[Hardware] Older Hardware and large Current spec monitor
Harry Putnam
been pondering about this stuff for a while and am somewhat frustrated
by not understanding what I see on line about the subject]
I'm really sick of not having enough room to easily work from tools
like Photoshop, premiere and After Effects or Edius, vegas .. etc.
comfortably.
I know that `serious' editors use a double monitor.. both large. But
that isn't an option for me. I am serious about editing.. but not a
commercial player.
My hardware isn't antique but is weak compared to todays' stuff.
P4 3.2ghz with 3gb ram has trouble with modern tools like CS4 tools.
They run but there is always some kind of grief. So I really need to
upgrade but again that isn't an option either.
My video card is Nvidia FX 5700. Now that, I might possibly be able
to upgrade but it would have to be a model that won't tax the
other hardware. And if its even possible something that would work
with upgraded more current hardware.
What I want to do right now is get a nice big monitor...
That is where I need advice. Like is it likely that my video card
would have trouble with something like a 26 in (higher end) monitor?
Further. what specs would be suitable for video editing. I've lost
all track of what is going on with monitors. I've been using a 17
monitor for quit a few yrs so something like 26" will seem huge, at
least for a while. I also plan to get a TV card but I've been planning
that for a very long time.
I see many monitors that say they are LCD which in my mind means it
will suck... but maybe that's from an antique mind set from yrs ago
I'd like the monitor to be fairly high res and will be willing to
spend something like 300-400 on it, but only if my current hardware
will handle it. (and like I said I might plop down another 150 or so
for a more powerful video card).
At least the monitor needs to be versatile enough to work well with
upgraded hardware when ever I get to that... The video card too if possible.
That brings me to the other questions:
Will a video card with more of its own ram make much difference in
editing? I have no need of gaming style video... but if more video
ram will help run CS4 tools then I'll get it.
My current card has 250 (MB I guess?) and I see cards with as much as
1gb which would be a 400 % increase... But will it really matter that
much.
I've never really known how much of a role the video card plays in
running applications.
I do know that for example... I have to turn off hardware acceleration
to even run Encore CS4 (that may be an Nvidia related problem or so
I've seen googling around.)
So, anyone who can throw some light on these somewhat vague and
somewhat poorly worded questions please let me know your thoughts.
I'd especially like to hear from people running similar
hardware... and what video cards and monitors they use.
What I want: Big wide crisp monitor.
A video card that will help run tools like Adobe CS4
David Ruether
"Harry Putnam" <rea...@newsguy.com> wrote in message news:87tyw3o...@newsguy.com...
> [I'll apologize in advance for getting a bit windy on this but I've
> been pondering about this stuff for a while and am somewhat frustrated
> by not understanding what I see on line about the subject]
>
> I'm really sick of not having enough room to easily work from tools
> like Photoshop, premiere and After Effects or Edius, vegas .. etc.
> comfortably.
>
> I know that `serious' editors use a double monitor.. both large. But
> that isn't an option for me. I am serious about editing.. but not a
> commercial player.
>
> My hardware isn't antique but is weak compared to todays' stuff.
>
> P4 3.2ghz with 3gb ram has trouble with modern tools like CS4 tools.
> They run but there is always some kind of grief. So I really need to
> upgrade but again that isn't an option either.
It's slow for HD, but should be OK for Mini-DV...
> My video card is Nvidia FX 5700. Now that, I might possibly be able
> to upgrade but it would have to be a model that won't tax the
> other hardware. And if its even possible something that would work
> with upgraded more current hardware.
Video card slot types have been changing, but you should be able to
find a card that will work with a 16:*10* LCD panel (NOT 16:9!)
at 1920x1200. You need only one for current software, preferably a
24" (or latger - but 24 is fine, and now cheap).
> What I want to do right now is get a nice big monitor...
>
> That is where I need advice. Like is it likely that my video card
> would have trouble with something like a 26 in (higher end) monitor?
>
> Further. what specs would be suitable for video editing. I've lost
> all track of what is going on with monitors. I've been using a 17
> monitor for quit a few yrs so something like 26" will seem huge, at
> least for a while. I also plan to get a TV card but I've been planning
> that for a very long time.
From what I gather, there are three color-quality grades of LCD
monitors. Cheap ones are 22" and smaller (with exceptions), middle
grade ones (good enough for video editing and viewing, but short of the
best for high end photo work) are found around 24", and the very best
are very expensive large monitors (save your money unless you are
doing critical work for reproduction...).
> I see many monitors that say they are LCD which in my mind means it
> will suck... but maybe that's from an antique mind set from yrs ago
>
> I'd like the monitor to be fairly high res and will be willing to
> spend something like 300-400 on it, but only if my current hardware
> will handle it. (and like I said I might plop down another 150 or so
> for a more powerful video card).
Both should cost less ($225 for the 24" monitor, plus $100 for the
card, if needed). BTW, for video (and certainly for stills), an 8 ms.
refresh is sufficient, the dynamic range specs are generally useless, and
for monitoring, if there is a dynamic black level feature, you must be
able to defeat it.
> At least the monitor needs to be versatile enough to work well with
> upgraded hardware when ever I get to that... The video card too if possible.
>
> That brings me to the other questions:
>
> Will a video card with more of its own ram make much difference in
> editing? I have no need of gaming style video... but if more video
> ram will help run CS4 tools then I'll get it.
I put the bucks into a card with a lot of RAM on it, and saw no difference
in performance with my software (Sony Vegas).
> My current card has 250 (MB I guess?) and I see cards with as much as
> 1gb which would be a 400 % increase... But will it really matter that
> much.
Unlikely. Mine was also 250 MB before changing it...
> I've never really known how much of a role the video card plays in
> running applications.
>
> I do know that for example... I have to turn off hardware acceleration
> to even run Encore CS4 (that may be an Nvidia related problem or so
> I've seen googling around.)
>
> So, anyone who can throw some light on these somewhat vague and
> somewhat poorly worded questions please let me know your thoughts.
> I'd especially like to hear from people running similar
> hardware... and what video cards and monitors they use.
>
> What I want: Big wide crisp monitor.
> A video card that will help run tools like Adobe CS4
If you get a good monitor (not expensive...), a good card (not expensive...),
and run the LCD panel at its native resolution, you will be surprised how
much sharper it is than your 17" CRT...;-) For some screen layouts on a 24"
monitor of three editing programs, go here --
http://www.donferrario.com/ruether/video-editor-screens.htm
--DR
Richard Crowley
> Like is it likely that my video card
> would have trouble with something like a 26 in (higher end) monitor?
Video cards neither know nor care what the physical size of the
monitor is. The only issue is what is the maximum pixel area that
your video card (you current one, or your next one) will support
at your desired refresh rate. Once you figure that out, you can
buy a monitor that fits your needs, either now or later.
> Further. what specs would be suitable for video editing. I've lost
> all track of what is going on with monitors. I've been using a 17
> monitor for quit a few yrs so something like 26" will seem huge, at
> least for a while.
As you say, the more screen "real-estate" (pixels) the better. Of course
if you put 1920 x 1080 pixels on a 17 inch monitor, you may need a big
magnifying glass to see the cursor. :-)
> I see many monitors that say they are LCD which in my mind means it
> will suck... but maybe that's from an antique mind set from yrs ago
LCD vs. what? Hardly anybody makes or sells CRTs anymore, and plasma
is being chased out of the marketplace by the "greenistas". Have you
actually gone out and shopped for monitors lately? What options did
you see besides LCD? Note that in addition to virtually 100% of the
computer monitor market being LCD, most broadcast and high-end
HD (16x9) monitors are also LCD.
If you are worried about colorimetry, buy a new HD TV receiver. Almost
all of them have RGB inputs that run directly from your current video card.
As a bonus(?) you can watch mindless broadcast TV while waiting for your
own video to render. :-)
Arny Krueger
> P4 3.2ghz with 3gb ram has trouble with modern tools like
> CS4 tools.
Other than not having a fast enough CPU to be really nice to use...
The latest quad core processors can be really nice to use. They'll do
full-resolution rendering of DVD quality files in a fraction of real time.
> My video card is Nvidia FX 5700. Now that, I might
> possibly be able to upgrade but it would have to be a model that won't
> tax
> the other hardware. And if its even possible something that
> would work with upgraded more current hardware.
Editing video is not all that graphics card intensive, but...
I'll bet money that with the latest driver, that FX5700 will work with the
largest commonly available monitors (e.g. 2048 x 1200) that you might buy,
but I've seen problems with older ones.
> What I want to do right now is get a nice big monitor...
Don't let me stop you. If you aren't too picky about color quality, you can
get a 24" 2048 x 1200 LCD for about $250 or less at a nearby big box
appliance store.
> That is where I need advice. Like is it likely that my
> video card
> would have trouble with something like a 26 in (higher
> end) monitor?
Ask it. Open Display Properties in control panel or via right clicking the
desktop where it is vacant.
Click the check box off that limits available resolutions to what your
monitor will handle and then scroll down the list to see what's available.
There's a caveat about the 5700. Some implementations don't produce a
standard DVI signal at 1600 x 1200 and above. Not all monitors will work
with its digital output. I've seen it work and I've seen it be flakey.
Check ATI's competitive card if that doesn't work out for you.
Harry Putnam
[...]
> It's slow for HD, but should be OK for Mini-DV...
>
>> My video card is Nvidia FX 5700. Now that, I might possibly be able
>> to upgrade but it would have to be a model that won't tax the
>> other hardware. And if its even possible something that would work
>> with upgraded more current hardware.
>
> Video card slot types have been changing, but you should be able to
> find a card that will work with a 16:*10* LCD panel (NOT 16:9!)
> at 1920x1200. You need only one for current software, preferably a
> 24" (or latger - but 24 is fine, and now cheap).
Thanks for the input... I saw a 26" Computer monitor for just under
$300 I believe it was 1920 X 1200. I was surprised it was that cheap.
Thing about, it doesn't really look much taller than my 17" .. but way
wider. Is that how they mostly are now...
One thing you always need in After Effects is a taller monitor, when
you need to have open several layers with most of the twirlies open
too. I wondered if these miss proportioned monitors I see now really
have much more headroom..
[...]
> I put the bucks into a card with a lot of RAM on it, and saw no difference
> in performance with my software (Sony Vegas).
>> My current card has 250 (MB I guess?) and I see cards with as much as
>> 1gb which would be a 400 % increase... But will it really matter that
>> much.
>
> Unlikely. Mine was also 250 MB before changing it...
Thanks for those bits... I figured as much but really wanted to here
from someone with experience.
[...]
"Richard Crowley" <rcro...@xp7rt.net> writes:
[...] Thanks for the basic input about video cards.
> If you are worried about colorimetry, buy a new HD TV receiver. Almost
> all of them have RGB inputs that run directly from your current video card.
> As a bonus(?) you can watch mindless broadcast TV while waiting for your
> own video to render. :-)
Couldn't tell if your serious here. I wondered about doing that very
thing. In fact about 1.5 yrs ago... I bought an lcd monitor/tv for
that purpose... but it was a terrible picture... colors look awful
It was a Samsung LT P1745. I retired it to the basement where it is
rarely used.
The picture is not clear compared even to an ancient tv from somewhere
in the 80s. That might be where I got the notion that lcd was not so
good.
You are dead right when you say (about lcd) `compared to what?' They
all are lcd.
"Arny Krueger" <ar...@hotpop.com> writes:
> "Harry Putnam" <rea...@newsguy.com> wrote in message
> news:87tyw3o...@newsguy.com
>
>> P4 3.2ghz with 3gb ram has trouble with modern tools like
>> CS4 tools.
>
> Other than not having a fast enough CPU to be really nice to use...
>
> The latest quad core processors can be really nice to use. They'll do
> full-resolution rendering of DVD quality files in a fraction of real time.
Thanks for some knowledgeable input.. I've been wondering how much
different things would work with one of those i7 setups.
------- --------- ---=--- --------- --------
Thanks folks for the good input.
David Ruether
"Harry Putnam" <rea...@newsguy.com> wrote in message news:87ws0wm...@newsguy.com...
> "David Ruether" <d_ru...@thotmail.com> writes:
> [...]
>> It's slow for HD, but should be OK for Mini-DV...
>>> My video card is Nvidia FX 5700. Now that, I might possibly be able
>>> to upgrade but it would have to be a model that won't tax the
>>> other hardware. And if its even possible something that would work
>>> with upgraded more current hardware.
>> Video card slot types have been changing, but you should be able to
>> find a card that will work with a 16:*10* LCD panel (NOT 16:9!)
>> at 1920x1200. You need only one for current software, preferably a
>> 24" (or larger - but 24 is fine, and now cheap).
> Thanks for the input... I saw a 26" Computer monitor for just under
> $300 I believe it was 1920 X 1200. I was surprised it was that cheap.
>
> Thing about, it doesn't really look much taller than my 17" .. but way
> wider. Is that how they mostly are now...
>
> One thing you always need in After Effects is a taller monitor, when
> you need to have open several layers with most of the twirlies open
> too. I wondered if these miss proportioned monitors I see now really
> have much more headroom..
That is why I recommended a 16:10 (1920x1200) rather than a
16:9 (1920x1080) - it gives more vertical space for multiple
timeline tracks and a good-size (preferably 1/2 sized) preview
window - plus plenty of room for menus, etc. Current monitors
do tend to be "wide screen", which with current editing programs,
means less need for running secondary monitors. But, it may be
that AE, you still may need that second monitor (I run a 24"
straight ahead of me, with a cheap 19" off to the side at an angle
when needed - which was VERY handy when I was writing the
Sony editing guide...;-).
> Thanks for those bits... I figured as much but really wanted to here
> from someone with experience.
It can help...;-)
> "Richard Crowley" <rcro...@xp7rt.net> writes:
>> If you are worried about colorimetry, buy a new HD TV receiver. Almost
>> all of them have RGB inputs that run directly from your current video card.
>> As a bonus(?) you can watch mindless broadcast TV while waiting for your
>> own video to render. :-)
> Couldn't tell if your serious here. I wondered about doing that very
> thing. In fact about 1.5 yrs ago... I bought an lcd monitor/tv for
> that purpose... but it was a terrible picture... colors look awful
>
> It was a Samsung LT P1745. I retired it to the basement where it is
> rarely used.
>
> The picture is not clear compared even to an ancient tv from somewhere
> in the 80s. That might be where I got the notion that lcd was not so
> good.
>
> You are dead right when you say (about lcd) `compared to what?' They
> all are lcd.
There are a few possible problems with using an LCD TV as a
monitor - the resolution is limited to 1920x1080 (or 1280x720),
not enough, really (and the resolution is limited to the display's
native resolution for best results); it may have a non-defeatable
auto black-level (this makes exposure evaluations impossible,
and these are hard enough on LCDs which change brightness
with changes in viewing position); and the TV may be too large
for comfortable viewing on a desktop (the minimum-sized
1920x1080 display was 32", last I knew...). But "RC's" last
comment was a good one! 8^)
> "Arny Krueger" <ar...@hotpop.com> writes:
>> "Harry Putnam" <rea...@newsguy.com> wrote in message
>> news:87tyw3o...@newsguy.com
>>
>>> P4 3.2ghz with 3gb ram has trouble with modern tools like
>>> CS4 tools.
>>
>> Other than not having a fast enough CPU to be really nice to use...
>>
>> The latest quad core processors can be really nice to use. They'll do
>> full-resolution rendering of DVD quality files in a fraction of real time.
>
> Thanks for some knowledgeable input.. I've been wondering how much
> different things would work with one of those i7 setups.
Quad-core machines are now quite cheap, and unless you are
editing 24 Mbps AVCHD, these are quite fast enough for doing
anything else. I've never been a believer in buying "bleeding edge"
computer gear unless there is both a budget for it (not provided by
me...;-) and a real need, since within a remarkably short time, the
expensive "B-E" gear becomes "outmoded"...;-( BTW, unlike in
the past where doubling CPU speeds, moving up a model in the
CPU, and adding RAM bought you remarkably "niggling"
performance increases, once you go from a P-4 to a dual-core,
then again to an ordinary quad core, the computer speed increases
are VERY noticeable (more than 2X speed with each step,
especially if your software can make use of CPU multithreading).
> Thanks folks for the good input.
I'm sure we are all happy to try to help...! ;-)
--DR
Paul
Your P4 3.2GHz computer might have an AGP slot, based on your FX 5700
suggestion. Nvidia has stopped delivering new AGP cards. (They used
PCI Express chips and used a bridge chip to make AGP cards, and
I read a suggestion somewhere that they couldn't make the bridge
chips any more. I think the chip was HSI or something.) That leaves
ATI as most able to help you. ATI uses bridge chips too, but are
still making theirs (Rialto).
(List of video cards, where I get details on them)
http://www.gpureview.com/videocards.php
(Rialto chip, is the one surrounded by the protective green square)
http://images17.newegg.com/is/image/newegg/14-121-330-S04?$S640W$
New video cards would likely have at least one dual link DVI connector,
which could handle up to 2560x1600. There is a table, further down
in this article, with what resolutions a dual link connector can handle
at 60Hz. LCDs don't flicker like CRTs do, so 60Hz is not an
issue with the LCD.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_Visual_Interface
Something like a 4650 or 4670 might be an upgrade. The amount of
RAM here, 1GB, is overkill, and even a 512MB card would be sufficient.
The difference between the two cards, might be the 4670 has better
gaming specs. But might not add much to your video editing experience.
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814121330
Notice the connectors on that one, are a bit weird. That particular
card has HDMI, VGA, and DVI. And the DVI is likely to be dual link.
http://images17.newegg.com/is/image/newegg/14-121-330-S02?$S640W$
Depending on what display devices you have, or plan to acquire,
there may be other cards with a better mix of ports.
This XFX card has two DVI connectors and a DIN for various video
output formats (composite, S-video, component ?, the spec doesn't
say - there is no component cable bundled in the box).
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16814150433
I can find the words "HDCP capable" here, which is something you
check for if the card has DVI connectors but no HDMI connector. If
an HDMI connector is on the faceplate, then HDCP is supposed to be
part of HDMI. HDCP over DVI is still required, when driving high
res monitors. HDCP supports encryption over the monitor cable,
to suit the movie industry attempts to prevent piracy by copying
the image digitally as it flows over the monitor cable. It is just
another tick box, when shopping for a video card.
http://www.xfxforce.com/en-us/products/graphiccards/HD%204000series/4650.aspx
About the best you can do, is use the most modern card, and hope
that the driver somehow provides the acceleration you want in
the tool flow you're using. There is too little detail in most
software advertising, to determine exactly what works or doesn't
work.
One problem with the latest AGP cards, is getting good quality
drivers for them. Always read the review comments for the card
you're buying, as to where is the best place to download a
working driver. Sometimes, it takes a particular driver, plus
the "AGP hotfix" download. The review comments on Newegg, are
a good place to find mention of driver issues.
Changing platforms, and moving to a computer with a PCI Express
slot, opens up more video card options. But you might not
get much more out of that, at least from the video card
end of things. You could get a faster processor that way.
It really depends then, on the GPU acceleration features,
as to whether some other video card, would give you more.
*******
Picking monitors is much harder, so I'll leave that to you.
This is an example of a big one.
30 inches, 2560x1600, dual link DVI, HDCP, 60 Hz refresh,
178 degrees (vertical), 178 degrees (horizontal) viewing angle (= IPS panel)
$1400.00
When I looked at an Apple one, I couldn't see proof it had HDCP.
Paul
Harry Putnam
Thanks for the input.
And as I look back over this thread I see there was really a lot of
very useful information packed into it. Once again I feel compelled
to say thanks to all for the input.