Re: [Hardware] Older Hardware and large Current spec monitor
- From: "David Ruether" <d_ruether@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 9 Dec 2009 13:36:44 -0500
"Harry Putnam" <reader@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:87ws0wm9wl.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
"David Ruether" <d_ruether@xxxxxxxxxxxx> 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" <rcrowley@xxxxxxxxx> 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" <arnyk@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:
"Harry Putnam" <reader@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:87tyw3occ5.fsf@xxxxxxxxxxx
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
.
- References:
- [Hardware] Older Hardware and large Current spec monitor
- From: Harry Putnam
- Re: [Hardware] Older Hardware and large Current spec monitor
- From: David Ruether
- Re: [Hardware] Older Hardware and large Current spec monitor
- From: Harry Putnam
- [Hardware] Older Hardware and large Current spec monitor
- Prev by Date: What are the best options for serving/editing video
- Next by Date: Re: Contemplating a PD-150 for webcast work
- Previous by thread: Re: [Hardware] Older Hardware and large Current spec monitor
- Next by thread: Re: [Hardware] Older Hardware and large Current spec monitor
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
