Posted by doc on 09/06/05 21:54

wow, that's some pretty interesting information and once we make a decision
on software we'll also try that out too just to see the outcome out of
curisioty if for nothing else.

as far as platform though we're definately going to be PC and not mac. we
went down that road with mac and pro tools on our audio side AND ever time
we wanted to do something we had to go back to apple/mac and update (that's
a kind word for SPEND A LOT OF MONEY) and there just weren't any 2nd or 3rd
party options to speak of, let alone the support family just wasn't there.
thus, when we changed to PC we found we could buy the software, twice the
puting power and lots of interface options and freebies to boot for the same
$$$ as we sold the used apple/mac stuff for loosing 40% of our initial
investment. so, we'll be going PC without a doubt.

also,we're running some pretty big files of 540 lines at 30fps now on an
athlon thunderbird and it handles it fine just beginning to give us issues
on the audio side (latency) that's why we are upgrading pc to dual core.

thanks of the help.

doc

"William Davis" <newvideo@fastq.com> wrote in message
news:newvideo-2737E9.12342806092005@news.west.cox.net...
> In article <4fhTe.29373$YC1.14385@fe08.lga>,
> TonyP <arpierre@hooptonline.net> wrote:
>
>>
>> I have not worked in HDV, so can't speak on it. You can go to the LE
>> forums where there are people that have ACTUALLY used it. The system
>> requirements are high, very high.
>> http://tinyurl.com/8wct9 and search for HDV (or similiar topic) and see
>> what comes up. Also, this link will explain what Edition can do within
>> the HDV format and what the system requirements are. It is a .pdf (Adobe
>> Acrobat) file http://tinyurl.com/dk3vn
>>
>
> Well, I am working with HDV so I can.
>
> The idea that "system requirements are high, very high", just isn't true.
>
> I'm happily editing HDV footage on my Dual G4 Mac with Final Cut Pro HD.
> This is three-year-old dual 1-gig machine. NOT anywhere close to "state
> of the art."
>
> The central truth about HDV that escapes people who haven't worked with
> it is that compressed HDV data files are often SMALLER than
> corresponding standard def DV files.
>
> That's right, SMALLER.
>
> As a test for one of my articles, I took the same 10 sec scene shot with
> a Sony 1080i HDV camera and a DV camera, and when the clips were
> digitized, the HDV clip was actually SMALLER than the SD clip.
>
> That means the data rates your computer will need to deal with are no
> larger with HDV than they are with DV.
>
> (Yes, your computer and the software it's running will need to parse the
> HDV data stream and that may require computing horsepower beyond what
> you're used to... but the data rate itself isn't really much different -
> so it's not like you need a flamethrower system to do the job.)
>
> The "magic" of HDV is that the compression is HUGELY more efficient than
> standard DV compression.
>
> Therefore the data stream isn't any more difficult to deal with than SD.
>
> FWIW.

[Back to original message]