Convergent Design had both of their digital recording devices on display.  The Flash XDR has been available for a while, but I have been waiting for the smaller NanoFlash.  It can record full 1080p HD-SDI or HDMI onto CompactFlash cards in the same MPEG format as Sony’s new XDCam-HD422 gear.  It is absolutely tiny, at about half the size of a 3.5″ hard drive, and is solid state.  I can envision a number of uses for it in rigging small camera’s on vehicles and in other rough spots.  The most challenging spot is usually as a backpack recorder for a helmet cam.  If Iconix ever releases a smaller CCU for their Studio2K, the backpack may someday become a belt.  The HDMI input allows cheap camcorders to record at much higher quality than their internal storage allows.

One other thing that I didn’t notice until after the show was over, was that NVIDIA announced a new SDI I/O solution, which should become available later this year.  SDI output is nothing new for NVIDIA, and has been available as an option since back when the AGP based QuadroFX 4000 was the top of the line.  I had heard over two years ago that SDI input capability was in development, but the Quadro Digital Video Pipeline has been the first sign of it becoming a reality.  Based on the developments in GPU accelerated encoding with the Quadro CX, I predicted last year that this must be coming soon.  I am still curious to see the details on how this will be implemented at the software level, and more specifically, what types of realtime HD compression will be supported.  The fact that it supports multistream capture is somewhat unique, and will be very useful as stereoscopic video production becomes more common.

That pretty much sums up the main things that stood out to me at NAB.  I have deliberately steered clear of discussing a few products that I will be using a lot in the near future.  I plan to post much more detailed info on those products and the related workflows once I have experienced them first hand on large projects.

Sony has a number of new toys that span the budget gamut.  On the high end, the SRW 9000 is an HDCam-SR camcorder with capabilities similar to the F23, and an all in one shoulder-mount formfactor like the F900.  With option boards, this unit is capable of recording up to 60fps at full raster 1920×1080, with up to 10bit 4:4:4 RGB of color information.  The next step below SR is really XDCam-HD422 at this point, since regular HDCAM is basically obselete.  The new PDW-800 basically replaces all of the functionality of the F900 (30i/p, 25/44p, etc.) plus the advantages of full 1920×1080 recording in 4:2:2 instead of HDCam’s 1440×1080 at about 3:1:1.  The 50Mb files can also be edited in their native form in almost any NLE, and can be accessed in a non-linear fashion directly from the storage disk. (No rewinding, preroll, or realtime capture required)  The new camera even has a network jack right on the side for copying the recorded files to a network, and can dump the proxies to a USB flash drive if you want to go that route.  That won’t be necessary for any workflow I will use, since Premiere, FCP, and even Avid can access the full resolution files directly without import conversions, for truly native editing.  Finally a workflow that is actually designed to “work” and “flow.”  Sony also had a number of new LCD monitors on display, including a 4K one, two circular polarized 3D screens, and two new 30″ and 17″ additions to their BVM line of LCDs.  The 3D screens look great, and while I couldn’t confirm the inner workings, with a single input, it seems to use an interface technology that would be compatible with Cineform’s new Neo3D software that I have been demoing all week.

The only thing I was really impressed with at the Panasonic booth was that they created an Economy line of P2 cards, but I have yet to find the specifics on the new pricing levels.  With $900 being the minimum price, an economy option was definitely needed.  SxS cards at least have SDHC based replacement options, which is especially ironic since the P2 cards are rumored to physically contain 4 SDHC cards.  Panasonic also has a new 3D plasma screen, based on sequential alternating frames, which requires active 3D shutter glasses.  I have also heard they have a new 10bit 1080p projector for $2400 that I should go check out tomorrow.

NVIDIA has released OSX drivers for the QuadroFX 4800, so it seems that that will probably become the highend card of choice for those purchasing the new MacPro, which was recently revised with Nehalem based Xeon CPUs.  I have been pleased with the performance I get from my equivalent QuadroCX card, and I am looking forward to trying a QuadroFX 5800 on my SpeedGradeDI system sometime in the near future.

The CS4 applications that will see significant performance gains from hardware acceleration, are After Effects, Photoshop, and Premiere Pro.  The improvements in After Effects and Photoshop will also be evident with any other previous generation high end GPU, while the new hardware accelerated H264 encoding support for Premiere Pro is specifically tied to the new Quadro CX card.  NVidia has also recently announced the Quadro FX 4800, with basically identical hardware specifications to the Quadro CX, and which retails for about $200 cheaper.  The extra cost is buying you access to the CUDA based RapiHD H.264 encoder, that is available in no other form besides in conjunction with the Quadro CX card.  If you have no need for accelerated H.264 encoding, you could consider saving $200 with the FX 4800, but I envision the possibility of NVIDIA releasing more CX-only tools for creative professionals, since that card is targeted towards that specific market.  Not to be overlooked, NVIDIA has also released the Quadro FX 5800, with an incredible 4GB of memory, but that should only be needed by applications with the most intense processing requirements, and is a class above NVIDIA’s previous Quadro products.  The Quadro CX is compatible with the same HD-SDI output daughter card that the previous Quadro FX 4600 and 5600 cards used, for broadcast and post-production applications.  Hopefully we will see more software applications directly supporting that interface card in the near future.  The Quadro CX is based on the same core architecture as the new GTX 200 series of consumer cards, while the Quadro FX 4600 was based on the same technology as the GeForce 8800GTX, which is now two generations out of date.  It is to be expected, that there is an all around performance increase with the new cards in almost any application, but Adobe has been specifically adapting their software to leverage the power of these graphics processors.

Of the many applications in Adobe’s new CS4 Suite, After Effects is the one that most fully and effectively integrates the power of GPU acceleration to increase processing power and application responsiveness.  Many of these features are not new, but by nature of the way they are designed, grow more powerful as GPU performance increases.  OpenGL allows most of the 3D processing required for advance compositing to be offloaded to the GPU for dramatic increases in performance and responsiveness.  There are also many plug-ins and effects that specifically take advantage of GPU power.  Synthetic image generation like noise and fractals, as well as artificial 3D blurring are some of the best fits for effective GPU acceleration in AE.  Many of these improvements are only implemented for faster previews unless the user specifically selects OpenGL exporting, due to a possible loss in quality based on the lack of precision of OpenGL, but certain effects such as the new “Cartoon” vectorizing filter, that experiences dramatic (30x) rendering improvements with GPU processing, utilize GPU acceleration both for rapid previews and for accelerating the final export render.  In most of the synthetic object (Noise, fractals, shapes, blurs, etc.) previewing tests I did in AE, OpenGL acceleration with the Quadro CX provided a ten fold increase in performance over CPU based rendering.  This is the difference between an interactive experience, and a plan-next-move-while-rendering workflow.  While any graphics card with OpenGL support can accelerate processing in After Effects, as compositions and projects become larger and more complex, the benefits of the Quadro CX’s increased memory and processing power will come into play.  Complex projects will experience a greater increase in performance than simpler ones, when upgrading to a higher end GPU.

The next program in the CS4 suite to experience major performance improvements through GPU acceleration is Photoshop CS4.  Most of these improvements come from newly added implementation of OpenGL processing, and therefore, like After Effects, they are not specifically tied to the new Quadro CX.  But the power of the new Quadro CX makes the benefits of these improvements more dramatically obvious, especially on larger images.  These improvements in Photoshop are fairly extensive, and I will review them in detail in the next posting in this series.  As far as the Quadro CX is concerned, with its large 1.5GB cache of onboard memory, it is more than capable of handling the largest and most complex operations that almost anyone would attempt in Photoshop.

Adobe’s Premiere Pro CS4 also takes advantage of the GPU in a few less significant ways, for basic effects.  The one totally new aspect that the Quadro CX brings to the table is accelerated encoding, specifically encoding to H.264 with the new RapiHD encoder from Elemental Technologies.  This is the primary marketing piece specific to the CX card, and my third and final post in this series on the Quadro CX will be about CUDA and its implementation in this new encoder.

After all of the Adobe tests, I had two other programs that utilize the GPU that I wanted to try on this new high end card.  The first was Iridas SpeedgradeDI, which is specifically programmed to run on NVidia’s Quadro cards.  The base version running with DVI or 8bit DisplayPort attached monitors worked great, and nothing I could do with my limited knowledge of the program could even get it to drop a frame.  The real test for that application would involve connecting the optional SDI daughter card for true 10bit output.  Hopefully the 10bit color depth supported by the DisplayPort will eventually allow that level of monitoring without the high priced SDI daughter board.  The highest-end customers will still require an SDI output in order to use SDI interfaced external waveform and vectorscope tools, or live broadcast outputs.

Lastly, I ran my favorite program, Battlefield 2 to test out the card’s 3D rendering capabilities.  BF2 was released over three years ago, and therefore is not a cutting edge test, but it is my most recent high performance game.  With all of the settings maxed out, at maximum resolution on my 30″ LCD, I was able to get 99.9 FPS about 90% of the time, with the occasional dip into the low nineties for complex scenes.  Anyhow, the Quadro CX should be more than up to the task for those late night “stress relief” sessions with any modern 3D “application” if desired.

Once I had thoroughly tested the Quadro CX’s acceleration capabilities, I endeavored to verify the capabilities of it’s newly supported output interface.  I hooked my HP Dreamcolor LCD to the card via the new DisplayPort interface, hoping to get some taste of 10bit color output.  Unfortunately, currently none of the major applications I currently have installed are programmed to take advantage of this capability.  I do have a small utility from NVidia that displays 16bit TIFF files in 10bit color depth, and I can confirm that yes, there is a difference, and yes, the combination of the Quadro CX and the HP Dreamcolor does give you full hardware support for 10bit color display.  Hopefully in the future we will see updates and plug-ins that will unlock this feature in useful ways.  There is a 10bit capable SDI plug-in that NVidia released for After Effects 7 quite a while back, as a simple demonstration of their new SDI capability, and I am hoping to see an equivalent DisplayPort version for both After Effects and Photoshop, especially since NVidia and Adobe seem to be working together more closely these days.

Anyhow, if you are in the market for a new high end GPU, the Quadro CX has all of the processing power that most people could possibly need.  At its currently available price of about $1800, it has directly replaced the Quadro FX 4600, and no question is a superior product.  Now if you already have a 4600, the jump to the CX is not immediately necessary unless you are currently pushing your system to the limits, or you encode a lot of footage to H264.  The Photoshop and After Effects GPU support in CS4 will work nearly as well with a 4600, but there is a difference.  With any other previous generation card, you should see a significant all around performance increase with any application that leverages GPU processing power.

That information should give you a good general idea of what the new Quadro CX card is capable of, and I will be detailing the improvements in Photoshop CS4 and the RapiHD encoder in my upcoming posts.

Elsewhere on the mobile recording front, I have been using some prototype units that record HD-SDI directly to SATA drives.  We tested them in some pretty extreme operating environments, and when used with Solid State SATA drives, they held up pretty well.  While we weren’t without our share of problems, the units were able to capture some pretty amazing footage when combined with an Iconix camera system.  I won’t post a full review until the creators have had an opportunity to solve some of the issues with the units, that our tests exposed.

Nvidia also released a new high end professional video card, the QuadroFX 4700 X2.  This card has two independent GPUs that can be harnessed together with SLI or used separately to drive 4 separate displays.  The stats are not much more impressive than the current top of the line 4600 and 5600 solutions, so they are really just updating the previous 4500X2 which was made obselete by the new generation of GeForce8 based cards released last year.

The biggest change in the new generation, is that these chips are based on Intel’s new 45nm process.  This will allow them to run much more efficiently, requiring less power, and generating less heat.  There are also some marginal increases in maximum clock speed, but it is rumored that the new process has much more headroom for future speed increases.  The primary reason I can imagine why Intel might be waiting to push the speeds higher, is that the competition from AMD doesn’t require them to increase speeds to stay ahead, and they are holding that capability in reserve, in the event that AMD does release something powerful, so that they can respond quickly with a faster product.  Regardless of how far Intel is currently pushing the envelope, they currently provide the most powerful processors for most applications and uses.  The new release bumps the top models from the X5365′s 3.0Ghz to the new X5482′s 3.2Ghz (or 3.4Ghz for a Dual Core X5272).  The highest end chips also have a FSB increase from 1333Mhz to 1600Mhz (333Mhz to 400Mhz if you don’t count Intel’s Quad Buffering marketing terms).

The new line of CPUs are cheaper than the older generation at equivalent speeds, which is always an advantage for end user.  Having new products on the market should also bring down the prices on the older generation of CPUs, which will hopefully lead to some bargains in the near future.  The new processors are pin compatible with the previous three generations of Xeons, all using the LGA771 socket, so it should be possible to upgrade existing Xeon workstations and servers with the new chips, but the FSB will be limited to 1333Mhz.  Any 5000 series Xeon system or above should be compatible with some of the new chips.  There are also some new single socket CPUs that use the more common LGA775 socket.  Many more LGA775 compatible 45nm varients will be released early next year under the “Core2″ label.As of today, it is very difficult to find any way to actually purchase these new units, as both HP and Dell have not begun to include them as options on their current systems.  HP has announced that it will soon be replacing their XW8400 series workstations with the XW8600 series, which will bring all of the advantages of the new CPUs and chipsets to their line.  I expect a similar announcement from Dell, replacing their current Precision 490 and 690 lines in the near future.  The new XW8600 will be based on the 5400 chipset, and will offer 2 PCIe x16 slots for dual graphics, as well as an x8 and dual x4 PCIe slots, and an older PCI-X slot for compatibility with older components.  It currently lists a maximum FSB of 1333Mhz, but I expect that to be upped to 1600Mhz as the CPUs that support that speed become available.  RAM will still be based on fully buffered DDR2 technology at 667Mhz, with up to 128GBin 16 DIMM slots, but still limited to 4GB for 32bit work.

Currently, information on HP’s site implies that the new systems will not be compatible with XP, and only with Vista, but I cannot confirm that.  I have seen it implied elsewhere that Intel’s new chipset will have Windows XP support.   Windows XP still offers many advantages, especially when viewed in light of current post-production software options, so that is an important question that remains unanswered.

As newer post-production software is developed to squeeze every last bit of available performance out of available hardware, the GPU is becoming a more important factor in building a high performance workstation.  A few pieces of software that I use that depend on the GPU are: Matrox’s AXIO-LE, Red Giant’s Magic Bullet (especially Colorista), and Iridas’ SpeedGradeHD.  Each has a list of supported cards, and hopefully there will be some intersection in those subsets, or these software applications will be incompatible with each other.  For any given product, there are usually a variety of options, sometime ranging in price from $50-$2500.  Determining which of these options best suits your needs is an important decision, and sometimes the best choice is not immediately apparent.

The competition between NVidia and ATI used to be much stronger, but recently, NVidia has pulled ahead significantly.  I am not sure if this is related to ATI’s abrupt acquisition by AMD last year, or anything else, but NVidia’s development has been consistently resulting in products that are much more capable than ATI’s.  In the professional arena, ATI doesn’t even offer features like SDI outputs and Genlock, to compete with NVidia’s offerings.  These specific features are very relevant to the utilization of these cards in the post-production workflow.  SLI is another NVidia development that ATI has no answer for in their professional line, but implementations of that technology are more tailored to 3D animation and scientific applications.  Stereoscopic output has been offered by NVidia’s QuadroFX line for many years, although their solution is a bit outdated at this point.

ATI has few advantages to counter with.  The most significant one I am aware of, for post-production, is that the ATI architecture is better optimized for returning processed images to the system bus.  Certain applications are able to pass more data to and from ATI cards than their Nvidia counterparts, which is beneficial if you plan to do more than preview the results on screen.  This is why Matrox’s AXIO-LE gets better performance when paired with ATI cards than much more powerful NVidia solutions.  Another issue I have seen with Cineform’s RT engine in Premiere is a color shift between between the video overlay and still frames.  According to David Newman at Cineform, this is due to an inconsistent implementation of YUV overlay on NVidia cards (See his comment on the ProspectHD post) and ATI cards, to their credit, do not suffer from this problem.  There are very few other features in ATI’s favor that I am aware of, but I am always open to being enlightened in that regard if I am overlooking something significant.  Given the current state of things, my recommended choice in most cases, would be to go with an NVidia based card.

Choosing between NVidia and ATI solutions is not the only significant step in the selection process.  Frequently, the most confusing aspect of choosing a new display card, is motivated by chipmakers’ desire to make higher profits from business customers, in that “professional” 3D graphics cards are much higher priced, than seemingly identical consumer gaming 3D graphics cards.  The actual specific differences are rather vague in many cases, and will depend on the requirements of your application.  Certain features such as SDI output and Genlock are clearly exclusive to professional hardware, and product support is much better for the professional lines, but when it comes to GPU processing, the differences are not so obvious.  This is especially true since both companies utilize a unified driver architecture, allowing the same drivers to support almost any of their cards.  Both companies throw around the term OpenGL in regards to their professional cards, but most of the same features are available from the consumer cards.  I have used OpenGL acceleration in After Effects, and have found no real differences, but I am not a professional animator, so higher end 3D animation and modeling programs might see certain advantages.

ATI has their FireGL line of professional cards to compare to their Radeon series.  I have used very few of these cards, so I can offer little in the way of advice.  They are rarely recommended or required by post-production software solutions.  My primary experience with the Radeon line has been in conjunction with the Matrox AXIO-LE, and I have not been impressed with the stability or features of the cards.  The most important feature that I find totally unsupported is the hardware spanning of two displays.  I also have occasional vertical sync issues when running LCDs at 1920×1200, but all this is based on my experience with two X1900 series cards.  I have much more experience, and a greater level of success with NVidia cards.

Nvidia’s QuadroFX line of professional graphics cards is VERY similar to their GeForce line of cards, and with even greater price differences.  In my experience, most software runs equally well if not better on GeForce cards compared to their QuadroFX relatives.  I own a QuadroFX3400 which is almost exactly identical to the GeForce6800GTX, and was four times the MSRP when I bought it.  Although the card has served me well, I have found no compelling reason to have required it over the similar GeForce option.  There is a rumor that Nvidia disabled certain functions when they released their newest generation of consumer cards, that will now only be available from the QuadroFX line, but I have not been able to confirm that.  Specifically they are said to have disabled hardware support for full screen video overlay, (allowing full screen preview in an NLE) which I intend to test once I get a working GeForce8 card.  I would appreciate information about anyone else’s experiences in this regard.  If that is true, it means that we might soon find signicant disadvantages from using consumer cards for professional work, but fortunately, I do not think we have yet come to that point.

What all that boils down to is, currently Nvidia is the performance leader, and unless you have a compelling reason to shell out the money for a QuadroFX model, a GeForce card should be suitable for most applications.  That said,the new 8800GT is a remarkable value for almost anyone who needs a powerful GPU. (Please note I am NOT speaking of the much lower end 8600GT card)  As an added benefit, the new 8800GT should run cooler and quieter than any other card with similar performance.  I also expect that the new PCIe 2.0 compatibility should be able to be taken advantage of with upcoming release of the next generation of Intel Xeon workstation platform early next month.  If I hadn’t been in the process of acquiring the similar 8800GTX, which is at least twice the size, price, heat, power, and noise, for similar resulting performance, I would have already ordered a GT by now, and still might do so regardless.

The simplest solution that provides HD-SDI input to a laptop is the Motu V3HD.  Connected via Firewire, it allows capture of digital and analog High-Definition video signals at DVCPro-HD quality.  Limited to 1280 pixels in width, and 100Mb/s, this is a lower end HD solution, but bears mention none the less.  I have not personally used one, but it is supposed to be compatible with Premiere Pro CS3, as well as Final Cut Pro.  The data rate and processing requirements allow this format to be used on most high end consumer laptops, but those looking for full resolution 1920×1080 solutions must look farther.

The next solution is currently only available to Mac users in Final Cut Pro, but is a significant  technological development.  AJA’s “I/O HD” is a Firewire800 based solution that can capture and playback full resolution material, with 10bit color, in Apple’s new ProRES codec.  Although not a PC based solution, it does enable mobile users to capture high quality, full resolution footage.

Anything beyond that will involve a bit of creativity, and what follows is highly speculative.  Newer laptops have replaced PCMCIA card slots with ExpressCard slots.  The new formfactor is much simpler, and has two basicinternal variations.  The slot has pins available to interface directly into the USB subsystem (480Mb/s) or directly into the Southbridge via the PCIe x1 interface (2000Mb/s).  The PCIe interface provides an ExpressCard slot with enough bandwidth to support uncompressed HD video, at least 10bit 422 at 1080i/p.  RGB 444 might even be possible at 24fps, but that would depend on how much overhead was imposed by the interface itself, among other things.  This bandwidth has been utilized in the design of the ExpressCard option for the CalDigit HDPro, but having a single slot with the capability of transfering video at uncompressed data rates leaves us with a problem.  If the ExpressCard slot is being used to connect some form of video I/O interface, how do I connect my storage at uncompressed speeds.  Unless you find a laptop with two ExpressCard slots, you will not be able to use both at once.  I guarantee that the capture card is necessary for realtime full resolution HD acquisition, so how can we do it without using the high speed storage?  Compressing the video becomes the obvious solution.  So a capture solutionis needed that allows realtime compression, and can be jury-rigged to connect to an ExpressCard slot at PCIe x1 bandwidth.

A company named Magma has developed a solution that really opens up the available options.  Their ExpressBox Pro product allows a PCIe card to be inserted and connected to a laptop via an ExpressCard slot.  At the very least, PCIe x1 cards can be expected to work, and ideally higher end PCIe x4 based capture cards may function properly as well.  After all, the HD video data itself is usually well under 200MB/s, depending on the specific settings and format.

The first option that comes to mind are the Intensity cards from BlackMagic Design.  They allows full resolution capture of 1080i/p at up to 10bit color in the 422 YUV colorspace, over HDMI or analog on the Intensity Pro.  Convienently, Blackmagic also makes an HD-SDI to HDMI converter, the HDLink, so we can use this to pump HD-SDI into the Intensity card.  Blackmagic also has a MotionJPEG codec that we can capture directly into, so it would seem that they offer a fairly complete solution to our problem.

Another option using the same hardware is to use Cineform compression, as detailed here.  In my experience Cineform’s compression results in a higher quality final picture than Blackmagic’s current implementation of MotionJPEG codec.  The downside of using Cineform is that they don’t support live playback, out of the Intensity card the way Blackmagic’s codecs do. If you have an external monitoring device available, this can be a very helpful option when trying to edit on a small laptop screen.  To Cineform’s credit, they allow you to use the secondary display output from your laptop as a full screen video output if your graphics card supports it.

Our next PCIe x1 based solution is the RT.X2 from Matrox.  Although I have not been able to confirm that this has ever been successfully used in this capacity, it remains a theoretical possibility.  The RT.X2 would be advantagous in that it would offload much of the compression processing from the laptop CPU to the PCIe card.  It would allow analog HD capture, but would be limited to 1440 horizontal resolution, and would allow preview via DVI or analog HD.  On the positive side, with hardware acceleration, Matrox’s MPEG I-Frame codec would probably give the best creative editing performance of any of the solutions we are examining here.  Realtime effects and exporting would be advantagous for the editing process, but the original footage acquired would not be as high quality to begin with.

In theory, the Magma ExpressBox could support other cards.  While the bandwidth is limited to the 2000Mb/s (200-250MB/s) of the ExpressCard’s PCIe x1 bandwidth, the phyical connector in the box is a PCIe x16 slot.  It would be interesting to know if it would support an AJA LHe or a Decklink HDPro.  The AJA card would allow 10bit capture into the Cineform ProspectHD codec at full resolution, and Decklink might allow RGB 444 capture at 24fps.

There is one more Blackmagic based option that I know isn’t fully developed yet, but seems very close.  The Blackmagic Multibridge is based on the same technology that allows the Magma ExpressBox to work, external PCIe.  If an ExpressCard could be fabricated that interfaced the ExpressCard PCIe x1 bus to the DVI shaped cable that the Multibridge uses, that would be a great solution.  When the first Multibridge Extreme was released, it was listed to be compatible with PCIe x1 slots, at least at SD resolutions.  PCIe x1 has the bandwidth for HD if used efficiently, and the Multibridge has many I/O options, so I think it would be the ideal portable solution.  I know it can capture to MotionJPEG, and I believe Cineform includes capabilities to capture from it into their codec as well.  I have not been able to confirm that, but it is implied on their website.

The last option I will mention has been discussed and rumored about for years, but I have yet to see a product hit the market.  Why not have an ExpressCard with HD-SDI I/O directly on it?  Heat will be an issue that needs to be overcome, and mini-BNC connector could be used to improve the form factor of the physical connections.  Ideally if it was a Blackmagic product, it would support live capture into MotionJPEG, Cineform, and ProRES on a Mac, for maximum possible market.  If/When it gets developed, I know it will sell well, assuming it functions correctly in an established normal workflow.  Realtime compression will be required for any laptop solution, but this doesn’t have to be accomplised in the card itself, it just has to be compatible with it being done by the CPU.  I look forward to seeing a product like this released, as it would greatly enhance the workflow for portable post-production solutions.

Technology has come a long way in the last two years, especially in the CPU processing aspect of the equation.  A well equipt laptop can be purchased now that has more processing power than the highest-end Windows based workstations of two years ago, thanks to the Core2 Duo.  I bought a Xeon workstation in 2005, and one year later, bought a 12″ notebook for LESS money, that has MORE CPU power.  With the upcoming release of quad core mobile CPUs, we can remove processing power from the list of limitations that mobility imposes.

Next is RAM, and we are in a unique situation in that regard.  Most systems still use 32bit OSes, and are limited to 4GB of RAM.  This software limitation has allowed notebooks to catchup with desktops in this regard, as demand has not climbed as much past 4GB in the desktop sector, and notebooks were under no similar limit until they caught up.  4GB of notebook RAM can be had for under $200.  Obviously mobile solutions will not be limited by the maximum available RAM. (Any more than a desktop)

The first area where we encounter trouble is with storage, in both capacity and transfer rate.  While there are solutions that allow uncompressed HD speeds and capacities on a laptop (ExpressCard to CalDigit HDPro), that solution is not very portable.  The capacity issue can be solved via 1TB drives connected via firewire, or internal RAIDs or 2.5inch hard disks in large laptops, but there is currently no way to provide the required transfer rates for realtime uncompressed high-resolution editing, in a mobile solution.  This leads to a need for a different solution.  We can utilize the extra CPU now available by using a compressed video format to decrease the strorage requirements.  (As an aside, my FREE IDEA of the day is: A mobile array of 8x250GB 2.5 inch disks with an external PCIe interface for use with x1 PCIe or ExpressCards would offer 2TB at 250MB/s.  It would be an interesting solution, and if a company decided to create it, all the technology already exists.)

 Since there are no reasonable storage solutions for uncompressed, we must examine compression options.  The first standardized option is HDV.  The advantages are low-bitrate, wide support, and firewire I/O, which most laptops already have available.  The disadvantages are lower quality, 8bit 4:2:0 MPEG encoding, and a 1440 horizontal resolution limit.  The next option is a very recent one for Premiere Pro users, with DVCPro-HD, made possible by the release of the 3.1.0 update this week.  With datarates of 5-12Mb/s, this format is will within the 30MB/s capabilities of a single 2.5inch laptop drive.  The horizontal resolution is even more limited, to 1280 pixels wide, but it encodes 8bit 4:2:2 with DCT compression, and in general a higher bitrate should improve quality.  Since it doesn’t use MPEG compression, it should be less CPU intensive to playback and edit, leading to better performance.  The next step would probably be one of Cineform’s products.  AspectHD is limited to 1440 at 8bit, but it still the highest quality solution yet, usually at around 9-10MB/s, using Wavelet compression, which allows efficient low resolution playback as an added bonus. 

 Blackmagic Design released a MotionJPEG codec a while back that allows full 1920×1080 files at 8bit 4:2:2 to be used with a data rate of around 12MB/s.  The advantages are that it can be used for free, with out any limitations that I am aware of, but it is designed to be used with their I/O hardware for acquisition and preview.  The only disadvantage is not really a disadvantage comparedto the options below it, but image quality will not be as good as Cineform, and is limited to 8-bit.  Cineform’s higher-end product ProspectHD has few limitations, allowing 10bit 422 at full1920x1080 to be edited at around 15MB/s depending on settings.  This is easily sustainable on internal laptop disks, while an external firewire drive could increase performance and capacity.  Currently Cineform is the solution I would recommend if you need high end HD editing in a portable form factor.  The next question that Cinefrom prompts is, how high can I go, and currently 2K 444 RGB is possible at 30-40MB/s, meaning an internal RAID 0 would benefit playback on a laptop.  There is even talk of 4K realtime playback with the release of the RedOne, so it seems that the sky is the limit.

Other solutions that I am aware of, but don’t seem ideal are: Matrox MPEG I-Frame files from AXIO or RT.X2 at 12MB/s with the Matrox M.key in desktop mode, which I use, but the performance is not good for creative work without the hardware acceleration.  In the non-Adobe world, FCP offers DVCProHD, and now recently ProRES, a full frame 10bit 422 codec that runs about 15MB/s at 1080p I believe.  I have no familiarity with Avid, but XpressPro or Media Composer with DNxHD might be a portable HD option as well.

Laptops have done a lot of catching up recently, and the concept of ”desktop-replacement” is a much more legitimate now than it was two years ago.  The most important aspect we have not yet examined is HD I/O for portable solutions, especially for portable acquisition, which I plan to go over next time.

Let’s start with SCSI, since it is the easiest to dismiss.  While we are discussing the connection of SATA drives, many of the first generation SATA arrays had intergrated controllers and Raid hardware, and then needed a fast connection to the host.  These arrays were designed to replace much more expensive SCSI drive based arrays, so the target customers trusted the SCSI interface, and already had high end SCSI controllers in their systems.  That made SCSI the optimal connection solution for early SATA arrays.  The SATA Raid controller masquerades the entire array as a single SCSI disk, allowing connection to systems through existing SCSI cards.  With up to 320MB/s of bandwidth, a single SCSI channel can efficiently support 5-7 SATA disks without much impact on performance.  The biggest reason to dismiss SCSI as a serious possibility is that eSATA is a better option for most, and the remaining will be much better served by a Fibre Channel interface, allowing for economical upgrading to a full SAN in the future.

The next step for high end SATA arrays was to replace the SCSI emulation with a much more flexible interface, Fibre Channel.  With up to 400MB/s, Fibre Channel has few disadvantages to SCSI, and one major benefit.  SATA disk arrays with Fibre Channel interfaces can usually be connected to switches, and shared between multiple systems, in a SAN.  All connected systems get direct block level access to the disks, which will almost always be faster and more responsive than sharing through an ethernet network.  With the proper Shared SAN software, these systems can also share the data down to the level of individual files.  For facilities where multiple users do collaberative work, based on the same source data, Fibre Channel is probably worth the added initial investment, even if a SAN is not immediately implemented with the purchased hardware.  The possible extensible use of an array beyond a single workstation should be well worth the increase in price, and as an added benefit, cable lengths can easily be increased enough to keep the noisy array out of what should be a peaceful creative environment.

 There are many products available that share storage directly to an ethernet network connection.  The consumer varients hardly have the performance to support DV editing, let alone anything more demanding.  The higher end options, with prices similar to SCSI and FC do offer some interesting possibilities, but will rarely be the optimal choice for a given situation.  Any gigabit ethernet connection is limited to 125MB/s, and in reality, the achievable performance is usually about half of that.  Gigabit network solutions will not be a solution for uncompressed work at HD or higher resolutions.  10Gb Ethernet would offer the desired performance, but is not currently an economical solution.  If compressed files are used, regualr gigabit ethernet can be used to transport the data in realtime, but I would still argue that arrays interfacing directly to ethernet are not the most efficent solution.  Any similar array directly connected to a workstation through a different interface will give much better performance to that system, and can still be shared on an ethernet network via that workstation.  There will be a performance hit on that station when sharing data to other system, but a network card with a TCP/IP Offload Engine (ToE) can minimize that effect, and the increased performance on that system do to the high speed storage directly attached should more than offset whatever is remaining.  This would involve using an array with one of the other interfaces we are examining.

A recent technology that uses ethernet to transfor data, is iSCSI.  Promoted as having many of the advantages of Fibre Channel SANs, iSCSI gives initiator devices (workstations) block level access to their target device (arrays).  This allows the target device on the network to emulate a local device on the initiator’s system.  The downsides are that maintaining data intergrity on shared target drives, requires most of the same expensive software infrastructure that a Fibre SAN does, and the inefficiencies of the TCP/IP protocol are still present to limit the realistically achievable maximum transfer rate.  If you have to deliver identical data to a large number of systems, and don’t want to spend money on the performance that Fibre Channel hardware can deliver, then iSCSI might be of benefit to you.  These products are targeted at large corporations, and don’t scale down in size without losing performance, and maintaining deployment complexity.  I don’t see this being the solution of choice for most desktop PC workstation professionals in post-production field.

 The next solution is offered in a staggering varietly different solutions, eSATA.  This can be fairly confusing due to the number of variations of this technology on the market.  eSATA is a very flexible standard, but not all implementations will deliver optimal results.  For example, some products support port multiplying to increase the number of drives without increasing the complexity of the interface cables or the Raid controller.  This solution is good for high volume solutions, but will not deliver the same level of performance as direct connection based solutions.  The simplest, professional level, eSATA array will be an external drive enclosure that passes each drive’s data interface directly back to the controller, which will usually be some varient of PCI card, inside the workstation.  This gives the card direct full-speed access to each disk drive, and all Raid processing is done on the controller card inside the workstation.  This will be the fastest and most efficient solution for the cheapest price, and I highly recommend it.  The limitations are the cables which usually have a 6 foot maximum length, and the fact that Fibre channel is easier to share.  But for the independent, budget conscious, single workstation user, this is the way to go.  Eight disks gives you enough storage for almost any concievable independent project, and eight drives should support uncompressed HD if desired, and may even work for 2K with an efficient Raid controller.  Solutions that use port multipliers to connect more drives, will increase storage but not performance, and usually require more expensive SAS compatible controller cards to support the port multiplying.  If you need more than 8TB of storage on your system, these might work well for you.

The most recent development in this area is the advent of the use of External PCI Express as an array interface.  A small PCIe passthru card is all that is required in the host system.  An x4 slot can transmit and recieve 10Gb/s of data, which is 1.2GB/s, and there is much less overhead than most other interfaces.  An x8 slot is capable of twice as much throughput for an insignificant margin cost increase.  With External PCIe, the drive controller and raid processing electronics are contained within the drive enclosure, and the controller has direct access to the disks.  As a result, the array could easily be moved to another system, without having to bring a separate controller card from within the system.  Each system would need an External PCIe bracket, but those are only forth about ten dollars.  Due to the nature of the External PCIe interface, the computer has the same level of access to the controller and its data that it would if those electronics resided on a board contained within the workstation.  Another benefit of PCIe, is that the new ExpressCard for notebooks is based on the same interface.  This allows a simple adapter to connect an External PCIe device to a notebook at x1 speeds (over 250MB/s will be fast enough for uncompressed HD).  Currently I am only aware of two vendors offering soluitions using this technology, CalDigit and Ciproco.  It will be interesting to watch as this technology continues to develop.

So my recommendation is that high end eSATA solutions are the most economical direct attached storage solutions, and can support uncompressed HD if needed.  Larger operations that are considering upgrading to a full shared SAN system in the future will probably find the increased initial investment of Fibre Channel arrays to be well worth the value when they re-utilize the same hardware in their SAN implementation sometime in the future.