![]() |
Nothing can substitute for cpu power. I've been doing this over 10 years. All this sli and crossfire stuff is bullshit for rendering. I had 3 in crossfire and it's actually faster with one card. Unless you are bucking up for a 5 thousand dollar quadro card you wont see more than a cunt hair of improvement with a gaming card.
Ds |
Quote:
|
Quote:
I don't speak like shit to you & don't expect it back... ok, for starters, then why when I shoot in 4k, try to play the video, my laptop crashes. An I5, 4gb ram, an I7 is needed with 4k graphics video card and 12 or 16 gb ram, this is what I've been told. I shall watch the video when I have time but this is what I've been told by professional pc people. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Ssd's are the only way to go. Especially for your os and where you will render the vid to. It's best to render on the same disc, preferably 2 os ssd's raid zero. Store your vids on sata drives. I have an 320 terabyte server, I think 240 tb redundant in raid 60 over 10gbs cat 6a, 10gbs switch and 10gbs nic cards. The bottle neck is the sata at 6gbs but thats fine transfering to. I digress. Clearly you are going the consumer route. Whereas i have 14,000 dollars in just hard drives alone. I think we're comparing a pro setup vs a hobbyist setup. No disrespect but you're network is like a yellow 74 pinto with a brown door. Ds |
I am editing several 4K videos right now. Each file is in MP4 format and is around 20gb per video. I am using my newest computer, with Windows 10, and I have 16mb of video RAM. But I am not really 'editing' (as in raw footage), more like slicing and dicing.
The "issue" I have with 4K is how can the average user, especially on mobile, truly appreciate the dynamics of 4K? Chances are they will want to view a 1920x1080 "UHD" video compressed down to some size they can actually stream. It takes forever to download a 20gb video and try streaming that size. So, to me, while 4K is great it's so watered down for the Web that it's not much better than HD in the end. Of course, that may just be me. LOL |
Quote:
A 4k vid of 20gb would take a moment n Britain atm, with 200mb download per second & same with US with higher. Alas, over Europe, most lines are still only 30 or 40 mb max, so yes, can create a problem :thumbsup |
Quote:
4K streaming will be looking for 20Mbps as a minimum I'd have thought, probably higher. With Virgin I recently ugraded from 200Mbps to 300Mbps and whilst the download speed difference is negligble I managed to negotiate a much higher upload speed. Even at 300Mbps, 20GB takes a lot more 'minutes' than you might think. It's not exactly 'moments'. |
4k is pointless streaming. Especially if you are offering it in 5.1 dolby atmos or better. Heck, the average computer has issues with 4k being played locally.
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
For starters, downsampled 4K footage looks better than 1080p footage. You can zoom, pan and make other moves in post. There's more... https://fstoppers.com/originals/6-reasons-shoot-4k-video-even-if-you-cant-view-it-yet-77535 http://www.redsharknews.com/production/item/1836-oversampling-101-shooting-4k-for-hd-delivery |
Quote:
I don't care what you're been told. You're just repeating what you think is right, while having no clue. Seriously, you're the one contributing idiocy to this thread. And GO Fuck Yourself with your "respect", that's funny. Quit trying to pretend you know what you're talking about. Everyone here knows that you don't have even the slightest of clues. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:49 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
©2000-, AI Media Network Inc