VGUK2:

So the Nitris DX is no more than the FCP equivalent of AJA's IOHD.

Does the AJA IOHD do 5 streams of DNxHD in real time?

VGUK2:

So the Nitris DX is no more than the FCP equivalent of AJA's IOHD.

Let's see, Nitris DX = 6 streams of uncompressed HD in RT

AJA IOHD = Zero streams of uncompressed HD in any way shape or form.

Gosh, sure seems like a fair comparison to me. ;-)

Of course it doesn't do DNxHD it has a hardware ProRes codec on board.

As far as I know the IOHD is only limited by one's HDD speed when working with prores.

VGUK2:

Of course it doesn't do DNxHD

Or uncompressed.

I don't care what Avid's inept Marketing department has decided to put on the website, the current hardware program was started more than two years ago. Long before Kirk and Gary's "New Thinking" approach. Their stamp on the products has yet to be rolled out.

My hope is  that they start their "New thinking" with an approach to customer support that actually has value for the money. We'll see.

Oh, and Pro Res HD performance doesn't come close to the new boxes. It is so sweet to have a multi-layer HD project and, when the client wants changes, they are instant. My clients have been blown away at the speed.

TCurren:

Let's see, Nitris DX = 6 streams of uncompressed HD in RT

 

AJA IOHD = Zero streams of uncompressed HD in any way shape or form.

 

Gosh, sure seems like a fair comparison to me. ;-)

Uncompressed requirements are somewhat moot given the quality of Prores HQ.  The Nitris DX does not compare favourably with the Kona 3.  The facility I was in last week have just installed a new FCP suite with Kona 3 because they can now work in 2k for commercial work.  They described it as an absolute bargain.  I asked them about why they didn't go Avid and they said better bang for buck can be had elsewhere.  

You keep throwing around the number of streams as though it is the be all and end of the product or it actually means anything.  I have not seen one official document that has stated the number of realtime streams the DX hardware can support.  Or if in fact the DX hardware actually improves the performace at all.  Please provide a link to your source.  

I'll find the sources for you but all of Avid's personnel here and in person have touted the DNxHD chip acceleration in the Nitris and I'm here to tell you that I have, in front of me, a DNxHD 145 sequence with 4 layers playing without rendering any of my Matte keys or Animates. Try plying back even two layers of Pro Res in full quality in FCP.

VGUK2:

The Nitris DX does not compare favourably with the Kona 3.

Well, then you haven't sat behind either. You really can't measure the time savings between FCP's HD workflow and the new boxes. Seriously, the speed of the box now really makes up for any FCP price difference. If you are able to bill your client for the extra time in a FCP suite then great, go for it. You really have to work with the new boxes to see the advantage. Price alone doesn't make you appreciate the cost savings you get overall.

BLKDOG:

 

Oh, and Pro Res HD performance doesn't come close to the new boxes.

What does that actually mean?

BLKDOG:

It is so sweet to have a multi-layer HD project and, when the client wants changes, they are instant. My clients have been blown away at the speed.

You speak as though these DX boxes remove then need for rendering at all.  We both know that is not the case at all.  If the Nitris box only has a DNxHD codec on board it is unlikely that has any acceleration if you are working in UC.

Can you confirm the DX boxes are 4:2:2 only.  I haven't seen any mention of 4:4:4 anywhere.

BLKDOG:

Try plying back even two layers of Pro Res in full quality in FCP.

You are joking aren't you.  My MBP can easily playback 2 streams of prores off a 4 drive RAID0 the limiting factor is the eSATA card throughput.  So I don't know what point you were trying to make.  Perhaps that you don't know nearly as much about FCP as you do about Avid, perchance?

DX, 4:2:2 or 4:4:4?

VGUK2:

My MBP can easily playback 2 streams of prores

So you can playback 2 streams at full quality out to tape in RT? Amazing. We can't do that on our 8 core workstations. Or maybe you are skipping the going out to tape part...

Agreed, there is no way you are playing back more than one stream (Sometimes not even that!) out to tape of full res HD.

Yes, I can confirm that the DX boxes are 4:2:2.

No, I am not saying you don't have to render at all. I am saying you have to render a lot less than you used to and certainly a lot less than Final Cut.

c'mon Terry...tape is sooo last century.

;-)

sw

Another thing I like...

This may be just because I was used to the clunky performance of the Adrenalines but the new software/hardware feels zippier than my FCP setups (Not really scientific, I know).

It could be my imagination but it really is nice to fly around like I used to on my Meridians again.

TCurren:

So you can playback 2 streams at full quality out to tape in RT? Amazing. We can't do that on our 8 core workstations. Or maybe you are skipping the going out to tape part...

Unless he has it set to Dynamic and not full quality. There is no way to play full res in ProRes HQ in RT to tape.

I hope he has tested Full Quality vs Rendered Quality in FCP ;)

And I love the argument about quality of ProRes making uncompressed argument moot. Wasn't the FCP/Decklink/AJA camp the one crying over Adrenaline DNxHD only capability vs the uncompress only feature of Decklink and AJA 3 years ago?

BLKDOG:

new software/hardware feels zippier than my FCP setups (Not really scientific, I know).

It could be my imagination but it really is nice to fly around like I used to on my Meridians again.

Just curious - seriously, what is it that you noticed as zippier?  Movement through menus, opening a window/space, etc.  We (our staff) were discussing how the interface on our Meridians were compared to the Adrenalines just last week.  One thing that we thought always took "forever" to open was the effects editing space.  How does it compare to the new?