Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 24

Thread: Sony Vegas 8.0c/8.1: Is it worth the upgrade to 64-bit on my machine?

  1. #1

    Default Sony Vegas 8.0c/8.1: Is it worth the upgrade to 64-bit on my machine?

    Hey guys,

    So we're headed to E3 this year as usual for our videogame foray (the site's new, the staff is not), and we're planning some pretty serious breakout HD footage. However we need the machines to handle the editing, and I am planning on going the route of AVCHD (Canon camcorder) as it's increasingly future-proof with faster hardware and cheaper flash memory and probably better for our scenario (no fooling around with capture, etc).

    My current machine is as follows:

    Dell XPS M1330 laptop
    Sony Vegas 8.0c
    Windows Vista Home Premium 32-bit
    Intel Core 2 Duo T8300 @ 2.4GHz w/ 3MB L2 Cache (mobile processor)
    4 GB RAM (3.5 usable in 32-bit)
    160 GB 7,200 RPM Hard Drive
    X3100 Integrated Graphics chip

    My question is this: What, if anything, can I do to expedite the editing/rendering process of AVCHD video (probably 24Mbps 1080i/720p if I had to guess based on the camcorder I am looking at--we won't be shooting in 1080p if that matters at all)? Should I consider upgrading to Windows Vista 64-bit with Vegas 8.1, or will that not help my cause? The laptop only supports 4 GB RAM max and upgrading the processor is impractical at this time. Is it a bad idea for us to be planning HD capture/edit this year if this is the hardware we have to work with?

    We have two laptops with these specifications. Thank you very much for any input; it's greatly appreciated.

    -Steve

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Warsop, Nottinghamshire.
    Posts
    4,465
    Blog Entries
    2

    Default

    AVCHD? Whoa there trigger.... check threads all over this forum (which is littered with bad AVCHD experiences) ... amongst which - http://www.videoforums.co.uk/forum-a...ike-avchd.html - from our very own administrator / site owner.

  3. #3

    Default

    I'm quite clueless about much of this stuff so I greatly appreciate your input. Our biggest problem is that covering the show requires compact cameras, quick post-processing, and timely uploading to our site. Doing the math it seems like, in spite of the processing complications, AVCHD would make it easier to locate particular footage and get it posted if it's time-sensitive (in other words, I could easily find an event/footage of a game everyone wants to see and get it on the 'net before everyone else, in HD no less). We will have to edit it though no matter what to wrap it with our intro/outro and add a watermark. We have very little time on our hands at E3 and are constantly on the move or writing. I was planning originally on dumping the video to my laptop after a day of shooting and then rendering files in the background as I write my articles. I guess what I'm asking is, how much faster REALLY is it to process 1080i HDV footage, capture time included, than it is to process AVCHD on a machine like mine?

    Thanks again. I have been looking for answers to this conundrum for the past few days, but I find that such information is actually pretty tough to come by as everyone's situation is a little bit different.

    Edit: If I've tested this properly, I think it takes around 35 minutes to render a fairly uncomplicated 5-minute H.264 video as such:

    Source Format: 1280x720 30fps 17mbps CBR
    Target Format: 1280x720 30fps 5mbps VBR

    Is that going to be cut in half or better if I opt for HDV?

    Thanks again...

    Steve
    Last edited by othersteve; 01-16-2009 at 04:03 PM.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Bristol uk
    Posts
    8,938
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    I dont think that 64 bit vegas runs differently to 32 bit.

    As for your aspirations the most important thing in any time sensitive scenario is relaiblilty. AVCHD is not only a compomised format visually compared ot HDV ( a bit ), and gltichy and frustrating to edit on anything slower than a 4 cored desktop it is also likely to throw up all sort of other problems and leave you in the lurch.

    If you have to work fast it is madness not to use the euipment you are familar with and that is relaible - use what you have.

    Unless you have hours to capture the assumed advantages of sd / h drive are zero - you have to watch the video to edit it after all.

    I am shocked you think it is a better format - some mook in a shop tell you that ? They lie.

  5. #5

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mark W View Post
    I dont think that 64 bit vegas runs differently to 32 bit.

    As for your aspirations the most important thing in any time sensitive scenario is relaiblilty. AVCHD is not only a compomised format visually compared ot HDV ( a bit ), and gltichy and frustrating to edit on anything slower than a 4 cored desktop it is also likely to throw up all sort of other problems and leave you in the lurch.

    If you have to work fast it is madness not to use the euipment you are familar with and that is relaible - use what you have.

    Unless you have hours to capture the assumed advantages of sd / h drive are zero - you have to watch the video to edit it after all.

    I am shocked you think it is a better format - some mook in a shop tell you that ? They lie.
    Well, again, in the interest of full disclosure, I'm quite ignorant with regard to the subject. Perhaps that ignorance is beginning to show via this discussion.

    My (miserably failed?) logic was simply that AVCHD would be easier to manage and retrieve from the camera post-shooting and in the midst of a hectic, time-sensitive environment. However, if the editing time and reliability is indeed that much worse, I will probably stick with HDV regardless. Either way I will be buying a camcorder as I don't currently have a compact model that can handle HD. I know the HV30 is supposedly heaven on earth but I had begun to consider the prospects of AVCHD in light of continuing program updates, increasingly faster hardware, cheap flash memory, and manageable file segmentation. It just sounds so wonderful to simply copy everything I've shot throughout the day to the computer with the click of a button and then drag/drop files into an editor to finish things up... especially since I will be writing most of the time and capturing/editing much less often, hopefully in the background on my PC while I write.

    So the consensus is without a doubt HDV no matter what, even considering my circumstances?

    Thanks again guys. Your expertise is appreciated more than you know.

    Steve

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Peterborough, Ontario
    Posts
    94

    Default

    64 bit is faster than 32 bit. It processes twice as much data as 32 bit (theortically, depending on your buses etc.). It would seem to me that if more data is being processed, rendering time would be reduced. However you require a 64 bit operating system too. A 32 bit operating system is not 64 bit capable.

    i too have never heard anything good about AVCHD. Unles they make some major changes to it, I don't think it's a format that will survive.

  7. #7

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Flickson View Post
    64 bit is faster than 32 bit. It processes twice as much data as 32 bit (theortically, depending on your buses etc.). It would seem to me that if more data is being processed, rendering time would be reduced. However you require a 64 bit operating system too. A 32 bit operating system is not 64 bit capable.

    i too have never heard anything good about AVCHD. Unles they make some major changes to it, I don't think it's a format that will survive.
    Here's the other thing... I am looking at the upcoming models of camcorders (heck I was on-site covering CES even) and it just seems like the Flash Memory-based models are so vastly superior in terms of overall features, size, battery... check it out:

    Canon HF S10 (Flash Memory-based)
    Canon HV40

    This is killing me. I REALLY wish AVCHD was a viable choice, but with so many people pointing me to HDV, I may just have to bite on the HV40 instead and deal with the tapes, larger size, capturing process, lack of face detection, etc...

    Steve

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Bristol uk
    Posts
    8,938
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Flickson View Post
    64 bit is faster than 32 bit. It processes twice as much data as 32 bit (theortically, depending on your buses etc.). It would seem to me that if more data is being processed, rendering time would be reduced. However you require a 64 bit operating system too. A 32 bit operating system is not 64 bit capable.

    i too have never heard anything good about AVCHD. Unles they make some major changes to it, I don't think it's a format that will survive.
    Theoretically faster but i read recently that vegas 64 bit performs simialrly to 32 bit - If I wasnt sure i wouldnt have said.

    Found this.

    "To answer your question, my experience with 64 bit was poor and I haven't run it since the first day or two it came out. I had black frame issues, and got no preview on my broadcast monitor with it. And without support for Magic Bullet and Ultimate s, it was useless to me."
    Vegas Video Preview Performance - 32-bit vs 64-bit - The Digital Video Information Network

    If it's glitchy as early versions of any sadly often are best to wait.

    If you have a 4 core hyperthreading PC and v 64 is coded to 8 cores then I suppose render times may be better - but exprieince has taught me to be suspicious of such simplstic assupmtions.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Bristol uk
    Posts
    8,938
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Other steve - lack of face detection - you gotta be joking... that is a daft thing put on the cam as flypaper for noobs - as are most ' features ' . My professional camera has no auto focus and no anti shake - who needs them?

    Clearly you are a magazine victim No one with any savvy buys a camera from a magazine ' review ' - they all lie and the quality of the review is in direct proporton to how big the ad is that they also buy.

    You need to try a camera yourself to see if it works for you - would you buy a suit without trying it on?

    If you have a decent DV camera just use that and lie when you post it - after compression for the web no one will notice.

    Good DV and cheap HDV overlap in performance. But you wiull need something like a PD170 / xl2 to pull that stunt.
    Last edited by Mark W; 01-16-2009 at 06:48 PM.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Bristol uk
    Posts
    8,938
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Oh, dont forget cam mics are poor too - if you plan on doing any interviews you will need a mic so when you are digesting spec lists make a mic input a priority - sadly that really narrows the field - I would hope the hv30 does ahve one.

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Sony Cinescore worth it?
    By Goldfinger in forum Sound Recording and Audio Editing
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 10-07-2008, 10:23 AM
  2. Worth the upgrade to 8?
    By DHbiker in forum Sony Vegas video editing apps
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 09-19-2007, 11:04 PM
  3. IOV - worth it ?
    By Mark W in forum Forum Announcements and News
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 03-02-2006, 10:58 AM
  4. Unable to Print to Tape using Sony Vegas and Sony Handicam
    By yroy in forum General video editing software help and advice
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 10-18-2005, 12:49 PM
  5. have premiere 6.0, is it worth to upgrade
    By stingray_on in forum Adobe Premiere, Premiere Elements, and After Effects
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 03-11-2005, 08:53 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •