can I capture 480x480 with a 300mHz cpu?

[dphirschler]

I currently have a 300mHz machine... upgradeable to 450mHz. My question is, can I capture at 480x480 29.9fps with either processor? It seems like it would be possible since I can capture 320x240 on my 700mHz laptop and only use 20% processor.

[nightwing7]

not if u wanna take 13 hrs

[dphirschler]

I don't care (much) about encodin time, just capturing.

[CSC]

HELL NO I DROP FRAMES LIKE MAD WITH THOSE SETTINGS WITH A 600 AND HARDLY SCRATH THE PROCESSOR WITH 352X240 MY ADVISE IS UPGRADE TO A 1 GHZ AT LEAST FOR GOOD CAPTURE ABOVE 352X240

[SAYON]

MAYBE YOU CAN
with th fastest codec like MJPEG but you must set quality to bad picture (ex. quality = 2)
or capture in YUV9 format (9 bit color)
or DIVX old version and degrade your quality , open to use 100% CPU that maybe crash or hang
GOD BLESS YOU !!!!!

to dphirschler
what kinds of your 300Mhz ?
1. Intel Pentium III 300
2. Intel Pentium pro 300
3. Intel Celeron 300
4. AMD K6II 300
5. CYRIX MII 300
6. IBM 300
7. IDT WinChip 300

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: SAYON on 2001-10-18 22:58:38 ]</font>

[TurboRunner]

Hi,

Nope you cant the maximum resolution without dropping frames is 352x288 with uncompressed, huffy and mjpeg
now i capture on an athlon 1.4ghz and it's running sweat
can capture full resolution without a single frame drop if you want to capture full resolution or anything better that 352x288 then i definately recommend you upgrade to the latest amd or intel which ever you can afford plus you can do alot more with a faster cpu like encode heaps faster and i also notice my windows and files accessing off my hard drive is heaps faster than before

TurboRunner

[dphirschler]

It's an AMD K62 300 mHz. I've been told that I could stick a 450 mHz AMD cpu in there for only $39. If I can capture 480x480 with that setup, then I will go ahead and get a better capture card. Right now, I have a DVC80, but I desire more resolution. Is it possible? I'd sincerely like to avoid the additional cost of a new motherboard.

Darryl

[Tommy]

You know....I think he might be able to. Call me overly optimistic but it could happen if the system is tuned properly. I used to cap off of a amd k62 366 a long time ago, but I really don't remember what I was limited to. I would check with the capture card comp and see what they have to say. If it looks like it might be possible I would go for it. $39 is a night at the movies.....

[Hateslife]

Hell No. Flat No. No question about it. No, Period.

It's more than just the resolution, the machine has to resize it too. A very fast P2, 500 or 550, the last ones made, could do it, maybe, but we're talking an early K6-2. 2/3 the performance for half the price. Think a P2 233.

There's just -no- way it's going to happen. Even with the K6-2 450. When it comes down to it, the K6-2 and K6-3 were weak processors. It's just not worth the money.

[Beavis]

You can absolutely capture 352 X 480 using something like a TV card and HuffyUV or an MJPEG codec set on a moderatly high quality level with a 400Mhz AMD processor and very few dropped frames. The subsequent encoding to MPEG will be relatively slow, though. Capturing in full vertical resolution is what counts. Expanding the horizontal resolution to 480 during the actual capture won't mean much in terms of final MPEG quality.



<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Beavis on 2001-10-19 14:19:47 ]</font>

[vivisimonvi]

I have a 366 Mhz Celeron processor. It seems to capture 480X480 well with no frames dropped (with an ATI 128 Pro card). I need at least 88% of resources free (and restart my computer prior to capturing), though I highly doubt you'll be able to capture without dropping a few frames with a 300 machine. You may want to try it out on that then upgrade to 450 later if it's unsatisfactory.

[TurboRunner]

Hi, just remembered

on my AMD K6-2 300Mhz i could actually capture 352x576 at 25fps since i am capturing pal and have vertical reduction turned on which will make it 352x288 do you have your 2d graphics card on agp if not you may have a problem there since i could not capture 352x288 until i replaced my 2d pci card with and agp card.

But you should go with the new athlons your capture quality will be heaps better i'm finding that my captures are execellent with my new athlon 1.4ghz it was definately worth the money on upgrade my 300mhz to 1400mhz system.

Maybe save up to get it and trade in your old parts for the new

[dphirschler]

So what I understand is that on my 300mHz system, I should be able to do capture 352x480. I can clearly tell that it is worth investgating. Anybody else have any experience capturing on a 300 - 450 mHz machine? Has anybody tried capturing 352x480 and then resizing to 480x480 SVCD upon encoding? What was the quality like? Thanks, Darryl

[Anonymous65]

It's not only the CPU that restricts the capture, it's the hard drive speed. I have a 1 gig CPU, and when capturing 480x480 the CPU load is 30%, but I still drop frames! It's because there are other parts of the PC that is not up to speed. I would suggest a new motherboard and CPU with a 40 gig hard drive. Otherwise, get a hardware PCI capture card where the speed of the CPU and hard drive is not that critical.

[sesquim]

Hi! I have a 466 celeron, 192mb pc100, and I have a ATI all in wonder caputer card and tv tuner, when I watch tv or record at 320x240 the quality is good, but when i watch tv or record at any higher its bad quality, is it my processor or video card? (on board 2mb)

[azali]

I have a Pentium 2 - 400 mhz and can capture at 720x480 29.97fps using the proprietary ATI VCR 1 codec without dropping a high amount of frames (at most 5 frames to every 5 minutes). Of course having a decent harddrive (7200 rpm) that is defragged helps alot too.