Film-Tech Cinema Systems
  Home     Products     Store     Forum     Warehouse     Contact Us    
Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE


  
my profile | my password | search | faq & rules | forum home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE   » Operations   » Digital Cinema Forum   » Cinelister for Doremi Server (Page 3)

 
This topic comprises 4 pages: 1  2  3  4   
Author Topic: Cinelister for Doremi Server
Marcel Birgelen
Film God

Posts: 3357
From: Maastricht, Limburg, Netherlands
Registered: Feb 2012

- posted 10-25-2017 03:17 PM      Profile for Marcel Birgelen   Email Marcel Birgelen   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
I think that if the combination of a Core 110F, DCIO and a panel for their "UCI" can be had at roughly the price of an AP20, I'd prefer this solution, even in an "island per screen" setup. The only reason for an AP20 would be a screen with lots of alternate content coming in via HDMI, although you could solve that one with a remotely switchable HDMI switch (although the AP20's HDMI switch is one of the better ones out there).

Maybe another final reason for an AP20 would be the Dirac Live auto-EQ, which can save a lot of time in the initial EQ. But I guess QSC will be able to come up with some auto-EQ tool targeted at cinemas.

You can still put your DPA-Q's close to the speakers, e.g. behind or close to the screen and you can still network the Cores together for some centralized stuff like house music or emergency PAs.

 |  IP: Logged
Steve Guttag
We forgot the crackers Gromit!!!

Posts: 12814
From: Annapolis, MD
Registered: Dec 1999

- posted 10-26-2017 06:38 AM      Profile for Steve Guttag   Email Steve Guttag   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
I think if there is much more QSYS discussion, it really should be moved to its own thread.

I think the DCIO-H puts an end to the AP20 advantage entirely. First, which company/product do you have more confidence in being there 5-years from now? The HDMI ports on the AP20 may be good but they are also stuck in HDMI 1.4, DCIO-H is at 2.0.

QSYS will have QSC's intrinsic correction for their speakers so if your room is decently made, just how much EQing are doing?

Though more costly, you could still use a Trinnov Ovaition into a 110f if you are into that sort of processor though then you wouldn't have addressed HDMI without yet another product.

The auto-EQ thing just doesn't seem to be a factor to me on a typical 5.1/7.1 system. On Atmos (and similar) I see the advantage beyond the stage speakers so I suppose an auto-EQ is a good starting point. At the end, I always judge the stage speakers based on the human voice (male and female) and I often use non-American accent English as the final judge. If an American can understand the accent of say an Australian, it is a good sign that the sound has good dialog clarity. I've learned this from our art houses will show various European movies and it is the "English" accents that will be the most touchy. If they are in French/German, etc. it isn't an issue because there are subtitles but when it is your own language but a different accent, then the listener can be frustrated because they don't understand. Mad Max was released in the US dubbed though it was an Aussie film because they feared the accents would be too thick for the average American to easily understand.

 |  IP: Logged
Carsten Kurz
Film God

Posts: 4340
From: Cologne, NRW, Germany
Registered: Aug 2009

- posted 10-26-2017 07:02 AM      Profile for Carsten Kurz   Email Carsten Kurz   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
The AP20 can be ordered with HDMI 2.0 switcher as well. As the RS20 shares the same hardware and HDMI 2.0 is a must in the high-end home cinema market now. The 2.0 board can be retrofitted to existing AP20 as well.

About the future of the AP20, yes, that may be a bit cloudy - although that friend of mine who ordered one back in July finally received his fully featured AP20 just yesterday.

Honestly I don't understand why QSC launched their DPM-100/H instead of making a nice Q-SYS package with some prebuilt functionality targeted towards cinema. But who knows wether the DPM-100 is actually a Q-SYS in disguise? ;-)

- Carsten

 |  IP: Logged
Steve Guttag
We forgot the crackers Gromit!!!

Posts: 12814
From: Annapolis, MD
Registered: Dec 1999

- posted 10-26-2017 07:33 AM      Profile for Steve Guttag   Email Steve Guttag   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
I think the DPM-100 was a means of breaking away from the DCP line, which is more akin to Basis (Cobranet based) than QSYS.

Having a canned solution that allows a fast installation like a DPM-100 makes for the most cost effective installation in a typical 5.1/7.1 cinema. You have everything you need in one box that connects with Dataport cables.

I wonder how long the DCP100 will remain. What does it have over the DPM100?

I think there would be a significant market for the DCP200/300 if they were ported over to a more Q-SYS based system. Most people don't want to "figure out" their system. They just want it to go in fast.

I'm surprised that QSC hasn't come up with templates for DCinema systems for QSYS where one can just run a "canned" template. If you want to change it, fine but if you just want to put in a DCinema based QSYS, load the template and you are off and running.

 |  IP: Logged
Carsten Kurz
Film God

Posts: 4340
From: Cologne, NRW, Germany
Registered: Aug 2009

- posted 10-26-2017 07:44 AM      Profile for Carsten Kurz   Email Carsten Kurz   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
That's what I mean. Sell a Q-SYS with a standard 5.1/7.1 setup preconfigured for quick deployment. Add specials later based on a tested framework. Techs would see more or less the same familiar setup in most installations, but would still have the flexibility to add extras. The digital rollout is over, and it's hard to justify the development effort for a dedicated cinema processor hardware with all the flexibility we expect now. Standard hardware, custom software seems to be the better solution now. An external I/O box is not such a bad idea, as it can solve some wiring issues, and when mounted above or below a core in the rack, what's the difference to an all-in-one solution, besides some minor cost disadvantage?
It will also be much easier to cover the future object based audio systems based on a Q-SYS.

- Carsten

 |  IP: Logged
Steve Guttag
We forgot the crackers Gromit!!!

Posts: 12814
From: Annapolis, MD
Registered: Dec 1999

- posted 10-26-2017 10:37 AM      Profile for Steve Guttag   Email Steve Guttag   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
I don't really think that object based audio is going to go too far beyond premium houses. I've heard it and it costs a lot to get very little perceived "improvement." Furthermore, everyone ports it to the home for relatively low cost so like 4K, you don't get marquee value with it.

 |  IP: Logged
Carsten Kurz
Film God

Posts: 4340
From: Cologne, NRW, Germany
Registered: Aug 2009

- posted 10-26-2017 01:25 PM      Profile for Carsten Kurz   Email Carsten Kurz   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
I'm not talking of marquee value, especially not when the SMPTE standard is finalized. But a Q-SYS is then the natural central building block for object based audio systems, no matter what brand/system it is.

- Carsten

 |  IP: Logged
Steve Guttag
We forgot the crackers Gromit!!!

Posts: 12814
From: Annapolis, MD
Registered: Dec 1999

- posted 10-26-2017 01:50 PM      Profile for Steve Guttag   Email Steve Guttag   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Well they already have CP850 and MDA blocks in the cinema mode so I suppose you are right there. It is naturally an expandable platform.

 |  IP: Logged
Harold Hallikainen
Jedi Master Film Handler

Posts: 906
From: Denver, CO, USA
Registered: Aug 2009

- posted 10-26-2017 01:54 PM      Profile for Harold Hallikainen   Author's Homepage   Email Harold Hallikainen   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Because of the need of being an outboard media block for external rendering (required security and associated costs), I really expect most object based systems to go with internal rendering. The object based audio would be decrypted, rendered, forensically marked (all speaker feeds), in the IMB then dropped onto Ethernet based audio output like Qlan. Qsys would then handle eq, delays, other inputs, etc.

Harold

 |  IP: Logged
Marco Giustini
Film God

Posts: 2713
From: Reading, UK
Registered: Nov 2007

- posted 10-27-2017 04:35 AM      Profile for Marco Giustini   Email Marco Giustini   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
quote: Steve Guttag
As for updating a design affecting all cinemas...well, how often have you found you need to update a design, RIGHT NOW in a DSP system? Mind you, we are not talking about tuning, that is done on a live system anyway. We are talking about actual reconfiguring (the equivalent of rewiring a traditional system). Odds are, if there is a design flaw or update needed for a particular feature, then you'd want to do it to all of them anyway and I tend to do updates like that without anything on screen anyway.
Suppose you are called for a premiere or some service and you are doing an EQ and realise that some parameters are wrong or you want a high pass filter or some delay or whatever.
You cannot do that as the Core is currently live with all the other auditoriums.

 |  IP: Logged
Steve Guttag
We forgot the crackers Gromit!!!

Posts: 12814
From: Annapolis, MD
Registered: Dec 1999

- posted 10-27-2017 07:39 AM      Profile for Steve Guttag   Email Steve Guttag   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
So you are saying that I'm doing a premier where my first look at the system is just before show time? Are you serious? For those shows, there are tech set ups EARLY in the day (sometimes days before the event) to flesh out all sorts of issues.

Is your position that the person putting in a QSYS was overly stingy on the processing blocks and ignored all advice such that no filters are to be found or can be reconfigured prior to my big screening?

It all depends on the type of show that is going to happen, what the client is wanting out of it and the time available as to just what sort of effort will or can go into the event.

Odds are, if it is a big premier type house that it would be put in as an island anyway and if it is just an area pre-release screening, there isn't the budget for altering someone's equipment (which they may not approve of anyway).

 |  IP: Logged
Jay Wyatt
Film Handler

Posts: 33
From: Los Angeles, CA
Registered: Mar 2015

- posted 10-27-2017 12:05 PM      Profile for Jay Wyatt     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
quote: Marco Giustini
Suppose you are called for a premiere or some service and you are doing an EQ and realise that some parameters are wrong or you want a high pass filter or some delay or whatever.
You cannot do that as the Core is currently live with all the other auditoriums.
Technically, if the processing blocks are already in place a user can freely modify the parameters while being live. I suppose if you needed to insert a new module or change routing then you would indeed have to push a new design.

 |  IP: Logged
Marco Giustini
Film God

Posts: 2713
From: Reading, UK
Registered: Nov 2007

- posted 10-27-2017 06:52 PM      Profile for Marco Giustini   Email Marco Giustini   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
The premiere was an example, you know what I mean.

And yes, I mean that the module is not there or any other issue that would require to disconnect the design and push it again to the core.

It is an unnecessary complicate thing in my opinion.

In fact, I found myself in a similar situation where I wanted to reboot the Core to rule out a software glitch causing some audio issues but I could not because the core was being used by some other system in the complex. (it was done after I left and indeed the issue was gone BTW).

I am not saying it shouldn't be done. I am saying that it comes with those caveats and 'limitations' and the question that follows is: is it worth going that way?

 |  IP: Logged
Carsten Kurz
Film God

Posts: 4340
From: Cologne, NRW, Germany
Registered: Aug 2009

- posted 10-29-2017 09:08 PM      Profile for Carsten Kurz   Email Carsten Kurz   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Admitted, I have no experience in creating setups for QSYS, but Marco is right, think of the typical multiplex showing 5 shows a day on all screens. When would a tech actually be able to do the kind of work on the system that involves inits or reboots? Again, a backup/redundant system would probably allow this to a certain extent.

- Carsten

 |  IP: Logged
Marco Giustini
Film God

Posts: 2713
From: Reading, UK
Registered: Nov 2007

- posted 10-30-2017 06:20 AM      Profile for Marco Giustini   Email Marco Giustini   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post 
Not really, in the end both cores would need to be on the same page. And would you feel confident in messing with the units (disconnecting wires etc) known that 2000 customers are watching movies in the other auditoriums? [Smile]
I appreciate that in an ideal world you shouldn't need to amend the design once it's done but this seldom happens.

Another example: there is a screening and the customer asks for a special setup for the microphones, say to mix the mikes with the soundtrack on the surrounds as the director wants to comment during the show.

On a stand-alone system it takes 10 minutes. On a "multiplex" system you'll have to go back overnight to perform the change!

 |  IP: Logged


All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
This topic comprises 4 pages: 1  2  3  4   
   Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic    next oldest topic   next newest topic
- Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:



Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.3.1.2

The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.

© 1999-2020 Film-Tech Cinema Systems, LLC. All rights reserved.