|
|||||||||
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
July 29th, 2011, 11:52 AM | #16 |
Major Player
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Red Lodge, Montana
Posts: 889
|
Re: Matrox Mini question
I cannot answer Bart's question about the 3d card.
For Steve: If I recall correctly, you tried out the MXO2-Mini at version 1 (maybe 1.5) of the MatroxUtils software back in 2009. The software is now up to version 5.5 and the calibration capabilities have been considerably improved. Is it as good as your Eizo/Dreamcolor setup (the one proposed by Tepper)? Of course not. For me, the attraction of the Mini is that it is good enough for what I do. Plus, my rig (Mini and tv) cost about ¼ of what I would have paid to get an Eizo and the professional calibration tools needed to get the benefit of its capabilities. Plus, I get the "3 screen" editing set-up that I want. To my thinking, the key phrase here is "good enough for my budget and my work." Obviously, different folks will have different levels of need. Of course, as I said above, I'm now running into some intermittent issues of halting and pauses with CS 5.5 and MatroxUtils v. 5.5. As I recall from discussions a couple of years ago, these were the things that discouraged you a couple of years ago when we first started discussing the Mini. In my case, I did not have these issues with CS5.0x and MatroxUtils v. 5.0, so I am considering a rolling back. Last edited by Jay West; July 29th, 2011 at 12:40 PM. |
July 29th, 2011, 12:28 PM | #17 | |
Major Player
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Red Lodge, Montana
Posts: 889
|
Re: Matrox Mini question
Quote:
I think I need to try PPBM 5.5 on my system with and without the mini. However, I'm on the road (again) today. I hoping I'll have some time this weekend to work on the editing workstation. If I have the time, I'll run a couple of tests with PPBM 5.5 on my system. If the Mini is impeding large file read/write, that could account for some of the peculiarities I mentioned that I have observed since upgrading to CS 5.5. I would have been inclined to agree with Jeff in that I had not previously observed encoding being slower with than without the Mini in the system. Unlike Jeff, I am not looking at bottlenecks like the Windows software raid. I am not using any Windows software raids. I work from a 4tb RAID 10 array (gSpeedES run from a Rocket Raid Card). I often use Cineform Neo conversions which get written to a hardware 2 tb Raid 0 run from Intel controller on the ASUS P6T D v.2 mobo. These are very large files, often running 60 to 70 gb per hour of video. Transcodes (using 2 pass VBR going from HD to a DVD iso file) also go from the Raid 10 to the Raid 0. Last year, when CS 5 was released, I ran without the Matrox Mini for a couple of months or so. CS 5 came out in May but the MatroxUtils upgrade for CS5 did not come until (I think) July or maybe even August. In the interim, I removed the Mini hardware and software from the system. In that time period, I mostly worked on multi-cam HD projects from tapeless recording (both HDV and 24 mbps AVCHD), often with Cineform conversions. I edited in HD and coded for DVD. I did not notice any increase in encoding/iso/Cineform generation times when I reinstalled the Mini in August after the new software upgrade was released. That observation, however, is subjective. So, when I get some time (hopefully this weekend), I can try PPBM 5.5 and see what turns up. |
|
July 29th, 2011, 04:49 PM | #18 |
Major Player
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Hamilton Ontario
Posts: 769
|
Re: Matrox Mini question
@Jay.
I can't thank you enough for that ProVideoCoalition link.. It answers so many questions i've had in the past, and lets me go forward. Once i dug deeper into his site, it corrected some of my preconceived notions, and backed up some of my other assumptions.. |
July 29th, 2011, 10:54 PM | #19 | |
Trustee
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 1,554
|
Re: Matrox Mini question
Quote:
Using BM preset sequences caused occasional hang ups and the Program window sometimes stopped working. I have forgotten other issues since I have chosen a work around where I use my custom sequences and open a sequence into the Source window which shows thru the BM card, and then I gang Source to Program to emulate editing with a normal BM sequence. This is with CS5. A few reasons I like the Aja Kona more: 1) more adjustable settings in their control panel - to me, the BM control panel is weak. 2) more frame rates and image sizes supported 3) adds support for more file types such as 16-bit TIFF to Premiere |
|
| ||||||
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|