: On Sat, 18 Sep 2004 08:35:37 -0700, "formerly known as 'cat
:
:
: >: Since you're working with video I suggest simply getting
: >: largest capacity the budget will allow. Anything modern is
: >: fast enough for capturing compressed video and burning to
: >: DVD.
: >:
: >
: >I'm a little confused. The processing time for rendering videos
: >is pretty high and so would seem to be the limiting factor. Why
: >would a faster SATA drive make a difference? Would a
: >10,000 rpm make a difference?
: >
: >
:
: Define render.
: I only use the term for CG.
:
: Processing time is entirely dependant on what's being done,
: could be bottlenecked by a drive or not, depending on job,
: just how much this is going to be filtered or (whatever)
: instead of just a straight conversion to mpeg before
: recorded to DVD.
:
: Simply copying video cassette to a hard drive, the mpeg can
: be done realtime and hard drive need not be fast at all, a 5
: year old drive would be plenty fast enough. If for some
: reason OP wanted optimal quality (if you could call it that,
: we are talking about video cassettes, which if that means
: VCR tapes, will look horrible on a PC) then the capture
: could be done with lossless compression and would need a
: slight faster HDD, but still any 5 year old drive would be
: fast enough... but with lower loss or lossless codecs the
: filesizes are larger so the capacity is more important.
To me render means processing, like resizing, converting,
filtering... like from a DVD format to VCD. When you say
that things can be done realtime, that is still pretty slow, a
lot slower than copying a file obviously, so at realtime a
1G file would take 30 minutes to process, so where does
a fast hard drive help? When would a job be bottlenecked
by the speed of the hard drive? I guess that is my question.