#PAR vs MAX
28 messages in this thread
Jim has offered to send you literature on the Max and you can info on the PAR
from Greg Pyros.
I agree with Jim that there is room for both systems depending on your
application. I have a PAR but would certainly consider the MAX depending on
your needs and requirements. The PAR is about half the price but won't
ultimately have all the advantages of the MAX which has yet to be released.
If you don't think you'll need to get into video editing or the potential
higher quality of field recording the PAR is a great machine. The MAX with the
Illuminator Pro (not Animator Pro… Jim got confused here, <g>) will have many
other possibilities including non-linear editing.
Suffice it to say both systems are good it will mostly depend on your budget
and long term objectives. For someone just interested in doing animation the
PAR is more than adequate. If you've got the budget and can justify the
additional expense of the MAX, which also requires an EISA motherboard BTW,
you'd be glad to have that system as well.
I don't think there's really a need for posturing. While the MAX has yet to be
released preliminary observations look very good. The point being, for once you
have two excellent choices and it will depend on your needs and budget which
you choose to go with.
-JE
John,
Thanks for your input. I am begining to think the PAR would be adequate. We
already have a non-linear system (on my network) and a BetaCAM SP and 1" edit
suite. One question I have is on the input capabilities of the PAR, can I grab
a series of frames to be used for a rotoscoping texture map with the PAR? Also
when will the MAX be released?
Thanks,
JImbo
James,
If you buy the optional TBC list $995 you can grab frames to the PAR. But when
you say we have BetaCAM SP and 1" then I have to pause and ask what level of
quality you're expecting. For industrials and Flying logos to be supered over
video the PAR would be fine. But in my opinion for a professional edit suite, I
would want the MAX. The reason being that ultimately it will allow a transfer
rate of 7+ MB per second as opposed to 3.5+ MB a second. The way this is
accomplished is that alternate fields will be stored on seperate SCSI drives,
which means you have half the compression and that much higher picture quality
as a result.
As far as its release date that question was still open as of NAB. They've been
working on it quite awhile.
I would recommend the PAR to the vast majority of animators but in some cases
the MAX is definitely going to be the way to go. In your case I would recommend
that you take a look for yourself at both systems. I'm very happy with the PAR
but for high end I don't use it. It is a wonderful tool for an animator as it
allows you to do alot of tests very quickly, which spares the wear and tear on
a Beta SP or 1" machine. For final output I'm still using an LVR in many cases.
It depends on the budget and the quality requirement.
-JE
Seagate has new SCSI drives coming out that are an array of two in one drive.
This should be really cool. Also, the MAX is not limited to arraying 2 drives.
I think it really depends on how the array is implemented in hardware (scsi
controller) and software. So, with enough HD's, you could potentially have
zero compression. Unfortunately I don't think the 1st rev of the MAX will
support arrays out of the box. That'll probably be a later software revision
or something. But with that Seagate 2-in-1 array drive you'll have an array
without even trying!
John Tissavary (LUNA cie)
>> I think it really depends on how the array is implemented.. <<
Maybe, but it seems that there has to be a pipeline to take advantage of the
array. If there are two processors you could split it up into four, but I'm not
sure how it will work with only one processor, and would you really want a
single image scattered over four dedicated drives? I don't know.
-JE
I'm not sure I understand why one would have one image scattered over several
drives. I would think the array software/hardware would distribute frames (not
"a" frame) in a certain pattern over the several drive array so they could be
streamed back nice and interleaved-like, but I really don't know very much
about this stuff. What does this have to do with the number of processors
(innocent question borne out of array ignorance)?
thanks,
John Tissavary (LUNA cie)
John,
The way the MAX gets double the throughput is by dividing a frame into two
fields, each field going to a seperate drive. I extrapolated from there. So
that if you had four drives say, to maximize the throughput you'd have to split
the fields again. Just a speculation, but how else? Just having multiple drives
won't help. If you split the images up into fields then you are pushing half
the data and can go for lower compression and therefore better quality. The PAR
will soon have the capability to mount two IDE's but this won't affect the
compression ratio as you won't be able to split the frame into two fields.
Supposedly Matrox is working on this technique although it won't be offered in
the first generation as you know.
-JE
Ah. I was unaware of how they actually implemented the array playback scheme.
It seems they could go one step further, and simply distribute the fields/frame
accross the array, and have them stream back. There are plenty of DDR's out
there that use arrays. The new HP and Sierra Designs "VDR's" have something
like 8 HD's and play back the images from a "segment list". I would have
though this is how the MAX would take care of it.
John Tissavary (LUNA cie)
>> It seems they could go one step further, and simply distribure the
fields/frame across the array, and have them stream back. <<
Not quite so simple. The problem is still the through put of the hard drives
which is a determining factor in how much compression is necessary to stream a
24/32 bit image in real time. There's several other factors like BUS speed
which is why the PAR communicates directly to its IDE for faster transfer. The
new drives coming out are reported to have transfer rates of 15 Mb sec which in
terms of compression will be essentially lossless. I know IDE's are being
developed and Micropolis has been able to achieve similar transfer rates with
IDE's and SCSI's, so its a fairly reasonable assumption that an array of the
kind you'd like to see will also be possible in the near future. Just keeps
getting better, don't it?! <g>
-JE
I'm gald to hear HD technology is advancing to the point where one drive can
do 15mb per second. That'll certainly change the face (and price) of DDRing!
John Tissavary (LUNA cie)
What I would wish for is to just let the faster IDE drives allow for lower
compression ratios. Add a second hard drive so that that can be used for audio
and then develop a windows based NLE software package for the PAR. What do you
think? I see this as the proper evolution of the DPS PAR beginnings. I base
this not just on the PAR design but also on the company's progressive approach
to the video industry, just like Newtek.
>> What I would wish for is to just let the faster IDE drives allow for lower
compression ratios. <<
I've thought about this too, and it seems to me that if throughputs of 15 Mb
per second are possible, this should enable lossless compression as that's only
2 to 1 roughly. I think you can go to 4 to 1 before there's some minutely
discernable loss. So it seems to me that you should be able to get lossless
compression and still have a decent amount of hard disk space. If it comes to a
trade off I would rather have the higher quality as well.
-JE
I don't think we're stuck with a choice in the PAR. With BLF settings we can
just pick what we need, space or quality. Need both, get a larger drive.
>> I don't think we're stuck with a choice in the PAR. With BLF settings we can
just pick what we need, space or quality. Need both, get a larger drive.
I'm not sure that's true Don, because as yet no one has stated that the
software will allow 1:1 and I wouldn't assume that by raising the BLF that you
could attain lossless compression. I would welcome any evidence that supports
your position but as the compression scheme has been held in confidence this
has not been substantiated.
-JE
John,
Thanks for your imput also, as I told the other John, it's time for cocktails.
Work will always be here waiting after I'm well rested from this week.
One last question, who would be the apporpriate source to get printed material
from, Matrox direct or my dealer (who didn't even know what the MAX was)?
Thanks,
Jimbo
BTW Where are you located?
James,
I'm in San Diego, you?
I would work with one of the dealers here. Angelo or Jim would be my
recommendation for queries on the MAX. I am very confidant about Angelo and
John T. has had good experiences with Jim. So take your pick. <g> Matrox will
send you literature but these guys will be able to give you the nuts and bolts
on what's involved.
-JE
Jim:
Interesting comments regarding the PAR vs. MAX (vaporware). I don't hear of
anyone using it yet for high end output. Seems pointless to recommend it at
this time. There is only one choice in my opinion for those with big bucks to
spend on the high end and that's the Abekas. Otherwise it's the PAR, hands
down.
Yesterday, I saw my "Go For the Gold" animation theme logo play on the big
screen of 20 ft. before an audience of VIP's and invited guests, about 3000 in
attendance. I received many complements. One of the people there asked what I
use to record my animation. I told him it was a DDR and he said, " We have an
Abekas too!." I just smiled. As for rotoscoping, if I'm very careful as to
the source video quality and the length of the grab I can achieve near lossless
quality, but it is much trickier than recording animation. Sometimes I just
can't get the video without noticeable loss (artifacts).
John: Have you been hearing about the new IDE drives to be introduced later
this year? Supposed to achieve 15+ MB/sec. sustained. I am beginning to
think DPS' decision to go IDE was pretty intuitive since that seems to be where
the greatest development gains are right now for speed and capacity. Since the
PAR software can do higher BLF's we only need to wait for these new drives to
achieve the higher quality.
>>There is only one choice in my opinion for those with big bucks to spend on
the high end and that's the Abekas<<
Acutally, there are quite a few choices out there. Besides the Abekas, there
are two units by Accom that are very nice. One is rackmount with keyboard edit
controller just like the Abekas, the other is a desktop version that has its
own box like a mac or pc, and has a little keyboard for edit type commands.
They are both totally Abekas compatible, and cost @ $15K list.
HP and Sierra Designs have new Digital Disk Array mainframes out, that will
hold humunguous amounts of uncompressed D1, like up to 30 minutes or something
wild like that. They both _start_ @ $35K.
BTW, I've seen the MAX, played with it, love it, and will probably get one. It
should be shipping soon (month or two?), although you're right – now it's
noting but vaporware <g>.
John Tissavary (LUNA cie)
>> Have you been hearing about the new IDE drives … <<
You know Don for once in a long time, I really really agree with you! <g> Yes
I've noticed the advances in IDE and they do seem more stable than SCSI. This
may be totally subjective, but I have been a strong proponent of SCSI's
especially since the release of SCSI II but I'll tell you I'm very impressed
with the Micropolis. But to tell you what I've also been hearing is that they
are going to be introducing really fast SCSI II's also. The technology is not
so different. None the less I will be glad to have the faster IDE and the
improved picture quality.
One thing I've noticed about you, and this is not an attack, but you get
convictions about things, and it seems to me to the exclusion of other options.
I'm not as convinced that the PAR is the answer or an Abekas. I see plenty of
room for the MAX. Its not vaporware. I've said many times that I'm very happy
with the PAR, but should the occasion warrant I wouldn't hesitate to get the
MAX if it was available and I needed its capabilities. Ironically I think the
PAR is better suited to the work I do and the MAX is better suited to the work
you do. But that's just my opinion.
-JE
Well, I like SCSI II too and the "industrial" quality one generally gets but I
do see faster advances in the ide line. I wonder if the IDE is the drive force
in the technology developments and the SCSI is just catching the benefits of
the developing technology at this time.
You're right about the convictions, It took me almost 9 months to develop my
current attitude about the PAR, or should I say PAR technology including the
MAX, Bandit etc. but now that it's here I am convinced it's right for me. My
paying customers like the quality I can give them with it. I disagree with you
about the MAX. I feel it accomplishes about the same thing as the PAR with far
more complicated setup, greater cost, and only a little bit (purported) better
quality. Since the real noticeable artifacts tend to show up in the real time
frame grabbing of live video, I would like to see that quality on the MAX.
When I did see the MAX in operation it wasn't then capable of more than 15
seconds of animation, much less frame grabbing. I'm sure the MAX has come a
long way since December. But, it's still a complicated setup for my comfort.
>> but I do see faster advances in the ide line. <<
Yeah, I'm not sure why that is or its just a perspective thing. Traditionally
SCSI's have had larger capacity and IDE's played catch up, now it seems the
technology is evenly matched, but there is more about IDE technology in the
trades. Like you, at least the ones I read. I think in fact the technologies
are not so different and that the same advances being made in IDE are
concurrently happening with SCSI but there does seem to be more emphasis on IDE
and multi-media.
>> I disagree with you about the MAX. I feel it accomplishes about the same
thing as the PAR with far more complicated setup, greater cost, and only a
little bit (purported) better quality. <<
I think for your setup, this may be true. But you are discounting the fact that
many people will want a 720×486 framebuffer because of applications like
Inscriber, and higher level paint packages, and so are going to want a cost
effective framebuffer, which the Ill Pro is relative to the Targa 2000 or the
VistaPro. Also the fact that they will be able to do video editing and
transitions with the Ill Pro, not to mention non-linear editing and so on. From
that perspective, the MAX itself is relatively the same cost as the PAR. And as
you mentioned Newtek, the Matrox combination is going much more along those
lines than anything yet relating to the PAR.
I would like to see all the things you mentioned for the PAR happen. Although I
do not have a great need, if a need at all. Audio is left to audio specialists
with my work, as is the editing. But it would be nice to have. I'm not sure
where I'm ultimately going, because I'm reluctant to get into the video
production side as it will take away alot more time from animation which I
would rather specialize in. I also don't want Video houses to think of me as
competition, so I've stayed away from that side. The benefit has been, I
haven't spent all that money on video equipment, and can concentrate on
spending it on animation related software and hardware. Which is why the PAR
has worked out well for me I think.
But on the other hand, the Matrox Studio if one was to get into the video side
provides a totally integrated editing environment, which can also take care of
Animation in real-time. It also has the nice DVE features and TBC's etc. When
looked at from this perspective one can't say the MAX is over priced, and it
certainly isn't any more complicated than the setup you have, I don't think. I
could go on but I think you get my point.
Actually somebody else should be making these points, I'm just an innocent
by-stander. <G>
-JE
All this stuff is true but I don't want to build an edit suite around the
Illuminator PRO. I guess I'm still old fashion when it comes to video editing
and I like the video boxes approach and linear editing. The reason for this is
that almost all my editing requires numerous library stock footage mixing with
current shoots. NLE systems are just not efficient in this environment. This
is due to the time required to digitize and log the library stuff. I am in the
market for a good switcher/DVE/controller now for A/B roll and have considered
the Video Machine or the new Sony FXE-100. The other side of the coin is it
would be nice to have NLE when those type of projects arise.
Don,
As the Matrox Studio currently stands it is an A/B/C roll system in its current
configuration with development of a NLE in the works. You would have the option
and when you consider the integrated approach of the Studio, your Illuminator
Pro becomes more than just a framebuffer, but also a switcher, DVE, and
real-time animation playback device. I thought Gus was disappointed with the
Fast Video Machine in that it was a totally closed system and he couldn't get
support for it?
-JE
Don;
>> One of the people there asked what I use to record my animation. I
>> told him it was a DDR and he said, " We have an Abekas too!." I just
>> smiled.
Do I understand that you did this on the PAR? If so, that's really impressive
for the PAR.
BTW, what does DDR stand for? Digital D?????? Recorder?
Thanks,
Dennis
Yes, I did the output field rendered to my hard drive and then transfered to
the PAR at BLF 260, QF 23. The animation was recorded to the UVW-1800 via CAV
signal from the PAR. It was edited to a master on a second UVW-1800 using a
Toaster 4000 switcher and the master was safety dubbed for the performance also
on the UVW-1800. Of course the video lost CAV quality once it hit the Toaster
but at least I had the front end as strong as I could get it. DDR is Digital
Disk Recorder, a generic term used to reference the Abekas A-66 and similar
technology. I refer to my PAR as a DDR occasionally as a private joke. <g>
For rotoscoping with the PAR you will need the optional TBCIV, which raises the
price somewhat, I think with 1gig HD it's around $5K. You will then be
capturing a motion stream that can be converted to .tgas to do with as you
wish.
The MAX should be out in approx. one or two months, and will cost between
$6-7K, including Illuminator Pro framebuffer, but not including HD or fast SCSI
II controller. It will also do rotoscoping out of the box, but you'll have to
get a CAV add-on for the Illuminator Pro if you don't already have one in order
to do Beta SP or other component in-out.
John Tissavary (LUNA cie)
Hey, thanks for your feed back. It's Friday PM, I'm tired of thinking about
this stuff, and it's time for a few cocktails to wash down the brain cells that
were burnt up this week trying to configure the "best" system to add on.
Jimbo
OOPS – right to many PRO's around here Illuminator Pro. I have to get a new
brain one of these days.
Thanks for the support out there, I try.
I just got your EMAIL, I'll get back to you on monday.
My MAX is inhouse. The orders I have placed will be filled by end of April. So
It's real in my book.
As for the term "posturing" sorry, bad terminology, I really do see a place for
both systems.
One's "personal" one's "pro"
regards-
Jim Pope