|
|
This topic comprises 3 pages: 1 2 3
|
|
Author
|
Topic: Firmware and Software Updates
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Steve Guttag
We forgot the crackers Gromit!!!
Posts: 12814
From: Annapolis, MD
Registered: Dec 1999
|
posted 07-12-2014 02:53 AM
There you have it...updates come for several reasons and Leo hit upon the questions I ask when each update is issued. I'm a stickler for wanting release notes before I apply updates. I want to know what is being updated, what it is trying to fix and what "features" it is trying to add.
In the server world...most server companies had a "good" software version before the DCI compliance BS hit. Many of you will have noticed that my "favorite" Dolby software was 4.3.5.9. It was their most stable software, by far. Any customer that was not compelled to update for VPF reasons were not updated by me beyond that version. The same goes for the other server companies...e.g GDC 7.83 was pretty darn reliable and I still have people on that one!
In 2010, the series 2 projectors came out and, from what I can tell, the projector companies were so under the gun to have them in early 2010 since series 1 projectors were not to be manufactured after 2009 that they didn't get into server company's hands until very late. We were getting software updates to servers to get series 2 projectors to work on a DAILY basis and for a while, some software versions only worked with certain brands of projectors...talking to Harold's point about having to accommodate things not under his control.
So then there is a settling in period as each projector company rapidly issues updates to get their new product stable and the server companies having to do likewise until series 2 and servers all work with each other.
So then you get an industry requirement of "DCI compliance" and that throws a monkey wrench in EVERYONE's software. Think about it...it adds complexity for the sake of making the show HARDER to work successfully. It does not offer new "benefits" so the challenge is to add in this security without diminishing reliability. There are going to be unintended consequences to most any software change and there were PLENTY of them. Sometimes you get a sense of the struggles they went though on the "build" number. Dolby's DCI software debuted at build 48 of System 4.4.0. GDC took 108 tries at it before 8.01 worked reliably.
The DLP projector companies get another wildcard...TI can change their software on their own time table. And there will be unintended consequences to that. 3.2.340 was their most stable...and then they went to an unstable 4.0 and didn't stabilize again until 4.2. However, influences by the industry for things like high frame rate and 4K can force them to do their updates into version 4 software...but it has ramifications in each projector.
Which brings about another reason why software changes in the servers...the industry moves (for better or worse)...somebody says the next thing is 3D...so everyone has to deal with that...then they say 4K...so everyone has to deal with that...then they say HFR 3D...so everyone has to deal with that...and it goes on and on. Note, not all of the "fads" pan out but no projector/server company is going to be left out by not accommodating what may be the next big thing. Hey the industry moved to IMBs (or IMSes)...well that has a whole NEW set of software demands as well as hardware accommodations...and the cycle continues.
When you layer the various independent systems that have to react to a change including the change caused by another device to the overall change imposed by the industry, it all adds up geometrically.
Then you get individual components trying to fix their own bugs because software people are NEVER finished working on those so layer that in. Finally you have people adding "features" to software to either make it more enticing for resale or to satisfy customer demand.
Typically, when you buy a product, you are seeing a "snapshot" of where the software was in development when that product was produced on that day. It does not mean it is best or most stable.
I don't know anyone that is responsible for maintaining this equipment that would not welcome the day when software updates were no longer needed. We have that, for the most part, for the series 1 stuff. It is now frozen in time and that is sort of nice. Then again, lamp companies come out with new models (longer life) so you need a means to allow for those. I would welcome an "annual" software update for stale equipment (or maybe every other year or at least a means to update the lamp list!).
But when one updates a piece of equipment's software it is kind of like taking medication...you may be doing it for valid reasons but you always are concerned about the unintended consequences. And there are ALWAYS those.
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marco Giustini
Film God
Posts: 2713
From: Reading, UK
Registered: Nov 2007
|
posted 07-12-2014 04:30 AM
Back in the 90's when Internet had just born, it was not easy to get 'updates'. computer components came with their own floppy disk and a driver on it. That was it. The driver was only one and was supposed to work for the whole life of the component.
Upgrading Windows 95 was a pain in the neck, it was not automatic as today's Windows.
As already pointed out, this has an advantage - you don't need to worry about updates - and a disadvantage - your software never improves, never gets new features.
I have the feeling that when manufacturers knew that updating a piece of software was damn hard, they would put lots of efforts and testing trying to make sure the code was ok before releasing it to the field.
Today you can upgrade in minutes, sometimes automatically by the internet. Software houses just don't bother to check the code thoroughly: if a bug is found in the code, they can easily fix it.
I like the idea of the software being developed and improved. But as Steve said I would appreciate if the software was not rushed on the marked, tested properly and released every now and then.
I remember when the 745 was out, I was not finishing to download the new software and a new one was released!
To add to Brad's comment about new bugs being introduced every time, you're right, upgrading doesn't necessarily mean 'fixed bugs'. However, if it worked as you suggested, that would mean the very first version was the best one and all the subsequent ones would be just worse and worse ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
slightly OT, I had a customer the other day asking why a CPL would play subtitles on his 4.6.1-4 and not on his 4.3.5-13! (space in the subs file)
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Carsten Kurz
Film God
Posts: 4340
From: Cologne, NRW, Germany
Registered: Aug 2009
|
posted 07-12-2014 07:00 AM
And ISDCF is struggling hard to find ways to make cinemas update their software in order to transition to SMPTE DCPs...
For most cinemas, software updates are not free, they would need to be forced to upgrade both server and projector.
'The Hobbit HFR' was not such a bad case - even as I consider HFR useless effort, it allowed at least a part of the installations to grow to a defined state. HFR would be advertized and cinema operators had a clear incentive to update their systems. Test footage was made available and only when successfully played the HFR feature could be booked.
Unfortunately, it was still rushed on the IMB side (Doremis runtime switchable HFR firmware is a real joke, Dolby wasn't even ready), and it only targeted a small portion of the installed equipment, most of it quite new anyway.
They would need something similiar to get the SMPTE transition going. But which studio will take that risk to force cinemas into software updates in order to play a certain feature? Maybe the best idea would be to issue an important trailer long ahead of the main feature, then weigh the responses. Sooner or later this transition to SMPTE DCPs needs to be done.
- Carsten
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
|
This topic comprises 3 pages: 1 2 3
|
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.
|
Home
Printer-friendly view of this topic