Hi Greg, Been there, seen it, got the t-shirt. Good fun back then, wasn't it?
I'm not 100% on this, but what I do know is that, uncompressed HD video is large in size (obviously). Reading a few forums on this, it seems its about 400-675GB an hour in size. Go to R3D and this shoots through the roof... However, this handy size calculator says different, but doesn't include adjustable bit-rates or FPS etc: <http://www.fastvideoindexer.com/articles/VideoSizes/VideoSize.htm> I believe APP does some clever math and utilises the GFX card (CUDA) support for rendering on the fly, making it seem to take much less time than it does with SD video. Problem is, we may have the technology to edit HD, but some people are still struggling to view HD video on You-Tube and Vimeo, let alone any files we may create for them. (I sometimes create a Lo-Fi version too, for people that have these 'issues'.) Playing around with the output settings for the final render, I have found the 'Vimeo HD' setting seems to be the best quality against file size, no doubt the You-Tube one is similar. Tried outputting 1080 HD to an AVI once, ouch! Interesting thread and no doubt others will chip in with their experiences too. Thanks, Neil. (Still learning.) On 29 June 2011 08:36, Gregg Eshelman <[email protected]> wrote: > ** > > > Which is also why it's possible to edit uncompressed SD video on old boxes > like a Pentium III which might be barely capable of playing a DVD using > software decoding. Done there, been that. ;) Also experienced the fun of > maxing at 7 frames per second encoding to MPEG2, and that with a dual 450 > Mhz PIII server. The single CPU Socket A box I had at the time could get up > to 10, 12 with a tailwind! > > Does the same apply to HD where a system can edit it uncompressed with ease > but not be able to play it well or at all, and take forever to compress it? > Or are the requirements for editing high enough that playback and > compression at least as fast as realtime are no problem? > > > --- On Wed, 6/29/11, BEDFORD NEIL <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Hence the need for a faster processor > > to decompress the video.... the more > > the compression, the more power needed. > > > > > > > > MPEG2 is an old codec, goes back to the mid 1990's. > > MP4 is newer, more > > > optimized and can produce a better image than MPEG2 > > with higher levels of > > > compression. > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] ------------------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Adobe-Premiere/ <*> Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional <*> To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Adobe-Premiere/join (Yahoo! ID required) <*> To change settings via email: [email protected] [email protected] <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [email protected] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
