What to do about the filesize barrier?

The old Video Software Help forum, left visible as an archive.

What to do about the filesize barrier?

Postby Bushido Philosopher » Sat Jul 27, 2002 8:23 pm

Since I'm under a 98SE OS, I cant output anything bigger than 4GB at once from Premiere.

Since I now have the diskspace to save as much as needed, is there any way I can get a segmented video into TMPGEnc and join them sp I can make an MPEG?
"Many people want to change the world, but very few even consider changing themselves."
<<A>My Member Profile</a>> <<A>Read my Xanga</a>>
User avatar
Bushido Philosopher
 
Joined: 25 Jun 2001
Location: California

Postby trythil » Sat Jul 27, 2002 8:27 pm

My suggestion: Stop using a crippled OS. :P

Seriously, you can try outputting segments from Premiere -- rendering pieces of the timeline -- and then jamming them all together. There are readily-available tools for concatenating video files of many formats; check doom9.net for a good collection.
This is a block of text that can be added to posts you make. There is a 512 character limit.
trythil
is
 
Joined: 23 Jul 2002
Location: Llanfairpwllgwyngyllgogerychwyrndrobwllllantysiliogogogoch

Postby jbone » Sun Jul 28, 2002 4:49 pm

trythil wrote:My suggestion: Stop using a crippled OS. :P


It's not the OS that's at fault, it's the FAT32 file system. Someone running an NT-based OS will have the same problem if they use FAT32.
User avatar
jbone
 
Joined: 12 Jan 2002
Location: DC, USA
Status: Single. (Lllladies.)

Postby alternatefutures » Sun Jul 28, 2002 5:04 pm

I take it trythil has never taken part in a LAN party. All the 98SE systems work perfectly (or take twenty minutes to get working perfectly) while the 2000 and XP systems need to be carefully nursed to health, which can eat up a whole day.

Anyway, yeah, short of moving up an OS, there's nothing really you can do.
alternatefutures
 
Joined: 14 May 2001

Postby trythil » Sun Jul 28, 2002 5:12 pm

It's not the OS that's at fault, it's the FAT32 file system. Someone running an NT-based OS will have the same problem if they use FAT32.


It is the OS that is at fault, as it is only capable of using FAT32 as its filesystem. That, to me, is very crippled behavior. The WinNT kernel and its derivatives, as well as many UNIX variants, are capable of using multiple types of filesystems.

And trust me, you need that flexibility at times. I know I do.

I take it trythil has never taken part in a LAN party. All the 98SE systems work perfectly (or take twenty minutes to get working perfectly) while the 2000 and XP systems need to be carefully nursed to health, which can eat up a whole day.


You're right, I don't game. I code.
This is a block of text that can be added to posts you make. There is a 512 character limit.
trythil
is
 
Joined: 23 Jul 2002
Location: Llanfairpwllgwyngyllgogerychwyrndrobwllllantysiliogogogoch

Postby trythil » Sun Jul 28, 2002 5:16 pm

Switch that -- FAT32 and FAT16, as well as FAT12 and ISO9660/UDF for CD-ROMs and DVDs. That's still nothing.

To compare, I run a couple Linux systems, which are capable of using* FAT32, FAT16, FAT12, EXT2, EXT3, SGI's XFS, ReiserFS, ISO9660, UDF, QNX4, NTFS, IBM's JFS, ADFS, and a few simple filesystems designed to efficiently manage temporary swap-space. (And a few more that I'm missing.) *BSD systems are similarly empowered.

*using = read and write capability.

Granted few people actually use all of those filesystems, but I find it useful to mix-and-match i.e. EXT3, XFS, and sometimes ReiserFS, as they have their individuals strengths. I don't have that kind of flexibility with Windows9x. That's why I consider it crippled.
This is a block of text that can be added to posts you make. There is a 512 character limit.
trythil
is
 
Joined: 23 Jul 2002
Location: Llanfairpwllgwyngyllgogerychwyrndrobwllllantysiliogogogoch

Postby jbone » Sun Jul 28, 2002 5:31 pm

trythil wrote:
It's not the OS that's at fault, it's the FAT32 file system. Someone running an NT-based OS will have the same problem if they use FAT32.

It is the OS that is at fault, as it is only capable of using FAT32 as its filesystem. That, to me, is very crippled behavior.


I prefer to consider it "archaic" rather than "crippled." It's based on older software which doesn't have desired abilities - in order for something to be "crippled," it needs to have inherent functionality removed.
User avatar
jbone
 
Joined: 12 Jan 2002
Location: DC, USA
Status: Single. (Lllladies.)

Postby trythil » Sun Jul 28, 2002 6:07 pm

jbone wrote:
trythil wrote:
It's not the OS that's at fault, it's the FAT32 file system. Someone running an NT-based OS will have the same problem if they use FAT32.

It is the OS that is at fault, as it is only capable of using FAT32 as its filesystem. That, to me, is very crippled behavior.


I prefer to consider it "archaic" rather than "crippled." It's based on older software which doesn't have desired abilities - in order for something to be "crippled," it needs to have inherent functionality removed.


I can't vouch for BSD or WinNT systems, as I've not looked into their kernel code very much (and Microsoft locks down the NT source unless you ask them), but the Linux VFS (a filesystem abstraction layer) has been implemented for quite a while (dating back to 1991-'92, constantly being revised). I think you'd be hard-pressed to find any OS designer who thought that flexibility in filesystem choice was a bad idea.

There really isn't any excuse for not having filesystem flexibility in the Windows9x series. One might argue that users wouldn't need that kind of choice, but look at this thread -- it's clear that some people do.
This is a block of text that can be added to posts you make. There is a 512 character limit.
trythil
is
 
Joined: 23 Jul 2002
Location: Llanfairpwllgwyngyllgogerychwyrndrobwllllantysiliogogogoch

Postby alternatefutures » Sun Jul 28, 2002 6:25 pm

See trythil, you kinda just missed 98SE's strength that all other Windows platforms lack... it's pretty much designed to do everything. Granted, a flexible filesystem would have been nice, but apparently Gates thought that if you're going to try to do everything than you probably won't be specializing to the point where you would need those large filesizes. I agree completely that if all you're going to be running are productivity software then 2000 is the way to go. But just keep in mind some people like to partake in mindless, polygon based violence once in a while, and for that it's 98SE. 2000 and up is just too frustrating when it comes to having 3D accelerated fun.
alternatefutures
 
Joined: 14 May 2001

Postby trythil » Sun Jul 28, 2002 7:09 pm

See trythil, you kinda just missed 98SE's strength that all other Windows platforms lack... it's pretty much designed to do everything. Granted, a flexible filesystem would have been nice, but apparently Gates thought that if you're going to try to do everything than you probably won't be specializing to the point where you would need those large filesizes. I agree completely that if all you're going to be running are productivity software then 2000 is the way to go. But just keep in mind some people like to partake in mindless, polygon based violence once in a while, and for that it's 98SE. 2000 and up is just too frustrating when it comes to having 3D accelerated fun.


Why should Gates decide what I can do and cannot do with my system?

Why should I have to sacrifice efficiency and security for speed and flexibility?

Answers:

(1) He shouldn't.
(2) I don't have to.

I don't know what you're running (old DOS-mode games?) but for me, every game I've tried on my dad's WinXP machine has run fine. I have also managed to get Unreal Tournament and Quake III Arena running with spectacular results on my Linux workstation.

Your argument about "polygon-based violence" is invalid, and not only by my anecdote. SGI's IRIX has been a popular choice for heavy-duty 3D in the past; it still is, although Linux and Win2K workstations are now nudging in there.

And it's not just productivity applications. I tried to develop for Windows95 and Windows98 -- it was horrible. If my application crashed from an invalid memory access, stack overflow, etc., the compiler would CRASH THE WHOLE SYSTEM. I CANNOT have that happen. That's another reason why I refuse to use the Win9x/ME series and now use UNIX derivatives and Win2K on systems that I control. (WinXP, to me, is just Win2K with unnecessary crap on top.)

See trythil, you kinda just missed 98SE's strength that all other Windows platforms lack... it's pretty much designed to do everything.


Yeah, so is every other general-purpose OS. And many of those don't crash if you scroll in Internet Explorer, have an abhorrently inefficient and insecure TCP/IP stack*, or allow you to rape the OS file-type recognition to the point where you can't execute programs anymore.

* In my lamer days I, along with a friend, decided to execute a ping-flood from my high school's Linux DHCP server onto the school's Windows 98 workstations in the computer lab. (This was after school, so we really weren't hurting anyone, and yes, we had root on the machine, as we set the thing up :P ) A smart, mature OS would not have buckled under the traffic of one system spewing ICMP ECHOs. These Windows 98 machines did. That is not acceptable, especially these days.
This is a block of text that can be added to posts you make. There is a 512 character limit.
trythil
is
 
Joined: 23 Jul 2002
Location: Llanfairpwllgwyngyllgogerychwyrndrobwllllantysiliogogogoch

Postby jbone » Sun Jul 28, 2002 7:13 pm

trythil: Give someone who knows nothing about computers a system running your favorite flavor of Linux, and see how easily he/she can get around without instruction or help.
User avatar
jbone
 
Joined: 12 Jan 2002
Location: DC, USA
Status: Single. (Lllladies.)

Postby trythil » Sun Jul 28, 2002 7:14 pm

trythil wrote:Your argument about "polygon-based violence" is invalid, and not only by my anecdote. SGI's IRIX has been a popular choice for heavy-duty 3D in the past; it still is, although Linux and Win2K workstations are now nudging in there.


Another thing. The DirectX layer has matured to the point where it is no longer obscenely difficult to develop games that will run on Win9x, Win2K, and WinXP. (Hell, the XBox uses a modified Win2K kernel.)
This is a block of text that can be added to posts you make. There is a 512 character limit.
trythil
is
 
Joined: 23 Jul 2002
Location: Llanfairpwllgwyngyllgogerychwyrndrobwllllantysiliogogogoch

Postby trythil » Sun Jul 28, 2002 7:15 pm

jbone wrote:trythil: Give someone who knows nothing about computers a system running your favorite flavor of Linux, and see how easily he/she can get around without instruction or help.


What does that have to do with anything? I stated that I didn't like Windows 95/98 for reasons A, B, and C, and decided to switch to use Win2K and UNIX systems.
This is a block of text that can be added to posts you make. There is a 512 character limit.
trythil
is
 
Joined: 23 Jul 2002
Location: Llanfairpwllgwyngyllgogerychwyrndrobwllllantysiliogogogoch

Postby trythil » Sun Jul 28, 2002 7:16 pm

jbone wrote:trythil: Give someone who knows nothing about computers a system running your favorite flavor of Linux, and see how easily he/she can get around without instruction or help.


But if you really want to debate this, fine, let's take it to another thread.

Just to summarize what I would say:
I fully believe that the Linux-on-a-desktop idea is not as impossible as it once was. People who have switched from Windows to use Linux with XFree86 and KDE have said that the latter choice has in fact been easier to learn and use.

The only thing stopping people from using it is the fact that the OS is popularly perceived to be a "techie" thing.
This is a block of text that can be added to posts you make. There is a 512 character limit.
trythil
is
 
Joined: 23 Jul 2002
Location: Llanfairpwllgwyngyllgogerychwyrndrobwllllantysiliogogogoch

Postby alternatefutures » Sun Jul 28, 2002 7:44 pm

Yes trythil, it is possible to get just about any game to run on XP and 2000. It's not very intuitive though. Your average gamer is going to wind up throwing the PC out the window when he can't get his games to work. You're opperating under the assumption that everyone has the knowledge of a programer (and has your shitty experiances with 98SE. Boy, can I tell you stories of a 2000 machine... hoooboy!), in which case, yes, 98SE would not have a place in the universe. Unfortunately, not everyone can tell the difference between a pixel and a byte, let alone crunch code. So, while you talk theory, I argue reality.
alternatefutures
 
Joined: 14 May 2001

Next

Return to Video Software Help Archive

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests