Peripheral I/O solutions

[Layton Hebert]

Dear Film-Tech Colleagues,

We at the Pacific Film Archive are in the process of redesigning our
computing stations for delivering ProRes and other digital video material
(non-DCP) to our public screens. For some years we have delayed
incorporating "peripheral I/O" in the system. As many have and do, we
have been using off the shelf, essentially the consumer video interface
technology integral to Apple computers, to deliver digital video,
currently over HDMI, to our video projectors.

So to the question: Can you please share you experience and opinions,
should you have them, with regard to your institution's decision to
purchase and employ professional I/O in digital video delivery for .mov
in you screening rooms...? Bear in mind that an acceptable response is:
'Why worry about that? No one will notice the difference and your money
is better spent in other areas.'

We're talking about a limited number of I/O
peripherals made, either by AJA, Blackmagic, Avid or others, and the
associated or compatible software or GUIs to present this type of
material on screen. This though perhaps the original commercial intent
of the device's designers is either for non-linear editing 'capture and
playback' systems or post-production mastering output, rather than
exhibition, which is our primary concern.

This of course will inherently comment on the software available or
compatible with such external hardware, and as a matter of exhibition,
much of the software developments are in various ways inappropriate for
presentation application. For example, at one point, it was suggested to
us that we use a Blackmagic Studio 4K I/O until we pointed out that
neither Resolve or Media Express are particularly appropriate as
exhibition platforms.


Thanks for you thoughts in advance,
Layton Hebert
Senior Projectionist
BAMPFA
University of California Berkeley

[Carsten Kurz]

So, basically, you are after solutions for high-quality presentation playout only. More or less, controlled by some sort of playlist software?

First decisions to be made then would be:
- distribution length - typically, classic realtime video interfaces like HD-SDI or (extended) HDMI can go up to 100m or so. If you switch to fibre, a couple of hundred metres or even more, at a higher price.

- distribution media - HD-SDI or HDMI can be carried over their own native cabling (HDMI, or coax for HD-SDI), or, be converted to possibly existing CAT5e/6/7 infrastructure cabling or optical fibre, so you may not need to install new dedicated cabling.

- protocol - when using CAT5e/6/7 or optical fibre, you could use the native uncompressed signaling of the source media (HDMI/TDMS or HD-SDI), or, convert video and audio into a network protocol layer, TCP/IP, UDP, so that it can be transported to any location with the network. Basically, a streaming media solution.
This will usually not work within native media codecs (e.g. ProRes), but typically needs conversion, and may introduce visible artefacts, but is highly dependent on the actual solution.

While it is true that many output hardware solutions like those from BlackMagic or AJA are often intended for media production/editing environments, they still offer APIs to enable other software to use them for playout only solutions. That is, you may use e.g. a BMD or AJA HD-SDI out card, but in combination with a special playout software not targeted at editing. You should probably contact AJA or BMD and ask for such solutions.

- Carsten

[Marcel Birgelen]

So, essentially, you're looking for a play-out solution targeted at the exhibition industry that can playback professional formats like ProRes and maybe also a few consumer formats like Apple Quicktime, MKV, etc.?

If you find it, please let me know.

Besides the server and IMS solutions targeted at DCP playback, offered by the vendors we all know, there is a serious shortage for a simple solution targeted at the exhibition industry, especially stuff that easily integrates with the kind of automation you find at an average cinema.

[Layton Hebert]

Hi all,
Thank you to everyone who responded to this thread. All of your input has been extremely helpful. I should probably clarify: we want to play ProRes (.mov) as ProRes, h.264 (.mp4) as h.264, and Matroska (.mkv) as Matroska. We generally avoid converting or transcoding video files to DCP with software like DCP-o-matic and/or Easy DCP because of all of the usual reasons. We avoid transcoding whenever possible (and we want to make it possible in our theater). We are attempting to deliver (non-DCP) digital video to our screen with the highest degree of precision possible with an Apple computer (not a server).


Firstly, we are researching hardware. Software can be a separate question. Please see the end of this long explanation for the software bit.
Since our Mac is getting old, we are looking at replacing it with today's upgraded equivalent: the Mac Pro (pending budgetary constraints of course). See the link below.
https://www.apple.com/mac-pro/specs/

Has anyone here had any experience with this computer? Please weigh in! We are very keen to know the opinions of other projectionists, editors, and video professionals on this subject.


The new Mac Pro comes with an internal I/O card with USB3, Thunderbolt 3, and 10Gbps Ethernet ports. This seems advantageous, as opposed to buying a proprietary Input/Output device from BMD, or competitors. We do not need this computer for color correction, or DaVinci Resolve. It is supposed to be a dedicated computer for exhibition playback only. The relevant connection for us is probably thunderbolt 3 (40Gbps) to HDMI.

Our current mac runs over Thunderbolt to HDMI into a 4k PureLink matrix switcher system that we operate with Crestron touch panels and buttons. This outputs to our 4k NEC projector. Don't ask how we landed on a system like this, because now it's relatively permanent booth infrastructure. See the link to the PureLink PureMedia matrix switcher below.
https://www.purelinkav.com/product-c...rs/pure-media/

Back to the new Mac Pro: an optional "Afterburner card" can be added in one of the PCI express x16 slots (as one of the modular features of the new machine). The Afterburner card "enhances Apple ProRes and ProRes RAW workflows for film and video professionals". In other words, it is a dedicated ProRes and ProRes RAW accelerator card. See the link below.
https://www.digitaltrends.com/comput...ard-explained/

Back to the software conversation: the Afterburner works with a long list of 3rd party apps. Adobe, Avid, and DaVinci software all benefits from the strain that the Afterburner card removes from the shoulders of the CPU. Notably absent from the list of 3rd party developers are: VLC and Playback Pro. One big surprise I found on the list was a piece of software from Dolby Laboratories called Dolby CineAsset Player Pro. Has anyone used this software? It apparently plays DCP's, ProRes, and a number of other file types/codecs. Can this software, paired with a powerful enough Mac Pro be used for exhibition of DCP?

Your thoughts on these, and all other related subjects, would be very much appreciated.
Best regards,
Layton Hebert

P.S. Just shout stuff out. There are no wrong answers!

[Leo Enticknap]

Can this software, paired with a powerful enough Mac Pro be used for exhibition of DCP?

If the DCP is unencrypted, possibly (the main issue being whether the hardware can cope with the much higher bitrate in a typical DCP than is found in typical consumer and broadcast video files). None of the major studios will issue KDMs for software media blocks (i.e. PC-based DCP playback software), only DCI-compliant, FIPS-equipped hardware ones. Some arthouse distributors might.

If budgetary constraints are an issue, you could build a computer with similar hardware specs to a Mac Pro, likely for around a third of the price of one.

[Marcel Birgelen]

There are a handful of DCP playback solutions for PCs. You don't even need a super-computer for them to work, almost any beefy recent machine will do. But like Leo indicated, you will not get a KDM from one of the major studios for such a setup. The Dolby CineAsset Player is targeted at post-production houses, who want to test their DCPs, it's not really targeted at exhibition.

There are plenty of playback solutions for consumer formats like H.264, H.265, whether it's wrapped into MP4 or MKV doesn't really matter. ProRes was never really intended as a playback format, so the amount of players available is rather limited. It can be played with QuickTime on a Mac, obviously, but VLC will not support it. There is an open-source implementation for ffmpeg though and ffmpeg doesn't only support ProRes, but also OpenEXR, which is the de-facto standard for VFX intermediates. Since ffmpeg supports it, you can use mplayer to play it. As another goody: ffmpeg also supports BlackMagic devices, both as capture and playback device, so with a sufficient powerful machine, you could probably decode ProRes and send it to a BlackMagic device for output over e.g. HD-SDI or HDMI, avoiding any complications with "second screen" setups when using a graphics card for output. Those things don't come with pretty user-interfaces though, it's all command-line driven.

[Carsten Kurz]

Layton - a Mac Pro with afterburner card will not aid much for playback. All that horsepower is dedicated to editing solutions. A lot of money thrown out for nothing.

In general, Playback Pro/Plus on a decent iMac should be sufficient. If you want to be able to play DCPs, Dolby CineAsset will support HD-SDI cards as well. You won't be able to play encrypted mainstream feature DCPs with it, but I guess that's not your intention anyway. You will probably need a HDMI->HD-SDI or HDbaseT converter for the necessary cable runs, but these are comparably low cost now.


I think you should start talking to the Playback Pro people, especially about your typical file formats. I understand your 'no transcoding' approach, so, you need to start with the playback software. There are demos available of both Playback Pro and Cine Asset Player.

- Carsten

[Leo Enticknap]

One drawback of Playback Pro is that it is only available for Mac OS, so a custom build computer in order to avoid your credit card being escorted to a cellar and introduced to The Gimp at the Apple Store is not an option. Might OBS (which is available for Windows, Mac OS, and Debian-based Linux) be worth checking out?

[Marcel Birgelen]

Also keep in mind that Playback Pro doesn't work on Catalina yet, it depends on 32-bit binary support, although there is a beta available.

[Scott Norwood]

OBS is great and has potential, but I wouldn't want to use it right now for file playback. As far as I can tell, there is no "fast forward" option for playback, so any sort of power or other disruption would result in having to re-start the file from the beginning, which is obviously unacceptable. If anyone knows otherwise, let me know.

That said, my personal feeling is that, at this point, any DCP-equipped venue should just be converting non-DCP files to DCPs for screening. Exhibitors should not be encourging the use of non-standard file formats for screening, and Pro Res is particularly problematic (as it is a proprietary format). I'm not sure how any of this became acceptable in the first place, but it really needs to be squashed now in favor of the standard format (DCP) now that most screening venues are equipped and the conversion tools are good (and fast enough with modern hardware).

Edit: If one _must_ screen Pro Res files, the AJA Ki-Pro works fine. The files need to be created to certain specifications (e.g. sound needs to be PCM and not AAF), but it works fine if one has control of the production chain (for advertising and stuff like that). It also records, which might be useful for special events and such.

[Leo Enticknap]

Scott,

As an exhibition technologist, I agree completely: transcoding any digital video file format to DCP is now cheap and easy enough (a $500 Windows PC can do so to 2K in almost real time, now, and there are free software options), than unless the volume of material you're dealing with would require a whole room full of them and a lot of staff time to oversee the process, I can't see any argument against doing that.

However, I get the impression that Layton is wearing an archivist's hat, and is trying to follow a principle that is taught in the first week of film archiving school: do not copy to another medium or format unless you absolutely have to, because by doing so, you destroy some of the aesthetic integrity of the original. Hence the desire to play every video file format under the sun straight from the playback program into the graphics card, without any transcoding.

Personally, I believe that is overly dogmatic, especially when faced with a choice between seeing, reading, or hearing a representation in a non-original format, or not at all. I read novels from the last two centuries on my Kindle (complete with numerous errors and typos caused by OCR fails) all the time, listen to music recordings from the 1920s and '30s not on 78s, play music from modern, heavily edited editions (J.S. Bach is difficult enough, without having to decipher his handwriting as well!) and on instruments designed and built centuries after the composer died, enjoy browsing books of reproductions of Ansel Adams photographs, and I can't remember the last time I sat and watched a movie from start to end (as an audience member) projected on 35mm or 70mm. I might be losing something in the process, but it doesn't keep me awake at night.

But still, there are those who believe that absolute material originality is desirable, and I have no problem trying to help them apply that principle.

Edit - I love the Ki-Pro as a recorder, but agree that as a hardware file player, it's too picky to trust to play anything that could be thrown at it. That is where a Mac with Playback Pro on it comes into its own: PBP is one of those "killer apps" that supports Apple hardware sales (Final Cut Pro being another), and enables Apple to charge the status symbol prices that they do.

[Scott Norwood]

I think that Leo and I basically agree on this. I can see the "archivist" argument, but my counter-argument to that would be that Pro Res is/was never a professional exhibition format, and that, being a proprietary format, it is unsuitable for preservation purposes as well. I can see why one wouldn't want to, say, show a super-8 version of a 70mm feature to the public or show a VHS copy of an HD program, but I guess that I'm just not a format purist when it comes to the file-based formats, as long as the original frame rate, sound format, etc. are preserved when they are converted, and the quality of the "new" format is substantially identical to the original.

[Layton Hebert]

Hi all,
Thanks again for these thoughtful and helpful responses. I am deeply grateful, and so is everyone in the film collections and exhibition departments here at BAMPFA, with a special thanks from the projectionists, myself included.

I just want to explain a little more about our intentions with this computer and I/O device as it relates to BAMPFA. We often receive video files directly from filmmakers (many of whom are operating independently, or marginally, with little money, and no opportunity to receive services from a professional post-production house). These filmmakers are provided with the technical capabilities of our theater, but no matter how hard we try, we can't get them to comply with our specifications. So we, as projectionists, are forced to adapt to all different video and audio formats. The mission of the Pacific Film Archive is to exhibit films and videos in their original format, how the filmmakers intended. For this reason and others, we are not interested in making everything into a DCP. We are not a post-production house. We will make DCPs if absolutely necessary, but again, we want to avoid transcoding. This aspect of our operations is not up for debate, and our curators are often frustrated when we have to convert files (because then they must be watched in the theater for QC and compared side by side, which is seen as a waste of time and creates scheduling conflicts in the theater, which is also used for UC Berkeley lectures). So in short, yes, we are going to be purist-archivists about this. Of course this all becomes theoretical if the budget doesn't agree. But for the moment, lets put budgetary constraints aside.

ProRes, being a proprietary format, never designed for exhibition, with all of its shortcomings, is nevertheless the most common non-DCP codec that we have to deal with. The ubiquity of ProRes is another aspect of this problem that is no longer up for debate. I wish it was! Somebody tell the editors!

So, assuming that we are stuck with ProRes videos, and that we are not willing to convert these videos to DCP, what is the most versatile, stable, and robust hardware/software for combination for exhibition currently on the the market?

For software, I'm hearing:Playback Pro, ffmpeg, OBS, and potentially Dolby Cineasset Player Pro, and perhaps disappointingly still the reigning champ, Quicktime. Thanks for the info on that Marcel, Leo, Scott, and Carsten.

FFMPEG
I have an aversion to running exhibition software from a command line driven platform, so that's a strike against the open-source FFMPEG. Otherwise it sounds great! Perhaps I just need to brush up on my CS. Can anyone elaborate on how this works, with specific nuts and bolts. Do you have to be a developer, or know a coding language to use FFMPEG for exhibition? If so, what kind of special knowledge is required? We are always willing to learn, if that solves the problem.

Dolby Cineasset Player Pro
I am still curious about Dolby Cineasset Player, since Dolby is generally such a strong name in the industry. Has anyone actually used this software? It looks good on paper, even as a ProRes player. No matter that it was designed for post-production houses. At least it's geared to playback and not editing or coloring. We can still play the DCPs on our DSS220 server, so I'm no longer talking about running DCP from Mac Pro, although it is an interesting possibility for the future, or as a backup option, in case the server dies all of a sudden.

Playback Pro
I have not been impressed with Playback Pro. I used to be a believer, but then I reviewed some of the issues from last year's festival circuit. Most of them were related to this software in some way. The fact that it doesn't yet run on Catalina OS is another big strike against it. For cyber security reasons, it is UC Berkeley policy to run the latest OS, whenever possible.

OBS
It seems like this software has a fatal flaw: it starts the video from the beginning if it is interrupted. This is more of a disqualification than a strike, so it sounds like we can count OBS out, for now.

QUICKTIME
All of the customary problems, too myriad to list here. However, most of these problems come with workarounds. We currently use quicktime, and it is not unacceptable. But obviously we were hoping for more.

For Hardware, we would prefer to stick with an Apple computer. The rest of our institution (and the film industry by and large) uses Apple, and we want to avoid compatibility issues. We have looked into "hackintosh" options, but these seem unstable and time-consuming (not to mention another potential security hazard). If the new Mac Pro is overkill, what combination of computer and I/O device is most versatile, stable, and robust? I am hearing that maybe a Blackmagicdesigns device paired with a sufficiently powerful Mac would do the trick (with ffmpeg or with Blackmagicdesign's Media Express). Similar set-ups with the AJA Ki-Pro seem limited when it comes to AAF audio. That's a pretty solid strike against AJA. Thanks for that info Scott!

So, if the advice is to buy an I/O device from Blackmagicdesigns and run it on a powerful Mac, why wouldn't we just buy the Mac Pro, which features and I/O card. The Afterburner still seems like an asset in this scenario. Am I missing something here? Since the Afterburner is specially designed for ProRes, it seems like the tool for the job. And I checked, the Afterburner absolutely does help with playback, not just editing. It deals with the ProRes directly, freeing up the processor to run everything else. Other than the fact that it's expensive, are there any downsides? Since the Mac Pro is modular, a Blackmagicdesigns PCI express card and cable kit could be installed in the future if deemed necessary, or if we free up one of our existing 4K Ultrastudios, currently being used to record video and do color correction (this is another department of the archive, but resources are pooled).
We need a new computer anyway, so it seems more "future-proof" to get the modular model that can be upgraded and retooled for unforeseen future bottlenecks (8k is probably coming probably sooner than we think). Now I can tell I'm rationalizing a big purchase, but seriously, other than the price-tag, what are the cons of the Mac Pro with Afterburner for playback of ProRes over any of the multiple supported software platforms? The signal flow supports it. The processing power supports it. And if it doesn't work, there is plenty of free PCI real estate. Software comes and goes, but modular hardware is priceless, no?

We look very much forward to hearing more from the film-tech community on this subject, if anyone is still interested in the conversation. I think it's an important one, with implications for the whole sector, so please weigh in! Especially if you disagree with any of the above!
Thanks again,
Warm regards,
Layton Hebert

[Leo Enticknap]

...my counter-argument to that would be that Pro Res is/was never a professional exhibition format, and that, being a proprietary format, it is unsuitable for preservation purposes as well.

True, but a lot of culturally and/or historically significant content is originated on media that were not intended to be used by professionals, and/or for archival preservation. Examples off the top of my head include the Zapruder film, the Watergate tapes, the original manuscript of Anne Frank's diaries, written on cheap, acidic and now crumbling paper, feature films originated on consumer formats, e.g. 28 Days Later and The Blair Witch Project, and some of Hitler's watercolors (again, originated on cheap paper, not designed to support pigment).

If we decide that it's worth trying to preserve them anyways, then it follows that we should at least try to preserve the subjective impression of encountering the original media they were created on. With a heavily compressed consumer or broadcast video file format, we can preserve the original bits and bytes. I am not opposed to trying also to preserve the software capability to play them back without having to transcode them into something else first.

[Frank Cox]

This aspect of our operations is not up for debate,

Professional film exhibition runs on DCP's. That's just the way that it is.

When you push that aside as "not up for debate", then you're immediatelly getting into second-tier solutions and stuff that might work (maybe, sometimes, depending) and anything beyond a simple picture on the screen and audio coming from the speakers is likely going to be next to impossible to accomplish. So that lets out automated cues for things like sound sources and picture aspect ratios, not to mention lights and curtains and all of that other wonderful stuff. And hoof it up to the projection room between each short or feature to switch things around for the next one, coming up in fifteen minutes (instead of thirty seconds which you could do with proper automation and cuing).

You want a professional production but you're not prepared to do the back end work (format conversion, qc and the rest) that will get you that result on a reliable basis.

EDIT: That maybe sounds a bit more abrupt than it could be; don't take it personally. But when you're trying to put up wallpaper with one hand and it's not working out well; the solution is to change your method, not to get a larger pail of water to dip it into.