HP Movie Writer on Laptop w/ Pentium M?

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by mutefan@yahoo.com, Dec 26, 2004.

  1. Guest

    I have a R40 IBM ThinkPad and don't need (or want--and can't afford--a
    new PC). I use the ThinkPad for everything except frying eggs.

    My family's comprised of older people, and I would very much like to
    transfer videotaped family "pictures" to DVD. My R40 has a 20GB hard
    drive with 10.4 free space. I could clear up more if necessary.

    An IBM rep told me last night I would need a MAC to do video editing,
    or at least a computer with at least a 128-bit video card. (Mine has
    16.)

    Is this a lost cause? Should I return the Movie Maker? I know laptops
    aren't good for video editing, but as for impossible dreams, I once
    installed--very successfully--a CD burner on a Pentium 1. So sometimes
    dreams can come true...
    Any responses, posted or emailed, very welcome. Thanks.
     
    , Dec 26, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Tom Scales Guest

    Your IBM rep is, well, an idiot.

    A laptop can edit video just fine. Video does not use very much memory on
    your video card, so 16MB is fine. It would NEVER use all the memory of a
    128MB card.

    What is important is processor speed and memory. A Pentium M should be OK,
    if a little slow, in rendering video. I don't know how much memory you
    have, but if it is less than 512MB, I would consider an upgrade.

    Personally, I don't know anything about the HP Movie Writer, so I can't
    directly comment there.

    Give it a try!

    Tom
    <> wrote in message
    news:...
    >I have a R40 IBM ThinkPad and don't need (or want--and can't afford--a
    > new PC). I use the ThinkPad for everything except frying eggs.
    >
    > My family's comprised of older people, and I would very much like to
    > transfer videotaped family "pictures" to DVD. My R40 has a 20GB hard
    > drive with 10.4 free space. I could clear up more if necessary.
    >
    > An IBM rep told me last night I would need a MAC to do video editing,
    > or at least a computer with at least a 128-bit video card. (Mine has
    > 16.)
    >
    > Is this a lost cause? Should I return the Movie Maker? I know laptops
    > aren't good for video editing, but as for impossible dreams, I once
    > installed--very successfully--a CD burner on a Pentium 1. So sometimes
    > dreams can come true...
    > Any responses, posted or emailed, very welcome. Thanks.
    >
     
    Tom Scales, Dec 26, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. bobb Guest

    Before u embark on this little adventure... <psshhh> older people like
    to hold onto kodak prints. U give them an snazzy iPOD for xmas, they
    don't know what to do with it.
     
    bobb, Dec 26, 2004
    #3
  4. Sheesh.

    The rep is totally wrong about needing a MAC. But he's probably right
    that you can't do it on your current machine.

    First, video is huge, you need to allow about 40 gigabytes of disk space
    to edit a 2 hour VHS tape. The raw AVI file is 13 gigs per hour, and
    the encoded MPEG is 5 gigs per DVD (it may take 2 DVDs to hold a 2-hour
    VHS tape).

    Also, the CPU requirement is staggering. I used to do video editing on
    a 1.6 GHz Northwood family P4, and MPEG encoding from raw video can take
    more than 10 hours on such a CPU (the software being used is a Huge
    factor here).

    However, while this is VERY CPU intensive, the task is not, within
    reason, memory intensive or video card intensive. If you have 256 or
    more megabytes of memory, you can do it, and more memory won't help a
    great deal. And the video card is totally irrelevant, ANY AGP video
    card will work just fine.

    A notebook -- especially an older one or a low-end one -- isn't a good
    platform for this, but it WILL (or should, anyway) work. But what you
    really want is a good high-end CPU with a large hard drive. More than
    anything else, a fast CPU and a really big hard drive (and I'm talking
    hundreds of gigabytes, not tens of gigabytes) are the most important
    elements. Memory and video are much less significant. And with the
    right software, a PC can do it about as well as a MAC, although the
    Apple software package is very good in terms of ease-of-use and reliability.


    wrote:

    > I have a R40 IBM ThinkPad and don't need (or want--and can't afford--a
    > new PC). I use the ThinkPad for everything except frying eggs.
    >
    > My family's comprised of older people, and I would very much like to
    > transfer videotaped family "pictures" to DVD. My R40 has a 20GB hard
    > drive with 10.4 free space. I could clear up more if necessary.
    >
    > An IBM rep told me last night I would need a MAC to do video editing,
    > or at least a computer with at least a 128-bit video card. (Mine has
    > 16.)
    >
    > Is this a lost cause? Should I return the Movie Maker? I know laptops
    > aren't good for video editing, but as for impossible dreams, I once
    > installed--very successfully--a CD burner on a Pentium 1. So sometimes
    > dreams can come true...
    > Any responses, posted or emailed, very welcome. Thanks.
    >
     
    Barry Watzman, Dec 27, 2004
    #4
  5. Lil' Dave Guest

    <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > I have a R40 IBM ThinkPad and don't need (or want--and can't afford--a
    > new PC). I use the ThinkPad for everything except frying eggs.
    >
    > My family's comprised of older people, and I would very much like to
    > transfer videotaped family "pictures" to DVD. My R40 has a 20GB hard
    > drive with 10.4 free space. I could clear up more if necessary.
    >
    > An IBM rep told me last night I would need a MAC to do video editing,
    > or at least a computer with at least a 128-bit video card. (Mine has
    > 16.)
    >
    > Is this a lost cause? Should I return the Movie Maker? I know laptops
    > aren't good for video editing, but as for impossible dreams, I once
    > installed--very successfully--a CD burner on a Pentium 1. So sometimes
    > dreams can come true...
    > Any responses, posted or emailed, very welcome. Thanks.
    >

    A current low-end Dell with a DVD burner can handle what you're asking.
    Your current PC isn't up to the task in cpu cycles per unit time, hard disk
    capacity, memory to hard disk and vice versa speed.

    You'll also need an interface for the VCR's RCA cables or S-video cable to
    your PC. Some use a TV type video card like an ATI AIW, some use an
    external unit via USB 2.0 or Firewire.

    You'll need software to transcode the VCR video to AVI, converter software
    to make the AVI to DVD compatible mpeg2, software to translate mpeg2 to DVD
    format and menu, software to burn this to DVD. And there's ins and outs to
    the last procedure as well. Then there's + and - physical media playing
    problems to concern the person viewing the final product. I would use
    keyword "dvd" to locate the appropriate newsgroups for all of this. Too
    in-depth for this newsgroup. Digital photo newsgroup is inappropriate as
    digital photos, while related, have no where near the cpu usage, interface
    problems, conversion problems that are associated with raw video and its
    conversion process to DVD format. www.dvdrhelp.com
     
    Lil' Dave, Dec 27, 2004
    #5
  6. Guest

    Barry Watzman wrote:
    > Sheesh.
    >
    > The rep is totally wrong about needing a MAC. But he's probably

    right
    > that you can't do it on your current machine.


    Yeah, I could not beLIEVE that this person still had a job with IBM.
    Maybe too much rum in the holiday eggnog.

    [SNIP]

    > However, while this is VERY CPU intensive, the task is not, within
    > reason, memory intensive or video card intensive. If you have 256 or


    > more megabytes of memory, you can do it, and more memory won't help a


    > great deal. And the video card is totally irrelevant, ANY AGP video
    > card will work just fine.


    Again, thanks. The 128-bit part of the spiel sounded over-the-top.

    > A notebook -- especially an older one or a low-end one -- isn't a

    good
    > platform for this, but it WILL (or should, anyway) work. But what

    you
    > really want is a good high-end CPU with a large hard drive. More

    than
    > anything else, a fast CPU and a really big hard drive (and I'm

    talking
    > hundreds of gigabytes, not tens of gigabytes) are the most important
    > elements. Memory and video are much less significant. And with the
    > right software, a PC can do it about as well as a MAC, although the
    > Apple software package is very good in terms of ease-of-use and

    reliability.

    At the risk of sounding cheap (because I'd buy a used PC *only* to
    accomplish this task), can you tell me the slowest CPU that will
    operate with the *minimum* (but, as you say, huge) hard drive capacity?
    The reason I ask is because the product I posted about said you needed
    only a Pentium 3. I perhaps was under the misconception that a Pentium
    M was the equivalent of a 3.

    Possibly I should ask what is the oldest MAC you can think of that
    would be adequate to do the job.

    Again, thanks much for the response.
     
    , Dec 27, 2004
    #6
  7. Guest

    Wow, you're too smart for me to understand half of what you're saying.
    But thank you very much for the URL.
     
    , Dec 27, 2004
    #7
  8. Guest

    If you have the time, could you tell me if this supercheap computer I
    found at Walmart would be appropriate (I never heard of "Balance"
    computers)? It was advertised on Yahoo and comes without a monitor;
    and although I can install more memory, I do not understand the
    acronyms associated with this particular system. (I ask because it has
    a 40 GB hard drive and a Celeron/Prescott (???) CPU. I didn't know
    they made Celeron Prescotts.)

    http://www.walmart.com/catalog/prod...44&path=0:3944:3951:41937:56811&xsell=3340268
     
    , Dec 27, 2004
    #8
  9. Big Bill Guest

    On 27 Dec 2004 03:26:04 -0800, wrote:

    >Barry Watzman wrote:
    >> Sheesh.
    >>
    >> The rep is totally wrong about needing a MAC. But he's probably

    >right
    >> that you can't do it on your current machine.

    >
    >Yeah, I could not beLIEVE that this person still had a job with IBM.
    >Maybe too much rum in the holiday eggnog.
    >
    >[SNIP]
    >
    >> However, while this is VERY CPU intensive, the task is not, within
    >> reason, memory intensive or video card intensive. If you have 256 or

    >
    >> more megabytes of memory, you can do it, and more memory won't help a

    >
    >> great deal. And the video card is totally irrelevant, ANY AGP video
    >> card will work just fine.

    >
    >Again, thanks. The 128-bit part of the spiel sounded over-the-top.
    >
    >> A notebook -- especially an older one or a low-end one -- isn't a

    >good
    >> platform for this, but it WILL (or should, anyway) work. But what

    >you
    >> really want is a good high-end CPU with a large hard drive. More

    >than
    >> anything else, a fast CPU and a really big hard drive (and I'm

    >talking
    >> hundreds of gigabytes, not tens of gigabytes) are the most important
    >> elements. Memory and video are much less significant. And with the
    >> right software, a PC can do it about as well as a MAC, although the
    >> Apple software package is very good in terms of ease-of-use and

    >reliability.
    >
    >At the risk of sounding cheap (because I'd buy a used PC *only* to
    >accomplish this task), can you tell me the slowest CPU that will
    >operate with the *minimum* (but, as you say, huge) hard drive capacity?
    >The reason I ask is because the product I posted about said you needed
    >only a Pentium 3. I perhaps was under the misconception that a Pentium
    >M was the equivalent of a 3.


    You're right, the M is a P3.
    There's no correlation between CPU speed and drive size; as long as
    the motherboard/BIOS will handle the drive, the CPU will work with it.
    Although, with only 10 gigs or so free, it'll be tight. An external
    HD, if you can get one to work, will be a big help here.
    As for the video card, the rep is smoking he wrong stuff on the job.
    Video editing doesn't take very much in the way of video at all; a 16
    Meg card will work fine, if that's what you have.
    Good luck!
    >
    >Possibly I should ask what is the oldest MAC you can think of that
    >would be adequate to do the job.
    >
    >Again, thanks much for the response.


    --
    Bill Funk
    Change "g" to "a"
     
    Big Bill, Dec 27, 2004
    #9
  10. Big Bill Guest

    On 27 Dec 2004 03:52:05 -0800, wrote:

    >If you have the time, could you tell me if this supercheap computer I
    >found at Walmart would be appropriate (I never heard of "Balance"
    >computers)? It was advertised on Yahoo and comes without a monitor;
    >and although I can install more memory, I do not understand the
    >acronyms associated with this particular system. (I ask because it has
    >a 40 GB hard drive and a Celeron/Prescott (???) CPU. I didn't know
    >they made Celeron Prescotts.)
    >
    >http://www.walmart.com/catalog/prod...44&path=0:3944:3951:41937:56811&xsell=3340268


    I've never heard of the Balance brand either, but that doesn't mean
    much; anyone with an empty garage can build computers.
    The CPU delivered in the system is a Celeron; the mobo will also take
    a P4/Prescott CPU, if you wish to install one.
    The 128 Meg RAM is too little for movie making; at least 512M is
    called for, a Gig is better. (Actually, the 128M is kind of limited
    for doing anything with WinXP) You'll want to install more RAM; it's
    cheap, really, for the bang it gives.
    You'd also need a CD burner; the included 5.25" (aren't they all?) CD
    ROM drive is a read-only device.
    The video card isn't even mentiuoned, so it may be an on-board system
    using shared memory; an AGP slot isn't mentioned, either, so you may
    want to add a PCI video card.
    There's no monitor included.
    For a low-end system, it's not bad at all. There's enough
    expandability that it can be made into a capable video editing system,
    but you'll need to add hard drive space and RAM, as well as a monitor,
    at a minimum.

    --
    Bill Funk
    Change "g" to "a"
     
    Big Bill, Dec 27, 2004
    #10
  11. Guest

    Big Bill wrote:

    > For a low-end system, it's not bad at all. There's enough
    > expandability that it can be made into a capable video editing

    system,
    > but you'll need to add hard drive space and RAM, as well as a

    monitor,
    > at a minimum.


    Thanks, Bill. If you read this, what exactly is DDR333? I'm reading
    more and more ads with that acronym and don't know what it means. Dual
    Direction...? But what's measured at 333?
    Thanks again for the knowledge!
     
    , Dec 27, 2004
    #11
  12. Big Bill Guest

    On 27 Dec 2004 09:30:36 -0800, wrote:

    >Big Bill wrote:
    >
    >> For a low-end system, it's not bad at all. There's enough
    >> expandability that it can be made into a capable video editing

    >system,
    >> but you'll need to add hard drive space and RAM, as well as a

    >monitor,
    >> at a minimum.

    >
    >Thanks, Bill. If you read this, what exactly is DDR333? I'm reading
    >more and more ads with that acronym and don't know what it means. Dual
    >Direction...? But what's measured at 333?
    >Thanks again for the knowledge!


    DDR is Dual Data Rate, and the 333 refers to the speed of the RAM (FSB
    speed, actually).
    It's one of the many types of RAM available, and is important
    information to know when you buy more RAM.

    You can go here to learn more about RAM...
    http://www.crucial.com/kb/
    --
    Bill Funk
    Change "g" to "a"
     
    Big Bill, Dec 27, 2004
    #12
  13. The lowest CPU that I'd consider [for any significant video editing] is
    probably a 2.4GHz Pentium 4 with a 533 MHz front-side bus.


    wrote:

    >
    > At the risk of sounding cheap (because I'd buy a used PC *only* to
    > accomplish this task), can you tell me the slowest CPU that will
    > operate with the *minimum* (but, as you say, huge) hard drive capacity?
    > The reason I ask is because the product I posted about said you needed
    > only a Pentium 3. I perhaps was under the misconception that a Pentium
    > M was the equivalent of a 3.
    >
    > Possibly I should ask what is the oldest MAC you can think of that
    > would be adequate to do the job.
    >
    > Again, thanks much for the response.
    >
     
    Barry Watzman, Dec 27, 2004
    #13
  14. You don't need "tons" of memory for video editing. 128 isn't enough,
    really, for XP to run well, but you can do video editing in 256 MB quite
    nicely. There's nothing wrong with 512 megs, it's not essential, it
    will increase the speed slightly (not enought that you'd likely notice).

    DDR333 = 333MHz (speed) DDR (dual data rate memory -- transfers data on
    both edges of the clock instead of just on one edge). The clock
    freqency being 333 MHz (333,000,000 clock cyles per second).



    wrote:

    > Big Bill wrote:
    >
    >
    >>For a low-end system, it's not bad at all. There's enough
    >>expandability that it can be made into a capable video editing

    >
    > system,
    >
    >>but you'll need to add hard drive space and RAM, as well as a

    >
    > monitor,
    >
    >>at a minimum.

    >
    >
    > Thanks, Bill. If you read this, what exactly is DDR333? I'm reading
    > more and more ads with that acronym and don't know what it means. Dual
    > Direction...? But what's measured at 333?
    > Thanks again for the knowledge!
    >
     
    Barry Watzman, Dec 27, 2004
    #14
  15. Guest

    Barry Watzman wrote:
    > You don't need "tons" of memory for video editing. 128 isn't enough,


    > really, for XP to run well, but you can do video editing in 256 MB

    quite
    > nicely. There's nothing wrong with 512 megs, it's not essential, it
    > will increase the speed slightly (not enought that you'd likely

    notice).
    >
    > DDR333 = 333MHz (speed) DDR (dual data rate memory -- transfers data

    on
    > both edges of the clock instead of just on one edge). The clock
    > freqency being 333 MHz (333,000,000 clock cyles per second).


    Hello again. If you all don't mind my asking, is this "DDR" acronym
    with clock cycles something new in memory advertisements? I'm a
    computer school drop-out. As recently as last year, I do not recall
    seeing the old reliable HD manufacturers' sites using this prefix, with
    clock cycles, in advertisements.

    Minute point, and off-topic as far as the original subject of this post
    is concerned. The reason I ask is because if I buy a low-end P4
    machine and have to add memory, do I have to make sure to purchase
    memory with the exact same clock cycles? (Laugh if it's fubar, but I
    gotta know!) Is a 128, 256, 512 DIMM no longer a generic module? Now
    you have to match up the RAM with clock cycles? (Remember to laugh if
    it's fubar.)
     
    , Dec 28, 2004
    #15
  16. Big Bill Guest

    On 28 Dec 2004 03:23:08 -0800, wrote:

    >Barry Watzman wrote:
    >> You don't need "tons" of memory for video editing. 128 isn't enough,

    >
    >> really, for XP to run well, but you can do video editing in 256 MB

    >quite
    >> nicely. There's nothing wrong with 512 megs, it's not essential, it
    >> will increase the speed slightly (not enought that you'd likely

    >notice).
    >>
    >> DDR333 = 333MHz (speed) DDR (dual data rate memory -- transfers data

    >on
    >> both edges of the clock instead of just on one edge). The clock
    >> freqency being 333 MHz (333,000,000 clock cyles per second).

    >
    >Hello again. If you all don't mind my asking, is this "DDR" acronym
    >with clock cycles something new in memory advertisements? I'm a
    >computer school drop-out. As recently as last year, I do not recall
    >seeing the old reliable HD manufacturers' sites using this prefix, with
    >clock cycles, in advertisements.
    >
    >Minute point, and off-topic as far as the original subject of this post
    >is concerned. The reason I ask is because if I buy a low-end P4
    >machine and have to add memory, do I have to make sure to purchase
    >memory with the exact same clock cycles? (Laugh if it's fubar, but I
    >gotta know!) Is a 128, 256, 512 DIMM no longer a generic module? Now
    >you have to match up the RAM with clock cycles? (Remember to laugh if
    >it's fubar.)


    No, you don't need to match exactly, EXCEPT:
    If you use slower RAM, you lose performance.
    If you use faster RAM, in most cases, the RAM won't perform to its
    potential.
    What IS important is to make sure the type and speed of RAM you use is
    within the capabilities of the motherboard/BIOS/chipset. If it's not,
    it usually simply won't work (or even fit).
    To determine what RAM is right for your system, you can go to
    www.crucial.com; they have a system to help you determine what's best
    for your system.

    --
    Bill Funk
    Change "g" to "a"
     
    Big Bill, Dec 28, 2004
    #16
  17. DDR is not advertising. Up through SDRAM, memory transferred data once
    per clock cycle. Transferring twice per clock cycle was actually one of
    the innovations in memory design that was made by Rambus back in 1990,
    and was first put into production in RDRAM, but then was "adopted" by
    the memory industry for DDR. [I use "adopted" charitably; Rambus
    patented it, and there is a now 5-year long string of court cases over
    whether or not Rambus does or does not own that technology, and whether
    every firm that makes SDRAM and DDR memory owes them royalties for the
    "adoption" of their memory innovations (of which this is only one)].

    When you buy memory, you do have to match the memory type to the
    required by the motherboard. There are two parameters, "type" and
    "speed". The type has to match (and there are lots of "types", about a
    dozen or more). Memory comes in various "speed grades" (within a
    "type"). Usually you can use the slower ones, but it will slow down the
    system. However, using a faster type than the motherboard will support
    won't cause it to run faster, because the basic rule is that everything
    runs at the speed of the slowest installed or configured component. So
    you kind of need to know "the whole picture".

    Also, while it was originally called "DDR333", the nomenclature is being
    changed, away from the clock speed in Megaherts ("333" in this case) to
    the total data transfer rate in Megabytes per second. So the "new" name
    for what used to be called DDR333 is PC2700 (2,700 megabytes per second
    can be transferred between this memory and the motherboard). Speed in
    common use range from PC1600 to PC4200.

    All of this so far just deals with speed. There is also the question of
    size, and today you can commonly buy memory modules from 128 Megabytes
    to at least one gigabyte.

    When you put all of this together, there are hundreds if not thousands
    of different "kinds" of memory modules.


    wrote:

    > Barry Watzman wrote:
    >
    >>You don't need "tons" of memory for video editing. 128 isn't enough,

    >
    >
    >>really, for XP to run well, but you can do video editing in 256 MB

    >
    > quite
    >
    >>nicely. There's nothing wrong with 512 megs, it's not essential, it
    >>will increase the speed slightly (not enought that you'd likely

    >
    > notice).
    >
    >>DDR333 = 333MHz (speed) DDR (dual data rate memory -- transfers data

    >
    > on
    >
    >>both edges of the clock instead of just on one edge). The clock
    >>freqency being 333 MHz (333,000,000 clock cyles per second).

    >
    >
    > Hello again. If you all don't mind my asking, is this "DDR" acronym
    > with clock cycles something new in memory advertisements? I'm a
    > computer school drop-out. As recently as last year, I do not recall
    > seeing the old reliable HD manufacturers' sites using this prefix, with
    > clock cycles, in advertisements.
    >
    > Minute point, and off-topic as far as the original subject of this post
    > is concerned. The reason I ask is because if I buy a low-end P4
    > machine and have to add memory, do I have to make sure to purchase
    > memory with the exact same clock cycles? (Laugh if it's fubar, but I
    > gotta know!) Is a 128, 256, 512 DIMM no longer a generic module? Now
    > you have to match up the RAM with clock cycles? (Remember to laugh if
    > it's fubar.)
    >
     
    Barry Watzman, Dec 29, 2004
    #17
  18. Guest

    Excellent, informative post. Thank you for more than I learned in
    "Comp Sci 101" before I dropped out in the tenth week...
     
    , Dec 29, 2004
    #18
    1. Advertising

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

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. zebu

    Replacing CD writer with DVD writer

    zebu, Apr 11, 2004, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    2,570
    Eugene Solot
    Apr 12, 2004
  2. Gareth not NLL or anybody else.

    CD writer and Dvd writer problem

    Gareth not NLL or anybody else., Apr 28, 2004, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    647
    Gareth not NLL or anybody else.
    Apr 28, 2004
  3. reachinout
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    596
    ┬░Mike┬░
    Sep 20, 2004
  4. ff

    Pentium III motherboard into Pentium II case?

    ff, Oct 13, 2005, in forum: Computer Information
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    765
    Robert Baer
    Oct 16, 2005
  5. Goodguy

    Pentium M 1.0 = Pentium 4 what = Athlon what?

    Goodguy, Jul 13, 2004, in forum: A+ Certification
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    706
Loading...

Share This Page