Need advice on a new computer

  • Thread starter Thread starter Charlie Hoffpauir
  • Start date Start date
C

Charlie Hoffpauir

My old build is 5 years old, and it's fine for everything I do except
video editing. I have 2 DVDs of video.... sent many many 8mm rolls off
to the lab and had it all scanned to video files.... now I have to go
thorough it all, arrange it chronologically, cut out crap and add in
transitions. This means lots of rendering.... and the old computer
doesn't want to do that very quickly. What parameters are best to
optomize for video editing? It seem like multiple threads might help,
but I don't know if my editing program (Premier Elements 9) supports
that.... and don't know how much memory will speed things up. Does
anyone know if a better software program would make things go faster?

Any recommendations appreciated.
 
Charlie said:
My old build is 5 years old, and it's fine for everything I do except
video editing. I have 2 DVDs of video.... sent many many 8mm rolls off
to the lab and had it all scanned to video files.... now I have to go
thorough it all, arrange it chronologically, cut out crap and add in
transitions. This means lots of rendering.... and the old computer
doesn't want to do that very quickly. What parameters are best to
optomize for video editing? It seem like multiple threads might help,
but I don't know if my editing program (Premier Elements 9) supports
that.... and don't know how much memory will speed things up. Does
anyone know if a better software program would make things go faster?

Any recommendations appreciated.
Click to expand...

Do you have any way to check threaded behavior on your current setup ?
Is your current setup dual core, or single core with Hyperthreading ?
If so, you may be able to judge from Task Manager.

The problem with your question, is the difficulty of getting
straight answers, about any piece of software. I can see your
question ("is my software capable of using multiple cores"),
asked over and over and over again, in Adobe forums, without
any honest answers. This makes it hard for me to promise you
*any* performance improvement.

Not all software algorithms parallelize easily. Some algorithms
for example, will run on two cores, with one of the two cores
doing the bulk of the work, and the other using maybe 30%. And this
is indicative, that a "huge machine" might not run any faster. The
other cores might end up idle in such a case.

Some problems, we know from first principles, they can be
scaled nicely. Some of the things Photoshop does, we can
chop a picture into four pieces, and run the same algorithm
on each piece, on its own core. And then use "stitching" to fix
the edges, to join them back together again. But even Photoshop,
not all the filters work that way. Some run on a single core,
and the others use many cores. Adobe does the single core
filters that way, for "accuracy".

I have a movie editor here, where lots of stuff runs on a single
core, and only during final render, are two cores used. Since
two cores are all that I have, I can't even say whether the
program would use four cores for render, if they were offered.

*******

The sweet spot for a new machine, would be 4C 8T processor for
around $300. A processor with 6C 12T could be around $700, with
a more expensive motherboard (total price around $1400 perhaps
when good RAM is included). For most people the additional
expense does not justify a 35% improvement in multithreaded
performance.

You will likely end up installing a 64 bit OS. Your 32 bit
programs will still run on there.

This table shows memory limits for various situations. Using
a 32 bit program on a 64 bit OS, the lowest max memory it could
use, is 2GB (same as your current setup). If "large address aware"
is available on the program, that lifts the limit slightly. You
can read the table for the various combinations. A 32 bit program
could use as much as 4GB of memory, under some circumstances.
(I'm still waiting to see more than 2GB happen here at my house :-) )

http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa366778(VS.85).aspx

Extra RAM might help if prefetching content, but I don't
see a reason to assume 2GB of memory helps apply an effect
to a single frame of video data. You might stage all your
content on a RAM drive, if you had enough memory in the
computer for that purpose. For example, this one could
build you a 60GB drive out of RAM, for a reasonable price
(i.e. this software is cheap, but RAM is not cheap).

http://memory.dataram.com/products-and-services/software/ramdisk

I use the free version, and have a 4GB RAM Drive running right now.
The product is pay-ware, if you want it to map larger amounts of
memory. The last time I checked, that program had a 64GB limit
(which would be an early PAE limit - some CPUs, the hardware
actually supports more than that, but we don't know what limits
the OS might have with regard to PAE or AWE memory).

So you can try throwing hardware resources at the problem,
but I can't guarantee you'll get 4X faster results than
your current machine.

A popular CPU choice, for $340.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819116901

http://ark.intel.com/products/75123/Intel-Core-i7-4770K-Processor-8M-Cache-up-to-3_90-GHz?q=4770k

Max Memory Size (dependent on memory type) 32 GB

Example of a memory kit. If you actually bought 4x8GB,
with the exception of the RAMDisk idea, most of the time
that RAM would be a total waste. $314. That's just to show
what you could throw into the motherboard of such a machine.
Even 2x4GB would be plenty, as a config (dual channel).

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820231674

A randomly selected motherboard, with room for 4 DIMMs. $177

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813132046

So I could easily fork out $825 if I was careless, or
a significantly smaller sum if I tempered my tastes a bit.

*******

If the sky was the limit, I'd go 4930K (as a 4960K isn't
going to be that much better). System cost in the $1400 range.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819116939

Or if I was a lunatic, maybe a dual G34. A couple of these
in a dual socket motherboard. But getting performance from
something like this, would only happen under very special
conditions (i.e. never going to happen). System cost would be
$3000 or so with an approach like this.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819113305

*******

I'm thinking a 4770K and two sticks of RAM, is enough :-) Given
the uncertainty of the outcome.

Paul
 
My old build is 5 years old, and it's fine for everything I do except
video editing. I have 2 DVDs of video.... sent many many 8mm rolls off
to the lab and had it all scanned to video files.... now I have to go
thorough it all, arrange it chronologically, cut out crap and add in
transitions. This means lots of rendering.... and the old computer
doesn't want to do that very quickly. What parameters are best to
optomize for video editing? It seem like multiple threads might help,
but I don't know if my editing program (Premier Elements 9) supports
that.... and don't know how much memory will speed things up. Does
anyone know if a better software program would make things go faster?

Any recommendations appreciated.
Click to expand...

Video software for multiple cores is both likely cutting edge and
expensive. Check DOOM9.net for alternatives in free offerings.

Building might take the approach of the best and most expensive of
maximum cores, say at least four, or maximum power on a selection of
four or two cores for less money. The latter, however, can involve
high-power draw processors at 125watts.

Writing predictive code for core branching decisions is notoriously
difficult. I personally prefer fewer cores at lower micron technology
to improved power efficiency consumption, though substantial among
directions to advancements to successive modern platforms, isn't
necessarily a better focus for intensive video processing.

Somewhere subsequent to offerings at the bare Celeron/Sempron level,
either in a dual, quad, possibly six-core, certainly for the money,
would be projected significance in purchasing a new system for
improvements as direct aim derived, in your case, from video
rendering.

Now, there's benefit being proffered in video-enabled CPU cores,
rendering PCI-E, a video-chipped MB redundant if entirely unnecessary.
"Power" CPUs also continue to stand beside them, although advancements
in raw power perhaps wouldn't be so singularly imposing, as
self-contained video, and consequently can be more easily seen for
yesteryear's offerings (discounting a direction for as many cores
possible, four, six, or more -- as mentioned, given limited resources
and a entrenched difficultly for writing code in any general sense to
employ all cores at all times most efficiently.)

If you'd mentioned you wanted it for games, I wouldn't have replied;-
also, since you've just a couple of film canister rolls, might not you
just bear through it. . .once processed, what have you then to keep
this new, extra-power build efficiently employed on? Granted,
downtime for CPUs has forever been a widening handicap for operators
to creatively come up with means to keep a CPU constantly streaming
code.
 
Do you have any way to check threaded behavior on your current setup ?
Is your current setup dual core, or single core with Hyperthreading ?
If so, you may be able to judge from Task Manager.
Click to expand...
I'll try looking at task manager when doing some rendering, to see if
it seems to be using both cores.

My system has an Intel dual core, E8400 65W processor.

The problem with your question, is the difficulty of getting
straight answers, about any piece of software. I can see your
question ("is my software capable of using multiple cores"),
asked over and over and over again, in Adobe forums, without
any honest answers. This makes it hard for me to promise you
*any* performance improvement.

Not all software algorithms parallelize easily. Some algorithms
for example, will run on two cores, with one of the two cores
doing the bulk of the work, and the other using maybe 30%. And this
is indicative, that a "huge machine" might not run any faster. The
other cores might end up idle in such a case.

Some problems, we know from first principles, they can be
scaled nicely. Some of the things Photoshop does, we can
chop a picture into four pieces, and run the same algorithm
on each piece, on its own core. And then use "stitching" to fix
the edges, to join them back together again. But even Photoshop,
not all the filters work that way. Some run on a single core,
and the others use many cores. Adobe does the single core
filters that way, for "accuracy".

I have a movie editor here, where lots of stuff runs on a single
core, and only during final render, are two cores used. Since
two cores are all that I have, I can't even say whether the
program would use four cores for render, if they were offered.

*******

The sweet spot for a new machine, would be 4C 8T processor for
around $300. A processor with 6C 12T could be around $700, with
a more expensive motherboard (total price around $1400 perhaps
when good RAM is included). For most people the additional
expense does not justify a 35% improvement in multithreaded
performance.

You will likely end up installing a 64 bit OS. Your 32 bit
programs will still run on there.
Click to expand...
Actually, I do have Win 7 pro, 64 bit.... have 8 GB DDR2 RAM (4 2GB
strips). If more RAM would be helpful, I could replace 2 sticks with 2
4 GB strips to go to 12 GB, but DDR2 is so much more expensive now, I
thought if I had to go to more RAM, I might just upgrade the whole
mess to use DDR3.
This table shows memory limits for various situations. Using
a 32 bit program on a 64 bit OS, the lowest max memory it could
use, is 2GB (same as your current setup). If "large address aware"
is available on the program, that lifts the limit slightly. You
can read the table for the various combinations. A 32 bit program
could use as much as 4GB of memory, under some circumstances.
(I'm still waiting to see more than 2GB happen here at my house :-) )

http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa366778(VS.85).aspx

Extra RAM might help if prefetching content, but I don't
see a reason to assume 2GB of memory helps apply an effect
to a single frame of video data. You might stage all your
content on a RAM drive, if you had enough memory in the
computer for that purpose. For example, this one could
build you a 60GB drive out of RAM, for a reasonable price
(i.e. this software is cheap, but RAM is not cheap).

http://memory.dataram.com/products-and-services/software/ramdisk

I use the free version, and have a 4GB RAM Drive running right now.
The product is pay-ware, if you want it to map larger amounts of
memory. The last time I checked, that program had a 64GB limit
(which would be an early PAE limit - some CPUs, the hardware
actually supports more than that, but we don't know what limits
the OS might have with regard to PAE or AWE memory).

So you can try throwing hardware resources at the problem,
but I can't guarantee you'll get 4X faster results than
your current machine.

A popular CPU choice, for $340.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819116901

http://ark.intel.com/products/75123/Intel-Core-i7-4770K-Processor-8M-Cache-up-to-3_90-GHz?q=4770k

Max Memory Size (dependent on memory type) 32 GB

Example of a memory kit. If you actually bought 4x8GB,
with the exception of the RAMDisk idea, most of the time
that RAM would be a total waste. $314. That's just to show
what you could throw into the motherboard of such a machine.
Even 2x4GB would be plenty, as a config (dual channel).

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16820231674

A randomly selected motherboard, with room for 4 DIMMs. $177

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813132046

So I could easily fork out $825 if I was careless, or
a significantly smaller sum if I tempered my tastes a bit.

*******

If the sky was the limit, I'd go 4930K (as a 4960K isn't
going to be that much better). System cost in the $1400 range.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819116939

Or if I was a lunatic, maybe a dual G34. A couple of these
in a dual socket motherboard. But getting performance from
something like this, would only happen under very special
conditions (i.e. never going to happen). System cost would be
$3000 or so with an approach like this.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819113305

*******

I'm thinking a 4770K and two sticks of RAM, is enough :-) Given
the uncertainty of the outcome.

Paul
Click to expand...

Thanks for all the comments, especially the ones about the "dream"
setups. Basically, I'm concluding that "any" improvement over my
present dual core, 8 GB RAM setup might only be marginal. As Flasherly
said in another reply, I might just tough it out. It "does" work, and
that way it only costs me time.
 
Video software for multiple cores is both likely cutting edge and
expensive. Check DOOM9.net for alternatives in free offerings.

Building might take the approach of the best and most expensive of
maximum cores, say at least four, or maximum power on a selection of
four or two cores for less money. The latter, however, can involve
high-power draw processors at 125watts.

Writing predictive code for core branching decisions is notoriously
difficult. I personally prefer fewer cores at lower micron technology
to improved power efficiency consumption, though substantial among
directions to advancements to successive modern platforms, isn't
necessarily a better focus for intensive video processing.

Somewhere subsequent to offerings at the bare Celeron/Sempron level,
either in a dual, quad, possibly six-core, certainly for the money,
would be projected significance in purchasing a new system for
improvements as direct aim derived, in your case, from video
rendering.

Now, there's benefit being proffered in video-enabled CPU cores,
rendering PCI-E, a video-chipped MB redundant if entirely unnecessary.
"Power" CPUs also continue to stand beside them, although advancements
in raw power perhaps wouldn't be so singularly imposing, as
self-contained video, and consequently can be more easily seen for
yesteryear's offerings (discounting a direction for as many cores
possible, four, six, or more -- as mentioned, given limited resources
and a entrenched difficultly for writing code in any general sense to
employ all cores at all times most efficiently.)

If you'd mentioned you wanted it for games, I wouldn't have replied;-
also, since you've just a couple of film canister rolls, might not you
just bear through it. . .once processed, what have you then to keep
this new, extra-power build efficiently employed on? Granted,
downtime for CPUs has forever been a widening handicap for operators
to creatively come up with means to keep a CPU constantly streaming
code.
Click to expand...

Thanks for your comments... As you say, what would I do with it after
the video processing is finished? The most sophisticated game I play
is spider solitare, so what I have now is great for what I do, lots of
Photoshop, and some database (Access and Filemaker pro), some
spreadsheet, and some MS word, all those mainly associated with
genealogy work. I do have lots of stuff open at the same time when
heavily inbto genealogy, but the present system seems to handle that
without any problems.
 
Charlie said:
Thanks for all the comments, especially the ones about the "dream"
setups. Basically, I'm concluding that "any" improvement over my
present dual core, 8 GB RAM setup might only be marginal. As Flasherly
said in another reply, I might just tough it out. It "does" work, and
that way it only costs me time.
Click to expand...

I'm just trying to keep that guy at the Intel plant busy :-)

Your 8GB of RAM should be good enough. You can use
Task Manager, to see if any of it is being used during
your video editing session. I don't expect sinking more
money into that, would make a bit of difference.

Paul
 
As you say, what would I do with it after
the video processing is finished?
Click to expand...

Just keep those edges clean and ready when the time is right. They
all eventually develop core problems and require effectively a new
system build. (Heh - I've a single core P4 on the backburner, still
working last I looked, in case either my dualcores go belly up.)
 
My old build is 5 years old, and it's fine for everything I do except
video editing. I have 2 DVDs of video.... sent many many 8mm rolls off
to the lab and had it all scanned to video files.... now I have to go
thorough it all, arrange it chronologically, cut out crap and add in
transitions. This means lots of rendering.... and the old computer
doesn't want to do that very quickly. What parameters are best to
optomize for video editing? It seem like multiple threads might help,
but I don't know if my editing program (Premier Elements 9) supports
that.... and don't know how much memory will speed things up. Does
anyone know if a better software program would make things go faster?

Any recommendations appreciated.
Click to expand...

According to this review:
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2372120,00.asp

"Both Elements—Premiere and Photoshop—can be had for $149.99 together or
$99.99 separately. If you're upgrading from a previous version, those
prices drop to $119.99 and $79.99. The software is available for both
Windows (XP with SP3, Vista with SP2, Windows 7, or Windows 8 & 8.1) and
Mac (OS X v10.7 through v10.9). On Windows it requires a 2GHz or faster
processor with SSE2 support, 2GB RAM (though I'd recommend more), and a
DX 9 or 10 graphics card with at least a 1024x768 monitor. It only runs
at 64-bits on Windows 7, 8, and 8.1 and Mac. For this review, I tested
Premiere Elements 12 on a 3.4GHz AMD quad-core Windows 7 Ultimate PC
with 8GB DDR3 RAM and an ATI Radeon HD 4290 graphics adapter."

The only things it needs are SSE2 support and a DirectX 9 or 10 video
card. Of course, that's for Premiere Elements 12, rather than PE 9, so
PE 9 might be even more lax on its requirements.

How much RAM and how many cores do you have on your current rig?

Yousuf Khan
 
Thanks for your comments... As you say, what would I do with it after
the video processing is finished? The most sophisticated game I play
is spider solitare, so what I have now is great for what I do, lots of
Photoshop, and some database (Access and Filemaker pro), some
spreadsheet, and some MS word, all those mainly associated with
genealogy work. I do have lots of stuff open at the same time when
heavily inbto genealogy, but the present system seems to handle that
without any problems.
Click to expand...

A good quality AMD FX 6300 system with DDR3 might be a good upgrade
nowadays. The FX's are much under-rated, but not only are they extremely
good for gaming, they also usually have more cores than typical Intel
systems for much less price. When multithreading is important, then FX's
are good cheap way to get there.

Yousuf Khan
 
According to this review:
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2372120,00.asp

"Both Elements—Premiere and Photoshop—can be had for $149.99 together or
$99.99 separately. If you're upgrading from a previous version, those
prices drop to $119.99 and $79.99. The software is available for both
Windows (XP with SP3, Vista with SP2, Windows 7, or Windows 8 & 8.1) and
Mac (OS X v10.7 through v10.9). On Windows it requires a 2GHz or faster
processor with SSE2 support, 2GB RAM (though I'd recommend more), and a
DX 9 or 10 graphics card with at least a 1024x768 monitor. It only runs
at 64-bits on Windows 7, 8, and 8.1 and Mac. For this review, I tested
Premiere Elements 12 on a 3.4GHz AMD quad-core Windows 7 Ultimate PC
with 8GB DDR3 RAM and an ATI Radeon HD 4290 graphics adapter."

The only things it needs are SSE2 support and a DirectX 9 or 10 video
card. Of course, that's for Premiere Elements 12, rather than PE 9, so
PE 9 might be even more lax on its requirements.

How much RAM and how many cores do you have on your current rig?

Yousuf Khan
Click to expand...

2 cores (Intel E8400) and 8 GB, Win 7 64bit.
 
I built a cheap system just for that purpose and did it well.

AMD Phenom(tm) II X6 1055T Processor, 2800 Mhz, 6 Core(s), 6 Logical
Processor(s)

$22.00

ASUS M4A87TD/USB3 AM3 AMD 870 SATA 6Gb/s USB 3.0 ATX AMD Motherboard

Around $80.
Nvidia GeForce GTX 550 Ti, 1GB GDDR5, PCI-E 2.0 x 16, Graphics Card

About $180.

16BG DDR3 RAM about $150.

750W PSU about $75.
Click to expand...

Good stuff but could be overall cheaper.

Excellent price on the processor.

Not bad for the ASUS - not a budget MB, but for the price better off
with the ASUS brandname rather than some lesser name for $50 that's
not as reputable.

Graphics card really isn't a need for video rendering only unless
there's a confidence/realtime-monitoring thing going on. Assign the
video job for its parameters and view the results after it's
rendered/compiled. Last I processed video, anyway (no special
effects, fades and whatnot.)

Memory has always been relatively cheap, last I looked, in
well-reviewed noname Newegg offerings. Dig around a little in the
reivews for adequate matches on a given MB to memory offerings.

Maybe shave a few bucks on a PS rebate/sale for something along 500W
in a topnotch brand, SeaSonic possibly.

The memory, both amount and price, and a $180 videoboard - I'd
question those items, though. That's somewhere liberally between 200,
250 to discount for otherwise $300 you've added into the build.

(Last build, my idea of cheap on the new, I priced for myself, not
that long ago, I had a total at around $120 - basic core components:
MB/CPU/MEM. Likely a dual-core in newer FX/CPU-graphics enabled, as
anything more I likely wouldn't need - case and PS, all that stuff,
I've already spare generic parts. Not a graphics intensive thing,
either, of course. Most I have to impose on a processor is regular
multimedia decoding/streaming, along with some simultaneous sound
processing - heats up my present 3Ghz x2 Athlon a bit is all. MB
chipset runs at 130F and CPU at 115F while carrying those loads.
Forget my wattage draw offhand.)
 
I built a cheap system just for that purpose and did it well.

AMD Phenom(tm) II X6 1055T Processor, 2800 Mhz, 6 Core(s), 6 Logical
Processor(s)

$22.00
Click to expand...

This must have been $122, no? I've never seen it going for less than $100,
even used.

DK
 
All very true. I was mostly posting an example and spent little time on
prices and research in real time. I like the board and processor as
it's now over clocked and has given me no trouble. I've had this
particular system for some time now. I'm ready to build one more. Your
right about the video card but I would be careful with the psu. I've had
one go bad and when that happens it can take out more hardware when it goes.
Click to expand...

That's what I figured (in mention to DK) - you'd found the CPU on
Ebay. Must have been your day - six, no wait. . .

AMD Phenom(tm) II X6 1055T Processor, 2800 Mhz, 6 Core(s), 6 Logical
Processor(s)

Had to do that just to wrap my ears around it again. Bear with me, as
I've only had duals, so six is sorta rocket science or something. But,
wait, there's more: (Once more) for $22;- Stuff from Outer Space, fer
sure.

Be careful about what you say about power supply units taking out
other components. I was trying to tell people I had a bad ASUS MB
that was repeatedly taking out Power Supplies. According to common
regard, I was informed, a PS has protective circuitry which cannot
negatively affect or be complicit as part of a chain causing failure
to otherwise good components. That is to include the PS unit itself.

Velly, velly well. So much for the smoke I saw arising out from a
Sparkle/Fortron unit: Thick and literally as heavy as a proverbial
brick, I was so proud to research that unit down, buy, use and own it
for several years. 400-watts of pure server grade, as a matter of
fact, at least unit my ASUS long last up and "ate" it.

As far as PS units do go, though, my motto is nevertheless: do buy,
never skimp on the best known quality make you can afford for what you
see as your projected need.

PS- O- &BTW- I've since been running a set of modest socket-type
replacement Gigabyte MBs these days, fwiw. (Heh - not enough space
between their ears to mention six cores.)
 
Charlie said:
My old build is 5 years old, and it's fine for everything I do except
video editing. I have 2 DVDs of video.... sent many many 8mm rolls off
to the lab and had it all scanned to video files.... now I have to go
thorough it all, arrange it chronologically, cut out crap and add in
transitions. This means lots of rendering.... and the old computer
doesn't want to do that very quickly. What parameters are best to
optomize for video editing? It seem like multiple threads might help,
but I don't know if my editing program (Premier Elements 9) supports
that.... and don't know how much memory will speed things up. Does
anyone know if a better software program would make things go faster?
Click to expand...

To which file format has your 8mm film been converted? If .mpg, ideally
you don't want to re-render or you will lose quality. Choosing a program
which can smart render and only re-render your "transitions" might
completely negate your need for a hardware upgrade.
 
To which file format has your 8mm film been converted? If .mpg, ideally
you don't want to re-render or you will lose quality. Choosing a program
which can smart render and only re-render your "transitions" might
completely negate your need for a hardware upgrade.
Click to expand...
Now that's interesting! I really don't know much about this, so
tomorrow I'll load the DVD and take a look and see exactly what I
have, and post back here.
 
Now that's interesting! I really don't know much about this, so
tomorrow I'll load the DVD and take a look and see exactly what I
have, and post back here.
Click to expand...

OK, a quick look at the DVD shows that they are all VOB files. some
time ago I copied them to my hard drive, and attempted to rename them
all in date order, but that's still a mess. I can load these files
into Premier Elements, and it will allow me to then combine them, cut
out sections, insert transitions, etc., but it seems to want to render
before I can leave Premier.
Appreciate any suggestions.
 
Appreciate any suggestions.
Click to expand...

VOB is the standard format for any standard Walmart DVD settop player
for a movie disc rental.

I'd like to take this opportunity to welcome you to broadcast
engineering! . . . http://forum.doom9.org/

(The FCC just passed a law yesterday that will allow ISP carriers to
raise the rates on Internet service sites, notably businesses which
provide higher bandwidth content. Broadcasting sites, such as NetFlix
or Amazon with film and "television" content-for-subscription, are no
longer immune under a prior laws governing a WWW "pipelines for all
the people all the time." Progressive policy progress probably, if
not good enough reason to keep my bandwidth the same and double my
rates for the greater glory of general principles.)
 
Charlie said:
OK, a quick look at the DVD shows that they are all VOB files. some
time ago I copied them to my hard drive, and attempted to rename them
all in date order, but that's still a mess. I can load these files
into Premier Elements, and it will allow me to then combine them, cut
out sections, insert transitions, etc., but it seems to want to render
before I can leave Premier.
Appreciate any suggestions.
Click to expand...

Most likely, the .vob files are containers for mpeg2. Copy one off a DVD
and rename
the extension to .mpg. Check the properties while it is playing in MPC
(Media Player
Classic) or whatever app you may have that can show this information.

There is an app called Video Redo which has a lot of fans. The TV Suite
version says it
can import from DVD. It supports smart rendering and can add transitions.
There is
a free trial, which has an output time limit-- I believe it is 15 minutes.
http://www.videoredo.com/en/index.htm

When I tried it on .mpg files created by my TV Tuner card (many years ago),
the audio
became out of sync so I just rage quit and used Mpeg2schnitt, which is free,
but requires
de-multiplexing to elementary files and then re-multiplexing afterwards. It
also does not
do transitions.
 
Most likely, the .vob files are containers for mpeg2. Copy one off a DVD
and rename
the extension to .mpg. Check the properties while it is playing in MPC
(Media Player
Classic) or whatever app you may have that can show this information.
Click to expand...

Dropping VOB directly off DVD onto MPC is sufficient.

DK
 
Back
Top