Welcome to the new Film-Tech Forums!
The forum you are looking at is entirely new software. Because there was no good way to import all of the old archived data from the last 20 years on the old software, everyone will need to register for a new account to participate.
To access the original forums from 1999-2019 which are now a "read only" status, click on the "FORUM ARCHIVE" link above.
Please remember registering with your first and last REAL name is mandatory. This forum is for professionals and fake names are not permitted. To get to the registration page click here.
Once the registration has been approved, you will be able to login via the link in the upper right corner of this page.
Also, please remember while it is highly encouraged to upload an avatar image to your profile, is not a requirement. If you choose to upload an avatar image, please remember that it IS a requirement that the image must be a clear photo of your face.
Thank you!
It appears to be similar in concept to the IP2CC, which I have used in situations where there is no full-scale automation controller (e.g. Eprad, Christie ACT, or dare I say it, one of our own models), but I just need contact closure automation for one device; usually a dimmer or masking controller.
However, this thing has eight relays rather than three, the relays are operable via the web UI (useful for troubleshooting, but not really needed for everyday operation), and it is almost half the price of the PoE-enabled variant of the IP2CC, and about a third cheaper than the wall wart powered version: The drawbacks are that there is no PoE option, and there does not appear to be US distributor. A brief web search doesn't reveal anyone who is selling them directly within the USA.
An annoying omission from both devices is the absence of a quick and easy momentary contact closure option: to do this, you need to put three commands into a cue: close, wait 100ms (or whatever), then open again. A single command to execute a momentary closure would be nice.
Says he likes the power connection as opposed to the dreaded barrel connector. He also mentions the famed Dolby \w requirement. Also he notes that polling is an issue. Those of you who rely on MODBUS have to do that too. That's why I don't like MODBUS for any kind of monitoring. But for controlling you don't need polling. Just if you want to display the status of the thing.
Is the pitch of the connector any concern to any of you? We've been debating dropping down from the 0.200" to allow us to expose NO/NC 3 connections for each relay like that.
Specifications:
Relays have Normally Open (NO) and
Normally Closed (NC) Contacts each capable of switching max:
- 12VDC/15A
- 24VDC/15A
- 125VAC/15A
- 250VAC/10A
James, that doesn't look like an automation to me. That looks like nothing more than a dumb relay box. It doesn't know what its doing or why, it just receives a command via one protocol and relays it out via another protocol. That is not an automation and should never be referred to as one.
Brad, I suppose its a matter of opinion. As a cinema owner that use to install digital cinema systems. And write software. I am all for dumb endpoint devices. Like I said in the video, I far prefer to have the configuration and smarts of the devices centralised. This makes it easy, for example, having remote regional sites. If a unit like this broke. I would get a new one, set its IP address. dispatch it to the location, and any idiot could install it. I don't need a highly paid engineer.
I typically used JNIOR devices, which I consider over-engineered for the use but at the time these cheaper units did not exist. JNIOR are computers in themselves that can do a lot more if you want to program them (ie implement fault-tolerant automation or remote automation etc). But then you are getting into very complex configuration management and orchestration. No thanks, Not on a regional site that cost a small fortune just to get a trained engineer to the site. Keep as much of the setup as dumb as possible and have it all centrally managed from a central device. All you have to worry about is that that device has a replicable configuration if it goes down/is lost completely.
For example, this is exactly how the home automation market has evolved. Endpoints are stupid, and everything is done in a HUB
Secondly, I see a lot of integration agents implement overly complex setups simply to lock customers into them. With complex setups, you cannot simply go to a reliable engineer, walk onto site and fix the problem. For example, the implementation of VLANs really annoys the crap out of me. A switch fails. The cinema screen is down. The cinema owner could, if VLANs were not utilised, simply drop in a cheap unit he/she gets from the local Officeworks/staples store to get back up. OR... miss weekend traffic and have to wait for an engineer to order in a special switch, program said switch, dispatch to site, and install by a highly trained network engineer. What's the benefit...
"Its more secure otherwise" Well, DCI did implement the standard so any very hackable site could be compromised but it still would not compromise a movie. So that points rubbish.
If anything POS and database that takes care of transactions should be more secure. Typically not even looked after by cinema engineers... Typically not in a VLAN type environment.
Security for security's sake. The effort should match the risk.and not apply restrictive and costly implementations.
Then it comes down to poor internal management. Recently I hear how a major chain has all workstations completely locked down and they have a tested qualified environment. They are completely out of touch and only update this environment every 5 plus years. They are complaining to manufacturers that all the newer web-based control interfaces are broken under their trusted environment. (Old web browser software) And want to force the manufacturers to make them backwards compatible with these ridiculously out-of-date and INSECURE well-documented Zero-Day attacks, that anyone with half a brain could take control of. Refuse to utilise any form of rolling upgrades to ensure security fixes are rolled out on a regular basis. These large chains spend heaps being "Secure" but in reality are more insecure than a home computer with auto updates on. And these computers are typically not physically secure with any employee accessing them.
James, I agree with Brad...the term "automation" refers to a device that is doing the automating. The dumb endpoint is merely the "fingers" of that automation. In your example, the server itself is the automation and the relays are merely the extension of that. They, in and of themselves don't automation anything.
Originally posted by James Gardiner
I typically used JNIOR devices, which I consider over-engineered for the use but at the time these cheaper units did not exist. JNIOR are computers in themselves that can do a lot more if you want to program them (ie implement fault-tolerant automation or remote automation etc). But then you are getting into very complex configuration management and orchestration. No thanks, Not on a regional site that cost a small fortune just to get a trained engineer to the site. Keep as much of the setup as dumb as possible and have it all centrally managed from a central device. All you have to worry about is that that device has a replicable configuration if it goes down/is lost completely.
This is where you and I strongly disagree. I support many (most) remote sites. Pretty much a condition for me to provide that support is the automation we use, the Eprad eCNA. The same can be applied to the JNIOR or the Film-Tech automations and the like, for those that prefer them. I choose to put the smarts into the automation rather than rely on the server to process much more than dumb cues. Here's the difference, at least with the Eprad eCNA products...they outlive the other things in the booth and they are more reliable than things in the booth. They allow ANY server and ANY projector and ANY, dimmer and ANY...etc. be used but with relatively the same configuration from site to site, room to room. I have sites that have evolved so there may be Doremi, GDC and Dolby (DSS) servers under one roof...likewise NEC and Barco (or Christie but I don't think I have all three projectors under one roof) under one roof. The "great equalizer" in all of this...the automation. The same dumb cues go into every server...no special timings or set ups unique to the site. If a server gets swapped...again, same dumb cues go in. Oh...you change from a CP750 to a CP950...cool...just one RDI file change on the eCNA and no new cues or other changes...you're good to go.
As to the complexity, if you've worked with the eCNA, you'd know that it isn't exactly a system that will befuddle anyone that was competent to support the facility in the first place. It merely performs macros (or programs...which are nothing more than a place to collect a sequence of macros...if you really just want to have the servers have even more basic commands of "cue" and step through a show like film automations did). It's simple and incredibly reliable. It harmonizes what would otherwise be a non-harmonious booth (we don't get to dictate what equipment is used...for the most part...though we can certainly suggest).
With an automation like the eCNA, you get more control, from a remote support point for things that can happen after hours...including powering up the projectors/servers, sound systems...etc. We can schedule quality check in the early hours of the morning...fully automated...you can't have the server initiate that...they're powered down. For projectors, like NEC, that don't really power down when in standby...they leave the fan running (pumping dirt 24/7 and wearing out the fan(s))...we power the projector completely down...and we do so in a proper timed fashion. The servers are allowed to do a proper shutdown...then, the projectors are powered off...it takes the human element not waiting out of the equation. The equipment doesn't get as abused. And, we don't run stuff 24/7 wasting electricity and sucking dirt through the machines. During COVID...we put theatres on a timed power cycle to keep alive Enigmas and IMBs too. All for want of an automation that cost almost nothing per/year. Yeah, it is a lot more than your $100 relay but it does more too.
If one's view of an automation is something that can click relays for a dimmer or one of those antique masking thingies, then yes, I suppose a proper automation seems like overkill. If you, on the other hand, look upon it as a long-term device that makes one's presentations homogeneous and reliable, regardless of the brands involved and even presentation styles (some screens might have maskings and even curtains...no big deal and it has zero effect on how one sets up cues on the servers...regardless of brand).
Since the eCNA line comes with, at least, 16 relays and is expandable to, at least, 16 more, they've got the relay aspect covered...in spades. What the box you mention has going for it though could be remote mounting. One might be able to get it to say a 10-stop masking machine or machines (if you have both vertical and horizontal masking or perhaps a grand drape)...instead of running a long run of multi conductor...one could just run a CAT cable and plug in.
You would call one an automation controller, and the other an automation interface. As a matter of fact, you could use the KMTronic interface (or similar device) as an extension to a JNIOR as well (e.g. positioning a remote relay interface close to the screen). Venues differ a lot when it comes to their control needs. A standard screen showing DCPs day in day out may be okay with a simple IP-relay box all controlled from a server via playlist cues.The more multipurpose the venue operates, the more need is there for automation and control that is not server centric.
Another advantage of a dedicated automation controller is that, paradoxically, it actually makes manual control of a show easier, or even possible. For example, our IMC-2e has buttons on the front of the unit to control the masking, houselights, etc. In a crossover mainstream/arthouse situation in which most shows are run via cues in a playlist, but the house regularly has special shows attended by a projectionist, this is a better option than if, say, lights and masking were operated by an IP to contact closure device, in which case the projectionist would have to faff about with a web UI or manually executing cues from the server to make these functions happen. But if no manual show operation is ever going to happen and only one or two devices need to be operated by contact closure, an IP to CC device would safe a few hundred bucks.
Some great input here from everyone. I have not had the opportunity to use a eCNE.
In installations I have been exposed to, we typically use contact closures to interface with existing buttons on the wall used for manual control and are considered the last resort if all forms of automation or remote control fail.
The other reason IP-based devices are being adopted is due to the fact, a eCinema player and a DCI-Player can interface to the device transparently and have no reliance on each other. i.e. an IP-based control box like the KMTronic unit can be controlled by different masters depending on what solution is controlling the show. For example, if the contact closures on a DCI-Player itself were in use. In working in conjunction with other playback devices like an eCinema, the eCinema would then have to tell the DCI-player to run the automation, the DCI-player being a single point of failure. Same going back through the ePlayer.
The point of view on the eCNE is interesting. I looked at it a long time ago, but it was passed on as it was 3x the cost of alternate solutions like a JNIOR at the time. And the independents put no value on the advantages it had. (As they were still new to exactly what full Automation meant to the business of cinema)
But I must admit, having a low-powered device that could control power to the equipment does sound very interesting. It's interesting that the Barco S4 kit now supports a very low-powered standby mode in that it does shut down all fans etc as if it was completely powered off. I consider this important as it's not unusual these days to have out-of-hour DCP transfers, in which you have to bring the unit into a higher power mode while ingesting and data-CRC-checks, KDM ingest and verification against schedule is being performed.
Agreed. It would have been good (and maybe this could be added in future firmware releases, if the SMPS hardware supports it) if Barco could have had an "eco plus option slot" mode as well as the existing eco mode. This would be exactly what it says: all the projector's electronics apart from the CCB router and the option slot are shut down, thereby saving significant power, but also allowing the server to be available for ingest and content management all the time.
I think this is the problem that NEC has...in order to leave that slot powered up, it also has to run enough air across that slot to ensure it is cooled. So, an Eco + mode would have more than just the slot powered up. But I agree, that should be an option. What I've taken to doing, since, thus far, all of my Barco S4 sites also have Q-SYS is to monitor if content is being transferred and, if so, transfers that information to the eCNA automation, sets a flag and as long as that flag is set, it will not shut down the projector (but will shut down the rest of that screen)...it then checks every 5-minutes to see if the transfers are complete...if so, then shuts the server/projector down. Again, this is something that a simple relay box or using the server as an automation wouldn't be capable of handling.
Now, I would prefer if the eCNA could monitor the ingest information of cinema servers directly but a limitation of the eCNA is that it isn't something someone programs so much as configures. So, if a feature isn't thought about, it isn't something one can script or program to create. Then again, an advantage of this sort of set up is that it isn't something that has an exhibitor be beholden to a particular service company or individual for the "magic" that it does. One can certainly request a feature from Eprad and that is the primary reason that firmwares are updated is to add features.
As to the cost...I'd say that an eCNA is closer to double that of a JNIOR but regardless, it is in the low-end of costs of screen. That is, we are talking about the cost of 1-2 xenon lamps but over the life of the cinema so we are in the trivial costs in a cost/year. Anyone that can't make that sale just doesn't know how to sell things or take care of their client (providing that they are going to actually use it for more than just clicking relays via GPIO). As you can imagine, we also tie it into the life-safety system too.
Tweet
Specifications:
Comment