I am going to set up a PC with linux (also MS-WindowsXP) as a workstation
for HD video/audio editing (filmmaking). What do you all think is the
best route to go for Ubuntu, 32bit or 64bit? At first 64bit seemed to me
the way to go for speed, but I am also now thinking about the issues of
availability of applications for 64 bit compared to 32 bit. What I mean
is, if my goal is to be able to download, install, and try out various
open source linux applications like non-linear video editors, audio
editors and mixers, etc., won't 32 bit give me the best chance of those
being able to install compared to a 64 bit system? Or would I be able to
(if I can survive the grief of dependency hell) compile source from
tarballs for 64 bit (a route I would prefer not to go down if possible).
Though 64 bit might be faster, won't 32 bit be more compatible for
software app installs? Or will I really appreciate the speed of 64 bit
for rendering, etc? This will be a standalone workstation, so I can
afford to let renders go for hours if needed, or even overnight.

Beowulf wrote:
> I am going to set up a PC with linux (also MS-WindowsXP) as a workstation
> for HD video/audio editing (filmmaking). What do you all think is the
> best route to go for Ubuntu, 32bit or 64bit? At first 64bit seemed to me
> the way to go for speed, but I am also now thinking about the issues of
> availability of applications for 64 bit compared to 32 bit. What I mean
> is, if my goal is to be able to download, install, and try out various
> open source linux applications like non-linear video editors, audio
> editors and mixers, etc., won't 32 bit give me the best chance of those
> being able to install compared to a 64 bit system? Or would I be able to
> (if I can survive the grief of dependency hell) compile source from
> tarballs for 64 bit (a route I would prefer not to go down if possible).
> Though 64 bit might be faster, won't 32 bit be more compatible for
> software app installs? Or will I really appreciate the speed of 64 bit
> for rendering, etc? This will be a standalone workstation, so I can
> afford to let renders go for hours if needed, or even overnight.
>

Hi,

I haven't had much too do with 64 bit Linux but I believe that it is
possible to run 32bit apps and plugins by having both 32bit and 64 bit
librarys of the different things that programs want.

That being said I don't know if the distros are setup to easily allow
this to happen so 32 bit may be easier.

Perhaps someone using a 64bit distro can give a definitive answer.

Kind Regards,
Anthony Irwin

Beowulf wrote:

> I am going to set up a PC with linux (also MS-WindowsXP) as a workstation
> for HD video/audio editing (filmmaking). What do you all think is the
> best route to go for Ubuntu, 32bit or 64bit?

You're wasting disk space installing XP - there isn't any 64-bit Windows yet
(despite the marketing nonsense from MS). A 64-bit Linux install /will/
run 32-bit applications, so there's no compatibility issue.

C.

Beowulf wrote:
> I am going to set up a PC with linux (also MS-WindowsXP) as a workstation
> for HD video/audio editing (filmmaking). What do you all think is the
> best route to go for Ubuntu, 32bit or 64bit? At first 64bit seemed to me
> the way to go for speed, but I am also now thinking about the issues of
> availability of applications for 64 bit compared to 32 bit. What I mean
> is, if my goal is to be able to download, install, and try out various
> open source linux applications like non-linear video editors, audio
> editors and mixers, etc., won't 32 bit give me the best chance of those
> being able to install compared to a 64 bit system? Or would I be able to
> (if I can survive the grief of dependency hell) compile source from
> tarballs for 64 bit (a route I would prefer not to go down if possible).
> Though 64 bit might be faster, won't 32 bit be more compatible for
> software app installs? Or will I really appreciate the speed of 64 bit
> for rendering, etc? This will be a standalone workstation, so I can
> afford to let renders go for hours if needed, or even overnight.

The good thing as pointed out in previous thread, 64bit kernel in Ubuntu
supports 32bit and with the 32bit libs you will be able to run most 32bit
applications in the 64bit installation of Ubuntu.

Yes, there are issues with some programs when compiling a 64bit version, but
in those nowadays rare cases you can use 32bit version.

When it comes to closed source applications, those are most commonly 32bit,
but with the 32bit libs, they still will be able to run in the 64bit
environment of yours.
With time newer versions of those applications will appear as 64bit versions,
if you run a 32bit installation, you may be forced to use older version and
you have no real chance of running those natively without a full reinstall of
your system.

I don't see any point in running 32bit userspace on a 64bit x86 nowadays and
specially if you are going to use tools that depends on loads of calculation,
you will gain of the 64bit, while for normal applications like browsers there
won't be any difference. Of course the 64bit environment won't make the 32bit
applications faster.

--

//Aho

On Tue, 16 Jan 2007 08:07:19 +0000, Christopher Hunter wrote:
> You're wasting disk space installing XP - there isn't any 64-bit Windows yet
> (despite the marketing nonsense from MS). A 64-bit Linux install /will/
> run 32-bit applications, so there's no compatibility issue.

I will need XP for some special effects software-- I just have not seen
anything comparible for linux that can do easy and incredible special
effects-- thermal distortions, jedi light saber stuff, particle effects
like realistic fire and flocks of birds/bees, etc. There is some really
nice stuff out there for Windows, lacking sad to say in linux. But I
think I can do most of what I need to do in linux-- non linear video
editing, audio; then run the special effects on selected clips in Windows.

On Tue, 16 Jan 2007 09:30:58 +0100, J.O. Aho wrote:
> The good thing as pointed out in previous thread, 64bit kernel in Ubuntu
> supports 32bit and with the 32bit libs you will be able to run most 32bit
> applications in the 64bit installation of Ubuntu....

Makes sense. I think I will give 64 bit a try. I can always install
32 bit packages (if I get the 32 bit libs installed), then play in folders
with compiling source apps to 64 bit in hopes of making 64 bit binaries
of apps that will run).

Beowulf wrote:
> On Tue, 16 Jan 2007 08:07:19 +0000, Christopher Hunter wrote:
>> You're wasting disk space installing XP - there isn't any 64-bit Windows yet
>> (despite the marketing nonsense from MS). A 64-bit Linux install /will/
>> run 32-bit applications, so there's no compatibility issue.
>
> I will need XP for some special effects software-- I just have not seen
> anything comparible for linux that can do easy and incredible special
> effects-- thermal distortions, jedi light saber stuff, particle effects
> like realistic fire and flocks of birds/bees, etc. There is some really
> nice stuff out there for Windows, lacking sad to say in linux. But I
> think I can do most of what I need to do in linux-- non linear video
> editing, audio; then run the special effects on selected clips in Windows.
>

A funny thing you mention light saber, Yoda and his light saber in SWII was
generated on a Linux machine. Of the better video effect programs seems to be
closed source (think you got a link in another thread where many of them are
listed), OpenEXR can be used for some effects, if I have understood it right,
you can take a look at www.openexr.com if you haven't already been there.


--

//Aho

J.O. Aho wrote:
> Beowulf wrote:
>> On Tue, 16 Jan 2007 08:07:19 +0000, Christopher Hunter wrote:
>>> You're wasting disk space installing XP - there isn't any 64-bit
>>> Windows yet
>>> (despite the marketing nonsense from MS). A 64-bit Linux install /will/
>>> run 32-bit applications, so there's no compatibility issue.
>>
>> I will need XP for some special effects software-- I just have not seen
>> anything comparible for linux that can do easy and incredible special
>> effects-- thermal distortions, jedi light saber stuff, particle effects
>> like realistic fire and flocks of birds/bees, etc. There is some really
>> nice stuff out there for Windows, lacking sad to say in linux. But I
>> think I can do most of what I need to do in linux-- non linear video
>> editing, audio; then run the special effects on selected clips in
>> Windows.
>>
>
> A funny thing you mention light saber, Yoda and his light saber in SWII
> was generated on a Linux machine. Of the better video effect programs
> seems to be closed source (think you got a link in another thread where
> many of them are listed), OpenEXR can be used for some effects, if I
> have understood it right, you can take a look at www.openexr.com if you
> haven't already been there.

Here is a link I don't know if you have already stumbled over or not
http://linuxmovies.org/software.html

//Aho


--

//Aho

On Tue, 16 Jan 2007 08:33:24 -0600, Beowulf wrote:
> I will need XP for some special effects software-- I just have not seen
> anything comparible for linux that can do easy and incredible special
> effects-- thermal distortions, jedi light saber stuff, particle effects
> like realistic fire and flocks of birds/bees, etc. There is some really
> nice stuff out there for Windows, lacking sad to say in linux. But I
> think I can do most of what I need to do in linux-- non linear video
> editing, audio; then run the special effects on selected clips in Windows.

here is the link to the fx software I will likely need, that i just can
not see being available in anything comparable to linux; I had to wait to
get home from the cafe i was at to find the
link, here it is. Incredible software it looks to be (speaking as Yoda
would-- check out sample clips such as Jedi light saber fighting!)
http://fxhome.com/effectslab/

On Tue, 16 Jan 2007 16:58:50 +0100, J.O. Aho wrote:
...
> Here is a link I don't know if you have already stumbled over or not
> http://linuxmovies.org/software.html
...

Yes I have been looking at that, but I can not find software for the
special effects such as for this WindowsXP software
http://fxhome.com/effectslab/

On Tue, 16 Jan 2007 16:51:00 +0100, J.O. Aho wrote:
> www.openexr.com

Looks like ILM is releasing the openexr image file format, but this looks
to be primarily for developers. What I need is a full featured user
friendly GUI based special effects program; I do not see that in linux
yet, hence I will have to use WindowsXP for that aspect of the filmmaking.
But I think as I said earlier linux should suffice for audio and video
editing. I was playing more with audacity today, incredible software,
able to create moody soundtracks, etc., very nice. I am also going to try
out several FOSS non linear video editors for linux/windows I saw on
sourceforge.net that look quite nice. Thank you for the links/info though,
I need all the help I can get.

Beowulf wrote:
> On Tue, 16 Jan 2007 16:58:50 +0100, J.O. Aho wrote:
> ..
>> Here is a link I don't know if you have already stumbled over or not
>> http://linuxmovies.org/software.html
> ..
>
> Yes I have been looking at that, but I can not find software for the
> special effects such as for this WindowsXP software
> http://fxhome.com/effectslab/
>

*nods* You lack those easy to use front-ends, seems like otherwise 3Delight
could have been what you was looking for, but maybe you could pick up some
python coding and make a front-end ;)

--

//Aho

On Tue, 16 Jan 2007 18:57:39 +0100, J.O. Aho wrote:
> *nods* You lack those easy to use front-ends, seems like otherwise 3Delight
> could have been what you was looking for, but maybe you could pick up some
> python coding and make a front-end ;)

No problemo, (LOL) in between the script I have to write for a full
feature movie (well a 90 minute horror-thriller), learning to use the HD
camera, learning to direct, learning to create music soundtracks, learning
to do video editing, learning to do special effects, casting calls; my
head is swimming with all involved, hence if there is an easy solution in
Winblows I guess I will have to use it until someone writes the linux
version.
;/ Beowulf

Beowulf wrote:
> I am going to set up a PC with linux (also MS-WindowsXP) as a workstation
> for HD video/audio editing (filmmaking). What do you all think is the
> best route to go for Ubuntu, 32bit or 64bit? At first 64bit seemed to me
> the way to go for speed, but I am also now thinking about the issues of
> availability of applications for 64 bit compared to 32 bit. What I mean
> is, if my goal is to be able to download, install, and try out various
> open source linux applications like non-linear video editors, audio
> editors and mixers, etc., won't 32 bit give me the best chance of those
> being able to install compared to a 64 bit system? Or would I be able to
> (if I can survive the grief of dependency hell) compile source from
> tarballs for 64 bit (a route I would prefer not to go down if possible).
> Though 64 bit might be faster, won't 32 bit be more compatible for
> software app installs? Or will I really appreciate the speed of 64 bit
> for rendering, etc? This will be a standalone workstation, so I can
> afford to let renders go for hours if needed, or even overnight.
>
I run (just for grins) a whole mix of Slackware/WinXP/SLAMD64 systems, depending on
what open source and proprietary software is available for my needs.

As to 64-bit processing, performance and speed will vary depending on the task: your
hard drive and memory subsystems can be a bottleneck. Although current CPUs are
"fast" motherboards, memory and hard drives (affordable for me, that is) haven't kept up.

Video and audio processing can benefit from 64bit if you build the right system.

ok, jumping off my soapbox, the various posts didn't mention the freshmeat repository
(if you hadn't looked yet)

artistic s/w: http://freshmeat.net/browse/901/

multimedia: http://freshmeat.net/browse/99/

You also mentioned audacity (btw cdex and audacity may merge hot ****!), for
multitrack authoring, audio recordng, music notation editor, midi sequencer try:

rosegarden - http://freshmeat.net/projects/rosegarden/

with it and audacity you'll have one heck of a music studio. More capability than
this amateur needs!

Good luck. I feel your pain in trying to find linux "equivalents"

On Tue, 16 Jan 2007 16:48:28 -0700, King Beowulf wrote:
....
> rosegarden - http://freshmeat.net/projects/rosegarden/
....
Nice, thank you. Rosegarden looks very sophisticated. As I type this I am
installing Ubuntu Alternate AMD 64 bit to my high end system. Bought a PCI
IDE controlller board so I can have extra data drives. Also bought and
installed a Soundblaster X-Fi dolby 7.1 soundcard that I am *hoping*
ubuntu will recognize and make work (I can return it to Best Buy if it
does not), but if it does I will have some sweet sound capabilities as
far as hardware is concerned.

I bow to the King, King Beowulf :)
~Beowulf