No more film R&D, we're going digital: Kodak

Discussion in 'Kodak' started by Bushy, Sep 28, 2003.

  1. Bushy

    Tom Thackrey Guest

    It's too bad you didn't understand the RAID levels. Had you used RAID5 or
    one of the other levels that provides fault tolerance instead of just drive
    spanning you would not have lost ANY data.
     
    Tom Thackrey, Sep 30, 2003
    #81
    1. Advertisements

  2. Bushy

    Phred Guest

    If you do go to that trouble, and it may be necessary in the long run,
    I would strongly suggest you use *different* brands/dyes for each of
    your duplicate backups. Using all from the same batch is asking for
    them all to be dead when you come to use them.


    Cheers, Phred.
     
    Phred, Sep 30, 2003
    #82
    1. Advertisements

  3. Bushy

    Phred Guest

    You might have mentioned that that bloody file is around 7MB. :)
    I think I saw some at Myer (!) a year or three ago, but they're never
    consistent in what lines of CDRs and similar that they stock. :-(

    Anyway, I'm always a bit cynical about these sorts of claims --
    especially when the whole consumer technology has only been around for
    about a decade.

    In similar vein, talking to a bloke who deals in lots of really big
    files (GIS stuff) that they interchange on CDRs for want of a more
    convenient method, and he claimed they always have problems unless
    they write at max 4X speed. (To be frank, I don't really see how they
    can have the sort of issues he says they have without the whole file
    being rejected by the system as corrupt. But then, I don't really
    understand the detail of the read/write protocols involved in CDRs.)


    Cheers, Phred.
     
    Phred, Sep 30, 2003
    #83
  4. The higher-end ones are shot of film for versatility. Given a 24 FPS
    film negative, it's easy to scan it once for 30 FPS 480-line NTSC for
    North American release, again to give 25 FPS 580-line PAL or SECAM.
    And it can be rescanned for 24P HDTV in the future, all with good
    quality.

    Conversions from NTSC to PAL mostly look awful. The other direction
    works better, but PAL cameras are not common in North America. And
    neither produces decent HDTV. Shooting in 24 FPS progressive-scan HDTV
    would be better, but the equipment for that is more expensive than film
    cameras, not less.

    And then there is the quality issue. Film shot on a relatively
    inexpensive film camera and then transferred to video on a
    million-dollar telecine simply looks better than video shot directly on
    even an expensive studio-grade video camera. This is the way to produce
    the highest-quality video, if you don't need it instantly.
    To very mixed reviews. Shooting digitally with HDTV cameras makes some
    sense for the Star Wars films, where so much of the footage needs to end
    up in digital form anyway for effects work. This avoids lots of film
    scanning, as well as providing instant playback to see what you got.
    And I understand that they are *not* shooting regular HDTV, with
    downsampled colour resolution and compression - they are recording
    full-bandwidth RGB right off the camera, to give the quality needed for
    matte work.

    The projectors are the weakest link at the moment. Although the images
    are captured at 1920x1080 pixels (well, less vertically because of the
    aspect ratio), the digital projectors are only 1280x1024. It shows.

    Dave
     
    Dave Martindale, Sep 30, 2003
    #84
  5. Bushy

    Paolo Pizzi Guest

    Very good point. I kind of do that since I backup on DVD+R
    *and* CD-ROM.
     
    Paolo Pizzi, Sep 30, 2003
    #85
  6. Bushy

    JPS Guest

    In message <blbqkq$a7tvq$-berlin.de>,
    I did the RAID0 thing long enough to do the sustained benchmarks, go
    "wow!", create an uncompressed 24-bit animation with 80 MB/s bandwidth,
    play it off the array, break the array, and use the drives the way they
    work best for general performance: load balancing of head movement, as
    separate volumes.

    A RAID0 array only increases performance for sustained throughput (helps
    little or none with random access), when the array substitutes for a
    *single* drive. When it substitutes for two separate volumes, it can
    actually harm random access performance quite a bit.
    --
     
    JPS, Oct 3, 2003
    #86
  7. Bushy

    B.Rumary Guest

    This is true. However "Dallas" (or Dynasty) was originally shot on film.
    Then halfway through the run they switched to video shooting. There was
    then a noticeable loss of quality in the picture over here in the UK, due
    to the conversion from NTSC to PAL format. Presumably modern computer
    processing technology has improved the conversion process since those
    days.

    No doubt nearly all cinema movies are still shot on film. However notice
    the original post claimed that *TV* shows are still mostly shot on film.
    Given the much smaller budgets available for most TV, I would suspect
    that most shows are now done on video, either analogue or digital.
    Certainly all news "filming" is now done on video.

    Brian Rumary, England

    http://freespace.virgin.net/brian.rumary/homepage.htm
     
    B.Rumary, Oct 3, 2003
    #87
  8. There are several TV drama shows shot in Vancouver, and I've visited
    the labs where their film footage is processed. For most shows, the
    film comes in, is processed to negative, and the negative is then
    transferred to video using a telecine. Sometimes the video is standard
    NTSC, sometimes it is HDTV.

    Note that these are drama shows like Stargate SG-1, Davinci's Inquest,
    and so on - content that might well be sold abroad. Most local
    programming is certainly shot using video cameras.

    Dave
     
    Dave Martindale, Oct 5, 2003
    #88
  9. Bushy

    dvus Guest

    Actually, I knew that, I only had enough bucks at the time for two drives.

    dvus
     
    dvus, Oct 6, 2003
    #89
  10. Bushy

    dvus Guest

    I didn't do all the testing that you did, but I quite agree. Storage and
    retrieval of information for me wasn't significantly altered one way or another
    in everyday use. I just happened to have a mobo that supported Raid and wanted
    to see what all the fuss was about.

    dvus
     
    dvus, Oct 6, 2003
    #90
  11. Bushy

    Scott Howard Guest

    Rubbish. With RAID 0 on average 50% of your reads will come from each
    drive, and 50% of your writes will go to each drive. ie, the utilisation
    on each drive will be half of what it would have been if you were just
    using a single volume. It does't matter if the access pattern is
    sequential or random - on average the result is still a gain in
    performance.

    Scott.
     
    Scott Howard, Oct 6, 2003
    #91
  12. Bushy

    Russ Guest

    I don't think Scott's point is entirely invalid. A RAID 0 (stripe set) will
    improve the data rate significantly, but the reads and writes aren't "on
    average" 50%, they are exactly a proportion of the number of drives the data
    is striped across - that is, in a stripe set, every block of data is split
    across multiple drives. Thus the seek time won't be improved, since the
    heads are moving more or less in lock-step (exactly how simultaneous the
    movement is depends on architecture), so random access tends to show little
    improvement.

    Russ.
     
    Russ, Oct 6, 2003
    #92
  13. Compared to a single drive. It could be much worse than 2 drives
    configured as two independent partitions for some operations.

    For example, consider a program copying data from one file to another.
    If the two files are on separate partitions on physically separate
    drives (e.g. Photoshop's scratch disk is on the other drive from where
    the image file is), then the transfer will tend to leave both drives'
    heads located where the next read or write is going to take place,
    eliminating seek delays. This is good.

    With the same 2 drives configured as a stripe set, and no third disk to
    use for scratch space, the two files will be located in two different
    places in the filesystem, and both drives will spend a lot of time
    seeking back and forth between the two files.

    Dave
     
    Dave Martindale, Oct 7, 2003
    #93
  14. Bushy

    JPS Guest

    In message <[email protected]>,
    Rubbish not.
    "Rubbish". If two drives have their heads in the tracks where their
    halves of the file are, and another file is accessed at the same time,
    then both drives will engage in moving the heads back and forth between
    the tracks that contain the two files. For a read, which attempts to be
    realtime (not like a write, which can use a lazy-write routine) this
    cuts performance quite a bit.

    If you take a RAID0 array with two drives capable of 45 MB/s each, and
    use them for reading a single file, you will get as much as 90 MB/s
    sustained for reads. If you start reading two files at the same time,
    one near the beginning of the disk, and one much further in, the total
    bandwidth for the two files will drop to about 5 MB/s. Had the 2 disks
    never been RAID0 and were still separate, with each file on a separate
    disk, they could be potentially read at the full 90 MB/s combined.

    This is not speculation. This is stuff I've tested thoroughly, and it
    supports what I've thought all along; a performance machine should have
    as many different hard disks as is practical, with load balancing of
    disk access, and a RAID0 only counts as one disk for this.
    --
     
    JPS, Oct 7, 2003
    #94
  15. Bushy

    JPS Guest

    In message <bls3o3$eq6he$-berlin.de>,
    Did you mean "isn't entirely valid"?
    --
     
    JPS, Oct 7, 2003
    #95
  16. Bushy

    dvus Guest

    I'm no expert by any means, but my experience supports this. Large data
    transfers, both to and from the Raid0 seemed to be significantly faster, while
    casual use with various apps seemed about the same as using distinct HDDs, but
    with a lot more disk thrashing. I now stay with unique drives and leave the more
    esoteric setups to those that enjoy/need them.

    dvus
     
    dvus, Oct 7, 2003
    #96
  17. RAID 0 is really a specialized thing. It gives you a way of building
    what is effectively a large disk with high transfer rate out of N
    smaller slower disks, but it's also N times less reliable. It's great
    for digital video editing, when you might need 40 MB/sec sustained
    transfer rates. It's sort of pointless for most other things.

    There are other RAID arrangements that also provide much higher
    reliability, but RAID 0 doesn't do this.

    Dave
     
    Dave Martindale, Oct 7, 2003
    #97
  18. Bushy

    daye Guest

    I don't see how could this be true.
     
    daye, Oct 7, 2003
    #98
  19. Bushy

    JPS Guest

    In message <blup75$m3g$>,
    I've done 120 fps uncompressed 24-bit animation (~520*390, I think) from
    hard disk, off the RAID0. Television never looked the same again! That
    was the only use I found for RAID0, other than being thrilled by
    sustained benchmarks.
    --
     
    JPS, Oct 8, 2003
    #99
  20. Bushy

    Pulver Guest


    Most dentists lease their equipment
     
    Pulver, Oct 8, 2003
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.