7 HD's inside a mac pro

[tharding]

"• First question : Would a 10k sata disk be fast enough to drive those ± 4 layers of video + 2 masking layers for each machine ?"

Don't forget that if you are using dual outputs as a opposed to the panorama option that "Use Layer" is the most efficient way to go.

That means that if you want the same clip on Output 2 as Output 1 you can "Use Layer" the number of the layer you are playing the clip back on for Output 1. (Hope that made sense!)

This should cut down your disk overheads considerably if you only need 2 layers of video and 1 x masking layer.

In my experience you would struggle getting 4 layers smooth of one Raptor.

Cheers

Toby

[samsc]

In my experience you would struggle getting 4 layers smooth of one Raptor.

Cheers

Toby

mine too.

but sometimes its best for people to find out for themselves.

[GideonKiers]

fair enough, but unfortunately as usual there's no time or money to test things out really..

so let me rephrase my question. what (non-scsi and non-fibrechannel) harddrive configuration would advisable for the smooth playback of 4 streams of 768 576 photojpeg non-100% clips, from a macpro 2,66 with an ati x1600 card on two seperate outputs, each in a 1024 768 resolution ?

sometimes its best for people to find out for themselves.

[GideonKiers]

mm no let me make myself a bit clearer, 4 seperate outputs should make one big panorama. each output therefore would be unique.

That means that if you want the same clip on Output 2 as Output 1 you can "Use Layer" the number of the layer you are playing the clip back on for Output 1. (Hope that made sense!)

[tharding]

Yes but you use one part of the same image do you not? That is how Watchout and other systems work. all you are seeing is a different section of the same image or clip.

When you use the new panorama functions you are essentially doing this. Your mask for instance would be a single file across 4 screens not 4 separate files.

I have a 4 x Raptor RAID that can give me 4 layers of DV but not 1024 x 768 Photo Jpeg without some dropped frames. As Richard says, you really have to try it. I have an Xserve RAID but I still have to check every combination I come up with.

Cheers

Toby

[GideonKiers]

Absolutely yes, each of the 4 projectors does 1/4th of the whole image.

I'm thinking of doing 768x576 photojpeg files, not 1024x768.

The advantage of doing 4 projectors from one machine is that you're working on the whole 'canvas' from one machine, therefore moving a mask around the whole canvas is much easier than if we would do it on two machines.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding you, but I don't really see why 4 layers of DV playback needs a 4 x Raptor RAID though ? I have an old 3.2 catalyst system here that plays 4 dv layers from one 7200 scsi disk without really any problems on a dual 2.5 ppc.

I find it a bit hard to believe that there's no other solution to my harddrive speed problems then buying the xserve raid ...
How about the Fujitsu MAU3147NP (Ultra 320) and an Atto PCI UL5D pci-e card. Would that be sufficient (theoretically) to drive 4 layers of either DV-PAL or 768x576 photjpeg ?

Yes but you use one part of the same image do you not? That is how Watchout and other systems work. all you are seeing is a different section of the same image or clip.

When you use the new panorama functions you are essentially doing this. Your mask for instance would be a single file across 4 screens not 4 separate files.

I have a 4 x Raptor RAID that can give me 4 layers of DV but not 1024 x 768 Photo Jpeg without some dropped frames. As Richard says, you really have to try it. I have an Xserve RAID but I still have to check every combination I come up with.

Cheers

Toby

[samsc]

4 layers of DV playback needs a 4 x Raptor RAID though

please - you need to test with YOUR content - or something like your content - as photojpeg has different performance for each file and different compression settings.
its quite variable. it is very difficult to give general performance guidlines outside dv files - as every file is different.

the performance of dv files is constant because they have a fixed bit rate.

start with something minimal - say a single raptor - no need to do any kindof raid to start with- and see what happens.
tell me what you see. please.

typically - you will not see any performance difference at standard definition - with your files at 768x576 between a single disc -and a raid system.
raid systems are only important when the data rate is the limiting factor - in uncompressed movies.

[samsc]

I find it a bit hard to believe that there's no other solution to my harddrive speed problems then buying the xserve raid ...
How about the Fujitsu MAU3147NP (Ultra 320) and an Atto PCI UL5D pci-e card. Would that be sufficient (theoretically) to drive 4 layers of either DV-PAL or 768x576 photjpeg ?

you dont have to buy an expensive system - you just need to test your files on your system - and see what happens.

photojpeg performance is very different from dv performance.

[GideonKiers]

ok very clear indeed. problem is the system still needs to be bought, so all of this is pure speculative, i'm trying to find out which system to buy.

There is no real need to do photojpeg though, except for quality maybe .. I could also do square pixel dv pal for instance, if that would make the decision for a harddrive system easier (and less expensive ). btw: Does catalystv.4 turn the highquality tab on dv quicktimes on automagically, or do i need to save that with the quicktime ?

It's hard to say now what the content will be exactly, since i'm working on a theatre play in which the content is allways changing, with the development of the play. But i guess there would for instance be quite a lot of brightness in the images, and quite a bit of slow moving images over long timespans. Then of course when this production is over, another will be put on stage, might be very different material. So basically the content could be anything.

Has anyone here installed the atto + scsi disk option i pointed out before in a new mac pro yet ?

Thanks for all the help !

you dont have to buy an expensive system - you just need to test your files on your system - and see what happens.

photojpeg performance is very different from dv performance.

[samsc]

what do you have at the moment?

---

scsi and atto seem to work fine in intel mac pro so far.
the drives are easy to fit in optical drive bay.