Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 44

Thread: Full HD In SpeedEdit

  1. #16
    MAZMO logic28's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Gaithersburg MD - Pisa Italy - Surrey UK
    Posts
    136
    Quote Originally Posted by cholo
    It can handle 2k 4:4:4 uncompressed in real time.

    Thanks Cholo, sounds good

    Maz

  2. #17
    'the write stuff' SBowie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    The stars at night are big and bright
    Posts
    19,352
    Unless rudimentary math fails me, the file size and throughput demands for full-blown 1920x1080 imagery (as opposed to the substantially lesser demands od HDV, and its ilk) is going to run around 6 times (very loose math here) larger than D1. That brings it up into the range of 130MB/sec, give or take a smidgen, depending on whether we're talking YUV, RGB, or what-have-you.

    Now I don't know about you, but I've always considered that a VT system that couldn't reasonably consistently play 4 streams of RTVs without a glitch without BG rendering turned on had something wrong with it. So in the most general terms, a garden variety 3-4 year old VT system has roughly 2/3 of the bandwidth to handle a single layer of HD.

    So - unlike the much smaller D1 - most of us aren't going to be able to bang a little stripeset together, turn off background rendering, and still watch 4 layers of uncompressed HD play without stuttering. Still, this isn't really any kind of a killer for a 'modern' fast array - I've seen even older ones double that fairly consistently. A single stream of uncompressed HD should be very do-able ... even two; by my completely arbitrary estimate, roughly 85% of the simpler stuff that is the bread and butter of most here - a layer or two with the odd 'thicker' spot - should be a cakewalk with BGR on.
    --
    Regards, Steve
    Forum Moderator
    ("You've got to ask yourself one question ... 'Do I feel lucky?' Well, do ya, spammer?")

  3. #18
    MAZMO logic28's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Gaithersburg MD - Pisa Italy - Surrey UK
    Posts
    136

    Wink

    Quote Originally Posted by SBowie
    Unless rudimentary math fails me, the file size and throughput demands for full-blown 1920x1080 imagery (as opposed to the substantially lesser demands od HDV, and its ilk) is going to run around 6 times (very loose math here) larger than D1.
    Sorry Steve,

    I need to answer to you tomorrow as here in Italy it is now 6 Am and I’m beginning to fade.

    Sorry again and please forgive me if my English should sometimes spell or sound improperly as been Italian I do my best.

    Lots to say….. until tomorrow

    Best regards

    Maz (My real name is Mauro but not many people pronounce it correctly so they call me Maz)

  4. #19
    Registered User KiloWatkins's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    New MexKilo
    Posts
    1,029
    The Black Magic is a DVI/HDMI I/O card/box for PCIe/x and MAC. Beni has a nice rig for sure.

    Uncompressed HD needs > 150Mbps disc bandwidth to saveAs. Thus most low end users are working in compression with HQAlpha ect... and HDV. I've switched to 720pHDV as some help with a project. ymmv
    GoodLuck KiloVideo

    Digitizing video since 1984
    HyMPG Designer since 1997
    Avatar says, 89.3 MPG Avg.
    [email protected]

  5. #20
    Creator of BobFX for VT Bobt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Plainfield, IL
    Posts
    1,319
    Current HD bandwidth is about 166MB/sec
    You would need a high speed fiber channel raid to handle uncompressed.
    Good Luck Maz. You need some VERY high end I/O to do what the big
    boys do. Your have one other issue. Thats the bit depth thats very
    limiting in SE. Its current pipeline is only 8 bit. IT COULD really user a 10 or 12or heck just use floating point pipeline. The translation damages
    the effects on output of fine gradients.

    Bob

  6. #21
    'the write stuff' SBowie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    The stars at night are big and bright
    Posts
    19,352
    Quote Originally Posted by Bobt
    You would need a high speed fiber channel raid to handle uncompressed.
    I can't really agree, Bob - like I said, many an older stripeset came close to that. I've seen reasonably consistent 180's from a simple 3 drive U320 stripeset ... and a good fast RAID (with allowance for a bit of RAM buffering) can double it without breaking a serious sweat ... plus, if we were talking uncompressed YUV rather than RGB, it would take a worthwhile chunk off the demand. The great thing is that big, fat, drives are cheaper and FASTER every day. (That said, I think few are going to be playing around in that realm for some time anyway.)
    --
    Regards, Steve
    Forum Moderator
    ("You've got to ask yourself one question ... 'Do I feel lucky?' Well, do ya, spammer?")

  7. #22
    MAZMO logic28's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Gaithersburg MD - Pisa Italy - Surrey UK
    Posts
    136
    Quote Originally Posted by SBowie
    Unless rudimentary math fails me, the file size and throughput demands for full-blown 1920x1080 imagery (as opposed to the substantially lesser demands od HDV, and its ilk) is going to run around 6 times (very loose math here) larger than D1. That brings it up into the range of 130MB/sec, give or take a smidgen, depending on whether we're talking YUV, RGB, or what-have-you.

    Dear Steve,

    Here I am again after a few hours of sleep (dreaming about layers of streaming videos!!)

    You are almost right, to my calculation allowing for 1.5 Gb/s SDI HD data stream (as they call standard 1920 x 1080i 4:2:2) we should be seeing something in the region of 190 MB/s max.

    Some lower resolution can drop down from that of course but I always tend to allow for maximum.

    Now it is important to say, even in answer to our friend Bob, that all this is mostly academical in preparation for the future and getting our teeth into figures and terminologies that otherwise would confuse us even more when they will finally come to be the standard.

    I guess I started to worry when I saw the advent of HDV which obviously would be very poorly editable being used to D1 and therefore investigated for better HD solutions.

    The next step I understood being HD on DVCPRO but even that has a compression ratio of 6.7:1 which basically makes me feel the step being the equivalent of DV footage compared to D1.

    Hence my frantic search for what would be an acceptable level of HD for professional productions, not being helped in the process by the confusion created by camcorders' manufacturers HD standard descriptions (720p -1080i not really full HD unless in the 1920 width format)

    Back to the VT4 basic minimum expectations, I also agree with you :agree: in that we should see something in the region of 4 - 5 layers of D1 (even though you might never use more than 3).

    But surprisingly, when I went to repeat the test of last year which I remembered to be reasonably good, I was badly surprised by finding that my 4-SATA striped array is now having trouble producing 3 layers.

    Would that be due to the software RAID which I am using, as opposed to adopting the motherboard hardware RAID instead?

    Unfortunately, as I discovered, the onboard SCSI interface of my K8WE does not allow RAID use so I decided to connect both buses to 10 Scsi - Sata adapted Hard Drives for footage general storage. (might as well save in the cost of the drives and they work beautifully on the SCSI bus)

    But I am not too worried as a PCI-X Raid card can be added to reach more layers when needed.

    Best regards,

    Maz

  8. #23
    Registered User KiloWatkins's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    New MexKilo
    Posts
    1,029
    SE Prefs(disabels) and Cache redirection can play a part in playback performance. I don't share my footage drives with Prefs/cache, nor on C: where VM/Pagefile lives in 120gig freespace. 1394 Preview, Dual Monitors, SE output window have a playback cause and effect as well. ymmv is my point, dancing with resources! LOL

    fwiw
    GoodLuck KiloVideo

    Digitizing video since 1984
    HyMPG Designer since 1997
    Avatar says, 89.3 MPG Avg.
    [email protected]

  9. #24
    MAZMO logic28's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Gaithersburg MD - Pisa Italy - Surrey UK
    Posts
    136
    I was running the layers test on VT edit not SE on this occasion.
    I Keep drive C only for operating system and VT installation plus other software.

    Even the DVEs are on a separate drive which is only used for data storage.

    All video footage is either on a SATA array RAID 0 or on 10 individual drives on my 2 SCSI busses.

    So, I guess no conflict of interest, unless I overlooked something!

    I will have to check the 4 250 GB SATA Raid system, I am sure I was getting at least 4 layers when I first built the machine so something must have gone wrong since or simply 4 SATAs are not much coop once they start filling up!

    Maz

  10. #25
    Registered User KiloWatkins's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    New MexKilo
    Posts
    1,029
    Ok, lets talk about the 3GB switch and VT. Is it happy together? I know it is for SE. Maybe someone in the know, could tell me/us if that extended mem bus feature carries over to the PCI/SCSI/SATA ports for bandwidth.

    Though we are talking about Uncompressed HD, the Mpegger does have a 10bit dc precision switch. Now if we hear some Bootcamp MAC is able to saveAs uncomp.HD in SE, what is the next system you would buy! LOL

    Thanks for the read guys.
    GoodLuck KiloVideo

    Digitizing video since 1984
    HyMPG Designer since 1997
    Avatar says, 89.3 MPG Avg.
    [email protected]

  11. #26
    'the write stuff' SBowie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    The stars at night are big and bright
    Posts
    19,352
    Quote Originally Posted by logic28
    You are almost right, to my calculation allowing for 1.5 Gb/s SDI HD data stream (as they call standard 1920 x 1080i 4:2:2) we should be seeing something in the region of 190 MB/s max.
    If it was YUV rather than RGB, it would be noticeably less; but even so, it was several years ago that I first saw >300 GB per second using a 2 channel U320 stripeset, and since then again using a less expensive SATA RAIDs -- I just don't see one or two streams of HD as that big a challenge anymore.
    --
    Regards, Steve
    Forum Moderator
    ("You've got to ask yourself one question ... 'Do I feel lucky?' Well, do ya, spammer?")

  12. #27
    Registered User KiloWatkins's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    New MexKilo
    Posts
    1,029
    I've got a handel on most of this and YUV is less demanding but is 24bit, correct? 1920x1080p is where I believe the M4P gets sticky when attempting to saveAs YUVA uncompressed HD. The use/need for HD editing in uncompressed would be a chore for any system, and can your SCSI's handel YUVA Steve? IOW, uncompressing anything, you would want to be at a 32bit and HD/HDV is suppose to be a 32bit compressed file, afaik. SE HQA 4224 may not be a total solution for some, but is working for me with compression.

    POV
    GoodLuck KiloVideo

    Digitizing video since 1984
    HyMPG Designer since 1997
    Avatar says, 89.3 MPG Avg.
    [email protected]

  13. #28
    'the write stuff' SBowie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2003
    Location
    The stars at night are big and bright
    Posts
    19,352
    Kilo, YUV is smaller than RGB whether you add alpha to both or not. The throughput and storage demands for uncompressed are high, even by todays standards yes - but by no means unattainable. (Actually, the day may not be so terribly far off when we are quibbling over whether we can hit that mark with a single drive.)

    We used to think the same thing about uncompressed SD, but technology has long since marched past those barriers. AFAICS, the last skirmish in the battle for true HD bandwidth is over ... now it's just about price. I'm not saying uncompressed HD is going to be the format of choice for most -- just that it's not the bogeyman either.
    --
    Regards, Steve
    Forum Moderator
    ("You've got to ask yourself one question ... 'Do I feel lucky?' Well, do ya, spammer?")

  14. #29
    Creator of BobFX for VT Bobt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Plainfield, IL
    Posts
    1,319
    > I just don't see one or two streams of HD as that big a challenge anymore.
    That was exactly my point. You cant get more than on stream from that
    pipe. Also this would have to be sustained output not burst. Burst you can have moments but not sustained. I think it would take a stack of 15K scsi and
    a fiber raid hooked to PCI Express to accomplish the ~320MB/sec which 2 two streams of HD.

    But even more important is the color pipeline. 8 bit just isnt good enough for
    commercial film work because of issues with fine gradients. The internal pipeline needs to be increased to 4:4:4:4 16bit floating point. That would be another stand out in the quality area.

    Bob

  15. #30
    Creator of BobFX for VT Bobt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Plainfield, IL
    Posts
    1,319
    > just that it's not the bogeyman either
    Even studios think this is a big deal and they got the bucks.. But a single movie with many of hours of footage to edit down would have issues.
    Wonder if Newtek will be the first to break down the hollywood barier of big boy toys or stay a video player? Its choice and direction I guess.

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •