CinePaint

Email Archive: cinepaint-users (read-only)

2003:	_Jan	_Feb	_Mar (62)	_Apr (84)	_May (43)	_Jun (22)	_Jul (13)	_Aug (17)	_Sep (22)	_Oct (41)	_Nov (32)	_Dec (23)
2004:	_Jan (18)	_Feb (26)	_Mar (32)	_Apr (26)	_May	_Jun	_Jul (19)	_Aug (26)	_Sep (11)	_Oct (10)	_Nov (4)	_Dec (10)
2005:	_Jan (9)	_Feb (7)	_Mar (9)	_Apr (8)	_May (26)	_Jun (46)	_Jul (15)	_Aug (3)	_Sep	_Oct (13)	_Nov (26)	_Dec (8)
2006:	_Jan (11)	_Feb (30)	_Mar (29)	_Apr (15)	_May (21)	_Jun (40)	_Jul (22)	_Aug (58)	_Sep (36)	_Oct (11)	_Nov (53)	_Dec (36)
2007:	_Jan (102)	_Feb (6)	_Mar (6)	_Apr (15)	_May (8)	_Jun (23)	_Jul (1)	_Aug (17)	_Sep (7)	_Oct (10)	_Nov (13)	_Dec (3)
2008:	_Jan (11)	_Feb (14)	_Mar (86)	_Apr (52)	_May (2)	_Jun (3)	_Jul (15)	_Aug (10)	_Sep (17)	_Oct (29)	_Nov (35)	_Dec (20)
2009:	_Jan (4)	_Feb (3)	_Mar	_Apr (4)	_May (2)	_Jun (4)	_Jul	_Aug (8)	_Sep (7)	_Oct (15)	_Nov (28)	_Dec (1)
2010:	_Jan (3)	_Feb	_Mar	_Apr	_May	_Jun	_Jul	_Aug	_Sep	_Oct	_Nov	_Dec

Re: [CinePaint] 100 frames max limit in flipbook

From: adrian hauser <ahauser@oz...> - 2006-02-04 22:24

Thanks for your replies Bob and Robin.

I am evaluating the Pixel Farm product this coming week.
I am heading up the DI arm of a post company here in Australia
using Iridas products on a 2k playback spec'd XP workstation.

Could you explain the fundamental difference between an application
that can work with ram cached images to one that can work direct
off disk as a DDR. I really like the way Speedgrade, for example, seems
to do both.

Adrian Hauser

Re: [CinePaint] 100 frames max limit in flipbook

From: Robin Rowe <rower@mo...> - 2006-02-07 19:21

Adrian,

> Could you explain the fundamental difference between an application
> that can work with ram cached images to one that can work direct
> off disk as a DDR.

RAM is much faster. Without very fast drives, DI playback (12MB * 24 fps
=> 288Mbyte/sec) will exceed the io bandwidth of the hard drive. A SATA
drive goes 300Mbyte/sec max, and Ultra ATA is just 100Mbyte/sec max.
RAID striping is typically used to increase disk io bandwidth.

It's a similar problem to video from the Internet, where playback can
halt due to network io limits. It would be nice if someone would
implement DDR playback in CinePaint, but so far not.

Robin

Re: [CinePaint] 100 frames max limit in flipbook

From: Bob Friesenhahn <bfriesen@si...> - 2006-02-07 18:22

On Sun, 5 Feb 2006, adrian hauser wrote:

> Thanks for your replies Bob and Robin.
>
> I am evaluating the Pixel Farm product this coming week.
> I am heading up the DI arm of a post company here in Australia
> using Iridas products on a 2k playback spec'd XP workstation.
>
> Could you explain the fundamental difference between an application
> that can work with ram cached images to one that can work direct
> off disk as a DDR. I really like the way Speedgrade, for example, seems to do
> both.

Software which is capable of playing an unlimited sequence of images
in real time is necessarily extremely optimized. So it may only
support a few formats, and specific sub-formats of those formats.
Many simplifying assumptions are made so that the code can be as fast
as possible and not have to waste time making decisions. The reading
and displaying code are likely multithreaded so while an image is
being copied to the display adaptor, the next image is already being
read. The amount of code in a real-time playback application is
likely to be rather small since it is designed to do just one thing,
and do that one thing very well.

The result is the opposite of a general purpose application like
CinePaint which must support many formats and images of wildly
different size and depth.

Does Speedgrade support loading and effective manipulation of images
which are 16K pixels across?

Bob
======================================
Bob Friesenhahn
bfriesen@simple.dallas.tx.us, http://www.simplesystems.org/users/bfriesen/
GraphicsMagick Maintainer, http://www.GraphicsMagick.org/

Re: [CinePaint] 100 frames max limit in flipbook

From: Bob Friesenhahn <bfriesen@si...> - 2006-02-07 19:56

On Tue, 7 Feb 2006, Robin Rowe wrote:

> RAM is much faster. Without very fast drives, DI playback (12MB * 24 fps =>
> 288Mbyte/sec) will exceed the io bandwidth of the hard drive. A SATA drive
> goes 300Mbyte/sec max, and Ultra ATA is just 100Mbyte/sec max. RAID striping
> is typically used to increase disk io bandwidth.

The situation is actually a bit worse than that. 1.5Gbit SATA
actually does only 150MB/second. The drive interface rate (burst
rate) is not the same as the actual rate that data can be streamed
from the drive. So the drive may only support 40 or 50MB per second.
Today's fastest drives can stream maybe 85MB per second. Usually the
fastest drives (typically with SCSI or Fibre Channel interfaces) are
not used in RAID servers since it is much cheaper to use more cheap
SATA drives. RAID systems based on the fast drives are extremely
expensive with an entry price of maybe $20K for a small amount of
storage but you could easily spend well over $100K.

You would need a RAID system with about 8 SATA drives and a fast
Ultra-320 RAID controller in order to provide reliable real-time
playback for a short period of time.

Bob

Re: [CinePaint] 100 frames max limit in flipbook

From: <barrie@pi...> - 2006-02-08 08:57

Everything said so far is correct. so if i may add my experience in here...

technically it is much more challenging for an array to playback a sequence
of files, as against one large video file.
i.e one hundred x 7meg DPX files are more demanding to play than one x 700
meg video file.

And the type of drives make a big difference.
SATA have difficulty with single files (Flipbook), and FibreChannel do not
have difficulty. That is why Sata is cheaper.

The other technical consideration is the connection from the bus to the
drives.

I have a Quad 2Gb fibrechannel card on my Linux box, with 4 pairs of FC
connecting to a 32-drive Xyratex Raid X24 with true FC drives installed, and
I CAN playback targa images and dpx files in realtime.
But another system we have with dual FC and 16 spindles of SATA is NOT
realtime. But both systems are very happy to play uncomssed 10bit HD at
4:4:4 video files.

So the theoretical limits are only a rough guide

Barrie Williams
www.pixelfantastic.com

BTW the DDR system we are using is IFX Piranha.

----- Original Message -----
From: "Bob Friesenhahn" <bfriesen@simple.dallas.tx.us>
To: "Robin Rowe" <rower@movieeditor.com>
Cc: <cinepaint-users@lists.sourceforge.net>
Sent: Tuesday, February 07, 2006 7:56 PM
Subject: Re: [CinePaint] 100 frames max limit in flipbook

> On Tue, 7 Feb 2006, Robin Rowe wrote:
>
>> RAM is much faster. Without very fast drives, DI playback (12MB * 24 fps
>> => 288Mbyte/sec) will exceed the io bandwidth of the hard drive. A SATA
>> drive goes 300Mbyte/sec max, and Ultra ATA is just 100Mbyte/sec max. RAID
>> striping is typically used to increase disk io bandwidth.

CinePaint

Email Archive: cinepaint-users (read-only)

About SourceForge

Find Software

Develop Software

Community

Help