What's the fastest/cheapest non RedRocket way/set up to transcode at full debayer?

[Ev Shipard]

Hey Joe,
To confirm, I just switched in Raw settings from project based to full debayer and getting between 8-10fps to proress4444 at 1080p. So still very fast and I find preferable scaling to RedCine-X. This is reading and writing off of a fast internal SSD.
The Quadro is in there for Maya.

 

[joe hedge]

So if you are looking for the most cost effective way to transcode, there really is only once answer, until GPU transcoding methods get to be more ubiquitous.

That's if, and only if, you're doing full-res debayers, which, if you're going back to the raws for CC anyway, you don't need.

A Quadro 4000 or a GTX 680, in Resolve, will get you pretty close to 2:1 transcode ratio at 5k (at half-res). At 4k, you're just as close to real time with a fast GPU as a RR is at 5k (again, at half-res).

2 MacPros transcoding 5k at half-res in Resolve would beat 1 RR card.

Basically, at this point, you're paying $5k for a RR to take a little bit of noise out of your shadows - which you can do in Resolve for free by crushing your blacks and blue channel a little bit.

 

[joe hedge]

my OS is running between 0-4% with photoshop open a browser...and a ton of little apps running

http://flic.kr/p/ejeH1P


The point being....the cineform encoder will have all your processors pinged up to 100%

Got it

But Adam is on a 2008 Mac Pro, not a PC

 

[Gunleik Groven]

You could try to set up a renderfarm.

There are quite a few who consider the CPU debayer better than the Rocket.

Redline, would be your answer.

 

[Blair S. Paulsen]

Some say the CPU decode is both better in the shadows and has a "sweeter" character overall due to more refined transitions - by which I mean the processing of edge information for Bayer reconstruction in the RedRocket hardware code is a bit more aggressive and less precise. For some TV deliverables the RR version is preferred as the edge detail "look" is more similar to expectations built through years of Sony over sharpening their HD cams and calling aliasing a feature.

BTW, I'm not arguing that MacPros are speedy machines for flipping R3Ds en masse - that's where the RR shines.

My read of the OP was a desire for RR alternatives with good price performance ratios and the ability to write ProRes. The other obvious advantage is that a MacPro can do a couple of things the RR can't ;-) as its a complete computer system vs a one trick pony accelerator card.

IAC, the row of towers distributed CPU rendering approach would be effective for some genres/workflows and not for others. Just pointing out that there many paths...

Cheers - #19

 

[Adam Howden]

Ok so I ran some basic tests on my macbook pro as my Mac Pro doesn't have a decent graphics cards, or an accelerated CUDA one at least. These were my results:

Resolution Method System Hard Disk Resolution Format Gamma Debayer Clip Length (Frames) Time
5KHD (4800x2700) DaVinci MBP 2.4Ghz i7 16gmRAM 7200rpm 1920x1080 ProRes4444 RedlogFilm Full Quality 335 3min40sec
5KHD (4800x2700) RedCineX MBP 2.4Ghz i7 16gmRAM 7200rpm 1920x1080 ProRes4444 RedlogFilm Full Quality 335 4min30sec

5KHD (4800x2700) DaVinci MBP 2.4Ghz i7 16gmRAM 7200rpm 1920x1080 ProRes4444 RedlogFilm Full Quality 1424 12min30sec
5KHD (4800x2700) RedCineX MBP 2.4Ghz i7 16gmRAM 7200rpm 1920x1080 ProRes4444 RedlogFilm Full Quality 1424 19min10sec

So the DaVinci path with some sort of acceleration via my AMD Radeon HD 6770M 1024 MB is approx 35% faster on the longer clip and 20% faster on the shorter one. Very interesting, thanks for all of your thoughts everyone!

 

[Eric Santiago]

Yeah, but there are no alternatives. With RED Rocket-X coming out, the price of regular Rockets may drop substantially as people move forward (even RED might sell the regulars at a heavily discounted price.)

Im betting on this heavily...waiting and waiting