Editing together multiple sources?

Discussion in 'Video Cameras' started by Ed Chilada, Mar 13, 2006.

  1. Ed Chilada

    :::Jerry:::: Guest

    Better still, considering current component pricing, build a
    dedicated system - whilst using a KVM switch to save duplicating
    peripherals etc.
     
    :::Jerry::::, Mar 17, 2006
    #21
    1. Advertisements

  2. Ed Chilada

    Ed Chilada Guest

    Then it's poorly written software. I'm a software writer by trade and
    I know if I wrote software that depended so heavily on assumed
    components being present and was easily affected by the installation
    of a firewall or virus shield then I'd get shot. Most other Windows
    software isn't so easily affected. Given the sheer size of
    installation directory it creates, I would have thought they'd include
    some of the DLL versions they rely on rather than hoping they'll be
    present on the machine already and crashing if they're not.

    Such registry entries are usually benign and shouldn't affect other
    programs.

    I appreciate that it may well help, but it certainly shouldn't be
    necessary. In a professional scenario it makes some sense that a user
    might dedicate a machine to their video editing. But for a software
    package that costs £40 or so and is clearly aimed at the home user,
    then they surely *cannot* assume that. the home user shouldn't have to
    dedicate a machine to each task they might want to do on a computer.
     
    Ed Chilada, Mar 17, 2006
    #22
    1. Advertisements

  3. You say it's Studio, I say it's Windows ;-)

    I often used Macs and worked or work on several Unixes - Ultrix,
    SunOS, HP-UX, AIX, Linux. Never had so many problems as on Windows,
    where the "hide the setup and information" policy makes the whole system
    impossible to cleanup and recover when things go wrong - excepted
    of course system restores and full re-installs.
    Most other Windows software do not depend on other components (codecs,
    firewalls, virus shields) and are not so demanding in terms of data
    handling and processing (USB, system bus, disk controller,
    graphic card, CPU).
    The problem is not to create a standalone environment (which they did)
    but is IMHO rather the fact that Windows keeps the other components
    alive even if this is not needed and often overrides these setups on
    request of the applications. The only sure way I know to create the
    "closed environment" needed is to use the separate installation method.
    The do, they do. Take for example URU. Nice game, nice graphics.
    Unfortunately it installs a dedicated disk drive that remains active
    even after de-installing the game itself. I picked it up as an example,
    there are many more. Try to run a registry cleaner (e.g. RegVac in
    trial version) and you'll see how many things have been "left behind".
    Even Microsoft experts will very often refuse to help to recover a
    machine and rather force a complete re-installation. Why is that, I ask?
    Again, it may be a £40 software package. But it needs the full capabilities
    of your machine, HW and SW (which you paid much more than £40). It's the
    handling of video that is too demanding, not the tool itself.

    If instead of Studio you choose a product that has less demands (no RT
    capabilities, no online filters, no preview, no multi-threading) then
    the load on the system itself goes down and the product "works".

    Ciao,
    --
    Roberto Divia` Love at first sight is one of the greatest
    Dep:pH Bat:53 Mailbox:C02110 labour-saving devices the world has ever seen
    Route de Meyrin 385 ---------------------------------------------
    Case Postale Phone: +41-22-767-4994
    CH-1211 Geneve 23 CERN Fax: +41-22-767-9585
    Switzerland E-Mail:
     
    Roberto Divia, Mar 17, 2006
    #23
  4. Ed Chilada

    :::Jerry:::: Guest

    You have to remember that video has a very high memory / CPU / Bus
    resource requirement.

    Most other Windows
    As Roberto said, it's what's recorded in the registrary that is the
    problem, people will keep installing programs and Codecs without any
    thought as to what effects they *might* have - when they do have an
    effect they uninstall but it leaves all the crap behind (sometimes
    intentionaly...), because they have uninstalled the 'bad' program
    they start blaming the remaining software IYSWIM. It's not
    necessarily the video editing software which is to blame but either
    shoudly written software or uninstall programs of other software.
    In reality they do.
    Quite frankly, video editing should not even be sold to home users as
    a 'plug and play' service, it's system hungry that is effected by
    what the system is also having to do in the background etc. Yes,
    system performance has improved but that is not the whole story.
     
    :::Jerry::::, Mar 17, 2006
    #24
  5. I agree 100%.

    In 5 years from now, systems may be fast enough to handle
    without troubles video editing with RT or quasi-RT capabilities.
    Today this is not and easy job.

    Right now, PCs are often on the edge and can benefit from any help
    they can get. As a rule of thumb, I would say that any machine that
    is more than 2 years old and that was not explicitly built around a
    video-editing package needs special care to get today's video-editing
    going. I know this by personal experience and by other users' testimonials.

    By building *today* a new machine with dual-processor, dual-channel RAM,
    PCI-X, proper graphic card, big memory and enough disk resource we can
    start mixing video-editing with other activities. With care. And - BTW -
    the price of such a machine won't differ too much from the price of a
    "mid-range" PC of 2-3 years ago (personal experience).

    I am talking here of SD video. If instead we go to HDV (720p or 1080i)
    then it's a completely different story.

    Ciao,
    --
    Roberto Divia` Love at first sight is one of the greatest
    Dep:pH Bat:53 Mailbox:C02110 labour-saving devices the world has ever seen
    Route de Meyrin 385 ---------------------------------------------
    Case Postale Phone: +41-22-767-4994
    CH-1211 Geneve 23 CERN Fax: +41-22-767-9585
    Switzerland E-Mail:
     
    Roberto Divia, Mar 17, 2006
    #25
  6. Ed Chilada

    Ed Chilada Guest

    Sure, because most other Windows software doesn't need a machine
    dedicated to it in order to be stable.

    Depends how much you know. I've heard so many people say that they
    "had to" reinstall Windows in order to fix a problem. That doesn't
    mean it was necessary, just that they didn't know enough to figure out
    the problem. Replacing a car's engine will probably fix an
    intermittent misfire, but it doesn't mean it's necessary.


    Volume of data shouldn't be a concern if the software is written well.
    Studio should handle itself well in low memory situations. Poorly
    written software assumes all memory allocations will work and will
    crash when they don't. The graphics card requirements of Studio are
    trivial compared to a modern PC game. The system bus, the disk
    controller... all just data flying around.. sure you may get a
    situation where these are a bottleneck to the program, but that
    shouldn't crash it or make it unstable, it should just run worse, drop
    frames etc..

    When an application loads a DLL it can specify absolute locations and
    can therefore ensure that it loads its dependancies from its own
    directory. When applications load COM objects, it can specify specific
    GUIDs and query version numbers etc.. If Studio makes assumptions,
    then it'll crash when those assumptions are wrong.

    How many other closed environments do you have for other programs? And
    what programs are they?

    Right... and that affects Studio how?

    But benign, usually.

    Sure... shedloads of GUIDs that refer to DLLs that aren't even there.
    Those are totally, totally benign.

    Because it's a helluva lot easier, faster and it guarantees a result,
    that's why.

    Heavyweight demands should *not* make the software unstable. It may
    make it jerky, slow, unresponsive - possibly to the point of making it
    unusable. But it shouldn't make it unstable.

    All of those are implemented in the Studio software (ok, so threads
    are switched by the OS, but the thread safety and synchronisation has
    to be handled in the app). If a slower machine or one with less RAM
    causes the application to crash, it's a bug in the program.

    I've just had a peek, and Studio 9 Plus is running with 84 threads on
    my PC, which is actually a helluva lot - so many in fact that I'd
    suspect a bad design. Anyhow, with so many threads and so much
    importance on thread-syncing, I'm not surprised it can be unstable
    when the machine is loaded. But that simply means that Studio expected
    things to happen in a certain time frame and didn't handle cases where
    it didn't.

    What do you believe actually happens when Studio crashes? How does the
    'load on the system' affect this? Do you believe it's like a kind of
    pressure and if it gets too much the CPU starts misbehaving and causes
    the program to run differently such that it crashes?
     
    Ed Chilada, Mar 17, 2006
    #26
  7. Ed Chilada

    Ed Chilada Guest

    As I said earlier, I once tried Studio 7. It was diabolical. It
    crashed so often that was unusable. Crashes were unpredictable too -
    it wasn't just a case of avoiding certain features. However, I quite
    liked the UI so when v8 came out I gave it another try. It was much,
    much, much better. It still crashed now and again but predictably so.
    So when 9 came out, I bought it and it's been fine. I'm finding it
    very, very solid and dependable. As I've said elsewhere though, I've
    since tried v10 and it was diabolical - as unusable as v7 (although I
    just found it to be terribly slow rather than unstable - but others
    have found it to be unstable).

    Now, in all that time, the hardware stayed exactly the same, same CPU,
    same GFX card, same RAM, same MB, same system bus, same HDD even (hey,
    maybe I'm due an upgrade!). The load on the machine stayed constant
    (still the same tasks and video). Yet stability improved massively up
    to v9. Only the software changed - to another version that wasn't so
    buggy.
     
    Ed Chilada, Mar 17, 2006
    #27
  8. Ed Chilada

    Tony Morgan Guest

    In message <>, Ed Chilada
    Of course it will if you're running into VM.
    Not if you're into VM.
     
    Tony Morgan, Mar 17, 2006
    #28
  9. Ed Chilada

    RobDee Guest


    Sounds like a reasonable argument Robert. Unfortunately, there are many
    people who get rid of this software and replace it with something which
    would appear even more resource-hungry, e.g. Premiere Pro - and run this
    without crashes.


    Rob
     
    RobDee, Mar 17, 2006
    #29
  10. Ed Chilada

    Ed Chilada Guest

    Why.. what will happen that would cause the software to crash?

    Why not?
     
    Ed Chilada, Mar 17, 2006
    #30
  11. Ed Chilada

    :::Jerry:::: Guest

    Not a minimum spec machine though?
    From what I've seen of the various "I have a problem with running my
    Studio software" type discussions are from people attempting to run
    on the minimum hardware spec for Studio let alone Liquid or Premiere
    Pro.
     
    :::Jerry::::, Mar 17, 2006
    #31
  12. Ed Chilada

    Tony Morgan Guest

    When memory read/writes get overly long (as they will when in VM) then
    the OS task manager stack associated with the program flags up a
    "program fails to respond" - and sends an IR to the program and the
    program crashes.
    See above.

    Why do you think that video editing programs almost always specify a
    minimum (real) memory requirement?
     
    Tony Morgan, Mar 17, 2006
    #32
  13. Ed Chilada

    RobDee Guest


    <A few random quotes>


    Posted by Alan D. on Wednesday, February 15, 2006, 10:24 AM (PST)
    Being a long time user of Pinnacle, starting from many versions back, I can
    say, it's the best and the worst I've seen. After my first install, it
    crashed. When it works, it works well, but when it doesn't, it can take down
    your system. I've even had it crash and delete my project at the same time.
    Probably what gets me the most, is after working on a long project, I try to
    render it to a DVD and what does it do??? It stops after an hour with an
    error message with no clue where the error originated. Should I even bother
    anymore with it?

    BTW, I have a very updated system, 3.4 ghz, 2 gb ram, 80 gb raid 0...

    Like I said, when it works, it works well. I've created some very nice
    projects, just wish it was without all the hassle.

    Posted by Mike Young on Saturday, February 18, 2006, 03:42 AM (PST)

    Pinnacle Studio 10.5 might fix many of the bugs that should never have been
    in a tested released version, BUT has turned the preview screen into slow
    motion!!! Preview totally useless as audio and video out of sync with very
    choppy video. What a JOKE! Program load time is not much faster, just
    eliminates the hang up around 60%.
    Windows XP pro
    Dual Processor Athlon XP2400
    Ram 2gig DDR Dual Channel
    NVIDIA GeForce 256Meg Direct X 9
    660 gig SATA drives

    Posted by James on Tuesday, February 21, 2006, 06:30 PM (PST)

    Well, I tend to agree with others. Studio 10.5 fixed some things and broke
    others. My version 9.4 worked very well but after installing 10.1 it trashed
    my 9.4 version, made it dog slow. 10.5 fixed the speed but broke video
    preview. These bugs should not be allowed out into the public during major
    releases and interim bug fixes. We're beta testing the software, reporting
    bugs, and not getting paid for it. Pinnacle is what I would call trashware
    now. Move it over to the CD software rack you can get for $5.99 in the back
    corner of Walmart. Being bought out by AVID was disastrous for the Pinnacle
    Name. Buyer beware.

    Posted by Tim Riener on Wednesday, February 22, 2006, 01:04 PM (PST)

    How do I hate thee (Pinnacle 10.5)? Let me count the ways:

    1. Riduclously slow start-up time

    2. Inexplicable freezing or crashing of the program.

    3. Video rendering that fails to start (just hangs endlessly).

    4. Video rendering that crashes during the middle of the night.

    5. Nagware-oriented software (extra features require unlocking).

    6. Doesn't play nice with others (it killed my Roxio 8 installation).

    7. Tech support responses that don't even relate to the problem described.

    8. And so on, and so on, and so on.


    Bottom Line: Do NOT purchase this software. There are a lot of copies of
    version 9.x available. It's got its own problems but overall is a better
    product and can be obtained for less than $20.

    <end random quotes>

    etc etc etc

    Personally I have 2 dedicated Dual-Processor P4 3.8 GHz systems, running
    MATROX RT HW, each with 4GB DDR2 RAM and multiple RAID drives, but I
    wouldn't like to mess my systems up with this crapware.



    Rob
     
    RobDee, Mar 17, 2006
    #33
  14. Ed Chilada

    :::Jerry:::: Guest

    <snip long list of complaints>

    The one thing I can't see in all those 'rants' is what else was on
    the system, what other crap were they running in the background, what
    registry conflicts were left unresolved - all the CPU power and
    memory etc. will do nothing for the software if the software can't
    access the correct files etc. due to a f***ed up registry...

    As one person said, (relating to Studio) " Doesn't play nice with
    others (it killed my Roxio 8 installation)", or it could be that
    Roxio didn't want to play nice with Studio, many problem would be
    solved if people didn't attempt to set their computers up to be 'jack
    of all trades' [1] - as I said in another message, IMO, video
    editing software should not be sold as a 'Plug and play' service.


    You closed with "Personally I have 2 dedicated Dual-Processor P4 3.8
    GHz systems, running MATROX RT HW, each with 4GB DDR2 RAM and
    multiple RAID drives, but I wouldn't like to mess my systems up with
    this crapware", no I expect you wouldn't want to install anything
    that might conflict with it - or more importantly mess with the
    registry - but many will and they are the ones who then seem to
    complain the loudest.

    What I'm getting at is, I'm not saying that there are not issues with
    Studio - I doubt that is a single video editing software program that
    doesn't have issues, even at the very high end - but I feel that
    some people are complaining that the carrots they put in the crumble
    don't taste like apples...
     
    :::Jerry::::, Mar 18, 2006
    #34
  15. Ed Chilada

    Ed Chilada Guest

    Windows says that a "program is not responding", when it is no longer
    servicing its message queue. This can be for any reason, the program
    may be writing a huge file, waiting for a remote response or simply
    stuck in a lengthy program loop. Of course, a good program would never
    perform potentially lengthy tasks on the thread which services the
    message queue.

    Software that operates at ring 3 (ie most application software, Studio
    included), do *not* directly handle IRs. Memory allocations either
    work successfully or they fail - they do *not* time out. Writing to
    memory *always* works (hardware problems notwithstanding), if the
    memory has been successfully allocated by the OS in the first place.
    They do not time out. If XP has to swap some memory out then the
    thread attempting to read/write that memory is effectively frozen for
    that time by the OS since it's performing a synchronous task at ring
    0.

    However, badly written software *could* crash when memory usage takes
    a while if for example it kicks off a thread and expects that thread
    to complete in a certain time frame. But like I say, that's just bad
    coding.

    Why would it do that anyway? If we pretend that such a IR exists in
    the first place at this level, why would Studio respond to it by
    crashing? Why not simply put up a dialog that says "sorry, cannot do
    that at this time". That's called managing the situation.



    Honestly, I've never heard so much crap. Really. What is the "OS task
    manager stack" exactly? You're not a software developer are you Tony?
    But you're speaking to one. I *know* what happens in low memory
    conditions and I know that the software should handle it. I *know*
    it's tricky at times especially when the software is written in OO (as
    Studio almost certainly will be), and it uses multiple threads, but it
    *is* possible and in a professionally produced product, it should be
    present.


    Because they know how much memory it will need to run *smoothly*. VM
    usage allows much software to run in less memory than it ideally needs
    (and especially helps run multiple applications), but it affects
    performance of course.


    None of your post seems to acknowledge or address how different
    versions of Studio either crash like crazy or are really stable on the
    same machine, with the same RAM, performing the same tasks with the
    same video - as many people have reported, myself included.
     
    Ed Chilada, Mar 18, 2006
    #35
  16. Ed Chilada

    :::Jerry:::: Guest

    You know the solution, as you say you are a software developer, write
    your own video editing program.

    Or are you all mouth and no balls, it's so very easy to criticise
    someone else's efforts, isn't it?...
     
    :::Jerry::::, Mar 18, 2006
    #36
  17. Ed Chilada

    Tony Morgan Guest

    It's a LIFO stack maintained by the OS kernel (LIFO to handle nesting).
    Was for a considerable time. Right from pre-RAD days when programming
    was mostly in C and Assembler. Nowadays RAD inevitably results in
    bloated software.
    To quote you ... "really". Your assertion that "Studio should handle
    itself well in low memory situations" appears to cast some doubt - you
    seem to have little understanding of the issues when running into VM.
    Has it occurred to you to ask yourself why virtually all video editing
    software specifies minimum memory - also why the message "program is
    not responding" is at the OS level?

    Anyway this discussion doesn't address the problems of the OP. As I've
    suggested, don't run other programs when doing video work, run EndItAll
    to close all non-essential tasks. It's also useful to periodically run
    Registry Mechanic (the number of registry problems that are flagged and
    fixed can be an eye-opener).

    I do, however, subscribe to your assertion the Studio 10 is buggy. I'd
    agree that folks should stay away from Pinnacle Studio. In fact all
    Pinnacle Studio versions after V5 up to V8.11 were buggy. The curious
    thing is that Pinnacle, after getting to a stable state in V8.11, they
    released a buggy V9 only three months later, and now they're back in the
    same loop in V10.

    For more constructive suggestions, at the entry level the following
    video editors are stable providing you run them with sufficient memory:

    Vegas Movie Studio+DVD
    Adobe Premiere Elements
    Puremotion EditStudio 5

    The first two are cut-down versions of Vegas 6 and Premier Pro
    respectively. The last is less well-known but all versions have been
    stable.

    For those with deep pockets, then Vegas 6+ DVD Architect 3 and Premiere
    Pro are both very good video editors. My personal preference is Vegas 6.
     
    Tony Morgan, Mar 18, 2006
    #37
  18. Ed Chilada

    :::Jerry:::: Guest

    Yes, but the problem with Premiere is that it's a hungry beast if you
    don't also use Matrox hardware for RT output, without the hardware
    you are into multi processors - it also costs more than twice as much
    as Vegas! Adobe seem intent on cutting their own throats ATM...
     
    :::Jerry::::, Mar 18, 2006
    #38
  19. Ed Chilada

    RobDee Guest

    I agree about the registry *and* also have personal experience of conflicts
    between different sw. Otherwise, of course, without so many variables,
    software would be totally predictable and crashes would *never* happen. I
    once had major problems after stupidly installing a "universal" CODEC pack -
    that took *a lot* of sorting out, but that was many moons ago.

    However, reading Ed's latest post (re the unpredictable behaviour of Studio
    in its many different flavours, even on the same system; See also Tony
    Morgan's comment re the replacing of a stable version with an unstable one),
    I would still warn people to stay away until they hear it's sorted out. Like
    the one Guy said, it's like being a beta tester and having to pay for the
    privilege.

    Rob
     
    RobDee, Mar 18, 2006
    #39
  20. Ed Chilada

    Tony Morgan Guest

    In message <>, RobDee <>
    writes
    Snipped...
    Isn't that the way these days :-(

    I'm long enough in the tooth to remember the time when developers would
    pay beta-testers.

    Your post has reminded me of another thing about background tasks.
    Norton AV is very demanding of memory. If anyone doing video is looking
    to renew Norton's license (which they require every 12 months) I'd
    suggest that they consider changing the Eset's NOD32 which is
    lean-and-mean. And in all tests performs significantly better than
    Norton and the other major players in the AV market.
     
    Tony Morgan, Mar 19, 2006
    #40
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.