my maths, means a lot more video information is lost.
The bad (or good, depending on how you see it) is that most of us cannot afford large, widescreen High Definition TV screens which would allow us to see the difference in quality. I am sure that my low budget standard PAL TV sure does not. In fact, yesterday, I was watching a VCD I had created some time ago, and it looks close to the quality of the DVDs I am currently burning. However, as I hope one day, before my live is over, to watch my TV on a truely 1920x1080 (i or p) HDTV, I would like to have my recorded video look the best then as I can store and create it now, thus I try to capture 720x576i SD (ie AVI DV type 1) video, while looking forward to a HDTV Camera like Panasonic's offering for the semi professional.
Now to get back to the present day, and current reality, I would just like to be able to capture 720x576 8000CBR video from my WinFast XP2000 tuner card (Composite or S-Video). So what hardware is required to achieve this at 100% quality?
I find that my Pentium 2.0Ghz will only allow me to capture at 80%, and sadly, you have stated that your even having difficulty with a 2.8GHz computer. Though, I have read that it can be achieved on a computer with a > 2.8GHz CPU.
So, do you have DMA set and write behind cache unselected? In Device Manager, select the properties for your IDE controllers and the Advanced Tabs. I am sure you will have set these. Ulead has a web site which provides a list of improvements and I have searched the web or other tips, but only Uleads have been helpful to me.
All the best on your hunting...
My recommendation, if you can, is to capture from your DV camera in DV format and then edit in DV, rending to DVD (ie MPEG) only when creating the final output file or DVD disk. Once you have finished the DV project burn the project and DV files to DVD data disks for backup. This has always worked for me.
PS 1) I too have a MX440 video card
2) I have found that if I capture MPEG2 using Ulead, then I get no audio/video sync problems.
Dear George,
thanks for your input.
First of all, let me repeat that I do now use the recommended method, and work with AVI files. Rendering the project to a single MPEG2 file before burning the DVD does achieve slightly higher DVD quality than direct to MPEG capture.
I am still interested to know what constitutes the minimum pc for direct MPEG capture, though.
I know that you can use some kind of add-on device that will do the transcoding and take the load off the CPU, but I'm just considering a simple setup with only a pc hooked up to a MiniDV camcorder by a firewire cable.
I do have DMA enabled and write-back caching disabled on my capture drive.
Regarding the quality of image obtained - I find it better to view DVD's on a pc monitor rather than on a TV. We don't have any fancy TV's in our house, and all TVs overscan so you lose part of the image.
When you look at MPEG2 files on your pc, you can see differences in quality - most obviously jagged edges on faster moving sections, and that nasty shimmering artefact you get particularly when there's something like a lawn in the shot.
I can capture short segments at 100% quality before the transcode buffer fills - usually around 2.5 minutes worth. I could probably extend the maximum duration if I installed more RAM, since the transcode buffer flushes when available RAM is down to about 8Mb or so. At the 89% setting, my available RAM hovers around the 270Mb mark.
There's no great difference in quality when I compare those 100% clips with ones captured at 89%, so really my interest in the matter is purely academic rather than practical. I realise I'm being a bit of an anorak!
Since rendering AVI files on my pc takes about twice the AVI file duration, with the CPU utilisation at almost 100%, it seems obvious that the renderd quality must surely be better than MiniDV to MPEG2 captured in real time.
I'd be interested to hear from AMD users. When buying my pc a couple of years ago, it was a toss-up between a P4 2.8c and an Athlon XP 3000, so I'd really like to know how the Athlon performs.
thanks for your input.
First of all, let me repeat that I do now use the recommended method, and work with AVI files. Rendering the project to a single MPEG2 file before burning the DVD does achieve slightly higher DVD quality than direct to MPEG capture.
I am still interested to know what constitutes the minimum pc for direct MPEG capture, though.
I know that you can use some kind of add-on device that will do the transcoding and take the load off the CPU, but I'm just considering a simple setup with only a pc hooked up to a MiniDV camcorder by a firewire cable.
I do have DMA enabled and write-back caching disabled on my capture drive.
Regarding the quality of image obtained - I find it better to view DVD's on a pc monitor rather than on a TV. We don't have any fancy TV's in our house, and all TVs overscan so you lose part of the image.
When you look at MPEG2 files on your pc, you can see differences in quality - most obviously jagged edges on faster moving sections, and that nasty shimmering artefact you get particularly when there's something like a lawn in the shot.
I can capture short segments at 100% quality before the transcode buffer fills - usually around 2.5 minutes worth. I could probably extend the maximum duration if I installed more RAM, since the transcode buffer flushes when available RAM is down to about 8Mb or so. At the 89% setting, my available RAM hovers around the 270Mb mark.
There's no great difference in quality when I compare those 100% clips with ones captured at 89%, so really my interest in the matter is purely academic rather than practical. I realise I'm being a bit of an anorak!
Since rendering AVI files on my pc takes about twice the AVI file duration, with the CPU utilisation at almost 100%, it seems obvious that the renderd quality must surely be better than MiniDV to MPEG2 captured in real time.
I'd be interested to hear from AMD users. When buying my pc a couple of years ago, it was a toss-up between a P4 2.8c and an Athlon XP 3000, so I'd really like to know how the Athlon performs.
JVC GR-DV3000u Panasonic FZ8 VS 7SE Basic - X2
-
jchunter
Two Dogs,
I capture digital video directly to mpeg2 all the time and I do not suffer dropped frames, filled up buffers, or visible loss of resolution even if I recursively edit mpeg2 clips 6 - 8 times, as long as I maintain a video bitrate of 8Mbps. I measure image sharpness with a video resolution chart.
My CPU (3.0 GHz P4, HT enabled, 1 MB memory) runs 40 - 50% busy during capture. I capture with max quality using the properties suggested in the top sticky.
One difference in my system is that I have two hard drives. The C drive is a 10,000 rpm WD Raptor and contains XP, its page file (1 MB), and the Video Studio application. The second drive, 7200 rpm, stores my Video Studio project file and all project assets. Each drive is a single partition. I have never had problems capturing to the slower drive, direct to mpeg2. I have DMA enabled on both drives and Write Caching is disabled.
BTW, some users have suggested that Write Caching could be enabled during capture to help slower systems make it through the more intensive demands of video capture. The reasoning is that if you crash during capture and you lose some captured video, it doesn't matter because you can restart the capture process anyway. The possible downside is that earlier versions of VS tried to modify some of its INI files when it crashed and when some got modified and others didn't, it left the VS installation in an inconsistent state and had to be reinstalled. Note: I have not had this experience with VS9. It might be worth a try to get around your problem.
Limiting the size of capture files to 10 minutes or so may also help and is quite useful during editing because the jog controls are too twitchy with huge video files.
All in all, adding a second 7200 rpm hard drive is probably the easiest and least inexpensive upgrade to try and would give you lots of additional space for serious video editing.
John
I capture digital video directly to mpeg2 all the time and I do not suffer dropped frames, filled up buffers, or visible loss of resolution even if I recursively edit mpeg2 clips 6 - 8 times, as long as I maintain a video bitrate of 8Mbps. I measure image sharpness with a video resolution chart.
My CPU (3.0 GHz P4, HT enabled, 1 MB memory) runs 40 - 50% busy during capture. I capture with max quality using the properties suggested in the top sticky.
One difference in my system is that I have two hard drives. The C drive is a 10,000 rpm WD Raptor and contains XP, its page file (1 MB), and the Video Studio application. The second drive, 7200 rpm, stores my Video Studio project file and all project assets. Each drive is a single partition. I have never had problems capturing to the slower drive, direct to mpeg2. I have DMA enabled on both drives and Write Caching is disabled.
BTW, some users have suggested that Write Caching could be enabled during capture to help slower systems make it through the more intensive demands of video capture. The reasoning is that if you crash during capture and you lose some captured video, it doesn't matter because you can restart the capture process anyway. The possible downside is that earlier versions of VS tried to modify some of its INI files when it crashed and when some got modified and others didn't, it left the VS installation in an inconsistent state and had to be reinstalled. Note: I have not had this experience with VS9. It might be worth a try to get around your problem.
Limiting the size of capture files to 10 minutes or so may also help and is quite useful during editing because the jog controls are too twitchy with huge video files.
All in all, adding a second 7200 rpm hard drive is probably the easiest and least inexpensive upgrade to try and would give you lots of additional space for serious video editing.
John
-
GuyL
- Posts: 444
- Joined: Sun Dec 12, 2004 1:17 am
- System_Drive: C
- 32bit or 64bit: 64 Bit
- motherboard: ASUS P6T
- processor: I7 920
- ram: 6GB
- Video Card: ATI 5870
- sound_card: Auzentech X-fi Forte 7.1
- Hard_Drive_Capacity: 2 TB
- Monitor/Display Make & Model: LG W2753V & HP w2408h
- Location: Halifax, NS Canada
- Contact:
2Dogs,
You wanted to hear from an AMD user so here it goes....
I have an AMD Athlon 64 3000+, 1 GB RAM, 1 System drive at 7200 RPM with VS 9 on it and a dedicated SATA 7200 Capture drive. I capture to MPEG2 via an ATI AIW 9800 Pro.
I can not capture to MPEG 2 (8000) with the slider at 100%. So I'm not sure what kind of system would do it. I would question the real difference anyway. I capture MPEG 2 at 80% if I am not doing any editing and AVI using huffyuv if I am.
If hard drive space and time is not an issue, go with AVI and render when you are done.
You wanted to hear from an AMD user so here it goes....
I have an AMD Athlon 64 3000+, 1 GB RAM, 1 System drive at 7200 RPM with VS 9 on it and a dedicated SATA 7200 Capture drive. I capture to MPEG2 via an ATI AIW 9800 Pro.
I can not capture to MPEG 2 (8000) with the slider at 100%. So I'm not sure what kind of system would do it. I would question the real difference anyway. I capture MPEG 2 at 80% if I am not doing any editing and AVI using huffyuv if I am.
If hard drive space and time is not an issue, go with AVI and render when you are done.
Now using Adobe Premiere and Photoshop
Guy Lapierre
www.forefrontbusinesssolutions.com
Guy Lapierre
www.forefrontbusinesssolutions.com
Thanks for your input!jchunter wrote:Two Dogs,
I capture digital video directly to mpeg2 all the time and I do not suffer dropped frames, filled up buffers, or visible loss of resolution even if I recursively edit mpeg2 clips 6 - 8 times, as long as I maintain a video bitrate of 8Mbps. I measure image sharpness with a video resolution chart.
My CPU (3.0 GHz P4, HT enabled, 1 MB memory) runs 40 - 50% busy during capture. I capture with max quality using the properties suggested in the top sticky.
John
Wow John, I'm really surprised at your 40 - 50% cpu utilisation figure! Are you sure you're capturing with the slider at 100% and not at the VS default of 80% or so? You did say, however, that you're capturing to max quality, so I presume you mean both a high bitrate and maxed out on the slider.
Again, I feel I need to repeat that my interest is academic, for want of a better word, and that I do capture to AVI most of the time.
I also have two drives, though only regular 7200rpm units. ( I envy your raptor!) On the first drive, I use a small operating system and programs partition, another small partition for games and the remainder of the drive for data and project files. The second hard drive has a 20Gb FAT32 image partition and the remainder for captured files. I've experimented with capturing to the data partition on either drive and it didn't have any noticeable effect one way or another.
All of my assessments of captured video quality have been subjective, based on parts of the captured footage that the program seems to struggle with - high contrasts in rapidly changing sections and so on.
JVC GR-DV3000u Panasonic FZ8 VS 7SE Basic - X2
Thanks Guy!GuyL wrote:2Dogs,
You wanted to hear from an AMD user so here it goes....
I have an AMD Athlon 64 3000+, 1 GB RAM, 1 System drive at 7200 RPM with VS 9 on it and a dedicated SATA 7200 Capture drive. I capture to MPEG2 via an ATI AIW 9800 Pro.
I can not capture to MPEG 2 (8000) with the slider at 100%. So I'm not sure what kind of system would do it. I would question the real difference anyway. I capture MPEG 2 at 80% if I am not doing any editing and AVI using huffyuv if I am.
If hard drive space and time is not an issue, go with AVI and render when you are done.
I'm surprised your pc doesn't manage 100% on the quality slider. Are you shutting down all unneeded programs and services when capturing direct to MPEG2?
When you render your avi files to MPEG2, how long does it take per minute of avi footage?
JVC GR-DV3000u Panasonic FZ8 VS 7SE Basic - X2
-
GeorgeK
my interest is academic
I agree with you, 2Dogs, I too have an interest which is more academic than needed, BUT I sure would like a CPU that could capture 720x576 @ 8000CBR at 50% usage, my poor 2.0GHz slams right into 100% very soon after the capture is started (from Analogue capture TV Tuner card).Again, I feel I need to repeat that my interest is academic, for want of a better word, and that I do capture to AVI most of the time.
It has been fun following this thread, and I too am interested if anyone has AMD which they tested to see if it can do this. I expect that the AMD Athlon 64 FX FX-55 to achieve this or AMD Athlon 64 3800+, that is something with a real processor speed of greater than 2600. But, hey, I would not have a clue, so if someone out there has one of these, please do a test and let us know.
OK I tested, XP2800 (that's 2.1GHz to you intellers), 512MB RAM FSB 333,
Win2000 not streamlined (as it boots) HD IDE 166,
VS9, Variable 7000: 87% then it starts to choke.
Now that the test is done please let me switch back to DV/AVI...
Extra hard disks to accomodate the data are much less expensive than another processor (most of the time including new mobo...)
Win2000 not streamlined (as it boots) HD IDE 166,
VS9, Variable 7000: 87% then it starts to choke.
Now that the test is done please let me switch back to DV/AVI...
Extra hard disks to accomodate the data are much less expensive than another processor (most of the time including new mobo...)
Thanks Daniel!daniel wrote:OK I tested, XP2800 (that's 2.1GHz to you intellers), 512MB RAM FSB 333,
Win2000 not streamlined (as it boots) HD IDE 166,
VS9, Variable 7000: 87% then it starts to choke.
Now that the test is done please let me switch back to DV/AVI...
Extra hard disks to accomodate the data are much less expensive than another processor (most of the time including new mobo...)
Your input adds to our knowledge of cpu capability/suitability. Sounds like an XP2600 performs pretty much as a notional P4 2.6 would.
Without wishing to interupt your AVI work or bore you to death, might I just ask if you closed down all unnecessary programs and services to achieve the 87%?
JVC GR-DV3000u Panasonic FZ8 VS 7SE Basic - X2
-
jchunter
Two Dogs,
This morning, I captured mpeg2 from my Panasonic GS400 NTSC widescreen video at a frame size of 720x480, VBR = 8000kbps, lower field first, Dolby audio.
My VS9 capture property window does not have a quality slider, so I'm wondering where you are setting the quality. In any case, I set the propject properties to match the capture properties and pushed the Quality slider to 100% in the Edit Tab (Video Studio sometimes copies property values from here).
I carefully monitored the load on the system using the using the performance tab in the XP Task Manager. The memory usage was 403MB and the CPU averaged 45% with peak usage at 65% and a low of 40%. Both CPU graphs hovered at mid range throughout the capture.
My CPU (3.0 GHz.) is only marginally faster than yours. I am beginning to suspect that the Video Studio code may favor Intel hyperthreading over the Athlon (although it shouldn't)... You said that enabling HT made no difference. Does your Task Manager show two CPU performance graphs?
Edit: Rereading your earlier post, I see that you have 512 MB of memory and this may be making the difference because you may not have enough real memory to absorb the shocks of peak capture loading. Why not add another 512MB and see how this works...
John
This morning, I captured mpeg2 from my Panasonic GS400 NTSC widescreen video at a frame size of 720x480, VBR = 8000kbps, lower field first, Dolby audio.
My VS9 capture property window does not have a quality slider, so I'm wondering where you are setting the quality. In any case, I set the propject properties to match the capture properties and pushed the Quality slider to 100% in the Edit Tab (Video Studio sometimes copies property values from here).
I carefully monitored the load on the system using the using the performance tab in the XP Task Manager. The memory usage was 403MB and the CPU averaged 45% with peak usage at 65% and a low of 40%. Both CPU graphs hovered at mid range throughout the capture.
My CPU (3.0 GHz.) is only marginally faster than yours. I am beginning to suspect that the Video Studio code may favor Intel hyperthreading over the Athlon (although it shouldn't)... You said that enabling HT made no difference. Does your Task Manager show two CPU performance graphs?
Edit: Rereading your earlier post, I see that you have 512 MB of memory and this may be making the difference because you may not have enough real memory to absorb the shocks of peak capture loading. Why not add another 512MB and see how this works...
John
-
Trevor Andrew
Hi all
As I appear to own the same camera as John, so decided I decided to give the capture a go.
I have an Ati AiW Pro 128 capture card.
My processor is AMD Athlon(tm) XP 2500+ 1.8 GHz
1Gb ram.
I first connected the camera via Firewire and captured to DVD, adjusting the ‘advanced’ options to 8000 var, lower field,Pal widescreen.
The 100% slider was available from the first window, options / video and audio capture properties…
My Cpu ran at 100% and managed several dropped frames.
Reconnecting the camera via composite cables and using the same settings produced loads of dropped frames again with the Cpu running flat out.
The transcode buffer in the later taking ages to empty.
So why the big difference, the Firewire must be transporting the data faster than the composite cables set up. Is it just a matter of Cpu speed or does the source material and connection type have a bearing on the result?
GeorgeK
I ran a test using my tv capture card with a quality slider of 100% the dropped frames were dramatic, and a cpu usage of 100%
Using a quality setting of 80% there were no dropped frames and up to 90% cpu.
John
In my case changing the Project Properties to include 100% slider quality did not change the capture properties to match when using ‘Project Template Value’ as a capture template. In order to get 100% I have to alter the quality slider which should be available from the ‘Options’cogwheel.
Trevor
As I appear to own the same camera as John, so decided I decided to give the capture a go.
I have an Ati AiW Pro 128 capture card.
My processor is AMD Athlon(tm) XP 2500+ 1.8 GHz
1Gb ram.
I first connected the camera via Firewire and captured to DVD, adjusting the ‘advanced’ options to 8000 var, lower field,Pal widescreen.
The 100% slider was available from the first window, options / video and audio capture properties…
My Cpu ran at 100% and managed several dropped frames.
Reconnecting the camera via composite cables and using the same settings produced loads of dropped frames again with the Cpu running flat out.
The transcode buffer in the later taking ages to empty.
So why the big difference, the Firewire must be transporting the data faster than the composite cables set up. Is it just a matter of Cpu speed or does the source material and connection type have a bearing on the result?
GeorgeK
I ran a test using my tv capture card with a quality slider of 100% the dropped frames were dramatic, and a cpu usage of 100%
Using a quality setting of 80% there were no dropped frames and up to 90% cpu.
John
In my case changing the Project Properties to include 100% slider quality did not change the capture properties to match when using ‘Project Template Value’ as a capture template. In order to get 100% I have to alter the quality slider which should be available from the ‘Options’cogwheel.
Trevor
-
jchunter
Now I'm Really Confused...
Trevor,
Curious, I checked again (in vain) for a capture-quality control for the GS400.
With the GS400, in Video Playback mode, connected directly to the computer firewire connection, in the top level Capture Tab, under Capture Format, I select "DVD" and under "Options" / "Mpeg Settings" (directly below), I select the "DVD NTSC (720x480)". This opens a screen that has NO quality slider. This is probably an NTSC/PAL difference.
But Trevor, why are you using a capture card when you can connect your camcorder directly to firewire connection? Moreover, if you do have a capture card, why isn't it doing all the work of converting to Mpeg??? My capture card (which I used to use to capture analog video) did all this conversion for me and my computer loafed along, just storing the capture files.
Curious, I checked again (in vain) for a capture-quality control for the GS400.
With the GS400, in Video Playback mode, connected directly to the computer firewire connection, in the top level Capture Tab, under Capture Format, I select "DVD" and under "Options" / "Mpeg Settings" (directly below), I select the "DVD NTSC (720x480)". This opens a screen that has NO quality slider. This is probably an NTSC/PAL difference.
But Trevor, why are you using a capture card when you can connect your camcorder directly to firewire connection? Moreover, if you do have a capture card, why isn't it doing all the work of converting to Mpeg??? My capture card (which I used to use to capture analog video) did all this conversion for me and my computer loafed along, just storing the capture files.