NTFS vs FAT32 - avi file size limits and such issues

[prom3theus]

I'm new to using NTFS, and I have now access to windows xp pro and windows 2000 pro, and I am wondering if they will capture better in ntfs or in fat32. An avi file is limited at some point in size right? So that aspect of NTFS wouldn't be a huge gain I'm guessing. It would seem that NTFS with 64K cluster sizes would be better for capturing, but there's all this stuff about verifying writes and so forth that makes me a bit hesitant. It seems almost like it would effectively double, or close to it, the amount of bandwidth used for its data security features while capturing. Is this so? I know windows 2000 will support FAT32 natively and I'm sure xp does also, so there would be no problem keeping FAT32 disks for them.

I searched for ntfs and found no good threads dedicated to this issue. can anyone with experience here spout off on it? I can get 20MB/sec sustained with 0 frames dropped due to video (audio card timing i an issue) at the moment with win98 on fat32. I don't expect to gain a lot switching to ntfs (other than file size gains perhaps), but will I lose much? Issues of stability while capturing is also an issue for me, as I am always having to reboot after doing a lot of capturing/encoding/transcoding while in win98 which has a MTBF of probably 5 hours or less while doing anything intensive while multitasking. If ntfs is going to cost me significantly in speed, then would I gain the security of a winnt core and retain the speed of fat32 by that configuration?

Thanks.

[kempodragon]

FAT32 file sizes are limited to 4gb. NTFS files can be MUCH bigger. For example, I've captured 52gb in one avi file :) . Win2k and XP do require more memory and a faster processor in order to capture effectively. My old system with PIII 933 Mhz, 512gb RAM could capture 640x480 @29.97 fps Huffyuv, 44,100 Khz 16 bit stereo with only occasional frame drops, and approx. 50-60% CPU usage. When I upgraded to a P4 2.53 GHz, I was able to capture full 720x480 @ 29.97 fps Huffyuv, 48 Khz 16 bit stereo, no frame drops, and only 25% cpu usage. Win2k also is less prone to crashing. Read "The Basics" guide on the site for a better explanation of why you shoud use Win2k or XP.

[Hacksaw]

Likewise, I can capture with a resolution 720x480 @ 29.97 fps, Huffyuv, 48 Khz 16 bit stereo with no frame drops. I am using an ATI TV Wonder card on a PIII 933 with 512M RAM. My controller is an ATA100, but my drives are ATA 133. I use iuLabs iuVCR on Win2000 to capture to a single file on an NTFS drive.

Works like a dream.

[bb]

Originally posted by prom3theus
An avi file is limited at some point in size right?
The "classic" AVI specification is limited to 2 GB, and that's the reason why multisegment captures usually split before that size. Using OpenDML capable programs you don't have that limit, though (that's the reason why kempodragon could capture a 52 GB file).
NTFS has virtually no limit for file size (in fact there's a limit of 16 Exabytes, which is ~1.8E19 Bytes :eek: ). I use Win2000 with an Athlon at 1.33 GHz for capturing without problems (no frame drops).

bb

[^^-+I4004+-^^]

>For example, I've captured 52gb in one avi file . Win2k and XP do require more memory and a faster processor in order to capture effectively.

not true: i have cel600 that has LESS frame drops on really
noisy video on w2k(wdm) than on win98 (vfw)
(720x576 size)
so in my mind wdm is more effective than vfw in this field

[kempodragon]

I use VirtualDub for my caps which is vfw-based. I've never tried the wdm-based applications for my caps, so I don't know how well they work.

[^^-+I4004+-^^]

>Win2k and XP do require more memory and a faster processor in order to capture effectively

.......hmmm and i thought you were talking based on your experience.....
hmmmm.....
anyhow i said my results differ from that..
(btw. i have used both wdm and vfw stuff and VD on wdm(with wrapper))

[kempodragon]

Sorry, I should have said that because of the wrapper, Win2k and XP need more processing power. I haven't used any of the wdm based applications mainly because I tend to stick with what works for me.

[^^-+I4004+-^^]

>Sorry, I should have said that because of the wrapper, Win2k and XP need more processing power

you should try "directdraw acceleration" for both fields (in VD)
after this you get same results as with vfw:ie. same amounts of noise will produce same amounts of frame drops.....(ie. MORE than same sequence with some WDM prog )
(more or less the same VIDEO!.....there might be audio sync issues on WDM....)

[matrix]

For example, I've captured 52gb in one avi file
52gb?
I get here more than 1gb/min. I mean for a 106min movie, I got a 110gb file. :confused: ...Is it normal?
WinXP home, PIII 733Mh, 384Mb Ram. I capture in Huffyuv, 640x480, 29.97fps, and about 0 to 15 frames dropped.
Btw I'm usin Mgi videowave to capture.

[bb]

That's much. If you captured 640x480 @ 30fps in RGB 24Bit uncompressed, you'd get ~1.5 GB/min. You are very close to that, having a compression ratio less than 1.5:1. Huffyuv should compress 2.5:1 under normal circumstances. Your source is probably very noisy.

bb

[matrix]

I capture from SVideo of a satellite receiver. The captures look fine to me.
This is a frame from a raw avi.