PAR vs Options
33 messages in this thread
To All,
I'm presently using a Targa 16/32 card and a Panasonic AG-7750 VTR for all my
animation work, but now I'm considering the purchase of a DPS PAR card.
However, there a few questions that I'd like to get answered before I do. I
would like to keep using my ISA machine so the PVR is not an option.
* How does the image quality of the PAR compare with other systems using
real-time decompression like the Animation X-Treme Motion X card from TVOne
Multimedia Solutions and DVision's CineWorks package using the Intel Action
Media (AM2) card ?.
* Does the PAR have any real competition in it's price range and if so, what is
it ?
* The PAR uses compression to store images. Will my output actually look
better using the PAR's 752×480 resolution vs the Targa's 512×486 frame by frame
recording technique ?
* Will the Sound Blaster Pro (16 Bit Stereo Sound Card) work with the PAR and
Razor Pro ?
* Would a non-linear digital video system be a better value such as the
D/Visions CineWorks kit or the ///Fast MovieLine system with the Motion-JPEG
option, or is image quality compromised with these solutions.
Just thought I'd ask. Thanks in advance.
Don
Don – besides selling/configuring systems, we also offer rendering and
recording services to our clients that need them. In the course of this
endeavor, we have dealt with high-end non-linear systems as well as PC-based
systems, for animation, cinematic, and broadcast purposes.
So –
>>* How does the image quality of the PAR compare with other systems using
real-time decompression like the Animation X-Treme Motion X card from TVOne
Multimedia Solutions and DVision's CineWorks package using the Intel Action
Media (AM2) card ?. <<
The PAR acheives broadcast quality output throughout its
compression/decompression cycle. Output formats are composite, S-VHS, BetaCam
and MII.
>>* Does the PAR have any real competition in it's price range and if so, what
is it ?<<
If you want to retain your ISA system, then no. If you're considering a new
platform, the Targa 2000 (currently EISA based, PCI available soon) is a
comparable option.
>>* The PAR uses compression to store images. Will my output actually look
better using the PAR's 752×480 resolution vs the Targa's 512×486 frame by frame
recording technique ?<<
The PAR's compression is virtually lossless.
>>* Will the Sound Blaster Pro (16 Bit Stereo Sound Card) work with the PAR
and Razor Pro ?<<
Yes.
>>* Would a non-linear digital video system be a better value. . . ?<<
Our livelihood is dependent upon delivering cost-effective, high quality
solutions to our customers. WE, and they, deal with broadcast engineers (the
pickiest variety) on a day-to-day basis. For us, the PAR delivers.
Dennis,
Thanks for the info. It looks like the PAR is the best way to go. One final
question regarding Razor Pro.
The documentation on the PAR states that it is NOT a non-linear editing system
and that the frames are compressed, layed down and played in a linear fashion.
Does the Razor Pro editing software use the PAR's file as the source, and
reconstructs a new linear playback file after editing ?
Thanks again
Don
Not to interupt but since I have this setup
The answer is sure Does..
Bob From The Design Shop
Bob,
This thread somehow lost some of its continuity. Which setup were you refering
to? Was it the PAR and the Sound Blaster Pro?
Don
I am useing a PAR and TBCIV and a turtle beach card right now..
Bob.
Bob:
I am planning to get a new sound card and have some questions about your
PAR-Razor-TB setup.
I assume it works without problems, like sync and "hiccups" when doing sound
and video together. Is this true?
Does your TB card require a lot of memory and IRQ,s to set up? I'm heard
rumors to this effect.
Do you think a with 32 megs of RAM and a 1G. Par drive will work OK? I also
have 1G of free space on my DOS drive.
I have everything except Razor Pro and the sound card. I have an opportunity
to get both from a business that's selling out but I'm not sure if this system
will satisfy my NLE requirements. Jamie Carr really impressed me with the demo
at Comdex but I think he was using some new features not yet available. I'm
more concerned with software and hardware that doesn't work together as claimed
in a production environment. Dealers generally do not use the systems in a
production environment and therefore are not a good source for real knowledge
of the systems. I stayed away from the Matrox MAX because of the complexity of
the system. With the Razor Pro/Par/TB sound card am I headed toward this same
nightmare of configuration to get it to work?
>> I assume it works without problems, like sync and "hiccups" when >> doing
sound and video together. Is this true?
Yep I have to admit I had my doubts at first but I havent had
any problems.. I records really well from inside windows but there
still is stuff thats just easier to do in DOS. So I find myself rebooting
every ounce in a while. ( The DOS software is not really freindly
with the Windows stuff)..
>>Does your TB card require a lot of memory and IRQ,s to set up? I'm >>heard
rumors to this effect.
I use probably the cheapest one the Tropez. After talking to Turtle Beach it
had the same audio section as the Montery and I had very
few problems.
>> Do you think a with 32 megs of RAM and a 1G. Par drive
>> will work OK?
>> I also have 1G of free space on my DOS drive.
I would try to get 2 Gig+ PAR drives and more DOS drive
space to act as a temporary holding buffer for clips.
This way you can record a lot of clips and then put them on the
DOS disk. Then take the one you want to join and put them on
your second drive combine them and leave the result on your main drive.
I have 40MB of RAM and things couldnt be better. I imagine
32 would be the same.
>> With the Razor Pro/Par/TB sound card am I headed toward this
>> same nightmare of configuration to get it to work?
I cant say it will be completely painless but I got it together
without a lot of hassle. PC's with more than a video card are
some problems. But the PAR and TBC were painless.
The new version of Razor 1.0f works well. For cuts only it is
really fast. For trasitions and wipes they have to be rendered
so they go slower and are very processor dependent.
But all in all its a really powerful setup..
Hope this helps
Bob from The Design Shop..
Bob,
While doing my research on the PAR and TBIV combination, I was able to find a
lot of information but couldn't find anything on Razor Pro.
* Who makes it, and how much does it cost?
* Does it basically let you do non-linear editing on the PAR (with audio using
a sound card) by creating sequences before hand and playing them back in a
linear fashion from the PAR drive ?
* Does it run only using NT or does it have a Win3.1 counterpart ?
I've been doing frame by frame all this time and haven't really had a chance to
keep up.
Thanks
Don
* Who makes it, and how much does it cost?
InSync coporation..
* Does it basically let you do non-linear editing on the PAR (with audio using
a sound card) by creating sequences before hand and playing them back in a
linear fashion from the PAR drive ?
It creates a new linear file.
* Does it run only using NT or does it have a Win3.1 counterpart ?
The version for the current PAR (not Perception) runs
under windows.. 3.1 3.11 etc.
>>I've been doing frame by frame all this time and haven't really had a
>>chance to keep up.
The Par is the best at Animation etc.. You should try to see it.
We use 3D Studio the PAR and Razor all the time..
We even try to use Razor to do effects and compositeing to
lessen the load of rendering in 3D Studio.. It helps when we
have a scrolling background and something rotational in front.
Instead of letting 3D Studio do heavy intersection calcs
we composite the 2 in Razor useing the Alpha Channel.
It doesnt save alot of time the first we did it but since we use the
same sky backdrop in a lot of renderings it saved overall.
Bob from The Design Shop
Bob
I was just reading a message you posted to Don Landis and in it you
mentioned….
<<The new version of Razor 1.0f works well.>>
1.0F ??????
I was under the impression that 1.0D was the latest version. From
information I received from Jamie Carr I thought there might be a newer version
out soon that improved the efficiency of straight cuts by not rendering a third
ANI file when editing together 2 ANI files without transitions.
IS THIS TRUE? or just a typo (D & F are kinda close on the keyboard) If it is
true I need to get on the horn to In:Sync. Thanks
Kim Lee
Worlds Away Productions
1.0F ??????
Is the latest and greatest..
>>improved the efficiency of straight cuts by not rendering a third ANI file
>>when editing together 2 ANI files without transitions.
>>IS THIS TRUE? or just a typo (D & F are kinda close on the keyboard) If >>it
is true I need to get on the horn to In:Sync. Thanks
It is true of the new Razor Pro version ???
and the DPS Perception board..
not of the PAR TBCIV board (which I have)..
This setup needs to create a third file and will continue to need to
do that as far as I know. The drive interface hardware/software
is not able to handle that as far as I know.
Bob from The Design Shop..
Thanks for the info…
I've also got the PAR (the Perception will have to wait) so I guess I'll have
to deal with the overhead of a third file…….Hmm maybe Jamie Carr can
validate this for us…..
Kim Lee
Worlds Away Productions
Bob,
Actually under NT there will not be a new file
created with either the PERCEPTION or the PAR.
If you doing a straight cut with two files then
once you have placed the two items on the time
line you will be able to hit play and see the
result immediately without rendering to a new
file and the result will be playing at the true
NTSC frame rate.
Jamie Carr
in:sync
Don, PMJI, but I've got the PAR, Razor Pro, and a TB Monterey. It works _very
well_. RP is great for doing audio editing. You can line up all of your sound
clips to timecode and have as many layers as you like. RP plays back the .wav
and the
ani synced perfectly. I've had no problems except some minor little nuisances
in RP. The most annoying being that every so often it will only let me move a
clip by 3 frames to start with and then 1 after. Haven't found out why this
happens, I'm going to ask Jamie about it. maybe 1.0f will fix it. Anyway, I
think you'll be pleased with RP and TB sound card.
DM
Thanks for the response.
How much overhead does the TB card use? I heard it uses a lot of memory and
takes up 3 IRQ's; is this so? Do you need a special config/autoexec to run
razor pro with the TB card in order to conserve memory? I haven't decided to
get the razor pro product yet until I find some answers to these sound board
questions. With all the praise I hear about Razor Pro from everyone I'm sure
it will work nothing less than perfect.
Don:
Get the TB Monterrey. You won't be disappointed!
Greg Pyros
The Monterrey Card from Turtle beach requires SIPP RAM (user furnished) to
sample, min 1 meg, max 4 meg. Midi GS sounds; a great card to get the sounds
out of your computer, but cannot be used with games, a big drawback to all but
persons interested soley in sound mixing. Good choice. Street price down to
$320.00. Tech support is not great. Overworked staff. Eric
The Monterey uses 1 IRQ and does use some memory, much like the Targa+. If
you've got network drivers and such it might become an issue, but I wouldn't
know. On my machine (no net) I've had no problems with it.
DM
>> Does the Razor Pro editing software use the PAR's file as the source, and
reconstructs a new linear playback file after editing ?<<
Affirmative. Depending on the size of the video files that you are editing, it
is possible to run out of hard drive space. This is one of the reasons that
DPS' new Perception board is looking so attractive : SCSI-2 i/o, so you can
attach up to seven drives for editing purposes.
Dennis,
Thanks for the info. The only problem I have with the Perception board is that
it needs a PCI bus, and for me, that would involve buying a new computer.
The FAQ sheet for the PVR says "The dynamic range of the PVR is in excess of
D1scaling so that images are brighter, have more color and greater spatial
resolution than ever before." Hopefully DPS will make an upgrade for the PAR
to acheive this new level of video quality. DPS, are you listening ?
Don
Dennis:
>> The PAR's compression is virtually lossless.
I agree that the PAR is the best thing in it's price class, but let's not get
too carried away here! :^)
Greg Pyros
The PAR's compression is lossless when observing on most TV sets. On a good
monitor viewing solid colors one can see many artifacts. But who cares at my
level of video? My customers just love the output. By the time it gets edited
several generations the artifacts disappear in the smear of NTSC. They all
comment how much better it looks as opposed to my old targa/diaquest/single
frame days.
Don:
>> The PAR's compression is lossless when observing on most TV sets. On
>> a good monitor viewing solid colors one can see many artifacts. But
>> who cares at my level of video?
My point exactly. What I said was that it is the best thing in its price
class, and it does have noticable artifacts when displayed on a high quality
system.
Just so that people know there is a difference between a $20,000 Abekas or
Accom and a $2,000 PAR!
>> my old targa/diaquest/single frame days.
May they rest in peace! Yes, the difference between a 512×486 Targa out to a
3/4" 5850 and a 750×480 PAR out to BetaSP will be noticable, and faster, too!
Greg Pyros
Would you believe: My largest volume customer for animation is still editing
with 3/4 Umatic. They do a lot of projects weekly and give me plenty of work
for short 3DS animation logos. The difference in the par output vs. targa+
even on the 3/4 Umatic is noticeable. With betacam it only gets better.
However with betacam the artifacts are plainly visible while with the 3/4
Umatic one has to look hard to see the artifacts.
I recently did some special effects for a project that was edited on betacam sp
and the scenes with the PAR footage inserts were very noticeable. What I did
is insert the whole scene from cut to cut and it became less apparent. This
obviously required many more frames of 3DS or elastic reality processing but it
hid the artifacts more as opposed to match frame edits at the start and end of
the effect within the scene.
Don- I just completed a job for a local car dealer using Par/Elastic Reality.
The one dissappointment I have with the Par is the Double compression problem
when you grab an image from tape, export it out, use E/R to warp, and import
back to the par. This particular spot the spokesman was standing next to a
car. As he mentioned different cars, the cars would morph to the next model he
was talking about. We did a split screen wipe to use the live footage of the
spokesman and the morphing was on the other half. Getting the color values to
match up was a real chore. Thanks to some voodoo from the video editor, he got
it looking reasonable, but it was still dissappointing. As a note, I always
thought that the problem was recompression when importing back to the Par, but
it seems to shift when Exporting the .TGA from the par, before it's ever
brought back in. Have you noticed that? -Mark
I have never had the color shift problem here. I use a vectorscope on the
images and adjust the image before laying to tape if it looks off.
Don- That's how we ended up fixing the problem. It was really strange. I
grabbed the frame off of Beta-SP. The grab looked fine as it was frozen on my
Par monitor. I then exported it as a .TGA and brought it into Photoshop, and
it was really washed out!!! Needless to say, after I morphed it and sent the
resulting .TGA sequence back to the Par, it too was washed out. Maybe it's
something in my TBCIV??? I just don't understand why the initial grab looked
OK.
-Mark
One thing you should always remember is that a VGA monitor will not yield the
same colors as the VTSC monitor. What I don't understand is why your morph
from ER was washed out after you sent it back to the PAR. I have only seen PAR
artifacts when doing this but not a washed out picture. If anything the chroma
was a bit too saturated. I believe it was Brick Eckstein that suggested doing
the grabs at a lower chroma saturation (TBCIV adjustment) and then bump up the
QF a few notches. Then whole porting the finished output from the PAR add the
saturation back before recording. You may consider this idea.
Don:
Yes, you need to go cut to cut with the PAR, not only because of the color and
artifacts, but because there will sometimes be a slight shift in the location
of the image on the screen going from analog to digital and back.
Even with the Accom, I find that just editing all the BetaSP footage onto that,
copying the frames to the computer that we will modify, and then inserting them
back on the Accom and editing the entire cut back to BetaSP is the easiest
method to make sure it is all seamless. I just always hope that all the cuts
are less than 62 seconds! <bg>
Greg Pyros
>>I just always hope that all the cuts are less than 62 seconds! <bg>
If your edits are longer you may consider getting a new editor. <G>
Don:
>> If your edits are longer you may consider getting a new editor. <G>
<bg> I can only work with what they send me, but I agree totally!
Greg Pyros
Greg – 10-4!