Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE: Dolby discontinues the Dolby line of servers

This is topic Dolby discontinues the Dolby line of servers in forum Digital Cinema 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=16;t=002145

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 12-20-2014, 01:09 PM:

This is a continuation discussion from a previous thread which started here on page 2 of the discussion.

Posted by Carsten Kurz (Member # 5396) on 12-20-2014, 06:34 PM:

Any suggestions what could happen to the Dolby TMS?

Dolby software turned DCI compatible, but there is the pending transition to SMPTE DCPs. I would think they will still support the DSS200 and DSS220 through that, but I guess there is little chance for the DSS/DSP100?

- Carsten

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 12-20-2014, 08:33 PM:

Dolby software already supports SMPTE DCPs. System 4.7.3.3 supports SMPTE and is operational on DSS100/DSP100.

As for the Dolby TMS...it is to continue for at least 3 years beyond discontinuation. However, if you have a DSL200, there is a FAQ document that states that the Doremi TMS will, at some point in the future, work on that server and bridge the gap and allow both DSS and Doremi servers to integrate. If the DSL200 is within 3-years of purchase, the software update will be free-of-charge.

The ones that I think will be the most hurt if there is a problem with their equipment are the mini-plexs where one server functions as the TMS.

The potential pitfall is if one's aging CAT862 fails, being able to abandon it and plug in a CAT745 into a series 2 will no longer be an option.

Posted by Mattias Mattsson (Member # 4308) on 12-21-2014, 03:53 AM:

What I can see, the only custom parts made by Dolby for the DSS200 is the following:

CAT862 Media Block
CAT914 GPIO board (USB-based)
CAT915 Front Panel USB-board
DPN8309290 Front Bezel

All other parts are standard SuperMicro parts.

One question regarding the motberboard though. The M/B in a recent DSS200 is labeled X8SIE-LN4-DL0006, whereas the standard board sold by SuperMicro lacks the "-DL0006" suffix.

Does anyone know if the only difference between these are the custom Dolby BIOS or are there any other differences on the actual circuit board?

Posted by Carsten Kurz (Member # 5396) on 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

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 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.

Posted by Dave Macaulay (Member # 813) on 12-21-2014, 03:04 PM:

Overall future server sales are going to be a fraction of the conversion period. I expected some consolidation, since a server supplier just closing the business would be unfriendly at the least.
I don't know the reasoning behind Dolby's acquisition of Doremi but if they are going to discontinue one line, the Dolby brand is the obvious choice: Dolby's installations are considerably fewer than Doremi's. If they can make the Dolby and Doremi TMS systems work with both brands (I think they have?) then existing sites have an expansion/replacement path.
I would like to have a dual SDI option available. The IMS systems are not perfect by far, and the Doremi SV/IMB has a strict limit on the cable length between server and IMB (7M/21Ft). For installations with remote projectors (like in a box inside the cinema), SDI is a nice option.

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 12-21-2014, 03:20 PM:

The DCP2K4 is an HDSDI server and is still available. I think it's the only one left. I much prefer HDSDI over IMBs of any brand/type.

Posted by Marcel Birgelen (Member # 6801) on 12-22-2014, 02:01 AM:

Personally, I also think it's best to put server functionality where it belongs and not into some slot into your projector. Even though it's just serviceability.

The reasoning behind it is that the IMB interconnect uses so much bandwidth, an internal link is the only viable option. Which is, off course, rather nonsense. If 4K worth of 60FPS picture data (sure, with 8 bits/color) can be reliably transported over a single HDMI cable, why can't 24 FPS in 4K (with 12 bits/color) over a similar link?

quote: Mattias Mattsson
One question regarding the motberboard though. The M/B in a recent DSS200 is labeled X8SIE-LN4-DL0006, whereas the standard board sold by SuperMicro lacks the "-DL0006" suffix.

Does anyone know if the only difference between these are the custom Dolby BIOS or are there any other differences on the actual circuit board?

I'm pretty sure the circuit board itself is the same and the difference is just the factory installed BIOS.

Posted by Marco Giustini (Member # 4544) on 12-22-2014, 09:58 AM:

Because a 4K Flat picture at 24fps would require 7.76Gbit/s and a single HDSDI connection provides 1.485Gbit/s x 2 = 2.97Gbit/s.

You forgot that consumer content is 4:2:0 (if memory serves). Cinema tries to do better than home sometimes!

Posted by Marcel Birgelen (Member # 6801) on 12-22-2014, 10:13 AM:

No, I didn't forget about that.

A single HDMI 1.4 link can do 10.2 GBit/s and a single HDMI 2.0 link can do 18 GBit/s. There's no reason why you couldn't simply bundle a few of them to go even higher.

Or why not just 40 GBit/s Ethernet over copper or fiber? Or External PCIe? There are plenty of affordable industry standard interconnects that can deliver the bandwidth required.

The built-in requirement was just a requirement enforced by the copyright police.

Posted by Marco Giustini (Member # 4544) on 12-22-2014, 10:40 AM:

OK, I've misread your post.

Ethernet: the 745 does that. You need a media block to process the video in the projector. Ethernet sends data.
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.
PCIex: Doremi do that. Then - as for Ethernet - you need something that processes video.

The DCI police may be stupid at times but a little protection makes sense.

Posted by Dave Macaulay (Member # 813) on 12-22-2014, 11:08 AM:

There are rather a lot of high bandwidth copper and optical networking options available, if 10gb/s is insufficient then 40gb/s or 100gb/s is enough.
This should work whether you use a media block in the server plus link encryption to the projector (it may require an upgraded LD to handle data rates for 4:4:4 3D or HFR), or an IMB.

Posted by Marco Giustini (Member # 4544) on 12-22-2014, 03:16 PM:

maybe I'm on the wrong end of the stick here but this is what the cat.745 is doing. It receives data from the server via Ethernet and then decodes the data into video. That's what a media block does.
If the video is being decoded into the server, then you need a video feed between the server and the projector. If you want a data link between the server and the projector, then you'll need some sort of media block inside the projector!

Posted by Marcel Birgelen (Member # 6801) on 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.

Posted by Marco Giustini (Member # 4544) on 12-22-2014, 04:14 PM:

I think we are not on the same boat, I just wanted to point out that if you use an ethernet link, then you need something on the other side that processes the picture.

Why the industry are not using HDMI then?

Posted by Marcel Birgelen (Member # 6801) on 12-22-2014, 04:24 PM:

It doesn't matter if you use HDMI, Ethernet, PCIe or a bunch of pigeons with USB sticks around their necks. In any case you need something on one side to get the bits into and on the other side something to get the bits out of their lower level transmission protocol(s).

You encrypt the bits before you put them into your magic pigeons and decrypt them once you've captured them on the other side. This way, the transmission is secured, even if it has to fly over North Korea first. Series 1 servers and projectors achieve this by using Dual HD-SDI with a layer of encryption around the actual video bitstream. HD-SDI was chosen at the time, because it was a proven, stable technology for high bitrate video transmission.

We're talking about digital data here, so the underlying transmission technology, as long as it gets the bits from A to B in "one piece" at reasonable costs, is really not all that relevant. You could, for example, even use some bundled USB 3.0 links for the same purpose.

The reason why the industry isn't using HDMI or any other commonly used transmission technology is just paranoia. They wanted to make the path between "decrypted by the glory of the secret key" to the actual thing rendering the content on screen to be as short as possible.

Posted by Marco Giustini (Member # 4544) on 12-22-2014, 05:41 PM:

My technical knowledge about those protocols is not enough to reply to your statement but if it is as you say I wonder why SDI exists in the first place then. If HDMI is the golden standard, why it hasn't replaced all the existing professional video standards on the planet?

Posted by Marcel Birgelen (Member # 6801) on 12-22-2014, 06:06 PM:

HDMI is by no means the golden standard and hasn't been around for as long as SDI, which later evolved into HD-SDI. Without going into too much technical details, even nowadays, there are still some things in favor of HD-SDI compared to HDMI for cetain purposes.

And like with many "standards", the nice thing is that you usually have multiple competing "standards", which all roughly do the same. HDMI competes, for example, with DisplayPort, which also competes with USB and Thunderbolt...

Those newest generation "household" interconnects are all evolving into bitrates where you do not need a custom interconnect for a particular type of data stream. Also, there's no real reason why not to use them for professional applications too. The Ethernet you use on your servers, IMBs, etc., is exactly the same as the ethernet in any other device.

Posted by Marco Giustini (Member # 4544) on 12-22-2014, 07:08 PM:

I'm a little puzzled here.
You're saying that any digital format, being digital, can transfer any kind of data, including digital video which is still digital data.

Doesn't it matter that the format is designed for video and not for data? I mean: I'm sure someone could design a circuit capable of transmitting a file over SDI, but can an SDI link transfer a file as it is now?

Are you suggesting that D-Cinema projectors could have implemented Ethernet for Video streaming from the server since day one?

I mean, there must be a setback of some sort, it can't be as easy as you suggest.

Posted by Marcel Birgelen (Member # 6801) on 12-23-2014, 02:11 AM:

I guess we're running a bit off-topic regarding to Brad's initial intention with this topic [Wink]

.

You also have to look at what was available at the time the specs were written. This world evolves at a breakneck tempo and for professional applications it's not a good thing to bet on (yet) unproven technology. So, the decision for HD-SDI at the time was a sound one. But the decision for the "all integrated" IMB for the Series 2 systems wasn't all based on technology, it was primarily motivated by studio paranoia. Some of the interconnects we have today, like HDMI 2.0 and thunderbolt were not yet available at the time, but stuff like PCIe certainly was.
But essentially, if an interconnect can deliver the bandwidth, a low error count and a low amount of jitter, why wouldn't it qualify to carry a video signal? If you look at what the industry is doing, you'll see they're almost all looking to move to one-fits-all interconnects. One of the forerunners in this aspect being Apple. They're pushing hard to go the Thunderbolt route, where you run everything from your keyboard up to your 4K... ahum retina display over the same interconnects and we're talking about serious bitrates here. Others are pushing more to the USB standard. It's also about licensing in some cases. Whereas for professional gear it doesn't matter if you need to pay a few bucks for a license, it does matter at low-margin consumer goods.

Ethernet might be a bit of a special beast, but that doesn't automatically disqualify it. While most of those interconnection technologies allow you to use TDM channels between devices, Ethernet only supports packets as its lowest addressable transmission payload. This means you need a bit more logic on either side to put stuff in packets and get it out on the other side. You will also some extra buffering on either side. Also, you cannot share the same clock signal on either side, you need to generate your own. This all sounds very expensive, but given the price of many of those circuits nowadays it's not so special anymore. Hence, you can perfectly run high bitrate, uncompressed video over Ethernet. The biggest advantage of Ethernet, due to its underlying design, is that it can be easily "regenerated". You essentially put in a switch or a repeater and this way you can carry it as far as you want. The downside still is, the gear to do 10GBit, 40GBit or even 100GBit Ethernet is still horrendously expensive, but those prices will come down considerably in the coming years.

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 12-23-2014, 05:46 AM:

Remember too...there has always been this dream of server farms so all content resides in one room. HDSDI allows for this (or should) for up to about 300 feet...though with series 1...50-feet was the "ideal" length...shorter got you into SMPTE errors on channel B). With the Ethernet connectivity, like the CAT745 or the GDC 2000AR or IMS solutions...again, you have the ability to put the server at a distance. With any TMDS type system (Display Port, DVI, HDMI) you have a cable length problem this gets progressively tricky as you go longer. HDMI is particularly bad for cinema as it is a consumer format with a friction based connector. Display Port is a locking connector with all of the benefits of HDMI and can work with HDCP...it would be a better choice, connector wise. But again, without special cabling/signal conditioning, anything over 15-feet is dicy. PCIe has inherent cable length limitations and is bulky. GDC used it on their first IMB and abandoned it in favor of Ethernet on their second generation IMB. Doremi is the last holdout for that. I wouldn't expect it to go beyond the current equipment.

SDI has evolved a bit...3G is commonplace now...which would reduce the cable demands (e.g. one 3G cable should be able to do the work of the dual-link SDI running to 1.5G cables. 4 3G cables will handle 4K (and does in Post). Quad link 3G is an available option on Christie and Barco...I think NEC's quad input is just two dual-link 1.5G inputs.

Posted by Marco Giustini (Member # 4544) on 12-23-2014, 05:52 AM:

Apple develop their own technology. D-Cinema is a small world. You cannot expect Barco or Christie to develop a variant of HDMI or Ethernet to carry what they want. I see your point, but wouldn't that be 'horribly expensive' to do?
Yes, we're going horribly OT as well [Smile]

Posted by David Buckley (Member # 2600) on 12-23-2014, 05:55 AM:

quote: Marco Giustini
If HDMI is the golden standard, why it hasn't replaced all the existing professional video standards on the planet?

I think you'll find most video professionals don't consider HDMI to be a professional internconnect, more a consumer internconnect. They hate HDMI with as passion. Mostly because of HDCP, it must be admitted, but also because HDMI cables are short, and to go any appreciable distance the signal needs to be electrically converted to something else.

quote: Marcel Birgelen
Ethernet might be a bit of a special beast, but that doesn't automatically disqualify it. While most of those interconnection technologies allow you to use TDM channels between devices, Ethernet only supports packets as its lowest addressable transmission payload.

There are digital audio formats like AES509 and HyperMAC which use the ethernet physical layer (layer 1) (relatively) low cost chipsets and wiring, and do something different layer 2 up. So they aren't compatible with ethernet networking, but leverage that technology to provide low cost audio transport.

Posted by Marco Giustini (Member # 4544) on 12-23-2014, 07:20 AM:

Thanks David, quite interesting.

Posted by Marcel Birgelen (Member # 6801) on 12-23-2014, 07:15 PM:

quote: Marco Giustini
Apple develop their own technology. D-Cinema is a small world. You cannot expect Barco or Christie to develop a variant of HDMI or Ethernet to carry what they want. I see your point, but wouldn't that be 'horribly expensive' to do?

Thunderbolt was originally developed by Intel. You don't need to develop a variant of HDMI, PCIe, Ethernet, etc. Everything you need can be developed on top of those protocols. And if you develop on top of HD-SDI or HDMI really doesn't differ very much. Thunderbolt might get more interesting in the future, as they promised an optical version which should be able to achieve the full bitrate at about 300ft.

quote: Steve Guttag
HDMI is particularly bad for cinema as it is a consumer format with a friction based connector

The lack of proper locking mechanisms is probably the biggest drawback of most "consumer interconnect" and a HDMI connector often provides less friction than e.g. USB. But then again, practically all power connectors are also of a friction based design...

Technically, HDMI is not all that bad though, it can achieve impressive bitrates at short to medium distances and components are really cheap compared to many other solutions.

DisplayPort is in many regards superior to HDMI, their connector design is better and the newest standard can go up to 32.4 Gbit/s. It's also royalty free. Unfortunately, DisplayPort is fighting a losing battle. They should, maybe, also consider changing their name, as DisplayPort can function as a generic digital interconnect for almost anything, just like the newest iterations of USB and HDMI.