13 replies to this topic

[itobor]

I have to decide whether to return to EMC-8

My deadline for canceling my EMC-10 purchase (by download) is in less than 36 hours.  While I have EMC-10 working, it puts an almighty strain on my computer (see signature area - only 1.8GB processor), making it unstable and prone to crashes (not constantly, but sometimes gets hung up in fast forward in VideoWave, and sometimes when switching between VideoWave and MyDVD). I have done 3 clean re-installs, defragged, etc, but the source of the problem seems to be my CPU processor.  I do not plan to upgrade to Vista for many moons, so I do not need to have EMC-10 on that account.

This is not just a $ decision about getting a refund.  EMC-10 takes up much more space on my 50GB hard drive compared to EMC-8, and I am concerned about the crashes (2 crashes resulted in the "screen of death", and physical memory dump, and my OS (XP Pro) has never fully recovered - sluggish start-up... but that is another story).

I have extensive experience with EMC-8 in the audio area - converting LP's and tapes to digital and burning to CD - but no experience with EMC-8 for video editing.  Would appreciate advice on video editing functionality of EMC-8 versus EMC-10 (no way to test since the clean install of EMC-10 meant getting rid of EMC-8 -though I have the original install disks).  I know EMC-8 will give me back drag-to-disk (which I see is not a favorite utility for many on these forums anyway), but am not sure what I might lose going back to EMC-8.

IN PARTICULAR, am I likely to have the same problem when dealing with videos in EMC-8 as I do in EMC-10 because of my underpowered processor.   If so, I might as well stick with EMC-10.

Any thoughts or advice will be much appreciated.

Edited by itobor, 29 April 2008 - 05:16 PM.

[gi7omy]

You are underpowered for any video work. I doubt if 8 would actually work much better (video processing puts a lot of stress on both the CPU and the graphics chipset) and, with a laptop, thetre's not much you can do to improve things - sorry

[Larry]

IMHO, going from 10 back to 8 would be a mistake, especially for video work. The rendering quality in 8 was poor. The features, options, and content in MyDVD and Videowave were limited unless you had the full EMC 8 Deluxe Suite. I would also suspect that you'd see more crashes and issues trying to use v8 than you've had in v10.

[itobor]

Many thanks Gi7omy and Larry for your prompt responses

I will stick with EMC-10, and consider, in the not too distant future,  upgrading to a desktop (quad-core etc - though not sure a duo-core or quad-core will solve all problems).  I'll keep the laptop for travel (often gallivanting Australia in a camper-bus or spending a few months in the US of A), and use the desk top for the heavy duty media work (at least that is the the dream).

Thanks again

Edited by itobor, 30 April 2008 - 02:41 AM.

[gi7omy]

Using a dual or quad core won't really make any difference to rendering (and neither will using a 64 bit OS). EMC is geared to 32 bit single core.

What DOES make a difference tho' is the Level 2 Cache - I noticed a significant improvement when I switched from the AMD 3200 to the Intel e6750 but that was down to the huge 8MB of L2 cache memory

[itobor]

Using a dual or quad core won't really make any difference to rendering (and neither will using a 64 bit OS). EMC is geared to 32 bit single core.

What DOES make a difference tho' is the Level 2 Cache - I noticed a significant improvement when I switched from the AMD 3200 to the Intel e6750 but that was down to the huge 8MB of L2 cache memory

Thanks gi7omy - that is very helpful and timely information.  I assume then that dual/quad core is not very relevant until Roxio comes out with a later EMC version that is built to take advantage of the dual/quad processing.

[ggrussell]

Thanks gi7omy - that is very helpful and timely information.  I assume then that dual/quad core is not very relevant until Roxio comes out with a later EMC version that is built to take advantage of the dual/quad processing.

I've done several tests and haven't found a multicore processoe helps at all even WITH an applciation that recognizes both cores.  Using the exact same one hour DV AVI, Videowave renders as quick (within 15-20 sec) as Adobe Premiere Elements which does recognize my Dual core.  The only time I find multicore REALLY makes a difference is when running multiple applications. no slow down at all.

[djpattyd]

If you plan to do any amount of serious video editing, you should really consider adding another hard drive for data storage, especially video files, avi, mpeg etc.  No matter what computer monster you have or are planning on getting it is critical and essential to have another hard drive for all your storage needs.  I have nothing on my C drive accept the OS and programs. All audio, photo, and video, and especially newly rendered video files are on the secondary drive. I stay away from making large files like a one or two hour file. I usually make them no longer than a half hour(sometimes even smaller) and then piece them altogether into a complete project.  A good move is also to turn off your antivirus,(I usually disconnect from the internet for this) when planning to edit.  I only have a 1.4 gig processor and videowave works fine. I also try not to make too many moves too fast.  That gives my processor time keep up with each task such as applying transitions or adding effects.
djpattyd

[itobor]

If you plan to do any amount of serious video editing, you should really consider adding another hard drive for data storage, especially video files, avi, mpeg etc.  No matter what computer monster you have or are planning on getting it is critical and essential to have another hard drive for all your storage needs.  I have nothing on my C drive accept the OS and programs. All audio, photo, and video, and especially newly rendered video files are on the secondary drive. I stay away from making large files like a one or two hour file. I usually make them no longer than a half hour(sometimes even smaller) and then piece them altogether into a complete project.  A good move is also to turn off your antivirus,(I usually disconnect from the internet for this) when planning to edit.  I only have a 1.4 gig processor and videowave works fine. I also try not to make too many moves too fast.  That gives my processor time keep up with each task such as applying transitions or adding effects.
djpattyd

Thanks for your advice - the new computer will have two 500GB internal drives, and 2 externals - a  TB AND a 500 GB on Firewire 800 and esata connections.  

The advice to stay off the internet and turn off anti-virus when video editing (and defrag first - and save often) I will take to heart.

[jeanrosenfeld]

Using a dual or quad core won't really make any difference to rendering (and neither will using a 64 bit OS). EMC is geared to 32 bit single core.

Are you sure? Whilst rendering in Videowave I see al 4 of my quad core Q6600 being used?
I'm converting files to DV AVI. Nothing else on except this browser.

Attached Images

• 

[gi7omy]

It may access the cores Jean - but doesn't make a ha'porth of difference to the rendering speed. As I said, the only yhing I did find that made a difference was an increase in the L2 cache

[jeanrosenfeld]

I bow to your superior knowledge, although I wonder what those cores are doing when accessed. The Q6600 does have 8MB L2 cache. Rendering 24 minute file takes 9 minutes. A 6'30"  file took 2 minutes.

[gi7omy]

That's about the same as I get with the e6750 Jean - Gary also found that multiple cores didn't make any real difference (even with programs that are optimised to use them)

[ggrussell]

I think it has more to do with the MPEG encoder being multi-threaded.   Most companies license the MainConcept encoder or the Ligos MPEG encoder.  I have no idea if those take advantage of multi-core CPUs.