Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: XD10 dts hard drive capacity

This is topic XD10 dts hard drive capacity in forum Film Handlers' Forum at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=1;t=006557

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 09-11-2004, 08:43 PM:

It was my understanding that the XD10 units would be shipping with a 40 gig hard drive (per my chat with the dts reps at ShoWest 2003). With that capacity, the unit could store approximately 30 features, give or take.

The gentleman at ShoWest also told me that I could install a larger hard drive in it to be able to store more features (my example was a 120 gig drive being able to store about 90 features), but he did warn that "99" was the official limit that the machine could handle due to the two digit software, or something to that effect.

So in looking at a recent XD10, I see it came "stock" with a 120 gig hard drive! However there is no mention in the manual or anywhere about it being able to store more than approximately 30 features. Is there any reason why this unit "as is" cannot handle 60-70-80 features before it begins deleting the oldest ones? I'm curious to know what the most features anyone has stored on their XD10 is, and whether they got a 40 gig hard drive in it or one of the 120 gigs.

Posted by Daryl C. W. O'Shea (Member # 1303) on 09-11-2004, 09:41 PM:

quote: Brad Miller
but he did warn that "99" was the official limit that the machine could handle due to the two digit software, or something to that effect.

If that's true, they're a bunch of retards that should beaten with the case of an IBM 8086 based computer. I hope they fall victim to the year 2038 'bug'.

Possible reasons why you might not be able to store more than 30 features:

Disk usage could be limited to leave room for efficient defragmentation.
Disk space could be saved for every trailer known to man.
A limit on the number of features could be in place so that you can pay them to upgrade the limit in the future.

In all likelihood, though, they probably found it cheaper to install 120GB drives than the smaller drives and you'll be able to store as many features as possible on the drive.

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 09-11-2004, 09:53 PM:

Brad,
One reason for the larger drive is that losless DTS takes a ton more disk space.... there is no data compression. DTS wants all units sold to be able to do all the different processes the XD-10 is capable of just by loading the needed software for that particuluar process. I wouldn't be surprised if all the XD's are being shipped that way now.

One would think that film storage would only be limited by the size of the drive but that is something that only DTS could probably really answer. Please let us know if you find out.

Mark

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 09-11-2004, 11:46 PM:

Mark, your theory about the lossless formats make perfect sense. Surely dts did not put a 30 feature limit on the software. If so, that would be really stupid. After all, there are 30 plexes that will play a movie in a small house a couple of weeks before it's main release, then a few months later that movie will end up back in that same small house...but it could've been deleted by then!

If no one here has a definitive answer, I may sit down and load up feature disc after feature disc until I find the maximum. [Big Grin]

Also, it was posted on this forum about a year and a half ago that 8 channel dts releases would be out by summer 2003. Have any actually been made?

Posted by Daryl C. W. O'Shea (Member # 1303) on 09-12-2004, 01:07 AM:

quote: Brad Miller
Surely dts did not put a 30 feature limit on the software. If so, that would be really stupid.

Not unlike having a 99 feature limit because of a "two digit issue".

quote: Mark Gulbrandsen
One reason for the larger drive is that losless DTS takes a ton more disk space.... there is no data compression. DTS wants all units sold to be able to do all the different processes the XD-10 is capable of just by loading the needed software for that particuluar process.

Were they ever sold with 40GB drives? It's not like DTS just came up with their lossless format and 120GB drives have been common and cheap for years, well before even the announcement of the XD-10.

quote: Brad Miller
Also, it was posted on this forum about a year and a half ago that 8 channel dts releases would be out by summer 2003. Have any actually been made?

Also not unlike the annoucement that there would be new DTS trailers out by the summer of 2003.

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 09-12-2004, 01:49 AM:

The prototype I saw at ShoWest had a 40 gig drive in it, but then again that WAS a prototype.

Point taken on the 8 channel. <sigh> [Roll Eyes]

Posted by Dustin Mitchell (Member # 372) on 09-12-2004, 01:52 AM:

Were there any 8 channel releases this summer period? If film makers don't do an 8 channel mix then DTS can't very well release 8 channel disks.

Posted by Alan Haigh (Member # 1781) on 09-12-2004, 05:47 AM:

Terminator 3 and Spiderman 2.

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 09-12-2004, 09:39 AM:

Most of the early XD-10's we installed all had 40 gig drives. when I did the lossless install with the people from DTS a couple of months ago they mentioned that they might just go to the larger drives on all the new units in the future... there isn't much cost difference on the drives.....

DTS could have offered 8 channel disks for those two films... I had that from the mouth of a dts exec. But there are no 8 channel processors with ana extra input out there cept the CP-200 and thats one of the main reasons for DTS to market the the new stand alone processor..... I can'think of an XD-10 in this part of the country that is set up on an 8 channel capable processor. There is only one CP-200 out here that is 8 channel capable and that entire system is being re-installed in St. George in November. So it wouldn't have been worth the studios going through the trouble to make 8 chan disks for just a handful of locations that might have been able to play them back. I think with the XD-10 and new DTS processor that will indeed change and it may also cause Sony to fade from the scene faster than ever.
Btw: It takes about 8 hours to load a 1 hour lossless play disk into the XD-10 but DTS is planning on software revisions to drastically shorten that load time.

Mark

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 09-12-2004, 11:03 AM:

Mark,

Are the lossless tracks available for normal Hollywood product?

Roughly how much space on the drive does a 2 hour movie lossless take up?

Seems to me dts could've hand burned the few 8 channel discs needed for those releases this year to help jump-start their format and push the XD10. There are plenty of CP200s in high end theaters (8 channel capable).

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 09-12-2004, 12:35 PM:

The AFI/Silver is 8-channel capable in two theatres.

Here is an oddity though...when DTS releases a "Todd-AO" mix one has to repatch the channels...even on XD-10s. They still seem to encode the tracks such that Ls and Rs give way to LC and RC with the S/W track giving way to the MS channel...my only reasoning is for compatibility with DTS-6DSV units.

At Colonial Williamsburg where the main film is a Todd-AO mix and has only ever had XD-10 players...DTS still used Ls and Rs for LC and RC.

Norm had mentioned at one of the shows that Panastereo was planning on a two-channel add-on box to bring 8-channels to various processors (the CSP-1200 for instance) since all it would need to do would be to follow the fader of the main processor.

The CP650 has been showing Le and Re channels now since a couple of firmware revisions....via the digital inputs on the CP650 and the digital outuputs on the XD-10 one should be able to do an 8-channel system with a CP650 and XD-10 combination too.

Give me 5-screen channels any day over Surround-Suspect.

Steve

Posted by Ron Yost (Member # 1850) on 09-12-2004, 02:56 PM:

So, does this mean DTS will be 'dual inventory' soon?? Lossless discs (about 5 or 6 CD's per feature??) for those with XD10's, and 'regular' compressed DTS soundtracks for those with older units??? Or are older unit owners simply going to be s.o.l. soon, unless they buy an XD10?? Maybe there will be a 'crossover' period, at the end of which DTS will distribute nothing but uncompressed tracks??

Also, if they're going lossless, why don't they distribute the uncompressed tracks on DVD?? Sure be a lot less discs to swap loading an XD10, wouldn't it?? Plus fewer distribution problems .. less to make and keep track of.

I'm probably missing something, aside from the probable fact that I'll bet the readers in an XD10 are only CD readers. [Big Grin]

Ron Yost

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 09-12-2004, 03:08 PM:

Bzzzt...the disc drives in the XD-10 are DVD readers.

Steve

Posted by Ron Yost (Member # 1850) on 09-12-2004, 03:24 PM:

Ah HA! Thank you, Steve. [Big Grin]

Ron Yost

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 09-12-2004, 06:29 PM:

Well the XD-10 can of course do 8 channel the way it comes out of the box however none of the studios got requests for 8 chan DTS disks and all it would take is a large enough amount of requests to make that happen. Lossless requires a software change(or addition). I doubt that there is a system in the country cept for some Large Format systems that have the dynamic range capability to playback what can be put on a lossless disk. Even for the average well designed theatre it could mean doubling or tripling available audio power and then could the speakers take it for long.......? For that matter could the average theatre building withstand the enormous low frequqncy output and could the customers endure it on a regular basis.....? I don't think so and I feel that you'll generally only be seeing it used on special film events. Although i was told by DTS that it certainly IS possible to do lossless for regular feature production.... I wouold say that it is the system that is already here now for the future.

Mark

Posted by Daryl C. W. O'Shea (Member # 1303) on 09-12-2004, 07:23 PM:

DTS Lossless probably uses about 9.8 megabytes per minute per channel.

So audio for a two hour, 6 channel film would be about 6.9 GB.

If that's accurate, an 8 hour loading time is insane. Even at only a 33 MB per minute transfer rate it'd only take about 3.5 hours unless they are verifying it, in which case it could take 8 hours.

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 09-12-2004, 07:26 PM:

Yes, I think they are verifying it during the load process... its a ton of data just for audio that would necessitate an entire reload duration if errors developed.

Mark

Posted by Daryl C. W. O'Shea (Member # 1303) on 09-12-2004, 08:22 PM:

Hopefully a data error wouldn't neccessitate an entire reload of the data. Presumably you'd only have to reload that single reel file. If they didn't at least break the files down by the reel they're insane. Hopefully they broke the files down even further though.

It sounds like they are verifying it bit by bit by comparing the hard drive data with the DVD data.

It'd be far more faster to just compute checksums of each file on the hard drive and then just retransfer any that fail the checksum check, rather than comparing every bit to the DVD (essentially reading the data from the DVD twice).

Hopefully this is what they are changing to.

Posted by Steve Kraus (Member # 476) on 09-12-2004, 09:51 PM:

I don't see why lossless would require a more powerful B chain. You might want a better B chain otherwise it's a waste but higher quality doesn't necessarily mean louder.

Posted by Daryl C. W. O'Shea (Member # 1303) on 09-12-2004, 10:00 PM:

Lower bitrate audio usually seems quiter. Whether or not it actually is quiter I've never measured.

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 09-12-2004, 10:09 PM:

As the playback chain is improved the B chain should also be improved. Lossless which operates at 96khz/24 bit has dynamic range equivelent to DVD audio disks. below are some specs for DVD audio... I doubt that many theatre b chains could deal with this sort of thing without reduction in playback level or some really serious upgrades. Keep in mind that systems today are designed(hopefully) for todays playback capabilities which pretty much approximate todays CD recordings.
________________________________________________________________
"DVD-Audio extends high-frequency playback to 48kHz (compared to 20kHz for the audio CD) and expands maximum dynamic range to 144dB (compared to the audio CD's 96dB). Maximum playback time is 400 minutes (at audio CD resolution), or more than 74 minutes using 6 channels at 96kHz, 24-bit resolution.
1db dynamic range capability is a subsantial increase over what we have now."
_________________________________________________________________

Anyone would be a fool to attempt utilize the full dynamic range of lossless digital playback(of any sort for that matter) without adaquate power availability and speakers that can take the punishment. Thats why one can see it being limited to special venue theatres where these systems normally exist.

Mark

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 09-12-2004, 10:23 PM:

That whole thing about what systems can or cannot play 24/96 audio is a pretty tricky thing. From what I've read about limits of current electronics technology and digital-to-analog coverters, you're not really getting all of the oomph from 24/96 even with the best, high end systems.

With all the filtering and such that occurs in a big commercial movie theater room, 24/96 really seems to be a waste. I would be happy enough just having 20-bit LPCM uncompressed, with 8 to 12 channels of it happening.

8-channel DTS (or even "10-channel" DTS --as the XD-10 name really seems to imply) just isn't going to happen unless some kind of major release can propel it forward. With all the techno-hype revolving around video projection, it may be difficult to make it happen even then.

I hear Steven Spielberg is doing a remake of "War of the Worlds" with Tom Cruise reportedly starring in it. That might seem to be a pretty good candidate for 8 or even 10 channel DTS. By the time the movie is released (which may be at least 2 years down the road) there may be more than enough XD-10 units in the field and enough variety in 8-channel capable cinema processors.

Posted by Mark Gulbrandsen (Member # 72) on 09-12-2004, 10:35 PM:

Actually I disagree and would say that you can easily get the full playback range out of a professional 24/96 system. Probably one of the best examples is the old venerable Nagra D which is a very good example of a record/play system that is very capable of retreiving every ounce thats recorded on the tape. There is no reason that a properly designed record or playback system can't. You will also find alot less filtering in these systems because of the very high sampling frequency used. What will limit it is what is put on the release tracks, whats on the original mamsters and as you say by the theatres room itself. Hence the need for a whole different way of approaching the design for these systems B chains and the theatres rooms themselves.

Mark