Depends what you mean by "dont have to render". If you mean full frame rate smooth preview playback; No.
If you mean a reduced frame rate preview; maybe.
Are you stuck with avchd as the source? Its very intensive to edit ergo will give you just about the worst performance of a souce format.
Note the matrox x cards are not yet functioning properly with cs4.
I dont have AVCHD but know from reading that it is hard to edit and allot of cameras have it now.
My question is how much of a editing machine would you have to have to play it in real time ?
If he is building a new machine maybe he could build a better unit.
Please give advice on building a dream PC.
This may be worth the wait, for even with AVCHD material, it can deliver RT performance. Don't know when it will be available however and prices have not yet been mentioned.
Nice article Harm.
To only dream of a machine with all that power.
So far on my soon to be build I have:
COOLER MASTER HAF 932
ASUS P6T Deluxe V2 LGA 1366
Intel Core i7 920 Nehalem 2.66GHz
Noctua NH-U12P SE1366 120mm SSO CPU Cooler
Microsoft Windows 7 64-bit
CORSAIR XMS3 12GB (6 x 2GB) 240-Pin DDR3 SDRAM DDR3 1600 (PC3 12800)
SAPPHIRE Toxic 100269TXSR Radeon HD 4890 1GB 256-bit GDDR5 PCI Express 2.0 x16
CORSAIR CMPSU-1000HX 1000W ATX12V 2.2 / EPS12V 2.91 SLI Ready CrossFire Ready 80 PLUS Certified Modular Active PFC Compatible with Core i7 Power Supply
Western Digital VelociRaptor WD3000HLFS 300GB 10000 RPM 16MB Cache SATA 3.0Gb/s 3.5" Internal Hard Drive
Hard Drives: ( 2-4 min )
Western Digital Caviar Black WD1001FALS 1TB 7200 RPM 32MB Cache SATA 3.0Gb/s 3.5" Internal Hard Drives
Pioneer Black 8X BD-R 2X BD-RE 16X DVD+R 5X DVD-RAM 8X BD-ROM 4MB Cache SATA Internal Blu-ray Burner 8X Blu-Ray DVD Burner
Im still waiting till Windows 7 comes out.
Any changes you see I might have to make ?
It looks like a very nice system. Just two remarks. Are you talking about the XMS3 Classic RAM modules with 7-7-7-20 timings? The reason I ask is because you have opted for 1600 FSB capable memory, while the CPU only delivers a FSB of 1333. I don't know whether the CAS at 1333 speed will be 6. It may well be. On the OCZ modules I have (OCZ3P1333LV6GK), I have 6-6-6-18 timings at 1333 FSB and it may be that these might be an alternative. The second remark is the Pioneer burner. In recent (last two years) tests Pioneer has lost the lead position they have held for years to manufacturers like Samsung and LG in terms of reliability of burns. They are still more expensive than Samsung and LG. It is peanuts on the total investment, but I thought it worth mentioning.
In case you do not have the link to my system setup available, here it is. It shows you my details:
Hope this helps.
PS. On recent retesting, my average read speed on the large array (E) was 853 MB/s, a little faster than mentioned in the picture above.
I alrady had your setup saved in my Harm folder. lol
I will go back and read more on RAM and those other drives you said about.
The Ram I was going to get was the 1600 at: 9-9-9-24
What would be a better option for CS4
Have a look at the Corsair
These have 7-7-7-20 timings. I just hope these are not based on Elpida Hyper chips. Corsair and OCZ have very recently stopped production of RAM modules with Elpida Hyper chips because of quality problems.
Newegg doesnt sell that one in a 12GB pack.
They have the 6GB pack for $146.99 x 2 = $293.98
Is it better to get a pack with all (12GB 9-9-9-24) together or two packs of (6GB 7-7-7-20) with better timing?
Also if I get 2 packs do i need to place them in a special way so the same pack is together ?
Cost of 12GB pack = $229.00
$64.98 cheaper for the 9-9-9-24 pack.
But when building a new editing system saving is great but not if it cost performance.
What do you think the better choice is ?
I can't look into your wallet and I don't know your preferences. The 7-7-7-20 will be faster than the 9-9-9-24 sets. The difference will likely be less than 2-3% in performance, but the price difference is much larger. Consider that you buy this memory only once for the next couple of years and if you have a lot of memory intensive operations, like colour corrections and the like, the difference is yes/no (choose one) worth the price difference.
I can't judge this for you. Sorry.
In the long run I thing the better timing 7-7-7-20 will be the better option for me.
I guess my only concern was not getting it in a 12GB pack.
I had read somewhere its better to get RAM in a pack.
If 2 packs of 6GB works fine then thats OK with me.
If i get 2 packs does it matter how I place them in the slots ?
No, just put the three sticks from one kit in the first three slots, and the next kit in the other slots.
OK Thanks, Good to know.
I still am not hearing an answer to my question... if any one knows?
Let me try again. I shoot AVCHD. Transcode to NeoScene. Place clips on the time line. Add basic color corection and a title (super)... or color correction and slow motion. Will I be able to preview that clip realtime full rez and full frame rate... or will I have to render to get that.
I'm used to RTX-100 and don't really want to get back to rendering or low rez previews.
Again assuming I build a fast machine: i7, 12 gb ram, fast card, fast drives,etc...
Anyone know about this stuff?
Hasn't this been answered in post #1 by Curt and in post #3 by myself?
If you want RT, either get a dual W5580 with 24 GB RAM and a very good raid setup, overclock this system by 30% and you may, just may get RT even though not likely, or use a format better suited for editing. Of course, with dual Nehalem-EX CPU's your troubles will be over.
I have 4.1, and NeoScene. I have a Quad Core 2.83ghz with 8GB Ram. nVidia 9600 graphics card. 3 hard drives System Scratch VideoClips
I just rented a HMC150 and shot a couple of hrs worth of Video at 720 60p. and 1080 60i I kept the original mts files and also converted to Cineform AVI High Quality.
The native AVCHD files play bak fine, both on Draft and High quality in 4.1
The cineform files play back ok on Draft (uses about 85% cpu) but do not playback real time on high quality.
The quality of the Cineform files (it up samples the chroma to 4:2:2) is great and worth the playback hit.
(it up samples the chroma to 4:2:2)
You mean it just pads the info with 0's. It does not improve the image.
Single stream AVCHD may play back fine, but having multiple streams (video, title, etc.) and applying some color correction and some other filters will bring that to clearly less than RT, which is the question the OP had.
Actually, Cineform absolutely improves the image. You end up with a 4:2:2 10bit Intraframe file. (very similar to ProRes 4:2:2) Jim Simon would be sooo happy.
These are from a HMC150. I shot 720 60p. One sample is the original MTS file, the other is the Cineform AVI file. Cineform interpolates the missing chroma. You really notice it in the reds and oranges. They do a great job at it.
Fram Grabs, Zoomed 200% Notice the red "sawtooth against the black. Also the edge of the peaches.
Mts-cineform720 60p.jpg 432.5 K
The image is great, but we are very busy runiing 2 nle's producing longer projects (dv). Rendering would kill us! I need to find something that is real time full rez. I can't imagine a workflow where every filter, every transition would need to be rendered. The RTX-100 serves us well with DV, but I am ready to move to HD using the HMC150. Maybe I need to wait a little longer...
Maybe I need to wait a little longer...
Or use better media. For HD, that means DVCPRO HD or RED, with AVC-I coming soon.
Jim Simon would be sooo happy.
I'm actually seeing artifacts in the Cineform version that I don't see in the original. Overall, I think the one labeled MTS looks better - at least in that one small example.