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.
Parents
  • [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.
Reply
  • [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.
Children
No Data

www.etcconnect.com