Editing in lower res for lower end hardware?

Hi guys
I just got done shooting 6hrs of footage of an event with the XH-A1. It was the first time I'd ever shot in HD and I'm finding that my laptop can't handle it. In premiere it's pausing and skipping, etc.
I have captured the video from the XH-A1 with HDSplit. The resulting files are .M2T Is there a way to somehow convert the clips I need into a lower res for editing, but then when I come to encode the result, it uses the full HD files?

ok thanks, this is starting to make sense now. One point. I converted some files to h.264 MP4 files. It appears that I can't add meta data to these mp4 files and indeed I may not be able to edit them in Premiere? Is that right? (I'm away from my PC at the moment, so can't check it).
If this is true and I can not edit h.264, then what should I convert to? Can I down sample the HDV M2T files to a SD format without loosing too much of the quality (over and above the obvious differences between HDV and SDV

Similar Messages

LR on low-end hardware

I've been using LR since the late betas for basic image browsing and tagging. I've found it the smoothest and most painless tool for dealing with my RAW-format images.
I'd like to be able to shift most of these tasks over to my laptop. Not unexpectedly, LR doesn't seem too happy with the 1GHZ Pentium M notebook in questions (768MB RAM, library on 120GB 5400RPM external 2.5" HD connected via USB).
Is there anything I can do that will make at least the image-browsing part reasonably speedy? Is upgrading the RAM to 1.5GB, switching the external HD to an eSATA interface, or tweaking various settings likely to make an appreciable difference?
FWIW, the images are all 6MP NEF files, the notebook is a Thinkpad X40 running XP Pro, and my desktop machine whose LR performance I found adequate is a Mac Mini 1.66GHZ Core Duo w/120GB HD and 2GB RAM.
Thanks a bundle,
M Bernstein

RAM upgrade is probably the most important. I keep the library and preview files on my internal hard drive (got better performance than placing on external) and the photo files on an external HD. Once the preview files have been built, browsing is acceptable. Keep your preview files set to medium or low quality to reduce size. I have a 2GHz Centrino laptop with 1.5GB RAM and LR is very useable with the config I mentioned AFTER I wiped HD and reinstalled WinXP. Something about starting with a clean OS helps, then reinstall your apps selectively (watch out for NortonAV).
I also have a MacBookPro and you won't find the same level of performance on a comparable Mac machine. Current version of LR works better on Mac than Windows under comparable hardware specs.

Browser for low-end laptop

Hi,
my girlfriends laptop is running arch linux (I installed it for her a year ago...). The problem is that it's not a high performance machine but rather low-end instead. It's an "Acer Extensa 5635Z" (Intel Pentium Dual Core T4200, Intel GMA, 2 gig ram, some kind of slow laptop hdd...). All she does on this machine is browsing the web (facebook, last.fm, simfy.de) and listening to music. Occasionally she may rip some audio cds and stuff... The only process that literally kills the machine is firefox and/or flash. She tends to open around 30 - 90 tabs with all kinds of facebook stuff where it seems to be the case that everyone is posting stupid youtube "links" all the time. She needs that many tabs for all the stuff she plans to review. This means she treats "tabs" as some kind of "to read" shelf. I have tried to get here to use bookmarks but this feels to "clumsy" for her and she says she would "forget" about stuff when its not "opened".
This situation will not get better. So I'm desperately in search of a very light browser that may enable her to handle the load she produces. Can't use chromium because it has no "search bar" and I'm not getting here to put search terms into the location bar. We tried midori but it died a segfault death soon after...
The desktop environment we're using is xfce at the moment. I could go as low as fluxbox but I fear that won't improve much. Any ideas?

I have a much low end computer (4 years old computer 1.2 Gb RAM Celeron M 1.6 Ghz processor). Your laptop is powerful to run the browser of your choice (choosing a different one would not make a real difference). I now prefer google chrome (I use the open source version chromium): it seems more responsive than Firefox (you can search in the address bar, I do not see the problem). The performance problems most probably comes from flash animations and javascript. If you use Firefox, I suggest to install flasblock (block all flash animation unless clicked, possibility to whitelist some domain). For javascript, some sites may be a processor hog. Install the yesscript extension: it enable javascript by default but allow to stop it by clicking on an icon. I suggest you to install a CPU monitor, so you can easily identify which tabs pose problems and block javascript/flash inside them.
Now 30-90 tabs is a lot. It might still work by making sure javascript/Flash are blocked in all but one tab. But maybe it would be better to proceed differently. Putting bookmarks on the bookmark bar seems a good idea. It seems that it make little difference for the user: you see the sites in the bookmark bar instead of the tab bar. Only one tab is open at once anyway.
Last edited by olive (2011-07-19 20:15:38)

How to better improve the playback efficiency of HD videos on Premiere Pro CC for low-end computers?

Title explains it all really!
The playback of selected files on the upper left and right box are glitchy and slow when playing back, which makes it near impossible (or just really frustrating) to properly sync with other video clips and audio.
On lower-end video editing programs, the solution I made for this was applying Speed Change effect, but not adjusting the speed by keeping it at 100.
Details of my computer are : AMD E-350 Processor; 1.60 GHz, 3 GB RAM, Windows Vista 64bit
Thanks in advance

Win7 64bit will use almost all of your 3Gig of ram to load, leaving almost nothing to run PPro
You need to buy or build a better computer
Buy a Desktop Video Editing PC
-http://www.adkvideoediting.com/
-http://www.sharbor.com/
Here Build a Desktop Video Editing PC
-3 price level ideas in http://www.pacifier.com/~jtsmith/ADOBE.HTM
-http://ppbm7.com/index.php/tweakers-page
-what PC to build http://forums.adobe.com/thread/947698
-2 how to build videos http://forums.adobe.com/thread/1104182
-another video http://forums.adobe.com/thread/1145366
-another video http://forums.adobe.com/thread/1132363
-planning & Building http://ppbm7.com/index.php/intro-part-1
-memory for LGA2011 http://forums.adobe.com/thread/1098759
-an Adobe FAQ http://forums.adobe.com/thread/878520
-http://www.shawnlam.ca/2012/premiere-pro-cs6-video-editing-computer-build/
-http://www.videoguys.com/Guide/E/Videoguys+DIY9+Its+Time+for+Sandy+Bridge+E/0xe9b142f408a2 b03ab88144a434e88de7.aspx
-several more links http://forums.adobe.com/thread/815798
-build tuning http://ppbm7.com/index.php/final-results
-http://www.pugetsystems.com/labs/articles/Adobe-Premiere-Pro-CC-Professional-GPU-Accelerat ion-502/

Need new low-end graphics card for Power Mac G5 (PowerPC 970)

My Power Mac G5 (PowerPC 970) has recently died I believe due to a bad
ATI RADEON X800 XT MAC EDITION video card.
Reason for thinking its the card, is that the machine was performing its intended tasks for several days even though the monitor was snow.
Having trouble determining a low-end replacement. (I no longer need the enhanced features of the RADEON X800 for this machine.
Much appreciated if someone could suggest a product appropriate for PowerPC 970.
Thanks!

I also ran into this issue with my dual G5. When I bought it, I didn't get wireless because it was a dedicated desktop on the network, but I'm upgrading and giving it to the kids to use in a room without wired network. Now that wireless would be really nice and it looks like the official solution is:
"Apple Wireless Upgrade Kit for Power Mac G5 Dual or Power Mac G5 Quad MA252G/A"
which is really expensive and difficult to install. But the weird thing is that I do have bluetooth. I wonder if there's just some little doodad I need to connect to get wireless going too, but I can't find any info on the card, and it looks like it's buried on the motherboard behind all the cooling stuff. I'll probably just spring for one of the USB solutions.

Can you edit in Low Res then conform to High Res

A producer told me she wanted to edit in Low Res, then do an online to replace the sequence with High Res media. I haven't done this since I started using Final Cut: I've edited in High Res all along.
Is it necessary? And how would it be done? Many thanks for any knowledge you can share.

ProRes 422 is a mastering codec. It's is a format that you do convert many camera formats into. But it is a full resolution mastering codec. Tutorial? No...but the manual:
http://documentation.apple.com/en/finalcutpro/usermanual/#chapter=2%26section=2% 26hash=apple_ref:doc:uid:TempBookID-ReplacedWhenAssociatingWithMessierRevision-4 4032FMT-1008869
http://documentation.apple.com/en/finalcutpro/usermanual/#chapter=C%26section=12 %26hash=apple_ref:doc:uid:TempBookID-ReplacedWhenAssociatingWithMessierRevision- 44035VDF-1013573
https://documentation.apple.com/en/finalcutpro/professionalformatsandworkflows/i ndex.html#chapter=10%26section=3%26tasks=true
How did he deal with all that video? Well, he had HUNDREDS of hours...adding up to 54TB. So he had to work on the project in sections, with 12TB loaded at a time. It was tricky, but far less tricky than offline/online would have been. Less time consuming too...all the time to convert ALL of that footage to offline resolution, long time.
You're iMac is plenty powerful for ProRes. My 7 year old MacPro could deal with it fine, and your machine is more powerful.

Swapping low res for high res footage in iMovie 11?

I have been using iMovie HD and 11 for a while now and somehow I missed the whole "convert your footage before you edit" train. I have edited several videos, all of which I was importing and editing the GoPro footage without converting it to Apple Prores like I learned I should be doing. So, obviously, I have learned the error of my ways and I am now converting all my footage prior to editing.
Is there any way to save all my old videos? Is there a way to do a one to one swap of all the footage? I vaguely remember reading on a forum that someone was editing in a compressed format and then prior to exporting somehow swapping all the footage to save time on the front end and to spare his computer and iMovie the trouble of using those huge files.
Is this ringing a bell with anyone?
Any help would be appreciated.
Cheers

To my knowledge, imovie 6 will not do this.
iMovie 11 will allow you to select an h.264 file (or Event) and optimize it to Apple Intermediate Codec. If you do it this way, your project will be intact, and your h.264 clips will go to the Movies/iMovie Original Movies folder.
iMovie 11 will only be able to use ProRes 422 if you have Final Cut Pro installed on the same Mac. iMovie will not automatically optimize to ProRes 422.
Final Cut Pro will allow a lot of flexibility in swapping media. You can edit in Pro Res Lite and then switch to Full Pro Res when you are ready to make the final movie, for example.

Introducing Lowarch - Arch for low-end systems

Some of you might remember that I mentioned my plans of making an Arch install cd for low end systems. I've come quite far with this project now.
First, I must say that it was a lot harder than I first expected. So I can say I have learned a lot in the process.
Second, before I start ramblig about where I am in the process, I'll just outline what the plan is:
The best Linux distribution is Arch Linux, because of it's speed, simplicity and elegance in design. I often get hold of some old laptops which are too old for Arch (i586 normally, but also i486). I have tried a lot of distros made for low end systems, but I always end up thinking, ah how wonderful it would have been to have Arch on this. It would have been the perfect distro for this machine.
And the more I thought about it, I realised that even though Arch is perfect for super modern systems, it would be even more perfect for old systems, because of it's speed and simplicity, and not least the choice of packages.
Some have started projects to port Arch to i586. I don't think that is the best solution. A lot of Arch isn't really useful on these machines. Therefore I decided to make a new distro based on Arch, where the main difference is the choice of packages. You don't want to run a video editor on a i586. For now I've called the distro Lowarch.
Here's what I have done so far:
1st try:
Oh, I just change the compiler flags to i486 in /etc/makepkg.conf and start compiling all the packages. That worked great. Almost everything in base compiled fine. Until I started to notice the strange i686's coming up in all the ./configure outputs, and when I tried to install some of it on my i586, a lot of Illegal instruction messages came up.
After doing some research, I understood that some programs make static links to libraries, all of which, of course, are i686 coded on my system. I realised I needed to do this differently. Of course I didn't want to do all the compiling on a 486 machine.
2nd try:
I made a Cross Linux From Scratch system, compiled for i486. Even that I had to make twice, for a lot of programs check what processor they are running on and compile for that. So the second time I used a so-called uname-hack. A small kernel module which makes the kernel report that it's running on an i486 machine.
When I had a basic build system, I compiled pacman, and started to build packages. This time I had to take care of the order for dependencies to work out. First kernel-headers, glibc, etc. I installed one package at a time into an empty directory with the pacman -r option.
After having the base system compiled, I booted it, and (using the uname-hack still) continued to compile the other packages in current, and the ones that I wanted from extra.
It was really hard, since a lot of packages just don't compile with recent glibc and gcc. I have learned a lot about writing small patches just to make gcc happy or take away symbols not used anymore etc. The dependencies in the pkgbuilds are not always correct when it comes to building packages. Sometimes, and this is the most frustrating, packages seems to build correctly, but because some library wasn't installed or whatever, a few files are missing from the package, and I have no way to know, untill something goes wrong. Often this wrong is a package not compiling because include files are missing.
Another problem was to make an installer. I decided I just wanted a simple installer, like Arch has. So I compiled busybox and made an almost exact copy of the 0.7.2 install cd, just compiled for i486, and with my package selection on it.
What's left to do:
1. Look more closely at the package selection. If there are people who are interested in this we can have some nice discussions about this. There are a lot of packages I just don't know what is for, and therefore I don't dare take them away.
2. Clean up the PKGBUILDs, e.g take away references it the i686 and 64bit arch.
3. Compile the whole set of packages again, just in case.
4. Releasing it.
I've set up a wordpress page at lowarch.linuxophic.org, which is empty now, but where I'll put out a link to the iso when it's ready.

Yes, I think it would be smart to check out the PKGBUILD once in a while and see if they are still able to build packages. It seems this is only done when new releases arrive.
The thing about old programs not compiling with newer glibc and gcc or other libraries is unavoidable, and there's an unending stream of patches to address this issue. If a package hasn't had a release for a year, it's quite common that a change in a library it depends on will break the compilation. When or if new releases come, they should usually fix this.
Of course, PKGBUILDs of current packages should work with a current system, not with a system from last year, if their supposed to be of any use. But it's a huge job to keep this up to date at all times, and you need some programming skills to do it, and I would rather have the devs focus on more important things, like updating packages and making everything work even better.

Adobe Reader for Low End PCs.

Hello, I'm an air ambulance pilot and I'm donating several desktop pcs to a rural school in a mountainous province in the Philippines. I bought them by bulk in Hong Kong and some of them are low end. I was wondering what version of adobe reader works well with low end pcs? The latest versions make the low end pcs crawl in performance. The pcs are using windows xp os.

Consider other PDF readers. I recommend the free Foxit Reader for old computers it's small and fast and doesn't carry all the garbage and vulnerabilities of the Adobe software.
http://www.foxitsoftware.com/pdf/reader/

Can you realise firefox mobile for low-end android devices like Samsung GT-I5700 Galaxy Spica?

Now the realised version of Firefox doesn't work on low-end Android devices.

Probably not. The ARMv6 version was very unstable, and always crashed, according to the knowledge base.
(https://wiki.mozilla.org/Mobile/Platforms/Android)

Is there any LIGHT (low memory) version of Firefox available for low end android deviced?

There is always a low memory version of almost every browser. Opera has both "Opera Classic" and "Opera Mini", UC Browser has both "UC Browser" and "UC Browser Mini". These Mini-s run very fluently on Low end devies. Takes less RAM (Though they always fail to load pages with better HTML coding) and almost never lags. I want that Firefox also either make their RAM Usage less or release a mini version. Otherwise, like UC Browser, they also should make the Cache storage to SDCARD by default.

We want to release a browser with roughly the same capabilities as the Desktop version of Firefox. Creating a low feature version of Firefox would only confuse web developers as to what features Firefox on Android has.

Test program running taking much more time on high end server T5440 than low end server T5220

Hi all,
I have written the following program and run on both T5440 [1.4 GHz, 95 GB RAM, 32 cores(s), 256 logical (virtual) processor(s),] and T5220 [(UltraSPARC-T2 (chipid 0, clock 1165 MH) , 8GB RAM, 1 core, 8 virtual processors )] on same OS version. I found that T5540 server takes more time than T5220. Please find below the details.
test1.cpp
#include <iostream>
#include <pthread.h>
using namespace std;
#define NUM_OF_THREADS 20
struct ABCDEF {
char A[1024];
char B[1024];
void *start_func(void *)
    long long i = 6000;
    while(i--)
                ABCDEF*             sdf = new ABCDEF;
                delete sdf;
                sdf = NULL;
    return NULL;
int main(int argc, char* argv[])
    pthread_t tid[50];
    for(int i=0; i<NUM_OF_THREADS; i++)
                pthread_create(&tid[i], NULL, start_func, NULL);
                cout<<"Creating thread " << i <<endl;
    for(int i=0; i<NUM_OF_THREADS; i++)
                pthread_join(tid[i], NULL);
                cout<<"Waiting for thread " << i <<endl;
After executing the above program on T5440 takes :
real 0.78
user 3.94s
sys 0.05
After executing the above program on T5220 takes :
real 0.23
user 1.43s
sys 0.03
It seems that T5440 which is high end server takes almost 3 times more time than T5220 which is low end server.
However, I have one more observation. I tried the following program :
test2.cpp
#include <iostream>
#include <pthread.h>
using namespace std;
#define NUM_OF_THREADS 20
struct ABCDEF {
char A[1024];
char B[1024];
int main(int argc, char* argv[])
    long long i = 6000000;
    while(i--)
        ABCDEF* sdf = new ABCDEF;
        delete sdf;
        sdf = NULL;
    return 0;
It seems that T5440 server is fast in this case as compaired to T5220 server.
Could anyone please help me out the exact reason for this behaviour as my application is slow as well on this T5440 server. I have posted earlier as well for the same issue.
Thanks in advance !!!
regards,
Sanjay

You already asked this question...
48 hours earlier, and in the same Solaris forum space
Repeating the post isn't going to get you a response any faster, and actually now have people NOT respond because you are not showing any patience.
These are end-user community forums, not a place to expect Oracle Technical Support.   There is no obligation that there be a response.
If you have a business-critical issue and hope to get accurate and timely response, then use your service contract credentials to open a Support request.
This new redundant post is locked.
Edit:
It appears that at the same time the O.P. posted this redundant thread, they also posted the same question to at least one other forum web site:
http://www.unix.com/solaris/229269-test-program-running-taking-much-more-time-high-end-server-t5440-than-low-end-server-t5220.html

Buy low end Mac Pro now, upgrade later?

Wondering if it makes sense to buy a low end 2ghz Mac Pro now, and then upgrade later (to for example, higher ghz or maybe a Clovertown cpu).
The difference now is about $300 for a 2ghz versus a 2.66ghz, which I suppose would get me by for some time. Cpu upgrade later would mean having to sell the old cpus, can PCs use these as well as Macs? That would certainly make them easier to sell, and then buy new faster cpus or even a new processor class.

It depends on whether you use the MacPro and applications that benefit from quad-core, from faster cpu, or whether you are memory bound.
I rarely need or use iDVD or iLife and the 2GHz model is plenty for my needs it seems.
I figured the cost of 2x512 extra from RAM (1GB isn't enough you really want 2GB, more if you run DTP or video editing) and I wanted to buy a 10K Raptor which I (and anyone) would find welcome addition.
Before, my SP G4 MDD 1.25 was just not cutting it and was only an 'interim' upgrade from an even older system while I waited for something better than the 2005 G5 series.
Also, 2GHz, for me, is fine and more than enough. If I was doing it again, I would have gotten the 2.66GHz just because it would have shipped faster
Games? professional? bragging rights? I would never plan on having to upgrade cpu, or selling the OEM processor (might want them someday).

Sh led also on low end routers

Hello all,
If I remember correctly it was possible to lit up led's on a GSR router...(12k) through the cli remotely....
Here comes perhaps a strange or odd request for lower end type of routers (and possible also switches)
Would it be possible to have a command in the Cisco IOS, to light up any light emitting diode’s in a certain fashion? So field engineers know for sure they are hitting the right spot when they are looking for equipment in particular area’s?
Cheers

Hello all,
If I remember correctly it was possible to lit up led's on a GSR router...(12k) through the cli remotely....
Here comes perhaps a strange or odd request for lower end type of routers (and possible also switches)
Would
it be possible to have a command in the Cisco IOS, to light up any
light emitting diode’s in a certain fashion? So field engineers know
for sure they are hitting the right spot when they are looking for
equipment in particular area’s?
Cheers
Hi,
Yes you are right Show led is used to display the current status of all line card Light Emitting Diodes (LEDs), use the show led EXEC command. show led [slot-number] but this command was introduced in realease 11.2(09)GSbut in small end routers you can usethe following commands to display and verify the hardware features, enter the following commands:
•show version—Displays the system hardware version; the installed software version; the names and sources of configuration files; the boot images; and the amount of installed DRAM, NVRAM, and flash memory.
•show diag—Lists and displays diagnostic information about the installed controllers, interface processors, and port adapters; typical examples are network modules, interface cards (VICs, WICs, HWICs), and advanced integration modules (AIMs).
Hope to help
Ganesh.H

Voice Track - Needs "Low End" or sounds too "thin"

I have created a voice demo tape for a job using Garage Band and was told by a professional that it's very good except that I need to add some "low-end" (20mghz) - that it sounds too thin... it may be my microphone (using the SnowBall) or the fact that I do not have a professional studio.
Can I use some kind of effect or tool in Garage Band to correct this? I am not an expert at garage band but use to mix music and voice for video work.
Message was edited by: ezvoice

What is "20mghz"?? Probably they want some boost in the low frequencies - go to the info pane of your track (cmd-i), click the Edit tab and play with the VisualEQ. Either by selecting a preset (like "Bass Boost") or by manually editing the EQ - it's pretty straightforward.

Editing in lower res for lower end hardware?

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for