Video Editing Workstation

[Craig Tarry]

Hello, I've decided to build my own work staion for editing video as in short films, and video for broadcast, etc. I need to know what kind of system I need - size of hard drive, etc.etc.

 

I appreciate any feedback Thanks - CraigT

[Jon Allen]

It always depends on how much you're going to be doing.

I've found that that you can buy a cheap windows system with enough gadgets for a starter for less than $1000, but then you'll be working primarily with windows movie maker or something along the lines of a cheap pinnacle suite.

If you're wanting a little bit more powerful software, be prepared to drop $700 for adobe premiere pro.

On the other hand, apple offers a competitive package of software and hardware that will likely not be outdated as quickly as a PC. The flipside of apple is that you get what you pay for, and you get a lot!

Concerning hard-drive space, regular uncompressed DV is 3.3MB per second, so just multiply that by how many seconds you plan on storing for a project. Again, apple shines with it's offline RT editing, you can import low-res editable versions of your footage for about 1/10 the disk requirements. But be forewarned, make sure you know how to do the offline editing and uprezzing before you go and shoot a lot.

Avid has about a dozen versions of it's editing software, which makes me too confused- so I don't even bother, but if you can find out what you would use, then Avid would be worth looking into for an editing suite.

As far as the other goodies go, a deck of some sort (I would imagine) and possibly two monitors, (might turn into an extra video card expense) and a broadcast quality TV monitor. plus a DVD burner possibly... flat-response speakers/headphones and external storage (backups, etc)... can't think of much else...

hope this helps!

[Adam Frisch FSF]

These recommendations easily turn into a PC vs. Mac war. I'm an Apple-man and I can only give the warmest recommendation to Apple's Final Cut Pro. It has turned the tables of every NLE software maker there is. Premiere Pro is good, but not as good - this is a general consensus. Avid is good, but very expensive. Final Cut can do everything you need done for a very low price and it's a much more capable program than the Avid when it comes to effects, texts and keying. Many big Hollywood features are edited on FCP nowadays - the reign of the Avid is over. And it just works, straight out of the box. With PC's it's always this card here, this upgrade there and so on that you need to add or "you are missing .dll file 1482" or something.

 

But if you're familiar with PC and confident on that platform, the PC's can turn out a little bit cheaper.

 

I'm sure Phil Rhodes has some other advice for you.

[Jon Allen]

**Tech-head warning**

I guess one last thing: if you're going to be doing a lot of editing, I would recommend no less than 1GB of RAM- and the fastest you can get. This is where my work apple tears up my home machine.

PC2100 vs PC3200 (266MHz/400MHz). And the 1GHz FSB, as opposed to my dinky 400Mhz.

Also, don't be too worried about processor bits. Apple touts that it has dual 64-bit processors, which essentially give you twice the throughput for a single processor, then you can double that with an extra G5. The problem is (to my knowledge) that FCP is still only a 32 bit program, so you'll not really be operating at truly 64 bits when you're editing.

If you're concerned about price, I would recommend a fast P4 with HT and a lot of RAM, of course, an apple works natively with quicktime, which is becoming a standard, which means it doesnt have to convert or translate files when you import them into a project (a problem I have constantly when working with quicktime in premiere). But again, an apple system will cost you no less than $2200 when outfitted with a gig of ram, dual processors and a superdrive- Which I will add does not feature DVD+R support yet, that means you're limited to DVD-5. But that may not mean a lot to some of you guys.

[Phil Rhodes]

Hi,

 

Worth pointing out that Macs are notoriously RAM hungry - figure twice as much to do the same job as a PC, but really, it's hardly an issue - it doesn't cost anything, so load up with all it'll take.

 

Phil

[Joe Black]

Hello, I've decided to build my own work staion for editing video as in short films, and video for broadcast, etc. I need to know what kind of system I need - size of hard drive, etc.etc.

 

I appreciate any feedback Thanks - CraigT

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

My background started on UNIX & PC special effects animation/highend 3D software about 8 years ago. I've gone into film editing the lats 2.5 years.

 

I am not a PC vs. Mac guy. But I am speaking solely from my opions of actual use. For 3D, special effects, and games... I say PC. for editing... go Mac.

 

Yah, you pay x2 as much for RAM depending where you get it... but overall power when it comes to Mac now-a-days is pretty strong with Final Cut HD. If you are planning just doing everything via firewire... then definitely look into that route. I know too many people who pulled their hair out with trying to go low budget on an editing system for PC, and they just never cut it unless you have a $15,000 avid setup with exact hardware. I have many friends who use Avid setups at work, but at home use Mac.

 

If you really want to build a PC for editing... I really suggest talking to people who have PC setups that actually run production work which are not AVID. Get their exact system setups which they run Adobe Premiere and After effects on. I wouldn't rely on internet forum BBs for opinions unless one of the people who are pro-pc actually has a functional PC setup non-avid based.

[Guest Daniel J. Ashley-Smith]

My editing suite consists of

 

2X 120 GB hard drives

 

P4 2.66 GHz

 

1024 DDR Ram

---------------

 

And to be honest it's working great. One mistake never to do is buy an AMD Athlon/Duron processor. They actually run faster than Pentium, but when you start putting them under stress they will fry like an egg. And would you believe it some people try over clocking these things... And from my experience in editing, your processor is going through hell, AMD just wouldn't stand up to that kind of work load.

 

+ AMD = Fast, Cheap

- AMD = Burns out quickly

 

+ Pentium 4 = Will last you years on end of the most brutal use

- Pentium 4 = Comparably slower compared to the AMD, and more expensive

 

 

A good basic editing suite wouldn't cost a huge amount. I bought mine for £650 last Christmas, and that's got all the goodies. (DVD Writer, firewire, 5.1 sound e.t.c.)

I've edited all my films with it, it work's fine.

Edited November 9, 2004 by Daniel J. Ashley-Smith

[Keith Mottram]

if your starting from scratch get a mac and FCP, its now a great time to get it as 4.5HD is a pretty solid programme. Its the first version of it that I've felt happy with (I've been editing on Avid for 10 years), plus its really expandable. If your just thinking of DV or DVCpro get two 7200 drives internally, stripe them together and run your OS from an external FW drive. You'll be able to set yourself up this way with a simple braoadcast suite for about 300 UKP, as mentioned before get as much ram as you can afford. If you think you'll end up going to HD eventually get a G5 2ghz but if not just get a 1.8 if you'd prefer to save the cash. Dont forget you'll want 2 monitors and if you want SDI or component out you'll need another card - about 500 UKP for a Black Magic SD board. Alternatively get yourself a top spec PC with Premiere PRO and spend the next few years watching it devalue while you tear your hair out, ha ha. But seriously if you want to go PC get yourself AVID Xpress PRO its a great piece of software and untill FCP 4.5HD I used it as my main home system (although on a mac).

 

At the end of the day its your editing skills not the computer or programme that will make your film good, but if you do saddle yourself with a crappy setup, especially one that relies on WMV you'll create so many problems you might just give up.

 

Keith

[Guest Daniel J. Ashley-Smith]

Don?t forget you'll want 2 monitors

Yeh, and if you haven't got a TV handy, get a TFT monitor, for previewing the footage.

The refresh rates on CRT monitors differs from a TV, so you won't get an accurate preview of what it will REALLY look like.

 

I've never experienced any problems with RAM, I have 1024 DDR and I've never used all of it (But then again I've only edited 400,000 pixel footage...) I'd say once you have a descent amount of RAM, the main things are getting a fast CPU and fast hard drives.

 

If you can afford it and want to get into serious editing, get two hard drives. One 50gig, the other 120 gig (or more)

 

Maxtor or Seagate. Cheaper brands seem to blow after a while.

 

The 50 gig hard drive will be used to store all your software, and the 120 gig drive is to store all the video data. It may cause the system to slow right down if your using the same hard drive for running the software AND the video.

 

 

Bear in mind I am referring to a PC/Windows, not Apple/MAC. I never really took to MAC, I've stuck with good'old Microshit.

 

I think Bill has finally got it right with XP.

Edited November 9, 2004 by Daniel J. Ashley-Smith

[Jon Allen]

Here's the two systems I work with:

The work computer:

Dual 2.0GHz G5, 1.5GB RAM, 160GB SATA HD, Radeon Vid Card, 2xMonitors, External Firewire drive.

This thing screams! I use it for both FCP and AE. I read an article that says FCP HD can only allocate 2.5GB RAM to it's use, just consider that if you're wanting to max out your machine, that last gig or so might be wasted.

 

The system I put together at home a few years back.

2GHz P4, 1GB RAM, Striped RAID 30GB 7200RPM HDs (for system), 80GB HD for storage, Radeon 8500DV AIW vid card.

This system is still decent with premiere pro, however, I would prefer something with a new processor, P4 chip are now nearly twice as fast with HT and faster system busses. On the flipside, if I ever get into 3D, this would make a killer render box.

The RAID on the hard drives is actually one of the best things I did to extend the life of this box. Once you lower the access time to your harddrive, really the only thing slow on this box anymore is the processor, which is upgradeable easily enough- but I think I'm saving up for a camera right now.

[Guest Daniel J. Ashley-Smith]

Dual 2.0GHz G5, 1.5GB RAM, 160GB SATA HD, Radeon Vid Card, 2xMonitors, External Firewire drive

Yeh, bet that cost a bit eh ;)

 

Uhh, what IS the significance of using SATA hard drives exactly? All that I notice is the size of the wires, your not jamming your computer up with ribbon cables.

 

I actually replaced my ribbon cables for a new type to help with air flow, they're the same but they have wrapped the ribbon cable round and contained it in a single rubber pipe. And they come in nice colours too! :P (Yeh.. complete sad ass aren't I..)

Edited November 9, 2004 by Daniel J. Ashley-Smith

[Jon Allen]

My work machine cost a pretty penny. We have a deal with a local retailer in town, but yeah, I couldn't afford a machine like that.

 

SATA (serial ATA) is basically a fast version of UATA/UDMA. Older ATA/DMA/IDE can only carry information from 33MB/s up to 133MB/s. SATA now transfers up to 150MB/s, which can now warrant an upgrade to a 10,000RPM hard drive. Older HDs had a max of 7200RPM.

 

When you RAID two older IDE devices you can virtually double your HD access speed. When I striped two UATA133/7200RPM harddrives, you could mathematically concieve that my harddrive bandwidth would allow for up to 266MB/s. Although this isn't the case, it probably tops somewhere right above 200MB/s. Either way, it's as fast or faster than SATA for cheaper.

Granted, you can RAID SATA harddrives too, but that wasn't economically feasable for me. I already had the drives and all I had to get was the IDE RAID controller card for $30. As opposed to getting a SATA card and two SATA drives- which a year+ ago wasn't very cheap at all.

[Keith Mottram]

I think Bill has finally got it right with XP.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

yeah i agree, i think there are currently only about 90 known viruses for the most recent update.

[Jon Allen]

yeah i agree, i think there are currently only about 90 known viruses for the most recent update.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Do you mean service pack 2 or the hot fixes?

[Alvin Pingol]

SP2 is terrible. I spent about 4 hours trying to fix my computer after this so-called "service" pack.

 

After reinstalling/updating my drivers and modifying my boot sequence to get things back to "normal," I find that one can choose to uninstall SP2. Of course, I just had to find this out, after spending several hours fixing things.

 

Re: Intel vs. AMD, Sure AMD chips may run a little faster, but I think more applications are optimized for SSE-2 (i.e. Pentium 4-based) routines, rather than AMD's 3DNOW! technology. But who knows, given how fast technology evolves, I could be wrong come this very moment.

[Phil Rhodes]

Hi,

 

I've used AthlonXP processors for general work for years, without any problem I'd attribute to them. They also have somewhat faster memory management, particularly the new 64bit varieties, which is particularly useful with memory-intensive applications such as video frame handling.

 

Serial ATA does at least have the potential to be slightly faster than the older standard, but most of the current drives are just old-style mechanisms with a serial ATA controller on the back - so the results are similar in practice. There's a question as to whether a 7200rpm drive will ever be able to fill the available bandwidth, but 10,000 or 15,000RPM devices are cripplingly expensive. RAID may be the solution; it's what I use, and I have to say even with DVSD material it makes the work much more pleasurable.

 

Looking at video on a TFT is insane. They have exactly the same refresh-rate concerns as CRTs, but the motion rendering is so poor that you can't see the error! Also, the colour rendering is rotten, and generally can't be corrected to anything reasonable - the blacks are too grey.

 

There is no particular problem with using a single drive for video data and software. The performance issue with fragmentation was a problem when the entire system was only barely capable of sustaining the rates required for DVSD video. This is no longer the case and with diligent defragmentation I've never had a problem on my single-drive systems.

 

I really wouldn't buy any storage other than serial ATA at the moment. It's the future! Well seriously, it's going to be the mainstream type fairly shortly, and you may have problems finding accessories for paralell drives.

 

> unless one of the people who are pro-pc actually has a functional PC setup non-avid based

 

That would be me. There's very little point in buying Avid unless you have a really good reason to be compatible with other Avids; FCP is better for longform and film cutting, and Premiere is better for short promos and stings, particularly in concert with After Effects.

 

Motherboard type seems to be important. I've had good luck with Abit and Asus, and both companies sell boards with inbuilt RAID controllers, which is good. I'm not sure it's worth taking all this stuff about buying top quality RAM too much to heart. It's a digital system, it either works or it doesn't!

 

Phil

[Guest Daniel J. Ashley-Smith]

I've used AthlonXP processors for general work for years, without any problem I'd attribute to them

Well you've been very lucky.. I've always seen them to burn out when put under a lot of work load. My old computer did it, my friends computer did it, where as I have a 10 year old pentium running perfectly.

 

Looking at video on a TFT is insane. They have exactly the same refresh-rate concerns as CRTs, but the motion rendering is so poor that you can't see the error! Also, the colour rendering is rotten, and generally can't be corrected to anything reasonable - the blacks are too grey.

What TFT's have you been looking at... I admit, the overall quality and sharpness is not like a CRT, but it's closer to that of a TV. Plus long hours of editing can't do you any good with a CRT, depending if you feel like waking up in the morning 10 foot tall glowing green.. :o

 

There is no particular problem with using a single drive for video data and software. The performance issue with fragmentation was a problem when the entire system was only barely capable of sustaining the rates required for DVSD video. This is no longer the case and with diligent defragmentation I've never had a problem on my single-drive systems.

Using the same hard drive for both will mean having to read to parts of information that are completely separate from each other. But it's not a huge issue, but I still like to use 2 hard drives. One system drive, the other media.

Edited November 10, 2004 by Daniel J. Ashley-Smith

[Jon Allen]

Using the same hard drive for both will mean having to read to parts of information that are completely separate from each other. But it's not a huge issue, but I still like to use 2 hard drives. One system drive, the other media.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I think having at least two drives is important- at least a partition for system files and one for media files. This makes it easier for your computer to realize "Hey! All the files I need are right here! Amazing" Well, not quite like that, but you get the idea.

It also makes sense to have a scratch/render drive on top of the other two. System drives get fragmented from simply surfing the internet and render files never seem to be anything but fragmented, so a drive that simply doesnt get read/written to a lot will be less fragged - thus, your search times will be lower.

[Phil Rhodes]

Hi,

 

> admit, the overall quality and sharpness is not like a CRT, but it's closer to that

> of a TV

 

No, it isn't - most TVs are CRTs! Also LCD monitors tend to be sharper, at least in terms of astigmatism and colour convergence, being as these characteristics are hardwired into the display. The problem is the speed - you can clearly see frame blurring on most LCDs - and colour gamut.

 

Modern CRTs do not emit noticeable amounts of anything except X-rays, which generally don't make it more than an inch or so beyond the tube before decaying to background levels. If the shadowmask or whatever metal grid is in vogue at the moment wasn't there, it might be a different story.

 

Phil

[Guest Daniel J. Ashley-Smith]

TV's are not as good as quality, I have tried plugging my computer into a TV via S-video and I found it hard to even read what was on the screen. And it wasn't just my graphics card or TV, a few of my friends have tried it, and still the quality was bad.

 

And when I say CRT I am referring to computer monitors.

 

I have always found TFT to look very similar to a TV, apart from the quality.

Edited November 10, 2004 by Daniel J. Ashley-Smith

[Phil Rhodes]

Hi,

 

> TV's are not as good as quality, I have tried plugging my computer into a TV via

> S-video and I found it hard to even read what was on the screen.

 

Yes, and that's because the TV is still scanning 600 or so lines interlaced, whereas the VGA might easily be doing twice that. The colour rendition and black level is still considerably better on a CRT based video monitor than it would ever be on an LCD.

 

> And when I say CRT I am referring to computer monitors.

 

Well, that might be what you think you're referring to, but the cathode ray tube is the glass thing you're looking at right now, and there's one in both computer VGA monitors and in TV sets.

 

> I have always found TFT to look very similar to a TV, apart from the quality.

 

Yerm. So if the "quality" is different, what's the same!?

 

Phil

[Guest Daniel J. Ashley-Smith]

Well, that might be what you think you're referring to, but the cathode ray tube is the glass thing you're looking at right now, and there's one in both computer VGA monitors and in TV sets.

I'm trying to make things simple here. CRT = PC Monitor.

 

Yerm. So if the "quality" is different, what's the same!?

 

Well, I mainly said about the TFT because of the refresh rate. I was under the impression that the refresh rate of a TFT monitor was the same of a TV. But, I could be wrong, I don't know that for sure because I have only been told it.

Edited November 10, 2004 by Daniel J. Ashley-Smith

[Jason Maeda]

phil that's interesting you say that about TFT monitors. i feel like when i first saw one at work i was really impressed, and i remember my friend saying the same thing at the time. were we being drawn in by something else like screen brightness or whatever?

 

if they do suck it's a shame especially for the amateur (like me) at home (in new york) trying to save a little workspace. ("2nd monitor or the microwave? hmmm.....")

 

jk

:ph34r:

[Phil Rhodes]

Hi,

 

TFTs are sharp and well aligned by their very nature; they don't strobe or flicker, and they're flat and nonreflective. They're very nice for the UI of your nonlinear editior, for writing up invoices, or for other non-imaging computer tasks. Just don't ask one to produce accurate colorimitery because it just won't. I find them very attractive to use, just not for imaging work.

 

Phil

[Guest Daniel J. Ashley-Smith]

I find them very attractive to use, just not for imaging work.

 

Ah yes but that is an opinion. I know some graphics artists who run a shop and they use TFT's.