[Blase Theodore]

Thanks Matthew. Will give Dynamo a shot.

Thanks Shawn. (just looking for a free/cheap tool to measure disk load, but I will keep Bright systems in mind for future.)

[Blase Theodore]

Cool thanks Glenn.

To be clear here, the objective is to combine multiple 3D tracked plates, via projection mapping. So once you build that data with syntheses or pftrack, you can create a separate shot camera from the multiple 3D-tracked projected cameras, right?

[Blase Theodore]

Hi Pat,

Sorry man, those files are long gone. Changed servers a couple years ago. But Dan explains it quite well.
You should really check out his description in the thread above.

Good luck!
Blase

[Blase Theodore]

Ok thanks Rohit!

[Blase Theodore]

Yup thats the answer. Thanks JP!

[Blase Theodore]

Thanks for the input guys.

I would like to know the actual reason though. I mean the majority of camera sensors are built for 1.89. And all 2k/4k projectors are natively 1.89.

Which means that we unnecessarily lose quality twice:
First on the camera sensor, (we throw away the extra pixels.)
and then again on the projection chip (the projector only uses 1998 of its 2048, the extra projection capacity just shows black strips for the life of the projector.)

Its like the engineering community got together and ironed out the proper workflow, and then the post community ignored it.

[Blase Theodore]

New nvidia driver is out. Does that change anything? I’m sitting on a mavericks partition and a titan that I haven’t touched. Anyone getting proper cuda performance out of 10.9 yet?

[Blase Theodore]

No that doesn’t work.
The workaround is you do a grabframe of the entire timeline to a gallery page.
Go through the new timeline and apply every grade from the still. This applies the R3D info.
Once you’ve gone through one by one, then go back to colortrace. Colortrace will override the grades (but not the debayer) with keyframes and tracking data.

[Blase Theodore]

Yes exactly.

[Blase Theodore]

Sorry Alex, I thought I had posted a follow up in which I repeated the setup, but split across 2 cards, and the result was the same.

I must have hit “preview post” but then never actually posted. I’ll retype it below…

ALTERNATE TEST SETUP:

HARDWARE SETUP:
24 WD RE3 enterprise SATA 3Gb/s drives
dual ATTO R380 cards (3Gb SAS)
dual xtore 12bay JBOD expander units (3Gb SAS)
each xtore feeds a single SAS connection to a separate R380
OSX 10.8.5

RAID SETUP:
12 drives > xtore_unit1 > R380-1 > RAID5 > “RaidGroup1”
12 drives > xtore_unit2 > R380-2 > RAID5 > “RaidGroup2”
Interleave=512 / Sector size=4kb / Speedread=always / prefetch=0
Disk utility > “RaidGroup1” + “RaidGroup2”

In the alternate test setup each RAIDgroup is about 700Mb/s R/W. However once again, when striped together by disk utility, the resulting speed is only 5-600Mb/s. I would expect 12-1400Mb/s.

And to clarify the RAID5 vs RAID0..

I repeated both hardware test setups using RAID0’s instead of RAID5’s. The RAID0’s performed exactly as the RAID5’s did, and the overall results of all 4 tests were identical. Everything was always successful until the last step of striping them together.