Thread: 6 ROCKETS and REDCINE-X PRO v9

Reply to Thread
Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 21 to 24 of 24
  1. #21  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    4,086
    Quote Originally Posted by Gabriele Turchi View Post
    ps: cineform RAW (visually lossless ) was playback 4K realtime 2 years ago in a single CPU core i7 (quad core) ...
    So was Redcode, using Iridas software, before Red stepped in to stop it. As I recall (I'm sure Rob or Stuart will correct me if I'm wrong on this....), Red was concerned that Iridas' decompression/debayer was inferior to their own approach, and wanted to ensure a common result and allow for periodic improvements that were under their own control. The SDK was in part their answer to allowing third parties to directly integrate support for the format, but as you point out, Cineform has similar decompression requirements but was optimized long ago for commodity hardware.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #22  
    Senior Member Rob Anderson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Nevada
    Posts
    729
    Quote Originally Posted by Gabriele Turchi View Post
    people , this is why read is not interested on having R3D optimized for CPU multi core or GPU playback ...i bet the make as much money from RR than from cameras (if you consider how much cost them camera development and RR development (ended basically over 2 years ago (and 5K for a single component card that cost them ...well not 5K....)

    ps: cineform RAW (visually lossless ) was playback 4K realtime 2 years ago in a single CPU core i7 (quad core) ...

    g
    Yep. Pretty nice when you can buy a used 2008 x2 Quad 3.0 GHz Mac Pro tower with 16 GB of RAM, x4 2 TB hard drives, x2 SuperDrives, for $1,400 from a common online Mac reseller and the RED Rocket pays for itself, isn't it? ;) If RED dropped all rendering dependencies on the processors, I would have had to spend $9,000 on a brand-new Mac Pro tower (potentially EOL configuration by the way), just to have performance now. Instead, I'll gladly hop RR cards from station to station when a cost opportunity presents itself.

    You could easily say, I'm very satisfied with the RR approach -- but like anyone else, cheaper is always nice, so long as that's a cost reduction and not a quality or performance one.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #23  
    Senior Member Nir Shelter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Sydney Australia
    Posts
    340
    Thanks for sharing Michael.

    Good to see a bench mark test between various CODECs and RR numbers helpful for many RR owners.

    Could you look at the estimated decode transfer rates and post results for 2 X Redrocket decoding DNX 115 and say Prores 444. Simply as the FPS are indicative of the frames being written not necessarily the amount of data passing through the GPUs.
    I actually have a very similar system with a Cubix Rackmount 2 its awesome! Would be great to compare rates from different dual RR systems to see if its possible to improve on dual RR transcode times.

    Cheers, nir.
    Nir Shelter - Data wrangler/DIT/AC

    www.datashelter.com.au
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #24  
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    San Diego, CA
    Posts
    1,344
    Michael, you truly are a rockstar.
    Thank you!!!
    Reply With Quote  
     

Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts