Eric Hansen
Forum Replies Created
-
it looks like it was shot on 16mm with zoom lenses (like Angeniuex 12-120) to achieve the snap zooms, and a Angenieux 5.9 or Kinoptik 5.7 for the primes. the daytime stuff is possibly Ektachrome reversal stock, but most likely Vision2 or Vision3 negative. The night stuff is probably 500T negative.
there’s definitely a de-sat, lifted black, almost metallic thing going on. some of the look is most likely from the telecine (keeping things flat) and then tweaked a bit in correction. it looks like ungraded telecine because there’s a general cast to the shots (some daytime stuff is brown, night stuff is green or blue, no contrast) it wouldn’t be that tough to achieve this look if you shot film.
if you shot it on RED, it would be a different story because a lot of the look comes from the size of 16mm and the lenses.
i would lift the blacks and then use the shadows control (and a bit of the midtones) to change the whole look of the image. this achieves the “ungraded film” look. at least that has been my experience from running my own Super8 telecine and grading it. you have to look at it 2 ways – you have the image you want and the film that it’s on. in most cases i would try to take the film out of the equation and get to grading the image. here, you want to do the opposite. most people find it easiest to buy film packs and apply them as a filter. if you do that, do a balance color correction of the footage to make it look good on its own, then apply the filter, then tweak in a final node to get the exact look you want. you might need to lift the blacks before applying the filter to make sure the filter doesn’t raise crushed blacks. it looks like for the daytime there’s a simple brown filter and the nighttime has a blue or green filter – the casts i mentioned above. but it’s mixed up, which is cool.
if i’m wrong here, and this was shot on RED or similar, i would also be very interested in how they achieved this look.
e
Eric Hansen
Production Workflow Designer / Consultant / Colorist / DIT
https://www.erichansen.tv -
Yes, certain desktop drives are designed to work in RAIDs. some are not. I had this faulty Qx2 a while ago. The drives that it contained were not the drives that my clients’ previous Qx2’s had. I looked up the part numbers and Seagate specifically noted in their materials for this part number, that they were not designed for RAID use. They were designed to be used individually and to be energy efficient. That was specific to that line of drives (and not all Barracudas), not the whole Seagate brand or Desktop drives in general.
When you purchase drives, you must double check that the desktop-labeled drive you’re looking at can be used in RAIDs because some cannot. Unfortunately, the terms are being confused when a few years ago, enterprise more or less meant RAID.
the key in your statement is “high quality”. unfortunately, in the name of cost cutting, some vendors are replacing the RAID-quality desktop drives in their RAIDs with lower quality desktop drives that aren’t designed for RAID use.
sorry if what i wrote was misconstrued. I think I need another cup of coffee. 🙂
Eric Hansen
Production Workflow Designer / Consultant / Colorist / DIT
https://www.erichansen.tv -
This is true regarding the Pegasus RAIDs. I just popped a drive out and looked up the part number. it’s a Deskstar 7K3000. According to Hitachi’s data sheet, it’s recommended for “video editing arrays”.
i believe some of the structural tuning that goes into enterprise drives is for when you have a bunch of 16+ drive RAIDs all in one standing rack. that’s a lot of vibration.
The problem i’ve noticed isn’t that some vendors are swapping non-enterprise drives into their RAIDs. it’s that they’re swapping in drives that were not designed to run in RAIDs at all.
Eric Hansen
Production Workflow Designer / Consultant / Colorist / DIT
https://www.erichansen.tv -
hey Neil
You freaked me out for a second. I popped all the drives on my 4 R4’s and they’re all Hitachis. I bought them back in August though.
As i posted in another thread, OWC did something similar when a purchased a Qx2 about a year ago. Due to HD shortages, they switched the HDs. They were Seagate Barracudas, the ones not designed for RAIDs. The Qx2 was slow, unstable and kept ejecting from my computer. I sent it back for a refund.
e
Eric Hansen
Production Workflow Designer / Consultant / Colorist / DIT
https://www.erichansen.tv -
Hey Chris
Regarding the RAID ejecting itself, you should give OWC a call. I had a version of the Qx2 that was loaded with low quality drives, which resulted in extremely low performance and it would occasionally eject itself. I returned it for a refund.
this thread: https://forums.creativecow.net/thread/292/2631 should answer your other questions.
e
Eric Hansen
Production Workflow Designer / Consultant / Colorist / DIT
https://www.erichansen.tv -
[Alex Gerulaitis] “[Eric Hansen] “this is the main thing I hate about ethernet-based SANs vs FC-based SANs”
Eric, would you elaborate on this?
My understanding was that layer 3 Ethernet switches could do auto-failover, something that’s not part of FC where failover is handled primarily on the driver or even ASIC level – but is not part of the “intelligence” of the protocol.”
Alex, you definitely trump me here, and i don’t want to hijack the thread. from what I understand, FC can failover because OS X can understand multi-pathing over FC (i might be getting the terminology way wrong here). if you have a RAID with redundant FC controllers going into multiple FC switches (for redundancy), the client computer can understand that. it won’t mount the volume twice even though it can “see” 2 paths to the same volume. if one path disappears, the client system won’t freak out.
I’ve actually never had an ethernet switch fail over its useful life, so i’m not too worried about that. AFP-based Ethernet systems use a single server (no MDC), ethernet cards, and direct attached storage (through a single card). if anything in that chain fails (the server, the SAS card in the server, the ethernet card, the SAS expander on the SAS RAID), the client loses connection to the storage. with FC, all of these things can be redundant if you set them up that way.
if i need to work on the AFP server, i can’t just make it failover to a backup and then take it offline like I could with Xsan.
so this is more NAS vs a true FC SAN setup. I prefer the latter for 24/7 critical systems and it’s too bad that the growth of shared storage systems has been primarily on the NAS side than the SAN side.
Eric Hansen
Production Workflow Designer / Consultant / Colorist / DIT
https://www.erichansen.tv -
David said “But to quote someone I know, “I’ve never had drives fail faster than I can replace them one at a time.” If you have RAID5, and a drive fails, and you replace it same day, you will not lose data.”
I HAVE lost a drive while a drive was rebuilding in a RAID5 set. After that near heart attack (ATTO tech support helped me recover the RAID) I only do RAID6. When I do have a drive failure and a rebuild begins, I try to get the editors to not use that volume if at all possible. it speeds up the rebuild and reduces the chance of corruption.
I hadn’t thought of RAID60 for larger sets. None of my current volumes goes over 16 drives. But I’m gonna have to look into that very soon for some new 10GbE buildouts. I need more speed!
I am also very much looking forward to ZFS. the ability to expand a volume without reformatting is another awesome feature.
I agree with Bob that RAID level is only one variable in creating a reliable system. You have to look at all single points of failure. this is the main thing I hate about ethernet-based SANs vs FC-based SANs. The Xsans i built had multiple MDCs, multiple switches, multi-path FC controllers, 2 FC connections to every client, multiple power supplies on everything, etc. But the scope of this thread is limited to RAID level, so i digress.
e
Eric Hansen
Production Workflow Designer / Consultant / Colorist / DIT
https://www.erichansen.tv -
This is all correct.
RAID Shield creates a RAID set that the OS can see. But the OS needs to format it into a Volume (or set of Partitions) that can be used. When you’re in Disk Utility, look at your boot drive. You will see a drive on the left. something like “1TB Hitachi xxxxx-xxxx Media”. then indented from that you will see “Macintosh HD”. The “Macintosh HD” is the volume on the drive. you need to create a Volume for your RAID set.
When Disk Utility says you must Initialize, do that. If you already have Disk Utility open, click on the CalDigit RAID (or whatever it’s called) and click the “Erase” tab.
Name the volume what you like in the “Erase” tab. And then you’re done.
btw, this should all be in the CalDigit RAID Shield manual.
e
Eric Hansen
Production Workflow Designer / Consultant / Colorist / DIT
https://www.erichansen.tv -
is this a mirror in the sense that you want to take a RAID5 and create a RAID51 with 2 chassis?
or are you looking for a RAID of similar size to backup your existing RAID?
I’ve been looking for backup options for my SAN, and I’m leaning towards an LTO autoloader
e
Eric Hansen
Production Workflow Designer / Consultant / Colorist / DIT
https://www.erichansen.tv -
If you’re RAIDing them all together, then none of them. They’re all “desktop” drives and not meant to run in RAIDs. I do have 4 Caviar Blacks in my Mac Pro, but they’re older from when Blacks were part of WD’s RAID offerings. I don’t know what they’ve changed so they’re no longer recommended for RAIDs. They would probably be fine, but the other 2 might have issues like spin down. This has been discussed on this forum, but my go-to are HGST Ultrastars
If you’re not RAIDing them together, then those should all work fine.
e
Eric Hansen
Production Workflow Designer / Consultant / Colorist / DIT
https://www.erichansen.tv