Life after TripleHead 2Gos - What is out there?
Hello all!
So far my video project life/career's needs have been fulfilled with the use of Macs and Matrox Dual Heads and Triple Head 2 Gos.
Now the world is leading me down paths that will require more outputs... (5/6+ projectors @ 720p or 1080p). Most of my rigs have been VDMX or Quartz based with Matrox outputs, but am now slowly gravitating towards Max being "the engine room" for most of my projects. Is study time for me.
The Question: How are some of the bigger hitters handling the need for "lotsa" outputs? Edgeblending is a hard must for the gigs i am contemplating
Just looking for suggestions, approaches, gotchas, thoughts, etc. etc.
thanks!!!
jd
Many colleagues have reported good experiences with the Datapath X4, which divides a single DVI input into four discrete outputs, has internal arbitrary scaling, rotation and cropping, EDID management, and many other features. Word is it is a lot more reliable than the Matrox products.
Datapath has recently announced the FX4, which has displayport input and higher bandwidth overall. I have one on order.
Thanks Jesse, I was just looking if something similar exists!
I am new to the world of above HD resolutions and I have a question...
So when performing I guess it is much better to have video output in UHD 3840 x 2160 resolutions than 4096 x 2160, because I assume it is much easier to get 4 HD projectors from an organiser than a 4K projector?
It's very rare to find a venue that can provide a high-lumens 4K projector - they are simply too expensive.
In my experience it is more common to find HD projectors in performance spaces than variants of the DCI standard (roughly 1.9:1). My impression is that the DCI standard is more common to the film projection world, and generally these are higher end projectors for theatrical release.
With that in mind, if you were to pursue a solution like the FX4 you'd likely want to target UHD output resolution if you need to run at 60Hz. The FX4 supports up to 8K x 8K input, although at much lower frame rates due to its fixed max data bandwidth.
I believe the X4 is capped at 4K x 4K input raster, but I have not used it personally.
Keep in mind that both units support variable scaling per-output so I believe your choice of output resolution/framerate is customizable depending on your application, as long as you don't exceed the data rate limits.
That helps! I ran across the datapath widgets a while back, none are here locally, good to hear good reviews on them!
That is VERy interesting to know about the 8Kx8K support, even if is a super low frame rate..
Yes - true 4K input projectors as provided by organisers are quite like the unicorn - you hear a lot about them, but when was the last time you actually saw one?
Assume the PJs you get will be able to handle a 1080 input, but that's about it...
Hi John,
As you can see in my recently-made thread, I am barking down similar paths as well:
https://cycling74.com/forums/coordinated-multi-monitor-fullscreen/
My only reply so far by SPA indicated I could only do the 6-out thing (I'm aiming for 6x 1080p projectors in cylindrical formation to curved screens, 6x60 degrees of arc per projection screen = full 360 panorama!)
However SPA said I could only do it using Windows. What is your experience with TripleHead 2Gos on Mac? "Life after" would indicate you already own them, and the plural indicates several. Do you now have 2x Triples and are looking for a way to use them?
I'm trying to work backwards from my use-case to determine what I need. So far I am fairly sure I can rig the screens and projectors, meaning I just need a system capable of and powerful enough to push 6x1080p outs while having 1-2 more for a preview monitor/VJ UI.
Hopefully we can share notes somehow, I think this is a way more plausible scenario while the price comes down for 4K projectors, etc.
Hey Kcoul..
i saw the 6 output question you put up, hope you find a good solution.. would be curious what you end up with..
Yes, I have several triple heads, (2 personally) plus have used them in existing club installs all over. (11+ clubs) While they are initially tweaky, (ALWAYS check/update the firmware !!) Once settled in they are pretty solid. I will continue to use them for my club gigs, but my install life is starting to ask for more! more! more! as far as outputs go.
I sense the question "Have I used two of them on the same machine to get some form of six outputs?" No. I have not, do not have any machines w dual DP outputs to try that on. Most of my home gear is starting to show it's age. Would love to know if anyone else has tried two triple heads on the same machine - Any info, good or bad is welcome. Now that I think about it, the church I do some tech for just got a mac w dual thunderbolts.. maybe I go try it.
Right now - "from my limited knowledge" - yes, a windows machine is the only route to 6 outputs I see.
i've used 2 matrox devices on the same Mac computer. one was dualhead, but i see no reason why two tripleheads would not work, assuming you have sufficient CPU and GPU.
I read on the matrox site that multiple triplehead DP (displayport) is only supported on windows.
But perhaps, you could put 2 (old) dvi version on osx.
By the way, Rob, could you confirm what I stated on the other thread:
You will certainly have to cut and synchronise your huge movie, and max is not so good at it.
I dont think you can play 11520×1080 with jit.gl.hap or VIDLL. (+ you want preview window…)
if you do it with max, without splitting in multiple synchronised players, i think you will have a hard time getting a good fps.
SLI is simply not seen and not used by Jitter, so you use only 1 card.
Particularly on the newMacPro. See the benchmak thread for low GPU results.
There's been many question about multiple GPU from max users AFTER they bought a nMP or multiple GPU.
Perhaps Cycling could make clear somewhere (jit FAQ ?) that each jit.window is processed on only 1 GPU.
So people does not spend money for nothing...
I've ran 3 TripleHead2Go's digital edition on 1 PC, GTX670 graphics card. Didn't run a show like that, just tried it out for kicks. I did run a show with 2 of them on one PC.
I see no reason why it wouldnt work on Mac (provided the hardware can handle the resolution). Once configured the TH2Go just looks like any other display to the system.
I've been using Matrox for years and it's never ever let me down. There was this thing with a certain model not being compatible with certain macbooks. I think that gave m a bad rep here and there.
Thanks for the Datapath tip, very useful!
I've run two TripleHeads from a Mac Pro with a GTX680 installed. Apart from the hidden EDID nonsense in more recent versions of OSX it was perfectly fine.
I can report significant flakiness on multiple models of Matrox Dual and Triple heads, both the Displayport and Digital editions. Inputs disappearing, lack of consistent output connection to projectors, EDID's resetting, etc. It's gotten to the point that I've tried to avoid them when possible.
Weird, I haven't seen any of that. I mostly use 'm with my own beamers though, and always connected via DVI in, VGA out.
hey jesse,
then edid problems are depending on the components you are using use. not a specific matrox issue.
computer > triple head > fibre cable > projector.
all these componets are communicating with each other.
if you want to avoid problems, use this for every output:
http://www.extron.com/product/product.aspx?id=edid101d&s=4
with die device, i never had a single edid problem on our tour whit different setups.
abs
My thunderbolt ports aren't working on my Macbook Pro and it will cost too much to get the logic board replaced.
I need to run a 3-channel video installation.
Offhand, do you know if I can use a Matrox TripleHead2Go using the HDMI out?
Is there any kind of specific adapters I should use?
Thank you for your time.
I was referring to the EDID that the Matrox broadcasts, not on the outputs. This is more of an issue with recent versions of OSX, which hide "non-standard" EDID's by default in the Displays setup. I've found that this is hit or miss with Mac Pro towers, even when I have the correct EDID loaded on the TripleHead.
The DVI input on my TripleHead is now dead and can only function with the VGA input. I got a fair bit of use from it before this happened, but I think for now I'll stick to the Datapath products, which can manage EDIDs on their own. They can also do arbitrary scaling and sampling of the input image for edge blending or non-linear arrangements of projectors, which Matrox doesn't support.
Jesse: Referring you to my thread to indicate the problem I'm trying to solve (SPA was talking me out of using Jitter, but the video hardware to use that will best achieve the result also remains to be seen):
In summary I want to leverage an 8-output system as best as possible, to use 6 of 8 outputs for a 360 degree projection cylinder, and the remaining 1-2 outputs for 1-2 preview monitors.
Coordinating a single rectangular (-> cylindrical) render across the 6 outputs is the main issue I am trying to solve. I think the preview will be more straightforward.
Are you saying that I will have less of an EDID headache if I were to go with 2x Datapath x4's, and 1x Datapath dl8?
Having what appears to the software user as one single, gigantic output target is really ideal in a lot of ways, so if I can buy external hardware to connect to a single GPU that achieves this kind of trickery, maybe I can avoid writing plugins that manage connecting projectors directly to the dual-GPU outputs, and just put everything through some kind of a shader that handles the deformations for the overlaps of all the monitors to achieve a seamless 360 panorama.
The Datapath products would likely be much better suited to your scenario, as they can perform arbitrary sampling and scaling of whatever input raster you throw at it. The FX4 is a more powerful unit as it incorporates the features of the X4 and dl8 in a single, compact unit. The FX4's Displayport input has roughly twice the bandwidth of the X4, supporting a maximum raster size of 8k x 8k. I believe it should support custom EDIDs that could suit your application.
There are many ways to solve the problem you're posing, and they depend greatly on your target output resolution and how you want to organize your render context. I'd say two FX4's will be a perfect fit here. You can oversample the regions of your input image to create overlap between the projectors and do edge blending using the projectors' hardware. If you don't have hardware blending available you can certainly do this in shaders as you point out.
hi Kcoul,
I just try to tell you that perhaps if you need a 'simple' player with huge resolution, you're perhaps better with an other software.
Now there's VIDDLL and hap on max, but it does not change the fact that many processes of max goes to the same thread on the CPU.
I dont think the problem will come from the video hardware after the GPU but from the processing of a huge resolution.
In my experience, with optimisation on GPU, you're going to have a hard time going over 4k with only 1 thread and 1 GPU and 1 movie.
You're chance of having a stable framerate (60?) without cuts is very low... in max
I think that's why those kind of system use synchronised slave players ...
you could have a master patch outputting half your panorama (and half your preview) and 1 slave patch outputing the second half.
They could be both on the same computer, but each patch outputting to distinct GPU.
each 4k process will be : SSD (different for each half movie) > Max (GL process) > GPU > 4 FHD (3 proj + 1 preview)
This solution could work for an openGL movie, but not for a dynamic opengl world
and it will be much cheaper than buying multi FX4
Hmm thanks SPA, a lot to think about. I am willing to take my time and find a flexible solution that really could include a dynamic opengl world in addition to video playback. Ideally it's a solution where I just need to change out the software, but the hardware at least is capable of doing the different things. I want to do as much as I can in Max for better integration with the music side of things, but often I will prototype an idea in Max and export the concept to another software once it is no longer capable of handling what I want to do.
Matrox recommended me this card which is up to spec on the latest OpenGL standards:
http://www.matrox.com/graphics/en/products/graphics_cards/c-series/c680/
If you were to gang together two of them, that would potentially be as many as 12 outputs!
My real question though is whether you could simultaneously output a preview if you only had one of these, i.e. on IGPU, or if you would need to get two of them. I am guessing it's the latter from what you told me, but then, I don't know if Max could handle outputting one context to all 6 outputs on one card while outputting a preview context to a couple of outputs on the second card..
FYI for anyone who was watching this thread, the Datapath FX4 was officially announced:
We received ours last week but I haven't had a chance to work with it yet.