Since MC can only play 9 cameras, you would count each client as 31MB/s (big B). All cameras streams are being fed in real-time.
Multiply that by how many clients you have and any other push/pull clients (ProTools, After Effects, etc.) and you have a decent idea how much bandwidth you need.
Since each chassis can do 340MB/s, that means one allocation group consisting of 1 chassis would provide about 10 clients of 10:1 9-way multicam.
So if you have 5 chassis, it means you have an aggregate bandwidth of 340 x 5 = 1700. But in 5 distinct pools of 340MB/s. If it was ONE big allocation group then it would be a single 1700 MB/s pool of bandwidth.
Unless you are doing high-res (DNX145 or 1:1 SD) separate allocation group per chassis is the way to go.
HTH
On 5/27/2014 6:06 PM, bigfish@pacbell.net [Avid-L2] wrote:
Multiply that by how many clients you have and any other push/pull clients (ProTools, After Effects, etc.) and you have a decent idea how much bandwidth you need.
Since each chassis can do 340MB/s, that means one allocation group consisting of 1 chassis would provide about 10 clients of 10:1 9-way multicam.
So if you have 5 chassis, it means you have an aggregate bandwidth of 340 x 5 = 1700. But in 5 distinct pools of 340MB/s. If it was ONE big allocation group then it would be a single 1700 MB/s pool of bandwidth.
Unless you are doing high-res (DNX145 or 1:1 SD) separate allocation group per chassis is the way to go.
HTH
On 5/27/2014 6:06 PM, bigfish@pacbell.net [Avid-L2] wrote:
We are very multicam/multigroup heavy with 9 plus cameras in a multigroup. Efx are minimal for most episodes. In light of that would I be correct to multiply 3.1 Mb/s by 9 cameras and let's just round it to ten so each edit bay would be pulling 31Mb/s? Or is it a smaller multiple because only one image from a multi group is playing and updating at a time. I don't spend much time in a multicam sequence as I'm onlining so I don't know if all the images in the 9 up display play in real time. I think they do, can someone confirm?
Given the heavy use of multigroup clips would that make it more advantageous to go with a single allocation group for the sake of bandwidth?
__._,_.___
Posted by: "Dom Q. Silverio" <domqsilverio@gmail.com>
| Reply via web post | • | Reply to sender | • | Reply to group | • | Start a New Topic | • | Messages in this topic (7) |
.
__,_._,___
No comments:
Post a Comment