Tim Kolb
Forum Replies Created
-
Well…first off, your graphics card is not on the approved configuration list.
Second…the latest drivers aren’t always the certified drivers for specific peripherals…
Third, have you verified that the power supply in your machine is up to the task? Inability to upgrade the firmware makes me curious about that. Hopefully the card isn’t damaged.
Do you have motherboard graphics? Could you get the display card out of the machine and test it that way?
I hear a lot of people who really don’t like paying for a pro graphics card, but frankly, those are the ones being tested and certified. I understand that many gamer cards have all the power, and sometimes more…but conflicts and system resource issues are things that gamers have time to tinker with everytime a point-release of a driver comes out, or Halo adds 30% more texels, etc, etc. The QuadroFX cards on the approved list have been tested and with the driver version specified (almost NEVER the latest version) on the AJA site, they’re known quantities.
https://www.aja.com/support/kona-pc/kona-pc-graphics-cards.php
As far as the slot the board is in…on some motherboards, I think you can use some IO cards in a PCIe x8 slot…but it’s under certain circumstances, and I’m not an IT guy so I usually need to ask somebody.
AJA’s known configurations are here:
https://www.aja.com/support/kona-pc/kona-pc-system-configuration.php
I would not be surprised if the display card might have a resource sharing issue…but that is strictly a wild guess. I recently had to upgrade a BIOS in my purpose-built workstation to accommodate a QuadroFX display card upgrade so that system resources would be allocated differently.
I’d also check in with the motherboard manufacturer…it’s not a mainstream professional motherboard as far as I know…but again, I’m not IT guy.
As you run this stuff to ground, keep a couple things in mind. You have a computer configuration that appears to be aimed at gaming as the marketing for the motherboard seems to suggest to me anyway… Very few of us would DREAM of assembling a computer for HD video editing with an 8 GB RAM maximum (at least that’s what I see at a few review sites as I search the motherboard to get somewhat familiar with it.)
You’ve purchased a high end HD video editing hardware peripheral that is simply not compatible with every possible configuration. Video editing at this level takes system resources big-time, and the configuration of the system as a whole is very important. I don’t have my workstations purpose-built by a specialized vendor because I LOVE to pay the considerable bill…I do it to avoid having issues like this, which are far more costly when you make your living at this.
Not to bust your chops here…I’m not saying it CAN’T work…I don’t know that. I’m just saying that you’ll want to keep in mind that you’re stretching the configuration envelope beyond what these companies have ever tested. AJA doesn’t verify high end (or any) gamer display cards, and the folks who would support the graphics card you have probably aren’t at all familiar with the stresses and requirements of HD post production, as may also be the case with any support people for the motherboard.
I wish you luck on this. Unfortunately, the fact of the matter is typically that there is a good reason why the specific components we use in our profession cost more…the QA alone is a large investment. That’s also why there aren’t endless options for the ‘safe’ configurations… It would be impossible to test all the possibilities much less fix all the niggling issues.
TimK,
Director, Consultant
Kolb Productions, -
Hi Pushpa,
I missed this message in the thread…sorry. A quick Google of my name and the software package should get you lots of info…
TimK,
Director, Consultant
Kolb Productions, -
[gary adcock] “Who are you kidding?
We are talking about religion here…”
Boy…THAT is the absolute truth…
TimK,
Director, Consultant
Kolb Productions, -
[gary adcock] “I could not agree more, if you really want a good time you should see people like Tim and I do this Live and In person at the bar.”
Some of my favorite time spent… 🙂
See you at NAB, Gary. I’ll be in Saturday night.
TimK,
Director, Consultant
Kolb Productions, -
Do you see the proper amount of RAM in the system when you select My Computer>Properties?
If not, is “Memory Hole Remapping” enabled in your BIOS?
TimK,
Director, Consultant
Kolb Productions, -
Well…again, we’re changing comparisons.
The EX3 native is 4:2:0, 35 Mbit, 8 bit Long GOP.
The 100 Mbit Long GOP typically referred to is a 4:2:2 format that has 3 times the data rate and better color subsampling…it’s not what the EX3 records native, so it simply clouds the discussion that you started in the subject line.
100 Mbit/s, 4:2:2, Long GOP is far better than 35 Mbit/s, 4:2:0 Long GOP…
I’ve done some testing with the KiPro and also some other external data recorders…I want to do more testing before I’d have any opinions anywhere as strong as the opinions expressed in that thread…(I’ve only used ProRes HQ…no other bitrates).
Clearly though, 10 bit is just a lot more color precision…there is more information in 220 Mbps, 10 bit 4:2:2 material than 35 Mbps 8 bit 4:2:0. However, Long GOP is more efficient than I-frame…so data rate isn’t the whole story…but it’s a huuuge gap we’re talking about here, and Long GOP doesn’t close to filling the gap when you consider all the technical factors between EXcam and ProRes HQ.
What is noise and what is extra detail…and what is compression artifact is difficult enough to determine when you’re looking at it yourself. It’s impossible when somebody is trying to describe it in written form when the content of the image, the camera settings, and the display being used to view the material and its calibration are all in question, not to mention we all have different pools of experience that we reference…
Honestly, I always recommend each user conduct their own test in circumstances like this as very few of us can claim complete objectivity.
However, the question in your subject line is really “Is 10 bit ProRes higher in image quality than 8 bit XDcamEX?” and the short answer is that yes, it is…
TimK,
Director, Consultant
Kolb Productions, -
I assume from your response that you edit on FCP.
Adobe handles XDcam EX natively (no rewrap required, the same with P2) very well. I do use an intermediate codec for some projects (I’ve been a CineForm user since HDV showed up), but I’ve done projects with EXcam footage (35 Mbit) as my edit source with no issues. I typically master out to CineForm or uncompressed…or I archive the project and simply output through the media encoder when we need some other output file.
It’s still 8 bit, 4:2:0, and aggressively compressed, so as mentioned, if you do effects work (or even aggressive color correction), a better intermediate codec would serve you well.
(…however, if you are in a facility where you do a full project archive, 35 Mbit/s EXcam footage is a bit lighter weight to store and move than 220 Mbit/s ProRes…)
TimK,
Director, Consultant
Kolb Productions, -
The Matrox products will usually accelerate certain effects and transitions…often they furnish them. The Mercury playback endgine accelerates all playback/preview and decodes on all formats.
The display card gives you the horsepower at preview time…when you’re editing and want to make a decision and see it, and keep working. Products from companies like Matrox, AJA, and BlackMagic handle input and output of video and audio as their primary role…something a display card doesn’t do.
I think most of us need both…
TimK,
Director, Consultant
Kolb Productions, -
Hi Daniel…
That thread on that other site got into a lot of theory for sure…not all of us were exactly in the same camp on this…
Also, keep in mind that there were many variations that were being compared. I think that a KiPro at 220 Mbit HQ is far better than 35 Mbit EXcam without a doubt.
That conversation ended up branching out into 8 bit vs 10 bit in general…4:2:0 vs 4:2:2 ended up getting confusing because we had someone who was advocating an external box that does high bitrate 8 bit 4:2:2…which is not 35 Mbit 4:2:0…it started as an apples and oranges conversation and ended up apples and airplanes.
TimK,
Director, Consultant
Kolb Productions, -
I know cost is always an issue on anything you buy these days, but AJA products have served me quite well.
The IO Express is a product that is external…similar to the Matrox external products. It’s a very clean signal. I think the pricing is generally competitive.
As far as a workstation card…I’ve used the AJA LH line for some time now. Again, the signal is textbook clean, and it works very well with Premiere Pro.
(I also run 2 Quadro cards as I use 4 displays…and a really fast display card with a lot of cores makes a difference, even under WXP 32 in CS4. Of course, the approved Quadro cards or the GTX285 will make a much bigger difference in CS5…)
TimK,
Director, Consultant
Kolb Productions,