Page 1 of 1
Installation with big media ...
Posted: Thu Nov 05, 2009 7:21 pm
by diez54
I prepared a video installation on a big cube (each side is 5.12 m * 3.12 m), I will
use 4 video projector, so I think doing loops in 2048px * 312px, the
broadcast will be with a mac pro which I do not yet know the
characteristics. Do you think this is possible? I have never used such large loops.
What do you think is the minimum configuration of the mac pro?
thx
ps: with this big file , I must used the same compression (photojpeg at 75%) ?
Re: Installation with big media ...
Posted: Thu Nov 05, 2009 10:20 pm
by gmint
diez54 wrote:I prepared a video installation on a big cube (each side is 5.12 m * 3.12 m), I will
use 4 video projector, so I think doing loops in 2048px * 312px, the
broadcast will be with a mac pro which I do not yet know the
characteristics. Do you think this is possible? I have never used such large loops.
What do you think is the minimum configuration of the mac pro?
thx
ps: with this big file , I must used the same compression (photojpeg at 75%) ?
I don't know what kind of impact using the advanced output will have on the performance, but I've used loops as big as 2048x768 with my MacBook Pro and a Matrox Dual Head 2 Go with no problem. Personally, I went for 100% quality PhotoJPEG...
Re: Installation with big media ...
Posted: Fri Nov 06, 2009 9:45 am
by vanakaru
gmint wrote:Personally, I went for 100% quality PhotoJPEG...
I have found that 100% photoJPG will produce 2-3 times larger file than 85% and I can not see degradation in quality. I wonder how very large uncompressed files play.
Posted: Mon Nov 09, 2009 2:29 pm
by Vibber
I don't know for sure but for comparison I was on a job this weekend where we had two 2048x384 clips running simultaneously. they were encoded as pjpeg 95%. This went OK but we hit the barrier trying to run a third clip (smaller size but with alpha). I think the alpha channel was a real killer .
Of course this depends on the machine - and I don't have the specs of the machine we were using. Other than that it was a recent MacPro.
Posted: Mon Nov 09, 2009 5:46 pm
by ilan
@udart was the clip with alpha PNG encoded or Animation?
Posted: Mon Nov 09, 2009 10:50 pm
by Vibber
I'm guessing it was animation, but I'm not sure since it was my colleague Obscura who did that part of the show.
Posted: Tue Nov 10, 2009 2:44 pm
by vanakaru
alpha is a killer, animation more so than png+. we did a mapping project last winter with alpha channels and had very good mac pro to use. we used rather short clips, but 1500x1500 sise and had hard time with frame rates regardless.
Posted: Tue Nov 10, 2009 2:46 pm
by Vibber
I wonder if that is the same with all graphics cards...
Posted: Tue Nov 10, 2009 7:01 pm
by vanakaru
Vibber wrote:I wonder if that is the same with all graphics cards...
I wonder that too. Would be good to find one that works wonders in MacPro. MBP(two latest before unibody) is the same though
Posted: Wed Nov 11, 2009 5:08 pm
by ilan
@vankaru For this big project what kind of drives were you using?
Posted: Wed Nov 11, 2009 6:45 pm
by diez54
thank you for all these details.
Posted: Thu Nov 12, 2009 9:33 am
by vanakaru
ilan wrote:@vankaru For this big project what kind of drives were you using?
I am not sure - we hired this mac with projectors for soft edge blending(with Blackmagic video cards). But surely there were no external drives.
It was not too bad in the end, but longer clips were eliminated in early stages.