Latest post Sun, Jun 30 2019 7:56 PM by Lukas Boeck. 23 replies.
Page 1 of 2 (24 items) 1 2 Next >
Sort Posts: Previous Next
  • Fri, Jun 14 2019 2:24 AM

    XAVC vs DNxHR performance

    After linkng XAVC-I footage via AMA, I tried two methods: 

    1) Consoldiated the clips to my computer's hard drive, which remained XVAC-I.  

    2) Transcoded the clips to my computer's hard drive as DNxHR HXQ. 

    After color correcting, I notice the color is slightly richer with DNxHR HXQ, but the playback performance really suffers.  Any clips with even moderate motion will stutter in playback.   The consolidated XVAC-I clips play back without a hitch. 

    Does it take a super powerful computer to play back DNxHR HXQ?

    MC 2018.12.3 with Symphony, Matrox MX02 Mini Max, Win 7 Pro, HP Z800 2x6-Core 3.2Ghz Xeon, 48GB ram, Quadro K4200, SanDisk Extreme 240GB SSD as system... [view my complete system specs]

    I have a fantastic editing assistant.  He stays by my side when I edit...doesn't talk too much...and thinks I'm a genius!    Check him out here: www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZQVkYaaPO6g

  • Fri, Jun 14 2019 9:05 AM In reply to

    • Lukas Boeck
    • Top 200 Contributor
    • Joined on Fri, Jul 31 2015
    • Austria
    • Posts 590
    • Points 6,980

    Re: XAVC vs DNxHR performance

    It's unlikely, but maybe the sturreing is harddrive related?

     

    does your cpu max out when playing back HQX?

     

    If you can consolidate the footage, then why not do that? no quality loss, saved HDD space.

    and render in HQX onto a ssd.

    MC 2018.12.2 Cusom bulid Supermicro X9SRL-F, 32 Gig Ram, 3ware 9750 6x6TB Seagate EC Drives, LSI 9207 + LTO-7, Mojo DX, Artist Color, Flanders CM240, GTX... [view my complete system specs]
  • Fri, Jun 14 2019 12:09 PM In reply to

    Re: XAVC vs DNxHR performance

    Both the consolidated XAVC-I media and the transcoded DNxHR HQX media are on the same hard drive--the former performs flawlessly even with LUT, color correction and effects...while the later can't even play a simple motion clip without stuttering.  

    I'm fine just working with XAVC-I, which is the camera's original codec.   I just thought DNxHR would yield better performance since it is Avid's native codec.  Confused  I have not tried the LB, SQ, HQ versions of DNxHR, since I wanted to stay with 10-bit color. 

     

    MC 2018.12.3 with Symphony, Matrox MX02 Mini Max, Win 7 Pro, HP Z800 2x6-Core 3.2Ghz Xeon, 48GB ram, Quadro K4200, SanDisk Extreme 240GB SSD as system... [view my complete system specs]

    I have a fantastic editing assistant.  He stays by my side when I edit...doesn't talk too much...and thinks I'm a genius!    Check him out here: www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZQVkYaaPO6g

  • Fri, Jun 14 2019 5:23 PM In reply to

    • Lukas Boeck
    • Top 200 Contributor
    • Joined on Fri, Jul 31 2015
    • Austria
    • Posts 590
    • Points 6,980

    Re: XAVC vs DNxHR performance

    CPU wise HQX is probably less demanding.

     

    looking at this chart:

    http://avid.force.com/pkb/articles/en_US/White_Paper/DNxHR-Codec-Bandwidth-Specifications

    it appears quite clear, that HQX on a single magnetic HDD won't work.

     

    personally i don't buy into the "everything in the same production codec" thing.

    If it consolidates, i'll consolidate.

    MC 2018.12.2 Cusom bulid Supermicro X9SRL-F, 32 Gig Ram, 3ware 9750 6x6TB Seagate EC Drives, LSI 9207 + LTO-7, Mojo DX, Artist Color, Flanders CM240, GTX... [view my complete system specs]
  • Fri, Jun 14 2019 5:46 PM In reply to

    • ck123
    • Not Ranked
    • Joined on Wed, Jul 17 2013
    • PA
    • Posts 157
    • Points 1,990

    Re: XAVC vs DNxHR performance

    You don't mention the resolution and framerate your media is at. But, let's start with 1080p 23.976. XAVC-I will be just under 100Mbs and DNxHQX will be 176Mbs. Nearly twice the bandwidth. But, many hard drives should still handle it. Now let's bump up to UHD 59.94. XAVC-I will be 600Mbs and DNxHQX will be 1665Mbs. Close to 3 times. While a lot of hard drives may still keep up with XAVC-I even at 600Mbs, they'll choke on the DNxHQX.

    HP zBook 17 G3, z220, HP z240, HP z420, HP z440, HP z840, HP Z4 G4, Dell Precision 3430, Dell Precision 7810, Apple iMac i5 27-Inch (5K, Late 2015). 16GB... [view my complete system specs]
  • Fri, Jun 14 2019 5:58 PM In reply to

    • NYnutz
    • Top 500 Contributor
    • Joined on Wed, Nov 25 2009
    • New York City
    • Posts 395
    • Points 4,680

    Re: XAVC vs DNxHR performance

    depending on the camera, frame size, and recording mode, XAVC I can be anywhere from 25-600Mbps (and probably more in certain implementations.)

     

    DNXHR HQX in UHD frame sizes is 700Mbs at 23.98p and 1.6Gbps(!!!) at 59.94/60p

     

    recomend looking at disk utilization and statistics in resource monitor (resmon.exe) while you are having playback issues.

    Dave

    Post Production Infrastructure Engineer

    "A very big network"

     

  • Fri, Jun 14 2019 7:01 PM In reply to

    • DonE
    • Not Ranked
    • Joined on Tue, Aug 18 2009
    • California, USA
    • Posts 116
    • Points 1,370

    Re: XAVC vs DNxHR performance

    Terry Snyder:

    After color correcting, I notice the color is slightly richer with DNxHR HXQ, but the playback performance really suffers.  Any clips with even moderate motion will stutter in playback.

    Does it take a super powerful computer to play back DNxHR HXQ?

    I can play back a single stream of DNxHR HQX 10 channel audio UHD (3840x2160) @23.976 in 10 bit Green on a Win 7 MC8.6.5 Z800 dual xeon 12GB ram connected to our shared storage with 1GbE. All 24 cores are running and network is at 70% as NYNuts's numbers show.

    1x AMC/Sy 8.6.5-Win10 Pro 64 1809-HP z800-dual 6core-24GB-Quadro FX 4800-Nitris DX QT775 NV341.74** 3x AMC/Sy 8.6.5-Win10 Pro 64 1809-HP xw8600-8GB-Quadro... [view my complete system specs]
  • Sat, Jun 15 2019 1:23 PM In reply to

    Re: XAVC vs DNxHR performance

    ck123:
    You don't mention the resolution and framerate your media is at.

    Resolution is XAVC 4K Intra Class 300 (3840x2160) at 29.97fps.   Plug in is MVP_MSP_SonyXDCAM_64-bit.

     

    ck123:
    While a lot of hard drives may still keep up with XAVC-I even at 600Mbs, they'll choke on the DNxHQX.

    If I replace one of my computer's mechanical hard drives with an SSD, do you think that will handle it?

    MC 2018.12.3 with Symphony, Matrox MX02 Mini Max, Win 7 Pro, HP Z800 2x6-Core 3.2Ghz Xeon, 48GB ram, Quadro K4200, SanDisk Extreme 240GB SSD as system... [view my complete system specs]

    I have a fantastic editing assistant.  He stays by my side when I edit...doesn't talk too much...and thinks I'm a genius!    Check him out here: www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZQVkYaaPO6g

  • Sat, Jun 15 2019 1:27 PM In reply to

    Re: XAVC vs DNxHR performance

    What I don't understand...   I thought the smaller, more compressed files took more processing power while the larger less compressed files--while they take up more space--are easier on your computer?   Or am I missing something? 

    MC 2018.12.3 with Symphony, Matrox MX02 Mini Max, Win 7 Pro, HP Z800 2x6-Core 3.2Ghz Xeon, 48GB ram, Quadro K4200, SanDisk Extreme 240GB SSD as system... [view my complete system specs]

    I have a fantastic editing assistant.  He stays by my side when I edit...doesn't talk too much...and thinks I'm a genius!    Check him out here: www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZQVkYaaPO6g

  • Sat, Jun 15 2019 2:57 PM In reply to

    • Lukas Boeck
    • Top 200 Contributor
    • Joined on Fri, Jul 31 2015
    • Austria
    • Posts 590
    • Points 6,980

    Re: XAVC vs DNxHR performance

    Terry Snyder:

    What I don't understand...   I thought the smaller, more compressed files took more processing power while the larger less compressed files--while they take up more space--are easier on your computer?   Or am I missing something? 

    This is generally true.

    But you can get bottlenecked by either CPU processing power OR disk speed.

    The latter seems to be the deciding factor in your scenario.

     

    If it was absulutely necessary that you achive higher disk speed, a single SSD or a raid array of magnetic disks would solve the issue.

    MC 2018.12.2 Cusom bulid Supermicro X9SRL-F, 32 Gig Ram, 3ware 9750 6x6TB Seagate EC Drives, LSI 9207 + LTO-7, Mojo DX, Artist Color, Flanders CM240, GTX... [view my complete system specs]
  • Sun, Jun 16 2019 12:03 AM In reply to

    Re: XAVC vs DNxHR performance

    Terry,

    Try a SSD. Believe me.  I cut with XAVC-I media in Avid all the time (my primary camera format for 4 years) but I grade/render in Resolve to DNxHR (HQ and HQX) and when I bring that graded media into Avid it's a pig to playback. Not Avid's fault... the data rate is much too high for a spinning drive. However, I've tried both a G-Raid RAID-0 disk and a Samsung T5 SSD on USB3 and both were night and day difference over a single spinning disk.  Much faster. What's crazy is that you can buy a single Samsung T5 for almost what you would have paid for a RAID several years ago and it will fit in your laptop bag!

    I bet it's not your processor - It's your hard drive's speed.

    Avid Media Composer 2018.12 Intel i9 9900K desktop Windows 10 Pro 64GB RAM BlackMagic Design Decklink Mini Monitor Nvidia RTX2080 display card [view my complete system specs]

    Jason Spencer, Director/DP/Editor digitallunchbox.com

  • Mon, Jun 17 2019 1:49 PM In reply to

    • NYnutz
    • Top 500 Contributor
    • Joined on Wed, Nov 25 2009
    • New York City
    • Posts 395
    • Points 4,680

    Re: XAVC vs DNxHR performance

    Terry Snyder:

    What I don't understand...   I thought the smaller, more compressed files took more processing power while the larger less compressed files--while they take up more space--are easier on your computer?   Or am I missing something? 

     

     

    The tradeoff is CPU cycles vs. Disk/Storage throughput. When heavily compressed codecs (a la XDCAM) first came around for editorial workflows, qualified avid workstations were xw8400s and xw8600s. Compared to even a low-end single socket workstation from the last few years, their CPUs were anemic, RAM speed was abysmal, applications were 32bit if you were lucky, and operating systems were archaic.  Remember 1.5GB boot.ini switches for media composer? Workstations with a SHOCKING 4 CPU cores? 512MB of VRAM on a 3 thousand dollar quadro FX3500 so boris wouldn't render with green artifacts? 

    It seems so quaint. Your smartphone has been more powerful for years. An Avid compatible HP Z8 build today can have dual 28 core CPUS (112 threads with hyperthreading!), 24GB of Vram, and 192GB of RAM (theoretically up to Terabyes of RAM, but we just dont need it!) Operating systems are 64bit, applications have been updated to take advantage of newer CPU instruction sets, and application support for GPU computing is a real thing (well, maybe not for media composer...)

     

     

    Spinning disk storage basically hasn't evolved much since then. Capacity has increased, but the SATA bus will always be a limiting factor. Sure, we've gone from 1.5Gb to 6.0Gb SATA, but are spinning disk hard drives four times faster? No. And they never will be. SSDs are so bottlenecked by the SATA bus that it has effectively been replaced by NVME/PCIe M2 in about 5 years (to give apple some credit here, they shipped PCIe SSD on the Mac Pro in 2013!)

    For the first time, high performance local storage in the form of NVME/M.2 PCIe SSD has the performance to match an extremely expensive fibre channel SAN at a somewhat reasonable price point. There are other caveats compared to to SAN, but that's a whole other discussion. 

     

    my point in all of this - we have plenty of horsepower in modern computing to decode amazingly complex video compression used in acquisition codecs, but if you aren't updating your storage subsystems to keep pace with the astronomical data rates demanded by less compressed intermediate and delivery codecs, it doesn't matter when you hit play.  

    Dave

    Post Production Infrastructure Engineer

    "A very big network"

     

  • Mon, Jun 17 2019 3:07 PM In reply to

    Re: XAVC vs DNxHR performance

    Thanks for a terrific and very informative explanation.

    My z800 has fairly powerful processors and I've got a pretty good graphics card.   I'm still getting decent performance and I'd like to squeeze another year out of it before buying a new workstation.

    Question:  Can I replace one of my mechanical media drives with an SSD?  I already have an SSD for the (C:) boot drive.   My Z800 is SATA II, but I understand SATA III SSD's are backwards compatible.   So even if I get 3.0Gb from the SSD because of the bus limitation, will I be getting better perfomance than my internal mechanical media drives?

    MC 2018.12.3 with Symphony, Matrox MX02 Mini Max, Win 7 Pro, HP Z800 2x6-Core 3.2Ghz Xeon, 48GB ram, Quadro K4200, SanDisk Extreme 240GB SSD as system... [view my complete system specs]

    I have a fantastic editing assistant.  He stays by my side when I edit...doesn't talk too much...and thinks I'm a genius!    Check him out here: www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZQVkYaaPO6g

  • Mon, Jun 17 2019 3:14 PM In reply to

    • DonE
    • Not Ranked
    • Joined on Tue, Aug 18 2009
    • California, USA
    • Posts 116
    • Points 1,370

    Re: XAVC vs DNxHR performance

    Terry Snyder:

    Resolution is XAVC 4K Intra Class 300 (3840x2160) at 29.97fps.   Plug in is MVP_MSP_SonyXDCAM_64-bit.

    If I replace one of my computer's mechanical hard drives with an SSD, do you think that will handle it?

    I feel like Terry would like to see if he can get his Z800 system to play back this media.

    Terry: The test results I supplied in an earlier post for a Z800, although 1GbE shared storage, was @23.976 so only 80% of your requirement. You need 104MB/s just for the video. I tried it @29.97 and the CPU looked like it was OK. My 1GbE storage won't handle it, as seen by the Red lines added to the timeline after playback.

    Your system specs list "3 x 2TB 7200 internal hard drives for media". Are these configured as a motherboard Raid 0? If not, you don't have the drive speed and you should see the Red lines on your timeline after playback. I'm not sure what drive bandwidth you would get if the 3 were Raid 0. Should be enough for one stream.

    Replacing an internal with an SSD should give you around 225 MB/s, limited by the Z800's SATA 3Gbps connection. Trying to Raid multiple SSD's would not be easy to deal with. Too many problems.

    The Samsung T5 is over 325 MB/s over USB 3.0. You would need an add on USB 3.0 card for your Z800. I'm not sure how well they perform.

    You might also download the AJA System Test so you can check out the option(s) you try.

    I just saw Terry's new post as I was about to post.

    1x AMC/Sy 8.6.5-Win10 Pro 64 1809-HP z800-dual 6core-24GB-Quadro FX 4800-Nitris DX QT775 NV341.74** 3x AMC/Sy 8.6.5-Win10 Pro 64 1809-HP xw8600-8GB-Quadro... [view my complete system specs]
  • Mon, Jun 17 2019 3:29 PM In reply to

    Re: XAVC vs DNxHR performance

    DonE:
    our system specs list "3 x 2TB 7200 internal hard drives for media". Are these configured as a motherboard Raid 0?

    No, they are individual media drives.   When I first got the workstation, I had it configured as an Internal Raid 5, but with only 3 drives (not counting the boot drive) it was more trouble than it was worth, so I went back to individual drives which never gave me a problem with 1080p.

     

    DonE:
    Replacing an internal with an SSD should give you around 225 MB/s, limited by the Z800's SATA 3Gbps connection

    So 3Gbps SATA only gives 225?   Why not 300?   (Sorry if it's a dumb question...I'm a filmmaker, not a computer expert.)

    DonE:
    The Samsung T5 is over 325 MB/s over USB 3.0.

    I've had a USB 3.0 PCIe card since I got the machine, using it with USB 3.0 external G-drives for backup.   It seems to work just as well as the internal drives, but I've only used it with 1080p media.

    MC 2018.12.3 with Symphony, Matrox MX02 Mini Max, Win 7 Pro, HP Z800 2x6-Core 3.2Ghz Xeon, 48GB ram, Quadro K4200, SanDisk Extreme 240GB SSD as system... [view my complete system specs]

    I have a fantastic editing assistant.  He stays by my side when I edit...doesn't talk too much...and thinks I'm a genius!    Check him out here: www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZQVkYaaPO6g

Page 1 of 2 (24 items) 1 2 Next >

© Copyright 2011 Avid Technology, Inc.  Terms of Use |  Privacy Policy |  Site Map |  Find a Reseller