0
schulm04

Hardware limiting factors

Recommended Posts

I just started using FCE. The tools i have are a Mac Mini with 1G memory, 80G harddrive, 2Ghz processor, and a 500G external HD 7500rpm. Once i get a fair amount of HD video put together and start adding layers etc, the computer starts slowing way down and sometimes just quits the program. How can i improve the performance of my setup? I originally just got the mini for music and web surfing. Then i started skydiving:)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
In my opinion, 1G RAM is about as minimal as it gets for anything, much less for editing HD video. Keep in mind that that RAM is also handling all your system tasks. Also, I believe some of the Mini's, and some of the basic MacBooks (not the Pros) use some sort of an Intel integrated video processor so that the video doesn't even have it's own RAM, but has to access/share the system RAM. I'm not 100 percent sure about this (and don't have time to research it), but it is worth looking in to. That would make the RAM issues even worse.

Other questions I would ask. What is your HD source (i.e. HDV, AVCHD, etc.). Is your hard drive on a Firewire buss or USB?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes the Mac mini's and MacBooks use an integrated graphics card. It is an Intel card that can access up to 144MB of system memory. I guess since you are using FCE it has the ability to function with those computer specs, but I run into problems with my MacBook and that has 4GB of Ram and a 2.4 Ghz processor. That is with Premiere Pro though. Personally I wouldn't try to use a Mac mini for editing.

My preferred use for a mini would be a multi media center that is hooked up to an HD TV and is only used for viewing videos and listening to music. Pair with a wireless keyboard and mouse and you have a cool home theatre setup. Sorry getting off track. ;)

Anyway, good luck getting that setup to work for editing.

Sky Canyon Wingsuiters

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

SD output quality from HD can be better than SD output from SD. At least that's what I've read.



If you shoot tape (HC5 etc), shoot HD and edit in SD, if you shoot memory card (CX series), just shoot HQ mpg, not AVCHD, if speed is important and/or you have a low-spec editing system.

ciel bleu,
Saskia

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I was shooting in HD b/c i wanted a HD end product, but i didn't know how much power i needed to edit it. You're saying i can edit in SD then convert it back to HD for the end product? You'll have to excuse my lack of knowledge in the area. I appreciate all feedback sans mocking and sarcasm :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Since you're working on a Mac, it's not easy to online SD and offline HD. And like others have said...you don't have the necessary horsepower to manage this process. You bought a Yugo for listening to music and puttering around with email, but you're wanting it to drive like a Humvee... won't happen.
HD is like a tractor/trailer.
The camera is the trailer, and you can get it as big, sweet, beautiful as you can afford. But without a truck to haul it around (the computer) you got nothing but a block of metal.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well put guys. Thanks for all your help. I will soon have the necessary "tractor", but until then its SD for me. I saw that you could post movies in HD on youtube and facebook, but only 1G max. Which in 1920x1080 was like 1.75 min! Unless your watching it on an HD monitor it really doesn't matter anyway. You can use a regular DVD burner and it will code in HD and will be read that way on a Blue Ray correct?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Quote

SD output quality from HD can be better than SD output from SD. At least that's what I've read.



If you shoot tape (HC5 etc), shoot HD and edit in SD, if you shoot memory card (CX series), just shoot HQ mpg, not AVCHD, if speed is important and/or you have a low-spec editing system.



Of course there's always a give and take between performance/speed and quality. I'm simply offering a reason why one would want to shoot in HD even when outputing in SD.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
A-quality is higher at 1920 vs SD no matter what monitor you're viewing on, although the tendency for HD to be sharper occasionally causes twitter to be an issue on an SD monitor.
B-YouTube/Vimeo/Google don't accept 1920 (rather, they can't reproduce it). 1280 x 720 is best.
C-No matter what, you don't have a good encoder for either HD on DVD nor for the web in the NLE/compression toolset you have.

My advice; render 1280 x 720 in an MP4 container and forget about it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

0