Author Topic: I tried a Mac for video editing...  (Read 118721 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline EEVblog

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 27422
  • Country: au
    • EEVblog
I tried a Mac for video editing...
« on: April 08, 2013, 01:36:21 pm »
Well, I did it, I bravely entered an Apple store today  :o
Me: "Where's your Mac Pro, I want to try Final Cut Pro"
Dude: "Over there Sir"
Me: "No, that's the notebook, I want the desktop"
Dude: "Oh, I think we might have one right over there in the back"
Me: "Ok, so how do I use Final Cut Pro"
Dude: "What's that?"
Me: "It's video editing software"
Dude: "I'll have to see if a technology training specialist can help you with that."
Me: "Ok, thanks. I'll have a go myself while I wait. Now, how do I copy these files from my USB stick to the hard drive"
Dude: "You just drag and drop"
Me: "I can't use a copy command?"
Dude: "I have no idea, you just drag and drop"

New specialist dude arrives.

Dude: "I highly recommend you don't get the Mac Pro desktop"
Me: "Why?"
Dude: "It hasn't been updated in a long time, and it's just not recommended as a new system"
Me: "But I need to install a PCI accelerator card"
Dude: (has actually heard of the matrox card, impressive) "Ah, ok, that's the only reason you'd want one.
Me: "So how do a I copy these .MTS video files from my camera into Final Cut"
Dude: "You can't do that, it has be in the original card format"
Me: "You're kidding right? I can't just copy and drop a .MTS file onto the timeline"
Dude: "Nope, it's always been that way, it's silly"
Me: "That's almost a show stopper. How about this .MP4 file?"

and to cut it short, the MP4 file worked, Final Cut Pro edited stuff like I expected it to, and Compressor did seem to have a Constant Quality H.264 render option.

So we started rendering my 10 minute H.264 MP4 file (with no edits, just a single clip on the timeline) with same specs as the input file and default "High" for constant quality setting. And we watched the progress bar creep up and up I gave up at the 30 min mark when it still wasn't half way, and it said 39min left.

Me: "This is your top of the line Mac Pro right?"
Dude: "Yep, fully optioned up"
Me: "Is it always this slow to render"?
Dude: "Yep."

Holy crap.
No wonder the Matrox CompressHD card boasts that it takes Final Cut Pro up to "real time" rendering, it had bloody well want to!

For reference, to render and transcode the same 10 minute video on my current system, would take <20min total, for both steps in the process.
And I have a nothing special i7 notebook.

So it looks like, at best, a $3000+ Mac Pro with $330 Final Cut pro and a $500 Compress HD card would probably come out the same speed as a relatively high power cheap i7 system running $80 Vegas + free Handbrake.

Fail.
Sorry sorry all you Mac and FinalCut Pro fanboys.  :--
 

Offline LapTop006

  • Supporter
  • ****
  • Posts: 278
  • Country: au
Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
« Reply #1 on: April 08, 2013, 01:42:20 pm »
So...

The current gen "Retina" MacBook Pro's are actually faster then the current Mac Pro's (which are horribly out of date and long overdue for replacement).

As for performance there's a whole mess there, it shouldn't be anything like that slow. The best thing to do would be find someone who already uses FCP and sit down with them for a while.
 

Offline EEVblog

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 27422
  • Country: au
    • EEVblog
Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
« Reply #2 on: April 08, 2013, 01:50:16 pm »
The current gen "Retina" MacBook Pro's are actually faster then the current Mac Pro's (which are horribly out of date and long overdue for replacement).

How much faster on rendering? I'm betting not a huge amount.
Thing is, I'd want to get a full workflow improvement of at least say 400% to make it worthwhile switching, as I can likely double my current speed with just a PC hardware upgrade, which is half the price of a new Mac.
 

Offline nitro2k01

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 843
  • Country: 00
Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
« Reply #3 on: April 08, 2013, 02:18:54 pm »
Dude: "You just drag and drop"
Me: "I can't use a copy command?"
Dude: "I have no idea, you just drag and drop"
What is this copy command you speak of? I believe you can select multiple files and press cmd+C/cmd+V to copy the files. (Similar to ctrl+C/ctrl+V in the Windows file explorer.) Or right click (or, lacking a right mouse button, ctrl-click or double finger tap) and choose copy, if I recall correctly.

Hmm, I wonder. Did the version of FCP on that Mac even support multicore video encoding? That's going to make all the difference for encoding. Like someone said, without the accelerator card, you should have tried the MacBook instead as it probably has a faster CPU. And also, encoding is just one aspect, which depends mostly on CPU power. There might be other aspects, like application response time and similar which might be better because of the underlying OS design. Or not. I haven't compared how OSX and Windows compare when it comes to video editing, I'm just saying.
Whoa! How the hell did Dave know that Bob is my uncle? Amazing!
 

Offline DeRaaf

  • Newbie
  • Posts: 4
Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
« Reply #4 on: April 08, 2013, 02:23:21 pm »
I didn't try it myself.

But an new generation iMac is most probably what you want. There is no need for internal PCI slots no more.

Thunderbolt isn't just the faster "FireWire"!! -> http://www.sonnettech.com/product/echoexpresschassis.html (Matrox is a partner for the thing, so should work)

Don't become a Mac hater because you tried a very old (I know it's new from the shop) Mac Pro. Here in Europe the thing is even banned from the market.

Don't buy a retina MacBook. That's overpriced hype. I just got a new MacBook (bottom of the range 13 inch, i5 cpu, just the internal INTEL hd4000 gpu, 16GB ram (way overkill, but fun! I can make a temporary RAM HDD which blows even the fastest SDD out of the water), normal 5400 RPM HDD). Got it for around €1000.

I render a 10 minute full HD .mp4 fill (from camera (.mp4 format), edited in Premiere Pro) in about 20 minutes with Adobe Media Encoder. That is with normal HDD and no ThunderBolt PCI expansion. Plenty fast for me.
 

Offline Strada916

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 252
  • Country: au
Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
« Reply #5 on: April 08, 2013, 02:29:01 pm »
Mac are running intel chips now days? I'm guessing the hardware would not be too far from a generic PC?
The Bone, the Off-White, the Ivory or the Beige?
 

Offline free_electron

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 6984
  • Country: us
    • SiliconValleyGarage
Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
« Reply #6 on: April 08, 2013, 02:32:02 pm »
I render a 10 minute full HD .mp4 fill (from camera (.mp4 format), edited in Premiere Pro) in about 20 minutes with Adobe Media Encoder.

and that is still bloody slow !

I never understood why this encoding is so slow on computers .... come on, the simplest camera that can shoot AVCHD costs well under 300$ and encodes in real time after all....
I have a matrox RTx-2 and that thing flies through encoding... provided you capture the source video end let it decompress while capturing... computers aren't up to decoding , manipulating re-encoding on the fly apprently... that RTx is basically a virtex FPGA from Xilinx with an embedded PowerPC processor in it... all bolted onto a PICx card.

The same goes for that Matrox card that dave is talking about. its a small card with merely 1 chip on it. : poof realtime H264 encoding... and here you have quadcore cpu's racing at 3 GHz and they can't cope...
Professional Electron Wrangler.
Any comments, or points of view expressed, are my own and not endorsed , induced or compensated by my employer(s).
 

Offline cwalex

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 302
  • Country: au
    • Computers, accessories and repairs
Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
« Reply #7 on: April 08, 2013, 02:36:02 pm »
I didn't try it myself.

But an new generation iMac is most probably what you want. There is no need for internal PCI slots no more.

Thunderbolt isn't just the faster "FireWire"!! -> http://www.sonnettech.com/product/echoexpresschassis.html (Matrox is a partner for the thing, so should work)

Don't become a Mac hater because you tried a very old (I know it's new from the shop) Mac Pro. Here in Europe the thing is even banned from the market.

Don't buy a retina MacBook. That's overpriced hype. I just got a new MacBook (bottom of the range 13 inch, i5 cpu, just the internal INTEL hd4000 gpu, 16GB ram (way overkill, but fun! I can make a temporary RAM HDD which blows even the fastest SDD out of the water), normal 5400 RPM HDD). Got it for around €1000.

I render a 10 minute full HD .mp4 fill (from camera (.mp4 format), edited in Premiere Pro) in about 20 minutes with Adobe Media Encoder. That is with normal HDD and no ThunderBolt PCI expansion. Plenty fast for me.

Wow those things look awesome! They are pretty darn expensive though, the Pro version is $799 and the cheaper ones about 500bucks... Hopefully some other companies will make equivalent products for a bit more reasonable price.
"life should be effortless and enjoyable and vaguely annoying to other people." - Mike Mandel
 

Offline DeRaaf

  • Newbie
  • Posts: 4
Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
« Reply #8 on: April 08, 2013, 02:44:08 pm »
Mac are running intel chips now days? I'm guessing the hardware would not be too far from a generic PC?

Yes (it's been 8(?) years till they start using Intel inside) and yes.

And yes I believe the Premium price for Apple is justified. Been using Macs and "normal" PC's. Apple build quality is exceptional good, I find the OS a lot easier to work with than Windows (or Linux). And they keep there value more than a "normal" PC. Just sold my old White MacBook (2006 model, Intel core2duo 2.2ghz, 4GB ram) for €250 (a little on the low side compared to other MacBooks on the market here).
 

Offline DeRaaf

  • Newbie
  • Posts: 4
Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
« Reply #9 on: April 08, 2013, 02:53:50 pm »
I render a 10 minute full HD .mp4 fill (from camera (.mp4 format), edited in Premiere Pro) in about 20 minutes with Adobe Media Encoder.

and that is still bloody slow !

I never understood why this encoding is so slow on computers .... come on, the simplest camera that can shoot AVCHD costs well under 300$ and encodes in real time after all....
I have a matrox RTx-2 and that thing flies through encoding... provided you capture the source video end let it decompress while capturing... computers aren't up to decoding , manipulating re-encoding on the fly apprently... that RTx is basically a virtex FPGA from Xilinx with an embedded PowerPC processor in it... all bolted onto a PICx card.

The same goes for that Matrox card that dave is talking about. its a small card with merely 1 chip on it. : poof realtime H264 encoding... and here you have quadcore cpu's racing at 3 GHz and they can't cope...

Don't know why it's so slow. But dedicated hardware should make a difference, otherwise why does it exits?

By the way my MacBook (13 inch) is bottom of the range. So 2.5Ghz, dual core i5 (quad in hyper threading). So a 15 inch MacBook pro i7 (real quadcore and dedicated NVIDIA GeForce GT 650M gpu) should be a lot faster. 
 

Offline DeRaaf

  • Newbie
  • Posts: 4
Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
« Reply #10 on: April 08, 2013, 03:02:39 pm »
I didn't try it myself.

But an new generation iMac is most probably what you want. There is no need for internal PCI slots no more.

Thunderbolt isn't just the faster "FireWire"!! -> http://www.sonnettech.com/product/echoexpresschassis.html (Matrox is a partner for the thing, so should work)

Don't become a Mac hater because you tried a very old (I know it's new from the shop) Mac Pro. Here in Europe the thing is even banned from the market.

Don't buy a retina MacBook. That's overpriced hype. I just got a new MacBook (bottom of the range 13 inch, i5 cpu, just the internal INTEL hd4000 gpu, 16GB ram (way overkill, but fun! I can make a temporary RAM HDD which blows even the fastest SDD out of the water), normal 5400 RPM HDD). Got it for around €1000.

I render a 10 minute full HD .mp4 fill (from camera (.mp4 format), edited in Premiere Pro) in about 20 minutes with Adobe Media Encoder. That is with normal HDD and no ThunderBolt PCI expansion. Plenty fast for me.

Wow those things look awesome! They are pretty darn expensive though, the Pro version is $799 and the cheaper ones about 500bucks... Hopefully some other companies will make equivalent products for a bit more reasonable price.

I agree a little to pricey for my wallet at the moment. I believe there are some other developers working on it at the moment. Hope this makes the prices drop a bit in the near future.
« Last Edit: April 08, 2013, 03:14:25 pm by DeRaaf »
 

Offline ddavidebor

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1012
  • Country: it
    • Fermium LABS website
I tried a Mac for video editing...
« Reply #11 on: April 08, 2013, 03:15:46 pm »
Well, I did it, I bravely entered an Apple store today  :o
Me: "Where's your Mac Pro, I want to try Final Cut Pro"
Dude: "Over there Sir"
Me: "No, that's the notebook, I want the desktop"
Dude: "Oh, I think we might have one right over there in the back"
Me: "Ok, so how do I use Final Cut Pro"
Dude: "What's that?"
Me: "It's video editing software"
Dude: "I'll have to see if a technology training specialist can help you with that."
Me: "Ok, thanks. I'll have a go myself while I wait. Now, how do I copy these files from my USB stick to the hard drive"
Dude: "You just drag and drop"
Me: "I can't use a copy command?"
Dude: "I have no idea, you just drag and drop"

New specialist dude arrives.

Dude: "I highly recommend you don't get the Mac Pro desktop"
Me: "Why?"
Dude: "It hasn't been updated in a long time, and it's just not recommended as a new system"
Me: "But I need to install a PCI accelerator card"
Dude: (has actually heard of the matrox card, impressive) "Ah, ok, that's the only reason you'd want one.
Me: "So how do a I copy these .MTS video files from my camera into Final Cut"
Dude: "You can't do that, it has be in the original card format"
Me: "You're kidding right? I can't just copy and drop a .MTS file onto the timeline"
Dude: "Nope, it's always been that way, it's silly"
Me: "That's almost a show stopper. How about this .MP4 file?"

and to cut it short, the MP4 file worked, Final Cut Pro edited stuff like I expected it to, and Compressor did seem to have a Constant Quality H.264 render option.

So we started rendering my 10 minute H.264 MP4 file (with no edits, just a single clip on the timeline) with same specs as the input file and default "High" for constant quality setting. And we watched the progress bar creep up and up I gave up at the 30 min mark when it still wasn't half way, and it said 39min left.

Me: "This is your top of the line Mac Pro right?"
Dude: "Yep, fully optioned up"
Me: "Is it always this slow to render"?
Dude: "Yep."

Holy crap.
No wonder the Matrox CompressHD card boasts that it takes Final Cut Pro up to "real time" rendering, it had bloody well want to!

For reference, to render and transcode the same 10 minute video on my current system, would take <20min total, for both steps in the process.
And I have a nothing special i7 notebook.

So it looks like, at best, a $3000+ Mac Pro with $330 Final Cut pro and a $500 Compress HD card would probably come out the same speed as a relatively high power cheap i7 system running $80 Vegas + free Handbrake.

Fail.
Sorry sorry all you Mac and FinalCut Pro fanboys.  :--

Dave, please send me in some way this raw video.

I think the one you tried has the  hardware acceleration not enabled, maybe for sw or hw reason. Let me try on my imac.

Davide Bortolami,
Fermium LABS srl
 

Offline EEVblog

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 27422
  • Country: au
    • EEVblog
Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
« Reply #12 on: April 08, 2013, 03:21:36 pm »
Don't know why it's so slow. But dedicated hardware should make a difference, otherwise why does it exits?

Of course they make a difference.
The fact is, Matrox themselves advertise the CompressHD card as bringing the Mac up to "real time" encoding speed.
So that tells me the Mac (any Mac) is simply not a viable solution to my problem.
I'm sure I can get a the same or better from an existing cheaper PC solution I'm already familiar with.

I have an existing work flow that works for me. Changing any part of that will require very significant savings in workflow time to justify changing.
 

Offline peter.mitchell

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1568
  • Country: au
Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
« Reply #13 on: April 08, 2013, 03:24:23 pm »
Mac are running intel chips now days? I'm guessing the hardware would not be too far from a generic PC?

Yes (it's been 8(?) years till they start using Intel inside) and yes.

And yes I believe the Premium price for Apple is justified. Been using Macs and "normal" PC's. Apple build quality is exceptional good, I find the OS a lot easier to work with than Windows (or Linux). And they keep there value more than a "normal" PC. Just sold my old White MacBook (2006 model, Intel core2duo 2.2ghz, 4GB ram) for €250 (a little on the low side compared to other MacBooks on the market here).

Build quality is certainly there in the notebooks, however, competitors are certainly catching up, eg, Asus Zenbooks and samsung series 9s, but as far as their desktops are concerned, the increase in build quality isn't sufficient to justify it. What build quality on a desktop is of concern? Keyboard, mouse, monitor, thats about it, all of which you could use apple versions of, on your PC. What is in the box is built just like all the others, and since you don't interface with it, provided it works, and doesn't break, it does it's job.

If you want the OS, no problems, go into an apple store, buy the disc (legit), and install it on your PC with DSDT.

I didn't try it myself.

But an new generation iMac is most probably what you want. There is no need for internal PCI slots no more.

Thunderbolt isn't just the faster "FireWire"!! -> http://www.sonnettech.com/product/echoexpresschassis.html (Matrox is a partner for the thing, so should work)

Don't become a Mac hater because you tried a very old (I know it's new from the shop) Mac Pro. Here in Europe the thing is even banned from the market.

Don't buy a retina MacBook. That's overpriced hype. I just got a new MacBook (bottom of the range 13 inch, i5 cpu, just the internal INTEL hd4000 gpu, 16GB ram (way overkill, but fun! I can make a temporary RAM HDD which blows even the fastest SDD out of the water), normal 5400 RPM HDD). Got it for around €1000.

I render a 10 minute full HD .mp4 fill (from camera (.mp4 format), edited in Premiere Pro) in about 20 minutes with Adobe Media Encoder. That is with normal HDD and no ThunderBolt PCI expansion. Plenty fast for me.

Wow those things look awesome! They are pretty darn expensive though, the Pro version is $799 and the cheaper ones about 500bucks... Hopefully some other companies will make equivalent products for a bit more reasonable price.

I agree a little to pricey for my wallet at the moment. I believe there are some other developers working on it at the moment. Hope this makes the prices drop a bit in the near future.

Unfortunately, at 1000 euro + $500 for the external box + $500 for the matrox card, it is more expensive than just building a PC and throwing raw CPU power at it; to which if is still too slow, then you could throw in the matrox card.
 

Offline Skimask

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1425
  • Country: us
Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
« Reply #14 on: April 08, 2013, 03:25:01 pm »
Dave, please send me in some way this raw video.

Better yet, post the raw video of Dave in the Apple store talking to a store employee that seems to know what they're talking about!!!
Now THAT would be a rare find...
I didn't take it apart.
I turned it on.

The only stupid question is, well, most of them...

Save a fuse...Blow an electrician.
 

Offline EEVblog

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 27422
  • Country: au
    • EEVblog
Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
« Reply #15 on: April 08, 2013, 03:26:08 pm »
I render a 10 minute full HD .mp4 fill (from camera (.mp4 format), edited in Premiere Pro) in about 20 minutes with Adobe Media Encoder. That is with normal HDD and no ThunderBolt PCI expansion. Plenty fast for me.

That's no quicker, if not slower than my (pretty ordinary) setup. And are you doing constant quality encoding with that?
 

Offline EEVblog

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 27422
  • Country: au
    • EEVblog
Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
« Reply #16 on: April 08, 2013, 03:28:53 pm »
Unfortunately, at 1000 euro + $500 for the external box + $500 for the matrox card, it is more expensive than just building a PC and throwing raw CPU power at it; to which if is still too slow, then you could throw in the matrox card.

And that's the trap, and why I can't see a Mac being a viable solution.
The only viable Mac to buy is fast new Mac notebook, which I'll pay a premium price for (I don't need monitors or another notebook for example) + final cut pro + all that extra hardware.
So unless someone can show me that hardware setup is at least say twice as fast as a new faster PC solution, then it's a no-go.
 

Offline RCMR

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 405
Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
« Reply #17 on: April 08, 2013, 03:52:30 pm »
Come on Dave, where's the love?

Apple isn't about performance or value -- it's about "style"!

(dons fireproof suit).

Okay, I admit, they may some very nice kit and many people find it easier to use and more comfortable to use than the old Wintel option -- but style is still a *huge* part of the Apple experience.

Next thing you'll be telling us that you prefer Android to IOS and the Nexus to the iPad.

Wash your mouth out  :-DD :-DD :-DD
 

Offline Lightages

  • Supporter
  • ****
  • Posts: 4295
  • Country: ca
  • Canadian po
Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
« Reply #18 on: April 08, 2013, 03:59:06 pm »
I have tried to switch to a Mac 3 times in my life. Each time I looked at the "power" of the Macs and the price and each time it seemed I was paying twice as much as I could build in a PC. Then the cost of the software all over again and limited selection of software shut the idea down each time.

 

Offline EEVblog

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 27422
  • Country: au
    • EEVblog
Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
« Reply #19 on: April 08, 2013, 03:59:26 pm »
Teknotronix just tweeted that he has a Thunderbolt PCI adapter for his Mac Pro, and in his words "I wouldn't recommend. The performance is just not there yet."
 

Offline Ed.Kloonk

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 719
  • Country: au
Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
« Reply #20 on: April 08, 2013, 04:00:39 pm »
Come on Dave, where's the love?




So it looks like, at best, a $3000+ Mac Pro with $330 Final Cut pro and a $500 Compress HD card would probably come out the same speed as a relatively high power cheap i7 system running $80 Vegas + free Handbrake.

Fail.
Sorry sorry all you Mac and FinalCut Pro fanboys.  :--

Sorry, late to the party. Had to work today.  >:(  Someone's gotta support this govmnt.  ;)

Nar, he's right. F. Apple!

I'd normally prefer not to harp on. But I will anyway...

This is why I suggest setting yourself up a Lee-Nooks solution, command-line encoder usb-stick portable setup. You'll find, if you find the right combination of software and commands, you can also take your software across many machines. If you update hardware you can just bring the software across. No drivers. No proprietary, goal-post-moving shit. Just a package that you made that works and keeps working. If it can boot a usb stick you're good to go!

As an aside, if you get desperate and NEED your windows GUI while encoding, consider Virtual Box emulator which can run the usb-stick and utilise your i7's many cps whilst still running windows underneath. There are plenty of Linux nuts on here that can help you, if you'd only ask!

 :palm:
 

Offline Eliminateur

  • Regular Contributor
  • *
  • Posts: 173
  • Country: ar
  • Electronic's Technician
Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
« Reply #21 on: April 08, 2013, 04:02:18 pm »
no wonder at all, mac is and will always be massively overpriced "boutique" pretty-shiny stuff that always will underperform for stuff that matters.

Dave, for a fraction of the cost of the mac pro ALONE you can build a dedicated encoding rig using an AMD FX-8350 -top of theline amd cpu right now- (i know the i7-3770K IS faster at encoding but a significantly steeper price and the FX is right there in performance for video encoding).
Or you can wait until handbrake gets full quicksync support -the first versions do look like they'll be out in june-, but from what i've read in their forums it's not made for quality output but as an option for the --superfast encoding option of handbrake/x264 AND it looks to be geared for haswell

Or if you MUST spend the same ammount of cash, build a rig based on a i7-3970X (1000$ MSRP), that's Sandy Bridge 6c/12t at 3.5 to 4GHz, there's simply nothing that can encode faster than that, period (unless you go for octacore Xeons), check out a small benchmark:


in fact, going with the i7-3930X will save a ton of money(costs nearly half) and offer comparable performance once you overclock it... (or not and it's at shooting distance).

but.. check the fx-8350 standing, simply cannot be beat bang per buck (because it costs like a i5 and offers i7 performance)
 

Offline smashedProton

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 644
  • Country: us
Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
« Reply #22 on: April 08, 2013, 04:37:54 pm »
I do a lot of avi to mp4 compression on my desktop.  I have an overclocked amd hexicore at 4.2 ghz though.  I will never buy an apple computer because the hardware is always two generations late.  Who in their right mind will buy machined aluminium and dated electronics when they are in the market for a compur er?
http://www.garrettbaldwin.com/

Invention, my dear friends, is 93% perspiration, 6% electricity, 4% evaporation, and 2% butterscotch ripple.
 

Offline aargee

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 693
  • Country: au
Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
« Reply #23 on: April 08, 2013, 04:43:08 pm »
I don't understand Dave, it seems like you're trying to produce a motion picture not an Internet video cast? Is it the video camera format that's being a problem or is this an issue for anyone wanting to produce 1080p content? (Me coming from a place of little experience in the this area)

Regarding the Apple store, my son has a Mac Book Pro, just out of warranty, I took it in for a power problem, mentally preparing myself for the too bad how sad response I seem to get from many other tech manufacturers. Instead it was a pleasant and timely no problems fix then and there. Apple do seem to do this well. Most PC stores would have great difficulty holding a similar conversation that you had with Apple.
Not easy, not hard, just need to be incentivised.
 

Offline EEVblog

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 27422
  • Country: au
    • EEVblog
Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
« Reply #24 on: April 08, 2013, 04:46:50 pm »
This is why I suggest setting yourself up a Lee-Nooks solution, command-line encoder usb-stick portable setup.

It's kinda hard to edit video on a timeline with the command line.
 

Offline EEVblog

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 27422
  • Country: au
    • EEVblog
Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
« Reply #25 on: April 08, 2013, 04:49:00 pm »
I don't understand Dave, it seems like you're trying to produce a motion picture not an Internet video cast? Is it the video camera format that's being a problem or is this an issue for anyone wanting to produce 1080p content? (Me coming from a place of little experience in the this area)

I've explained it dozens of times, and it's hard to understand unless you are in my exact same position with my exact same requirements.
But yes, it will likely be same issue for anyone that produces 1080p content (and gives a shit about the quality) on an almost daily basis. Some will be in a better position with regards to internet upload speed, and that plays a big part.
 

Offline EEVblog

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 27422
  • Country: au
    • EEVblog
Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
« Reply #26 on: April 08, 2013, 04:55:55 pm »
no wonder at all, mac is and will always be massively overpriced "boutique" pretty-shiny stuff that always will underperform for stuff that matters.

Unfortunately there are lot of people out there who keep screaming at me, try a Mac and Final Cut Pro and you problems will vanish. So I did, and they didn't  ::)

Quote
Dave, for a fraction of the cost of the mac pro ALONE you can build a dedicated encoding rig using an AMD FX-8350 -top of theline amd cpu right now- (i know the i7-3770K IS faster at encoding but a significantly steeper price and the FX is right there in performance for video encoding).

Yes, I'm temped to do this.

Quote
but.. check the fx-8350 standing, simply cannot be beat bang per buck (because it costs like a i5 and offers i7 performance)

Thanks, very useful table.
Yes, I'd be inclined to spend less and be happy with slightly less performance, and I can spend more on the Nvidia card too, because I'd want to accelerate both Sony rendering speed, and Handbrake. I'll likely just upgrade again in a year or two anyway, so it silly to pay absolute primo price.

 

Offline Ed.Kloonk

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 719
  • Country: au
Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
« Reply #27 on: April 08, 2013, 04:59:26 pm »
This is why I suggest setting yourself up a Lee-Nooks solution, command-line encoder usb-stick portable setup.

It's kinda hard to edit video on a timeline with the command line.

True but you should ( I think) be dumping to a largish, fast video format once your edits are done. From there you could have a script find the completed, edited blog(s), encode it to what ever youtube wants (I don't know) automatic upload and email a success (or fail) on completion.

Maybe just me but the extra step is better than waiting for the editing program to encode with heavy compression. Wouldn't you rather dump it quickly to another machine and perhaps start to edit another blog?

Only trying to help. I'm sure there's a solution in this somewhere. If I'm barking up the wrong tree however...

 :)
 

Online westfw

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 2787
  • Country: us
Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
« Reply #28 on: April 08, 2013, 04:59:37 pm »
The Mac Pros are certainly getting long-in-the-tooth.
Quote
But I need to install a PCI accelerator card
PCI Express, hopefully.  The Mac Pros don't have any ordinary PCI slots.
Do you know if the version of FCP you were using supported multiple core encoding?  It's certainly a bottleneck on an 8-core box if your SW doesn't use them.

I really liked the old version of iMovie, that came with the Macs.  But the new version... rather a lot less.  Sigh.
 

Offline akcoder

  • Contributor
  • Posts: 45
  • Country: us
Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
« Reply #29 on: April 08, 2013, 05:01:30 pm »
I don't understand Dave, it seems like you're trying to produce a motion picture not an Internet video cast? Is it the video camera format that's being a problem or is this an issue for anyone wanting to produce 1080p content? (Me coming from a place of little experience in the this area)

I've explained it dozens of times, and it's hard to understand unless you are in my exact same position with my exact same requirements.
But yes, it will likely be same issue for anyone that produces 1080p content (and gives a shit about the quality) on an almost daily basis. Some will be in a better position with regards to internet upload speed, and that plays a big part.

Quality is a big part of why your blog is so successful. The video quality is there, and the content quality is there. Its hard to watch someones youtube video when its all shaky, and the volume has to be cranked up. Those issues aren't there with your stuff!

Although, I would suggest you wear your lapel mic again, in your last few videos the audio volume noticeably drops out when you move away from what I presume is your shotgun mic?

-dan
 

Offline EEVblog

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 27422
  • Country: au
    • EEVblog
Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
« Reply #30 on: April 08, 2013, 05:12:03 pm »
True but you should ( I think) be dumping to a largish, fast video format once your edits are done. From there you could have a script find the completed, edited blog(s), encode it to what ever youtube wants (I don't know) automatic upload and email a success (or fail) on completion.

That's exactly what I do. I output from Sony using Sony AVC at the exact same bitrate and details as my input files, so it does minimal processing. That is the fastest encoder that Sony supports (I've tried them all), except for this mythical FrameServer that I can't get working.
It's still real time encoding, so a 1hr video takes an hour to output from Sony.
I have yet to find the magic bullet here.

Dave.
 

Offline firewalker

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 2309
  • Country: gr
Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
« Reply #31 on: April 08, 2013, 05:16:48 pm »
Now... Use GNU/Linux. Trololololol!

Alexander.
Become a realist, stay a dreamer.

 

Offline peter.mitchell

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1568
  • Country: au
Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
« Reply #32 on: April 08, 2013, 05:18:17 pm »
I don't understand Dave, it seems like you're trying to produce a motion picture not an Internet video cast? Is it the video camera format that's being a problem or is this an issue for anyone wanting to produce 1080p content? (Me coming from a place of little experience in the this area)

I've explained it dozens of times, and it's hard to understand unless you are in my exact same position with my exact same requirements.
But yes, it will likely be same issue for anyone that produces 1080p content (and gives a shit about the quality) on an almost daily basis. Some will be in a better position with regards to internet upload speed, and that plays a big part.

Quality is a big part of why your blog is so successful. The video quality is there, and the content quality is there. Its hard to watch someones youtube video when its all shaky, and the volume has to be cranked up. Those issues aren't there with your stuff!

Although, I would suggest you wear your lapel mic again, in your last few videos the audio volume noticeably drops out when you move away from what I presume is your shotgun mic?

-dan

The other part is being a true blue top notch aussie bloke (even though he doesn't drink beer)
 

Offline EEVblog

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 27422
  • Country: au
    • EEVblog
Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
« Reply #33 on: April 08, 2013, 05:18:39 pm »
Although, I would suggest you wear your lapel mic again, in your last few videos the audio volume noticeably drops out when you move away from what I presume is your shotgun mic?

No, the internal mic on my HF G10. It's just more convenient, and has the same or better general audio level consistency than my lapel mic (try turning your head with a lapel mic), but yes, if I do move away from the camera it varies a lot of course.
 

Offline kripton2035

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1633
  • Country: fr
    • kripton2035 schematics repository
Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
« Reply #34 on: April 08, 2013, 05:24:07 pm »
Dave, I strongly suggest you to go to an apple video specialist near you, and please not an apple store...
they only play with itunes and sometimes imovie there ...

http://consultants.apple.com/au/mlocator

Offline EEVblog

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 27422
  • Country: au
    • EEVblog
Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
« Reply #35 on: April 08, 2013, 05:28:52 pm »
Dave, I strongly suggest you to go to an apple video specialist near you, and please not an apple store...
they only play with itunes and sometimes imovie there ...

Sorry, but I'm pretty sure Apple is not going to be worthwhile investment, so will not pursue it any more, it's just "the vibe"
It's not just Apple I need, I'd also need the Matrox board etc

 

Offline mikeselectricstuff

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 11678
  • Country: gb
    • Mike's Electric Stuff
Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
« Reply #36 on: April 08, 2013, 05:49:21 pm »

I never understood why this encoding is so slow on computers .... come on, the simplest camera that can shoot AVCHD costs well under 300$ and encodes in real time after all....
The simple camera has a dedicated hardware accelerator. Doing highly specialised things like video encoding on a general purpose PC is not an efficient use of silicon, so even the fastest "Turbo Nutter" PC will struggle to keep up with an encoder based on custom silicon
Youtube channel:Taking wierd stuff apart. Very apart.
Mike's Electric Stuff: High voltage, vintage electronics etc.
Day Job: Mostly LEDs
 

Offline Ed.Kloonk

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 719
  • Country: au
Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
« Reply #37 on: April 08, 2013, 05:57:33 pm »
True but you should ( I think) be dumping to a largish, fast video format once your edits are done. From there you could have a script find the completed, edited blog(s), encode it to what ever youtube wants (I don't know) automatic upload and email a success (or fail) on completion.

That's exactly what I do. I output from Sony using Sony AVC at the exact same bitrate and details as my input files, so it does minimal processing. That is the fastest encoder that Sony supports (I've tried them all), except for this mythical FrameServer that I can't get working.
It's still real time encoding, so a 1hr video takes an hour to output from Sony.
I have yet to find the magic bullet here.

Dave.

Ah. Gotcha. Yeah I played with avi_synth and the bogus frameserver ten years ago. As soon as you want to upgrade the OS underneath, all hell breaks out.

Hmm. It's a toughie. Wish I had said magic bullet.
 :-\
 

Offline firewalker

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 2309
  • Country: gr
Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
« Reply #38 on: April 08, 2013, 06:50:16 pm »

I never understood why this encoding is so slow on computers .... come on, the simplest camera that can shoot AVCHD costs well under 300$ and encodes in real time after all....
The simple camera has a dedicated hardware accelerator. Doing highly specialised things like video encoding on a general purpose PC is not an efficient use of silicon, so even the fastest "Turbo Nutter" PC will struggle to keep up with an encoder based on custom silicon

Even the GPU's support in mainly for hardware decoding.

Is there any dedicated cards for encoding?

Alexander.
Become a realist, stay a dreamer.

 

Offline Eliminateur

  • Regular Contributor
  • *
  • Posts: 173
  • Country: ar
  • Electronic's Technician
Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
« Reply #39 on: April 08, 2013, 08:36:54 pm »
Like several people say, the video quality in the blog IS there so the settings you're using and workflow IS sound, and it's easily noticeable in 1080p when you can make all the little detail be it small letters in the PDFs, serigraphy, traces, DSO screens, etc.

Dave, BTW, i was browsing Sony's page about HW accel and it seems that only Vegas PRO has openCL encode acceleration, might that be the magic bullet you're missing?: http://www.sonycreativesoftware.com/vegaspro/gpuacceleration
There'sd also a guide for Vegas pro 11 on how to enable gpu render: http://www.sonycreativesoftware.com/GPU_power_in_Vegas_Pro_11
i don't have vegas installed at hand so no idea if the non pro version has the same dialog...
 

Offline ivan747

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 2010
  • Country: do
Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
« Reply #40 on: April 08, 2013, 08:41:42 pm »
I do a lot of avi to mp4 compression on my desktop.  I have an overclocked amd hexicore at 4.2 ghz though.  I will never buy an apple computer because the hardware is always two generations late.  Who in their right mind will buy machined aluminium and dated electronics when they are in the market for a compur er?

The same reason people buy Tektronix over Rigol.

And guys, stop comparing the Mac Pro, that thing is like 3 year old technology that should be updated or discontinued.

A more fair comparison would be against an iMac or a MacBook Pro.
« Last Edit: April 08, 2013, 08:43:22 pm by ivan747 »
Nothing like the smell of rosin core solder in the morning.
"Could you not use some of that crowdfunded $1.5 million to hire a graphic designer who understands perspective?" -Delta
"A soldering station I bought once had a sticker on it that said, I shit you not, 'QENUINE'." -c4757p
 

Offline ivan747

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 2010
  • Country: do
Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
« Reply #41 on: April 08, 2013, 08:48:43 pm »
Dave, Handbrake is also available for Mac (and it works quite well). It can convert .mts files for FInal Cut import. Other than Sony Vegas, everything else needs conversion before importing.

I wouldn't think Apple employees would be allowed to tell you that but I know a guy who's some sort of official support provider (20 years in the business) and I am sure he would tell you this.
Nothing like the smell of rosin core solder in the morning.
"Could you not use some of that crowdfunded $1.5 million to hire a graphic designer who understands perspective?" -Delta
"A soldering station I bought once had a sticker on it that said, I shit you not, 'QENUINE'." -c4757p
 

Offline peter.mitchell

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1568
  • Country: au
Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
« Reply #42 on: April 08, 2013, 09:00:21 pm »
Dave, if you use sony vegas pro 12, and the card I sent you and one of the formats in they previously linked benchmarks you could be looking at 2x to 3x the rendering speed.
 

Offline EEVblog

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 27422
  • Country: au
    • EEVblog
Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
« Reply #43 on: April 08, 2013, 09:33:17 pm »
Dave, BTW, i was browsing Sony's page about HW accel and it seems that only Vegas PRO has openCL encode acceleration, might that be the magic bullet you're missing?

Movie Studio has it too. It's actually slower than Intel QSV, at least on my i7 2630QM DV7 notebook with Radeon HD6770M GPU
« Last Edit: April 08, 2013, 09:39:35 pm by EEVblog »
 

Offline EEVblog

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 27422
  • Country: au
    • EEVblog
Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
« Reply #44 on: April 08, 2013, 09:34:51 pm »
Dave, Handbrake is also available for Mac (and it works quite well). It can convert .mts files for FInal Cut import. Other than Sony Vegas, everything else needs conversion before importing.

Converting files before import is not an option. That's just an extra step that takes time.
 

Offline ddavidebor

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1012
  • Country: it
    • Fermium LABS website
I tried a Mac for video editing...
« Reply #45 on: April 08, 2013, 09:35:40 pm »
Dave, you should upload the raw video! You'll get 10 people trying to convert it, and next you can choose the better conversion time.
Davide Bortolami,
Fermium LABS srl
 

Offline Eliminateur

  • Regular Contributor
  • *
  • Posts: 173
  • Country: ar
  • Electronic's Technician
Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
« Reply #46 on: April 08, 2013, 09:48:44 pm »
Dave, BTW, i was browsing Sony's page about HW accel and it seems that only Vegas PRO has openCL encode acceleration, might that be the magic bullet you're missing?

Movie Studio has it too. It's actually slower than Intel QSV, at least on my i7 2630QM DV7 notebook with Radeon HD6770M GPU
Does Movie studio supports QSV encoding?, wasn't aware of it
 

Offline dimlow

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 301
  • Country: gb
  • Likes to be thought of as
    • Dimlow Ponders
Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
« Reply #47 on: April 08, 2013, 10:22:53 pm »
Dave, ditch the notebook, get a high end pc, yes your notebook may have an"i7" but its a notebook, not a performance pc, big difference there. Forgot Apple, they are just overpriced bull crap for people that like shiny things. Stick a good encoder card in the PC and you will be sailing along. Stop playing with the toys if you want to play with the big boys. Video encoding takes time, ram, hard drive speed and space and lots of processing power.  Laptops just can cut it.

« Last Edit: April 08, 2013, 10:25:30 pm by dimlow »
 

Offline EEVblog

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 27422
  • Country: au
    • EEVblog
Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
« Reply #48 on: April 08, 2013, 11:13:00 pm »
Dave, you should upload the raw video! You'll get 10 people trying to convert it, and next you can choose the better conversion time.

Ok, for those interested, here is a 2 min 22sec original .MTS files form my camera that I load direct into Sony MS.
http://www.eevblog.com/files/EEVblogTestRender2Min22.MTS
It is shot at a constant 12Mbps, 1440x1080, 25fps.

It takes 1:43 to render that clip using the Sony AVC encoder at constant 12Mbps, 1440x1080, 25fps (same as input file) 48K/192K/32bit audio with High profile.
(203MB file)
That is the fastest encoder I can use in Sony.
For example , the MainConcept one takes 4:33 for the exact same clip at a fixed 12Mbps (212MB file)
and Video For Windows Sony YUV takes 3:03 (with a file size of 14GB!)

It takes 2:01 to transcode that Sony AVC file into my H.264 MP4 I upload to Youtube. Using a constant quality factor of 22
Here is the final file:
http://www.eevblog.com/files/EEVblogTestRender2min22-SonyAVC-1440x1080.mp4
Is it 111MB compared to the 203MB fixed bitrate one from Sony. So you can see why I do extra encoding with Handbrake to get the file size down for the upload to Youtube.
« Last Edit: April 08, 2013, 11:26:41 pm by EEVblog »
 

Offline Eliminateur

  • Regular Contributor
  • *
  • Posts: 173
  • Country: ar
  • Electronic's Technician
Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
« Reply #49 on: April 08, 2013, 11:31:25 pm »
Are you using one of the premade profiles of handbrake for internet video or you cooked a custom special profile?
 

Offline dimlow

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 301
  • Country: gb
  • Likes to be thought of as
    • Dimlow Ponders
Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
« Reply #50 on: April 08, 2013, 11:33:12 pm »
I dont have vegas but i do have handbrake, i just dropped it in and clicked start, it took 1:18 on my old Q6600 overclocked to 3.8 Ghz. Will try to find vegas and give it a go
 

Offline dimlow

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 301
  • Country: gb
  • Likes to be thought of as
    • Dimlow Ponders
Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
« Reply #51 on: April 08, 2013, 11:37:05 pm »
Just noted you used an QF of 22, so i set it to that and it rendered in 1:16 seconds
 

Offline EEVblog

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 27422
  • Country: au
    • EEVblog
Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
« Reply #52 on: April 08, 2013, 11:44:24 pm »
Are you using one of the premade profiles of handbrake for internet video or you cooked a custom special profile?

Yes, I have a custom script I wrote.

Quote
HandBrakeCLI" -i "%%G" -t 1 -c 1 -o "F:\Video\EEVblog\1440x1080\%%~nH-1440x1080.mp4" -f mp4 --strict-anamorphic  -e x264 -q 22 -r 25 --cfr  -a 1 -E faac -B 192 -6 stereo -R 48 -D 0 --gain=0 --audio-copy-mask none --audio-fallback ffac3 -x ref=2:bframes=2:subq=6:mixed-refs=0:weightb=0:8x8dct=0:trellis=0 --verbose=1
 

Offline ivan747

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 2010
  • Country: do
I tried a Mac for video editing...
« Reply #53 on: April 08, 2013, 11:52:05 pm »
Dave, Handbrake is also available for Mac (and it works quite well). It can convert .mts files for FInal Cut import. Other than Sony Vegas, everything else needs conversion before importing.

Converting files before import is not an option. That's just an extra step that takes time.

Well, you can only use Sony Vegas then. Or get a new camera and get rid of stupid proprietary formats when you have standards like MPEG's.
Nothing like the smell of rosin core solder in the morning.
"Could you not use some of that crowdfunded $1.5 million to hire a graphic designer who understands perspective?" -Delta
"A soldering station I bought once had a sticker on it that said, I shit you not, 'QENUINE'." -c4757p
 

Offline dimlow

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 301
  • Country: gb
  • Likes to be thought of as
    • Dimlow Ponders
Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
« Reply #54 on: April 09, 2013, 12:05:41 am »
I ran you script after modding it for my local paths and got 1:40
 

Offline peter.mitchell

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1568
  • Country: au
Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
« Reply #55 on: April 09, 2013, 12:11:39 am »
ummm... AVCHD is a standard format, heaps of software suites support it, what the heck are you on about?

1:40 is only a little bit faster than realtime, which i think is what dave already gets.
 

Offline firewalker

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 2309
  • Country: gr
Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
« Reply #56 on: April 09, 2013, 12:13:06 am »
My GNU/Linux, i3 4Gbyte RAM laptop, converted it (with the handbrake script) in  4m28.665s (125,7 Mb). OpenShot loads that MTS file with no problem.  ;D ;D ;D
« Last Edit: April 09, 2013, 12:27:18 am by firewalker »
Become a realist, stay a dreamer.

 

Offline mikeselectricstuff

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 11678
  • Country: gb
    • Mike's Electric Stuff
Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
« Reply #57 on: April 09, 2013, 12:24:19 am »
Maybe an answer is to get an internet connection with faster upload speed (or is it throttled at Youtube's end?)
If only Vegas could encode and stream to Youtube at the same time it would save a lot of time - ISTR it will do, but only at low res.

 
Youtube channel:Taking wierd stuff apart. Very apart.
Mike's Electric Stuff: High voltage, vintage electronics etc.
Day Job: Mostly LEDs
 

Offline dimlow

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 301
  • Country: gb
  • Likes to be thought of as
    • Dimlow Ponders
Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
« Reply #58 on: April 09, 2013, 12:26:23 am »
1:40 is only a little bit faster than realtime, which i think is what dave already gets.

Yea, but my ststem is not an i7 its a q6600 4 core cpu 7 years old, not fast by todays standards ,daves render is 2:01 im sure with a modern desktop with a good CPU he could half his handbrake rendering times.

I notice dave script generates a file of 125 MB, were as Handbrakes UI generates a file of 111Mb. dave was quoting files sizes of 111MB and a time of 2:01 my guess is Dave encoded with Handbrakes UI for his timings. so to compare, my timing for the UI are 1:16 thats closer to 2x. thats is much.much  better than his laptop.
Ditch the laptop get a GOOD desktop machine. See the link to the video i posted.

My GNU/Linux, i3 4Gbyte RAM laptop, converted it (with the handbrake script) in  4m28.665s. OpenShot loads that MTS file with no problem.  ;D ;D ;D
Laptop speed here, Pretty darn slow.
« Last Edit: April 09, 2013, 12:30:10 am by dimlow »
 

Offline moemoe

  • Regular Contributor
  • *
  • Posts: 105
  • Country: de
Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
« Reply #59 on: April 09, 2013, 12:40:39 am »
There's a real huge difference with different CPUs (and perhaps a little OS influence, but didn't boot up Linux on the faster machine), I tested it with:

i7 L640  @2.13GHz, Debian 64bit, SSD: 9m00s
i5 2500K @3.3GHz, Win7 64bit, rotating rust: 1m48s

If you take a look at http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu_lookup.php?cpu=Intel+Core+i7+L+640+%40+2.13GHz&id=848 and http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu_lookup.php?cpu=Intel+Core+i5-2500K+%40+3.30GHz&id=804, that roughly represents the same result: 2200 and 6400 points. And this goes up to Intel Core i7-3770K @3.50GHz with 9,637 points.

So you should probably buy a decent encoding machine with some good cpu, 500 bucks and the encoding will be about 1.5xRealtime.

And this clearly shows that clock and i3/i5/i7 as model is not enough information, you need to specify the excat model.
https://github.com/maugsburger/
Breadboard Adapters featured in EEVBlog #573 on Tindie
 

Offline ecat

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 296
  • Country: gb
Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
« Reply #60 on: April 09, 2013, 12:46:49 am »
1:40 is only a little bit faster than realtime, which i think is what dave already gets.

Yea, but my ststem is not an i7 its a q6600 4 core cpu 7 years old, not fast by todays standards ,daves render is 2:01 im sure with a modern desktop with a good CPU he could half his handbrake rendering times.

I'll give it a go on my i5 once the download is finished... 32MB downloaded so far, 1 hour  20 minutes remaining - bloody hell, what do you Antipodeans use for servers, recycled Fosters cans and dingo brains ? ;)
 
 

Offline dimlow

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 301
  • Country: gb
  • Likes to be thought of as
    • Dimlow Ponders
Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
« Reply #61 on: April 09, 2013, 12:53:08 am »
The i5 is too slow, Dave want at least a 3930K overclocked to get some good performance.
 

Offline bxs

  • Regular Contributor
  • *
  • Posts: 89
  • Country: 00
Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
« Reply #62 on: April 09, 2013, 01:08:24 am »
I don't see the lack of MTS files as a big fail, MTS is just a contender, in this case a transport stream, you can simple remux it to something like a mp4, it will be as fast as your hard drive.

Something like this will do the job:
Code: [Select]
ffmpeg -i EEVblogTestRender2Min22.MTS -acodec copy -vcodec copy EEVblogTestRender2Min22.mp4In this case: EEVblogTestRender2Min22.MTS(214MB) -> EEVblogTestRender2Min22.mp4(203MB)

You don't even need to copy the MTS files to disk, simple read them from SD and write the MP4 to HDD, a simple script will do that with no trouble.

But, yes, is another steep...

About handbreak, I ran:
Code: [Select]
HandBrakeCLI -i EEVblogTestRender2min22-SonyAVC-1440x1080.mp4 -t 1 -c 1 -o EEVblogTestRender2min22-SonyAVC-1440x1080_a.mp4 -f mp4 --strict-anamorphic  -e x264 -q 22 -r 25 --cfr  -a 1 -E faac -B 192 -6 stereo -R 48 -D 0 --gain=0 --audio-copy-mask none --audio-fallback ffac3 -x ref=2:bframes=2:subq=6:mixed-refs=0:weightb=0:8x8dct=0:trellis=0 --verbose=1and got: EEVblogTestRender2min22-SonyAVC-1440x1080.mp4(109MB) -> EEVblogTestRender2Min22_a.mp4(94MB)

This in a very old AMD dual core PC, I have it for 7 years, and even them it was a weak PC, so weak that I only  bought it because cause the shop was so desperate to sell it that almost gave me the the PC  :-DD and took 6min, so your modern system is only 3X faster???  :-//

You probably are not using a proper system for the job...

Just another note, I read that Intel released or will release a QSV SDk and remember reading that handbreak will make use of it  :-+
 

Offline ddavidebor

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1012
  • Country: it
    • Fermium LABS website
Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
« Reply #63 on: April 09, 2013, 01:20:31 am »
handbrake on i7 late 2009 mac with normal hd (and overwriting existing files) take less than 1 min with an average frame rate of 65.
Davide Bortolami,
Fermium LABS srl
 

Offline Rufus

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 2094
Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
« Reply #64 on: April 09, 2013, 01:47:00 am »
Quote
HandBrakeCLI" -i "%%G" -t 1 -c 1 -o "F:\Video\EEVblog\1440x1080\%%~nH-1440x1080.mp4" -f mp4 --strict-anamorphic  -e x264 -q 22 -r 25 --cfr  -a 1 -E faac -B 192 -6 stereo -R 48 -D 0 --gain=0 --audio-copy-mask none --audio-fallback ffac3 -x ref=2:bframes=2:subq=6:mixed-refs=0:weightb=0:8x8dct=0:trellis=0 --verbose=1

Handbrake x64, SSD, notebook with i7 2670QM @ 2.2G. The script ran in 1:54.0

Handbrake x64, SSD, i7 920 overclocked @ 4.2G. The script ran in 1:17.3

 

Offline kripton2035

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1633
  • Country: fr
    • kripton2035 schematics repository
Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
« Reply #65 on: April 09, 2013, 02:04:33 am »
handbrake on i7 late 2009 mac with normal hd (and overwriting existing files) take less than 1 min with an average frame rate of 65.
and a high end late 2009 i7 imac @2.8GHz is almost same speed as today base mac pro (and 1/3 of today high end mac pro)
see Dave, why I told you not to go in an apple store ? ;)

Offline ecat

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 296
  • Country: gb
Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
« Reply #66 on: April 09, 2013, 03:05:03 am »
Numbers!
For what they are worth...

i5 2500k @ 4.2GHz (for those interested, CPU Mark = 7405 ish as I had some light stuff running in background) , ATi 6950.

In Movie Studio, Sony AVC/MVC as per (my understanding of) Dave's settings in reply #48

CPU only: 2:10 200.5MB file
GPU if available 1:58 212MB file

In Movie Studio, MainConcept AVC/AAC. No option here for 12Mbps so I tried 10Mbps and 14Mbps

CPU only 4:33 212MB file (10Mpbs I think)
OpenCL 1:27 176MB file (10Mbps)
OpenCL 1:30 246MB file (14Mbps)

Conclusion:
I'm hungry. I'll try thinking and eating at the same time and see what the delusionary stew turns up.
For sure the ability of Sony AVC/MVC and MainConcept AVC/AAC to utilise the GPU differs with the former is best suited for CPU and the latter showing a considerable GPU gain.


Reason for edit:
Changed incorrect (12Mbps) to (14Mbps)
« Last Edit: April 10, 2013, 01:38:09 am by ecat »
 

Offline Wuerstchenhund

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Banned!
  • Posts: 2766
  • Country: gb
  • Occasionally active on the forum, available via PM
Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
« Reply #67 on: April 09, 2013, 03:49:19 am »
And yes I believe the Premium price for Apple is justified. Been using Macs and "normal" PC's. Apple build quality is exceptional good,

Only if you compare to cheap consumer PCs. And even then it's up for discussion if the higher price is justified.

Aside from Macs (Mac user since 1993) I am mostly using PC workstations (I'm typing this on a soon-to-be-replaced HP z800), and not only is the quality at a similar or even better level (especially when it comes to components) than with Apple, the hardware capabilities are also far superior than anything Apple offers in the high end range. That was already the case when they were selling Powermac G5s, and hasn't changed since.

And then there are the occasional design flaws Apple tends to build into their products. Which wouldn't be that bad if they at least would fix them without hassle, but unfortunately that's not how Apple works.

Quote
I find the OS a lot easier to work with than Windows (or Linux).

I think its around on par with Windows but I can't really say I find OS X easier than Windows 7 or Windows 8. In addition, for high performance tasks it's generally Windows or Linux as both are more capable than OS X.

Quote
And they keep there value more than a "normal" PC.

That is true, but then I'm not buying a computer as investment portfolio but as a tool, and at the end of the day a more capable and faster system saves me time and thus more money than what I could get more over a comparable PC after 4- years.

I have a few friends who work internationally in professional video/film production, and they often told me that the majority of machines you find there are not Macs but mostly HP and (to a smaller extend) Dell workstations. Apparently there are some die-hards who still hold onto Macs (especially in audio production) but apparently the majority happens on HP gear running Windows or Linux.
« Last Edit: April 09, 2013, 03:52:47 am by Wuerstchenhund »
Brexit n - The undefined being negotiated by the unprepared in order to get the unspecified for the uninformed.
 

Offline marmad

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 2979
  • Country: aq
    • DaysAlive
Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
« Reply #68 on: April 09, 2013, 04:51:01 am »
Win7 x64 - i7 950 @ 3.06GHz - No overclocking
Source: SSD
Destination: HD RAID Stripe
Handbrake Encode Time: 1:07

You'd likely get slightly better times using an SSD RAID Stripe as the Destination.

I agree with Wuerstchenhund on all his points surrounding Apple/Windows/Linux - and would only add that most people find the OS that they started with the easiest to work with. I've heard just as many complaints from Windows people trying to get around in OS X. If you use both OSes regularly (which you will inevitably do if you use Windows at home and teach), you'll find both of them have nice features - and other features that you absolutely hate. And in terms of learning them: both have features which make it easy and hard for new users.
 

Offline free_electron

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 6984
  • Country: us
    • SiliconValleyGarage
Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
« Reply #69 on: April 09, 2013, 04:57:17 am »
Dave : Why 1440X1080 ? that may be one of the problems.... sony software may upscale to downscale again... should be 1920x1080. filming in 4:3 ?
Professional Electron Wrangler.
Any comments, or points of view expressed, are my own and not endorsed , induced or compensated by my employer(s).
 

Offline bxs

  • Regular Contributor
  • *
  • Posts: 89
  • Country: 00
Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
« Reply #70 on: April 09, 2013, 05:13:05 am »
Dave : Why 1440X1080 ? that may be one of the problems.... sony software may upscale to downscale again... should be 1920x1080. filming in 4:3 ?

I also dislike filming in 4:3 a 16:9 video, I see it as cheating  :o

them in youtube it will reencode it from 1440x1080 to 1920x1080, kind of a mess.

look the example of video 451: hxxp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_TSr9nFN1GU
Code: [Select]
Available formats:
37      :       mp4     [1080x1920]
46      :       webm    [1080x1920]
22      :       mp4     [720x1280]
45      :       webm    [720x1280]
35      :       flv     [480x854]
44      :       webm    [480x854]
34      :       flv     [360x640]
18      :       mp4     [360x640]
43      :       webm    [360x640]
5       :       flv     [240x400]
17      :       mp4     [144x176]

I have a slow connection, so it will not affect me, some times I can't even see the 480p from youtube...
 

Offline marmad

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 2979
  • Country: aq
    • DaysAlive
Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
« Reply #71 on: April 09, 2013, 05:20:45 am »
The i5 is too slow, Dave want at least a 3930K overclocked to get some good performance.
I don't think so - I agree with Eliminateur, who suggested that Dave would be better off building a system around the AMD FX-8350, thereby getting ~83% of the 3930K encoding speed at ~35% of the price.
 

Offline moemoe

  • Regular Contributor
  • *
  • Posts: 105
  • Country: de
Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
« Reply #72 on: April 09, 2013, 05:33:31 am »
You'd likely get slightly better times using an SSD RAID Stripe as the Destination.

Don't think so, a video of this size can be written in 1-2s by a modern HDD. So give it some additional seconds for seeks, and you're still on the safe side.
https://github.com/maugsburger/
Breadboard Adapters featured in EEVBlog #573 on Tindie
 

Offline hans

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1011
  • Country: nl
Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
« Reply #73 on: April 09, 2013, 05:57:05 am »
Intel i5 3570k @ 3.6GHz (stock):1:33
Intel i5 3570K @ 4GHz: 1:18.  4GHz is pretty easy overclock these days.

Asus P8Z77-V PRO, 2x8GB 1600MHz RAM, AMD HD7850 GPU.  I used a 2GB RAM disk (6GB/s+ Read speeds, woohoo!) because for temporary files, it's actually useful.
If I'm actually using my hard drives, I usually use 2 physically seperate drives to source and write to. I don't run raid nor have very fast bulk drives, so that works best for me.

Also used Handbrake 0.9.8. Does it use QuickSync from Intel? It should be quicker than AMD or Nvidia GPU acceleration. I think I did read that Intel would work together with Handbrake to incorporate this, but I dunno whether it's released yet.

A Intel i7 3770K has 8 threads (instead of 4) but is  ~50% more expensive. For me, spending 50% extra for more threads sounds useless, because I rarely encode lots of video.
AMD make better bang per buck chips, but I am uncertain about their raw performance, especially for video encoding.
Moreover.. notice how Marmad's system (i7 950) that's a couple of years old still beats this system. Though, not sure if I can use Quicksync, maybe that's a lot faster.

I personally don't see any benefit of a Mac. I believe in the past a Mac Pro workstation would cost a fortune and was a power house. Nowadays I think it's only the 'user experience' that would set things apart, and that's user preference. I personally find Mac on a technical environment 'limiting', think about toolchains for ARM, your favorite design CAD tool, etc. Installign Dual-boot or VM with Windows? Then it defeats the purpose of having a Mac.. also, every program you can get for Mac is available for Windows. In more or less frustration free packaging.

Moreover, the Mac hardware these days is the same Intel platform.  "But they are optimized for Mac OSX". That's suggesting Intel deliberately write slower drivers (like chipset, MEI, etc.) for Windows than for Mac. I call it BS.
Even better, my motherboard (Asus P8Z77-V PRO with UEFI) comes with a shiny "Performance" button which overclocks the CPU to 4.4GHz. Not with the best settings (70C temp full load with case fans off) but ~800MHz boost which is 20% theoretical performance for free (given you run a good CPU cooler, which I would anyway for silent computing).
If Mac would have any advantage, I am pretty sure this takes it back with a bit of margin.

Also, upgrades for a desktop machine are so much cheaper.. For e.g.: 250GB Samsung 840 SSD: ~140 euro's (200$). A 512GB SSD in a Mac Pro costs 750$.
Or.. 16GB RAM upgrade would cost me about 80 euro's. For a Mac, chances are they don't upgrade it after your purchased. Or they charge you 600$ for hardware that costs 100 dollar .

Absolutely insane pricing scheme.
« Last Edit: April 09, 2013, 06:17:45 am by hans »
 

Offline marmad

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 2979
  • Country: aq
    • DaysAlive
Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
« Reply #74 on: April 09, 2013, 05:59:58 am »
Don't think so, a video of this size can be written in 1-2s by a modern HDD. So give it some additional seconds for seeks, and you're still on the safe side.

This is just a test video - I assume the videos Dave would actually be encoding would be much much larger - which is what I was referring to.
« Last Edit: April 09, 2013, 06:03:03 am by marmad »
 

Offline kripton2035

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1633
  • Country: fr
    • kripton2035 schematics repository
Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
« Reply #75 on: April 09, 2013, 06:00:41 am »
You'd likely get slightly better times using an SSD RAID Stripe as the Destination.

Don't think so, a video of this size can be written in 1-2s by a modern HDD. So give it some additional seconds for seeks, and you're still on the safe side.
+1 dont need ssd to encode movies.
I had a bunch of movies to encode from avi to mp4 and I changed the drive from 500Go 7200tr to 512go ssd
the encoding time was almost the same, no visual difference.
only the true power of the cores counts for video encoding, drive speed is not important.
also if the encoding software uses all the cores count !

Offline mariush

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 3324
  • Country: ro
  • .
Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
« Reply #76 on: April 09, 2013, 06:03:34 am »
Dave : Why 1440X1080 ? that may be one of the problems.... sony software may upscale to downscale again... should be 1920x1080. filming in 4:3 ?

I also dislike filming in 4:3 a 16:9 video, I see it as cheating  :o

them in youtube it will reencode it from 1440x1080 to 1920x1080, kind of a mess.


That's how the camera saves the video on the card.  It's the same with my Sony Handycam HDR-SR5E, the highest format is 1440x1080 interlaced at 15 mbps, and it saves to HDD. 

You might want to perform the deinterlacing yourself and stretch to 1920x1080 but you're just adding more stuff to squeeze down later before it's uploaded to youtube.

Youtube will recompress the video either way, so that it works better with their streaming strategies.  Either way, it's several recompressions. Could be even argued that leaving it 1440x1080 is better for the cases when Youtube resizes the video down to lower resolutions such as 720p and 480p.

If anyone really cares, I can do a test on my FX-8320 to see how fast it encodes video at various crf presets.

I usually just write a quick Avisynth script in which I load the video I want to recompress (usually just using DGAVCIndex, because I don't have a nvidia card to do hardware decoding) and then I load the avs script straight into x264
 

Offline M. András

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1020
  • Country: hu
Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
« Reply #77 on: April 09, 2013, 06:11:19 am »
if you are in no hurry im going to get a fx8350 within 2 weeks (waiting on the stabilisation of our currency), and i can do a test run for you with an ati 6970card 32 gig of ram so ram drive in ram drive out folders or using only the ssd as only drive. or could try it with my current 1090t which isnt much slower then the fx8350, note that this config rendered a 1080p bluray disc faster then a high-mid end nvidia card running on cuda support, dunno the editor software now but it wasnt any of the sony stuffs,  under a 2700k intel cpu about twice as fast
 

Offline marmad

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 2979
  • Country: aq
    • DaysAlive
Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
« Reply #78 on: April 09, 2013, 06:13:13 am »
only the true power of the cores counts for video encoding, drive speed is not important.

I love pronouncements from people with no data to back them up  :)
There are good reasons that people and companies have been using Stripe arrays for video-editing for decades.

With this small test video:
Encoded to HD: 1:09
Encoded to HD RAID Stripe: 1:07
« Last Edit: April 09, 2013, 06:20:30 am by marmad »
 

Offline moemoe

  • Regular Contributor
  • *
  • Posts: 105
  • Country: de
Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
« Reply #79 on: April 09, 2013, 06:21:57 am »
Don't think so, a video of this size can be written in 1-2s by a modern HDD. So give it some additional seconds for seeks, and you're still on the safe side.

This is just a test video - I assume the videos Dave would actually be encoding would be much much larger - which is what I was referring to.
Yes, but as the encoding also takes much longer, there is more time available to write…

It's not like encoding the whole software in some magic black hole and after finishing warping it back as one big blob from the n-th dimension onto your hard disk ;)
https://github.com/maugsburger/
Breadboard Adapters featured in EEVBlog #573 on Tindie
 

Offline dimlow

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 301
  • Country: gb
  • Likes to be thought of as
    • Dimlow Ponders
Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
« Reply #80 on: April 09, 2013, 06:33:29 am »

I don't think so - I agree with Eliminateur, who suggested that Dave would be better off building a system around the AMD , thereby getting ~83% of the 3930K encoding speed at ~35% of the price.

Dave may waste his money however he wishes, But really AMD  FX-8350 :-DD My Q6600 can piss higher than that.

http://valid.canardpc.com/show_oc.php?id=2333339
« Last Edit: April 09, 2013, 06:42:39 am by dimlow »
 

Offline mariush

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 3324
  • Country: ro
  • .
Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
« Reply #81 on: April 09, 2013, 06:43:25 am »
FX-8320 , 16 GB of ram, video in a 8 GB ramdrive.

Source is 1440x1080 h264 stream  2m 30s = 452,290,777 bytes , so about 24 mbps , using the following AVS script:

Code: [Select]
loadplugin("c:\Programs\MeGUI\tools\dgavcindex\DGAVCDecode.dll")
AVCSource("sequence.dga")

No video card acceleration, the Radeon 4850 is not supported well and it's AMD so I can't use the DGAVCIndex made for nVidia cards.

The recompression will be a bit faster with streams that have lower bitrate.
Also, the speed will be a bit higher with a better multithreaded h264 decoder. Using "DirectShowSource" instead of AVCSource to decode the h264 stream using another codec resulted in 26.8 fps for the CRF 28 test, about 3 fps more.

FX-8350 may be slightly faster but probably a few more frames. FX-8320 defaults to 3.5 Ghz and turbo boosts to 4 Ghz from, fx-8350 defaults to 4 ghz and turbo boosts to 4.2 ghz.  Throughout the tests, the 8 cores stayed at about 88-93% cpu usage.

CRF 19

Code: [Select]
y:\>x264.exe --crf 19 -o seq.mp4 sequence.avs
avs [info]: 1440x1080p 0:0 @ 25/1 fps (cfr)
x264 [info]: using cpu capabilities: MMX2 SSE2Fast SSSE3 SSE4.2 AVX XOP FMA4 FMA3 SSEMisalign LZCNT BMI1
x264 [info]: profile High, level 4.0
aborted at input frame 1605, output frame 1550
encoded 1550 frames, 16.59 fps, 10689.29 kb/s

CRF 23

Code: [Select]
y:\>x264.exe --crf 23 -o seq.mp4 sequence.avs
avs [info]: 1440x1080p 0:0 @ 25/1 fps (cfr)
x264 [info]: using cpu capabilities: MMX2 SSE2Fast SSSE3 SSE4.2 AVX XOP FMA4 FMA3 SSE Misalign LZCNT BMI1
x264 [info]: profile High, level 4.0
[..]
aborted at input frame 1466, output frame 1411
encoded 1411 frames, 21.72 fps, 5333.93 kb/s

CRF 28

Code: [Select]
y:\>x264.exe --crf 28 -o seq.mp4 sequence.avs
avs [info]: 1440x1080p 0:0 @ 25/1 fps (cfr)
x264 [info]: using cpu capabilities: MMX2 SSE2Fast SSSE3 SSE4.2 AVX XOP FMA4 FMA3 SSE Misalign LZCNT BMI1
x264 [info]: profile High, level 4.0
[..]
aborted at input frame 1534, output frame 1479
encoded 1479 frames, 24.16 fps, 2685.54 kb/s
 

Offline hans

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1011
  • Country: nl
Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
« Reply #82 on: April 09, 2013, 06:47:05 am »
I've just tried Mediaconverter 8 trial with proper Intel Quicksync setup. QuickSync doesn't seem to help Handbrake though. CPU i5 3570K @ 4GHz (light overclock, but irrelevant for GPU rendering), 16GB RAM

CPU core; "Youtube" output (=1080p, 30fps; VBR, seems to around 6000Kbps, 48kHz AAC audio): 120MB output, took 0:35
Intel Quicksync: "Youtube" output; 180MB output (doh), took 0:18
Intel Quicksync: custom Youtube output (1080p; 30fps; 6000Kbps, 48kHz AAC 128kbps); 104MB output in 0:23

Pretty quick, but don't see a lot of options in Mediaconverter 8 :(
Quality for me personally is still very good, no complaints. Although 30fps is maybe a bit too much (seems to be fixed), and 128kbps is a bit low (ah well..)
« Last Edit: April 09, 2013, 07:02:07 am by hans »
 

Offline marmad

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 2979
  • Country: aq
    • DaysAlive
Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
« Reply #83 on: April 09, 2013, 06:50:21 am »
Dave may waste his money however he wishes, But really AMD  FX-8350 :-DD My Q6600 can piss higher than that.
Seriously? Wow, a literal pissing contest - complete with the requisite boasts and lack of data  ;)

Here - let me help: http://cpuboss.com/cpus/Intel-Core2-Quad-Q6600-vs-AMD-FX-8350
 

Offline Eliminateur

  • Regular Contributor
  • *
  • Posts: 173
  • Country: ar
  • Electronic's Technician
Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
« Reply #84 on: April 09, 2013, 06:56:52 am »
whilst the Q6600 is a very good cpu, it's completely outclassed by an FX-8350 in anything, SPECIALLY encoding, and you can check the benchmark i pasted in last page...

about ssd output, for the bitrates dave uses a SSD is unnecessary, simply reading from a hdd and writing to a different hdd should do the trick (the extra times can be because of the reading AND writing to the same HDD at 10~12Mbps*2).
after all 10/12mbps or 24mbps is hardly enough to bother a mechanical hdd and it's a sequential workload, perfect for HDD
 

Offline dimlow

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 301
  • Country: gb
  • Likes to be thought of as
    • Dimlow Ponders
Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
« Reply #85 on: April 09, 2013, 06:57:07 am »
 ;D
 

Offline marmad

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 2979
  • Country: aq
    • DaysAlive
Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
« Reply #86 on: April 09, 2013, 07:03:53 am »
about ssd output, for the bitrates dave uses a SSD is unnecessary, simply reading from a hdd and writing to a different hdd should do the trick (the extra times can be because of the reading AND writing to the same HDD at 10~12Mbps*2).
after all 10/12mbps or 24mbps is hardly enough to bother a mechanical hdd and it's a sequential workload, perfect for HDD

I've been talking about using SSD Stripe arrays - and yes, it would only shave off a couple of seconds if Dave is only doing encoding and nothing else. But I assumed Dave was going to be doing some editing as well, no? And if he's putting together a new desktop machine for that, then he should be outfitting it with a Stripe array.
 

Offline dimlow

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 301
  • Country: gb
  • Likes to be thought of as
    • Dimlow Ponders
Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
« Reply #87 on: April 09, 2013, 07:13:08 am »
OK, I saw that this was about to turn into a pissing contest and stuck my toe in to test the water. You both bit it right off! >:D

But seriously he should buy a good CPU, nothing out there is better for encoding than the 3930k add an overclock to that and he will be seriously happy. It may seem like a waste of money, but look at it this way I have have my Q6600 now for 7 Years and only one person on this forum has had better encoding speeds. This CPU has lasted me. i have had no need to upgrade for 7 years. Think of all the other upgrades people have wasted their money on in that time. Whilst i have kept my money in my pocket. Really did i waste my money when i bought the Q9900 many many years ago and paid top dollar? I dont think so. Yes maybe now its time to upgrade, but to be honest the only thing that stresses this machine is video encoding and i don't do a lot with that. Again its faster than most people machines 7 years later.

Raid would be for editing, not encoding.

 

Offline hans

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1011
  • Country: nl
Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
« Reply #88 on: April 09, 2013, 07:13:41 am »

I don't think so - I agree with Eliminateur, who suggested that Dave would be better off building a system around the AMD , thereby getting ~83% of the 3930K encoding speed at ~35% of the price.

Dave may waste his money however he wishes, But really AMD  FX-8350 :-DD My Q6600 can piss higher than that.

http://valid.canardpc.com/show_oc.php?id=2333339

A 4.2GHz overclock is pretty high. 1.6V core voltage... How much power is that consuming? Probably more than a toaster. Not very practical easy-to-use and reliable setup.
 I pushed my old Q6600 further than 3.4GHz or so without increasing the core voltage too much (and thus creating a local heater).
I have to say, it's amazing how fast a Q6600 chip today still is. In many tasks it can keep it up, even though it's already 6 years old.... Too bad my old motherboard memory controller got dementia on every bank so Windows wouldn't install anymore.

Also, the bitrates here are pretty low indeed.. 24Mbps is still only 3MB/s raw data. If you do have something like Quicksync that can encode at 7-8x at 1080p, it's still only 24MB/s input data rate.
However, copying files, loading, editing, etc. is A LOT faster.
 

Offline _Sin

  • Regular Contributor
  • *
  • Posts: 247
  • Country: gb
Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
« Reply #89 on: April 09, 2013, 07:20:33 am »
FWIW, my aging Mac Pro encodes the file in under 50s using HandBrake, but that's with less than 50% CPU usage. If I encoded two files at once I could probably average better times.

« Last Edit: April 09, 2013, 07:23:07 am by _Sin »
Programmer with a soldering iron - fear me.
 

Offline dimlow

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 301
  • Country: gb
  • Likes to be thought of as
    • Dimlow Ponders
Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
« Reply #90 on: April 09, 2013, 07:22:35 am »

A 4.2GHz overclock is pretty high. 1.6V core voltage... How much power is that consuming? Probably more than a toaster. Not very practical easy-to-use and reliable setup.
 I pushed my old Q6600 further than 3.4GHz or so without increasing the core voltage too much (and thus creating a local heater).
I have to say, it's amazing how fast a Q6600 chip today still is. In many tasks it can keep it up, even though it's already 6 years old.... Too bad my old motherboard memory controller got dementia on every bank so Windows wouldn't install anymore.

I runs at 3.8, water cooled with 6x120 rads, its speed stepped, runs at 2.4 at idle consumes 90 Watts at idle. Pulls 240 watts when running at 4.2



Edit: Added a pic for you all
« Last Edit: April 09, 2013, 08:02:07 am by dimlow »
 

Offline marmad

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 2979
  • Country: aq
    • DaysAlive
Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
« Reply #91 on: April 09, 2013, 07:28:32 am »
But seriously he should buy a good CPU, nothing out there is better for encoding than the 3930k add an overclock to that and he will be seriously happy. It may seem like a waste of money...

Raid would be for editing, not encoding.

This thread has become all about encoding - but that's not where it started. It was about Dave getting a new machine for editing, rendering, and encoding - and that's what I've been speaking to. He already expressed a desire to save money - and benchmarks clearly show the AMD CPU as an excellent bargain in regards to encoding - so my advice for Dave would be to save money on an expensive CPU - and either invest it in an SDD RAID subsystem - or pocket it and just use a normal HDD RAID. Anyway, my final two cents.
 

Offline ivan747

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 2010
  • Country: do
Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
« Reply #92 on: April 09, 2013, 08:03:11 am »
Dave, if you still have some hope left for Mac:

Quote from: MacRumors
Apple will announce its replacement for the company’s Mac Pro lineup this month, a source who has been correct about Apple product matters in the past has just informed us.

Our source offered no information as to whether the "Mac Pro replacement" would be a tower, mini-tower, or some other solution, but did caution that the announcement "could slip into May or even June, but currently April looks most likely."

Still, that doesn't justify they didn't update it for 3 years. And I know the hardware is expensive, but take into account the quality of the construction (although this is more relevant on laptops, I admit), service, replacement parts, aftermarket additions and such.

Something that adds value is the operative system. It is much simpler to use when you get used to it. It's just like the Qwerty vs. Dvorak battle. You lose some time getting used to it, but after that things are easy to figure out. Little details like drag and drop support in pretty much anything, text rendering and mouse gestures are great.

But I think I lost this battle.  :-\

One thing. When you work on Apple's stuff (specially things like iTunes and iPhoto) is either their way or the highway. Usually their way is excellent. One example: iTunes sorts audio files by their tags and it is the only way it works. If you buy the songs from iTunes or rip them from original CDs, no worries. If you got the MP3s from god knows where, you better add the tags before you en up with a total mess. Some players like VLC don't give a fuck and play music directly form your poorly organized folders or if you prefer, they use the tags.
Nothing like the smell of rosin core solder in the morning.
"Could you not use some of that crowdfunded $1.5 million to hire a graphic designer who understands perspective?" -Delta
"A soldering station I bought once had a sticker on it that said, I shit you not, 'QENUINE'." -c4757p
 

Offline Lightages

  • Supporter
  • ****
  • Posts: 4295
  • Country: ca
  • Canadian po
Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
« Reply #93 on: April 09, 2013, 08:05:37 am »
Like I said, these guys have a couple of good buying guides on hardware. They are a respected business too.
http://www.videoguys.com/Guide/E/Videoguys+DIY9+Its+Time+for+Sandy+Bridge+E+DIY+95+Update/0xe9b142f408a2b03ab88144a434e88de7.aspx
 

Offline SteigsdB

  • Contributor
  • Posts: 31
Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
« Reply #94 on: April 09, 2013, 09:01:37 am »
No, no..

Dave, you're going about this all the wrong way.

Clearly, you need to pick up an Alexa and a copy of Media Composer to play nicely with your Matrox card.

Maybe even grab a 2nd Alexa and get a 3ality rig for those lifelike teardowns...

  >:D
 

Offline c4757p

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 7805
  • Country: us
  • adieu
Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
« Reply #95 on: April 09, 2013, 09:07:12 am »
Something that adds value is the operative system. It is much simpler to use when you get used to it.

Any operating system released after 2000, having more than three people who have heard of it, is going to be simple to use once you get used to it. That's kind of what "getting used to it" means.

Quote
Some players like VLC don't give a fuck and play music directly form your poorly organized folders or if you prefer, they use the tags.

I've never understood the need for anything else. It seems like every music player in the world has to reinvent the file system.
No longer active here - try the IRC channel if you just can't be without me :)
 

Offline EEVblog

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 27422
  • Country: au
    • EEVblog
Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
« Reply #96 on: April 09, 2013, 09:08:44 am »
Dave : Why 1440X1080 ? that may be one of the problems.... sony software may upscale to downscale again... should be 1920x1080. filming in 4:3 ?

The camera only has 24Mbps 1920x1080, 17Mbps 1920x1080, or 12Mbps 1440x1080 (or lower, which I use for the long live shows)
I keep all raw footage, so file space is important.
 

Offline EEVblog

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 27422
  • Country: au
    • EEVblog
Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
« Reply #97 on: April 09, 2013, 09:11:21 am »
This thread has become all about encoding - but that's not where it started. It was about Dave getting a new machine for editing, rendering, and encoding - and that's what I've been speaking to. He already expressed a desire to save money - and benchmarks clearly show the AMD CPU as an excellent bargain in regards to encoding - so my advice for Dave would be to save money on an expensive CPU - and either invest it in an SDD RAID subsystem - or pocket it and just use a normal HDD RAID. Anyway, my final two cents.

Most sources I have read on the subject say RAID systems and SSD's do nothing to improve the situation for rendering or transcoding. The drive is not the bottleneck. Regular cheap 7200rpm drives are fast enough.
 

Offline EEVblog

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 27422
  • Country: au
    • EEVblog
Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
« Reply #98 on: April 09, 2013, 09:13:55 am »
I've been talking about using SSD Stripe arrays - and yes, it would only shave off a couple of seconds if Dave is only doing encoding and nothing else. But I assumed Dave was going to be doing some editing as well, no? And if he's putting together a new desktop machine for that, then he should be outfitting it with a Stripe array.

I don't need to speed up my editing, it already has zero delay.
 

Offline c4757p

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 7805
  • Country: us
  • adieu
Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
« Reply #99 on: April 09, 2013, 09:14:02 am »
Most sources I have read on the subject say RAID systems and SSD's do nothing to improve the situation for rendering or transcoding. The drive is not the bottleneck. Regular cheap 7200rpm drives are fast enough.

Yeah, if your hard drive isn't thrashing, there's no point in upgrading. Don't tell that to the SSD fanboys though.
No longer active here - try the IRC channel if you just can't be without me :)
 

Offline EEVblog

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 27422
  • Country: au
    • EEVblog
Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
« Reply #100 on: April 09, 2013, 09:15:44 am »
I don't see the lack of MTS files as a big fail, MTS is just a contender, in this case a transport stream, you can simple remux it to something like a mp4, it will be as fast as your hard drive.

It is a show stopper.
There is no way I am going to add another conversion step to my workflow, that would be silly. I like taking the file direct from the camera and start editing it.
 

Offline marmad

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 2979
  • Country: aq
    • DaysAlive
Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
« Reply #101 on: April 09, 2013, 09:51:03 am »
Most sources I have read on the subject say RAID systems and SSD's do nothing to improve the situation for rendering or transcoding. The drive is not the bottleneck. Regular cheap 7200rpm drives are fast enough.

I use a desktop machine with 3 RAIDS and a few individual 7200rpm and SSD drives - and I've noticed a difference in the process when using the RAIDs when editing large videos with multiple tracks - and there are certainly plenty of sources that suggest RAIDs - even Adobe themselves - you just have to Google Final Cut Pro and RAID. But hey, it was just a suggestion - I know what works for me but everyone has their own particular needs.
 

Online westfw

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 2787
  • Country: us
Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
« Reply #102 on: April 09, 2013, 10:03:37 am »
For a moment there, it looked like we had an actual benchmark going.  But perhaps not.
Code: [Select]
time HandBrakeCLI -i /Downloads/EEVblogTestRender2Min22.MTS -t 1 -c 1 -o EEVblogTestRender2min22-SonyAVC-1440x1080_a.mp4 -f mp4 --strict-anamorphic  -e x264 -q 22 -r 25 --cfr  -a 1 -E faac -B 192 -6 stereo -R 48 -D 0 --gain=0 --audio-copy-mask none --audio-fallback ffac3 -x ref=2:bframes=2:subq=6:mixed-refs=0:weightb=0:8x8dct=0:trellis=0 --verbose=1Ran in 1m46s on my PowerMac (2008 vintage, 8core 2.8GHz Xeon.  MacOS 10.7.5)  It did claim to be using most of all 8 cores...  That's not blindingly fast, compared to what other people are seeing, but it's also not dramatically slower as per "The Apple Store Experience."

(is that I reasonable test?  I thought Dave said he was going from the MTS to something else, and THEN running handbrake on it.)

My wife's newer but less tricked-out iMac (3.2GHz i3 with 2C, 4T) did much worse: 3:31 or so.  Don't get one of them!
« Last Edit: April 09, 2013, 10:15:29 am by westfw »
 

Offline Someone

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1941
  • Country: au
Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
« Reply #103 on: April 09, 2013, 11:01:32 am »
....Me: "So how do a I copy these .MTS video files from my camera into Final Cut"
Dude: "You can't do that, it has be in the original card format"
Me: "You're kidding right? I can't just copy and drop a .MTS file onto the timeline"
Dude: "Nope, it's always been that way, it's silly"
Me: "That's almost a show stopper. How about this .MP4 file?"....
I don't see the lack of MTS files as a big fail, MTS is just a contender, in this case a transport stream, you can simple remux it to something like a mp4, it will be as fast as your hard drive.

It is a show stopper.
There is no way I am going to add another conversion step to my workflow, that would be silly. I like taking the file direct from the camera and start editing it.
The workflow with MTS files and sony cameras is actually not so bad, but the people in the typical store wont know the ins and outs of the pro software. Historically the resellers made a lot of money in training so they became specialists in specific market segments (music shops selling protools rigs with macs, resellers selling macs and video hardware).

http://www.pavtube.com/guide/import-avchd-to-final-cut-pro-7.html

No idea what the workflow is in their "X" version, but the support documents suggests they support it;
http://help.apple.com/finalcutpro/cameras/en/index.html
 

Offline RCMR

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 405
Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
« Reply #104 on: April 09, 2013, 12:15:17 pm »
Sorry, but I'm pretty sure Apple is not going to be worthwhile investment, so will not pursue it any more, it's just "the vibe"
Are you sure it's not Mabo or the constitution -- no, you're right, it's mainly "the vibe".

Find yourself a good rendering machine and take it straight to the pool room!

 :-+ :-+
 

Online NiHaoMike

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 4709
  • Country: us
  • "Don't turn it on - Take it apart!"
    • Facebook Page
Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
« Reply #105 on: April 09, 2013, 12:17:58 pm »
But seriously he should buy a good CPU, nothing out there is better for encoding than the 3930k add an overclock to that and he will be seriously happy. It may seem like a waste of money, but look at it this way I have have my Q6600 now for 7 Years and only one person on this forum has had better encoding speeds. This CPU has lasted me. i have had no need to upgrade for 7 years. Think of all the other upgrades people have wasted their money on in that time. Whilst i have kept my money in my pocket. Really did i waste my money when i bought the Q9900 many many years ago and paid top dollar? I dont think so. Yes maybe now its time to upgrade, but to be honest the only thing that stresses this machine is video encoding and i don't do a lot with that. Again its faster than most people machines 7 years later.
If you're going for a high end machine for video editing, a 3930k is the way to go. With a good fan (I highly recommend Delta), it's very easy to push it up to 3.8GHz continuous by tweaking the Turbo Boost settings.

As for a video card, a GTX 650 is a great choice for general use, though you'll want a GTX 660 or above if you plan to do gaming/advanced 3D CAD/CUDA/etc. Even more so if you're going to be using a 120Hz/240Hz 1080p or above monitor - a 680 or two 660s would be a good minimum for that. (My 560 Ti can do 120Hz 1080p in D2X-XL but it frame jitters on really detailed levels. I plan to buy another video card in the near future and use the existing one as a secondary CUDA card and to drive more monitors.)

As for SSDs, they're worth it if you value a fast boot, but you'll definitely still need HDDs for video editing. Go for at least 16GB of RAM since it's really cheap nowadays. (Note that once you have that much RAM, the kernel has a lot of disk cache to work with and the advantage of using a SSD is much smaller.)
Cryptocurrency has taught me to love math and at the same time be baffled by it.

Cryptocurrency lesson 0: Altcoins and Bitcoin are not the same thing.
 

Offline EEVblog

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 27422
  • Country: au
    • EEVblog
Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
« Reply #106 on: April 09, 2013, 12:19:09 pm »
I use a desktop machine with 3 RAIDS and a few individual 7200rpm and SSD drives - and I've noticed a difference in the process when using the RAIDs when editing large videos with multiple tracks - and there are certainly plenty of sources that suggest RAIDs - even Adobe themselves - you just have to Google Final Cut Pro and RAID. But hey, it was just a suggestion - I know what works for me but everyone has their own particular needs.

I have no problems with editing at all, it's all instant, no lag, nothing.
Rendering and transcoding in Handbrake are the only things that take time and could do with some improvement, and both of these spend most of their time processing, not writing to disk, so having a fast disk system does not matter.
 

Offline EEVblog

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 27422
  • Country: au
    • EEVblog
Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
« Reply #107 on: April 09, 2013, 12:24:17 pm »
As for a video card, a GTX 650 is a great choice for general use, though you'll want a GTX 660 or above if you plan to do gaming/advanced 3D CAD/CUDA/etc. Even more so if you're going to be using a 120Hz/240Hz 1080p or above monitor - a 680 or two 660s would be a good minimum for that. (My 560 Ti can do 120Hz 1080p in D2X-XL but it frame jitters on really detailed levels. I plan to buy another video card in the near future and use the existing one as a secondary CUDA card and to drive more monitors.)

I have absolutley no need to play games or do anything else fancy, all the video card will get used for is the CUDA (with Nvidia), or OpenCL (Radeon) GPU acceleration with Sony MS (and perhaps Handbrake once it gets this capability).
I have had far too many issues with Radeon driver and Sony, so I'll almost certainly go Nvidia.
 

Offline EEVblog

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 27422
  • Country: au
    • EEVblog
Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
« Reply #108 on: April 09, 2013, 12:50:50 pm »
My old lab dumpster dive Dell XPS 420 2.4GHz Q6600 with 4GB of RAM and single 7200 drive renders EEVblogTestRender2min22-SonyAVC-1440x1080.mp4 in 3:02
 

Offline dimlow

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 301
  • Country: gb
  • Likes to be thought of as
    • Dimlow Ponders
Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
« Reply #109 on: April 09, 2013, 12:53:01 pm »
You do know that is its not OpenCL for AMD and CUDA for Nvidia ? Nvidia cards support both OpenCL and CUDA. NVIDIA has been delivering OpenCL support in end-user production drivers since October 2009, supporting OpenCL on all 250,000,000+ CUDA architecture GPUs shipped since 2006.
« Last Edit: April 09, 2013, 01:19:36 pm by dimlow »
 

Offline dimlow

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 301
  • Country: gb
  • Likes to be thought of as
    • Dimlow Ponders
Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
« Reply #110 on: April 09, 2013, 12:54:18 pm »
My old lab dumpster dive Dell XPS 420 2.4GHz Q6600 with 4GB of RAM and single 7200 drive renders EEVblogTestRender2min22-SonyAVC-1440x1080.mp4 in 3:02

Clock speed is the key here.
 

Offline EEVblog

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 27422
  • Country: au
    • EEVblog
Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
« Reply #111 on: April 09, 2013, 12:57:24 pm »
You do know that is not OpenCL for AMD and CUDA for Nvidia ? Nvidia cards support both OpenCL and CUDA. NVIDIA has been delivering OpenCL support in end-user production drivers since October 2009, supporting OpenCL on all 250,000,000+ CUDA architecture GPUs shipped since 2006.

All I know is that Sony MS supports both CUDA and Open CL, and Radeon does not have CUDA so you are forced to use OpenCL with it, and I've had big problems with using Open CL with Sony MS. Maybe it's just a Radeon issue, but maybe not.
So I will be trying Nvidia and CUDA.
 

Offline dimlow

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 301
  • Country: gb
  • Likes to be thought of as
    • Dimlow Ponders
Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
« Reply #112 on: April 09, 2013, 01:12:39 pm »
Just for a heads up if you're going the Nvidia route, take note that the GTX 6XX series cards perform slower than the GTX 5XX when using CUDA and OpenCL. I use a GTX570 plus a GTX 580 for rendering 3D in Blender. some time back there were a lot of people disappointed with their new GTX 6XX cards and render speeds. Things may have changed now as i have not checked in a while and there have been driver updates. But this was only 6 months ago when i was looking for some extra rendering speeds.

see the third post here http://www.tomshardware.co.uk/forum/347529-33-560ti-cuda

Oh an i don't play 3d games either.

« Last Edit: April 09, 2013, 01:21:24 pm by dimlow »
 

Offline EEVblog

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 27422
  • Country: au
    • EEVblog
Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
« Reply #113 on: April 09, 2013, 01:44:22 pm »
Just went to my local computer stores, USB stick in hand to test some system.
But they don't have any fast machine configured in the store, just crap demo systems for the consumer. Real machines are built to order only.
Best machine I could find did the render test in over 3min
 

Offline dimlow

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 301
  • Country: gb
  • Likes to be thought of as
    • Dimlow Ponders
Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
« Reply #114 on: April 09, 2013, 01:54:55 pm »
Unfortunately if you want a fast machine , it is better to build it, or get someone that knows their stuff. You will also end up with better components. Most box shifters just want the specs to look good. When you open one of these up you often find that it may have a cheap micro ATX board and no room for expansion, crap cooler, all the mem sockets are full with cheap low performing RAM, only internal graphics and no spare slots to upgrade and a power supply that can only just do the job.
 

Offline EEVblog

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 27422
  • Country: au
    • EEVblog
Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
« Reply #115 on: April 09, 2013, 02:04:49 pm »
Unfortunately if you want a fast machine , it is better to build it, or get someone that knows their stuff.

Yes.
Any recommendations for a good online Oz supplier of systems that offers a ton of flexible options to build your own machine?
 

Offline dimlow

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 301
  • Country: gb
  • Likes to be thought of as
    • Dimlow Ponders
Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
« Reply #116 on: April 09, 2013, 02:22:26 pm »
Well how about Cairns, Queensland ?

But i think this guy goes a little overboard for what you want.

http://www.youtube.com/user/SingularityComputers
 

Offline EEVblog

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 27422
  • Country: au
    • EEVblog
Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
« Reply #117 on: April 09, 2013, 02:32:31 pm »
But i think this guy goes a little overboard for what you want.

Yeah, that's kinda overboard  ::)

These mobs do custom PC's with all the options it seems:
http://gamingpcs.com.au/?gclid=CMDWzfXdvLYCFSVNpgodvWkABQ
http://www.centrecom.com.au/catalog/build.php

And there are probably a dozen others.
 

Offline EEVblog

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 27422
  • Country: au
    • EEVblog
Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
« Reply #118 on: April 09, 2013, 02:46:16 pm »
Ok, it seems fairly safe to assume now that rendering speed is pretty much CPU (& memory) type/speed dependent.
My current 2GHz machine is highlighted here in red:
http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu_lookup.php?cpu=Intel+Core+i7-2630QM+%40+2.00GHz

Even the relatively "pedestrian" i7 3770 at 3Ghz or AMD FX-8350 is almost double the speed of my current processor.
I'd rather spend more on a fast motherboard, memory, and graphics card than flat out best CPU speed I think.

Some quick shopping cart playing shows a decent system to be in the $1200 ballpark minimum, with no OS.
 

Offline dimlow

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 301
  • Country: gb
  • Likes to be thought of as
    • Dimlow Ponders
Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
« Reply #119 on: April 09, 2013, 02:48:44 pm »
Yep, way overboard, but his systems are the dogs, er, i forget you're saying. I was not recommending him but he's the only guy i now in Oz that builds PC's

Dave i'm sure you are more than capable of assembling a system. You just need a parts list and a couple of hours. Building a PC is just like lego these days. I expect if you publish a budget here forum users could come up with a parts list for you. I would do it, but i'm off to bed now, its almost 6 am and i have been working all night on my GPIB-USB controller. Its time i got some sleep.
 

Offline EEVblog

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 27422
  • Country: au
    • EEVblog
Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
« Reply #120 on: April 09, 2013, 03:00:03 pm »
Dave i'm sure you are more than capable of assembling a system. You just need a parts list and a couple of hours. Building a PC is just like lego these days.

Yes, but it's just easier to pick and order everything from someone like this:
http://www.centrecom.com.au/catalog/build.php
Rather than buying this bit from here, this bit from there etc.
I suspect you won't save a huge amount by sourcing separately and building yourself?  :-//
It's been decades since I built my own PC.
 

Offline dimlow

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 301
  • Country: gb
  • Likes to be thought of as
    • Dimlow Ponders
Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
« Reply #121 on: April 09, 2013, 03:09:05 pm »
OK, one last post before bed. I would think CPU speed is No 1,then MB, ram and drive speed SSD. I would not put too much into graphics card.

If you don't have an SSD i would seriously consider it. Night and day compared to Hard Drives. You don't need a big one just enough for OS and some software. Other files/storage  go on another HD.

By building, you know exactly what you put in it. If centrecom can build it at a reasonable price that you are happy with then fine. But building is not that difficult, you just need to make sure you have compatible parts. I don't think you will save money by building it.

I'll be back in about 6 hours.
 

Offline peter.mitchell

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1568
  • Country: au
Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
« Reply #122 on: April 09, 2013, 03:26:07 pm »
Dave i'm sure you are more than capable of assembling a system. You just need a parts list and a couple of hours. Building a PC is just like lego these days.

Yes, but it's just easier to pick and order everything from someone like this:
http://www.centrecom.com.au/catalog/build.php
Rather than buying this bit from here, this bit from there etc.
I suspect you won't save a huge amount by sourcing separately and building yourself?  :-//
It's been decades since I built my own PC.

Dave, have you checked out itestate or MSY, msy has a horrible website but their prices are great, itestate is a bit more tolerable.

Most "pre assembled" computers usually charge something around $60 + 10% on parts, however, centrecom are one of the few that don't charge the 10% on parts, so if their prices are comparable to itestate and msy, i'd just get it there, also a great place to just check the prices on parts is www.staticice.com.au
 

Offline moemoe

  • Regular Contributor
  • *
  • Posts: 105
  • Country: de
Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
« Reply #123 on: April 09, 2013, 04:31:11 pm »
Even the relatively "pedestrian" i7 3770 at 3Ghz or AMD FX-8350 is almost double the speed of my current processor.
I'd rather spend more on a fast motherboard, memory, and graphics card than flat out best CPU speed I think.

I don't see any reason – aside some of your programs needs some decent 3d capabilities – to buy a seperate video card these days. The integrated graphics core on the i* chips works quite well fucking awesome today, and the GPU in the K models is even better.

I built the system some pages ago (i5 2500K @3.3GHz, Win7 64bit, rotating rust: 1m48s) for about 500€ 1.5a ago. A modern system with Intel Core i7-3770K should be about 100€ more. Just add some mainboard, case, hdd, psu.
https://github.com/maugsburger/
Breadboard Adapters featured in EEVBlog #573 on Tindie
 

Offline EEVblog

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 27422
  • Country: au
    • EEVblog
Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
« Reply #124 on: April 09, 2013, 06:45:03 pm »
I don't see any reason – aside some of your programs needs some decent 3d capabilities – to buy a seperate video card these days. The integrated graphics core on the i* chips works quite well fucking awesome today, and the GPU in the K models is even better.

Possibly. I can always build the machine and try it with the integrated graphics first and see what I get.
I'm currently using my DV7 notebook with the integrated graphics driving dual screens no problems at all. I'm not using the extra Radeon graphics card built in othe notebook, as the drivers screwed up Sony.
 

Offline hans

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1011
  • Country: nl
Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
« Reply #125 on: April 09, 2013, 07:12:46 pm »
Dave i'm sure you are more than capable of assembling a system. You just need a parts list and a couple of hours. Building a PC is just like lego these days.

Yes, but it's just easier to pick and order everything from someone like this:
http://www.centrecom.com.au/catalog/build.php
Rather than buying this bit from here, this bit from there etc.
I suspect you won't save a huge amount by sourcing separately and building yourself?  :-//
It's been decades since I built my own PC.
Not really no. In Netherlands we are cheap, and have pricewatches. A couple of dozen shops update their prices daily for products, so we can find the best, place reviews etc. Unfortunately, all local market.
However, I do use it when putting together a new system. If you would order all parts at 1 'good' shop with reasonable prices, compared to getting cheapest everywhere (sometimes ordering at 4 or 5 shops).. it saves about <10% or so. E.g., on 600 euro's I can save about 50.

My experience with PC's these days is: it's very easy to assemble but not completely frustration free.
For example: I owned a Gigabyte motherboard once, which had such a crappy UEFI BIOS it wouldn't boot with certain USB devices plugged in (external harddrive) or a displayport monitor (I have to use DisplayPort for triple screen setups). Took me a week to figure out it's Gigabyte's crappy BIOS firmware.
RMA'ed the board (takes 1-2 weeks to process), had to seek replacement PC in the meantime, buy a different board, etc.

At that point I wish I just bought all the parts + 50 euro assembly + testing fee.
However, then the shop would need a computer case, harddrives, PSU, etc. I always reuse those parts, so I am not going to buy them twice..

Ah well, what I would do when assembling a new system now:

Intel i5 3570K or i7 3770K CPU. Note the 'K'. This is an unlocked CPU, ready for overclocking, and costs about 10$ - 15$ more. Moreover, it features a Intel HD4000 GPU over a HD2500 (in the non-K edition), which is faster with Quicksync video encoding.
So even on casual systems I'd spend 10$ extra for the much faster GPU. It may come in handy some day.

RAM: 16GB, 2 sticks of some sort. 1333/1600MHz DDR3 is good
Motherboard: recommend sticking with the major guys like Asus or MSI. I always have had trouble with other manufacturers.
SSD: Crucial m4, Samsung 840 series, Plextor M5P series, are all very fast and good drives. Get like 128G or maybe 256G (if you have big apps or games) as boot and Windows drive. Can't live without..
GPU: If you don't run games use the onboard Intel. It would probably outrun a low-end dedicated GPU..

HDD's/casing/power supply: reuse, buy whatever you like. Wouldn't cut on PSU's too much, as we all know how bad PSU's can get.
 

Offline EEVblog

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 27422
  • Country: au
    • EEVblog
Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
« Reply #126 on: April 09, 2013, 08:04:51 pm »
Hmm, looks like I can get a 2nd hand Xeon Dell machine pretty cheap (under $1K).
A Precision T3600 with Quad Core Xeon E5-1620 @ 3.60GHz
http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=Intel+Xeon+E5-1620+%40+3.60GHz
With 7200 RAID hard drive system and a NVIDIA Quadro NVS310 card (doesn't sound that modern?)

Would that be a good deal and decent system for rendering?
 

Offline peter.mitchell

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1568
  • Country: au
Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
« Reply #127 on: April 09, 2013, 08:08:39 pm »
Not really, you could get a pre-assembled equivalent for about the same price AND warranty.
 

Offline EEVblog

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 27422
  • Country: au
    • EEVblog
Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
« Reply #128 on: April 09, 2013, 08:10:16 pm »
Not really, you could get a pre-assembled equivalent for about the same price AND warranty.

It includes a 1yr warranty.
 

Offline peter.mitchell

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1568
  • Country: au
Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
« Reply #129 on: April 09, 2013, 08:30:08 pm »
Not really, you could get a pre-assembled equivalent for about the same price AND warranty.

It includes a 1yr warranty.

Sorry for assuming, though, it still doesn't make it much better, for example, here is a "budget" equivalent hardware one.

https://dl.dropbox.com/u/677635/Scorpion%20Technology%20Computers%20Pty%20Ltd.htm

I say equivalent hardware, because it does not include assy or OS, it doesn't include an optical drive, though you could just scavenge one, however the hardware is better i assume (in regards to ram, hdds, cpu ect) to make up for that.

With that said, i don't know the complete specs of the other machine, however, having a xeon e5-1620 does imply it is a pretty good system still.

Also, on the website, it show the included card, quadro NVS310 pretty far down the list http://www.videocardbenchmark.net/directCompute.html
I'd swap it out for the 5870.
« Last Edit: April 09, 2013, 08:34:56 pm by peter.mitchell »
 

Offline EEVblog

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 27422
  • Country: au
    • EEVblog
Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
« Reply #130 on: April 09, 2013, 08:47:47 pm »
With that said, i don't know the complete specs of the other machine, however, having a xeon e5-1620 does imply it is a pretty good system still.

Yes, it seems pretty much on par with the i7 3770 and AMD FX-8350 solutions. It's only has 8GB of 1600MHz non-eCC ram though.
The whole point I guess be have it be a well engineered known base machine, not just some slapped together box.
It does come with this RAID controller:
http://www.dell.com/Learn/us/en/04/campaigns/dell-raid-controllers?c=us&l=en&s=bsd
https://express.ikoula.com/sites/default/files/fiche_perc_h310.pdf

Quote
Also, on the website, it show the included card, quadro NVS310 pretty far down the list http://www.videocardbenchmark.net/directCompute.html
I'd swap it out for the 5870.

Yeah, it would likely get swapped out eventually.
« Last Edit: April 09, 2013, 08:50:15 pm by EEVblog »
 

Offline moemoe

  • Regular Contributor
  • *
  • Posts: 105
  • Country: de
Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
« Reply #131 on: April 09, 2013, 09:08:01 pm »
Yes, it seems pretty much on par with the i7 3770 and AMD FX-8350 solutions. It's only has 8GB of 1600MHz non-eCC ram though.
8GB is imho not a real "problem", it should work real fine. And, if not, you still have the possibility to put in some more bars.

The whole point I guess be have it be a well engineered known base machine, not just some slapped together box.
After my experience, dell has also a well built cooling, so not generating to much noise.

It does come with this RAID controller:
http://www.dell.com/Learn/us/en/04/campaigns/dell-raid-controllers?c=us&l=en&s=bsd
https://express.ikoula.com/sites/default/files/fiche_perc_h310.pdf

Imho useless, because it has no battery backed up write cache, and this is what gives real performance.

The performance impact on raid1 with hw raid controllers is none, as it is in fact no difference with DMA these days between writing the same data to 1 or 2 hdds. So I would even disable the hw raid and use (windows) software raid. This way, the disks work on every windows pc, and you won't get any problems with plugging them in elsewhere or even a defective raid controller.

So it sounds like a reasonable offer, I would go for this system, with the option of putting more memory or an ssd (for os and applications, not video data, like samsung 840 128gb@~150$) into it.
https://github.com/maugsburger/
Breadboard Adapters featured in EEVBlog #573 on Tindie
 

Offline EEVblog

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 27422
  • Country: au
    • EEVblog
Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
« Reply #132 on: April 09, 2013, 09:09:23 pm »
Ah well, what I would do when assembling a new system now:
Intel i5 3570K or i7 3770K CPU. Note the 'K'. This is an unlocked CPU, ready for overclocking, and costs about 10$ - 15$ more. Moreover, it features a Intel HD4000 GPU over a HD2500 (in the non-K edition), which is faster with Quicksync video encoding.
So even on casual systems I'd spend 10$ extra for the much faster GPU. It may come in handy some day.

Yes, it's likely I would not need an external video card in that case, saving a few hundred.
Thanks for the tip on the K, will certainly get that if I get an i7 3770

Quote
RAM: 16GB, 2 sticks of some sort. 1333/1600MHz DDR3 is good

What about 2400MHz DDR3 (and MB's that support it), better I'm assuming?
 

Offline EEVblog

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 27422
  • Country: au
    • EEVblog
Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
« Reply #133 on: April 09, 2013, 09:11:52 pm »
So it sounds like a reasonable offer, I would go for this system, with the option of putting more memory or an ssd (for os and applications, not video data, like samsung 840 128gb@~150$) into it.

I already have a 128GB Samsung 840 SSD I can use.
Someone on twitter mentioned the  E5 Xeon doesn't have Intel QuickSync Video, that could be a negative over the i7 3770K solution.
 

Offline Hobgoblin612

  • Contributor
  • Posts: 47
  • Country: au
    • Youtube Channel
Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
« Reply #134 on: April 09, 2013, 09:25:58 pm »
Something else to consider is a Ram disk. With RAM being so cheap now its quite a viable option for video editing. If the editing software supports a scratch disk this can help a lot.
ooooohh... what does this button do???
 

Offline moemoe

  • Regular Contributor
  • *
  • Posts: 105
  • Country: de
Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
« Reply #135 on: April 09, 2013, 09:31:11 pm »
Quote
RAM: 16GB, 2 sticks of some sort. 1333/1600MHz DDR3 is good
What about 2400MHz DDR3 (and MB's that support it), better I'm assuming?

On the data sheet better transfer performance and Latency. But in a range of some %, so only measurable with benchmarks. And as video encoding is still CPU bound, putting the bucks in there will give probably more influence on the result.

I don't even know if it is natively supported by the CPUs, or just usefull for overclockers setting up the whole system bus speed.
https://github.com/maugsburger/
Breadboard Adapters featured in EEVBlog #573 on Tindie
 

Offline moemoe

  • Regular Contributor
  • *
  • Posts: 105
  • Country: de
Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
« Reply #136 on: April 09, 2013, 09:35:10 pm »
Something else to consider is a Ram disk. With RAM being so cheap now its quite a viable option for video editing. If the editing software supports a scratch disk this can help a lot.

Modern OSes automatically use the free RAM as some sort of ram disk (better say: read cache, just keep the recently accessed files there as long as possible).  As I wouldn't recommend a writable RAM disk (data loss on power loss), and writing encoding video is just a data stream without seeks (hence the seperated video+system disks) that can be handled at datarates above 100 Mb/s by todays disks without any problem, I see no good reason for a dedicated RAM disk.
https://github.com/maugsburger/
Breadboard Adapters featured in EEVBlog #573 on Tindie
 

Offline ecat

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 296
  • Country: gb
Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
« Reply #137 on: April 09, 2013, 09:40:50 pm »
Or for that extra 30% gain in speed and willies
http://www.scorptec.com.au/computer/47822-p9x79-le
http://www.scorptec.com.au/computer/43136-bx80619i73930k

The i7 3930 looks to be the sweet spot in price vs absolute performance, the big problem is the lack of cheaper motherboards.

Quad Channel Memory Architecture. So 4 sticks would be better than 2?

You can probably complete this for about $1500 all in, 50% extra cost for 30% extra performance.

 

Offline moemoe

  • Regular Contributor
  • *
  • Posts: 105
  • Country: de
Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
« Reply #138 on: April 09, 2013, 09:48:42 pm »
The i7 3930 looks to be the sweet spot in price vs absolute performance, the big problem is the lack of cheaper motherboards.

I neither see integrated graphics nor QuickSync on http://ark.intel.com/products/63697/intel-core-i7-3930k-processor-12m-cache-up-to-3_80-ghz?q=i7-393

QuickSync is only available on third gen i-processors.
https://github.com/maugsburger/
Breadboard Adapters featured in EEVBlog #573 on Tindie
 

Offline EEVblog

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 27422
  • Country: au
    • EEVblog
Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
« Reply #139 on: April 09, 2013, 09:49:38 pm »
This mob recommend Socket 2011 for video editing.
http://www.gr-tek.com.au/
http://www.gr-tek.com.au/proddetail.php?prod=2011Desktop

Either the i7 3820 in the base model, or i7 3930K for an extra $369
 

Online dr.diesel

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 2089
  • Country: us
  • Cramming the magic smoke back in...
Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
« Reply #140 on: April 09, 2013, 10:08:26 pm »
Dave, how quick are you looking to build/buy?  Intel's Haswell will drop sometime this summer, offering ~15% more go while consuming less power.  This also includes integrated GPU performance that is supposed to be on par with an nvidia 650.

Offline dimlow

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 301
  • Country: gb
  • Likes to be thought of as
    • Dimlow Ponders
Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
« Reply #141 on: April 09, 2013, 10:11:35 pm »
I didn't see how you configured it but i would start with this. Maybe go with the lower spec motherboard but then there are only 4 memory slots.

 

Offline mariush

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 3324
  • Country: ro
  • .
Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
« Reply #142 on: April 09, 2013, 10:45:44 pm »
Dave, the people recommending i7 3930k and socket 2011 motherboards are making systems for editing videos with lots of video and audio tracks, where it's important to have good memory bandwidth and fast disk access. Socket 2011 boards are better for memory bandwidth as they have quad channel compared to dual channel on everything else.
You don't have this pattern, you're using maybe just a handful of video tracks and special effects (like fast speed etc)

I would argue that the extra costs are not really worth the money.

Here's how CPUs compare at real h264 encoding (2nd pass at high quality): http://www.anandtech.com/bench/CPU/28

Is it really worth paying around 500$ more compared to an AMD system for a 10-30% encoding increase in speed?

Here's some math based on US prices:

An AMD FX-8350 is about 200$ in US.  A reasonable motherboard for it is about 110-130$. A good cpu heatsink+cooler is about 30$  so overall you're looking at 350-400$ for the base.

On the other hand, the cheapest and reasonable socket 2011 motherboard is about 210$. A good cpu heatsink + cooler is about 40-60$. 

The cheapest socket 2011 cpu, i7 3820 is around 300$, can't be overclocked and is weaker at doing HD encoding than both FX-8320 and FX-8350.

The i7 3930k is a huge jump to 570$ or more, and it does better than the AMD systems.

So you're looking at around 550$ (3820+mb+fan)  - 800$ (3930k + mb + fan)

Keep in mind that to benefit from that Intel system, you'd also have to use the quad channel system, so you'd have to buy 4 memory modules while on AMD platforms you could have only 2 modules... that's another cost.

The 3820 is by default weaker at encoding than AMDs so it's out of the race, you're left with the i7 3930k solution that's about 400$ more expensive.
You can do a lot with those money, like buying a more capable video card to speed up the process etc, buying that hardware encoder, buying a better video camera, or maybe just throwing that 400$ to your ISP for more upload bandwidth (so you could use more relaxed encoding settings and get stuff faster)

Hell, the price difference is so big it's enough for buying a SECOND AMD base system... with longer videos, you could just make a copy to the second computer, encode first half on first pc, second on the second pc, and then merge them. With CRF encodings, this is possible, no problems at all.
 

Offline EEVblog

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 27422
  • Country: au
    • EEVblog
Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
« Reply #143 on: April 09, 2013, 11:08:05 pm »
From here:
http://www.scorptec.com.au/
An i7 3770K, ASROCK - Z77-PROFESSIONAL-M MB, 4 x 4GB Corsair 1600 memory, WD Black 7200 2TB drive (will use my 128GB SSD as primary), Corsair - CC500R case, Corsair - CMPSU-430CXv3 430W PSU, no video card
$1158 total

http://www.asrock.com/mb/Intel/Fatal1ty%20Z77%20Professional-M/

I figure that system should nail it.
Good value ?
 

Offline EEVblog

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 27422
  • Country: au
    • EEVblog
Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
« Reply #144 on: April 09, 2013, 11:14:12 pm »
Dave how much are you prepared to spend chasing the last 10-20% speed?
I don't know what you have now but you said you wanted 400% improvement IIRC from a prev post.

No, that was in relation to switching to a Macintosh platform with Final Cut Pro etc. That requires more, risk, and more time investment in terms of learning a new workflow. I'd be happy to get x2 increase on what I have now.
I wan't want to pay much more than $1K for that. In fact I've never paid more than that for any PC I've ever had.

Quote
Someone included a TomsHardware site graphic of a Handbrake benchmark and I noticed the AMD FX-8350 time was 2:09 and the i7-3970X was 1:44. The AMD is $209 and the i7 is literally 5 TIMES that.

Yes, and I'm not considering the 3970X at all, but the 3770K.
The 3770K has the added advantage of being at least as good or better than the FX-8350, but it crucially has Intel QuickSync video and good enough integrated graphics I will likely not have to buy a video card. I know my current Sony software supports Intel QSV and it quick using it. The FX-8350 is less known.
 

Offline EEVblog

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 27422
  • Country: au
    • EEVblog
Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
« Reply #145 on: April 09, 2013, 11:17:10 pm »
Dave, the people recommending i7 3930k and socket 2011 motherboards are making systems for editing videos with lots of video and audio tracks, where it's important to have good memory bandwidth and fast disk access. Socket 2011 boards are better for memory bandwidth as they have quad channel compared to dual channel on everything else.
You don't have this pattern, you're using maybe just a handful of video tracks and special effects (like fast speed etc)

Yes, and I have dropped the idea of the socket 2011 now, I am only considering the i7 3770K or maybe the AMD (see previous post)
 

Offline EEVblog

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 27422
  • Country: au
    • EEVblog
Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
« Reply #146 on: April 09, 2013, 11:21:32 pm »
Here's how CPUs compare at real h264 encoding (2nd pass at high quality): http://www.anandtech.com/bench/CPU/28

Nice, thanks.
I have two requirement here:
1) Rendering using Sony Movie Studio (possibly my slowest process), which I know supports Intel QuickSync Video which the i7 3770K has. So the AMD is more unknown here.
2) H.264 encoding using Hanbbrake, and it looks like the AMD has the edge here, but not by much.
 

Offline dimlow

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 301
  • Country: gb
  • Likes to be thought of as
    • Dimlow Ponders
Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
« Reply #147 on: April 09, 2013, 11:25:37 pm »

Yes, and I'm not considering the 3970X at all, but the 3770K.

3970X is double the price of the 3930K i would not consider it.
« Last Edit: April 09, 2013, 11:28:15 pm by dimlow »
 

Offline Markybhoy

  • Regular Contributor
  • *
  • Posts: 59
  • Country: gb
Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
« Reply #148 on: April 09, 2013, 11:29:21 pm »
Dave my machine is a i7 3770k 3.5ghz,  let me know if you need anything bench marked unless someone has already for you.
 

Offline mariush

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 3324
  • Country: ro
  • .
Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
« Reply #149 on: April 09, 2013, 11:35:47 pm »
Quote
I figure that system should nail it.
Good value ?

No, not really a good value.
The power supply is enough wattage for the build but it's a cheap model, cut down on components like capacitors to keep the profit up on the brand.  Go for Antec HCG-620 for example, for 10$ more you get a rebranded Seasonic with Japanese capacitors and better quality control and all that: http://www.scorptec.com.au/computer/38328-hcg-620

3770k is weaker than AMD processors at video encoding but may recover the difference if you use something that supports quicksync.
See the following test where you can see FX-83xx compared to other Intel processors:  http://www.anandtech.com/show/6396/the-vishera-review-amd-fx8350-fx8320-fx6300-and-fx4300-tested/3

Here's an AMD build:

115$ http://www.scorptec.com.au/computer/43913-970-extreme4   - Asrock Extreme 4
  99$ http://www.scorptec.com.au/computer/38328-hcg-620  - Antec HCG 620w  (bronze eff./ Seasonic s12ii rebadged)
219$ http://www.scorptec.com.au/computer/48111-fd8350frhkbox   - AMD FX-8350
149$ http://www.scorptec.com.au/computer/49376-cml16gx3m2a1600c9  - Corsair 1600mhz 2x8GB  so you have room for 2 more modules at later time, no perf. increase with 4x4gb

582$.

Add hdd, case, maybe better cpu fan (stock will work fine but it's kinda noisy)

99$ http://www.scorptec.com.au/computer/44675-st2000dm001  seagate 7200rpm 2 TB

  95$  http://www.scorptec.com.au/computer/45532-shinobi-wh-w-u3  bitfenix case OR
119$ http://www.scorptec.com.au/computer/42096-cc400r  Corsair Carbide 400r
 
so add 200-210$

If you want cpu fan too, this would work great:

89$ http://www.scorptec.com.au/computer/39397-nh-c14 Noctua NH-C14

So 582$   + 200-210$ + 90$ = ~ 900$
« Last Edit: April 09, 2013, 11:38:03 pm by mariush »
 

Offline mariush

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 3324
  • Country: ro
  • .
Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
« Reply #150 on: April 09, 2013, 11:50:18 pm »
And here's a 3770k with Quicksync benchmarks :

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/ivy-bridge-benchmark-core-i7-3770k,3181-19.html

FX-8350 is not on the graphs there but it's faster than FX-8150 and on par or a bit slower than 2700k, so picture it around that point in graphs.
 


Offline peter.mitchell

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1568
  • Country: au
Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
« Reply #152 on: April 10, 2013, 12:14:05 am »
I'd switch the 2x 8gb to 4x 4gb; it's cheaper, and i don't see you needing more than 16gb, or even cheaper again to the "value" 2x 8gb set.
Also, as the case is essentially just a box, i'm not sure about the choice of the bitfenix, is there any particular reason for this over the http://www.scorptec.com.au/computer/46342-rc-371-kkn3 ?
 

Offline PA0PBZ

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 3800
  • Country: nl
Keyboard error: Press F1 to continue.
 

Offline peter.mitchell

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1568
  • Country: au
Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
« Reply #154 on: April 10, 2013, 12:18:21 am »
No SSD?

http://www.scorptec.com.au/computer/48314-mz-7td120bw

No performance increase in this specific application, so it's essentially "fluff".
 

Offline EEVblog

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 27422
  • Country: au
    • EEVblog
 

Offline EEVblog

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 27422
  • Country: au
    • EEVblog
Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
« Reply #156 on: April 10, 2013, 12:19:46 am »
Also, as the case is essentially just a box, i'm not sure about the choice of the bitfenix, is there any particular reason for this over the http://www.scorptec.com.au/computer/46342-rc-371-kkn3 ?

Yes, only one USB port on the front.  :--
 

Offline Lightages

  • Supporter
  • ****
  • Posts: 4295
  • Country: ca
  • Canadian po
Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
« Reply #157 on: April 10, 2013, 12:26:32 am »
Wow, lots of opinions here. I will through one more into the fray. The CPU is just one part of the equation. The motherboard can make a big difference in the ultimate performance so don't just buy something that holds the parts, make sure it has good reviews and benchmarks.

Anyone who says that you won't need more than 16GB should remember Bill Gates' quote "no one needs more than 640K". Not going to disk for swapping memory will speed up any system so don't block out the opportunity to add more RAM by filling the slots. The more RAM the better. I would get the AMD CPU and with the saved money buy more RAM.

Put 3 HDs in your machine. One for OS, one for scratch space, one for output.
 

Offline mariush

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 3324
  • Country: ro
  • .
Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
« Reply #158 on: April 10, 2013, 12:26:58 am »
No, not really a good value.

I've reconfigured the i7 3770K build:
http://www.scorptec.com.au/product/45658
http://www.scorptec.com.au/product/45270
http://www.scorptec.com.au/product/49376
http://www.scorptec.com.au/product/44675
http://www.scorptec.com.au/product/45304
http://www.scorptec.com.au/product/38787

$962

It looks good. I'd only change the power supply. Thermaltake is not really known for consistency, they use power supplies from different OEM manufacturers in the same series, or from revision to another, it's a mess.
That power supply is most likely a budget FSP based design from a few years ago. It's probably technologically outdated by now but it would work fine, it will be stable and work with your system, but for how long that's unknown. It's worth spending 10-25$ more for a reliable power supply, you'll be able to reuse the power supply on other systems later on.

You're also not including additional cpu cooler.

The Intel stock coolers are kind of anemic, they don't handle temperature variations well, they ramp up their fan speed quite fast the moment the cpu starts doing something and it can be annoying. In addition, the design is prone to getting full of dust real fast.

AMD stock coolers are more relaxed in this sense and they cool better and use heat pipes (intel stock coolers are just copper die in center and aluminum fins) but they're still somewhat noisy.

I don't agree with the guy that said to go for 4x4 GB memory modules. You don't get more bandwidth with 4 modules, just more heat and if you're overclocking, a tiny bit more risk of not being able to overclock as much.
The ones I recommended and the ones you linked to are LOW PROFILE, so they're work with any third party cooler, have low latency, they're very good. They're a bit more expensive but it's worth it.


 
 

Offline peter.mitchell

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1568
  • Country: au
Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
« Reply #159 on: April 10, 2013, 12:29:22 am »
Also, as the case is essentially just a box, i'm not sure about the choice of the bitfenix, is there any particular reason for this over the http://www.scorptec.com.au/computer/46342-rc-371-kkn3 ?

Yes, only one USB port on the front.  :--

Ahh, thought it mighta been something like that; i'd still get the case though just throw in something like this to go with
http://www.ebay.com.au/itm/5-25-8-Port-Internal-SATA-USB-Audio-Memory-Card-Reader-/230728746181?pt=AU_Laptop_Accessories&hash=item35b88144c5&_uhb=1#ht_3670wt_1397
 

Offline EEVblog

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 27422
  • Country: au
    • EEVblog
Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
« Reply #160 on: April 10, 2013, 12:36:16 am »
I would get the AMD CPU and with the saved money buy more RAM.

No one has mentioned what kind of video the AMD has got built in?
By all accounts the i7 3770K has a pretty good GPU built in that I know supports my Sony software.
 

Offline peter.mitchell

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1568
  • Country: au
Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
« Reply #161 on: April 10, 2013, 12:38:23 am »
Quote
It looks good. I'd only change the power supply. Thermaltake is not really known for consistency, they use power supplies from different OEM manufacturers in the same series, or from revision to another, it's a mess.
That power supply is most likely a budget FSP based design from a few years ago. It's probably technologically outdated by now but it would work fine, it will be stable and work with your system, but for how long that's unknown. It's worth spending 10-25$ more for a reliable power supply, you'll be able to reuse the power supply on other systems later on.

You're also not including additional cpu cooler.

The Intel stock coolers are kind of anemic, they don't handle temperature variations well, they ramp up their fan speed quite fast the moment the cpu starts doing something and it can be annoying. In addition, the design is prone to getting full of dust real fast.

AMD stock coolers are more relaxed in this sense and they cool better and use heat pipes (intel stock coolers are just copper die in center and aluminum fins) but they're still somewhat noisy.

I don't agree with the guy that said to go for 4x4 GB memory modules. You don't get more bandwidth with 4 modules, just more heat and if you're overclocking, a tiny bit more risk of not being able to overclock as much.
The ones I recommended and the ones you linked to are LOW PROFILE, so they're work with any third party cooler, have low latency, they're very good. They're a bit more expensive but it's worth it.

Yeah, a good PSU is important, cmon, we're all here for electronics, we should know this :P

As far as the intel stock cooler goes; it's fine, no need to change it unless; dont like noise or plan to overclock. Millions of computers out there use them for extended periods of time with no issues.

The amount of heat from 4x4 vs 2x8 is negligible, and if anything would be better for overclocking because more surface area to spread the heat over, latencies being equal unless you get the "value" kit, low profile or not doesn't matter if you're using the stock cooler, sure you don't get more bandwidth but you don't get less either.

 

Offline mariush

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 3324
  • Country: ro
  • .
Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
« Reply #162 on: April 10, 2013, 12:48:24 am »
I would get the AMD CPU and with the saved money buy more RAM.

No one has mentioned what kind of video the AMD has got built in?
By all accounts the i7 3770K has a pretty good GPU built in that I know supports my Sony software.

The FX-8320 or FX-8350 has no video card built in.

The 3770k has HD 4000 graphics which is a basic onboard video card, good for 2D, video playback etc and works fine with Quicksync.  It does not compare however with standalone nVidia or AMD cards.

Problem is we're getting again to the cost of the platforms.

My build was 900$, which included a 85$ third party cpu cooler,  Dave's build was 962$ without a third party cpu cooler.  So taking out the retail cooler from my build, we're looking at 815$ vs 962$ - you can get quite a good video card with Cuda or OpenCL support for those 147$ you save, and that video card may bring more performance increase than Quicksync does.

Ex. nVidia GTX650 OC... Asus GeForce GTX650 DirectCU, 1GB : http://www.scorptec.com.au/computer/47705-gtx650-dc-1gd5 for 139$   Movie Studio supports Cuda afaik so it should work great (based on Movie Studio 10 release notes http://dspcdn.sonycreativesoftware.com/releasenotes/moviestudiope100_readme_enu.htm)
« Last Edit: April 10, 2013, 12:57:55 am by mariush »
 

Offline ecat

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 296
  • Country: gb
Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
« Reply #163 on: April 10, 2013, 12:57:24 am »
Well then, I didn't know Sony supported QuickSync. I have them both, so here goes...

Reconfigured BIOS to use iGPU
Installed Lucid from ASUS site. Reboot and Lucid crashed.
Installed iGPU driver from ASUS site. Reboot and Lucid crashed.
Sony made QS available but the render failed at the start.
Installed the latest Lucid. Reboot and my PC would not get passed the BIOS screen.
Removed ATi GPU.
PC freezes at the BIOS screen but continues after 5 mins or so (maybe a SSD would improve my boot time  :palm: )

Ok, Sony sees iGPU and I can render...


Numbers!
For what they are worth...

i5 2500k @ 4.2GHz (for those interested, CPU Mark = 7405 ish as I had some light stuff running in background) , ATi 6950.

In Movie Studio, Sony AVC/MVC as per (my understanding of) Dave's settings in reply #48

CPU only: 2:10 200.5MB file
GPU if available 1:58 212MB file

In Movie Studio, MainConcept AVC/AAC. No option here for 12Mbps so I tried 10Mbps and 14Mbps

CPU only 4:33 212MB file (10Mpbs I think)
OpenCL 1:27 176MB file (10Mbps)
OpenCL 1:30 246MB file (14Mbps)


Using QS:
Movie Studio, Sony AVC/MVC
QS speed 1:31, CPU activity only 40%
QS quality 1:55, CPU activity only 60%

There is no QS option for MainConcept AVC/AAC.

Conclusion.
On my system, QS does not need a faster CPU as it is only using half of my i5.
On my system, rendering via my ATi 6950 is faster than using QS. It 'may' also benefit from a faster CPU, about 90% usage.

Right, I have a PC to fix. How the hell can playing with Lucid cause a BIOS crash? Fuck, fuck, fuck. Still, it is for Science :)

Edit:
All better now, I must have half jiggled the USB cable to my optical drive. Unplug, plug and the world is a happy place again :)


« Last Edit: April 10, 2013, 01:37:16 am by ecat »
 

Offline hans

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1011
  • Country: nl
Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
« Reply #164 on: April 10, 2013, 12:59:14 am »
The intel GPU is indeed a low-end, but does feature fast hardware video encoding.
I'm pretty sure it will run stuff like 3D view in Altium , or light stuff like that very well.

I also just saw the 3770 and 3770K both feature the HD4000 graphics. Only the i5 3570k and 3570 have the HD2500 and H4000 graphics difference.
However, QuickSync would be as fast on a i5 than on the i7. But having the faster CPU can be worthwhile, if you don't end up using Quicksync in live editting.
Ah well..

Not sure about graphics card acceleration these days. I will test it tonight (in a few hours) on my HD7850, which is already a 200$ graphics card.
 

Offline EEVblog

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 27422
  • Country: au
    • EEVblog
Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
« Reply #165 on: April 10, 2013, 01:11:33 am »
And I forgot to mention, all this optimising encoding speed talk is kinda moot when it takes >5 times the video length to upload to youtube  ::)
But at least fast encoding will:
a) make me feel better
b) finish a video quicker so I can start the upload before I go to bed.

If anyone can solve the Youtube upload speed throttling issue (it's not using my full upload bandwidth, common problem apparently) then that's worth it's weight in gold.
 

Offline Lightages

  • Supporter
  • ****
  • Posts: 4295
  • Country: ca
  • Canadian po
Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
« Reply #166 on: April 10, 2013, 01:22:05 am »
I would get the AMD CPU and with the saved money buy more RAM.

No one has mentioned what kind of video the AMD has got built in?
By all accounts the i7 3770K has a pretty good GPU built in that I know supports my Sony software.

I am making the assumption that you will want a dedicated video card in the end anyway.
 

Offline Markybhoy

  • Regular Contributor
  • *
  • Posts: 59
  • Country: gb
Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
« Reply #167 on: April 10, 2013, 02:18:05 am »
The stock intel cooler for the 3770k is pants,  it hits 85c + under full load.
I use a Noctua cooler which works well.

I use a Asus P8Z77 v pro motheboard and it has been rock solid,  the Z77 Gigabyte boards had a lot of issues when the came out so I would avoid them.
 

Offline Tooms

  • Supporter
  • ****
  • Posts: 91
  • Country: dk
Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
« Reply #168 on: April 10, 2013, 04:42:50 am »

Hi Dave

if your not have seen it already then i think i may be an good idea to see what another video blogger Dave Dugdale has done has he has just build an video edit pc.

Part 1 - New Computer and GPU for Premiere and DaVinci Resolve


Part 2 - Generic Disk Setup for Premiere Pro and DaVinci Resolve


Part 3 - My Monster Video Editing Computer Build


Part 4 - Dave's Monster Computer Speed Tests and Computer Recommedations for DSLR Editing


Part 5 - Red Epic Raw 5k Footage on Daves Monster Computer



I dont know dugdale but i like his video and seems like an nice guy with good videos, so it seems the name Dave is good for video blogging.


Tooms
 

Offline Sionyn

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 848
  • Country: gb
Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
« Reply #169 on: April 10, 2013, 05:13:35 am »
i alway laugh why people pay for freebsd
eecs guy
 

Offline ddavidebor

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1012
  • Country: it
    • Fermium LABS website
I tried a Mac for video editing...
« Reply #170 on: April 10, 2013, 05:51:28 am »
And I forgot to mention, all this optimising encoding speed talk is kinda moot when it takes >5 times the video length to upload to youtube  ::)
But at least fast encoding will:
a) make me feel better
b) finish a video quicker so I can start the upload before I go to bed.

If anyone can solve the Youtube upload speed throttling issue (it's not using my full upload bandwidth, common problem apparently) then that's worth it's weight in gold.

The Youtube API allows you to upload videos, directly through API commands.
So you could upload the video to your eevblog.com server then run a script on the server which sends the video to youtube.

Tell your resident programmer to have a look here:

https://developers.google.com/youtube/2.0/developers_guide_protocol#Uploading_Videos

Search for some open source app or php script that does this.

Example, here's a pear class that supports uploading to youtube : http://www.phpclasses.org/package/3966-PHP-Upload-and-download-video-files-from-YouTube.html  (but someone that knows php must write a form or something for you, this is just a library)

other php examples : http://www.rd2inc.com/blog/2012/08/youtube-browser-based-uploader-with-php/

Or you can do a script that convert and send to youtube everything, so in this case a moderately powerful computer but energy saving that stay in 24/7 should be a good idea.

Dave, any server farm around you?
Davide Bortolami,
Fermium LABS srl
 

Offline ecat

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 296
  • Country: gb
Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
« Reply #171 on: April 10, 2013, 05:57:20 am »
Nice video links Tooms. I think everyone should watch parts 3 & 4. I love the bit where he pimps out the front of the case :)
 

Offline EEVblog

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 27422
  • Country: au
    • EEVblog
Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
« Reply #172 on: April 10, 2013, 07:54:17 am »
I am making the assumption that you will want a dedicated video card in the end anyway.

If it doesn't help with encoding speed, then no.
 

Offline ecat

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 296
  • Country: gb
Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
« Reply #173 on: April 10, 2013, 08:06:48 am »
I am making the assumption that you will want a dedicated video card in the end anyway.

If it doesn't help with encoding speed, then no.

It helps more than QuickSync...


In Movie Studio, MainConcept AVC/AAC. No option here for 12Mbps so I tried 10Mbps and 14Mbps

CPU only 4:33 212MB file (10Mpbs I think)
OpenCL 1:27 176MB file (10Mbps)
OpenCL 1:30 246MB file (14Mbps)



Using QS:
Movie Studio, Sony AVC/MVC
QS speed 1:31, CPU activity only 40%
QS quality 1:55, CPU activity only 60%


There is no QS option for MainConcept AVC/AAC.

Conclusion.
On my system, QS does not need a faster CPU as it is only using half of my i5.
On my system, rendering via my ATi 6950 is faster than using QS. It 'may' also benefit from a faster CPU, about 90% usage.

Also, try video Part 4 in Tooms post just above...

Okay, my cpu is not the same as yours, my gpu is not a NVIDIA and unfortunately the Video above is not about Sony Movie Maker but we take what we can get and at the moment the results hint strongly at a fast multi core + GPU solution.

Edit:
We need a Movie Studio user with a NVIDIA GTX680 card.
« Last Edit: April 10, 2013, 08:12:21 am by ecat »
 

Online Smokey

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1527
  • Country: us
Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
« Reply #174 on: April 10, 2013, 09:01:14 am »
Question and comment... well actually 2 questions..

Q1:  Is this the fastest growing thread of all time that isn't a contest "I'm in"?  Wow.  12 pages in two days??

Q2:  (Sorry I didn't read every post first)  Is rendering video one of those tasks that high end graphics cards can do even better than a dedicated FPGA?
 

Offline Zad

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1013
  • Country: gb
    • Digital Wizardry, Analogue Alchemy, Software Sorcery
Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
« Reply #175 on: April 10, 2013, 09:49:07 am »
To those people trying to push their hobby-horse of AMD processors; They make great low budget processors. Of all the people I know who produce YouTube videos for a living, none of them use AMD. They just aren't in the game when it comes to performance.

I'm sure you will say "never heard of them" but Yogscast use i5-3570K and they kick out several videos a day. John Bain (TotalBiscuit) uses i7-3930K, mainly so his recording doesn't slow down whatever software he is reviewing, and he really doesn't mess about with his tech (he uses twin Titan video cards). Xeons are robust, but intended for corporate level machines with huge up-times and high reliability. You won't get great performance for your money. They are the 9-litre diesel truck engines of the CPU world.

If you do nothing else, then please, fit a decent heatsink/fan. The standard Intel HSF that came with my i7 ramped up to 100% on a fairly modest load, and rivals a Rolls Royce Olympus for noise. With all 4 real plus 4 virtual cores running at full capacity, it got hotter than I was comfortable with using (>80C) in a typical English summer. I imagine Aus would be 10C hotter, maybe even more in a closed office. With a decent heatpipe heatsink, I can have the fan off at 45C, or have it just moving the air through and drop the CPU temp to 40C. Really hammering the CPU for long periods gets it up to 70C or so, which is reasonable.

Intel X-suffix "extreme" processors are for those with more money than they know what to do with. A tiny bit faster for exponentially more money. Equally, using performance memory will maybe reduce render times by a small number of percent. One SSD is fine, but I would suggest using two hard drives, one for source (input) video, and another for destination (output). The YouTube pros that I know, tend to FRAPS and record onto external USB3 drives.

Motherboards. Almost all use the same standard Intel chipset, and they are mostly pretty close to the reference design. The main thing that changes is fancy little heatsinks, coloured LEDs, pretty PCB solder mask colours and so on. Yes, Xeon based servers do have different chipsets.

I was going to say that the PSU specified in your quote was somewhat under-powered, but then I realised it won't have to power a GPU, so it is probably okay. I think mine is 650W or so, but I run a GTX670OC video card, which takes a fair amount of juice.


Offline mariush

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 3324
  • Country: ro
  • .
Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
« Reply #176 on: April 10, 2013, 10:33:17 am »
The fact that you say that "they make great low budget processors" and "they just aren't in the game when it comes to performance" tells me you're just an Intel fanboy that probably has no actual clue about where some architectures do better or worse, what's more suited for some things or for others.

You're comparing apples to oranges, Zad. 

Dave isn't doing the same thing those guys do with the computers.

Dave needs a processor that's good at one thing: combining several pieces of video together with minimal video effects (adding a subtitle, some arrows, whatever) and compressing the content.

For this, any processor that works good with x264 (the video encoder application) is good, and the latest AMD processors are very good at encoding, as they have eight good cores.  Where they lack on processing power per core, they make up on the number of cores.

Those Youtube guys have other problems.

Video games are still relatively optimized to run on few processor cores, 1 to 3-4 cores, but usually most only use 2 cores. Intel processors have more processing power per core and they do even more stuff when going in turbo boost mode (overclocking themselves), so for those Youtube guys it makes sense to use Intel processors because the games will run a bit better. 
This will change with the future consoles that will use lots of small cpu cores mixed with a good gpu, the game developers will have incentives to optimize their games for more cores.

Next, the videos those guys make are just different than Dave's videos: they often have picture in picture, transitions, fadin from a clip to another, people talking in front of green/blue screen (the green or blue being replaced by game footage), so we're talking here about layers of video one over another. This kind of stuff is usually passed to the video card because it's so easy to treat the video frames from all those clips as textures and play with them in the video card, and that's where rendering applications start to use Cuda or OpenCL.

Dave doesn't do anything of this. He just needs something that can decode input videos fast, add minimal stuff over the image, maybe resize it and then compress it.

The latest AMD processors are fast and cheap.

Intel processors are fast, but much more expensive to reach the same raw encoding power as the newest AMD processors.  They do offer Quicksync which speeds up video decoding and encoding, but on the other hand with the money you'd save by going with an AMD system, you can get a powerful video card that brings more performance improvements than Quicksync AND the extra processing power of the Intel processors.

If you're on a budget, it's all about making tradeoffs. 
Lose 10-15% brute processing power by giving up i7 3930k  but save 450$  (560$ intel cpu vs 200$ amd cpu , 180$ intel mb vs 130$ amd mb)
Lose a bit of decoding speed by dropping quicksync but gain much more by spending 150-200$ on a video card that's supported by the encoding application.
If you'd have the money, you'd go for both but maybe you don't have the money or it just doesn't make sense to throw that much money for minimal performance increases.

In addition, those Youtube guys don't have money problems.  They can very well spend 4000$ on a computer, getting parts as donation from companies, making money from Youtube and all that. As far as I know, Dave doesn't make as much money as those guys and he also has a family to take care of.

Quote
Intel X-suffix "extreme" processors are for those with more money than they know what to do with.


Those processors have a valid market. There are software programs out there from  SAP, Oracle, Enterprise CRMs, fluid dynamics, automobile stuff, document processing etc that are licensed per CPU SOCKET , or even worse, PER CPU CORE.

People that pay 20-40.000$ and more a year for a license to run that software on one CPU socket, won't care that the server costs 5000-8000$. Those guys want the most performance on each core, the most throughput, the most processing power, whatever you want to call it. Intel is just better at doing more things on each core compared to AMD, that's how the architecture is right now.
There were times in the past AMD was better than Intel at processing power on cores, now it just happens Intel does better. The guys save more money keeping the number of cores low or the number of servers low, compared with going with multiple servers or multiple cpus in a system.

There's uses and uses.. AMD server processors are for example quite popular among people doing virtualization and software testing.. grab 4x12 core AMD opterons, a quad socket G34 board, 64 ram sticks and you have tons of virtualized systems for about 2-3000$. You can't match that with Intel systems.
« Last Edit: April 10, 2013, 10:41:44 am by mariush »
 

Offline EEVblog

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 27422
  • Country: au
    • EEVblog
Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
« Reply #177 on: April 10, 2013, 10:48:49 am »
BTW, one thing I didn't think of. Power consumption.
This machine may stay on most of the day (overnight if it's uploading etc)
I don't really want a huge video card if it's going to take an extra 200W all the time or whatever.
My current i7 notebook takes about 37W in normal operation + an external monitor at about the same that I can switch off.
 

Offline mariush

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 3324
  • Country: ro
  • .
Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
« Reply #178 on: April 10, 2013, 10:55:12 am »
It's not an issue. Both processors and video cards use little power on idle nowadays.
Intel processors use less power, but the difference is something like 10-15w less when idle, 30-40w less when under load.
Video cards also use very little power when idle, they generally use 10-30w when in Windows.

The system you're targeting is generally going to be a bit over 100 watts when idle, probably 200-250w if you're encoding with video card and cpu to the maximum.
 

Offline ve7xen

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 645
  • Country: ca
    • VE7XEN Blog
Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
« Reply #179 on: April 10, 2013, 10:59:25 am »
It won't be that significant when idle, but there's not much point in it either. I don't think it will substantially improve your rendering performance.

I still think you can get your 2x for free by spending some time figuring out frameserver and avisynth/megui :)
73 de VE7XEN
 

Offline EEVblog

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 27422
  • Country: au
    • EEVblog
Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
« Reply #180 on: April 10, 2013, 11:03:45 am »
I still think you can get your 2x for free by spending some time figuring out frameserver and avisynth/megui :)

Great, then I'll get 4 times improvement!  ;D
 

Offline ddavidebor

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1012
  • Country: it
    • Fermium LABS website
I tried a Mac for video editing...
« Reply #181 on: April 10, 2013, 03:04:25 pm »


Dave, what model is your camera?
Davide Bortolami,
Fermium LABS srl
 

Offline EEVblog

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 27422
  • Country: au
    • EEVblog
Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
« Reply #182 on: April 10, 2013, 03:39:56 pm »
Dave, what model is your camera?

Canon HF G10.
 

Offline Flávio V

  • Regular Contributor
  • *
  • Posts: 63
  • Country: pt
  • Capacitor lover
Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
« Reply #183 on: April 11, 2013, 06:36:23 am »
I like to think of those 2 CPU manufacturers comparing to 2 famous multimeter manufacturers....

Intel is more like fluke and AMD more like agilent(more bang per $)


I know a person than acts like a intel fanboy than some days ago  said something than i was not expecting, he said that for the price of the best AMD CPU you only get a bad quad core(i5)intel CPU....and 8 cores at near 4ghz and much more cache is better than like 4 cores at 2.2ghz and something like 4mb of cache...
 

Offline ConnorGames

  • Regular Contributor
  • *
  • Posts: 94
Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
« Reply #184 on: April 11, 2013, 07:26:04 am »
Also, do note that GPU encoding can't match x.264 in therms of quality/MB. Another option would be to get several last-gen CPUS used and stick them in a server board: I think handbrake is quite well threaded. I have a friend who got 4 2.2Gh quad core AMD processors on ebay for $10/ea, and a server board for about $80-90. Overall the machine with 16 2.2Ghz cores cost <$500. I'll see if he can run your benchmark on it!
 

Offline mariush

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 3324
  • Country: ro
  • .
Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
« Reply #185 on: April 11, 2013, 07:42:24 am »
I don't know what Flavio V is smoking, he doesn't make sense. Or at least I agree with him, but I have the feeling he wanted to say something else.

As for ConnorGames, you're right that in general software using video cards exclusively to encode content produce lower quality content, those software apps are more suitable for quickly producing some SD content to upload to youtube, not something super high quality.

But you don't have to be use the video cards to ENCODE content from start to finish, video editing applications can use the video card to render the actual frames in the video (do overlays, apply subtitles etc) and do some partial encoding stuff like motion analysis then sending this data to the software encoder to further process the rendered frames.

The idea to buy a server grade motherboard and 4 server processors from eBay is nice, you can indeed get stuff relatively cheap.

But, unless you're going to keep the system in a cardboard box, you'll find out you'll pay quite a lot on a server case and for a power supply that has 2 x 8 pin connectors for processors (if not more). Also, each processor has its own memory pool so you'd have to buy at least 4 memory modules which have to be registered or unregistered+ecc ddr3 memory and some motherboards won't even boot without 2 memory modules on each cpu. That's a lot of additional costs.

Such system won't do quite as well as a current desktop system using a processor like FX-8320 or FX-8350 because of memory latency and having to coordinate the work of each thread between individual processors - the caches have to be kept in sync, data has to be moved from a processor's memory bank to another processor's memory bank and so on. x264 is using the cpu caches quite well.

x264 is also heavily optimized and uses pretty much any cpu extension it can get its hands on.. sse3, sse4, xop, avx, fma, you name it, if it brings improvements it uses it.  Those opteron server cpus don't have a lot of these extensions, they're really kind of weak in that regard.

So it's quite possible (I'm almost sure) a quad cpu , quad core opteron won't encode a 1080p as fast as the eight core  FX-8350 or the equivalent Intel processor today, or if it does it will be within 10-15%, certainly too little to be worth spending so much money and electricity.
« Last Edit: April 11, 2013, 12:04:49 pm by mariush »
 

Online NiHaoMike

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 4709
  • Country: us
  • "Don't turn it on - Take it apart!"
    • Facebook Page
Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
« Reply #186 on: April 11, 2013, 11:06:14 am »
It's not an issue. Both processors and video cards use little power on idle nowadays.
Intel processors use less power, but the difference is something like 10-15w less when idle, 30-40w less when under load.
Video cards also use very little power when idle, they generally use 10-30w when in Windows.

The system you're targeting is generally going to be a bit over 100 watts when idle, probably 200-250w if you're encoding with video card and cpu to the maximum.
My GTX560 TI will downclock all the way to 50MHz when idle. And all modern x86 CPUs not only downclock but also turn off unused cores. (I'm pretty sure that's also the case for GPUs but I don't know for certain.)

I read somewhere about an i7 system that only used 6W when idle. But that was with a relatively slow mobile i7, a SSD, and integrated graphics, which makes it unsuitable for video editing or gaming.
Cryptocurrency has taught me to love math and at the same time be baffled by it.

Cryptocurrency lesson 0: Altcoins and Bitcoin are not the same thing.
 

Offline EEVblog

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 27422
  • Country: au
    • EEVblog
Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
« Reply #187 on: April 11, 2013, 11:25:25 am »
As for ConnorGames, you're right that in general software using video cards exclusively to encode content produce lower quality content, those software apps are more suitable for quickly producing some SD content to upload to youtube, not something super high quality.

Yes, I'm starting to think the only thing that matters for my use is raw CPU power and number of cores.
Come to think of it, I'd rather spend money on good silent fans and a sound damped case than some trotted up GPU.
 

Offline ddavidebor

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1012
  • Country: it
    • Fermium LABS website
I tried a Mac for video editing...
« Reply #188 on: April 11, 2013, 03:10:04 pm »
Nvidia sometimes ago has a s system to parallelize a lot of video card for have more power. Anyone remember it?
Davide Bortolami,
Fermium LABS srl
 

Offline EEVblog

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 27422
  • Country: au
    • EEVblog
Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
« Reply #189 on: April 11, 2013, 07:16:02 pm »
I shot the latest video in full HD 1920x1080 at 17Mbps instead of 1440x1080 at 12Mbps
Rendering using Sony is taking about twice as long for 25% more pixels.
Don't know about Handbrake yet...
 

Offline EEVblog

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 27422
  • Country: au
    • EEVblog
Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
« Reply #190 on: April 11, 2013, 07:53:15 pm »
Handbrake is probably about the same speed, maybe a bit slower if anything. Hard to tell with the varying content.
So all the more reason to get a new tricked out machine if I'm going to keep shooting 17Mbps footage.
 

Offline M. András

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1020
  • Country: hu
Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
« Reply #191 on: April 12, 2013, 02:48:11 am »
for silent fans i highly recommend the arctic cooling f pwm series or even the co (continous op duall ball bearing) im using these for years and apart from the noise of the high airflow on certain obstackles really silent moves decent amount of air 125m3/h they dont mention static pressure but it feels high
 

Offline Nobody2

  • Contributor
  • Posts: 17
  • Country: de
Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
« Reply #192 on: April 12, 2013, 05:01:11 am »
Yes, I'm starting to think the only thing that matters for my use is raw CPU power and number of cores.
Come to think of it, I'd rather spend money on good silent fans and a sound damped case than some trotted up GPU.
I think in that case the FX-8350 looks like a good choice:

However those were basically the only benchmarks were the AMD shined. I wouldn't recommend them for a general purpose PC. If they were affordable a 12 or 16 core Opteron should be even better.

On a side node, do you have Raspberry Pi Dave? Why not use that to upload over night and switch the power hungry computers off?

If your Youtube upload is limited, but the one to your sever not, maybe you can get your server to upload your videos to Youtube?
 

Offline HooRide

  • Regular Contributor
  • *
  • Posts: 66
  • Country: us
Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
« Reply #193 on: April 12, 2013, 10:23:15 am »
*this may be repeat info since I didn't read all 13 pages before this post*

What a terrible experience but I am not surprised. Most Apple store employees have no training on 'Pro' software such as Final Cut. Also, what you were told about the Mac Pro being outdated is completely true. There are very solid rumors of a new model coming within a few months time.
Please enter all complaints legibly in this space -> [  ]
 

Offline firewalker

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 2309
  • Country: gr
Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
« Reply #194 on: April 12, 2013, 06:23:41 pm »
Become a realist, stay a dreamer.

 

Offline M. András

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1020
  • Country: hu
Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
« Reply #195 on: April 13, 2013, 06:04:09 am »
ran trought your sample file on default settings in handbrake qfactor set to 28, its done in 58sec, and only hit up to 70% cpu target was my system ssd which max out at 60mb/s write
 

Offline hans

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1011
  • Country: nl
Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
« Reply #196 on: April 13, 2013, 07:07:50 am »
Yes, I'm starting to think the only thing that matters for my use is raw CPU power and number of cores.
Come to think of it, I'd rather spend money on good silent fans and a sound damped case than some trotted up GPU.
I think in that case the FX-8350 looks like a good choice:

However those were basically the only benchmarks were the AMD shined. I wouldn't recommend them for a general purpose PC. If they were affordable a 12 or 16 core Opteron should be even better.

On a side node, do you have Raspberry Pi Dave? Why not use that to upload over night and switch the power hungry computers off?

If your Youtube upload is limited, but the one to your sever not, maybe you can get your server to upload your videos to Youtube?
As test samples and methods vary, for example this test favors the Intel chips:
http://us.hardware.info/reviews/3314/13/amd-fx-8350--8320--6300-vishera-review-finally-good-enough-benchmarks-cpu-720p-mpeg-to-x264-video-encoding

However on pass 2 it can clearly keep up with the i7 3770K

Or:
http://us.hardware.info/reviews/3314/14/amd-fx-8350--8320--6300-vishera-review-finally-good-enough-benchmarks-cpu-cyberlink-mediashow-espresso-60

Or in daily tasks like packaging: WinRar 317MB of data; a Intel i7 3770k is 10 seconds faster in this test.. That's 30%, ouch.

Moreover: the CPU may be a lot cheaper, the motherboards with 'premium features' tend to be rarer. I searched for a top brand (in my mind Asus) motherboard with top-end chipset (intel Z77 / AMD 990FX) and4 RAM slots. The cheapest Intel board was 80 euro, the AMD's was 120 euro's. Add the cost a dedicated GPU that supports stuff like triple monitors for ~60 - 80 euro's, you're already past the price difference.

Power consumption:
http://us.hardware.info/reviews/3314/22/amd-fx-8350--8320--6300-vishera-review-finally-good-enough-energy-consumption-cpu-idle--cinebench-115
The Intel chips are just a lot more power efficient. 13W difference is a lot: 13*365*24 = 113kWh per year savings@ 24/7 
The AMD chip also has a higher TDP, which means it will run hotter @ 100% load and therefore require more cooling (thus more noise).

As to respond to Dave's config (if he hasn't ordered it already..)

Intel i7 3770K seems good.
Asrock motherboard; should work I guess ;)
RAM: any 2x8GB set. I would avoid 4x4GB, even if it's a few $ cheaper. I always find that if a machine gets older a RAM upgrade is desired. With full slots it's not cheap to do because you have to buy 2 new sets instead of 1.
Power supply: 600W sounds a lot for such a system with a MB, a big CPU and a couple of hard drives.  Typically dedicated GPU's draw a lot of power (150W+) under gamign.
Case: usually a personal taste. I personally own a Fractal Design R3, which I like quite a lot. I see Scorptec has the R4:
http://www.scorptec.com.au/computer/47245-fd-r4b
It does have 3+ USB ports (including USB3.0) on the front, with audio and such. More importantly it has sound dampening stuff on both sides/bottom/front and top and also on unpopulated fan slots (removable sound padding slots). However, it is quite a bit more expensive than the BitFenix one, and installation can be a bit fiddly (especially on the R3 model, believe it is improved on R4 though).
Optionally: dedicated CPU cooler. Benchmark (Efficiency = sound x temperature, lower = better)
I always hate boxed coolers. Unfortunately, Scorptec doens't seem to have much well known 3rd-party CPU cooler brands.
I have got 1 back,1 top and 2 front fans installed and connected to my Asus P8Z77-V PRO motherboard, which has temperature fan curves. This means on idle the CPU fan spins and front fans very slightly and when things get more hot extra (much louder) fans kick in for additional cooling. Result is very silent system with reasonable idle temps yet when things get more serious it keeps everything below 60C.
« Last Edit: April 13, 2013, 07:09:46 am by hans »
 

Offline mariush

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 3324
  • Country: ro
  • .
Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
« Reply #197 on: April 13, 2013, 08:04:48 am »

As test samples and methods vary, for example this test favors the Intel chips:
http://us.hardware.info/reviews/3314/13/amd-fx-8350--8320--6300-vishera-review-finally-good-enough-benchmarks-cpu-720p-mpeg-to-x264-video-encoding

However on pass 2 it can clearly keep up with the i7 3770K

The devil's in the details. First pass in x264 is a very light one where very basic math is done, generally just to determine which time intervals would require more bits during the actual compression. During first pass, x264 uses around 4 threads and generally the cpu hovers at around 40-60% ... the first pass doesn't do things that can actually be parallelized efficiently.  Intel processors win because they have more processing power per core and some instructions require less cpu cycles. The faster those cores finish job, the faster they switch to decoding the next input frame and process it...

x264 and most video encoding software is integer only, and FX processors have eight real integer cores, so once the actual encoding is started in 2nd pass, you can see the Vishera processors (fx-8320, fx-8350 etc) can keep up with 3770k that's more expensive and run at higher frequency.

And we're coming back to flawed tests ... see on the graph what they tested the processors with .. a 89 MB VOB file from a MPEG-2 video.. at 10-20mbps data rate, that's basically a 2 minute video.

x264 splits each frame in several small chunks and passes those chunks to threads for motion analysis and various things... with a 720x480 video (assuming it's a NTSC mpeg-2 video), the eight cores can't work efficiently. Basically AMD processors are dragged back because again, it's not much stuff done in parallel.  If it was about a proper test, they'd encode an 1080i mpeg-2 stream from TV and see the difference.

With a 2 minute SD video, you're kind of testing the memory latency, not the cpu, x264 won't even fill the caches and memory and take advantage of the CPUs with such a source file.

Quote
Or in daily tasks like packaging: WinRar 317MB of data; a Intel i7 3770k is 10 seconds faster in this test.. That's 30%, ouch.

This is again kind of a flawed test. It just shows again the Intel's processing power per core, Intel chips just finish work faster on individual cores. Winrar 3.93 is not multithreaded -well, it kinda is, in the sense that it uses 2-3 cores - , the software basically did compression on 1 or 2 cores, with the rest sitting idle. This is especially bad for AMD because with just 1-2 cores running, the Intel processors can enable turbo mode and overclock the cores to 4Ghz+

How can you test eight core AMD processors with 4 core processors with a single threaded compressor? And more importantly, how would you consider the test valid, when the software you test with was released around March 2010, and obviously doesn't use any of the functions the modern processors use (it was probably optimized for core 2 duo / core 2 quad as that was popular around 2010)

Winrar 4 and up implemented proper threading and parallel compression but even then you have fineprint.  Unfortunately can not really reach the maximum speed with rar archives so small and can't efficiently keep 8 amd cores busy with small files (that would be present in 317 MB of data). Their test case is ridiculously small with just 300 Megs of data, for a proper test about 8 GB of data should be used and with some files larger than 2-400 MB a piece.

This is clearly written in the implementation, but nobody bothers to read it: http://www.rarlab.com/rarnew.htm

Quote
   Version 4.20
  1. Changes in RAR compression:
      a) RAR general compression algorithm is optimized for better utilization of several processor cores. While some speed gain is possible even in single processor mode, best results are achieved in multi-core environment.
         Speed gain depends on data type and average file size. Several cores are utilized more efficiently when compressing large files.
[..]    c) RAR text compression algorithm cannot utilize several CPU cores efficiently, so its performance in multiprocessor environment is much lower than for general algorithm. Also its decompression speed is much lower than in general algorithm regardless of CPU number. So we decided to disable the text algorithm by default.
         If you need maximum possible compression ratio for plain text data regardless of speed, you can enable the text compression    in "Advanced compression parameter" dialog. [...]
      d) "Fastest" (-m1) compression mode also supports several processor cores now. In 4.11 it could use only a single processor core.

If you  want to test, test with 7zip.. it's open source and uses up to 8-16 cores : http://www.anandtech.com/show/6396/the-vishera-review-amd-fx8350-fx8320-fx6300-and-fx4300-tested/2


Quote
Moreover: the CPU may be a lot cheaper, the motherboards with 'premium features' tend to be rarer. I searched for a top brand (in my mind Asus) motherboard with top-end chipset (intel Z77 / AMD 990FX) and4 RAM slots. The cheapest Intel board was 80 euro, the AMD's was 120 euro's. Add the cost a dedicated GPU that supports stuff like triple monitors for ~60 - 80 euro's, you're already past the price difference.

My Gigabyte GA-990FXA-UD3 is about 140$ or about 100-110 euro, but I assure you there's really much less expensive boards with this chipset (990FX). I chose this higher end model because it has proper heatsinks on the VRM section, 8+2 vrm, pci slots etc.

The cheapest, proper AMD boards with a good chipset and good southbridge (SB950) is about 80$, for example : http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813128553  or  http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813157280

If you go back to your Z77 boards, and actually check the specs of those cheap motherboards, you may find out those cheap models are really bad when it comes to VRM, so little potential to overclock your CPU  (but I admit the cheaper AMD boards would also be basic when it comes to vrm)... and the cheapest Asus with z77 chipset on Newegg is 110$ : http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813131965

But basically even the Z75 based Asrock at 85$ would be reasonable, so there's really not much price difference: http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813157304

You also mentioned :

Quote
The AMD chip also has a higher TDP, which means it will run hotter @ 100% load and therefore require more cooling (thus more noise).

The stock Intel cooler is awful, like i already said in this thread. It's just aluminum heatsink with copper core.  The AMD stock cooler is decent, with 2 heatpipes, it's less noisy. I would say with the stock coolers, the AMD would be less annoying. But I will admit both could use a third party fan if you care about noise.

 

Offline EEVblog

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 27422
  • Country: au
    • EEVblog
Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
« Reply #198 on: April 13, 2013, 08:30:25 am »
Thanks guys, great input.
So it seems that at best, the AMD is as good as the 3770K, but essentially not any better. But the AMD is a bit cheaper, but it's higher power.
I think the Intel is probably the best bet.

Any good alternatives to Scorptec, or should I just go with them?
I like the sound of that silent case, no pun intended. My i7 notebook is really annoyingly loud when rendering.
 

Offline EEVblog

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 27422
  • Country: au
    • EEVblog
Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
« Reply #199 on: April 13, 2013, 08:48:30 am »
On a side node, do you have Raspberry Pi Dave? Why not use that to upload over night and switch the power hungry computers off?

Interesting idea!
 

Offline Zad

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1013
  • Country: gb
    • Digital Wizardry, Analogue Alchemy, Software Sorcery
Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
« Reply #200 on: April 13, 2013, 02:35:19 pm »
Good luck getting a Raspy to run YouTube's upload software. It would be interesting to measure the power consumption on various pieces of equipment doing an upload. I have an old Compaq Deskpro SFF that I use on equipment that needs "real" parallel and serial ports, and that takes <50W with the hard drive spun down and doing some lightweight FTP duties. I can also run remote desktop on it, so I can check the status of it and power it down remotely.

I have to say, most people that know me really wouldn't say I was an Intel fanboy!  :-DD

I just believe in horses for courses that's all, and on this particular race course I don't see any major users on AMD powered steeds.

Offline richcj10

  • Supporter
  • ****
  • Posts: 200
  • Country: us
Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
« Reply #201 on: April 13, 2013, 03:30:25 pm »
I have spent 6 years in video for several jobs.
I have tried: Avid - FCP - Speed Edit - Pinnical - Sony Vegas
I can assure you that they all suck at something.
But, FCP sucks to worst in the fact that it hangs, crashes,  locks up and is very picky.
It wasn't just the computer I used. I have coworkers have issues where they would have to just stop and reboot to make anything work again.
iMAC's are also not built the best. I have several accounts of hardware failure on them.
I think Speed Edit is the best. It doesn't care what file you drag onto the timeline.
It will work with it. It will also render out ANY (yes, any) video file format you would ever need.

 

Offline EEVblog

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 27422
  • Country: au
    • EEVblog
Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
« Reply #202 on: April 13, 2013, 03:36:02 pm »
I have spent 6 years in video for several jobs.
I have tried: Avid - FCP - Speed Edit - Pinnical - Sony Vegas

I've tried them all too, and it takes me about 5 minuets of using any package to give it the thumbs or thumbs down for my use.
Yes, they all have something that sucks, but I've settled on Sony because I found it the fastest, and the one that let me do most of what I want without fuss.
I actually found the free NCH VideoPad pretty good, but had an annoying video import bug, and it hasn't been updated in two years.
 

Offline EEVblog

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 27422
  • Country: au
    • EEVblog
Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
« Reply #203 on: April 13, 2013, 06:04:55 pm »
Ok, I think I've made up my mind  ;D
Intel i7 3770K
ASROCK - Z77-EXTREME4
2 x 8GB Corsair DDR3 memory
Seagate 2TB 7200 HD (+ the 128MB boot SSD I already have)
CoolerMaster Silencio 550 case ($60 cheaper than the Fractal, but still has good "silent" reviews)
Third party CPU cooler, probably a CoolerMaster or Thermaltake, maybe $80 tops.
Thermaltake Litepower 600W PSU (says it has silent fan, good enough)

Because that's 7 items instead of 6, scorptec want $105 assembly, and also $71 postage.
$1147 total, I assume that includes GST.

My local JW computer store seem to come in just over $1K even with some parts more expensive as they don't seem to charge for assembly and I can pickup down the road.
http://www.jw.com.au/order_form.php
They don't have the case I want though so will have to ask.

or I could just order all the parts separate on ebay and assemble myself, would be interesting to see if it's any cheaper with all the postage.
« Last Edit: April 13, 2013, 06:27:30 pm by EEVblog »
 

Offline peter.mitchell

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1568
  • Country: au
Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
« Reply #204 on: April 13, 2013, 06:22:16 pm »
IMHO, eBay is a terrible idea, at least with a real store you have someone you can abuse if something breaks, also, the price doesn't match most dedicated computer retailers, because of ebay fees.

Scorptec is more expensive but their service is second to none, and they pack stuff appropriately.
With that said, it would be stupid to buy a computer from Melbourne when you live in Sydney :P
 

Offline GeoffS

  • Supporter
  • ****
  • Posts: 1267
  • Country: au
Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
« Reply #205 on: April 13, 2013, 06:28:33 pm »
My local JW computer store seem to come in just over $1K even with some parts more expensive as they don't seem to charge for assembly and I can pickup down the road.
http://www.jw.com.au/order_form.php
They don't have the case I want though so will have to ask.

or I could just order all the parts separate on ebay and assemble myself, would be interesting to see if it's any cheaper with all the postage.

If going the BYO route, check out the prices from EYO. I've used them for many years and never had any problem with delivery or service. Next day delivery in Sydney (they're in Padstow)
 

Offline EEVblog

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 27422
  • Country: au
    • EEVblog
Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
« Reply #206 on: April 13, 2013, 06:32:53 pm »
With that said, it would be stupid to buy a computer from Melbourne when you live in Sydney :P

Yeah, I'll just wander down the road and see what JW can do. I'm sure it's more than just their online form allows, can likely order anything I want.
DCA computers are just down the road too, they do custom machines.
http://dcacomputers.com.au/
 

Offline M. András

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1020
  • Country: hu
Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
« Reply #207 on: April 13, 2013, 06:40:41 pm »
make sure you repaste the die and the metal cover :D:D:D you will get 10c cooler processor :)
btw performance wise its still cheaper the amd and a decent board for it, as for power consumption its goes to low power state when not used from 4ghz to 1.4ghz and 0.9volts and god knows the current so i cant say a power consumption number
 

Offline EEVblog

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 27422
  • Country: au
    • EEVblog
Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
« Reply #208 on: April 13, 2013, 09:33:39 pm »
Dave, last I checked Intel CPU's come with a heatsink and fan. Why buy another one? Sure, buy one later if you can't overclock it enough and maintain a decent temp. My standard Intel fan isn't noisy.

Most people seem to think the stock cooler is noisy.

Quote
Unless you intend to put something noisy inside the box then what is the benefit in acoustic padding? Is this audiofoolery rearing its ugly head  ;)

Not at all.
I'll have a hard drive or two, plus a video card presumably with GPU fan, plus the fans on the case (badly designed ducting noises can contribute), plus the CPU fan that will presumably scream for 30min-60min while all 8 cores are rendering at 100%. Badly designed PC cases and fans can be really noisy, as can hard.

Quote
So I presume you aren't intending to burn 600W.

No, but buying a bigger PSU than you need can mean more headroom, less heat, and hence less fan noise.

Quote
You might shave another $40-50 with the basic Asrock Z77M MB if you only intend using 2 DIMMs.

Saving $40-$50 is neither here nor there.
But I just noticed the Z77 extreme 4 does not have PCI-E 3.0 slots, only 2.0.
 

Offline M. András

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1020
  • Country: hu
Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
« Reply #209 on: April 13, 2013, 11:12:23 pm »
nah stock coolers are shit performance wise, when an aftermarket cooler can do even 30celsius difference i think the chip will thank this for you :).
i bougth an arctic a30 for my 8350, this one goes up to max 50, stock cooler 75+, and i f**** up most like the paste application too so it would be even lower
 

Offline EEVblog

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 27422
  • Country: au
    • EEVblog
Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
« Reply #210 on: April 13, 2013, 11:59:08 pm »
Dave. The EXTREME-4 does support PCI-E 3.0.
http://www.asrock.com/mb/Intel/Z77%20Extreme4-M/

That's the Extreme 4-M, I was looking at the plain Extreme-4
So many bloody options!
JW computers only have the 4 listed in their dropdown box, not the 4-M.
 

Offline EEVblog

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 27422
  • Country: au
    • EEVblog
Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
« Reply #211 on: April 14, 2013, 12:10:47 am »
Dave. The EXTREME-4 does support PCI-E 3.0.
http://www.asrock.com/mb/Intel/Z77%20Extreme4-M/

That's the Extreme 4-M, I was looking at the plain Extreme-4
So many bloody options!
JW computers only have the 4 listed in their dropdown box, not the 4-M.

They have this ASUS P8Z77V-LX for $150 though.
http://www.asus.com/Motherboards/P8Z77V_LX/
The ASUS P8H77 board is $50 cheaper.
I think the difference is that the Z88 chipset allows overclocking and some faster video interface cards.
« Last Edit: April 14, 2013, 12:15:42 am by EEVblog »
 

Offline SparkysWidgets

  • Contributor
  • Posts: 6
  • Country: us
    • Sparky's Widgets
Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
« Reply #212 on: April 14, 2013, 01:43:52 am »
Just a couple points, I recently built a box using the p8z77-V pro mb, I went with the z77 chipset because I also dual boot into Mountain Lion and all the peripherals work out of the box on OSX with z77 MBs. thought, the z77 does have some disadvantages to the z88 chipset. You can still also overclock like hell on the z77s too, I have had my i7 3770K to just under 5ghz stable. I did tone it down some so that my radiator fans only run about 1/3rd speed and are fairly quite.

While you are considering a build I would throw all 32gigs of ram in, the stuff is pretty cheap and I have been rather impressed with performance since. You will be surprised how quickly that 16gigs gets used, I am at 9.8 right now with 3 chrome windows(and a ton of tabs), RubyMine, Eagle and steam open. Geekbench showed massive improvements over the existing 12 I had originally planned on. With the all the video editing you do, you will especially make use of all the ram.
 

Offline SteigsdB

  • Contributor
  • Posts: 31
Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
« Reply #213 on: April 14, 2013, 04:23:56 am »
Dave, have you considered just recording straight to the computer and skipping the conversion process?
 

Offline hans

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1011
  • Country: nl
Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
« Reply #214 on: April 14, 2013, 06:58:50 am »
I haven't seen any Z88 motherboards.

Z77 are the most feature packed boards: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LGA_1155#Ivy_Bridge_chipsets
Z75/Z77 allow OC'ing. It also has the most amount of PCI-express configurations.  Some other chipsets are 'business' users only, though.
In your case, a H77 may be sufficient if you don't plan to OC/build extensive PCI-e configs. Moreover, if that's the case, a plain 3770 may be sufficient too.. (only the i5 have the GPU difference I believe)

The coolermaster case seems a reasonable choice. It has a very similar style and approach, but is cheaper. Personally I didn't like the big logo sticker on the front screaming "Look at me, I am a cooler master PC".

The problem with aftermarket coolers they often are a bit fiddly to install. The boxed cooler can be installed from the front with some clips, but for example my Mugen 2 has a backplate. Fortunately this Fractal case has a removable side panel + cutout in the motherboard tray. But even then, I find it easier to install coolers outside a case.

Ah well, generally a cooler with heatpipes + large lumps of aluminium plates is good. Some coolers can be gigantic, but feature 120mm fans that can cool the CPU at reasonable temperatures (without OC) at low-mid speeds.
On my previous Q6600 the boxed cooler was pretty horrid. It ran full speed at full load from day 1. After 2-3 years the paste dried out, which is pretty remarkable in itself.
I don't have experience with the boxed cooler on Ivy Bridge CPU's. Of course it will work, it's not essential or something.

About RAM: yes some apps use more RAM when you got it. On my old laptop I use 2GB out of 3GB with some programs open (Visual Studio, some chrome tabs, Skype, etc.). Same setup on this system runs 4GB + 2GB RAM disk (total 6GB)
« Last Edit: April 14, 2013, 07:00:52 am by hans »
 

Offline EEVblog

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 27422
  • Country: au
    • EEVblog
Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
« Reply #215 on: April 14, 2013, 07:47:46 am »
While you are considering a build I would throw all 32gigs of ram in, the stuff is pretty cheap and I have been rather impressed with performance since. You will be surprised how quickly that 16gigs gets used, I am at 9.8 right now with 3 chrome windows(and a ton of tabs), RubyMine, Eagle and steam open. Geekbench showed massive improvements over the existing 12 I had originally planned on. With the all the video editing you do, you will especially make use of all the ram.

Actually, I've never gotten close to my 16GB with Sony MS and a dozen Chrome windows open, and Handbrake running etc.
 

Offline EEVblog

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 27422
  • Country: au
    • EEVblog
Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
« Reply #216 on: April 14, 2013, 07:51:04 am »
Dave, have you considered just recording straight to the computer and skipping the conversion process?

Yes, and it's simply not viable for many reasons. Mostly logistics of moving the camera around the lab for every shot.
Then I'd be in the exact same position anyway in terms of editing and rendering. The only thing that solution would save me is the minute or two to copy the files from the camera to the machine.
Fine if you are doing single take live shows all the time, but useless for a proper edited video blog .
 

Offline EEVblog

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 27422
  • Country: au
    • EEVblog
Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
« Reply #217 on: April 14, 2013, 07:57:04 am »
The coolermaster case seems a reasonable choice. It has a very similar style and approach, but is cheaper. Personally I didn't like the big logo sticker on the front screaming "Look at me, I am a cooler master PC".

What I like is the top mounted SD card slot. Given that I use SD card every day, that's just a nice touch. One less cable, or I don't have to bend down to a front mounted slot.
But I'd be happy with the Fractal R4 and an added media card interface in one of the 5 1/4 trays.
 

Offline ddavidebor

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1012
  • Country: it
    • Fermium LABS website
I tried a Mac for video editing...
« Reply #218 on: April 14, 2013, 08:24:06 am »
Dave, have you considered just recording straight to the computer and skipping the conversion process?

Yes, and it's simply not viable for many reasons. Mostly logistics of moving the camera around the lab for every shot.
Then I'd be in the exact same position anyway in terms of editing and rendering. The only thing that solution would save me is the minute or two to copy the files from the camera to the machine.
Fine if you are doing single take live shows all the time, but useless for a proper edited video blog .

Well, is problably possible to encode the files when you are writing it (aka shooting the video)
Davide Bortolami,
Fermium LABS srl
 

Offline peter.mitchell

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1568
  • Country: au
Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
« Reply #219 on: April 14, 2013, 08:27:15 am »
people always forget about how useful card readers are and how much of a pain in the ass they are too; you need to have one at every computer you use, plus one in your camera bag, if you try to get by with one card reader you inevitably will forget to put it int he camera bag or won't be able to find an open usb slot.

erm... the encoding takes place after the editing usually so unless he is shooting and editing simultaneously, this isn't very useful, and if he is, he needs to be paid more!
 

Offline EEVblog

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 27422
  • Country: au
    • EEVblog
Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
« Reply #220 on: April 14, 2013, 08:28:56 am »
Well, is problably possible to encode the files when you are writing it (aka shooting the video)

Yes, but there is no point doing that, it saves you nothing.
You still have to use a video editor to cut the dead space at the start and end of each clip.
Then you still have to transcode using Handbrake to get your correct size/quality ratio.
The exact same workflow that takes 99% of my time.
As I said, all that saves if the few minutes to copy the files.
 

Offline JDubU

  • Regular Contributor
  • *
  • Posts: 186
Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
« Reply #221 on: April 14, 2013, 10:21:22 am »
When evaluating possible CPU's, memory, video cards, and hard drives (conventional or SSD), I usually start with the PassMark web site:
http://www.passmark.com/index.html

It has apples-to-apples benchmark scores for seemingly every component made in the past ten or fifteen years. 

CPU's:
http://www.cpubenchmark.net/

Memory:
http://www.memorybenchmark.net/

Video Cards:
http://www.videocardbenchmark.net/

Drives:
http://www.harddrivebenchmark.net/


The CPU benchmark scores do reflect multi-threading performance on multiple core chips.
 

Offline dimlow

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 301
  • Country: gb
  • Likes to be thought of as
    • Dimlow Ponders
Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
« Reply #222 on: April 14, 2013, 04:31:01 pm »
Ok, I think I've made up my mind  ;D
Intel i7 3770K
ASROCK - Z77-EXTREME4
2 x 8GB Corsair DDR3 memory
Seagate 2TB 7200 HD (+ the 128MB boot SSD I already have)
CoolerMaster Silencio 550 case ($60 cheaper than the Fractal, but still has good "silent" reviews)
Third party CPU cooler, probably a CoolerMaster or Thermaltake, maybe $80 tops.
Thermaltake Litepower 600W PSU (says it has silent fan, good enough)

Because that's 7 items instead of 6, scorptec want $105 assembly, and also $71 postage.
$1147 total, I assume that includes GST.

My local JW computer store seem to come in just over $1K even with some parts more expensive as they don't seem to charge for assembly and I can pickup down the road.
http://www.jw.com.au/order_form.php
They don't have the case I want though so will have to ask.

or I could just order all the parts separate on ebay and assemble myself, would be interesting to see if it's any cheaper with all the postage.

Dave thats not a bad system. I doubt you will use all that RAM but as its cheap you may as well get it. You should see a good improvement in speed over your current system. But i know if i went this route i would always be regretting that i had not spent $400 or so more and got a 3970k and quad channel memory for a much faster system even if i had to hold out buying it for a few more weeks for the money to come in.
 

Offline EEVblog

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 27422
  • Country: au
    • EEVblog
Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
« Reply #223 on: April 14, 2013, 07:34:40 pm »
Dave thats not a bad system. I doubt you will use all that RAM but as its cheap you may as well get it. You should see a good improvement in speed over your current system. But i know if i went this route i would always be regretting that i had not spent $400 or so more and got a 3970k and quad channel memory for a much faster system even if i had to hold out buying it for a few more weeks for the money to come in.



Is the 3970K really worth the extra?
« Last Edit: April 14, 2013, 07:41:42 pm by EEVblog »
 

Online BravoV

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 5535
  • Country: 00
Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
« Reply #224 on: April 14, 2013, 07:47:27 pm »
Is the 3970K really worth the extra?
Looking at that chart ? I say its not worth it, think about Sagan's fund, every cents count, IMHO.  :P

Offline dimlow

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 301
  • Country: gb
  • Likes to be thought of as
    • Dimlow Ponders
Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
« Reply #225 on: April 14, 2013, 07:50:34 pm »
now if you looked at a chart with a linear scale it would tell the truth

Time to get more sleep
« Last Edit: April 14, 2013, 08:49:08 pm by dimlow »
 

Offline hans

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1011
  • Country: nl
Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
« Reply #226 on: April 14, 2013, 07:54:13 pm »
Obivously not. The 3970X is a 940 euro CPU. I think your original i7 system with motherboard, RAM, PSU, HDD, case comes in at 940 euro.
Socket 2011 motherboards are more expensive.
Socket 2011 runs best with quad channel RAM (better to say; it can make use of quad channel as opposed to dual channel RAM).
Socket 2011 CPU's don't come with a boxed cooler. They figured you're such an enthusiastic user, you're going to fit a good one yourself anyway. Or , they had to admit their boxed coolers suck :-//
 

Offline dimlow

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 301
  • Country: gb
  • Likes to be thought of as
    • Dimlow Ponders
Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
« Reply #227 on: April 14, 2013, 07:59:06 pm »
Sorry guys i meant a 3930k, dont know why i wrote 3970k, the 3970k IS NOT worth the extra
« Last Edit: April 14, 2013, 08:03:22 pm by dimlow »
 

Offline hans

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 1011
  • Country: nl
Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
« Reply #228 on: April 14, 2013, 08:09:54 pm »
Then still though, a typical socket 2011 motherboard is about 180 euro.
The CPU itself is about 180 euro's more expensive.
You need a dedicated cooler..
And a dedicated Graphics Card

And in the end you win about 15 seconds in handbrake. 10%.
 

Offline EEVblog

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 27422
  • Country: au
    • EEVblog
Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
« Reply #229 on: April 14, 2013, 08:11:48 pm »
now if you looked at a chart with a linear scale it would tell the truth

The 3930K is 1:50
The 3770K is 2:05
12% speed improvement. Not much.
 

Offline dimlow

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 301
  • Country: gb
  • Likes to be thought of as
    • Dimlow Ponders
Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
« Reply #230 on: April 14, 2013, 08:13:44 pm »
Yes but look at this. Toms hardware does not show the big jump in speed from 3770k to 3930k. their charts are misleading.

Load of dogs.
« Last Edit: April 14, 2013, 08:50:02 pm by dimlow »
 

Offline dimlow

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 301
  • Country: gb
  • Likes to be thought of as
    • Dimlow Ponders
Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
« Reply #231 on: April 14, 2013, 08:18:32 pm »
how did you calculate 12% seems more like 26% to me

I really should check charts better next time
« Last Edit: April 14, 2013, 08:51:06 pm by dimlow »
 

alm

  • Guest
Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
« Reply #232 on: April 14, 2013, 08:23:07 pm »
There are 60 seconds in a minute, not 100.
 

Offline dimlow

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 301
  • Country: gb
  • Likes to be thought of as
    • Dimlow Ponders
Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
« Reply #233 on: April 14, 2013, 08:25:07 pm »
lol :D

« Last Edit: April 14, 2013, 08:29:30 pm by dimlow »
 

Offline EEVblog

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 27422
  • Country: au
    • EEVblog
Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
« Reply #234 on: April 14, 2013, 08:28:00 pm »
how did you calculate 12% seems more like 26% to me

The graph I posted shows:
3930K is 1:50 = 110 seconds
3770K is 2:05 = 125 seconds
Do the math  ;D
 

Offline EEVblog

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 27422
  • Country: au
    • EEVblog
Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
« Reply #235 on: April 14, 2013, 08:29:35 pm »
Yes but look at this. Toms hardware does not show the big jump in speed from 3770k to 3930k. their charts are misleading.

Their chart is not misleading, it clearly shows exact times in second for both processors, for H.264 rendering in Handbrake (exactly the task I want)
What is the graph you posted referring too?, that's misleading without any context!
 

Offline dimlow

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 301
  • Country: gb
  • Likes to be thought of as
    • Dimlow Ponders
Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
« Reply #236 on: April 14, 2013, 08:35:41 pm »
In my defence I'm a Dimlow.
 

Offline SteigsdB

  • Contributor
  • Posts: 31
Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
« Reply #237 on: April 15, 2013, 12:42:24 am »
Well, is problably possible to encode the files when you are writing it (aka shooting the video)

Yes, but there is no point doing that, it saves you nothing.
You still have to use a video editor to cut the dead space at the start and end of each clip.
Then you still have to transcode using Handbrake to get your correct size/quality ratio.
The exact same workflow that takes 99% of my time.
As I said, all that saves if the few minutes to copy the files.

If you were to record the file in its final format (H.264) and then edit that file for upload would it not save you from skipping the transcode step?

You could use something like this:
http://www.blackmagicdesign.com/products/h264prorecorder/
 

Offline mariush

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 3324
  • Country: ro
  • .
Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
« Reply #238 on: April 15, 2013, 12:54:22 am »
The camera records already in h264 but it's a relatively constant and high bitrate format, something like 16-24 mbps. 

Dave's problem is slow upload speed, he has to optimize his videos to retain as much quality in a reasonable amount of disk space. The camera format (and camera videos in general) are not optimized for that, no matter the scene complexity the camera will use the same disk space, they have a hardware encoder inside that balance battery consumption with encoding complexity and encoding time.

Dave imports these video into the editor, makes some cuts and stuff on the videos, saves into h264 with some big file - high quality setting (hence no actual real processing work, no big cpu usage by the editor), and then the video goes to handbrake which encodes with specific settings that shrink the video file size while retaining as much quality  (constant quality factor, each frame has same quality, size varying depending on complexity)


Anyway... I was the one pushing for AMD as a good solution for the money, but I'm perfectly fine with Dave's choise for the 3770k.

Hardware wise, the only thing I don't like about that configuration is the power supply.. i personally don't trust Thermaltake like I said, and I'd recommend paying a bit more for a psu with Japanese capacitors and more modern OEM design/architecture.  I would go for a psu that has a Delta or Seasonic OEM design inside, but you'd have to search for reviews for each psu and determine that, which takes time.
But in the end, that Litepower will be OK, the system won't even use half of the maximum power it's rated for, it will be OK.
 

Offline SteigsdB

  • Contributor
  • Posts: 31
Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
« Reply #239 on: April 15, 2013, 12:59:42 am »
Dave imports these video into the editor, makes some cuts and stuff on the videos, saves into h264 with some big file - high quality setting (hence no actual real processing work, no big cpu usage by the editor), and then the video goes to handbrake which encodes with specific settings that shrink the video file size while retaining as much quality  (constant quality factor, each frame has same quality, size varying depending on complexity)

What I'm suggesting is finding a way to ingest the video directly using post-handbrake settings, thereby eliminating that step.

I haven't played with Media Express so I'm not familiar with it's particular compression options, but surely there has to be some way to do it.
 

Offline EEVblog

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 27422
  • Country: au
    • EEVblog
Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
« Reply #240 on: April 15, 2013, 09:47:13 am »
If you were to record the file in its final format (H.264) and then edit that file for upload would it not save you from skipping the transcode step?

No, that's not how it works.
You still need a video editor which does not magically output the samecombined H.264 file.
So you still have the exact same video editor render and final H264 transcode to do.
 

Offline EEVblog

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 27422
  • Country: au
    • EEVblog
Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
« Reply #241 on: April 15, 2013, 01:28:47 pm »
VideoReDo TVSuite H.264. can edit without rendering again. It only renders the frames before and after the cut so it is really fast. See my previous post.

Then it's not possible to do anything else. Like overlays, captions, fades, crop, zoom, dual camera etc.
I do need at least a modicum of editing features.
 

Offline EEVblog

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 27422
  • Country: au
    • EEVblog
Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
« Reply #242 on: April 15, 2013, 01:34:37 pm »
What I'm suggesting is finding a way to ingest the video directly using post-handbrake settings, thereby eliminating that step.

You can't. "and stuff" mariush referred to is the key. You cannot get around needing a proper video editor for this kind of stuff.
Then once you established you need that, you have limited choices. I have tried them all, and I found Sony MS is the best for my purpose.
 

Offline EEVblog

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 27422
  • Country: au
    • EEVblog
Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
« Reply #243 on: April 15, 2013, 01:43:06 pm »
The deed is done.
I've ordered an i7 system from JW with Silencio 550 case, Corsair H55 water cooler, 16GB Corsair DDR3, Corsair VS650 PSU (yeah, yeah, blah, blah, best value option they had, I'll take my chances :-P) and ASUS P8Z77-V-LX MB.
I would have only saved just over $100 by going AMD, so sorry you AMD fanboys.
They wanted $99 assembly/test/burnin, so I'll do that myself.
Worth doing a boring build video? (Altzone or EEVblog?)
 

Offline ecat

  • Frequent Contributor
  • **
  • Posts: 296
  • Country: gb
Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
« Reply #244 on: April 15, 2013, 01:58:55 pm »
See, that was easy and didn't take long only took 17 pages  :-DD

Video of the build? I bloody well hope so ;) More to the point some rendering and transcoding numbers, then we can look forward to another 17 pages of 'told you so'. lol.

Glad you have things sorted.


 

Offline mariush

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 3324
  • Country: ro
  • .
Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
« Reply #245 on: April 15, 2013, 02:10:28 pm »
Make it a live show, like you did with the 3d printer.
 

Online NiHaoMike

  • Super Contributor
  • ***
  • Posts: 4709
  • Country: us
  • "Don't turn it on - Take it apart!"
    • Facebook Page
Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
« Reply #246 on: April 15, 2013, 02:14:02 pm »
650W would be massive overkill since you aren't using a high end GPU. (Though you'll be all set for a future CUDA upgrade or a RAID array...) Water cooling would be massive overkill unless you're planning to overclock a lot. A $30 Cooler Master heatsink will handle even a 6 core i7 just fine.

Also beware that the motherboard you selected doesn't have IEEE1394, in case you still have an IEEE1394 camera you want to use. In that case, a cheap IEEE1394 card would solve your problem.
Cryptocurrency has taught me to love math and at the same time be baffled by it.

Cryptocurrency lesson 0: Altcoins and Bitcoin are not the same thing.
 

Offline EEVblog

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 27422
  • Country: au
    • EEVblog
Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
« Reply #247 on: April 15, 2013, 02:17:04 pm »
Make it a live show, like you did with the 3d printer.

Live shows turn into shitty final videos though. Fine for the keen 100 or so who turn up, but boring for the 20,000 who watch later.
 

Offline EEVblog

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 27422
  • Country: au
    • EEVblog
Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
« Reply #248 on: April 15, 2013, 02:20:11 pm »
650W would be massive overkill since you aren't using a high end GPU. (Though you'll be all set for a future CUDA upgrade or a RAID array...) Water cooling would be massive overkill unless you're planning to overclock a lot. A $30 Cooler Master heatsink will handle even a 6 core i7 just fine.

Well, I'd probably be silly not to try and overclock it at least a little with the K CPU, chipset support, and water cooler (which hardly cost much extra).
Overkill is what I want. That hopefully means lower temps, and hence lower fan noise all round.
 

Offline jmole

  • Regular Contributor
  • *
  • Posts: 211
  • Country: us
    • My Portfolio
Re: I tried a Mac for video editing...
« Reply #249 on: April 15, 2013, 05:08:47 pm »
Overkill is what I want. That hopefully means lower temps, and hence lower fan noise all round.

If you want overkill, you can pick up a quad CPU server chassis, and load it up with 10 core Xeons. Of course, that be just about as useful as that 13GHz scope for day to day use. Not to mention the $20k price tag.

My research lab put together a system like this for a virtualized web server. Sure was a hell of a build.