09-15-2003, 01:00 PM
|
|
|
09-15-2003, 01:28 PM
|
|
Pupil
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 13
|
|
What about Pentium M speeds?
Thanks for the articles. You mentioned Centrino laptops, but didn't comment on the speed differences with the pentium M chips. I am right now looking at laptops with 500MB RAM but with chips ranging from 1.3 to 1.7. I was wondering where on the price curve I needed to be for good performance.
|
| |
|
|
|
09-15-2003, 03:27 PM
|
|
Pupil
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 24
|
|
Quote:
but here's what you can learn by looking at Figure 2:
There's only one physical hard drive inside this computer, and it's 120 GB in size.
This hard drive is divided into four partitions: 15 GB, 15 GB, 40 GB, and 40 GB. All the partitions are in the NTFS format.
|
Jason comparing your text and the info in figure 2 I get a slight discrepancy :?:
I'm interested in video editing but I don't use XP I'm using Windows 2000
Apart from that 'info' on the first page there is good info to help those starting out on video editing. Overall a very good article Jason.
:Fade-color Do not adjust your set 
Regards
Alistair
|
| |
|
|
|
09-15-2003, 05:25 PM
|
|
Executive Editor
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 29,160
|
|
Re: What about Pentium M speeds?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by edramsey
Thanks for the articles. You mentioned Centrino laptops, but didn't comment on the speed differences with the pentium M chips. I am right now looking at laptops with 500MB RAM but with chips ranging from 1.3 to 1.7. I was wondering where on the price curve I needed to be for good performance.
|
That's because, at the time I updated these (2+ months ago), I didn't have a Pentium-M based laptop. :-) I've been qutie happy with the performance level of my 900 Mhz Pentium-M chip, but more speed is of course always better. If I had the option for those faster chips in my Fujitsu P5010D, I would have gone for the 1.6 Ghz - you most of the speed of the 1.7 Ghz, without the price premium.
|
| |
|
|
|
09-15-2003, 05:26 PM
|
|
Executive Editor
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 29,160
|
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Alicatt
Jason comparing your text and the info in figure 2 I get a slight discrepancy :?:
|
It would seem that the updated screen shot I sent in didn't get used. I'll see if I can get that fixed. :|
|
| |
|
|
|
09-15-2003, 05:26 PM
|
|
Intellectual
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 137
|
|
I haven't yet had a chance to read all of the articles, but what I read looks very good. Well done.
Two issues, though...
In your article about monitors, you mention one thing I don't agree with: You recommend LCD when purchasing monitors under 17". IF someone is doing any significant amount of video editing on a computer, I would have to say that CRT is a better way to go. Color on CRT is still better ("more accurate") than LCDs (try to discern a pale yellow from white on an LCD). Of course, if video editing is something someone only does occasionally, and desk space is something that is important, LCD all the way.
Along those same lines, if your final output for your video is going to be a television and you are editing using a MiniDV camera or are fortunate enough to have a high-quality analog capture card, your best bet is to hook that camera or card up to a real television (or NTSC monitor) and use that to preview your video so you can see what the video is REALLY going to look like. NTSC (used by televisions) and RGB (used by monitors) use different color spaces, so what looks good on your monitor might not look good on a television, and vice versa. In fact, many colors in the RGB space don't even have an NTSC equivalent (such as bright reds and yellows), and the signal levels of black and white on the two is completely different. So no matter how good your monitor is (CRT/LCD/plasma/whatever), what you see on screen is NOT what it is going to look like when that same video is played back on a TV. Captured video, when played back on a computer monitor, will appear dull and have low contrast. That same video, when played back on a television, could look bright, crisp, and colorful. So the only way to see what your video really looks like is to use a television or NTSC monitor while editing.
Just a couple of observations...
|
| |
|
|
|
09-15-2003, 05:34 PM
|
|
Pupil
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 24
|
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by djdj
So the only way to see what your video really looks like is to use a television or NTSC monitor while editing.
|
Or a PAL TV/Monitor for this side of the pond, PAL colour is yet diffrent again from NTSC and Computer graphics.
There is an offset you can use to get the colours / brightness much closer to what you will see on the good old telly (can't remember offhand the offset myself)
Regards
Alistair
|
| |
|
|
|
09-15-2003, 05:54 PM
|
|
Ponderer
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 64
|
|
Movie Maker vs Premiere
Any thoughts on what would make the huge cash outlay for Premiere Pro worth it over using the 'free' movie maker?
What sort of features is Movie Maker lacking?
|
| |
|
|
|
09-15-2003, 06:22 PM
|
|
Executive Editor
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 29,160
|
|
Re: Movie Maker vs Premiere
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by donkthemagicllama
Any thoughts on what would make the huge cash outlay for Premiere Pro worth it over using the 'free' movie maker?
|
Movie Maker 2.0 is actually a fairly capable program now for most things, although I have to confess I don't use it all that often. Premier is a great program, but overkill for what most people do. Personally, I find Pinnacle Studio 8 + muvee to handle most of my needs, but I don't try to do anything terribly complex with my videos. :-)
|
| |
|
|
|
09-15-2003, 06:42 PM
|
|
Thinker
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 338
|
|
Jason: Are we any closer to "Digital Media Thoughts" coming online?
Your ability to educate the community on digital video is impressive ... plus the comments of others doing the same is nice too. Having a home dedicated to those issues would be wonderful, and would be a must see daily stop on my web education tour! Please launch that site ASAP.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Linear Mode
