Groups

    Quick tips required please!

    Okay first one is as follows, i have been doing some video editing and conversion on my core2duo dell (e4300) that has 2gb of ram and on board graphics. It is pretty slow at converting, nero vision takes about 40 mins to convert a 1hr30min 700mb divx, pinnacle takes an absolute age to convert my movies to mpeg 2.

    Now the question is will a a cheap 20 quid graphics card make a dbig difference, i don't use my pc for gaming and don't intend to either. Hard to find some answers on the net for this.

    Now the second bit of advice i want is i've been oddered 2 tv's don'y know which to go for. Originally wanted a 32" but been offered a 32 and a 37. Panasonic tx 32lxd7 or Philips 37pfl5522. All i'm interested in is the picrtre quality of ps3 and upscaling of the philips 5960 dvd player i have.

    Any thoughts? Rep left for all good suggestions.

    19 Comments

    I find It's generally the programme that's slow, ]this is the fastest I have used and generally converts a 700MB file to MPEG2 in about 25-30 mins on my system which isn't as good as yours

    Banned

    I think you'll find 40 minutes for 1.5 hours converting is pretty good :thumbsup:

    Original Poster

    RedIron;2732767

    I find It's generally the programme that's slow, ]this is the fastest I … I find It's generally the programme that's slow, ]this is the fastest I have used and generally converts a 700MB file to MPEG2 in about 25-30 mins on my system which isn't as good as yours



    Cheers will give that a go, rep added. Any advice about the tv's anyone?

    Original Poster

    Foosball Chum;2732769

    I think you'll find 40 minutes for 1.5 hours converting is pretty good … I think you'll find 40 minutes for 1.5 hours converting is pretty good :thumbsup:



    I was expecting a bit faster tbh. So a gfx card isnt worth it? I thought thay may handle the video conversion better :thinking:

    kobirulali;2732823

    I was expecting a bit faster tbh. So a gfx card isnt worth it? I thought … I was expecting a bit faster tbh. So a gfx card isnt worth it? I thought thay may handle the video conversion better :thinking:



    The graphics card doesn't do the conversion, the CPU does it.

    The only thing a dedicated graphics card will do (instead of on-board graphics) is free up some memory which won't make much if any difference.

    takes me 3 hrs on Vista DVD maker :x:oops:

    Graphics won't improve your encoding, its mainly down to the software and CPU speed (and number of cores with threaded software). Video conversion is an intensive task - best thing to do is probably to schedule it to convert overnight in a batch.

    PS Remember that whilst there is some software that is inefficient and slow, its also often the case that the quickest compressions are lower in quality - the quality of the compressed output can be improved by doing more processing, multiple passes etc but this adds to the encoding time.

    That all said, a cheap graphics card is still often a worthwhile investment for a desktop machine even if it isn't used for games, as it can markedly improve the quality and speed of the display (especially in Vista!).

    Original Poster

    jah128;2732896

    Graphics won't improve your encoding, its mainly down to the software and … Graphics won't improve your encoding, its mainly down to the software and CPU speed (and number of cores with threaded software). Video conversion is an intensive task - best thing to do is probably to schedule it to convert overnight in a batch.PS Remember that whilst there is some software that is inefficient and slow, its also often the case that the quickest compressions are lower in quality - the quality of the compressed output can be improved by doing more processing, multiple passes etc but this adds to the encoding time.



    Cheers for the insight :thumbsup: rep added, oh well saved myself some money i guess

    Read my edit above - a cheap graphics card may still be a worthwhile purchase, but it won't really improve your encoding speed ;-)

    Run task manager when you are running the encoding software, and check that it is fully utilising both cores of the CPU - if not, consider looking for a multithreaded encoder.

    PS For what its worth those times seem pretty fast to me, your unlikely to recode video much faster in any format without significant investment.

    Original Poster

    happy donkey;2732851

    takes me 3 hrs on Vista DVD maker :x:oops:



    :w00t: i hope i didn't sound like a spoilt and ungraeteful git in the post :oops:

    Original Poster

    jah128;2732960

    Read my edit above - a cheap graphics card may still be a worthwhile … Read my edit above - a cheap graphics card may still be a worthwhile purchase, but it won't really improve your encoding speed ;-)Run task manager when you are running the encoding software, and check that it is fully utilising both cores of the CPU - if not, consider looking for a multithreaded encoder.



    Yep both are running 95-100% during the process.

    Doubt you would get it much faster without significant investment then. If you can leave it doing a batch overnight its not really that big an issue though ;-)

    Original Poster

    Cheers for all the help guys, first half of my requests is done, any help with tv's?

    Banned

    convertxtodvd is twice as quick as nero from my experience. takes about 25mins for a 2hour film. E520 2ghz.

    Banned

    32" is too small unless you sit 3 foot away

    Original Poster

    csiman;2733103

    32" is too small unless you sit 3 foot away



    I'm going to be about 4 foot away, there was a site with a calculator that said how far you should be........i'll dig it up

    Original Poster

    Ahh here we go...........
    ]http//ww…tml

    Banned

    kobirulali;2733765

    Ahh here we … Ahh here we go...........http://www.dtvcity.com/plasmatv/plasmascreensize.html


    states optimum is 37" for 4 foot distance. A new TV of this size and above at first seems too big but you soon get used to it. My 50" seems too small now from about 8-10 foot away but I couldnt afford the electric bill if I went bigger :-D

    Original Poster

    csiman;2735506

    states optimum is 37" for 4 foot distance. A new TV of this size and … states optimum is 37" for 4 foot distance. A new TV of this size and above at first seems too big but you soon get used to it. My 50" seems too small now from about 8-10 foot away but I couldnt afford the electric bill if I went bigger :-D



    You've founf the flaw in the scale, it starts from 37" regardless of distance, Eg type 1 fot it says 37". If you type 32" in first box it says you have to be 10.5 feet away. :thinking:
    Post a comment
    Avatar
    @
      Text
      Top Discussions
      1. Surprise! The HUKD Summer Flamedeer Hunt 2017 **OFFICIAL THREAD** (trading …4992464
      2. ❅☁☁❅ I want☼to talk☼about the☔WEATHER☔no politics☃no religion❅☁☁❅18846351
      3. GCSE Results day89
      4. Samsung Note 81118

      See more discussions