Mac Pros and Cons

In the recent announcement of the Mac Pro's new specs and pricing becoming officially public, I find myself disappointed with Apple's decision to raise the baseline price of a long-overdue product.

This announcement was coincidentally released alongside the fact that iLife, iWork and the new OSX Mavericks would be released free of charge for users of Snow Leopard+ (OSX 10.6+)

In almost precisely a year after it's quiet removal from the Apple Online Store, the Mac Pro reappears with baseline specs one can expect from a year's worth of silence on the market. Does the polish Apple is laying on the new Mac Pro really shine as brightly as they would have us believe? Mac Pro has always offered two tiers to start purchasing from. Taking a note for the progression of, over a years worth of technology, I will be comparing the spec's individual to these tiers based on the offered numbers from each listing.

October 16, 2012

For $2500, this time last year, you could be the proud owner of a 40 lb. customizable tower, with a standard assortment of ports and competitive specs for a Quad core tower of the time. 

First tier for $2500

3.2 Ghz quad core Xeon

6GB memory

1TB hard drive

and a single GPU 

Second Tier for $3800

2.4Ghz dual 6 cores

double the memory

same hard drive

same GPU

October 22nd, 2013

Come December (ending a 14 month dry-spell in the pro market for new machines,) what do we have to compare? A machine that weighs considerably less and is quieter than the mac pro tower of old and little to almost no ability to customize past your original order.

First Tier for $3000 (+$500)
3.7 Quad core Xeon (.5 Ghz "faster")
12 GB memory (double that of the 2012 model)
Dual upgraded GPUs (+1 GPU)
256 GB SSD (vs. 1TB internal drive)

Second Tier for $4000 (+$200)
3.5 Ghz 6 core Xeon processor (+1.1 Ghz & 1/2 the cores)
16GB memory (+4 GB)
Dual upgraded GPU's (+1 GPU, +1GB RAM/per)
256 GB SSD (vs. 1TB internal drive)

There are a lot of comparisons we could jump straight into, and there is a lot of discussion about what FirePro D300 offers over the dated Radeon 5770's Apple was offering in 2012 (which had been the same stale offering for the last few years,) or the differences between a Xeon E5 processor vs. a Xeon 1st gen. However, I feel that we can allow for the progression of technology over 14 months to balance these facts out in the wash.

What concerns me more, is that Apple seems to be doing its laundry in a different machine than the one I am. What seems to me to be a reasonable upgrade given the lapse in presence on the market, is asking for an additional investment of $500 more than it did last year for an entry level model. Given the fact that one can build their own machine with comparable specs for $1600 raises the appeal for "hackintosh" systems considerably, despite their current inability to hotswap Thunderbolt ports (which isn't really advised for most devices anyways,) and a complicated upgrade procedure for new OSX releases.

One of the perks that is being marketed openly is that the machine is made exclusively in the US. (How far this actually reaches remains to be determined, but for all the "recent" Foxcon press, I feel this is a smart move on behalf of the company, and would add to the premium of the machine.)

Considering that in their latest press release, Apple is marketing the new Mac Pro as the computer that you'll have for "the next ten years," the reccomendation follows that one could build a hackintosh once the Mavericks OS is cracked, and have the same decade proof machine for almost a full $1000 less than the baseline offering.

In business, the money that you pay a company that is above the understood markup is called the "goodwill" of that company. Given the alternatives in forming a comparable machine, it seems Apple may have overreached their initial pricing on these machines, given also that the company has previously held a strong policy of keeping their other products relatively price-locked, despite whatever new add-ons they may be offering in order to remain competitive with market trends. Do you think Apple's goodwill offering is worth what they're asking?

Systems Integration and Video Design for Contemporary Theater

In the theater community, there is a noticeable lack of education concerning video engineering & production. The normative role of the video designer has been heightened to an aesthetic, image based practice in the modes of lighting and scenic design, but has failed to keep pace with the engineering education demanded by scenic, acoustic and electrics engineers. Carpentry crew calls support the work of a scenic designer, electrics crews support the work of lighting and sound designers, but very rarely does a production ever employ the required breadth of support for a video designer, and quite often, the subsequent departments are left to pick up the slack for a field they have little to no understanding in while producers wonder why deadlines aren't being met, and shop supervisors quickly try to understand a menagerie of technologies that require a frequently underestimated learning curve to comprehend.

In most armed forces worldwide, there are two distinct career paths, that of the commissioned officer, and that of enlisted service-members. While officers command respect due to their station, officer's with a history of prior enlisted service are some of the most valuable members of military society due to their comprehensive and applied understanding of the actions resulting from their decisions. Having experienced this firsthand in my own service, this was a lesson I took to heart, and I truly believe that a designer (who operates in many capacities that are similar to a commissioned officer) will be the most successful in a career that is based on an comprehensive and applied understanding of the engineering that is involved with each of their design elements. (I would even go so far as to say that it is a designer's responsibility to have this understanding.) For scenic designers, this is an education born in the scene shop. Structural mechanics, material tensions ratings, and load bearing capacities flesh out this vocation. Basic Electricity, electrical safety and proprietary console programming are the primary fields of focus for a lighting designer. For the Sound Designer, an understanding of acoustics, dispersion, tuning, signal flow and systems integration all become players. For the video engineer; optics, IT/Networking, programming and systems integration.

Hold up, he just said systems integration... twice!? Whats up with that?

Formal systems integration is a relatively new concept to the world of theater. Scenic designers do not require their assistance until very high end scenic elements are being produced involving hydraulics, lifts and moving scenery. Lighting designers typically operate in proprietary console systems that lack open source operability, and therefore do not require much support from a systems integrator. Sound Designers, who very often employ devices such as timecode, MIDI Show Control and FFT analysis/tuning employ the skills of a systems integrator when they do so. Video departments, which are currently very open source, are perhaps the most involved in systems integration of any field. It is safe to say that systems integration is the most often underestimated/ignored position I see producers, designers and fellow peers fail to recognize as a major component of any show until it is, most often, too late. This is evidenced in a general aversion (on the part of some directors/designers) to working with video components, the frequent and drastic cutting/downsizing of video production past an original design, and the last-minute panics induced when a system is either not properly installed, or an engineer hasn't been hired to maintain said systems past their initial tech “run-in” period.

Beijing University's Introduction to Information Engineering Program defines Systems Integration as,

“...a breadth of knowledge rather than a depth of knowledge. These skills are likely to include software and hardware engineering, interface protocols, and general problem solving skills. It is likely that the problems to be solved have not been solved before except in the broadest sense. They are likely to include new and challenging problems with an input from a broad range of engineers where the system integration engineer "pulls it all together.”

A Systems Integrator is defined as,

“... a person or company that specializes in bringing together component subsystems into a whole and ensuring that those subsystems function together, a practice known as system integration. Systems integrators may work in many fields but the term is generally used in the information technology (IT) field, the defense industry, or in media.”

In video design, programs such as the PC based “Watchout” are respected for their ability to reduce the workload of a systems integrator, but very often this is not an option due to budgetary restrictions and/or not desired due to the tradeoff you get when you sacrifice control for ease of installation. One designer with a knack for programming in simple interfaces and a knack for computers can handle Watchout with ease, but is limited in the complexity of the system and the amount of control over the finer elements of video delivery.

PC based d3, (which costs substantially more than Watchout,) provides the level of control and stability (most times) that gives more in the field of control, but sacrifices for it in making the system harder to maintain, program and manage.

Mac based Isadora is a popular choice among most entry-level video teams due to its low cost and scalable form factor. The epitome of open source video programming, there is almost no component you aren't able to hook into “Izzy” on the fly, but the stability and level of computer science “know-how” required to program and connect a system stable enough to run a show makes the program less desirable to producers counting on a failsafe video delivery system for every show. Isadora systems perhaps benefit the most from the work of a systems integrator.

Speaking of stability, fail-safing is one of the primary responsibilities of a systems integrator. This occurs whenever a redundant system is designed to take over when one computer fails, or system/file redundancy habits are employed in a productions workflow, (yes, with paperwork too!)

While it is just as important to have an eye on a production that serves a collective narrative, it is also equally as important to have that narrative exist, with due respect, in reality. Western production society historically has placed an exorbitant amount of importance on the “ideas” we have, when in reality, it's the “doing” of those ideas that actually produces art. Knowing how to manifest an idea, however unshackled it originally may be, is quite literally a requirement placed on any artist who eventually needs to “make something of themselves.” It is not only necessary to design an inspiring idea, but it is also necessary to understand the implications your ideas have on the world around you. Working in opposition to this idea is irresponsible, and quite frankly, rude to those with whom you work, and rude to the work you yourself are trying to honor. The role of the systems integrator in relation to the fields of design is one that should be recognized from the very early stages of creative development. As technology capabilities increase and the demand/desire for these technologies is asked for in the arts, proper planning and support for these elements is required and the systems integrator will perhaps someday provide their own independent careers for engineers desiring to work in support of the arts. For now however, we must make sure to set a place at our tech tables for a voice which is constantly asking for more information, and requiring the support of the design teams we build that include video.

Video Engineering 101 - The CPU (laptops beware)

(Special thanks to David Bengali for his OmniGraffle wizarding & support)

Ok, so you want to build a video rig, and its on a budget. You need something portable, yet you also need performance. Something easy to use and something you know will get the job done and support the software you know is popular.

If we look at this list and decide, among the myriad of available machines, which one to go with, a lot of people might lean toward a Macbook Pro or an Ultrabook such as the Macbook AIR. With the super portability, available SSD's and no need for an external monitor, they offer a lot of convenience in the initial set up and tear down for tech booths that are already cramped for space in most theaters.

However, what these machines offer in ease of use is paid for, sometimes dearly, in function and performance.

A show requires from a computer, things we don't normally think about when operating a computer in our day-to-day tasks.

Things that are convenient and save on battery life for instance, such as auto-dimming screens, become a detriment to an operator trying to monitor a video control station and keep video performance stable.

Because of these types of things, laptops are a less than ideal choice for any theater trying to run video or audio.

If you're trying to run more than one video output, such as an additional TV or more than one projector, the problems start to stack quickly.

***

For comparisons sake, I am going to provide two systems that I believe represent the 

two ends of the spectrum from an systems engineering point of view. There are plenty 

of machines that fall in-between the specs of these two machines, but as far as 

hardware that has been proposed to me for use in shows, both of these units apply.

***

Let's take a look at a machine that was recently used in a production, off-broadway, for integrating two projectors and a camera:

Above is a machine with fully installed (and customizable) input and output solutions. 

PROS

1.) Fast, multi-core processor 

In this particular model, there were 12 cores. a Quad core is sufficient for our needs, and some savvy engineers can get away with running dual cores of sufficient speeds, but a single core processor suffers from an inability to multi-task in the way that multiple cores offer. 

2.) RAM with sufficient overhead 

While 32 GB isn't required for the rendering tasks the machine will likely be performing, it offers peace-of-mind in the fact that the machine won't be bogged down and lag/drop your frames during playback.

3.) A not-too-recent Operating System 

While having all the convenience and gesture support of the latest OS available is nice, new OS's often come with bugs that tend to especially hinder video performance. Working with more than one video output requires a UI that is stable and doesn't try and think "too much" based on what displays you have connected. We've found so far that Snow Leopard (10.6.8) provides the most stable video performance without forgetting or re-mapping display EDID's when powering your tower up and down.

4.) Swappable graphics cards 

The ability to change the function of this computer from  a machine that can handle multiple outputs (some impressive configurations have been managed,) to also handle video capture via HDMI is what really makes a tower shine. 

5.) Multiple port options 

It's a simple fact that the smaller your machine, the less room it has for more ports. In this tower, we not only have extra USB drives free (very useful for last minute content updates,) but we also have everything we need to manage and upkeep our system once its installed. A common short-sight in producing video systems for shows is that one tends to overlook how the system will be maintained once its installed and running. Having a NET port for attaching the computer to a network is a crucial feature that allows designers to not only manage their content and programming from remote locations reliably, but also to control and monitor accessories (such as display and projectors that also have these ports) and even control them. Firewire and USB ports are a must have now for most add-on units as well. Making sure that you have more than two of each is helpful to any video system, especially if you want to add additional capture cards, MIDI interfaces and run hubs in equipment such as Apple Pro-res monitors.

CONS

1.) Portability

The mac pro tower weighs in at just over 40 lbs. This makes storage and portability its largest detractor. On the plus side, it is easy to run from below a desk and can live in footspace as opposed to taking up valuable table space, and with the utilization of a LAN, remote access makes it to that the machine never has to move once loaded in.

~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~

Now lets take a look at a macbook air for comparison.

PROS

1.) Next-Gen Processor 

For the 2013 models specifically, everyone is excited about the performance upgrade in the new"Haswell" processors. While the core clock speed may not be that of a larger machine, it is made up for in performance of the new processors benchmark speeds. 

2.) Internal SSD 

When it comes to a content drive, you couldn't ask for anything faster. Write and Read speeds on SSD's are phenomenal, and, despite their limited capacities, provide most shows with enough space to run the video content of their shows.

3.) Thunderbolt Port 

This is both a pro and a con really. While thunderbolt is both fast and chainable, it is the machine's only dedicated port for both high speed data transfer and external displays. Hard drive array's such as RAID towers are what really benefits from the speed of thunderbolt, and they have been known to corrupt when chained inline with other devices such as displays and other hard drives. This daisy-chaining also makes it hard to troubleshoot and manage external display networks.

4.) Portability 

Probably the best perk about this machine is its portability. There's no denying that, when compared to a 40 lb. machine, the Macbook AIR has the appeal. With a show computer that lives alone in a theater after everyone goes home however, portability might not always be the best option.

CONS

1.) Haswell processor 

The Haswell processor, at least as of its recent release has caused a lot of frustration, especially concerning video performance due to its repeated display failure rate. A recent Apple discussion thread covers these issues. In addition to failed video performance and shifting volume levels during video playback, the thread also cites numerous problems with wifi connectivity.

2.) No LAN Port 

Without a LAN connection port, this machine loses almost all of its ability to network and interface with other machines. This is severely limiting to the ability of the machine to perform as a unit that exists alongside other computers and displays. With dodgy wifi, it's easy to see why working on a small machine like this can start to lose its appeal rather fast.

3.) Only 2 USB ports & No Firewire 

Attach a software USB authorization key and a thumb drive and you're done with this machine. Feel like attaching a content drive, MIDI interfaces, external video cards for capture or additional outputs and you're out of luck. Also, with no firewire port, you lose the ability to work with most audio interface cards such as MOTU's and FirePRO cards. 

4.) Recent Operating System 

Like we addressed earlier, having the most recent operating system has been the cause of video system headaches for at least the last decade of video production. Newer systems come with bugs and workflow changes that provide incompatibilities with otherwise stable software, and increases the likelihood of a critical system failure.

5.) No Hardware Flexibility 

You have one graphics card with one video output, that is shared with your external display port. No chance to crossgrade or upgrade without getting a new machine. While it may fulfill a specific task at the given time, trying to upgrade this machine will leave you with no other choice than to buy a new one.

6.) Portability 

I know I listed this as a pro initially, but without a kensington lock port and no 3G connection, the macbook AIR is the easiest item in the apple lineup to steal. Without the ability trace it unless it is attached to a wifi network, and with a form factor that lets it slip easily away, combined with no locking ability, this machine and its appealing form factor make it a prime target for theft in spaces where 24/7 monitoring is very often not possible, and multiple people are in and out of the space for many different reasons. Even with Kensington locks, theft in theaters is something I am all too familiar with. Perhaps having a 40 lb. machine under a table isn't so bad after all?

7.) Unstable Power 

A common failing with anything that is battery powered is that batteries die. Even when plugged into a power source, a small bump is all it takes to take this little guy off the grid. Even with the fact that you can snap it right back on, laptops completely switch their internal power management settings when unplugged. They're designed to preserve their lifespan by cooling down once in awhile. So even if you push the settings to the 9's, you're not only reducing the life of your machine, but still running the risk that internal setting will change in the event of a battery failure or disconnect. With a hard wired system, such as a tower, you know when it turns on and when it doesn't, and nothing else changes. Definitely a plus when trying to keep a stable and maintainable system running.

8.) Touchpad between user and keyboard 

Another problem with the design of this machine is that there is a touch sensitive pad directly between your operator and the spacebar. Since the spacebar is one of the most common buttons for activating cues, it doesn't really serve to have a mouse that responds to touch between your operators and their main GO button. A solution for this is adding an external keyboard, (which a tower coincidentally uses by default.)