Posts by wanderingbison9

melloweagle28 said:Ouch. I actually could have fit that into my little ITX build. I didn't even realize they offered a 35W processor version—though, honestly, it feels like one might just fall off a truck at some point. Oh well.

@ostali:
Thanks! At that price, I think I'll take it; it’s not like I’m overpaying by much, especially since I managed to snag some decent Black Friday deals on most of my other components.$33

Now I just need a monitor. Does anyone know of a good alternative to the Dell S2721HGF? Pixel density and sharpness aren't my main priorities; I'd honestly prefer something a bit larger. My only hesitation is whether I should go with 1440p and just play everything at 1080p. Some people say the scaling looks terrible, while others swear you can't even tell the difference.

So, what did you end up deciding on—are you going with an mATX setup or sticking with your old case?

If you aren't some hardcore competitive gamer, 75Hz is more than enough for you. You should probably look for something with a 1440p resolution...

crimsonstag84 said:

That's pretty sweet, where did this even come from? Is Best Buy really selling CPUs that were originally intended for OEM pre-builts? Well, if those mATX motherboards aren't being too hard on the wallet, you could easily slide this right into one of those compact little cases you have.

Everyone seems to be showing up on the price aggregators, so this issue with Links might just be some kind of glitch—maybe their search engine got tripped up because the CPU is currently listed as out of stock there. Usually, Links shows up consistently in the availability listings. Most of the best deals are generally indexed, but you really have to keep an eye on everything since even the pricier retailers occasionally run those unexpected flash sales.
I’m not entirely sure you'll find much better luck than $733. You might want to check out one of the Amazon sites within the EU, as they sometimes have those weird, random discounts popping up on specific regional storefronts.

melloweagle28 said:Well, I guess my current case and PSU setup, which delivers about 240W, just isn't going to cut it if I want to add a dedicated graphics card on top of everything else.
Or is it?

Right now, I'm running an i5-4570T (35W TDP) paired with a 660 (140W TDP).
If I were to swap in a new GPU, most of them sit in that 130-200W range, and since the Ryzen pulls more power, doesn't that make things even tighter?

Not really, unless you're looking at newer cards, which won't work here—unless you go the route I did and pick up something like a Quadro. It’s easily two and a half times more powerful than the 5600G integrated graphics, performs somewhere in the 1050Ti realm, but only draws about 40W with peaks hitting 48W. You might even have a few other choices like a GTX 1650 or maybe even pushing it a little with a 1660.

melloweagle28 said:Yeah, that was definitely a typo on my part—I meant mini-ITX.
Ever wondered why we have different standards like ITX and ATX, or why they even bother naming them differently? It honestly feels like a bit of a mystery when you're first diving into PC building, doesn't it? 🙂

That’s because the motherboard dimensions just don't match up. Looking at it from that perspective, the board you linked isn't actually going to fit inside the case, so you really need to be hunting for a mini-ITX motherboard instead. Those aren't exactly known for being budget-friendly, though; the one you found looks like it might be the cheapest option out there.

Is there anything more satisfying than finding that perfect balance between performance and footprint when you're building a compact system? I’ve been looking closely at the ASRock B550m PRO-VDH WiFi lately, and it really makes you wonder if we’ve finally hit that sweet spot for mid-range builds. It isn't just about having the right specs on paper, is it? It’s about how those components actually work together in a real-world setup. When you consider the versatility of the B550 chipset, especially paired with something like a Ryzen 5 5600G, you start to see the potential for some seriously capable machines that don't need to take up an entire desk. I often find myself debating whether to go with a full ATX layout or stick to something more constrained like mATX, but this specific board seems to bridge that gap quite elegantly. With built-in WiFi and enough expansion slots to keep things interesting, wouldn't you agree that it offers a level of flexibility that most budget-conscious builders are craving right now? It feels like one of those reliable pieces of hardware that just makes the whole assembly process feel a bit more intuitive.

Since you're pairing this with a 65W CPU, honestly, the specific motherboard shouldn't matter all that much. Just make sure you have enough fan headers available, because I actually ran into a bit of a headache with my ASRock B450m. I'm currently running a Ryzen 5 1600X alongside an NVIDIA Quadro T600, plus an SSD and an HDD, all powered by a 250W power supply. I haven't run into any stability issues even when everything is under a full load.
But wait, isn't that case a mini-ITX build?

granitecrane2 said:Are you actually being serious right now, or is this some kind of joke? The final export comes from the original high-res files. Your editing, cutting, and compositing happen using the proxy. That’s literally what a proxy is—a substitute. You work with the proxy, and once you're finished, you just hit render and the software (whether it's Premiere or DaVinci) pulls from the original footage for the final output.

Is the video industry really in such a state of decline lately that people don't even understand basic workflow anymore?

It honestly feels like you have absolutely no idea how things work in a real production environment. I'll just leave you to your little theories.

granitecrane2 said:But why is that? Both Adobe and Blackmagic Design tools include proxy workflows.
It’s honestly just like software developers; when they lack the actual coding skills, they end up relying on massive frameworks to do the heavy lifting for them.

The reason is pretty straightforward: you have to export the final cut from the original source files rather than the proxy, since the proxy simply doesn't have enough resolution to do the job.

Jerry Fowler79 said:As long as you know what you're doing, there really isn't much to worry about, is there?
Honestly, anything north of 85 is perfectly fine by my standards. Besides, isn't it true that about 99% of people are just viewing content on sRGB monitors anyway? If that’s the case, that’s really the only spectrum they’re ever going to see.
It’s actually pretty rare to find files that are truly ready for print, properly formatted and meeting all the necessary industry standards, isn't it? Because of that, I'd say about 99% of the time, the production machines at a professional shop can handle the job without running into any issues.

Sent from my Galaxy S10 using Reddit

I don't mean to be condescending here, but it feels like most people don't actually grasp how this works, leaving them scratching their heads when things go wrong. If you're working on a standard sRGB monitor, you're probably not facing much of an issue at all. However, once you step up to an Adobe RGB monitor, you really have to respect the system's color management settings so your applications actually recognize that you're dealing with a wide-gamut display. Of course, the higher-end monitors usually come with a dedicated ISO profile ready to be installed, which helps immensely. And honestly, isn't having a colorimeter on hand also a pretty smart move?

He also needs to make sure he sets his working color space to Adobe RGB within Photoshop. It’s also worth noting that if he wants to export anything for screen viewing, he really should convert everything to sRGB before hitting that export button. Isn't it interesting how much effort goes into all of this, just so he can attempt—though one might wonder exactly how accurate the result actually is—to simulate what a physical print will look like right there on his monitor?

When you look at wide color gamuts like DCI P3 or Rec. 2020, they really excel at capturing those incredibly vivid colors that modern camera sensors can pick up and that high-end monitors are designed to display so beautifully. But then you have Adobe RGB, which feels like a bit of an outlier, doesn't it? Its gamut is specifically skewed in a way that seems tailored almost exclusively to simulating CMYK printing processes rather than anything else. Is there much practical use for it outside of that specific niche?

What I’m really trying to get at is this: if printing isn't your main focus, but you're still chasing that perfect color match for your photos, wouldn't it make more sense to go with a DCI P3 monitor? Of course, that doesn't mean you can just skip all the necessary prep work—we certainly shouldn't fall into the trap of thinking we can just coast along with sRGB and call it a day.

I was wondering if anyone could give me an idea of what I might get for my GTX 960 4 GB? I'm thinking somewhere around $333? I've got my eye on a low profile Quadro T600 for a mini PC I'm building, since this one won't fit in there...
Hopefully, Reddit can handle a question like this!

Before you go out and drop any money on an Adobe RGB monitor, wouldn't it be a good idea to spend a little time getting to grips with the fundamentals of color management and understanding the hurdles that come with it?

bluesurfer66 said:What's the actual proof that prices will go up compared to what we're seeing on the market right now?

And what's the proof that they won't? Is there any guarantee? The proof is right in the link I shared for that card from $1667—it didn't just dip toward $400, it shot up to $750 by the very next day. Maybe next time it’ll drop to $250 and people will still sit on their hands waiting because nobody could prove the price was about to spike again..

Who exactly is Ante?

granitecrane2 said:Why would anyone choose to work that way? You should probably check with the networks to see if they actually operate like that.

It really just comes down to a logical desire to work at the highest possible quality. I don't feel the need to go asking around because, having spent ten years working at ABC, I've been constantly embedded in the television world and have seen firsthand how people try to handle offline editing on Adobe using external USB 2.0 drives instead of just investing in a proper real-time system. Real-time systems are an absolute necessity for major networks, rather than relying on sluggish proxies, especially since there's rarely enough time in a production schedule to do everything twice. I know for a fact that newer stations aren't messing around with proxies either. At some point, you have to move away from the proxy workflow and you need full resolution during playback; besides, building out proxies eats up precious time when you're facing a tight deadline. And thirdly, if a program is capable of pulling 5K, why wouldn't I want to work in full resolution and bypass software that hasn't seen a meaningful optimization in twenty years? The industry is moving forward, after all.

Charles Fox10 said:It’s a shame the ruling doesn't specify how they're supposed to pay back the money to the Treasury, especially since they aren't using any of the funds they just received from that very same Treasury.

Now, let’s not get ahead of ourselves; wouldn't it be more likely that they end up paying it out of their own revenue, given that the court-ordered amount is roughly in that same ballpark? 😬

granitecrane2 said:They definitely use them efficiently, though I suppose it really depends on how you define "efficiently."

I'm just not so sure about that... For instance, when I load a 5K JPEG sequence into After Effects and try to play it back, shouldn't I be seeing real-time playback at 24 fps? Instead, I'm barely hitting 4 fps, and my CPU is sitting there idling at a measly 15%, mostly just pulling data from the SSD. But then, if I take that exact same sequence over to DaVinci Resolve, the CPU jumps up to 60% and I get smooth 24 fps playback instantly, without any caching at all. It gets even more confusing when I load the same sequence as a .cr2 RAW format; it plays back at 24 fps right out of the gate. I mean, come on—RAW files require decompression and debayering operations, right? In that case, I see the NVIDIA usage spiking near 80% for the debayering, yet it still feels seamless.

Edward Lee7 said:Joe Biden lost his cool when asked about the fallout from that Republican Party ruling

big news, Edward Lee7,

anyway, where’s Kamala Harris over at CNN? she’s really the only one with the guts to push the Leader's buttons,

☕

I remember seeing that reporter grilling Bačić in US Congress; it seems like newsrooms just divvy up the assignments so someone is always there to ask the tough questions.

granitecrane2 said:I have to disagree, especially regarding the idea of "rendering via the NVIDIA." These programs definitely utilize more than one core. And it isn't just because software like Premiere single thread behaves that way; having more cores always makes the workflow smoother, doesn't it? Especially when you're multitasking. Looking at the discussions here, it seems like many modern "editors" don't even know how to use Proxy workflows. When you are working with Proxy files while simultaneously rendering a 3D scene and trying to edit or composite something else, you are going to need those extra cores. That is simply how it works. Also, Blender isn't the only player in the 3D space; there are plenty of others like LW, Cinema 4D, Max, or Maya... I honestly get the feeling that the current generation of web creators hasn't even touched half of those tools.

Setting aside all those amateur drone videos you see floating around...
https://community.adobe.com/t5/premi...e/m-p/10794038

I wasn't suggesting that Adobe programs aren't multithreaded; rather, I was pointing out that they don't utilize multiple cores with maximum Efficiency. Isn't it often better to have eight high-speed cores rather than twelve slower ones? If CPU-based 3D rendering and DaVinci Resolve can push almost every core to its limit, why can't After Effects and Premiere do the same? Now, regarding this whole idea of simultaneous rendering and editing... well, that's fine until you saturate every single core and the task you are actually focusing on starts to lag. Perhaps we should ask him if that is specifically how he intends to work...

Blender is free, DaVinci Resolve has a free version, but for everything else, you either pay a massive amount or you turn to piracy. If people don't seem to know these other tools, isn't it just because they are expensive and primarily designed for professional studio use? We certainly aren't here to promote piracy, after all. Personally, I spent a lot of time working in LW and a little bit in Maya...

You might want to act sooner rather than later, because everything seems to be getting more expensive by the day...

There goes Bačić again, going on about this and that, bringing up old court rulings as if they change anything—as if we didn't vote them in back in 2015, 2016, and 2020. Rubbing those results in the faces of the voters who chose them based on conservative values rather than immediate personal gain feels like a pointed message: you picked thieves three times in a row, and it’s going to end badly for the Republican Party.

And then we get the perfect example of an apology for their behavior: the argument that other parties also have individuals caught red-handed. Sure, maybe they do, but unlike the Republican Party, those other parties aren't being defined by the legal troubles of their individual members.