K-7 Your Computer Specs

slrl0ver · 07-13-2009, 11:37 PM

Since the K7 video is in MJPEG and is 720p, any machine with-in the past few years should decode the video quite easily. If your machine can handle MPEG-2 HD decode, MJPEG will be easier since there is no motion prediction.

The CPU will be a limiting factor if you "transcode" to another compression scheme, like H.264, DivX, XVid, etc.

For a guideline, try playing your capture with this (open-source, no spyware, no crap):

SMPlayer - General Info

Check your CPU utilization, I'm going to guess it will be low.

-slrl0ver

P.S.
SMplayer can play almost all videos under the Sun, your CPU permitting

Last edited by slrl0ver; 07-14-2009 at 12:23 AM.

forestG · 07-14-2009, 04:01 AM

yeh but i've had this for quite some time and ddr3 ram was $$$$ back then, also 32bit os means maxed out at 4gig and even less when you calculate how much gets flagged for devices, 512 gpu=down to 3.5gig and so on, and no i cant go 64bit or rather i wont - cause i like it here (seriously i have other wares that do fine with 32bit)

Q. Can you sugest what to get as a ram upgrade then, perhaps faster.
hmmm no point realy tiz all faster than my hdd's anyhow so i'm governed by its limitations rather than ram, especialky when doing hi res vid ie. 30-40 gig of files gettin thrown around.
cheers big ears.

reeftool · 07-14-2009, 09:08 AM

While I don't have the K7 I do have a digital camcorder. Probably the first thing I had to do was get a new hard drive. AVI files are huge. I added a 320G hard drive. I also keep all the video on a seperate partition. I will delete the origional captures as they start to fill up the drive and save only the edited video. I still have the origional on the DV tape if I need it again. If my memory is right, I think AVI uses something like 187MB per minute of video. If anyone plans on shooting a lot of video, think lots of harddrive space. Also, editing programs like Adobe Premiere consume a lot of system resources. My older P4/2.4Gig with 2G memory is the bare minimum and my system crashes sometimes when trying to use it. I use the built in WIndows Movie Maker without issue. I'm not going to try upgrading my video card at this point on a 6 year old system. Transcoding video when the edit is done...well, lets just say that you can cook dinner, eat it, go out for ice cream and maybe it will be done. I've been getting lazy recently. I find it a little less hassle to just plug the camcorder into the TV and fast forward past the crap.

Unlocker · 07-14-2009, 09:46 AM

8 Core Mac Pro, 10GB RAM, 4x ITB HDs, 30" Cinema Screen. That should do for hardware!

Software wise only iMovie at the moment, will only upgrade if I end up doing a lot more video!

Pentaxor · 07-14-2009, 12:24 PM

Originally posted by forestG

yeh but i've had this for quite some time and ddr3 ram was $$$$ back then, also 32bit os means maxed out at 4gig and even less when you calculate how much gets flagged for devices, 512 gpu=down to 3.5gig and so on, and no i cant go 64bit or rather i wont - cause i like it here (seriously i have other wares that do fine with 32bit)

Q. Can you sugest what to get as a ram upgrade then, perhaps faster.
hmmm no point realy tiz all faster than my hdd's anyhow so i'm governed by its limitations rather than ram, especialky when doing hi res vid ie. 30-40 gig of files gettin thrown around.
cheers big ears.

that is until they make the 32 bit system programs rather obsolete. I wouldn't mind using 32 bit myself. but the constant changes,demands, marketing and dynamic transition to a more complex computer programming makes it impossible for buyers to stay in one place. I'm not sure that a 32-bit system could be maxed out at 4 gig. I know it is maxed out at 3 gig while the 1 gig bonus is left unutilized. unless if you go 64, then 4 gig and above could be used by the system.
I'm willing to go 64, as long as it's not Vista. hope the Windows 7 is good as it is being advertised.

forestG · 07-14-2009, 09:53 PM

yeh me too on windaz-7

WerTicus · 07-15-2009, 03:07 AM

Originally posted by flippedgazelle

Depends on your definition of "cheap": ~ $1000 to get 24gb (6x 4gb sticks) of DDR3.

Cheaper than a proper raid array would cost (ie with a real raid card)
for less memory but enough space to hold the video your working on at the time.

Also cheap from the point of view that ram has never been cheaper

I do recall playing 1200$ for 1.2mb of ram once :P

Edvinas · 07-15-2009, 03:46 AM

Originally posted by Pentaxor

I'm willing to go 64, as long as it's not Vista. hope the Windows 7 is good as it is being advertised.

What's wrong with Vista?

Pentaxor · 07-15-2009, 08:53 AM

Originally posted by Edvinas

What's wrong with Vista?

memory hog !!!

Denis · 07-15-2009, 10:59 AM

Originally posted by Pentaxor

that is until they make the 32 bit system programs rather obsolete. I wouldn't mind using 32 bit myself. but the constant changes,demands, marketing and dynamic transition to a more complex computer programming makes it impossible for buyers to stay in one place. I'm not sure that a 32-bit system could be maxed out at 4 gig. I know it is maxed out at 3 gig while the 1 gig bonus is left unutilized. unless if you go 64, then 4 gig and above could be used by the system.
I'm willing to go 64, as long as it's not Vista. hope the Windows 7 is good as it is being advertised.

Not totally right, XP is max at 4.2gig. If you have Data Execution Prevention (DEP) and Physical Address Extension (PAE) turn on, the system will use the memory. XP is limited to 4 but not Vista using the above.

Vista actually functions well if one takes the time to delete 3th party software programs and clean the services left over after uninstalling. These are badly written and cause most of the found problems. My Vista laptop (memory, 2 gig) works just as good as my XP box with 4gig and better CPU.

/pae

Read above.

Pentaxor · 07-15-2009, 12:27 PM

Originally posted by Denis

Not totally right, XP is max at 4.2gig. If you have Data Execution Prevention (DEP) and Physical Address Extension (PAE) turn on, the system will use the memory. XP is limited to 4 but not Vista using the above.

Vista actually functions well if one takes the time to delete 3th party software programs and clean the services left over after uninstalling. These are badly written and cause most of the found problems. My Vista laptop (memory, 2 gig) works just as good as my XP box with 4gig and better CPU.

/pae

Read above.

I disagree with you that the XP is able to use 4.2 gigs worth of ram. I got 3 units running XP 32 (2 PCs and 1 laptop) all running 3Gs' worth of 4G (2x2Gigs or 4gig equivalent) dual-channeled RAM. the DEP and PAE are all turned on. the excess 1 G memory is not utilized or recognized by the system at all. inorder for it to be utilized, the 64-bit instruction would be activated by using a 64 bit software. the 64 bit instruction is not rendered on 32bit system.

as to Vista. there are a lot of Vista, so it depends on what you use. it's either the Vista Basic or 32 bit Vista or the Vista Premium w/ Aero which is more memory hog. problem with 64bit Vista is the number of 64bit programs available as of the moment and to mention software/backward compatibility issues that exist. driver errors and lack of drivers compatible for the 64bit is still an issue.

I would say that the Vista is the second coming of the Windows 98.

Edvinas · 07-15-2009, 03:23 PM

Originally posted by Pentaxor

problem with 64bit Vista is the number of 64bit programs available as of the moment and to mention software/backward compatibility issues that exist. driver errors and lack of drivers compatible for the 64bit is still an issue.

One simple question: did you actually use Vista 64 bit?

What compatibility problems did you have? What Application didn't run under Vista?

I also thought that Vista is very bad system (everyone bashes it on internet!) until I've tried it. Most of those bashers have no idea what they are talking about.

Pentaxor · 07-15-2009, 03:55 PM

Yes I tried the Vista 64. first comment that it's really a memory hog and really slows down the PC during start-up. secondly, it concerns with internet connection, particularly Wireless connectivity. as compared to the XP which automatically detects and connects to the Wireless router, in the Vista, we tried to configure and reconfigure the Connection inorder to connect or even detect the system. next in particular are installer programs (compressed programs) which are encoded in 16bit and they dont run or incompatible with the Vista 64. video and audio drivers in particular example.

I usually use Daemon tools and it doesnt work on the Vista. some games (lol). developer tools and my Nero Burner.

that is the reason why Vista owners have been given the option by Microsoft to downgrade their system to XP. and the reason why XP O/S is so expensive as compared to buying the whole packaged Vista.

funny that XP is still alive for a decade and still going strong. that would just make you wonder. but honestly, XP is the most compatible and stable system since Windows 3.1

nulla · 07-15-2009, 05:06 PM

I run XP on the laptop and Vista on the desktop.

I actually prefer Vista now

Neil

Pentaxor · 07-15-2009, 11:25 PM

Originally posted by nulla

I run XP on the laptop and Vista on the desktop.

I actually prefer Vista now

Neil

Neil, would you be willing to run the Vista on your laptop?

07-13-2009, 11:37 PM	#16
slrl0ver Inactive Account Join Date: Apr 2009 Posts: 29	For K7 video... Since the K7 video is in MJPEG and is 720p, any machine with-in the past few years should decode the video quite easily. If your machine can handle MPEG-2 HD decode, MJPEG will be easier since there is no motion prediction. The CPU will be a limiting factor if you "transcode" to another compression scheme, like H.264, DivX, XVid, etc. For a guideline, try playing your capture with this (open-source, no spyware, no crap): SMPlayer - General Info Check your CPU utilization, I'm going to guess it will be low. -slrl0ver P.S. SMplayer can play almost all videos under the Sun, your CPU permitting Last edited by slrl0ver; 07-14-2009 at 12:23 AM.

07-15-2009, 10:59 AM	#25
Denis Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: St-Albert, Alberta, Canada Posts: 330	Originally posted by Pentaxor that is until they make the 32 bit system programs rather obsolete. I wouldn't mind using 32 bit myself. but the constant changes,demands, marketing and dynamic transition to a more complex computer programming makes it impossible for buyers to stay in one place. I'm not sure that a 32-bit system could be maxed out at 4 gig. I know it is maxed out at 3 gig while the 1 gig bonus is left unutilized. unless if you go 64, then 4 gig and above could be used by the system. I'm willing to go 64, as long as it's not Vista. hope the Windows 7 is good as it is being advertised. Not totally right, XP is max at 4.2gig. If you have Data Execution Prevention (DEP) and Physical Address Extension (PAE) turn on, the system will use the memory. XP is limited to 4 but not Vista using the above. Vista actually functions well if one takes the time to delete 3th party software programs and clean the services left over after uninstalling. These are badly written and cause most of the found problems. My Vista laptop (memory, 2 gig) works just as good as my XP box with 4gig and better CPU. /pae Read above. Last edited by Denis; 07-15-2009 at 11:00 AM. Reason: spelling

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
More K-r Specs	Adam	Pentax News and Rumors	138	09-13-2010 12:54 PM
K-X specs	o_bender	Pentax DSLR Discussion	17	10-09-2009 09:32 AM
New Computer - necessary specs?	grainbelt	Digital Processing, Software, and Printing	13	05-12-2009 06:01 AM
Specs on MZ-S	mr.voigtlander	Film SLRs and Compact Film Cameras	2	02-08-2008 02:46 PM
GX-20 Specs	ricardobeat	Pentax News and Rumors	5	01-24-2008 10:01 AM

07-14-2009, 04:01 AM	#17
forestG Inactive Account Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: melb, au Photos: Gallery Posts: 100	yeh but i've had this for quite some time and ddr3 ram was $$$$ back then, also 32bit os means maxed out at 4gig and even less when you calculate how much gets flagged for devices, 512 gpu=down to 3.5gig and so on, and no i cant go 64bit or rather i wont - cause i like it here (seriously i have other wares that do fine with 32bit) Q. Can you sugest what to get as a ram upgrade then, perhaps faster. hmmm no point realy tiz all faster than my hdd's anyhow so i'm governed by its limitations rather than ram, especialky when doing hi res vid ie. 30-40 gig of files gettin thrown around. cheers big ears.

07-14-2009, 09:08 AM	#18
reeftool Pentaxian Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Upstate New York Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 9,554	While I don't have the K7 I do have a digital camcorder. Probably the first thing I had to do was get a new hard drive. AVI files are huge. I added a 320G hard drive. I also keep all the video on a seperate partition. I will delete the origional captures as they start to fill up the drive and save only the edited video. I still have the origional on the DV tape if I need it again. If my memory is right, I think AVI uses something like 187MB per minute of video. If anyone plans on shooting a lot of video, think lots of harddrive space. Also, editing programs like Adobe Premiere consume a lot of system resources. My older P4/2.4Gig with 2G memory is the bare minimum and my system crashes sometimes when trying to use it. I use the built in WIndows Movie Maker without issue. I'm not going to try upgrading my video card at this point on a 6 year old system. Transcoding video when the edit is done...well, lets just say that you can cook dinner, eat it, go out for ice cream and maybe it will be done. I've been getting lazy recently. I find it a little less hassle to just plug the camcorder into the TV and fast forward past the crap.

07-14-2009, 09:46 AM	#19
Unlocker Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2008 Location: UK Posts: 169	8 Core Mac Pro, 10GB RAM, 4x ITB HDs, 30" Cinema Screen. That should do for hardware! Software wise only iMovie at the moment, will only upgrade if I end up doing a lot more video!

07-14-2009, 12:24 PM	#20
Pentaxor Veteran Member Join Date: May 2009 Location: Vancouver, B.C. Photos: Gallery Posts: 6,513	Originally posted by forestG yeh but i've had this for quite some time and ddr3 ram was $$$$ back then, also 32bit os means maxed out at 4gig and even less when you calculate how much gets flagged for devices, 512 gpu=down to 3.5gig and so on, and no i cant go 64bit or rather i wont - cause i like it here (seriously i have other wares that do fine with 32bit) Q. Can you sugest what to get as a ram upgrade then, perhaps faster. hmmm no point realy tiz all faster than my hdd's anyhow so i'm governed by its limitations rather than ram, especialky when doing hi res vid ie. 30-40 gig of files gettin thrown around. cheers big ears. that is until they make the 32 bit system programs rather obsolete. I wouldn't mind using 32 bit myself. but the constant changes,demands, marketing and dynamic transition to a more complex computer programming makes it impossible for buyers to stay in one place. I'm not sure that a 32-bit system could be maxed out at 4 gig. I know it is maxed out at 3 gig while the 1 gig bonus is left unutilized. unless if you go 64, then 4 gig and above could be used by the system. I'm willing to go 64, as long as it's not Vista. hope the Windows 7 is good as it is being advertised.

07-14-2009, 09:53 PM	#21
forestG Inactive Account Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: melb, au Photos: Gallery Posts: 100	yeh me too on windaz-7

07-15-2009, 03:07 AM	#22
WerTicus Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Perth Australia Photos: Albums Posts: 1,514	Originally posted by flippedgazelle Depends on your definition of "cheap": ~ $1000 to get 24gb (6x 4gb sticks) of DDR3. Cheaper than a proper raid array would cost (ie with a real raid card) for less memory but enough space to hold the video your working on at the time. Also cheap from the point of view that ram has never been cheaper I do recall playing 1200$ for 1.2mb of ram once :P

07-15-2009, 03:46 AM	#23
Edvinas Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Kaunas Posts: 1,458	Originally posted by Pentaxor I'm willing to go 64, as long as it's not Vista. hope the Windows 7 is good as it is being advertised. What's wrong with Vista?

07-15-2009, 08:53 AM	#24
Pentaxor Veteran Member Join Date: May 2009 Location: Vancouver, B.C. Photos: Gallery Posts: 6,513	Originally posted by Edvinas What's wrong with Vista? memory hog !!!

07-15-2009, 12:27 PM	#26
Pentaxor Veteran Member Join Date: May 2009 Location: Vancouver, B.C. Photos: Gallery Posts: 6,513	Originally posted by Denis Not totally right, XP is max at 4.2gig. If you have Data Execution Prevention (DEP) and Physical Address Extension (PAE) turn on, the system will use the memory. XP is limited to 4 but not Vista using the above. Vista actually functions well if one takes the time to delete 3th party software programs and clean the services left over after uninstalling. These are badly written and cause most of the found problems. My Vista laptop (memory, 2 gig) works just as good as my XP box with 4gig and better CPU. /pae Read above. I disagree with you that the XP is able to use 4.2 gigs worth of ram. I got 3 units running XP 32 (2 PCs and 1 laptop) all running 3Gs' worth of 4G (2x2Gigs or 4gig equivalent) dual-channeled RAM. the DEP and PAE are all turned on. the excess 1 G memory is not utilized or recognized by the system at all. inorder for it to be utilized, the 64-bit instruction would be activated by using a 64 bit software. the 64 bit instruction is not rendered on 32bit system. as to Vista. there are a lot of Vista, so it depends on what you use. it's either the Vista Basic or 32 bit Vista or the Vista Premium w/ Aero which is more memory hog. problem with 64bit Vista is the number of 64bit programs available as of the moment and to mention software/backward compatibility issues that exist. driver errors and lack of drivers compatible for the 64bit is still an issue. I would say that the Vista is the second coming of the Windows 98.

07-15-2009, 03:23 PM	#27
Edvinas Veteran Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Kaunas Posts: 1,458	Originally posted by Pentaxor problem with 64bit Vista is the number of 64bit programs available as of the moment and to mention software/backward compatibility issues that exist. driver errors and lack of drivers compatible for the 64bit is still an issue. One simple question: did you actually use Vista 64 bit? What compatibility problems did you have? What Application didn't run under Vista? I also thought that Vista is very bad system (everyone bashes it on internet!) until I've tried it. Most of those bashers have no idea what they are talking about.

07-15-2009, 03:55 PM	#28
Pentaxor Veteran Member Join Date: May 2009 Location: Vancouver, B.C. Photos: Gallery Posts: 6,513	Yes I tried the Vista 64. first comment that it's really a memory hog and really slows down the PC during start-up. secondly, it concerns with internet connection, particularly Wireless connectivity. as compared to the XP which automatically detects and connects to the Wireless router, in the Vista, we tried to configure and reconfigure the Connection inorder to connect or even detect the system. next in particular are installer programs (compressed programs) which are encoded in 16bit and they dont run or incompatible with the Vista 64. video and audio drivers in particular example. I usually use Daemon tools and it doesnt work on the Vista. some games (lol). developer tools and my Nero Burner. that is the reason why Vista owners have been given the option by Microsoft to downgrade their system to XP. and the reason why XP O/S is so expensive as compared to buying the whole packaged Vista. funny that XP is still alive for a decade and still going strong. that would just make you wonder. but honestly, XP is the most compatible and stable system since Windows 3.1

07-15-2009, 05:06 PM	#29
nulla Veteran Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Melbourne Australia Posts: 1,560	I run XP on the laptop and Vista on the desktop. I actually prefer Vista now Neil

07-15-2009, 11:25 PM	#30
Pentaxor Veteran Member Join Date: May 2009 Location: Vancouver, B.C. Photos: Gallery Posts: 6,513	Originally posted by nulla I run XP on the laptop and Vista on the desktop. I actually prefer Vista now Neil Neil, would you be willing to run the Vista on your laptop?