On Wed, Dec 21, 2022 at 04:28:35AM +0000, Chris via cctalk wrote: [...] > Transcoding as in vcr to mpegs? I wasn't suggesting XP was utterly > entirely useless. Video editing in a modern sense requires loads of > processing h.p. to be efficient. And no transcodimg is > necessary. Certainly not an expert. But I should think older > hardware would be very very slow.
>From my rather limited experience, it grossly depends on cache size vs size of movie frame, at least for some kinds of processing. I can, (well, could) have seen it very well - processing (say, denoising) a 1:1.85 ratio material with 560x304 resolution was going with, say, acceptable speed. Of course I would love it ten times, hundred, thousand times faster, because, why not. But, acceptable. Increase frame size twofold (because experimenting - is it worth to process like this, will results be any better?), still fits in cache, I still can live with it even if it is circa four times slower. Increase fourfold, eightfold, and it seems to choke my 8-10yo cpu. So, yeah, modern formats, 4K and whatnot, they would not fit in cache. On the positive side, even old cpu for which new Windows is "too good to install" can still do a lot of sound processing - which is, again, as far as I understand it, related to cpu cache vs problem size. And why would anybody waste cpu cycles on showing all the Windows menus and stuff :-). Unless you guys talk about video crunching on PDP-8? (runs and ducks) -- Regards, Tomasz Rola -- ** A C programmer asked whether computer had Buddha's nature. ** ** As the answer, master did "rm -rif" on the programmer's home ** ** directory. And then the C programmer became enlightened... ** ** ** ** Tomasz Rola mailto:tomasz_r...@bigfoot.com **
