Results 1 to 15 of 15

Thread: SpeedEdit 1.5 and Windows XP issues

  1. #1
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    New Zealand near Turangi
    Posts
    72

    SpeedEdit 1.5 and Windows XP issues

    I have been using SE1.5 in Windows XP 32 bit. I would like to upgrade to Windows 7 64 bit and install SE 2.0. This is not straightforward. Newtek support have said that SE1.5 will not run on Windows 7 so I have to commit to SE 2.0 and just hope it works.
    Not sure if my system can handle the 64 bit Windows 7? If it can't then no advantage of going to Windows 7 and SE 2.0?
    Are those of you using SE 2.0 in Windows 7 64 bit happy with the performance. Is it worth me going this way?

    I would also like to upgrade my present HDV camera, a Canon H1, to possibly a Sony FS700 or other HD camera. The AVCHD video format may be an issue. Does SpeedEdit 2.0 handle this format. I have 2 - 3.20 ghz Inetl Exenon processors. I am not sure if this limits me from editing HD footage.

    These are a couple of issues which I have trouble coming to grips with. This is a big ask but can anyone help with some of the above issues.

  2. #2
    I run both SE versions of 1.5 and 2.5 using Windows 7 64-bit on a laptop computer. No complaints about performance with AVCHD files. When my other workstation is upgraded, I'll be taking SE off my laptop and install both versions of SE on the updated workstation.

  3. #3
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    New Zealand near Turangi
    Posts
    72
    Thanks for that rather comforting report.

  4. #4
    Super Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    London, England, UK
    Posts
    1,081
    Blog Entries
    18
    SE 2.x works fine with Win 7 and handles most AVCHD files without issue. The thing to remember about AVCHD is not so much the format itself but the manufacturer's implementation of it.

    AVCHD is a bit of a catch-all term for an mpeg variation of video compression. It's basically just a branding exercise for Sony and Panasonic as are a lot of the various video psuedo codecs manufacturers dream up. They are still basically a flavour of the mpeg standard.

    However, as is usually the case, these manufacturers create cameras that have certain settings that utilise a proprietory flavour of AVCHD that will work only with software that comes packaged with the camera, thus trying to force you into their walled garden of products. Unfortunately, this is usually of concern if you want to use the highest quality images the camera can produce. Otherwise, if you wish to use the best quality clips without using the manufacturers software, you'll have to use a workaround method (such as transcoding to SpeedHQ) and losing some of the image quality in order to make it work with your editor of choice. Luckily however, the cameras also have other settings that create more generally compatible AVCHD files.

    This, primarily is the thing you need to be aware of with regards to AVCHD.

    Your existing computer sounds more than capable to handle AVCHD, the main things to focus on now is having enough ram, a decent graphics card and not worring too much about 32 or 64bit OSes regarding SE. SE is only a 32bit program (at the moment, hopefully) and so can't take advantage of 64bit memory addressing, but it'll still work on a 64bit machine regardless.

    And yes, it's defiinately worth installing SE2.0 and updating to 2.5 at least. SE1.5.x is the past.
    Last edited by Shabazzy; 06-10-2014 at 02:46 AM.

  5. #5
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    New Zealand near Turangi
    Posts
    72
    Thanks Shabazzy
    Your explanation was very much appreciated. Your words of wisdom are always very helpful.

  6. #6
    Super Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    London, England, UK
    Posts
    1,081
    Blog Entries
    18
    No problem mate. It's a pleasure to help.

    If you'd like a bit more clarity on the whole Mpeg thing (in an easy to understand way), I posted an answer in the following thread:

    SE MP4 vs avi using MS MPEG 4 Codec Whats the difference

    You find it worth checking out if you'd like to see how AVCHD relates to the Mpeg standard and how manufacturers come up with them.
    Last edited by Shabazzy; 06-11-2014 at 07:32 AM.

  7. #7
    The rebuild of my computer workstation is complete. After my good friend (and tenant) rebuilt the system and installed system (Windows 7 and Ubuntu) and component software in less than four hours, I installed both SE 1.5 and SE 2.6. It then took NewTek less than five minutes to transfer the licenses from my laptop to the updated workstation and both versions of SE were up and running. My 1920x1080 AVCHD files run flawlessly on the timeline in either version of the SE software. I should mention that I only installed SE 1.5 to answer the question raised here about whether it could run on Windows 7 with version 2.0 installed. Since the answer to that question is an obvious "yes" I'll probably uninstall it. It's wonderful getting used to taking more time to blink than to load a program or do something with software. After my new 21:9 monitor arrives on Monday, my friend will be back to do some final tweaking to speed up the system even more and do a full backup. The updated workstation is awesome considering that it was rebuilt for less then $1,500 (less than $2,000 with the new monitor) using a 15 year old case and components and adding the following new components:

    ASRock X79 motherboard
    Intel i7 six core 3.4GHZ processor
    Corsair water cooling system
    250 GB SSD system drive
    32 GB ram
    GeForce GTX 780 video card with 6GB ram
    ON ORDER: Dell U2913WM widescreen monitor

  8. #8
    Lynn Cress lcress's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Free State
    Posts
    299
    Hmm... interesting you're using an SSD drive. Is that what you are digitizing footage to? (Wow. Just realized what an old term "digitizing" is.)

    It has been my understanding that SSD's can wear out after so many read/writes. Was that a concern?

    Love the re-purpose of the old gear with new inards. A six core i7 should do you justice. Let us know how you get along with your new system!

  9. #9
    We chose the SSD for speed. I'm using it as a system drive only - so minimal reads/writes. I use a Sata HD (older technology) for storage (downloads, documents, etc.) and another Sata HD raid (again, older technology) for video footage. After the SSD's final tweak on Monday, we'll do a complete Aconis backup of the SSD and store that file in two other places. If anything goes wrong with the SSD, we'll simply insert another SSD or Sata drive and copy the backup to it. Yes, like you, I like old gear. We thought we'd have to put the water cooling system outside the 15 year old case, but that old case had the exact opening and screw holes in exactly the right place to house the unit. We also replaced seven older cooling fans with new quieter ones without any modification to the case. The SSD went in a slot one would think was made for it. By the way, I like your picture of the VTR. I used to edit 2" videotape with a microscope, liquid and tape splicer back in the 1960s - now that's really old gear but state-of-the-art at the time.

  10. #10
    Lynn Cress lcress's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Free State
    Posts
    299
    Yeah, that's an Ampex 2000. We had three of those suckers and an ACR.

    I missed out on physically splicing tape. When I came in to the business 3/4" ENG was all the rage.

  11. #11
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    New Zealand near Turangi
    Posts
    72
    Shabazzy
    Your post re the MPEG-4 thread was helpful. I think what you are saying is that AVCHD is the flavour of the MPEG 4 codec chosen by the likes of Panasonic and Sony. So companies chose their own flavour of compression of the MPEG 4 codec for their cameras? Are you saying that the files coming out of most cameras are in a flavour of the MPEG 4 codec and because these standards are being adhered to the upshoot is that these files should play okay in most video software?? So engineers have to work to the MPEG 4 standards to develop their applications for compression and decompression. So the format ACDHD is one factor in image quality? I see the AVCHD being used in "low" end cameras right up to very expensive gear. The hardware of the camera being the other equally or more critical for image quality?

  12. #12
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    New Zealand near Turangi
    Posts
    72
    Hi dweinkauf
    I really appreciate your follow up on your new workstation. It gives me something to go by if I do a major upgrade. Thanks

  13. #13
    'the write stuff' SBowie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    The stars at night are big and bright
    Posts
    19,401
    Quote Originally Posted by John Ball View Post
    I see the AVCHD being used in "low" end cameras right up to very expensive gear. The hardware of the camera being the other equally or more critical for image quality?
    AVCHD quality is also dependent on bitrate. This can vary from low single digits up to around 28Mb/sec. Very inexpensive devices tend to be at the lowest end of the spectrum, with consumer video cameras around 17Mbps, and prosumer and higher cameras at the upper end of the scale.
    --
    Regards, Steve
    Forum Moderator
    ("You've got to ask yourself one question ... 'Do I feel lucky?' Well, do ya, spammer?")

  14. #14
    Super Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    London, England, UK
    Posts
    1,081
    Blog Entries
    18
    Hi John,

    I'm glad you found the post useful.

    I think what you are saying is that AVCHD is the flavour of the MPEG 4 codec chosen by the likes of Panasonic and Sony. So companies chose their own flavour of compression of the MPEG 4 codec for their cameras?
    Essentially yes, AVCHD is a flavour of the Mpeg 4 codec. However it's important to note that it's not one chosen by Panasonic and Sony, it was created by them. Mpeg 4 has a lot of "components" that software engineers can choose from in order to build their own flavour of an Mpeg 4 based codec.

    Because they have this massive flexibility, some companies choose to make some of their codecs widely compatible and some of their codecs very proprietory. Sometimes they include both types of codec in one camera (compatible types and proprietory types). The choice of which type you use, usually depends on what recording mode (aka quality setting) you set the camera to record in.

    For example, my Panasonic TM900 has 5 recording modes: 1080p @ 28Mb/s (yes, I know it's a resolution but this is what they classify as a quality setting) HA @ 17Mb/s, HG @ 13Mb/s, HX @ 9Mb/s and HE @ 5Mb/s, with image quality progressively going from highest to lowest in order, starting from 1080p.

    The 1080p setting is the only one that is proprietory and the others that are classified as AVCHD are compatible with most professional editing systems. This is a bit confusing, but as far as I'm aware Panasonic don't classify the 1080p recording mode as using the AVCHD codec, but it's definately using an Mpeg 4 based codec that they cooked up. But that's not to say, they couldn't make a proprietory AVCHD codec if they really wanted to.

    It also has an iFrame codec for Macs, but I don't classify Apple products as relevant so I just dismiss that codec.

    The point being, that sometimes manufacturers can put different types of their own, as well as third party codecs in their products which gives the user a choice that they can select from in order to help make the clips fit in with their given production workflow.

    Are you saying that the files coming out of most cameras are in a flavour of the MPEG 4 codec and because these standards are being adhered to the upshoot is that these files should play okay in most video software?? So engineers have to work to the MPEG 4 standards to develop their applications for compression and decompression. So the format ACDHD is one factor in image quality?
    A lot of camera manufacturers create codecs based on Mpeg 4 standards because the quality vs compression ratio is so good that it just makes sense to use it. Also, I believe economics has a part to play in it, I don't think any licence fees have to be paid in order to create your own codec based on the Mpeg 4 standards or even if you choose to use the ready made parts of Mpeg 4 to include as part of your camera's codec.

    When camera manufacturers build their products they usually release newly created codecs to various video editing software companies for testing to ensure it's compatible prior to the release of the camera (this is partly why older editing software require updating) and because the Mpeg 4 standard is available to anyone, it makes it easier for the editing software manufacturers to access the Mpeg4 standards and incorporate these codecs into their editing software.

    But generally, yes, compatibility is a big factor in their decision to use Mpeg 4 as the codec of choice and yes, for those cameras that use it, AVCHD is but one factor in image quality.

    I see the AVCHD being used in "low" end cameras right up to very expensive gear. The hardware of the camera being the other equally or more critical for image quality?
    Yes, AVCHD has very broad application and the issue of image quality relies on many different factors, such as lens types and sizes, sensor sizes and types, colour space, aperture sizes, recording media types and speed, recording file formats (compressed/uncompressed), internal software algorithms, microprocessor speeds, the camera's ram speeds, etc, etc, etc.

    It's all a link in a chain and it only takes one poorly built element to reduce the overall image quality.

    And that's just image quality, when you factor in other camera features, well you start to realise the scale of the undertaking these manufacturers take on when producing one camera, let alone a line of them.

    You've got to admire their acheivements.

    But even after all of that, there still lies the problem of preserving the image quality that comes out of the camera. Once it goes into the editor and is edited down to the final cut that's where all the good stuff ends (actually it ends inside the camera when it compresses the image coming from the sensor using it's internal codecs which is based on the recording mode the user chooses), because when the time comes for the final cut to be rendered for distribution, you'll find that a large percentage of the original image quality has been lost when the final render is done. And this is solely down to the codec used in that final render. The only exception to this is the uncompressed codecs that are available.

    All other types will reduce the image quality by one factor or another.

    So some would say, it's a fool's errand to worry about getting the most expensive camera money can buy for the image quality it can produce, when in the end most people will never get the opportunity to appreciate that quality given the files and playback screens and platforms available to them in order to watch it.

    Don't get me started on 4k!
    Last edited by Shabazzy; 06-22-2014 at 07:08 AM.

  15. #15
    Hi John,

    My workstation upgrade is just about finished. In a day or so, we'll be doing the final tweaking and then a full Acronis backup. As a test, I installed both SE 1.5 and SE 2.6 on the workstation and both worked fine. It took NewTek less than five minutes to transfer both licenses from my laptop to the updated workstation. AVCHD and just about any other kind of footage works just fine on the timelines. The update used a lot of my older technology and cost less than $1,500 (or less than $2,000 with the new monitor). The flexibility, speed increase, quietness, and display are incredible!. With this and my Sony EA50 camcorder, I'm a happy camper. Shabazzy makes some excellent points about image quality. I'm old school and take time trying through lighting and composition to get the best footage I can in production before going to or having to rely on post.

    My workstation's old technology:
    Case (more than 15 years old but able to accommodate and enclose all of the new technology without any modifications)
    750w power supply
    1-TB raid assembly
    500GB hard drive (now used for storage)
    blu-ray burner
    VT5 and daughter card
    Gateway monitor (now used for video display)

    My workstation's new technology:
    ASRock X79 motherboard
    i7 6-core 3.4ghz processor
    Corsair water cooler with radiator and fan
    250 GB SSD (system only)
    32-GB Ram
    7 - Silenx fans to replace older fans
    GeForce GTX 780 graphics card with 6-GB ram
    Dell U2913 WM 21:9 aspect ratio monitor
    kayboard and mouse
    external USB floppy drive (legacy replacement of internal drive)
    external USB Zip drive (legacy replacement of internal drive)

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •