Saturday, April 4, 2015

RE: [Avid-L2] HP Low Resolution Blues

 

Original cables.  Both setups allowed for higher rez with older PC/driver/video cards.

 

Dave Spraker

 

Principal, spraker.tv

Shared Storage Solutions  |  Consulting  |  Sports Audio

www.spraker.tv

 

Northwest Territory Manager, Western Rep Associates

Broadcast and AV Manufacturer's Representative

www.westernrep.com

 

dave@spraker.tv
(503) 897-0250

 

From: Avid-L2@yahoogroups.com [mailto:Avid-L2@yahoogroups.com]
Sent: Thursday, April 2, 2015 11:40 PM
To: Avid-L2@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Avid-L2] HP Low Resolution Blues

 

 

 

If it's the wrong DVI cables wouldn't there have been the same problem on the old system?  Or are these new cables on the new systems.  I read the original post as if the cables were used on the old system with the same Dream Color monitors.  Did I misunderstand?

---In Avid-L2@yahoogroups.com, <jeff@...> wrote :

Wrong DVI cables. You need the ones with most of the pins rather than just half of them. FULL DVI. Easy fix. 

Jeff Kreines

 

On Apr 3, 2015, at 1:47 AM, "'Dave Spraker' avid@... [Avid-L2]" <Avid-L2@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

So setting up two brand new bitchin' z840s with the Avid supplied Nvidia driver fed from HP supplied DP to DVI adapters to pairs of HP Dreamcolor monitors.

 

It's showing the native rez as 1920x1080.  Huh?  On the z800s these replaced we were running the real, higher native rez of the monitors – which doesn't even show up as an option in Windows or the Nvidia tool now.

 

Anyone else see/dealt with this yet?  Greg Staten?

 

It's not the extenders – one system is just long DVI cables and the other is Gefen DVI over Cat6 but both performed better previously.

 

TIA,

 

Dave Spraker

 

Principal, spraker.tv

Shared Storage Solutions&nb sp; |  Consulting  |  Sports Audio

www.spraker.tv

 

Northwest Territory Manager, Western Rep Associates

Broadcast and AV Manufacturer's Representative

www.westernrep.com

 

dave@...
(503) 897-0250

 

__._,_.___

Posted by: "Dave Spraker" <avid@spraker.tv>
Reply via web post Reply to sender Reply to group Start a New Topic Messages in this topic (4)

.

__,_._,___

RE: [Avid-L2] Re: GPU for Resolve and MC

 


Could someone explain how an expansion chassis would make video card harder to recognize?  Isn't an expansion chassis just connecting up to a MacPro Tower's 16 lane PCI slot or is there some drivers and interface software that comes into play.  I just thought it was more or less just spreading the pci buss connections to an additional chassis for more slots. 

Is this issue something like I've found putting an Avid dongle on a usb hub and it intermittently becomes unrecognized by Avid whereas the same dongle plugged into the MacPro Tower itself has no communications problems?  I realize it's completely different protocols but is unrecognizability something similar.

---In Avid-L2@yahoogroups.com, <jim@...> wrote :

The Quadros have higher quality memory (part of the reason they're so expensive relative to the performance) and are better tested, so in theory they're more stable. For the purposes of a visual effects workstation I don't think this is that critical. We recommend the GTX cards for our plugins. You just get a lot more for your money and the 980/Titan Z are just super fast. However, for a render node that's going to be rendering 24/7, the Quadros may offer some value due to the increased stability.

 

The high end GTX cards always perform better than the Quadros, as that's where all the new technology shows up first. Again, in theory, this means it's more likely to be buggy, but in our tests the GTX cards haven't been less stable than the Quadros. The newer Quadros (e.g. K5200) are reasonably fast but a Titan Z is going to blow it away for half the price. I wouldn't go so far as to say avoid the Quadros, you're just going to get more speed for your money with the gamer cards.

 

A note on the expansion chassis… the video cards seem to be harder to recognize from a software point of view. We've had a few reports that the Cubix Expansion doesn't work with our plugins and may not work with other apps or plugins. It _does_ work with Resolve and there are definitely folks using them, but if you're getting one of the chassis to speed up specific software, check with the manufacturer that the software supports the chassis you're thinking of buying.

 

 

Cheers,

Jim

--------------- 

Jim Tierney

Digital Anarchy

Visual Effects Plugins

 

From: Avid-L2@yahoogroups.com [mailto:Avid-L2@yahoogroups.com]
Sent: Friday, April 3, 2015 7:38 PM
To: Avid-L2@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Avid-L2] Re: GPU for Resolve and MC

 

 

Once again I was told directly from the Resolve engineers the Quadro 4K was old news about a year and a half ago.  They were all about the GTX series with it's additional Cuda cores.  Are these Quadro K4000 etc...  something new and different from the Quadros I was told to avoid by Resolve engineers?  Is this something more about PC vs. Mac.  When I went through this the Quadros were way more expensive than the GTX-680 and performed much worse according to the Resolve folks.  Was I mislead or have things changed?  At the time I was under the impression the Quadros were yesterdays technology and were being abandoned.  Did I get this wrong?



---In Avid-L2@yahoogroups.com, <tcurren@...> wrote :

The good news is you are in a PC so you have more slots to work with. Depending upon the card you pick and the power supply in your system, you might have to supplement it. I had to add an external power supply because my Z800 had the 750 watt power supply but some shipped with an 1100 watt supply.

 

As for cards you can go for Quadro K4000, K5000, or K6000. According Greg Huson get at least 4 gigs of RAM on the card.

 

__._,_.___

Posted by: bigfish@pacbell.net
Reply via web post Reply to sender Reply to group Start a New Topic Messages in this topic (15)

.

__,_._,___

Re: [Avid-L2] OT: File recovery from XDCam disc

 

Thanks. I suggested to the producer the option of trying to play it out of the camera that recorded it, but the shooter's leaving town tomorrow and she's not available
to address the issue until Monday, so no luck there. I was doubtful it would work anyway after she gave me the info that the FILE SYSTEM error popped up on the
camera towards the end of the disc; they were hoping that the footage shot before then would be OK. The fact that the camera kept recording afterwards is interesting,
because on the VTR the record inhibit light came on, even though the switch on the disc was set for record enable.

I will pass on your suggestion. Thanks again.

Stephen Priest
CNN Atlanta

-----Original Message-----
From: "John Beck jb30343@windstream.net [Avid-L2]"
Sent: Apr 4, 2015 11:27 AM
To: Avid-L2@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Avid-L2] OT: File recovery from XDCam disc

 

2 suggestions:
I have used Sony's file recovery service and had excellent results. You
send them the XDCAM disk. They work their magic and send you your
files. IIRC, the service was about $50 and had a pretty fast turn
around time.

Last summer I had a disk that could not be read, similar to yours. I was
able to put it into the camera that recorded it and it would play. I
captured it out of the camera via HDSDI and it looked fine. The
producer was happy with the captured files so I didn't send it to Sony.

I don't want to jinx myself but in fairness to Sony, I've used hundreds
of Sony XDCAM pro disks and have never lost a shot. Good luck with
yours. --J.B.

Stephen Priest spriest@mindspring.com [Avid-L2] wrote:
> Problem:
>
> XDCam disc came in from a field shoot, upon inserting into PDW-U1 drive attached to Mac for processing, the XDCam Drive Monitor pops up an error message Volume Inconsistency, Recovery necessary. The XDCam Utility also recognizes the Inconsistency, and in the details says recovery is not possible. The Mac Drive Utility sees the PDW device, but the disc is grayed out so I can't try to verify or repair the disc using that.
>
> I then tried putting it in one of our PDW-HD1500 VTRs to see if it would play, so I could at least dub/clone some of the footage to another disc. The message FILE SYSTEM popped up, and nothing happened when I hit play. Using the FF/RW buttons to jump through clips, the display would increment/decrement (066/071) like it was recognizing 71 clips on the disc, but no video would display. And the disc would not eject, I had to get an engineer to go behind the rack and yank the AC cable and put it back in while I held down the eject button, which worked.
>
> Obviously, the disc is corrupt in some fashion; my questions are 1) are there any other repair utilities on the Mac that might work? 2) would a data recovery sevice be able to extract files from the disc, and if so any estimates as to cost?
>
> All relevant experiences and suggestions welcome.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Stephen Priest
> CNN Atlanta
>
>
> ------------------------------------
> Posted by: Stephen Priest <spriest@mindspring.com>
> ------------------------------------
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>

__._,_.___

Posted by: Stephen Priest <spriest@mindspring.com>
Reply via web post Reply to sender Reply to group Start a New Topic Messages in this topic (4)

.

__,_._,___

Re: [Avid-L2] Re: New file uploaded to Avid-L2

 
.

__,_._,___

Re: [Avid-L2] OT: File recovery from XDCam disc

 

2 suggestions:
I have used Sony's file recovery service and had excellent results. You
send them the XDCAM disk. They work their magic and send you your
files. IIRC, the service was about $50 and had a pretty fast turn
around time.

Last summer I had a disk that could not be read, similar to yours. I was
able to put it into the camera that recorded it and it would play. I
captured it out of the camera via HDSDI and it looked fine. The
producer was happy with the captured files so I didn't send it to Sony.

I don't want to jinx myself but in fairness to Sony, I've used hundreds
of Sony XDCAM pro disks and have never lost a shot. Good luck with
yours. --J.B.

Stephen Priest spriest@mindspring.com [Avid-L2] wrote:
> Problem:
>
> XDCam disc came in from a field shoot, upon inserting into PDW-U1 drive attached to Mac for processing, the XDCam Drive Monitor pops up an error message Volume Inconsistency, Recovery necessary. The XDCam Utility also recognizes the Inconsistency, and in the details says recovery is not possible. The Mac Drive Utility sees the PDW device, but the disc is grayed out so I can't try to verify or repair the disc using that.
>
> I then tried putting it in one of our PDW-HD1500 VTRs to see if it would play, so I could at least dub/clone some of the footage to another disc. The message FILE SYSTEM popped up, and nothing happened when I hit play. Using the FF/RW buttons to jump through clips, the display would increment/decrement (066/071) like it was recognizing 71 clips on the disc, but no video would display. And the disc would not eject, I had to get an engineer to go behind the rack and yank the AC cable and put it back in while I held down the eject button, which worked.
>
> Obviously, the disc is corrupt in some fashion; my questions are 1) are there any other repair utilities on the Mac that might work? 2) would a data recovery sevice be able to extract files from the disc, and if so any estimates as to cost?
>
> All relevant experiences and suggestions welcome.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Stephen Priest
> CNN Atlanta
>
>
> ------------------------------------
> Posted by: Stephen Priest <spriest@mindspring.com>
> ------------------------------------
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>

__._,_.___

Posted by: John Beck <jb30343@windstream.net>
Reply via web post Reply to sender Reply to group Start a New Topic Messages in this topic (3)

.

__,_._,___

Re: [Avid-L2] Re: GPU for Resolve and MC

 


On Apr 4, 2015, at 1:30 AM, bigfish@pacbell.net [Avid-L2] <Avid-L2@yahoogroups.com> wrote:

As far as I know you can tell Resolve to also use the GTX-680 even if it's driving the GUI.  That would add some more umph to the Resolve wouldn't it.

The 680 is pretty ancient.  Peter Chamberlain of Blackmagic said the new Titan X with 12 GB of RAM is pretty amazing.  You can never have too much GPU power or RAM for Resolve!  You want at least a Titan IMHO.

Jeff Kreines
Kinetta
jeff@kinetta.com
kinetta.com


__._,_.___

Posted by: Jeff Kreines <jeff@kinetta.com>
Reply via web post Reply to sender Reply to group Start a New Topic Messages in this topic (14)

.

__,_._,___

RE: [Avid-L2] OT: File recovery from XDCam disc

 

Have you contacted Sony?  I'm sure I've heard that they offer a data recovery service for xdcam disks.  Just make sure you don't use it anymore until they've seen it or you risk destroying what's on the disk.

Andi



To: Avid-L2@yahoogroups.com
From: Avid-L2@yahoogroups.com
Date: Fri, 3 Apr 2015 20:19:13 -0400
Subject: [Avid-L2] OT: File recovery from XDCam disc

 
Problem:

XDCam disc came in from a field shoot, upon inserting into PDW-U1 drive attached to Mac for processing, the XDCam Drive Monitor pops up an error message Volume Inconsistency, Recovery necessary. The XDCam Utility also recognizes the Inconsistency, and in the details says recovery is not possible. The Mac Drive Utility sees the PDW device, but the disc is grayed out so I can't try to verify or repair the disc using that.

I then tried putting it in one of our PDW-HD1500 VTRs to see if it would play, so I could at least dub/clone some of the footage to another disc. The message FILE SYSTEM popped up, and nothing happened when I hit play. Using the FF/RW buttons to jump through clips, the display would increment/decrement (066/071) like it was recognizing 71 clips on the disc, but no video would display. And the disc would not eject, I had to get an engineer to go behind the rack and yank the AC cable and put it back in while I held down the eject button, which worked.

Obviously, the disc is corrupt in some fashion; my questions are 1) are there any other repair utilities on the Mac that might work? 2) would a data recovery sevice be able to extract files from the disc, and if so any estimates as to cost?

All relevant experiences and suggestions welcome.

Thanks,

Stephen Priest
CNN Atlanta

__._,_.___

Posted by: Andi Meek <kwikpasta@hotmail.com>
Reply via web post Reply to sender Reply to group Start a New Topic Messages in this topic (2)

.

__,_._,___

Re: [Avid-L2] Re: GPU for Resolve and MC

 

The GTX cards run a lot hotter than a quadro but that's easily fixed with more fans. Ive not noticed any issues with any OFX plugins in resolve with the expansion box i have but i dont really do after effects on that box so cant speak to other host applications.

A note on rendering in a resolve. You tend to park on a still frame so the render speed just allows quicker more direct feedback with more grade nodes active. The actual 'render' at the end of a TVC is in my experience never longer than 10 minutes - it takes longer to copy the rendered frames to the client drive.

Its interesting how different all my workstations are now. The Flame is a Z820 with Quadro K6000s, the Davinci is 780s, the Avid has a 680 and after effects boxes have a wide variety of cards, yet none of them feel slower than the rest. I think its fair to say any modern graphics card has a mass of computational power that we old timers think everything is near instantaneous. But then I remember a matrix blur taking 7 seconds a frame in the Harry...

bets regards

Mike

On 4/4/15 3:04 PM, 'Jim Tierney' jim@digitalanarchy.com [Avid-L2] wrote:
 

The Quadros have higher quality memory (part of the reason they're so expensive relative to the performance) and are better tested, so in theory they're more stable. For the purposes of a visual effects workstation I don't think this is that critical. We recommend the GTX cards for our plugins. You just get a lot more for your money and the 980/Titan Z are just super fast. However, for a render node that's going to be rendering 24/7, the Quadros may offer some value due to the increased stability.

 

The high end GTX cards always perform better than the Quadros, as that's where all the new technology shows up first. Again, in theory, this means it's more likely to be buggy, but in our tests the GTX cards haven't been less stable than the Quadros. The newer Quadros (e.g. K5200) are reasonably fast but a Titan Z is going to blow it away for half the price. I wouldn't go so far as to say avoid the Quadros, you're just going to get more speed for your money with the gamer cards.

 

A note on the expansion chassis… the video cards seem to be harder to recognize from a software point of view. We've had a few reports that the Cubix Expansion doesn't work with our plugins and may not work with other apps or plugins. It _does_ work with Resolve and there are definitely folks using them, but if you're getting one of the chassis to speed up specific software, check with the manufacturer that the software supports the chassis you're thinking of buying.

 

 

Cheers,

Jim

--------------- 

Jim Tierney

Digital Anarchy

Visual Effects Plugins

 

From: Avid-L2@yahoogroups.com [mailto:Avid-L2@yahoogroups.com]
Sent: Friday, April 3, 2015 7:38 PM
To: Avid-L2@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Avid-L2] Re: GPU for Resolve and MC

 

 

Once again I was told directly from the Resolve engineers the Quadro 4K was old news about a year and a half ago.  They were all about the GTX series with it's additional Cuda cores.  Are these Quadro K4000 etc...  something new and different from the Quadros I was told to avoid by Resolve engineers?  Is this something more about PC vs. Mac.  When I went through this the Quadros were way more expensive than the GTX-680 and performed much worse according to the Resolve folks.  Was I mislead or have things changed?  At the time I was under the impression the Quadros were yesterdays technology and were being abandoned.  Did I get this wrong?



---In Avid-L2@yahoogroups.com, <tcurren@...> wrote :

The good news is you are in a PC so you have more slots to work with. Depending upon the card you pick and the power supply in your system, you might have to supplement it. I had to add an external power supply because my Z800 had the 750 watt power supply but some shipped with an 1100 watt supply.

 

As for cards you can go for Quadro K4000, K5000, or K6000. According Greg Huson get at least 4 gigs of RAM on the card.

 


__._,_.___

Posted by: "mikeparsons.tv@gmail.com" <mikeparsons.tv@gmail.com>
Reply via web post Reply to sender Reply to group Start a New Topic Messages in this topic (13)

.

__,_._,___

Re: [Avid-L2] Re: GPU for Resolve and MC

 

The GTX cards run a lot hotter than a quadro but that's easily fixed with more fans. Ive not noticed any issues with any OFX plugins in resolve with the expansion box i have but i dont really do after effects on that box so cant speak to other host applications.

A note on rendering in a resolve. You tend to park on a still frame so the render speed just allows quicker more direct feedback with more grade nodes active. The actual 'render' at the end of a TVC is in my experience never longer than 10 minutes - it takes longer to copy the rendered frames to the client drive.

Its interesting how different all my workstations are now. The Flame is a Z820 with Quadro K6000s, the Davinci is 780s, the Avid has a 680 and after effects boxes have a wide variety of cards, yet none of them feel slower than the rest. I think its fair to say any modern graphics card has a mass of computational power that we old timers think everything is near instantaneous. But then I remember a matrix blur taking 7 seconds a frame in the Harry...

bets regards

Mike

On 4/4/15 3:04 PM, 'Jim Tierney' jim@digitalanarchy.com [Avid-L2] wrote:
 

The Quadros have higher quality memory (part of the reason they're so expensive relative to the performance) and are better tested, so in theory they're more stable. For the purposes of a visual effects workstation I don't think this is that critical. We recommend the GTX cards for our plugins. You just get a lot more for your money and the 980/Titan Z are just super fast. However, for a render node that's going to be rendering 24/7, the Quadros may offer some value due to the increased stability.

 

The high end GTX cards always perform better than the Quadros, as that's where all the new technology shows up first. Again, in theory, this means it's more likely to be buggy, but in our tests the GTX cards haven't been less stable than the Quadros. The newer Quadros (e.g. K5200) are reasonably fast but a Titan Z is going to blow it away for half the price. I wouldn't go so far as to say avoid the Quadros, you're just going to get more speed for your money with the gamer cards.

 

A note on the expansion chassis… the video cards seem to be harder to recognize from a software point of view. We've had a few reports that the Cubix Expansion doesn't work with our plugins and may not work with other apps or plugins. It _does_ work with Resolve and there are definitely folks using them, but if you're getting one of the chassis to speed up specific software, check with the manufacturer that the software supports the chassis you're thinking of buying.

 

 

Cheers,

Jim

--------------- 

Jim Tierney

Digital Anarchy

Visual Effects Plugins

 

From: Avid-L2@yahoogroups.com [mailto:Avid-L2@yahoogroups.com]
Sent: Friday, April 3, 2015 7:38 PM
To: Avid-L2@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Avid-L2] Re: GPU for Resolve and MC

 

 

Once again I was told directly from the Resolve engineers the Quadro 4K was old news about a year and a half ago.  They were all about the GTX series with it's additional Cuda cores.  Are these Quadro K4000 etc...  something new and different from the Quadros I was told to avoid by Resolve engineers?  Is this something more about PC vs. Mac.  When I went through this the Quadros were way more expensive than the GTX-680 and performed much worse according to the Resolve folks.  Was I mislead or have things changed?  At the time I was under the impression the Quadros were yesterdays technology and were being abandoned.  Did I get this wrong?



---In Avid-L2@yahoogroups.com, <tcurren@...> wrote :

The good news is you are in a PC so you have more slots to work with. Depending upon the card you pick and the power supply in your system, you might have to supplement it. I had to add an external power supply because my Z800 had the 750 watt power supply but some shipped with an 1100 watt supply.

 

As for cards you can go for Quadro K4000, K5000, or K6000. According Greg Huson get at least 4 gigs of RAM on the card.

 


__._,_.___

Posted by: "mikeparsons.tv@gmail.com" <mikeparsons.tv@gmail.com>
Reply via web post Reply to sender Reply to group Start a New Topic Messages in this topic (12)

.

__,_._,___

RE: [Avid-L2] Re: GPU for Resolve and MC

 

The Quadros have higher quality memory (part of the reason they're so expensive relative to the performance) and are better tested, so in theory they're more stable. For the purposes of a visual effects workstation I don't think this is that critical. We recommend the GTX cards for our plugins. You just get a lot more for your money and the 980/Titan Z are just super fast. However, for a render node that's going to be rendering 24/7, the Quadros may offer some value due to the increased stability.

 

The high end GTX cards always perform better than the Quadros, as that's where all the new technology shows up first. Again, in theory, this means it's more likely to be buggy, but in our tests the GTX cards haven't been less stable than the Quadros. The newer Quadros (e.g. K5200) are reasonably fast but a Titan Z is going to blow it away for half the price. I wouldn't go so far as to say avoid the Quadros, you're just going to get more speed for your money with the gamer cards.

 

A note on the expansion chassis… the video cards seem to be harder to recognize from a software point of view. We've had a few reports that the Cubix Expansion doesn't work with our plugins and may not work with other apps or plugins. It _does_ work with Resolve and there are definitely folks using them, but if you're getting one of the chassis to speed up specific software, check with the manufacturer that the software supports the chassis you're thinking of buying.

 

 

Cheers,

Jim

--------------- 

Jim Tierney

Digital Anarchy

Visual Effects Plugins

 

From: Avid-L2@yahoogroups.com [mailto:Avid-L2@yahoogroups.com]
Sent: Friday, April 3, 2015 7:38 PM
To: Avid-L2@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Avid-L2] Re: GPU for Resolve and MC

 

 

Once again I was told directly from the Resolve engineers the Quadro 4K was old news about a year and a half ago.  They were all about the GTX series with it's additional Cuda cores.  Are these Quadro K4000 etc...  something new and different from the Quadros I was told to avoid by Resolve engineers?  Is this something more about PC vs. Mac.  When I went through this the Quadros were way more expensive than the GTX-680 and performed much worse according to the Resolve folks.  Was I mislead or have things changed?  At the time I was under the impression the Quadros were yesterdays technology and were being abandoned.  Did I get this wrong?



---In Avid-L2@yahoogroups.com, <tcurren@...> wrote :

The good news is you are in a PC so you have more slots to work with. Depending upon the card you pick and the power supply in your system, you might have to supplement it. I had to add an external power supply because my Z800 had the 750 watt power supply but some shipped with an 1100 watt supply.

 

As for cards you can go for Quadro K4000, K5000, or K6000. According Greg Huson get at least 4 gigs of RAM on the card.

 

__._,_.___

Posted by: "Jim Tierney" <jim@digitalanarchy.com>
Reply via web post Reply to sender Reply to group Start a New Topic Messages in this topic (11)

.

__,_._,___
There was an error in this gadget