4 ms·
Video editing? 6/8K raw video takes a lot of space.
by dogma1138 8y ago
Video editing? 6/8K raw video takes a lot of space.
- colejohnson66 8y agoLinusTechTips films in 8k IIRC and they only have one petabyte
- SmellyGeekBoy 8y agoOff topic but does anyone else find that guy incredibly annoying? I also get the impression he doesn't have a clue what he's talking about most of the time.
- dzhiurgis 8y agoYes indeed! He seems to have good clue about gaming hardware, which is the field he is targetting.
- crististm 8y agoMy impression is this is part of his persona and intentional. I don't find him annoying but I can see why people might. On the other hand, he has a bunch of people researching the topics so that at least he knows what he's talking about.
- AnIdiotOnTheNet 8y agoPar for the course with Youtube celebrities then.
- Dylan16807 8y agoAt that resolution you're in the gigabyte-per-second range, and when you're grabbing a gigabyte at a time there's almost no reason to prefer SSD over HDD.
- murukesh_s 8y agoWhy would that be? Can you provide more details? I thought SSDs are always faster than HDD
- ddorian43 8y agoHDD are fast ~enough on sequential read/write in this scenario.
- akvadrako 8y agoNot at all - SSDs are much faster. One of the fastest HDDs on storagereview.com is the WD Black 6TB, with a sustained 218MB/s. While one of the faster SSDs is an Intel 750 at 2400MB/s.
- ddorian43 8y agoIf you have some HDD, and you RAID them, processing video should be mostly sequential read/write, so it should work on HDD. I know SSD is faster, but it depends on what the workload requires.
- Dylan16807 8y agoSo let's say you're working on ten hours of 8k footage. If you go with 1.2TB 750s... oh you can't actually fit 20-100 of those in a single workstation.[1] So maybe we back off to a NAS attached over a 40Gbps cable. 40 of those hard drives will be a lot cheaper than 20 of those SSDs. If we grossly overestimate seek times, despite how big the frames are, we might estimate 125MB/s per drive. That's enough to completely saturate the connection. Oh, and the array has 10 times the capacity. [1] 20 assumes a lower framerate and generous compression. 100 assumes 60fps 12-bit at a lossless 3:1 compression. If "raw" is taken completely literally then 10 hours of footage could require 300 of them (and some of the math would have to be redone).
- akvadrako 8y agoI don't question that HDDs are much cheaper - but even with your franken 40-drive stripping solution, you are only getting as much performance as 3 SSDs (40Gbps < 3 * 2.4GB/s). Of course for video production you would choose slower, larger SSDs but still get an order of magnitude more performance, very handy when seeking through footage.