Thx, Jeff and Dom!
J
| Reply via web post | Reply to sender | Reply to group | Start a New Topic | Messages in this topic (4) |
Greg Huson wrote:
> We do the same. Do not mixdown to xdcam35, either- use a DNx.
Yes! Sorry to have left that out. Mixing-down to DNxHD 145 or equivalent
(60, 75, 115) for working frame size and frame rate.
-Jeff
We do the same. Do not mixdown to xdcam35, either- use a DNx.
________________________
Greg Huson
Secret Headquarters, Inc
Greg (at) SecretHQ.com
www.SecretHQ.com
DigitalServicsStation.com
On Oct 20, 2012, at 9:43 AM, Jeff Young <jymedia.com@gmail.com> wrote:
> Job ter Burg (L2B) wrote:
>
> > Downside of working in XDCAM35 and rendering in 145 is that you loose fast
> > same-as-source exports. Like mentioned here before: you need to pay at some
> > point.
>
> I use Video Mixdown to get around transcoding for this. Even without Long
> GOP media, in this era of mixed codecs, raster dimensions, and frame rates,
> I feel better about mixing down before exporting.
>
> -Jeff
>
>
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
| Reply via web post | Reply to sender | Reply to group | Start a New Topic | Messages in this topic () |
Job ter Burg (L2B) wrote:
> Downside of working in XDCAM35 and rendering in 145 is that you loose fast
> same-as-source exports. Like mentioned here before: you need to pay at some
> point.
I use Video Mixdown to get around transcoding for this. Even without Long
GOP media, in this era of mixed codecs, raster dimensions, and frame rates,
I feel better about mixing down before exporting.
-Jeff
| Reply via web post | Reply to sender | Reply to group | Start a New Topic | Messages in this topic (10) |
It's been my experience that once you tell the chassis to go 10 gig, the 1 gig ports stop working- the only version I had tested that with was 3.1. 4.0 may have different results.
Sounds like you're doing a single chassis setup.. what you need to look at is total bandwidth delivered to clients at a given moment. So- if you're needing 3 systems to possibly hit Dnx 185, the math needs to be done for the number of possible streams.
Your reseller should be able to run a config tool to determine that you're getting what you might need. A Network degraded warning can make life un-fun.
It will run rings around your lanshare.. you'll like it.
JDS
--- In Avid-L2@yahoogroups.com, Job ter Burg <Job_L2@...> wrote:
>
>
> Dear list,
>
> I'm considering using the current promotion to upgrade to an ISIS 5000 (from Lanshare EX3 Fibre) and am wondering about connection speeds.
>
> 99% of my work is offline editorial in DNxHD36 or DNxHD115, with up to 100 hours of footage for a project. So a 16TB model would likely accomodate that rather easily (100 hours of DNxHD175 is around 7.5TB). I occasionally do some TV work where I work in DNxHD185 all the time (I usually work from single internal SATA drives for that, not from the Lanshare).
>
> My VAR suggested two options:
>
> 1. connect my main system dual-1G to two of the 1G ports on the base model, connect two other systems over single 1G
>
> 2. add the optional 10G port to the ISIS crate, add a 10G card to my main system, and connect the other two systems over dual-1G.
>
> The Q is whether in your collective opinions it would be wiser to spring for the extra cash to add a 10G connection option.
>
> Also, since I'm used to working with Fibre on the Lanshare, would the switch to 1G ethernet feel as a slowdown? Does dual-1G make much of a difference for general editing, or is it more relevant when it comes to copying speeds?
>
> Thanks in advance for any advice you may be able to offer.
>
> Job
>
| Reply via web post | Reply to sender | Reply to group | Start a New Topic | Messages in this topic (3) |
Hi Job
1. Double check to make sure mix dual and single 1Gb direct connect is
supported. If it is, it not a bad option. Remember that you can also add
another Intel host card and add more ports (I think 4 more 1Gb ports).
2. This is the most flexible option but can be pricey as you would need
a switch, 10Gb module for both switch and server, XFP for the switch and
SFP for the server. You can use third party XFP/SFPs to save some money
(several hundred US $).
3. ISIS speed is faster than LANShare. A single 1Gb connection will
achieve you 110 MB/s transfer rate. Dual connection is about 150-185
MB/s. The entire system has a limit of around 350MB/s. Mounting drives,
opening/closing bins, scrubbing are faster with ISIS compared to
LANshare. We have have an ISIS 5000 with (2) 32TB chassis servicing 20
systems (8 edits, 12 screeners) editing with DNX145. They where
previously on Unity 5 with 4 (16TB) chassis.
HTH
DQS
On 10/20/2012 11:00 AM, Job ter Burg wrote:
> Dear list,
>
> I'm considering using the current promotion to upgrade to an ISIS 5000 (from Lanshare EX3 Fibre) and am wondering about connection speeds.
>
> 99% of my work is offline editorial in DNxHD36 or DNxHD115, with up to 100 hours of footage for a project. So a 16TB model would likely accomodate that rather easily (100 hours of DNxHD175 is around 7.5TB). I occasionally do some TV work where I work in DNxHD185 all the time (I usually work from single internal SATA drives for that, not from the Lanshare).
>
> My VAR suggested two options:
>
> 1. connect my main system dual-1G to two of the 1G ports on the base model, connect two other systems over single 1G
>
> 2. add the optional 10G port to the ISIS crate, add a 10G card to my main system, and connect the other two systems over dual-1G.
>
> The Q is whether in your collective opinions it would be wiser to spring for the extra cash to add a 10G connection option.
>
> Also, since I'm used to working with Fibre on the Lanshare, would the switch to 1G ethernet feel as a slowdown? Does dual-1G make much of a difference for general editing, or is it more relevant when it comes to copying speeds?
>
> Thanks in advance for any advice you may be able to offer.
>
> Job
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Search the official Complete Avid-L archives at: http://archives.bengrosser.com/avid/
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
| Reply via web post | Reply to sender | Reply to group | Start a New Topic | Messages in this topic (2) |
Dear list,
I'm considering using the current promotion to upgrade to an ISIS 5000 (from Lanshare EX3 Fibre) and am wondering about connection speeds.
99% of my work is offline editorial in DNxHD36 or DNxHD115, with up to 100 hours of footage for a project. So a 16TB model would likely accomodate that rather easily (100 hours of DNxHD175 is around 7.5TB). I occasionally do some TV work where I work in DNxHD185 all the time (I usually work from single internal SATA drives for that, not from the Lanshare).
My VAR suggested two options:
1. connect my main system dual-1G to two of the 1G ports on the base model, connect two other systems over single 1G
2. add the optional 10G port to the ISIS crate, add a 10G card to my main system, and connect the other two systems over dual-1G.
The Q is whether in your collective opinions it would be wiser to spring for the extra cash to add a 10G connection option.
Also, since I'm used to working with Fibre on the Lanshare, would the switch to 1G ethernet feel as a slowdown? Does dual-1G make much of a difference for general editing, or is it more relevant when it comes to copying speeds?
Thanks in advance for any advice you may be able to offer.
Job
| Reply via web post | Reply to sender | Reply to group | Start a New Topic | Messages in this topic (1) |
Downside of working in XDCAM35 and rendering in 145 is that you loose fast same-as-source exports. Like mentioned here before: you need to pay at some point.
Sent from my iPad
On Oct 20, 2012, at 4:54, David Chmura <dchmura.lists@gmail.com> wrote:
> I agree with Greg... just edit in XDCAM35 and render to DNxHD, probably DNxHD145. Don't use AMA for editing, though, of course-- consolidate to one of your media drives.
>
> That seems to be pretty much the standard approach, as far as I can tell. DNxHD is a bit easier to work with, but the transcode is a killer!
>
>
>
| Reply via web post | Reply to sender | Reply to group | Start a New Topic | Messages in this topic (9) |
I agree with Greg... just edit in XDCAM35 and render to DNxHD, probably DNxHD145. Don't use AMA for editing, though, of course-- consolidate to one of your media drives.
That seems to be pretty much the standard approach, as far as I can tell. DNxHD is a bit easier to work with, but the transcode is a killer!
On Oct 16, 2012, at 12:28 PM, Greg Huson wrote:
> I'm not sure I agree that 100 is 'good enough.' XDCam35 is NOT 'decimated raster, (1440x1080), but rather full raster (1920x1080.) Seems like a pretty serious transcode.
>
> Why not just use XDCam35? Unless you're doing lots of layering, or your CPU is a dog, MXF-wrapped XDCam35 should work well, and you're not really transcoding at all. Yes, XDCam is theoretically not necessarily a good editing format, but we've found it works quite well when re-wrapped and managed as an Avid-native file. I would, definitely, NOT leave it in AMA, but either 'transcode' or import to XDCam35 MXF.
>
> Try it- if you don't like it blame me privately and refuse to ever work with me again.
>
> Probably best NOT to set your renders to XDCam35, though, but rather use 145 (or better.)
>
> Just my opinion. There are others, and I'd love to hear from other L2-ers who've used this strategy and had a BAD experience.
>
> gh
> ----------------------------------------------------
> Greg Huson
> Secret Headquarters, Inc
> Post Production / Production
> Culver City, CA
> 323 677 2092
> www.DigitalServiceStation.com
> greg (at) SecretHQ.com
> www.SecretHQ.com
>
>
>
>
> On Oct 16, 2012, at 8:39 AM, electropura212 <electropura212@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> My guess is DNX 100 is aimed at people transcoding from DVCPRO HD, which is
>> 100 mb/sec. I would think its plenty sufficient for XDCAM 35.
>>
>> On Tuesday, October 16, 2012, Curtis Nichols wrote:
>>
>>> **
>>>
>>>
>>> The next project coming in this week will involve XDCAM footage shot at
>>> 35mbit. I'm pretty happy that my XDCAM AMA plug-in still works.
>>> Poking around the new features of 6.5, I'm considering transcoding to
>>> DNxHD100 instead of 145. 145 takes three times as long to transcode, and
>>> uses 45% more space.
>>> Since the original footage is 35mb, shouldn't DNxHD100 be sufficient? I
>>> wouldn't get any benefits from 145, would I?
>>>
>>> I've done a split screen test. I don't see any difference, but I want to
>>> be sure I'm not throwing away something that will help with color grading
>>> later. This is a corporate piece with very few, if any, effects; but will
>>> be shown in HD projection.
>>> Thanks for your advice.
>>>
>>> Curtis Nichols
>>> Señor Editor
>>> PCS Production Co.
>>> Irving, Tx.
>>>
>>> ------------------
>>>
>>> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------
>>
>> Search the official Complete Avid-L archives at: http://archives.bengrosser.com/avid/
>> Yahoo! Groups Links
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Search the official Complete Avid-L archives at: http://archives.bengrosser.com/avid/
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
| Reply via web post | Reply to sender | Reply to group | Start a New Topic | Messages in this topic (8) |
I think if you spoof the software that your drive is Avid File System, MC and Symphony does the rest.
DQS
On Oct 19, 2012, at 4:02 PM, avid@spraker.tv wrote:
> It's not something they shout about...
>
> Dave Spraker
> spraker.tv
>
>> Are you sure about Editshare? I thought they were doing some workarounds
>> to achieve a similar experience. But I reserve the right to be wrong here.
>>
>> --- In Avid-L2@yahoogroups.com, Mark Spano <cutandcover@...> wrote:
>>>
>>> And EditShare.
>>>
>>> On Fri, Oct 19, 2012 at 11:51 AM, Terence Curren <tcurren@...> wrote:
>>>
>>>> **
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I doubt it is Unity style sharing. I think that is truly only fully
>>>> functional in Avid products and Terrablock.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --- In Avid-L2@yahoogroups.com, Jay Mahavier <jay_mahavier@> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> So, is this true Unity style bin sharing with bin locking? Or is it
>>> bin
>>>> swapping with I can do over any network or even with thumb drives.
>>> Sharing
>>>> media is easy. It's the Unity style project/bin sharing that I'm
>>> interested
>>>> in.
>>>>>
>>>>> Jay
>>>>>
>>>>> On Oct 19, 2012, at 7:32 AM, oliverpetersvidy wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Apparently a new option:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://www.vidsharx.com
>>>>>>
>>>>>> - Oliver
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ------------------------------------
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Search the official Complete Avid-L archives at:
>>>> http://archives.bengrosser.com/avid/
>>>>>> Yahoo! Groups Links
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Search the official Complete Avid-L archives at: http://archives.bengrosser.com/avid/
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
| Reply via web post | Reply to sender | Reply to group | Start a New Topic | Messages in this topic (13) |
It's not something they shout about...
Dave Spraker
spraker.tv
> Are you sure about Editshare? I thought they were doing some workarounds
> to achieve a similar experience. But I reserve the right to be wrong here.
>
> --- In Avid-L2@yahoogroups.com, Mark Spano <cutandcover@...> wrote:
>>
>> And EditShare.
>>
>> On Fri, Oct 19, 2012 at 11:51 AM, Terence Curren <tcurren@...> wrote:
>>
>> > **
>> >
>> >
>> > I doubt it is Unity style sharing. I think that is truly only fully
>> > functional in Avid products and Terrablock.
>> >
>> >
>> > --- In Avid-L2@yahoogroups.com, Jay Mahavier <jay_mahavier@> wrote:
>> > >
>> > > So, is this true Unity style bin sharing with bin locking? Or is it
>> bin
>> > swapping with I can do over any network or even with thumb drives.
>> Sharing
>> > media is easy. It's the Unity style project/bin sharing that I'm
>> interested
>> > in.
>> > >
>> > > Jay
>> > >
>> > > On Oct 19, 2012, at 7:32 AM, oliverpetersvidy wrote:
>> > >
>> > > > Apparently a new option:
>> > > >
>> > > > http://www.vidsharx.com
>> > > >
>> > > > - Oliver
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > > ------------------------------------
>> > > >
>> > > > Search the official Complete Avid-L archives at:
>> > http://archives.bengrosser.com/avid/
>> > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > > >
>> > >
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>>
>
>
>
| Reply via web post | Reply to sender | Reply to group | Start a New Topic | Messages in this topic (12) |
Terry -
EditShare has the full "Avid Style" sharing mode now as well.
Dave Spraker
spraker.tv
> I doubt it is Unity style sharing. I think that is truly only fully
> functional in Avid products and Terrablock.
>
> --- In Avid-L2@yahoogroups.com, Jay Mahavier <jay_mahavier@...> wrote:
>>
>> So, is this true Unity style bin sharing with bin locking? Or is it bin
>> swapping with I can do over any network or even with thumb drives.
>> Sharing media is easy. It's the Unity style project/bin sharing that
>> I'm interested in.
>>
>> Jay
>>
>> On Oct 19, 2012, at 7:32 AM, oliverpetersvidy wrote:
>>
>> > Apparently a new option:
>> >
>> > http://www.vidsharx.com
>> >
>> > - Oliver
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > ------------------------------------
>> >
>> > Search the official Complete Avid-L archives at:
>> http://archives.bengrosser.com/avid/
>> > Yahoo! Groups Links
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>
>
| Reply via web post | Reply to sender | Reply to group | Start a New Topic | Messages in this topic (11) |
