1. Computer problem? Tech Support Guy is completely free -- paid for by advertisers and donations. Click here to join today! If you're new to Tech Support Guy, we highly recommend that you visit our Guide for New Members.

short dvd is ok but longer is not

Discussion in 'Multimedia' started by Martial33, Jul 29, 2006.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
Advertisement
  1. Martial33

    Martial33 Thread Starter

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2002
    Messages:
    598
    First Name:
    Phil
    hi

    I made a test dvd -- several layers of video and graphics and several layers of audio only 3 min in length. Works fine.

    then I tried a larger project, 1.2 hrs in length --not as many layers either - basically just a 8mm conversion with some titles.

    it goes through most of the process, but when it gets to "assembly" it stops - one time with an error message the other time no message -- just stopped (after running for about 24 hrs)

    PC is P4 1.3g 2g ram, 2 hds 80 & 250g.
    program is Premiere Pro 1.5
    any suggestions?
     
  2. thecoalman

    thecoalman

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2006
    Messages:
    2,491
    What are your drives formatted as? NTFS? If they are forammted as FAT32 it has a 4GB file limit. Another poster on another forum had a simialr problem with a Ulead product. Although no single file he was using or creating was over the 4GB limit apparently the product made a temp file that did exceed the limit... may be what's happening to you.
     
  3. Martial33

    Martial33 Thread Starter

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2002
    Messages:
    598
    First Name:
    Phil
    Thecoalman

    thanks for the reply. How would I know what the drives are formatted at?

    when you click, export to dvd (PP1.5) it has a ton of different formats -- is that what you are talking about? or do you mean the actual burner? If its the latter, I dont know how to check fo that.
     
  4. thecoalman

    thecoalman

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2006
    Messages:
    2,491
    I'm referring to your hardrives, go to my computer and right click the drive and select properties. On the general tab next to file system see what it lists.
     
  5. Martial33

    Martial33 Thread Starter

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2002
    Messages:
    598
    First Name:
    Phil
    ahh

    C drive = NTFS (where the programs are)
    D drive = NTFS (storage)

    now what?
     
  6. thecoalman

    thecoalman

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2006
    Messages:
    2,491
    Do you have sufficient free space on C: drive? As mentioned most apps write to temp files, if it's filled up there of course won't be space for this temp file.

    One of your troubles of course is the time factor. You may want to consider getting a little more juice if you're going to be editing video, 1.3 is very underpowered for video. I'd even suggest a 2.8 is underpowered.....
     
  7. Martial33

    Martial33 Thread Starter

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2002
    Messages:
    598
    First Name:
    Phil
    Thecoalman

    Is that right? :confused:

    Here I thought by installing a second drive for storage, it would relieve the programs drive. I didn't realise that temp files would be written to C drive where the programs are.

    C has just over 10 gigs left (from an 80gig drive)
    D has 103g left out of 250.

    I have been contemplating a new machine for just editing to ensure there is no conflict with some other programs I have on this system (I never run more than PP if its rendering of course)

    Ive been holding off a new pc because half the world tells me I need a Macintosh computer with Final Cut Pro on it for editing. I reviewed the platform and see no great advantage to this. In fact FCP looks pretty much exactly like PP.

    In fact, I heard that one of the developers from Avid, defected to FCP and therefore the FC platform looks very similar to Avid as well. Apparently there is some friction between the companies due to this.

    I tried the free version of Avid as well. Now it might just be my system, but it seemed like Avid wanted to rewrite files every time you moved them. Eg, you drag and drop even an audio file onto the time line, and it sat there, seemingly forever "building peaks"

    If the outcome is the same, I cant see an advantage of spending more money for a Mac or for Avid. Plus, I know a bit about PC's now I dont want to have to recreate the wheel.

    The new machine I was planning was a dual core 3.5-4ghz, 2GB ram, 250SATA (my current drives are IDE - SATA is supposed to be faster?) and for a 2nd drive, I was planning on going external for mobility. Everyone advertised systems like this for 1000.00 (cdn) but by the time I get a proper quote, Im over 2,000.00 - isn't that bait & switch?:mad:

    my current video card is 64m but most said that wouldent make much difference to the render speed. The new one I was thinking 256 would be sufficient - not gaining much by going to 512 cause Im not using it for gaming. And this time Im going with 2 screens.

    The other thing was, there is a buzz just now amongst techies about "Quad Processors" for PC's coming to the market in September. (the Mac guy told me they are already using them)

    Is it going to be worth the wait? I mean if it can "work" on a single core, dual could only be better right? Are quads going to be like night and day difference? or hardly noticeable?
     
  8. thecoalman

    thecoalman

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2006
    Messages:
    2,491
    If you're just taking a project to be converted to a DVD compliant DVD on a 4.7GB disc I would think that 10GB would be sufficient temp space. I'm not familair with Premeire so I don't really know, look in the optios and switch the temp folder to somewhere on drive D. If that's the problem then it will alleviate it.

    I can't comment because I don't use them, from my understanding Avid uses a propietary file which it needs to create before you import? Not sure though. It could even be the way you have the software set up.


    The video car is irrelevant, it only displays the video. the only time it becomes a factor is some apps may utilize the 3-D engine for some special affects. For HD in the future it will become a factor since it requires so much processiing power.... They do however make hardware encoders such as the Matrox cards that encode your video in real time.

    This is a little beyond my knowledge but the application has to be able to utilize each processor. In any event even a single 3.0 ghz processor would be huge step. The 24 hour encode you are seeing would be cut down to 1 hour with a 3ghz. That's just an approximation, as an example using Ulead's MSP encoding DV-AVI straight to MPEG2 takes about an hour for each hour of footage with a 3ghz. Take about 2 hours with a 2.8 . If you get a hardware encoder the processing speed is no longer such a big factor because most of the processing is off-loaded to the card.
     
  9. Martial33

    Martial33 Thread Starter

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2002
    Messages:
    598
    First Name:
    Phil
    The Coleman

    Thanks for your help on this. "Hardware encoder"? Never heard of that!?? I'll add that to my quote.

    I'm curious as to why Premiere Pro would not notify the user that it needs more space or give some sort of error message?

    I actually ordered and receive the upgrade already to Premiere Pro 2.0 which came packaged with Encore DVD and After Effects 7.0. However when I tried to install any of these programs it resulted in an error message "run-time error -- the program has requested runtime to terminate in an unusual way. Please contact the program manufacturer for more information."

    -- which I did. They apologized and said that it could be the disk and they are sending me out a new one -- in retrospect, I hope it was the disk, and not my C drive running out of space for As you say.
     
  10. thecoalman

    thecoalman

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2006
    Messages:
    2,491
    Well they are not cheap and are more for the professional. It's a huge time saver though. As I mentioned a straight encode to MPEG takes 1 hour on 3ghz using Ulead. The encoding is all done by the processor. If you add some filters, affects, transitions it all adds up and the encoding time increases for everthing you add. If you add a couple of filters to the entire project the time can double, triple etc depending on how many you add. With a hardware encoder you can add all those things and preview and encode in real time..

    http://www.matrox.com/video/home.cfm


    I don't know that's the problem, I'm just suggesting that's possibly what it is. Only way to find out is to test it. ;)
     
  11. Sponsor

As Seen On
As Seen On...

Welcome to Tech Support Guy!

Are you looking for the solution to your computer problem? Join our site today to ask your question. This site is completely free -- paid for by advertisers and donations.

If you're not already familiar with forums, watch our Welcome Guide to get started.

Join over 733,556 other people just like you!

Loading...
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Short URL to this thread: https://techguy.org/487513

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice