my profile | my password | search | faq & rules | forum home

» Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE   » Operations   » Digital Cinema Forum   » Which Dolby Server - DSS200 or DSS220?

Author Topic: Which Dolby Server - DSS200 or DSS220? Andy Frodsham Expert Film Handler Posts: 238 From: Stoke on Trent, Staffs, UK Registered: Nov 2006 posted 12-07-2012 03:25 AM                     We're having our digital equipment installed just before Christmas but we're still unsure about which Dolby server to go-for. I've read reports which have suggested that the DSS220 is slightly inferior to the older DSS200, so I'm a little confused. I've got to finalise my decision by Monday morning, so any help will be welcome. The device will be driving a Barco DP2K-12C projector (if this makes any difference). Thanks in anticipation.  |  IP: Logged Antti Nayha Master Film Handler Posts: 268 From: Helsinki, Finland Registered: Oct 2008 posted 12-07-2012 05:03 AM                     The only advantage to the DSS220 + IMB option is that you can run 4K and HFR 3D. Your projector can’t do 4K anyway (there’s no 4K update for the C-series Barcos available as of yet, and even if one will come out, it’s going to be prohibitively expensive). So it really boils down to whether you need HFR 3D or not, and no one really knows how popular that format will be. In all other respects, the DSS200 is the superior choice. You have probably read the thread about DSS220’s slow ingestion and Cat 745’s bugs. The bugs will probably be ironed out in the near future, but the ingestion speed may be a hardware limitation. And slow ingestion can be a real pain in the back, particularly at single-screen venues. The DSS200 is also cheaper: it has a list price of $12,500 vs. $16,665 for DSS220 + Cat 745. Note that if you need HFR 3D in the future, you can still add an IMB later and connect it to your DSS200 – although this is still a bit expensive (the Cat 745’s list price is $11,665). I just chose the DSS200 for two single-screen setups, and I don’t really see myself regretting that choice anytime soon.  |  IP: Logged Steve Guttag We forgot the crackers Gromit!!! Posts: 12814 From: Annapolis, MD Registered: Dec 1999 posted 12-07-2012 10:24 AM                     DSS200...its an easy choice, in my opinion. If you were doing 3D, then the IMB may sway it a bit though I just did a DSS200/CAT745 and it worked great. Note, I have not had the issues on the CAT 745 that others have reported...most likely due to how content is formatted in the various parts of the world. I have them now in Barco and Christie projectors running 2K and 4K. That said, I plan on sticking with the CAT 862 on my Dolby installs for anyone that is not installing either 3D or 4K.  |  IP: Logged Marco Giustini Film God Posts: 2713 From: Reading, UK Registered: Nov 2007 posted 12-07-2012 12:06 PM                     Can a DSS200 be bought without the 862 installed? I was testing the eSata speed today: 50% of USB speed, same DCP. 100GB in 1h by USB; by eSATA after 1h I was roughtly at 50%. Hopefully it's going to be fixed in the future by software but for the time being the difference with the Hardware RAID seems quite obvious.  |  IP: Logged Tony Bandiera Jr Film God Posts: 3067 From: Moreland Idaho Registered: Apr 2004 posted 12-07-2012 01:04 PM                     Marco, you guys must have some really slow hard drives (or maybe it's that 50hZ power you have over there) because at my latest install last week we ingested "Life of Pi" (3D) in about 25-30 minutes INCLUDING the verify time. IIRC the file was 163Gb. This was using the built-in CRU dock. Do you guys get content differently? EDIT: Or are you referring to the DSS220? Oh, and my vote is for the DSS200 in this case. (BTW if you go with a 3D system like Volfani for example, the DSS200/CAT382 performs flawlessly.)  |  IP: Logged Antti Nayha Master Film Handler Posts: 268 From: Helsinki, Finland Registered: Oct 2008 posted 12-07-2012 01:54 PM                     The DSS200 doesn’t have eSATA, so I’m pretty sure Marco’s ingest times were those of a DSS220.  |  IP: Logged Marco Giustini Film God Posts: 2713 From: Reading, UK Registered: Nov 2007 posted 12-07-2012 02:01 PM                     Yes, sorry I was referring to the 220. I mentioned the 200 because the 220, at the time being, is very slow. I used the same HDD for the tests of course. That said, the IMB is more future proof. But it's a shame that with the 220 we've lost the Hardware Raid.  |  IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

Printer-friendly view of this topic

Hop To: Select a Forum: Category: Operations -------------------- Digital Cinema Forum Film Handlers' Forum Large Format Forum Ground Level Feature Info, Trailer Attachments & REAL Credit Offsets Category: Community -------------------- Film-Yak Film Handlers' Movie Reviews The Afterlife Bob Maar's Joke-A-Thon Category: Classified -------------------- Equipment and Supplies Wanted/For Sale Help Wanted/Seeking Employment Category: System -------------------- Software Beta Testing Forum

The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.