Is My Computer Too Slow?

[Ms.Mistie]

I would like to transfer some of my videos to vcd.But Ive been told my computer is not fast enough to do this.I know Im going to need some sort of video card/capture to do this,but what will be compatible with my slow ass computer?
PLease help me .Will I be able to make some vcd's?And if so what next?

Thanks
Ms.Mistie

Computer specs
http://h20015.www2.hp.com/en/document.jhtml?reg=&cc=&prodId=hppavilion9432&lc=en&docName=bph04809

[Heavensent]

first of all, for video capturing in good qulity you need a lot more space
then 4 gig.
about the cpu power, even if it will capture without loosing frames,
the time it will take you to make a vcd will be something like 15 hours
i had an amd k6-2 500 and it was sllloooowww.
i whould say you need a more powerful computer with a lot more space - something like 40 gig at least.
this way you whold be able to make vcd,svcd,cvd and whatever
you like.
and buy a good capture card.

sorry....

[Ms.Mistie]

Thanks for the honest info.My vcd's are going to have to wait then .But on a good note if Im going to put some $ into a new computer I might as well get a dvd burner with it.

[freak_in_cage_10k]

Hi m8,

Computers are something i am ok on!!:

basically, when you buy one, make sure you get an AMD Athalon XP processor. (or you could get the new clawhammer, but it isn't out for quite a while!! AMD KICKS INTELS A55!! in general they are cheaper too and much more efficient per clock cycle). obviously the faster the better, but the very latest XP processors are almost as expensive as Intel, so dont get the VERY best, just get one which is close, and make sure yuo get a decent heat sink & fan for it too, when decoding DVDs the processors is gonna be at full load and so is gonna get hot, and the cooler it is the more efficient it will be and reducing the chance of it freezing!

secondly, get a decent motherboard, preferably one made by ASEUS or A-BIT, the quality of the motherboard makes a surprising difference!!!

Next, make sure you get DDR RAM. there are lots of different types but you wont go wrong with DDR 333 (running at PC 2700), there are faster modules out but they are not worth the extra money. i would reccomend getting 512 Megs of RAM, the more the better but the difference in speed between 256 and 512 is SIGNIFICANT and well worth the £.

also to do a decent job you want a good 12 Gigs of Hard disk space, but what if you have to store some DVD IFOs or some M Peg Files on your HD until u can get hold of some Blank CDs. so, like Heaven said, get at least a 40 Gig hard drive!!! 60 would be better but the size of the HD will not affect the speed of anything!!!

get a decent make of CD-RW, plextor are vv good and u can burn VCDs at full speed no probs with them. as for DVD_R, i dunno n e thing bout them, sorry.

graphics cards are less important for DVD decoding, but still worth getting a good one for games, so get a Geforce 4 Ti 4200, they are cheap and good!

i think that covers it, but if u want n e more info jus ask.

[BJ_M]

lets not start a intel vs. amd debate ... they both are good and both work very well -- leave it at that..

same with memory or whatever -- because basicly he was asking about capturing , and people been capturing for a long time on systems like 333's and 400's and 500's with no problems .. speed of the cpu doesnt make a whole lot of diff on capture unless you are compressing same time ..

get a dedicated hard drive is a good idea ..

[freak_in_cage_10k]

yeah, ok, fair enough, although everyone knows really that AMD kicks intels ass :P !!! hehe

with regards to how important a processor is, it is VITAL along with RAM when converting from DVD to VCD/SVCD

[BJ_M]

freak_in_cage_10k, memory doesnt mean squat doing conversion from dvd to vcd .. and if you keeping bringing up this stupid amd vs. intel thing (thank god there is an amd and an intel or you would be paying a lot more for cpu's) you better check your facts a little more closer on video encoding and what systems are more in use professionally and faster/smoother at video editing and mpeg encoding, and also not to tend to self destruct in thermal meltdown.

If you really delve into things -- you will see that while the amd systems can be faster at some things now the race swings back and forth also and the opisite can be said also -- and while amd is a very very good cpu , 'most' chipsets for said cpu rather fall apart and are not recomended for most any major video or audio editing or encoding or stream proccessing app or system.. Most - but not all ..

Give me a dual amd system anytime for running renderman on linux (and we - do , 100's of them) , but for video compositing and audio DAW's and stream proccessing and also MAYA or SI workstations (with wildcat video cards) - its straight dual or more intel ... with a decided powerPC camp out there also on the DAW front also (and FCP video w/ aja and such 10bit or cinewave on powerpc) .

Then 64bit cpu's running on mostly SGI for the total high end, lots of cpu's with huge cache and gigs and gigs of memory and real time video proccessing you have never even dreamed of (but damm - ATI and nvidia are getting real good , then again many of nvidia engineers are from sgi and both companies work together) , then again with cheap cluster systems being built, the days of the mega power main frame type NEC's and SGI's and CRAY's and IBM's may be numbered except for military applications primarily...


anyway -- those the real facts ..

[freak_in_cage_10k]

ok, fair enough m8, although some 1 is takin this all a wee bit 2 seriously! **its only a pc!!** i feel i am a little bit out of my league here, although i would have thought that quantity of RAM would have played a v important part, afterall, the more ram you have the less info goes through the HD and we all know that the access times for RAM is MUCH faster than any hard drive, also anything that your cpu processes is gonna go through the ram and so surly the more ram u have the better??!!

Also, i know that Intel are much faster clock speeds but AMD are able to perform a lot more "work" per clock cycle and so are much more efficient. Intel are able to crank up their clock speeds more because the Architecture is much poorer. thats y if u want 2 overclock you increase the FSB with AMD or the

So, what processors do they use for all this porfessional stuff? also, unless decoding more than 1 DVD at a time how would you benefit from a dual processor???

teach me man! i am sure u know a lot more than i do but i am gettin confused!

[ryanreko]

sometimes you guys are just too much... not knowing much about processors you can just view them like this...
amd = us car
intel = jap car
us cars - (usually) lower reving, more displacement
jap cars - (usually) lower displacement, higher reving
this doesn't mean that either one is better but it gives people choices which they want

[Ms.Mistie]

Ok Thanks

[devinemi83]

Well i have a 500Mhz machine and it REALLY strugles to capture uncompressed AVI withoutdropping alot of frames. I have 64MB rams and a 40Gig HD. If I shut everything else running in the back off, it works a bit better but every 5 mins or so I get hiccups that make it loose say 150frames.


333Mhz is a tad slow for video capture. And like what was already stated, you will need ALOT of room.

[end80]

Well i have a 500Mhz machine and it REALLY strugles to capture uncompressed AVI withoutdropping alot of frames. I have 64MB rams and a 40Gig HD. If I shut everything else running in the back off, it works a bit better but every 5 mins or so I get hiccups that make it loose say 150frames.


333Mhz is a tad slow for video capture. And like what was already stated, you will need ALOT of room.

I'm no expert, but..
Seems to me that 333mhz should be capable of handling video capture satisfactorily, my girlfreind has about a 300mhz and she's capturing video from her camcorder all the time and it looks fine to me....
But, 64mg of ram isn't much - I bet if you add a few hundred mg of ram it will make all the difference in the world.

I have a nicer one now, but not so long ago my last computer was about a 400mz processor with 256mg of ram, and it seemed to do just fine.

Memory is alot cheaper than it used to be, I'm not sure on the current prices but I would bet about a $50 or $60 upgrade in memory would make a major difference in your encoding.

[crahak]

I'm no expert, but..
Seems to me that 333mhz should be capable of handling video capture satisfactorily, my girlfreind has about a 300mhz and she's capturing video from her camcorder all the time and it looks fine to me....
But, 64mg of ram isn't much - I bet if you add a few hundred mg of ram it will make all the difference in the world.

I have a nicer one now, but not so long ago my last computer was about a 400mz processor with 256mg of ram, and it seemed to do just fine.

Memory is alot cheaper than it used to be, I'm not sure on the current prices but I would bet about a $50 or $60 upgrade in memory would make a major difference in your encoding.

Well, a 333 Mhz computer is just was too slow to crunch the numbers fast enough to do a good quality encode in a reasonable amount of time. It's just so limited on cpu power that it will take ages, and RAM hardly will help for that.

Adding some RAM sounds to me like someone tryng to put a big fire out with a ten ounce glass of water instead of a eight ounch glass. Just isn't enough. I just bought a duron 1300 chip yesterday for 45$ for an old box...

[Gazorgan]

Having recently upgraded from 256 MB SDRAM 133Mhz to 512 MB DDR 266Mhz, I did some tests.

Encoding speed didn't change. I knew this going in, but I wanted to confirm for myself. Memory is not the bottleneck when encoding, it's raw horsepower. Just like your Harddrive subsystem is usually the bottleneck when capturing video(in RGB or Huffyuv, if you capture in mpeg2 via software, it get's more complex). That is not to say you can encode with 64 MB of RAM, there is a certain minimum amount you need. 128 MB is marginal, 196 MB is good, and 256 MB seems standard. 512 is overkill, but then I game also, and it DOES matter there.

I have multiple computers, and I often use my 333 PII to encode 1/2 hour cartoon eps. I just batch them up, set the priority to low, and let it run. Granted my athlon is 7x faster, but I let the PII run for weeks.

[zzyzzx]

I also have a 500Mhz machine and using MJPEG I can capture 480X480 at about 23 fps with CD audio sound before dropping frames. Much higher if I derate the sound (not sure, haven't tried it). So if you want decent quality (capture 480X480 @ 30fps with CD audio sound using MJPEG codec) I'd recommend at least a 700Mhz processor (and you would still be pushing it then) but if you going to upgrade you want to capture a full 640x480 @ 30fps and CD audio sound would probably take at least a 1Ghz processor and more processing power would still be better because it's better to have some margin. Plus my encoding times can be really slow. I routinely leave my computer on overnight and all day long when I'm at work, etc. So basically I'm saying that your computer is really too slow. The only exception to this is if you bought a capture card which had hardware compression on it but that would be more expensive than a computer upgrade and has other limitations.

[devinemi83]

I cant add ram. I tried and my computer is a bitch about it and wont recognize it.

[furdog]

Short answer - Yes your computer is too slow. While you could capture/convert with what you have (I used to capture avi with a Cyrix MII 266), it would be a real challenge for all of the reasons everyone gave. With HD, RAM and CPU all needing upgrade, you could probably buy a cheap and/or used PC for less.

But, there is a possibile alternative. A Hardware capture MPEG-1 Encoder which will create VCD compliant files as it captures. I recently purchased a WinTV PVR 250 PCI Audio/video capture card. It can capture both VCD compliant MPEG-1 and DVD complient MPEG-2. If you stick with the VCD format, the hard-drive speed & capacity requirements drop. When I got it home the first day I was able to make 5 hours of VCDs including editing (with their MPEG editor).

It is quick and dirty, but functional, and you can really crank through the files. I have other capture cards, with other strengths, but if I want a quick VCD I use it. There are other cards, this one cost $100 (at office max - you had to ask for it) after a $50 rebate they had.

I did have some S/W installation problems (it still worked enough to use) until I loaded the latest drivers, so the problems that people have encountered were real. There are some occasional problems, but overall pretty happy with it.

There are others, including USB capture. The key thing is to be sure that the capture device does the MPEG-1 encoding directly into VCD compatible format. Strongly recommend one that captures both the Video & audio together in hardware, to avoid sync problems. Be careful, A lot of cards say they record MPEG, but really require the computer to do the encoding - and it is not very clear on the box.

The only USB I tried was ADS Instant DVD which had problems for me, plus only passed through audio to the sound card. I will be trying a Bungee, but that only captures MPEG2.

I would stick to the VCD format even if you get one that can do both, given you system's capabilities. Also watching while capturing may require your system to decode the MPEG-1 in software which will use resources (decode while watching MPEG-2 drives the system requirements for the PVR250)

This way if you upgrade to a new computer later you can move the device.

Other Alternative if just want VCD - a standalone recorder like the terapin being dicussed in another thread (http://www.vcdhelp.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=131929). Am not familiar with it, so can't evaluate

[loseyourself]

hi, i only read the first 2 posts in this forum so dont get pissed off if i said something someone else said....i am running an AMD-Duron 1300Mhz CPU, 40GB HDD with WinXP Pro (Corp) Service pack 1 and daily updates, Nvidia Geforce 4 420 PCI card, Swann Ezy Capture PCI card, DVD-Rom, CD-R/W burner and a peice of shit motherboared with only PCI slots and 2 SD-Ram slots (i have 256MB ram). all that was from my upgrade i did several months ago, the upgrade was cheap....my previous system had a 700Mhz CPU, 128MB ram, WinXP Home OEM, 8MB on bord video and a cheap ass capture card i borrowed from a mate.....i used virtual dub to capture the audio and video to an uncompressed *.avifile to be later converted to mpeg 1 xvcd later using Tmpgenc, i only ever droped 1 or 2 frames per hour but now with my new Swann Eazy Capture card it is verry rare that any are dropped, in my opinion....a 700 to 1300Mhz CPU with 128 to 256 MB ram and a fast HDD running WinXP or win2k with the NTFS file system would be enough to get you by on a 40Gb HDD, you can always capture to MJPEG to save on HDD space, i still use uncompressed but it is up to you....if you were serious i would reconmend a 2000 to 2500Mhz CPU with about 1BG of ram, 200BG HDD and WinXP Pro with the NTFS file system...well they are my thoughts, byez...........

[crahak]

@loseyourself: Perhaps you should have read more... Or maye it's general computer knowledge...

Most people don't need a 2.0GHz+ machine for this, and a gig of ram basically won't help at all. 256 is a nice amount right now...

Also, uncompressed avi to later create a VCD is beyond overkill... VCD is not even near as good as a mjpeg capture (by me anyways).

Fast hard drives are also overrated laltely... Most PVR's use 5400rpm drives, and I have also done captures with these with 0 frame drops consistently... (I still buy 7200 rpm, but they're not "required")

Storage is a number you cannot even attempt to give numbers on. 200GB is not enough for me, yet it might be 10x as much as someone else needs... It's almost like looking at someone and telling him what car he has to buy without knowing his needs or tastes.