Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in
  • Hey all, just changed over the backend after 15 years I figured time to give it a bit of an update, its probably gonna be a bit weird for most of you and i am sure there is a few bugs to work out but it should kinda work the same as before... hopefully :)

6 ROCKETS and REDCINE-X PRO v9

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

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.
 
Gabriele Turchi said:
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
Click to expand...
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.
 
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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top