Forum Home
Press F1
Thread ID: 142134	2016-05-03 06:57:00	Lap top for video editing	Wayne Logan (17470)	Press F1

Post ID	Timestamp	Content	User
1420007	2016-05-03 06:57:00	What is reasonably priced laptop suitable for home video editing	Wayne Logan (17470)
1420008	2016-05-03 16:07:00	ASUS Zenbook Pro it is around $3,000 so I am not sure if you would find that reasonable. The non pro version is half the price, and maybe suitable as well.	Kame (312)
1420009	2016-05-03 22:29:00	A PC is the correct answer :) Unless you really MUST have a laptop, get a PC if you want to use it for serious work like that. Cheaper, faster .	1101 (13337)
1420010	2016-05-04 21:20:00	A PC is the correct answer :) Unless you really MUST have a laptop, get a PC if you want to use it for serious work like that. Cheaper, faster . This. Plus you can (usually) easily upgrade bits as the need arises rather than replacing the whole thing. If you do need a laptop, get the fastest CPU you can afford, a reasonable amount of RAM (8GB+) and a bucketload of disk :D	autechre (266)
1420011	2016-05-04 21:45:00	These days with digital video the grunt factor is not overly important and mist editing is done in a proxy mode I.E. not playing back you project file on 1080P or the like but at a lower resolution that lesser processors can handle. The only time grunt is nice is when you have to render out a video if your editing software doesn't support "Smart Render" If your still capturing video from and analog source then grunt is a must..	paulw (1826)
1420012	2016-05-05 00:59:00	For video editing I decided on a small desktop PC, only 220 x 190 x 350mm. It only cost me a little over $1000, using components from my previous PC (case, PS, graphics, monitor, Win7). You might say "But the cost should include all the components as if bought new." No. If you're comparing it with a laptop, it's quite legitimate to write-off the sunk cost of the re-used components. Because on a lap-top you write off the entire cost of the previous machine! (If I were a gamer and wanted to take my rig to a venue I could easily put a handle on it. Its performance would beat a lot of high-end laptops. The MB has built-in Wifi and BT. The case includes a 3.5" HDD as well as a 2.5" drive. The OS is M.2 on the MB) Video editing depends a lot on the quality of the source material as to how much grunt you need. If you're just editing recorded TV or DVD material, you don't need much grunt as paulw says. It's easy because there are no jerky camera movements and the video bit rate can be low. I downloaded a 4k clip from Youtube where a helicopter is shooting video above the Queenstown lakes. Beautiful smooth video - and only 18 Mbit/s Hand-held video eg from a cell phone can be much more of a problem. Jerky camera motion can make each frame nearly independent of the previous frame and so compression does not achieve much. Therefore you need a lot more bit-rate to encode the video. My cell-phone records 4k at 56 Mbit/s. That's 3x the bit-rate of the Queenstown video. These days, sub-$1000 cameras can record video at 100 Mbit/s. You need a good PC to cope with that. My feeling for editing of source material is roughly as follows: TV, DVD, Youtube, dashboard - easy Music video made from stills - easy but requires good graphics if a lot of panning and zooming across Hi-res stills Cellphone, hand-held camera from a stationary position - hard if stabilisation required Cellphone, hand-held camera from somebody walking - very hard. Stabilisation probably required. Possibly also slowing down the action. It happens that walking while shooting gives the best feeling for being in a place. You get a 3D effect as objects slide past each other. (That's why professional camera crews use tracks to move cameras about) I handle walking footage by trimming, stabilising, and slowing it down before doing doing any editing. Slowing to 67% or 50% improves the viewing experience. I think in real life your mind compensates for your body movement, but when you're sitting in front of a TV screen your body is not moving and the action seems rushed if it isn't slowed a bit But stabilisation and slowing requires real grunt (eg 20 min for a 2 min clip on my rig, for 4k footage at 56 Mbit/s. The software - ReSpeedR - can do both of these, and trimming, at once, giving a file about 100 Mbit/s) The other day I was editing a 4k video but pictures were slow to appear when scrubbing along the time-line. (Moving the cursor through the video). I discovered my monitor was connected to the CPU's internal graphics. Normally I use the graphics card, which gives free-flowing scrubbing. So I learnt that a graphics card is needed. However, the internal graphics is needed for Intel's QuickSync, which is very fast for converting into H264 (can be faster than the length of the video!)	BBCmicro (15761)
1