CinePorter™ FAQ

Status
Not open for further replies.
Wow. I went out of town, and missed the big updates.

They all look like good updates, but as Barry mentioned, there isn't much point in having removable HDD's if they can't be accessed without the Cineporter (other than for hackers).

It's a long wait, but I will wait. It looks exciting, and I am anxious to hear some of these new details elaborated upon.

Thanks,
Jason
 
The RAID1 option is for people who need the extra reliability it can provide. I think it's great that Spec-Comm is offering this option.

For those who don't need it, having removable drives is still a godsend, it makes it easy to extend the recording capacity by swapping out drives, and it can also be used to offload the footage even more quickly than can be done using FW800. You can also ingest the material into your editing system after the shoot, and hand the laptop drive to the client or move it to a second location.

And let's not forget that you can now increase the recording duration by swapping in a higher-capacity drive without voiding your warranty. That compares very favorably with the recent inquiries about replacing the FS-100 drive. You can buy a 200GB laptop drive for under $250 today, and the drive capacities will go up and prices will drop -- you'll probably be able to get a 300GB drive by the time the CP-3 ships.

I'm disappointed by the delay, but I will make do with the tools I have (two 8GB cards and a laptop running DV Rack 2.0 HD). The CP-3 is poised to be so much better than what I put my name on the Group Buy List for, I'll gladly wait.
 
Barry_Green said:
Me too.
Click to expand...

Me Three. I really appreciate people signing their names at the bottom of their posts. I think you can say anything you want when nobody knows who you are. Now, everybody knows Patrick! (SurJones) He is moderating this thread for us. Thank you Patrick. :)
I would also like to thank Barry Green for his input, especially in the beginning and his level-headed comments that keep everyone on track, as well as Jarred for his work on this site and giving us a home. :)

I just stepped out of a plane and only have a minute right now. I just wanted to say that I understand everyone's frustration with the "delays." I put that in quotes, because until now, there was no official commitment. Now you have it. It doesn't mean that there won't be other delays, we just feel confident enough now to provide you with a time frame. I'm glad that those of you that need a solution right now to do business, have bought something else. The market is big enough for everybody.

You should also know that the CP-3 is nothing like the CP-2. We never stopped working on your most popular request - removable drives! We said it was impossible! We got swamped with requests and were "badgered" to death to keep trying (thanks Barry), so when Engineering presented a way to do this, we saw that this meant a TOTALLY different approach.
We spent over a month just going over the thousands of requests to justify throwing away hundreds of thousands of dollars in development costs and spending more than that to completely redesign the product and do it faster than the CP-2! We could have released the CP-2, and then the CP-3. This meant putting more money into finishing the CP-2 and then Pis***g everybody off and releasing the CP-3. Sure we could have done that! That's what others do! But we made this hard and costly decision because we care about what you guys need. We are taking a big risk and I personally feel it's the right thing to do.


David
 
THoff said:
I think the reason that accessing the RAID drives requires the Cineporter is that RAID drives cannot be used as standalone drives -- there is metadata on the drives that tells the RAID controller (or driver if it's a software RAID implementation) how to access the drive, what array it is part of, the state of the drive etc.

The metadata formats used by different RAID vendors are not compatible, so you can't take a Silicon Image RAID array and connect it to a Intel Storage Matrix controller, for instance. I don't know if Spec-Comm is licensing the RAID implementation from someone or rolling their own (that wouldn't make much sense to me), but there may be some compatibility with an existing RAID system even if it isn't documented. In any case, RAID1 drives are never the same as two separate standalone drives, so you can't just hand one off to a client and keep the other.
Click to expand...

I have worked with various implimentations of RAID, and to my knowledge, everything you are stating is correct -- but only for RAID versions other than RAID 1. RAID 1 should be a direct bit-for-bit copy of Drive A onto Drive B. Removing either drive should yeild fully usable data on any machine, RAID controller or not.

My website runs on a server that uses a small hardware RAID 1 box. The entire OS, website data, etc is stored on the volume, and I backup the server by swapping out one of the two drives each month and allowing the controller to rebuild the array onto a new drive. If I ever need to access a backup, I can (and have) place the backup drive into my desktop, and can access data with no problem. No metadata required.

Of course you could be right and Spec-Comm could be using some kind of proprietary RAID 1 setup, but I can't think of a single good reason for doing so.
 
All RAID implementation require metadata, though as I said, implementations vary. The metadata is usually kept hidden in a reserved region of the drive so it doesn't inadvertantly get trashed by the OS.

Without the metadata, you would not be able to do what you currently do, which is to replace one of the RAID array members with a blank drive. The controller senses that (in its opinion) one of the drives has failed and has been replaced, causing it to rebuild the array. The controller uses the (in this case missing) metadata to determine that the new drive is a replacement, and starts the rebuilding process. Some controllers do this automatically, some do not and require you to confirm that you want to make the new drive part of the array.

If the controller didn't use the metadata, what would prevent it from copying the new (possibly completely blank) drive over the good RAID1 array member? Other problems arise if you write (knowingly or not) to the drive when it is not connected to the RAID controller -- the drives will then be out of sync, and the array will not know about it. If critical parts of the file system like the MFT are changed, the next time the MFT is updated as part of the RAID1 array, it will likely get corrupted.

Anyway, long story short, individual RAID1 drives are not the same as PODs (Plain Old Drives), even if they appear to be such.
 
SurJones said:
To get a product out of this revolutionary magnitude in basically a year is amazing in itself.
Click to expand...

Just to be clear, basically a year isn't really the case. The thread started in Dec. '05 and we're now looking at "summer '07" for product release (I'm not sure how much earlier the product was announced before then, although I'm sure there's a thread that dates it) - and that's if things go as planned and there aren't any more delays.

I'm still all for the product and I really do appreciate Andrew's efforts if it delivers what it says (although I wish they would just disclose the rest of what it's supposed to do with the new functions). I just think downplaying the time to market and claiming the speed has been revolutionary is a bit of stretch.
 
Worded that way, I understand your point a bit better.

The controller I have knows when you have inserted a blank drive by keeping track of which drive was running when the insert takes place. If you were to power off the unit and then insert the drive, and power-on the unit, it just assumes the top drive is the master, and the bottom is the copy. Low-tech, certainly, and prone to user-error, but it does the job.

The CinePorter could have similar functionality. In fact, it could simply have a master/copy slot designation -- ie. the top slot is always the master, the the bottom is always the copy. They could have color-coded eject buttons or something to make this easy to see at a glance.
 
Spec-Comm said:
Me Three. I really appreciate people signing their names at the bottom of their posts. I think you can say anything you want when nobody knows who you are. Now, everybody knows Patrick! (SurJones) He is moderating this thread for us. Thank you Patrick. :)
I would also like to thank Barry Green for his input, especially in the beginning and his level-headed comments that keep everyone on track, as well as Jarred for his work on this site and giving us a home. :)

I just stepped out of a plane and only have a minute right now. I just wanted to say that I understand everyone's frustration with the "delays." I put that in quotes, because until now, there was no official commitment. Now you have it. It doesn't mean that there won't be other delays, we just feel confident enough now to provide you with a time frame. I'm glad that those of you that need a solution right now to do business, have bought something else. The market is big enough for everybody.

You should also know that the CP-3 is nothing like the CP-2. We never stopped working on your most popular request - removable drives! We said it was impossible! We got swamped with requests and were "badgered" to death to keep trying (thanks Barry), so when Engineering presented a way to do this, we saw that this meant a TOTALLY different approach.
We spent over a month just going over the thousands of requests to justify throwing away hundreds of thousands of dollars in development costs and spending more than that to completely redesign the product and do it faster than the CP-2! We could have released the CP-2, and then the CP-3. This meant putting more money into finishing the CP-2 and then Pis***g everybody off and releasing the CP-3. Sure we could have done that! That's what others do! But we made this hard and costly decision because we care about what you guys need. We are taking a big risk and I personally feel it's the right thing to do.


David
Click to expand...

Thank you. It is much appreciated.

Jason
 
"Bonjour",

Some questions about OFFLOADING for Mister Spec-Comm:

1) Does the CP-3 to be seen as a genuine P2 device: I mean, everything possible with P2 is possible with CP-3 ?
If YES, can we plug one of CP-3 P2 interfaces into a laptop ? (current P2 workflow)
If NO, what are the CP-3 P2 implementation limitations ?

2) Does the FW/USB implementation allows the CP-3 (linked to a host) to be seen as a plain storage device seen from the host OS ?

3) Why implementing FW/USB when eSATA II offers a 2 x 1,5 Gb compared to 800Mb for FW? eSATA II interfaces become cheap and versatile, and even more in 2007.
(This would be expectable for a "2007 latest trends CP-3" !)

As P2 size increases, (x4 in one year), CP-3 interest would rather bend on workflow and (ease of) integration.
(Except for those using HVX for videosurveillance :-) )

After all, SMPTE 35mm film (1000 feet roll) lasts 11min, more diffcult to swap than 16min P2 !

Jennyfer.
 
Everyone keeps referring to a summer 2007 release date - am i missing something?
30 minutes scrolling through backdated posts i see nothing mentioned from anyone officially stating this. where did that date come from?
 
Spec-Comm said:
We spent over a month just going over the thousands of requests to justify throwing away hundreds of thousands of dollars in development costs and spending more than that to completely redesign the product and do it faster than the CP-2! We could have released the CP-2, and then the CP-3. This meant putting more money into finishing the CP-2 and then Pis***g everybody off and releasing the CP-3. Sure we could have done that! That's what others do! But we made this hard and costly decision because we care about what you guys need. We are taking a big risk and I personally feel it's the right thing to do.

David
Click to expand...

Bravo! This is a clear indication that Spec-Comm not only understands markets (and PEOPLE), but they're gutsy enough to make the tough decisions. Also, I have no problem paying half of what I originally paid for a 4gig P2 card to double my recording capability, as I expect the additional drives will be proprietary--they are entitled to re-coup their investment.

Summer 2007? Works for me, because this is a product I want, and a company I want to do business with.

You go David!!!
 
David,

Thanks for keeping us updated on your development progress, and thanks for listening to our requests. I'm looking forward to getting my hands on a Cineporter soon.

Meanwhile, here's another request. One of the reasons for having removable hard drives is the ability to hand a disk to the client after the day is done. It seems that due to the metadata required in the RAID 1 process, the drives will only work in the RAID configuration. But how about implementing a function to de-RAID the drives while preserving the data on each drive? Could it be as simple as re-writing some of the metadata? This way, at the end of the day, we can just press a button, then hand 1 disk to the client and keep 1 for ourselves as backup.
 
2007 is appearing to be the Solid State Disk (SSD) Year.

Already several laptops have been announced with SSD.
(this US web kinda "New SSD Bazaar": www.dvnation.com/nand-flash-ssd.html)

These SSD are 150% faster than HDD, and are IDE & SATA compatible!

This means you could plug these SSD into CP-3 (CP-X?) :

- Weight reduction
- Size reduction
- Plug-ability
- More reliable (No RAID)

In Summer 07, the situation will favor the emerging SSD market and the NAND technology will probably fill the coming P2 with larger capacities (at a shorter pace).

Our MOVIes are MOVIng in the "no MOVIng parts" Era!
 
I'm excited about the Cineporter and am committed to buying one of the first available, but i'm just at a loss when it comes to knowing exactly which Cineporter set-up to buy. I don't understand all the "new" feature benefits nor the ramifications of solid-state drives that are soon to hit the market. And, my OCD is kicking in and i'm stressing out.

For instance, how is a single solid-state drive "more safe" than a RAID 1 setup using two drives containing moving parts? I understand that solid-state means not have moving parts, and i believe the "current" Cineporter drives do have moving parts, but wouldn't two solid-state drives in a RAID 1 configuration be "safer" than just a single solid-state drive? Or, would two solid-state RAID 1 wired drives be too "redundant?" I'm just trying to figure out if the RAID Cineporter set-up will be redundant or "out-dated" by Summer 2007 if solid-state drives are available for the Cineporter at that time.

Also, is it "justifiable" for the 320 GB RAID Cineporter version to cost $900 more than a non-RAID 320 GB Cineporter? One can configure drives on one's own computer in various RAID configurations, but at what extra cost? Pretty much zero, right? Maybe i'm making the argument that all Cineporters should have the RAID function. Users may simply turn it on or off. Maybe "entry level" Cineporters should be those with only one drive (80GB) as listed on the Cineporter website?

http://www.spec-comm.com/cineporter.php

I understand wanting to recoup for all the investment, but i'm looking at pricing "logically" from a consumer's point of view. Maybe the Cineporter should be a lower price than $3500 for a 320 GB RAID, but a higher price than $2300 for an "entry level" Cineporter (having RAID capability), but having only one single 80 GB drive?

Wouldn't it be easier to manufacture all Cineporters with the RAID capability and not have to deal with all the headaches & hassles of shipping Cineporters back and forth to be "upgraded"? I mean for Spec-Comm, as well as for customers! Streamline the process!!!

Drop the price for a fully loaded model, and raise the price for a lean model. These are just wild pricing guesses...

$2530 = one 80 GB drive = 80 GB (RAID capable, if 2nd identical drive inserted)
$2660 = two 80 GB driives = 160 GB (RAID function may be on or off).
$3000 = two 160 GB = 320 GB (RAID function may be on or off).

I know you can't please everybody... The idea is to please as many people as possible. How many of the originally non-RAID buyers would complain if they got RAID capability for just a little bit more money? It just seems like those on a tight budget and/or those who will be stretching their finances to get their hands on the much desired Cineporter will feel like they are making a more sound purchase if:

1) they can make the most of 80 GB drive(s) instead of larger costlier drive(s)
2) yet they get the RAID function
3) and only need to buy a second 80 GB drive ($130) to use their RAID
4) they may purchase larger capacity drives later down the road (160 GB or 300 GB or 500 GB etc...) when their finances improve
5) no one has to deal with down-time & delays while waiting on their Cineporter to be and upgraded to RAID. Delays can kill projects!

I hope this second topic doesn't seem ignorant, but what about the double P2 plug interface and the various plug options on the CP-3? Can one record onto the Cineporter and record onto an external hard-drive or CPU simultaneously??? ...thus negating the need for a Cineporter with RAID functionality?

Thanks,
John.
 
911split said:
Drop the price for a fully loaded model, and raise the price for a lean model. These are just wild pricing guesses...
Click to expand...
I think I speak for most of us when I say "Noooooooooooooooo" :)

I have saved what I need for my 160gig Cineporter and I would like to keep it that way.
 
I agree. I get the impression that Spec-Comm's intent wasn't to raise the price for a model with RAID, it was to lower the price for those of us who don't need it.

I for one would like the RAID, but it really wouldn't be that useful to me, especially with the new ability to offload directly to a USB hard drive without the need for a PC.
 
I agree. The price difference seems to be extreme.
To get the same amount of recording time as one would using a 320GB RAID-1 version you only need a 160GB non-RAID version, which makes the difference between RAID and non-RAID $1200!

And then you can buy the additional 160GB disk for $300, which means the RAID-function / controller will cost you $900 by ítself! Ouch.

I guess alot of people will skip on the RAID version and instead go for the non-RAID maybe with an additional disk instead. Personally I think the RAID features are great, but if these prices are the actual and final ones I might very well decide I can find better use for those 1200 bucks.

Just my 2 cents.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top