|
|
This topic comprises 2 pages: 1 2
|
|
Author
|
Topic: Cinema server
|
|
|
Frank Cox
Film God
Posts: 2234
From: Melville Saskatchewan Canada
Registered: Apr 2011
|
posted 09-15-2019 03:37 PM
Having just changed from a stand-alone to one that goes into the server, I can see three advantages to the stand-alone:
1. You don't have to have the projector fully powered up to ingest a movie.
2. The CRU drive slot is built into the stand-alone server so it's a lot easier to insert and remove the drives. The "built-in" just has a USB-connected boot to insert the drive into. It's a more flimsy arrangement so you have to hold the boot down with one hand while inserting the drive with the other hand, and the boot fits more snugly so you have to peel labels off of more of the distribution drives to get them to slide into the boot.
3. Doing stuff with the new server is slower. You have to wait a lot longer when ingesting trailers, for example. Everything just drags along. It takes a whole minute or two for the machine to get ready to start ingesting when you insert a trailer drive, and another minute between each trailer, and another minute or two afterward before you can remove the drive. Ingesting features isn't quite so draggy, but it's still slower overall.
When it comes to actually playing a movie, it's pretty much the same thing either way, though. And I suppose it's nice to have everything together. The control screens are all too long vertically for the height of a web browser window on a laptop, though, so you do have to do a lot of scrolling up and down that really shouldn't be necessary.
My server is a GDC SR1000 and my old server was also a GDC, so others might be different.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Steve Guttag
We forgot the crackers Gromit!!!
Posts: 12814
From: Annapolis, MD
Registered: Dec 1999
|
posted 09-15-2019 04:27 PM
Note, the speed of ingest wasn't a function of standalone or not, that was how the various companies allocated resources and what processing/data paths they had to move content.
The Dolby DSS servers could pretty much run full speed ingest/transfer while shows were running but they were pretty unique in that capability.
The IMS servers seem to be increasing their ingest speed with each revision but nothing like the DSS servers.
For GDC, you really have different things at play going between a "box" server like the SX2001 to the SX3000/4000 and now the SR1000 that will affect speed as they are completely different from each other in most respects other than the UI of the SX2001 and the SX3000/4000 were essentially the same. The SR1000 is a complete departure as they transition to web-based UI.
To add to Frank's list. With box servers, you don't have to shut down the server before the projector, requiring some form of user interaction with the server UI or automation.
Now, in terms of processing power for showing the movie, the IMB/IMS systems are continuing to increase. You can see this in what SERVERS are capable of running the new High Frame Rate stuff (setting aside a license, the ability to handle it). The latest servers can generally handle 60-120fps whereas the previous generations were either a solid NO or were dicey with it (could handle specify data throughputs but would choke on higher ones).
HDMI 2.0 is typically supported on the latest servers (ICMP, IMS3000, SR1000) but only HDMI 1.4 was supported on previous efforts.
Mike, I'd say it's a wash on changing out hard drives. You can have either of them out in seconds and spend most of your time taking the drive out of the special carrier and putting the new drive into the carrier rather than the physical act of pulling/inserting the drive.
As for CRU, they make rackmount versions (most expensive), desktop versions (still expensive but VERY solid and MUCH higher(several times) than $80 and the basic "sleeve" that is in the under-$100 range but it is something that can get damaged if allowed to drop. By and large, with the new servers it is all USB3.0 for local ingest.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Harold Hallikainen
Jedi Master Film Handler
Posts: 906
From: Denver, CO, USA
Registered: Aug 2009
|
posted 09-16-2019 12:35 PM
As pointed out above, power available to run a server in the projector is pretty limited (I think there's a maximum of about 75 watts available). This may create a processor speed limitation. It also encourages the use of solid state drives since they take a lot less power. But, processor speed continues to increase at the same power consumption level. I think a big thing is the bandwidth available between the server and the projector. With an internal server or IMB (as opposed to dual HDSDI), a lot more bandwidth is available to handle higher resolution, higher frame rates, and stereoscopic images. In general, one box costs less than two, so integrating everything into a server that goes into the projector is more cost effective. I THINK USL was the first to do that by adding a server board to the IMB. The CMS-5000 now uses a single multicore processor to handle the server functions, IMB functions, network audio (QLAN), etc. All that and consuming less than 75 watts.
Harold
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leo Enticknap
Film God
Posts: 7474
From: Loma Linda, CA
Registered: Jul 2000
|
posted 09-16-2019 03:41 PM
One significant disadvantage is local storage capacity. Most IMSes (servers that go into the side of the projector) have an onboard RAID of three 2.5" drives. Barco now approves a model of 4TB drive for use in their ICMP, which gives you a maximum content capacity of a little under 8TB in a RAID5. As far as I'm aware, the other manufacturers approve 2TB drives as the biggest, meaning 5-6TB maximum capacity (though Dolby only approves an insanely expensive model of SSD in the 2TB size).
For a standalone, rack mount server, however, you will likely have more drive bays and larger capacity drives at lower cost to choose from. As an extreme example, there is an (admittedly unofficial and unauthorized) modification to the DSS200 you can make (swapping out the 4-drive RAID controller with the 8-drive variant of the same model), that will allow you to use up to eight drives and 16TB of onboard RAID storage.
So for a venue that does lots of festivals, rental work, or any other usage pattern in which you rarely play the same movie twice and/or need to ingest stuff a long time before the show and leave it ingested, an old school server could still make sense.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dave Macaulay
Film God
Posts: 2321
From: Toronto, Canada
Registered: Apr 2001
|
posted 09-17-2019 01:28 AM
A chassis server takes more power, yes. The high capacity NAS box for a GDC SX3000 server takes a fair amount of power as well, I think.
There are advantages for a chassis server.
A Doremi SV4 IMB system has a DVD/CD drive (data only, these will not play "normal" DVD or CD content) and a SATA CRU ingest bay. It can also use 4x4TB drives for a RAID capacity of roughly 12TB. This is pretty large, and you have the possibility of swapping in a second preloaded RAID set in roughly 7 minutes (drive swap time plus chassis shutdown and restart times, the projector and lamp can stay on). For something like a film festival with many features, content can be preloaded on a second RAID set during off hours or in an offsite SV4 (or DC4).
The 3'5" drives in these are generally more durable than 2.5" drives typical in internal servers.
3.5" disk drives are usually available with larger capacity than 2.5" drives (although there seems to be a limit in drive capacity: 8TB drives are available but I don't think any server has larger than 4TB approved drives).
SSDs are taking over though, with low power draw and high capacity regardless of "legacy" drive size - and with new packaging that is often much smaller than those.
I expect to see more SSD based internal servers, and probably approved SSD drives for older internal and chassis servers.
For 99% of installations, an internal server will be the logical and economical choice.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marcel Birgelen
Film God
Posts: 3357
From: Maastricht, Limburg, Netherlands
Registered: Feb 2012
|
posted 09-18-2019 03:56 AM
The move from stand alone servers to the recent "integrated media servers" was more or less a two-step process.
There was a need for more bandwidth and better security between the media block and the projector/imaging part, primarily for stuff like HFR, so the first step was to move the media block into the projector. Ironically, HFR is currently possibly one of the most underused features of DCI.
The second step was to miniaturize the server, which was already based on standard PC components, into something that fits into the slot designated for the media block.
The trend of moving playback hardware into the display hardware is something that's steadily progressing all over the place, even in your living room. You used to have all kinds of playback devices like VCRs, VideoDisc, DVD, BluRay players, Digital Set-Top-Box, those are all progressively being replaced by the streaming apps running directly on your SmartTV...
Personally, I do like a bit of separation in functionality. So, I prefer having a dedicated playback device like a "server" and a projector that doesn't do anything else than displaying what it's being fed via a high-speed digital interlink, although the future will clearly be, hooking up your IMS via 10GE fiber to some central NAS.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
|
This topic comprises 2 pages: 1 2
|
Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM
6.3.1.2
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.
|
Home
Printer-friendly view of this topic