1 / 23

Evolving User Interfaces in Media Technologies: Comparing Hardware and Standard Platforms

Explore the evolution of user interfaces in media technologies over the past decade, comparing dedicated hardware versus standard platforms, and the pros and cons of each. Discover how PCs have become faster and more cost-effective for editing, but also the computational intensity of effects like color correction. Unravel the concept of "real-time" and the importance of selecting the right interface for optimal performance. Delve into the realm of audio console and live production interfaces, discussing the suitability of different interfaces for specific functions. Ultimately, learn how the choice of interface impacts creativity, client interactions, and overall profitability.

warner
Télécharger la présentation

Evolving User Interfaces in Media Technologies: Comparing Hardware and Standard Platforms

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. User Interfaces and Technology Choices Pete Challinger Edifis Media Technologies petec@edifis.us

  2. 10 Years Ago at Montreux….. • Dedicated hardware • Versus “standard platforms” • Pros and cons of user interfaces • Revisit and update

  3. Still the same • Confusion about “Real-time” • Asking silly questions • “Is it hardware or software?” • Variety of UI methods in use • Not always the best ones for the app.

  4. What’s Changed? • PCs are faster and cheaper • Fast enough to edit on • A lot more WIMP interfaces • We’ve upped the ante – HD, 2K+

  5. PCs Editing Everywhere • Standard platforms proven for editing • PC approach is effective and low cost • Comparatively few effects in long form • Cuts/fades not computationally intensive • Tendency to assume same is true of other functions

  6. Reality is Different • Effects are computationally intensive - but less common • Color Correction is just as intensive - and very common • Runs for program duration • May be less suited for standard CPUs

  7. How Hard can it be? • Single secondary needs: • Pick color space (key) – 12+ multiplies • Minimum of a hue rotate – 9 multiplies • 2.07 Mpixels a frame (HD) • 43 M multiplies a frame • Add a glow - about 47 M ops • A little defocus (12x12) about 895 M ops

  8. CPUs are Getting Faster but... • Add them up at 24p that’s 23 G ops/s • 3G CPU does not do 3G ops /s • but lets assume it did • Stacking CPUs does not scale linearly • but lets assume it did • Still need 7 PCs for a simple real-time color corrector

  9. Back in the real world • For client attended sessions you need many layers – all at once. (we have 28) • 2K worse and 4K much worse! • Anything close to real time needs lots of CPUs – big and not low cost • Be cynical about “real-time” unless you see lots of CPUs!

  10. What is real time? • While rolling the video • Manipulate any or all parameters live • with instant visual feedback and storage • Doing this fast needs lots of multipliers (we have about 400)

  11. Question Convention • Trend to thinking a Post product should: • run on a “standard hardware platform” • run under a general purpose OS • use a WIMP based UI

  12. Pros, Cons & Illusions • Perception is a standard platform offers: • Low cost to build • Extensible/easy to expand • Standard net connect • Better/more flexible UI

  13. Reality • Not always cheap • many CPUs, custom plug in cards • Limited expansion • Fixed architecture and bus speeds • Net connect depends on the silicon • Same chips available to both approaches • UI is independent of architecture

  14. Better Alternatives? • Hardware designed for the task • “Guts” in FPGAs • As much speed as you like • Easily extended • Compact and cost effective

  15. User Interfaces • Not always selected for the right reasons • WIMP interface because it’s a PC… • Mice great for some things • but lousy for others • Most people have several fingers and often more than one hand

  16. Audio Console Interfaces • Big consoles moved to GUIs • Now they’re back to big control surfaces • Slower systems could not have kept up • Not the first time an interface was adopted to hide limitations

  17. Live Production Interfaces • Large switcher have large panels • Need to be fast and responsive • Won’t be cutting Superbowl with a mouse • (Unless the FCC gets really nasty!)

  18. Knobs are Wonderful Things • Great for interactive analog settings • Feedback loop via eye brain and fingers • Most people can control many of them • But only as long as the underlying system is fast enough

  19. Knobs not always the answer • A widely adopted drawing interface you’ve all used…….

  20. Interface Must Suit Function • And be fast enough to feel live • Knobs/trackballs for analog adjust or scrub • Real buttons for frequently used selected functions • Pen and tablet for drawing • WIMP for the timelines & GUI

  21. The Bottom Line • Box & UI themselves don’t matter • How much creative work can the operator pump out in a given time? • Are the box and the operator responsive enough for client attended sessions? • What is the total cost of ownership of the box and surrounding peripherals? • Which adds up to “can we make money”?

  22. Questions/Follow ups?petec@edifis.us

More Related