|
|
This topic comprises 2 pages: 1 2
|
|
Author
|
Topic: Dolby discontinues the Dolby line of servers
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Carsten Kurz
Film God
Posts: 4340
From: Cologne, NRW, Germany
Registered: Aug 2009
|
posted 12-21-2014 05:18 AM
Steve - the current SMPTE DCPs support only a subset of what is planned for the final transition coming in 2015/2016 (e.g. audio channel mapping). At some point, a decision must be made to either outphase older systems without further software support, or to create dual inventory DCPs for them. I guess from some point of view, it would be acceptable to outphase DSS/DSP100, XDC G3, etc., but the owners would probably not be too happy still. Well, moot point since Dolby finished support for these systems anyway well before the current decision.
I would think that Dolby would support this for DSS200/220, though. We will probably see a Dolby version 5.x even after they finished with their own hardware.
Also, I guess with the CAT 862 being discontinued, Dolby will now at least make sure that classic Dolphin boards will still be produced to continue a HD-SDI solution.
- Carsten
| IP: Logged
|
|
Steve Guttag
We forgot the crackers Gromit!!!
Posts: 12814
From: Annapolis, MD
Registered: Dec 1999
|
posted 12-21-2014 08:35 AM
Since Dolby states that they will continue software updates up and until June 30th 2018, I would think any lacking SMPTE updates would be covered if there is DCI compatibility would be concerned (for the DSS200/220).
As for Dolby versions...I have NO idea how they come up with them or if there will ever be a 5.x
You'd think that the DCI compliant version, being so monumental would have been worth of a change to 5.0 There would have been no confusion there...if you are below 5, nope, not DCI. Then, when the DSS100/DSP100 were no longer part of the software line, again, tick it a full version number. In my way of thinking, we should be at least on version 6 and probably version 7 since there was a look/feel change when 4.5 came out for the CAT745. One shouldn't have to worry about the Dolby minutia as to when their product is supported. Make the system easy to figure out. Is there some award for keeping the version number low? If so Barco is doing well...they are still on version 1!...sure is is 1.12 but it is version 1!
However, regardless of which product you own, there is some point where the hardware is incapable of working with current software and resources for discontinued products will not be spent to keep them up. There is also the reality that server lives will NEVER be as long as projector lives...their turn over rate has always been predicted to be higher.
As for the HDSDI version of the Doremi (e.g. the 2K4)...I wouldn't be too confident in Dolby continuing that. Personally, I would continue it...but then again, I'd have continued the CAT862. I can be confident of that because I am not seeing the sales numbers to know what it would cost to do another production run and how long it would take to get a ROI. But how many people are even considering HDSDI installations now? Barco only includes the input upon request, Christie charges extra for it and NEC includes it on some models and it is an extra charge on the low-end models. With Enigma 1.8.24, it is FINALLY not to be a problem child anymore. I can say also with confidence that if the CAT862 was still current, that would have been the way we would have continued to go Other than for 4K or HFR 3D (whose bubble has burst), what benefits are there to the IMB? It is more work in my opinion for installation and it sets up the situation where one has part of the server is asleep when the projector is off and part of it is awake. Some companies have a very strict power up/down procedure with IMBs (or IMS).
I'm sure the Dolby bean counters will look at the 2K4 versus the Showvault and if the 2K4 doesn't really have the numbers, will can it. The only people that would need the 2K4 are those with series 1 projectors where the server has failed and need a replacement. For most one could move an existing server around to handle the series 1 projector and put the new server on the series 2. But lets look at the series 1 situation. We are 10-years (actually heading up on 11) since the first ones went into the field. I'd suspect that we are within 5-years of seeing those first ones coming out en-masse. As it stands, support for them is fast becoming parts that happen to be in common with later series 1 or series 2. We are already 6 years after the LAST series 1 was made and suspect we are within 4 years of even some of those hitting retirement. My point is, the need of a series 1 compatible server is on the decline and the slope of the decline is going to be ever increasing. Therefore, the need to keep a product around to support such a projector will also be declining. Think of it like making a film projector or parts for them...will there be some about...yes, but the demand is trending towards zero.
Personally, I hope Dolby reconsiders their decision on the DSS line but I'm realistic that ship has sailed.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Marcel Birgelen
Film God
Posts: 3357
From: Maastricht, Limburg, Netherlands
Registered: Feb 2012
|
posted 12-22-2014 03:58 PM
My argument was: I don't really like the trend of putting the whole server onto the IMB, because that's what currently is happening at an ever increasing rate.
I do like the concept of having a server, which generates both audio and video signals as a separate box. Preferably with storage close to the stuff that's pushing out the actual audio/video bitstreams. So, I was looking at a replacement for HD-SDI, one that could handle the bandwidth required for e.g. 4K 3D at 60FPS. Either in a single or bundled link solution.
The argument of the "copyright police" that the only way to do this, is by bringing the content closer to the projector, because there are no interconnects sufficiently fast to bridge the gap, is essentially moot. There are sufficient technologies readily available that can cope with the bandwidth.
There is also no reason why encryption cannot be used across those links, no matter what the underlying transmission technology is.
quote: Marco Giustini
Ethernet: the 745 does that. You need a media block to process the video in the projector. Ethernet sends data.
It doesn't send the complete, uncompressed video bitstream. The IMB is still a "smart" device, not just a data interface with a "link decryptor".
Ethernet contains some overhead that wouldn't really be necessary in a simple point to point link, but it comes with the added advantage that it can easily be extended using industry standard tools.
The biggest drawback of stuff like 40 GB Ethernet is that it's still rather expensive.
quote: Marco Giustini
HDMI: are you expecting the industry to trust a format which has been broken years ago? You can buy a splitter and send the HD signal to another TV. Not sure Hollywood would like that.
HDMI provides at its most basic level just a TDM transmission layer. It's, within the specs allowed, rather up to you how you use it. HDMI is not HDCP per definition, you can transmit almost any bitstream over HDMI. You can use the same TLS encryption you would be using over HD-SDI for example.
The biggest advantage of HDMI is that chipsets supporting the standard are plenty and therefore cheap and readily available. Connectors and cables are also cheap.
quote: Marco Giustini
PCIex: Doremi do that. Then - as for Ethernet - you need something that processes video.
PCIe is a very low level, high bandwidth transmission interface and might be one of the most likely choices for high bitrate interconnects. Just like HDMI, chipsets are commonly available.
Connectors and cables are a bit more expensive than HDMI, but still cheaper than 40 GB Ethernet.
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
|
This topic comprises 2 pages: 1 2
|
Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM
6.3.1.2
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.
|
Home
Printer-friendly view of this topic