Options
Related

HD (High Definition) and a way to make it work??

Okay...

So I have a video screen that is about 60' wide by 16' tall being driven by by Catalysts machines though an Edge Blender to three XGA projectors. The problem is that I am no longer doing piece content but content that spans all three projectors. So basically, One Image and Three Projectors. This is a tremendous waste of Catalyst and the synchronization across Catalysts is killing me.

It makes much more sense for me to run a single media server to playback than to run three and try to sync them. I am interested in solutions.

For Instance:
Matrox makes a device called a TripleHead2Go. This is an idiot box that takes a single feed from a PC computer and splits it into three screens wide.
For example, I would set my PC to display 3072 x 768 (3072 is 3 x 1024). I feed this into the Box and it takes the first 1024 and puts it on monitor 1, the second 1024 on monitor 2, and the third on monitor 3.

The TripleHead2Go requires the source computer to have a custom raster size (in this case 3072 x 768) which it splits into three images. I use 1024 x 768 as my reference since that is the display resolution of my projectors.

The wish I have is that I could run two Catalysts outputting HD at 1080p on two sides of a DMX video crossfader and that from the crossfader I could output the HD file and split it to send a third each to the three screens.
Yes, to all of you who know... This sounds like a job for a screenPro2 from Folsom but since I don't have $60,000 to spend on that switcher, and I don't need it, I want to find a better and cheaper way which does the same job.
Any suggestions are appreciated.
  • what practical output resolution would you like to get to the projectors?

    you might like to try running a single triple head 2 go at 640x480 to each projector with a single 1920x480 photo jpeg movie- split to each projector.

    see how it looks?

    i suspect a movie size of 3072 x 768 - isnt going to work just yet due to opengl and possibly os issues. i probably need to start testing larger movies in wider aspect ratios.

    i have just - at a pinch been able to run 2x 1280x720 movies on shows off a 15k rpm scsi drive.

    i have been able to run 4 movies at 1024x768 using an xserve raid off a single mac.
    i did a show in corsica last year with 2 machines - each using one half of an xserve raid, each running 4 movies at 1024x768.
  • [quote=developer]
    what practical output resolution would you like to get to the projectors?

    The projectors are native at 1024 x 768. I would prefer to keep close to that with stills. What I normally do is build everything in photoshop and just cut the final files with a bit of overlap so that when placed, are pixel to pixel matched. The thing is, the pixels end up being a 1/4" x 1/4" in size. I know this seems small but the application is to be a background for a speaker standing within 10' of the screen. Since this is all on TV, graininess has to be minimal.

    [quote=developer]
    you might like to try running a single triple head 2 go at 640x480 to each projector with a single 1920x480 photo jpeg movie- split to each projector.

    Since you just got the software to do HD, I don't think I'll try to test it. Especially since the codecs are already specified for 1920 x 1080. What I will do though is just keep pjs at higher rez and zoom the file to the screen width.
    Also, because I cannot have any jerk, I probably won't jump right into photoJPG but keep content in a simpler codec. I would rather sacrifice color depth than divulge jitters.

    [quote=developer]
    i suspect a movie size of 3072 x 768 - isnt going to work just yet due to opengl and possibly os issues. i probably need to start testing larger movies in wider aspect ratios.

    Actually, my screen is 2816 x 768. Edge blending eats up 256 pixels.
    Until we jumped into the whole 3head2go discussion a short time ago, I was prepared to just propose buying a screenPro Scaler/Switcher. I had (and still have) been driving each of the three pjs with its own Catlyst.
    When I was using spandex and no edge blending, this method was fine because no one noticed differences between projectors. Now that It's one large edge blended screen, the seams between Catalyst can be seen.
    I have been creating content that is 2816 x 768 that I would chop to fit on screens of 1024 x 768 or 1760 x 480 which I would chop to 640 x 480.
    Oh and since your cap is 2048 x 2048, wouldn't that mean 3072 isn't possible anyway?
  • [quote=developer]
    i have just - at a pinch been able to run 2x 1280x720 movies on shows off a 15k rpm scsi drive.

    i have been able to run 4 movies at 1024x768 using an xserve raid off a single mac.

    i did a show in corsica last year with 2 machines - each using one half of an xserve raid, each running 4 movies at 1024x768.


    So I'm thinking about spending the money to by a new MacPro that I would put a Quatro FX 4500 in.
    It would suck to have to dump money into an xServe as well.

    Do you actually think I need an xServe RAID for playback and seek time?
    What about just putting three 15k SCSIs in a stripe set inside the MacPro? Wouldn't that outperform the data throughput from the xServer RAIDs fibre channel?
    It would matter for seek time on the xServe RAID since their only using SATA drives. If I were to also add an xServe RAID, what kind of configuration? Obviously I don't need the storage as much as I need the speed so 14 drives in a stripe is a little excessive.

    What have you tested? What do you use in your xServe RAIDs? Have you tried striping SCSI 15ks in your Mac Pro?

    [quote=developer]
    ...2x 1280x720 movies on shows off a 15k...

    That's impressive! Was your compression about 70%? Were there any noticeable (even if only you noticed) skips or jerks?

    [quote=developer]
    i have been able to run 4 movies at 1024x768 using an xserve raid off a single mac.

    This is about 3.15 mega-pixels. If I were to run 6 movies at 800 x 600 that would be 2.88 mega-pixels. That being the case, wouldn't you agree that if I was running 2 files at 2400 x 600 on a 3head2go that I would be within your tested threshold?
  • [QUOTE=SourceChild]The projectors are native at 1024 x 768. I would prefer to keep close to that with stills. What I normally do is build everything in photoshop and just cut the final files with a bit of overlap so that when placed, are pixel to pixel matched. The thing is, the pixels end up being a 1/4" x 1/4" in size. I know this seems small but the application is to be a background for a speaker standing within 10' of the screen. Since this is all on TV, graininess has to be minimal.


    if its on tv resolution of tv is much much smaller than this -
    you using standard def tv?

    [QUOTE=SourceChild]
    Since you just got the software to do HD, I don't think I'll try to test it.


    No - software did HD resolutions 3 years ago- v3 did it - from the very first time it was released.
    lots of people have been using higher resolutions since then.
    there is no difference between v3 and v4 in video resolution or size or functionality.

    [QUOTE=SourceChild]
    Especially since the codecs are already specified for 1920 x 1080. What I will do though is just keep pjs at higher rez and zoom the file to the screen width.
    Also, because I cannot have any jerk, I probably won't jump right into photoJPG but keep content in a simpler codec. I would rather sacrifice color depth than divulge jitters.


    Dont know what you mean by 'simpler codecs'....
    I test over 100 different codecs and codec combinations at all sizes-
    and photo jpeg is the fastest of ALL of them.
    And the only one that works well enough for multiple layers.
    If you use 50% compression you can get 1920x1080 to work.

    thats why i recommend it - because its the fastest at higher resolutions.

    [QUOTE=SourceChild]

    Actually, my screen is 2816 x 768. Edge blending eats up 256 pixels.
    Until we jumped into the whole 3head2go discussion a short time ago, I was prepared to just propose buying a screenPro Scaler/Switcher. I had (and still have) been driving each of the three pjs with its own Catlyst.
    When I was using spandex and no edge blending, this method was fine because no one noticed differences between projectors. Now that It's one large edge blended screen, the seams between Catalyst can be seen.
    I have been creating content that is 2816 x 768 that I would chop to fit on screens of 1024 x 768 or 1760 x 480 which I would chop to 640 x 480.
    Oh and since your cap is 2048 x 2048, wouldn't that mean 3072 isn't possible anyway?

    there are different limits....

    there was a limit on the maximum size of textures-
    limited by graphics cards - that sets the maximum possible size of an image. it used to be 2048x2048 - i think some of the highend cards have increased this.

    there is also a limit on the maximum size of the screen -
    also set by the graphics cards - some support 3072x1024 - some dont - and they dont support it at all refresh rates.

    these number depend on graphics card - not on my software.
  • [QUOTE=SourceChild]So I'm thinking about spending the money to by a new MacPro that I would put a Quatro FX 4500 in.

    in quad g5's 4500 performed no better than 7800.
    and in intel mac - reports have indicated that x1900 performs as well as 4500.
    so why spend $1500 dollars - for nothing.
    [QUOTE=SourceChild]
    It would suck to have to dump money into an xServe as well.



    you mean the xServe RAID - its a hard disc system-
    they have phenomenal performance if setup and used correctly.
    you can get 40-50 layers of movies from a 14 disc system - if you use the xSAN file system - and create multiple RAIDS.

    you can split the layers up between 6 computers at the same time.
    BUT - its takes some time to setup and configure.

    [QUOTE=SourceChild]
    Do you actually think I need an xServe RAID for playback and seek time?
    What about just putting three 15k SCSIs in a stripe set inside the MacPro? Wouldn't that outperform the data throughput from the xServer RAIDs fibre channel?

    i do not know - you will have to test.
    the xserve raid has a huge disc cache. much more than scsi discs.
    512MB of cache for each RAID controller - and there are 2 of these in the xServe RAID.
    [QUOTE=SourceChild]
    It would matter for seek time on the xServe RAID since their only using SATA drives. If I were to also add an xServe RAID, what kind of configuration? Obviously I don't need the storage as much as I need the speed so 14 drives in a stripe is a little excessive.

    the 4 drive xServe RAID works well.
    i have one. it scales nicely.

    [QUOTE=SourceChild]
    What have you tested? What do you use in your xServe RAIDs? Have you tried striping SCSI 15ks in your Mac Pro?


    i havent got around to doing raid tests on mac pro.

    [QUOTE=SourceChild]
    That's impressive! Was your compression about 70%? Were there any noticeable (even if only you noticed) skips or jerks?

    i just did a 5 machine 360 degree panorama in germany with this.
    10000x720 pixels in size. 9 screens.
    using photojpeg 50% - you have to use 50% - at this resolution.
    it looks fine.
    all synced to midi time code.

    [QUOTE=SourceChild]
    This is about 3.15 mega-pixels. If I were to run 6 movies at 800 x 600 that would be 2.88 mega-pixels. That being the case, wouldn't you agree that if I was running 2 files at 2400 x 600 on a 3head2go that I would be within your tested threshold?
    mega-pixels is meaningless really.

    you have to try it and see.
    i dont have a 'tested' threshold - there are way too many variables.

www.etcconnect.com