I've looked through the threads on this forum about video editing but I can't find what types of computers people are actually using to edit their camcorder footage? I've got a new laptop (1.86 ghz Intel processor, 80 GB hardrive and 512 SDRAM) and I'd love to get a digital camcorder to shoot and edit simple 15-20 minute movies for school projects.

Am I correct in assuming this laptop can't handle video editing duties? What do you guys use ?

Thanks!

Is it Dual Core? Are you shooting DV or HDV? IF its DV, it should be fine. If it its HDV you will need the following.

FOR HDV Camcorders you will need the following
Dual Core Intel or AMD CPU
80 Gig HDD
1 Gig Memory
NVIDIA Mobile 7800 Graphics Card for HD Footage

Hope this helps.

I use an AMD 4400+ Dual Core. (2.2 ghz per) 1 Gig memory a 350 Gig hard drive and an Nvidia 7600GT card.

I would like a faster CPU (and this one's pretty fast) and more memory. (2 Gigs works much better - I robbed my other 'puter of its memory for a while and it REALLY helped!)

I use Ulead's VideoStudio 9 and the editing speed one can achieve runs much smoother with more memory. I don't think ver.9 is taking advantage of the Dual-Core part of my setup the way the new version (10) is supposed to.
I also have an AMD 3800+ (not Dual Core) and editing with it was almost as good as the 4400+ is. The increase of memory in both aided their quickness.

Rendering does seem faster with the Dual-Core 4400+.

I started editing a year ago with an AMD 2200+ (1.8 ghz) and I was able to do pretty quick cutting jobs with it. I had 1 Gig memory.

I find that I need a pretty big hard drive. I had an 80 with the AMD 2200+ and needed to add a 120 gig one to work with more than 6 DV tapes. (or so - can't remember how many tapes I used in my first editing)

Good luck

I should have given more info on my system- it is a solo processor and I'm looking at using a minidv camcorder like an entry level Canon.

So it looks like I may be in a little trouble with editing in regards to memory. I guess I am hoping that if the movies are short and I don't try to be Steven Spielberg then it might suffice?

Give it a try. I do editing on an older Pentium setup with only 512MB RAM. It can be slow sometimes, but it's definitely do-able. The biggest problem I encountered was running out of disk space - the AVI files that are captured from the video camera are pretty big. But, once you've created a DVD or movie file or whatever format you use for your final movie, you can delete the AVI files - assuming that you keep the original tapes.

To get your feet wet, you can download Windows Movie Maker (http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/downloads/updates/moviemaker2.mspx) and see how things go. It's pretty good software, imo.


Mitch

Mitch is right. Windows MovieMaker is pretty good. I had trouble with putting it on a DVD but that was a while ago. I haven't tried it in a while.

I have a cheapo Canon ZR200. It uses DV tapes. DV tapes are your best bet for quality and ease of editing. The slow part is that they go onto the harddrive in real time.

And for more than a couple of DV tapes you need more than an 80 gig harddrive, but if you're using Windows XP get moviemaker and give it a shot. It's fun.

Good luck!

Almost any computer 3 years old or newer is OK for editing DV.

Rendering is another matter, you'll need at least P4 2.8Ghz, Core Duo or Core Duo 2 is much better.

Almost any computer 3 years old or newer is OK for editing DV.

Rendering is another matter, you'll need at least P4 2.8Ghz, Core Duo or Core Duo 2 is much better.
It'll still render - just very slowly. AMD 4400+ 2.2 Ghz Dual Core renders pretty fast. At least compared to my old 1.8 single core Athlon 2200+. ;)

Where I want the speed is during the editing process. I want to move cut to cut w/o waiting for the program to catch up. Perhaps I need to try another program. Ulead's Videostudio 9 has the hourglass spinning when I'm cooking.

I've tried some Pinnacle software (can't remember the title and it was worse).
Sony's software (Vegas 6 moviestudio - not the full version) might be better although I haven't done a full project with it yet as the learning curve is higher and I know the Ulead ins and outs.
I'm looking forward to working with the Sony software, it is clearly better and less casual-user oriented.

Not all software takes advantage of Dual Core (or Intel's versions).

I've never used Intel Processors. The higher Ghz of Intel does not mean it is faster than AMD's brood. Although Intel has been in the lead of speed for the past year or so. But you can't judge entirely by numbers (Ghz).
AMD is a better bargain but not the speed king it once was.


Here (http://www23.tomshardware.com/cpu.html?modelx=33&model1=478&model2=430&chart=184) is a chart of rendering times from Tom's Hardware. Rendering is something that is done w/o being present so a lengthy rendering time might be annoying but you can be doing something else while it is happening. (On another computer though)

It'll still render - just very slowly. AMD 4400+ 2.2 Ghz Dual Core renders pretty fast. At least compared to my old 1.8 single core Athlon 2200+. ;)

Where I want the speed is during the editing process. I want to move cut to cut w/o waiting for the program to catch up. Perhaps I need to try another program. Ulead's Videostudio 9 has the hourglass spinning when I'm cooking.

I've tried some Pinnacle software (can't remember the title and it was worse).
Sony's software (Vegas 6 moviestudio - not the full version) might be better although I haven't done a full project with it yet as the learning curve is higher and I know the Ulead ins and outs.
I'm looking forward to working with the Sony software, it is clearly better and less casual-user oriented.

Not all software takes advantage of Dual Core (or Intel's versions).

I've never used Intel Processors. The higher Ghz of Intel does not mean it is faster than AMD's brood. Although Intel has been in the lead of speed for the past year or so. But you can't judge entirely by numbers (Ghz).
AMD is a better bargain but not the speed king it once was.


Here (http://www23.tomshardware.com/cpu.html?modelx=33&model1=478&model2=430&chart=184) is a chart of rendering times from Tom's Hardware. Rendering is something that is done w/o being present so a lengthy rendering time might be annoying but you can be doing something else while it is happening. (On another computer though)

Vegas and Premiere certainly take advantage of dual core.

I believe Ulead VS10+ does too, not 100% sure though.

As of rendering on slow CPUs, yes, it will render, but you need to watch the temperatures. In a year 2001 I would open the case and put in full-size fan to keep it cool overnight during MPEG2 rendering. :D

Man those 4 core Intel (QX6600) Monsters are so fast. I wonder what they will be like when we actually get software that is optimized to work with them! Better yet, how fast will they be when software optimized and in a total 64bit enviroment. AMD will offer something better from what I hear later this year.
My next system will be 64 Bit all the way with four cores. I can't wait! Now if ULEAD will only offer a 64 bit version of Videostudio 10/5 I will be in business!
Great link to the Toms Hardware page!

Thanks for the little info guys. I am into video editing and this will really help,.

It'll still render - just very slowly. AMD 4400+ 2.2 Ghz Dual Core renders pretty fast. At least compared to my old 1.8 single core Athlon 2200+. ;)

Where I want the speed is during the editing process. I want to move cut to cut w/o waiting for the program to catch up. Perhaps I need to try another program. Ulead's Videostudio 9 has the hourglass spinning when I'm cooking.

I've tried some Pinnacle software (can't remember the title and it was worse).
Sony's software (Vegas 6 moviestudio - not the full version) might be better although I haven't done a full project with it yet as the learning curve is higher and I know the Ulead ins and outs.
I'm looking forward to working with the Sony software, it is clearly better and less casual-user oriented.

Not all software takes advantage of Dual Core (or Intel's versions).

I've never used Intel Processors. The higher Ghz of Intel does not mean it is faster than AMD's brood. Although Intel has been in the lead of speed for the past year or so. But you can't judge entirely by numbers (Ghz).
AMD is a better bargain but not the speed king it once was.


Here (http://www23.tomshardware.com/cpu.html?modelx=33&model1=478&model2=430&chart=184) is a chart of rendering times from Tom's Hardware. Rendering is something that is done w/o being present so a lengthy rendering time might be annoying but you can be doing something else while it is happening. (On another computer though)


Sony has good software... If you can spend the money, you would be best to get Sony Vegas 7+DVD (about $500 US).... It's a great package and works well.

I also have Avid Liquid7... it's pretty good also (a few bugs though... needs one more patch)

Both Avid and Sony take advantage of multiple cores, and Sony can also be easily set up for network rendering, which saves even more time.

I would stay away from Ulead if possible... it works but it's pretty basic and crashes easily if you push it too hard.

Thanks Blackbill.

I'm just finishing up what I hope is my last Ulead project. I've got too many hours invested to move over to Sony right now. But I intend to learn the better editor. And I would like to get the full version. For now, I'm learning with the Vegas 6 suite. Once I feel I can move with it I'll get the Vegas 7 full version.

You're right about Ulead. I've had to track down media a couple of times that makes Ulead stop rendering. (Step Conversion error - it's a nasty thing to get. But so far I've gotten around it. :eek: )

Hi everyone.
Newbie here needs some specific advice.
I've just done my first successful transfer from DV (Canon MV300) to DVD, using Ulead V.S. ver.7.
The quality of still shots is very pleasing but all the panning shots are jerky as hell.
The problem could be almost any of the following, arranged in what I think is most likely first:
No firewire cable to hand, firewire ports on board but no separate video card so I used an s-video link to my TV tuner.
Hard disk should have been defragmented BEFORE I started. The resultant files were heavily fragmented even though the disk has over 90 Gb free.
The hard disk is only 5400 rpm.

So, what do you reckon will make the most difference? Firewire cable, good video card or faster disk? (Cpu is 3.2 GHz so unlikely to be a problem)

Rob

Hey!

It's been a while since I started this thread and thought I would give an update. I ended up getting a Canon mini-dv camcorder (ZR800) and I also picked up a Dazzle unit which allows me to get footage off my old Samsung analog camcorder onto the laptop for editing purposes. I have been very pleased with how my HP laptop has handled the load. I've made several movies for school. It works great for anatomy lab when you need to see dissections over and over for studying purposes. The mini-dv footage is sharper of course but the analog isn't far behind.

My original question I posted was concerned with whether or not my laptop with 512 ram could handle video editing. It can indeed do it! It works well with Microsoft Movie Maker (as someone suggested I try) and I just picked up the superpack for Movie Maker. The Dazzle converter comes with Pinnacle software and it works okay. My laptop has frozen up a couple times using it so I go very slow when editing with Pinnacle. Movie Maker works flawlessly.

Hope this helps anyone (on a shoe string budget) looking to get their feet wet with digital editing. It is alot of fun!