my profile | my password | search | faq & rules | forum home

» Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE   » Operations   » Digital Cinema Forum   » Best digital server/player

Author Topic: Best digital server/player Tim Asten Film Handler Posts: 98 From: Brighton, United Kingdom Registered: Nov 2006 posted 01-21-2007 06:53 PM                     We have just aquired two Christie CP2000 DLP projectors with QuVis playback servers.Although we hav'nt all been fully trained yet,the servers seem quite fiddly to program and operate.I have noticed that there are various models of server/players on the market(Doremi/Dolby etc).Which model of player does everybody think is the easiest to operate and gives best results? If this topic has been posted elsewhere,please re-direct me.  |  IP: Logged Paul Konen Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 981 From: Frisco, TX. (North of Dallas) Registered: Jun 99 posted 01-22-2007 09:09 AM                     I've used both and a few others since D-Cinema has started. The Dolby was rock solid and the DOREMI has come around too. Dolby requires a fair amount of rack space or even a mini-fridge type rack to hold the equipment (ShowStore, ShowPlayer, and Automation Interface). Capable of MPEG / JPEG-2000 playback! I believe that you also have to have a DMA-8 as the ShowPlayer only outputs AES digital audio. DOREMI requires 3u of rack space. Can only playback JPEG-2000 content. Both can control the CP2000 by basically doing anything that the TPC can do. Ingest on DOREMI can take near realtime where Dolby is shooting for 50% of realtime to load. Doremi uses a USB 2.0 interface to load where Dolby has a drive bay to insert the ingest drive. Probably uses SATA or SATA-2 drives to achieve a high data transfer rate. All in all, both are good machines. MPEG playback for non-digital cinema content would be a deciding factor as well as price point.  |  IP: Logged Tristan Lane Master Film Handler Posts: 444 From: Nampa, Idaho Registered: Feb 2002 posted 01-22-2007 12:28 PM                     Doremi does have MPEG capabilities. Carmike has been using it for their screenvision ads for a while.  |  IP: Logged Ken Lackner Phenomenal Film Handler Posts: 1907 From: Atlanta, GA, USA Registered: Sep 2001 posted 01-22-2007 01:47 PM                     I have been told by a Dolby engineer that since the JPEG files are much larger, ingest will be much slower than MPEG, close to real time.  |  IP: Logged Tristan Lane Master Film Handler Posts: 444 From: Nampa, Idaho Registered: Feb 2002 posted 01-23-2007 01:43 AM                     Hi Ken, hope things are well out there. That's correct. And add another 50% more time for ingest on 4K prints. I believe Casino Royale was in the 250 gigabyte ballpark. Much like other projection equipment, the current d-cinema players all have their pros and cons. I can't suggest which server is better than the other. Most of my experience pertains to Doremi, as well as I feel that my personal opinions are irrelevant. By doing some research on what each server brand has to offer - you should be able to decide which one suits your needs. What I do know is that Dolby's MPEG servers have had an outstanding track record, and are backed by one of the most trusted names in the industry. The current JPEG2000 servers do not have 3D capability, but will soon. Doremi servers are 3D capable, Are able to play all 2K and 4K content, as well as MXF interop preshow stuff. They are also considerably less expensive than a Dolby player. I still feel that it is too early in the d-cinema game to be drawing conclusions about any particular brand.  |  IP: Logged Justin Gorka Expert Film Handler Posts: 174 From: High Wycombe, England Registered: Apr 2006 posted 01-23-2007 12:22 PM                     I too work for Cineworld. We've had the QuViss system for a while now and it is not without it's problems. Out of the 20 or so films we have shown so far only half I've been able to load up and play straight away. This appears to be mainly a software issue with Arts Alliance and other digital issuers (Dolby). When I was in Swindon we were a Beta Test site for the Dolby system. This seemed easier to program but again had a number of software issues and system crashes. I assume now these problems have been solved. One thing that does annoy me though is the load up time from the hard drive to the server. Cars took over 3 hours! Add to this the programming time......phone calls regarding bugs.....just think how many prints I could have made up. I still not convinced digital is ready for the mainstream yet. I still see pixilation, hue and speech synch (even with the DMA 8) problems and software compatabiity issues. Between the two systems, mmmm, I think I'd stick to QuViss even with the fiddly programming system. I'm not a die hard tradaitional projectionist, but at the moment give me real film any day!  |  IP: Logged Mark Gulbrandsen Resident Trollmaster Posts: 16657 From: Music City Registered: Jun 99 posted 01-24-2007 04:43 PM                     I would only go with the Dolby stuff. Dolby's reputation for product support long after a model goes out of production is legendary. They said minimum 15 years prodict support on the Dolby D-Cinema stuff at the D-Cinema seminar. Other manufacturers are relying on some boards(not all) that are available "off the shelf". When the manifacturers of those off the shelf boards discontinue them what happens if your server goes down. Is it then used as a door stop??? Mark  |  IP: Logged Louis Bornwasser Film God Posts: 4441 From: prospect ky usa Registered: Mar 2005 posted 01-24-2007 06:56 PM                        Mark is on the same page I am on! (not always the case.) Louis  |  IP: Logged Brian Guckian Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 594 From: Dublin, Ireland Registered: Apr 2003 posted 02-05-2007 05:23 PM                     That's a pity that the server cited is fiddly to program and operate. What are the specific problems? Other interfaces seem quite intuitive. I've used the Avica FilmStore software for example and found it incredibly easy to use and operate, including loading the material. Very relaible too. The only server problems I've seen is where the environment isn't ideal, i.e. heat build-up in the projection room, etc. [ 02-05-2007, 06:48 PM: Message edited by: Brian Guckian ]  |  IP: Logged Caleb Johnstone-Cowan Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 593 From: London, UK Registered: Mar 2006 posted 02-06-2007 09:08 PM                     The QuVis server seems to be preferred option for the UK Film Council who are funding the digital cinema rollout in the UK, so there's not much choice really. I used to work for Cineworld. We had problems with not being able to use a digital copy of PotC 2 because the projector wasn't connected to the net, that's a company issue though, never understood the email-only thing. We were told to strike the lamp before starting the QuVis server because a few sites in the UK saw their systems need repair or replacement when they did things the other way round. Whilst I didn't do the loading on of films, as an operator the system was easy enough to use. When messing about with it, didn't find it too difficult to find and start up different features and test clips. We had ours linked to the 35mm automation since the ad/trailer reel played on that. Never had any problems.  |  IP: Logged John Caswell Film Handler Posts: 35 From: Liverpool, Merseyside, UK Registered: Oct 2006 posted 02-07-2007 06:54 PM                     Hey there. We've had Quvis servers for just over a year now. Had tons of problems with them (seem to be plenty of bugs need fixing). We also got turned down for POTC 2 because of not having ISDN lines in place at the time. As it happens, every film we've received since having the lines in place, had the encryption key on the load drive anyway, only need we've had for the ISDN lines so far, is for Arts Alliance to gain remote access and fix bugs! The user interface on the Quvis, while not hard to use, isn't as straightforward as it could be. True, it's really simple to locate and play films on the server, but the script-building system seems quite unnecessarily fiddly. Incidentally, if you check out Arts Alliance's website, you'll notice that they've just purchased around 240 Doremi servers, that they'll use for future installs, and after that, will be fitting Doremi in place of all the Quvis servers currently in use.  |  IP: Logged Caleb Johnstone-Cowan Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 593 From: London, UK Registered: Mar 2006 posted 02-07-2007 07:08 PM                     If the key is on the hard drive then doesn't that defy the point of having encryption at all?  |  IP: Logged John Caswell Film Handler Posts: 35 From: Liverpool, Merseyside, UK Registered: Oct 2006 posted 02-07-2007 07:21 PM                     It does seem to. Not sure if they'll start sending them out by ISDN only, once more sites are up and running with digital, and most of the bugs are ironed out. The majority of the films we play anyway arent 'locked'. They're available for unlimited play, no encryption key needed.  |  IP: Logged Caleb Johnstone-Cowan Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 593 From: London, UK Registered: Mar 2006 posted 02-07-2007 11:49 PM                     Some of our digital copies, like Cars, were on a timer so you couldn't use them after x months. Although changing the date on the system would get round that! I doubt any of the major UK chains will invest in connecting their projectors to the net until most screens have gone digital, especially at older sites where it would be more complex to install, although wi-fi is the obvious answer.  |  IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

Printer-friendly view of this topic

Hop To: Select a Forum: Category: Operations -------------------- Digital Cinema Forum Film Handlers' Forum Large Format Forum Ground Level Feature Info, Trailer Attachments & REAL Credit Offsets Category: Community -------------------- Film-Yak Film Handlers' Movie Reviews The Afterlife Bob Maar's Joke-A-Thon Category: Classified -------------------- Equipment and Supplies Wanted/For Sale Help Wanted/Seeking Employment Category: System -------------------- Software Beta Testing Forum

The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.