PDA

View Full Version : HD for our VTs?



jhogarty
05-12-2009, 07:03 PM
Hey there,

I was hoping we would hear some news at or just after NAB about any upgrades and accessories to our VT5s. Since it has been a few weeks, and I can't seem to find any info, thought I would ask.

What is the current plan for the Video Toaster? Will we be getting HD anytime soon like the poster child Tricaster? How about software updates?

If there aren't any plans to continue the VT line will Newtek provide an upgrade path for us to the Tricaster? I've asked in the past and told there was not a trade-in/upgrade from VT to Tricaster.

Can we please get some solid answers from Paul or Philip?

Thanks,

J.

Jim_C
05-13-2009, 08:24 AM
What is the current plan for the Video Toaster?

http://www.brinklow-57.freeserve.co.uk/gallows.jpg

Quiet1onTheSet
05-13-2009, 08:37 AM
http://www.brinklow-57.freeserve.co.uk/gallows.jpg
:rolleyes: Um, JimC - The thing that's hangin' up there...

Could that be a pinata? :D

Paul Lara
05-13-2009, 09:02 AM
The VT[5] hardware is incapable of analog HD in/out, with many limitations (the largest one being the 32-bit PCI bus that the VT card resides in). As you know, you can ingest and edit HD clips in VT Edit, but multiple analog streams of HD live just cannot happen.

There are no announcements at this time, but NewTek has traditionally offered favorable upgrade policies to its existing customers (one of the reasons I decided join the team).

Pete Draves
05-13-2009, 09:11 AM
Inside the piñata is a VT5.

Yes folks for most consumer needs it is still a SD world. It seems the only entity's that can afford HD are the corporations.
My VT has done well over all the years and will serve as the SD output for SE... even with HD edit.

Respectfully (sticking my tongue out)
Pete

ScorpioProd
05-13-2009, 11:58 AM
. As you know, you can ingest and edit HD clips in VT Edit, but multiple analog streams of HD live just cannot happen.

I think Paul means SpeedEDIT-VT, not VT-EDIT, which was the SD-only NLE in pre-VT[5] VTs.

Quiet1onTheSet
05-13-2009, 12:22 PM
I think Paul means SpeedEDIT-VT, not VT-EDIT, which was the SD-only NLE in pre-VT[5] VTs.
Yeah, well, it must be awfully difficult for Paul to keep track of things in that regard, seeing how he's got to be nearly up to his eyeballs in future technologies at Alcatraz!
:newtek:
:eek:

billmi
05-13-2009, 01:55 PM
I think about our only hope for a VT[6] will be if some of XD300's features that don't depend on its hardware (zooming/panning of LiveSets, multiple DSKs from internal sources) get ported to software updates for the SD Tricasters. If that gets done, then porting them to the (what I suspect is) significantly smaller VT market might be economically feasible, because much of the underlying common code would be the same.

Quiet1onTheSet
05-13-2009, 04:42 PM
I think about our only hope for a VT[6] will be if some of XD300's features that don't depend on its hardware (zooming/panning of LiveSets...

I'm under the impression that this new twist on LiveSET allows for more easily setting up a LiveSet shot accurately, without having to tweak the zoom and/or position of the physical cameras in use.

It appears that some have suggested that this "LiveSET panning and zooming" will simulate a moving camera. While it certainly sounds alluring, this isn't an accurate assessment, now, is it?

:heart:

SBowie
05-13-2009, 04:45 PM
It appears that some have suggested that this "LiveSET panning and zooming" will simulate a moving camera. While it certainly sounds alluring, this isn't an accurate assessment, now, is it?In the XD300 build which was shown at NAB, there is a T-bar for (LiveSet) Zoom, and you can adjust it in realtime. At present, this is not automated, but its not hard to see where this might lead in the fullness of time.

Quiet1onTheSet
05-13-2009, 04:59 PM
In the XD300 build which was shown at NAB, there is a T-bar for (LiveSet) Zoom, and you can adjust it in realtime. At present, this is not automated, but its not hard to see where this might lead in the fullness of time.
:ohmy:
Woah. Spoken like a true prophet. I'm utterly awed and concurrently humbled at your having proclaimed such a thing.
:rolleyes:

Slapdash
05-15-2009, 12:57 PM
The VT[5] hardware is incapable of analog HD in/out

There are no announcements at this time, but NewTek has traditionally offered favorable upgrade policies to its existing customers (one of the reasons I decided join the team).

Hi Paul,

So without any specific HD for VT announcements coming out of NAB, should we VT users assume that our upgrade path is Tricaster XD300? ...and if so, we should be giving you/NewTek a ring about upgrade policies once the XD300 is shipping later this year?

Quiet1onTheSet
05-15-2009, 07:25 PM
Hi Paul,

So without any specific HD for VT announcements coming out of NAB, should we VT users assume that our upgrade path is Tricaster XD300?

As far as I can tell, Paul is referencing the likelihood of an upgrade path from current-generation VT to an heretofore unannounced HD capable VT.

In that regard, I've got a couple of questions:
Q1. Would we likely be required to have a motherboard with dual PCIe x16 slots: one for the NewTek video card -- and the other for a PCIe graphics card?

Q2. Is the TriCaster XD300, as it currently is configured, is housed in a box with two x16 PCIe slots -- or does the NewTek card therein serve also, as the system graphics card?
:question:

Slapdash
05-20-2009, 09:54 AM
bump for Paul

Jim_C
05-20-2009, 05:16 PM
bump for Paul

maybe in his wild college years, but he's a family man now.....

:devil:

PIZAZZ
05-21-2009, 07:39 AM
Here is a silly question for you guys....

What exactly are you looking for in a HD version of VT?

HD video switching?
HD streaming?
HD editing?
HD editing with HD output?

After NAB I have been answering alot of questions from my clients regarding the XD300. It is amazing how much the market is still spread out over what each person expects/needs in an HD product.

Quiet1onTheSet
05-21-2009, 08:01 AM
Here is a silly question for you guys....

What exactly are you looking for in a HD version of VT?


Steve Bowie's thoughtful insights notwithstanding, I'd prefer that VTx continues in the tradition of being a full-blown suite of tools. After all, TriCaster doesn't meet every live producer's needs, being a scaled back offering compared to what VT is.

Moreover, it is useful to point out here, that system requirements even for the forthcoming VT hardware, likely won't be the behemoth that prior VT systems were comprised of -- at least not in relation to cost.

If one doesn't want to "go back" to the big daddy model of VT system, then fine: NewTek is capable of providing us the ability to design the installation routine, so we can opt for "Live and Post-Production", or just "Post-Production" mode, or what-have-you.

Therefore, I'd have to respectfully disagree with Steve's desire and rationale for dumping the "Live" side of our beloved "Studio in a Box".

So-o-o-o-o, I'd like to see:

Expanded features and capability beyond what the flagship TriCaster XD products will offer

The ability to "uncheck" which portions of the VT Suite the user doesn't desire, or cannot run (given the host PC configuration) upon installing on his/her system.

Timeline rendering to DVD and Blu-ray (and other "popular" formats?)

Legacy SX 8 and 84 breakout boxes still work with it, for SD Analogue input sources;

Streaming from the SpeedEDIT timeline (great for Client evaluation) and from Live, etc..;

HD/SD Live Switching & Editing (a no-brainer, right?) with SD/HD/"XD"? output and true, interpolated slo-mo

Add-on for digital I/O that's better than FW400, that integrates well with legacy SX 8 and SX 84 (more input and output flexibility with both new and legacy BOBs connected)

Built-in multi-cam editing and more (buy up some key "Bob Tasa" wizardry)

Newly designed Analogue/Digital Breakout Box made available, that eliminates machine control, and adds the digital interface; and is available also with machine control at a slightly higher cost;

Record, Edit, and Playback in "NewTek-approved" codec you have on your system;

Highly-customizable rendering options for a variety of codecs;

Editing and Graphics design tools that are easily customizable via 3rd-party plug-in support...

Rich Deustachio
05-21-2009, 08:36 AM
HD editing with HD rendering options for file output.

Of course smooth interpolated slow motion.

PIZAZZ
05-21-2009, 10:07 AM
HD editing with HD rendering options for file output.

Of course smooth interpolated slow motion.


So you are looking for a HD editor then Rich?

something with better slow motion. understandable.

You have no need for the live features on your VT?

if that is so, what does SpeedEdit not offer you that a VT HD would?

PIZAZZ
05-21-2009, 10:22 AM
Legacy SX 8 and 84 breakout boxes and RS-8 still work with it;

Streaming (great for Client evaluation) still intact;

......

Now, a question relating to NewTek's digital breakout box:
Will the SX-SDI, in its current build, be able to handle SDI-HD?

Simple answers to many of your requests here Peter, NONE Of the current hardware, PCI card, SX84, or SX-SDI is capable of HD. It has been said more than once by NewTek that this hardware is SD and SD only capable. SO you are asking for something that is just not possible.
HD in and out takes new hardware.



HD Editing (a no-brainer, right?) with HD output and true, interpolated slo-mo

Add-on for digital I/O, that integrates well with SX 8 and SX 84



We already have an HD editor, it is called SpeedEdit. It is available now. There is already Digital I/O available too. It is called Firewire.



Newly designed Analogue/Digital Breakout Box made available, that eliminates machine control, and adds the digital interface; and is available also with machine control at a slightly higher cost;

I haven't had a request for machine control from a client in years. Machine control over Firewire is more common than 422 now. Most of my clients have been in a file based workflow for quite a while now. Decks are so old school. Sure some might need this still but it would be a very small majority so maybe an add-on option for those guys would be best.

The XD300 does both SD and HD with the new hardware. I would rather NewTek put effort into making new features and more capable hardware than try to pull the older legacy stuff along for a few more years.



Record, Edit, and Playback in whatever codec you manage to have on your system, in SD NTSC and PAL and HD


Are you confusing your VT wants with your TC wants? or do you consider them the same?

For my clients, I would rather not have to try and decipher why when they try to record to a flash format and then try to edit it things go afoul. There are lots of advantages to limiting the choices of codec soup in regards to ALWAYS having a system that works. I prefer my clients ALWAYS have a system that works.

Quiet1onTheSet
05-21-2009, 11:30 AM
Simple answers to many of your requests here Peter, NONE Of the current hardware, PCI card, SX84, or SX-SDI is capable of HD.
OK. How'bout allowing users to keep the current SX 8 and 84 BOB for expanded input/output capability?


We already have an HD editor, it is called SpeedEdit. It is available now. There is already Digital I/O available too. It is called Firewire. Sure, just wanted to ask for "Interpolated slo-mo" within the context of the editor; Also desire to have digital I/O beyond what we currently have via OHCI-compliant IEEE 1394 cards.
You know -- HDMI, SDI-HD, and whatever else is appropriate...:hey:



I would rather NewTek put effort into making new features and more capable hardware than try to pull the older legacy stuff along for a few more years. If "pulling the SD BOB along for the ride is really a distraction for engineers, then fine, I'd concede, but if not, bring them along with the new router/switcher hardware.

I consider VT a step-up from TriCaster series products, relative to system capability and flexibility howbeit usually at somewhat of a drawback relative to system heft (I understand you provide portable VT systems, though).

Of course, the idea of limited codec choices for editing makes sense, but I'd rather not loose rendering options.

Thanks for interacting, Jef. See the edited list above, for more.

:thumbsup:

Jim_C
05-21-2009, 03:40 PM
What exactly are you looking for in a HD version of VT?

HD video switching?


Yes. For six cameras.

What cameras?
Good question.

Rich Deustachio
05-21-2009, 05:23 PM
So you are looking for a HD editor then Rich?

something with better slow motion. understandable.

You have no need for the live features on your VT?

if that is so, what does SpeedEdit not offer you that a VT HD would?

I still have clients coming to me with VHS, SVHS, Hi8, BetaSP, tape that I need to import into VTSE and without the breakout box SE can only import through firewire.

Remember, when I bought VT2 there was no SE, only VT2 with uncompressed editing which was great at the time. I didn't buy it for live switching.

jhogarty
05-21-2009, 06:19 PM
Judging by the responses, I'm glad to see I'm not the only one wanting HD, and for some direction of where the VT is going.

Thank you Jef for joining the thread and providing great dialog.

To me I always saw VT as being the elite product - a Tricaster on steriods if you will. So to put it in generic terms as I'm no expert here, I want my VT to do everything the Tricaster can do, and better, with more options/inputs. No offense to SpeedEdit, but I just don't like it. Nice to have available for quick edits perhaps, for me that is, but I prefer to edit in FinalCut & AfterEffects.

Oh I guess there is one other thing I would like. More regular open communication of what is going on with the VT. I get emails a plenty, which I appreciate and read, about Lightwave and Tricaster. I don't own a Tricaster. I do own Lightwave. I don't think I've ever received an email/newsletter about my VT.

J.

PIZAZZ
05-21-2009, 09:39 PM
Judging by the responses, I'm glad to see I'm not the only one wanting HD, and for some direction of where the VT is going.

Thank you Jef for joining the thread and providing great dialog.

To me I always saw VT as being the elite product - a Tricaster on steriods if you will. So to put it in generic terms as I'm no expert here, I want my VT to do everything the Tricaster can do, and better, with more options/inputs. No offense to SpeedEdit, but I just don't like it. Nice to have available for quick edits perhaps, for me that is, but I prefer to edit in FinalCut & AfterEffects.

Oh I guess there is one other thing I would like. More regular open communication of what is going on with the VT. I get emails a plenty, which I appreciate and read, about Lightwave and Tricaster. I don't own a Tricaster. I do own Lightwave. I don't think I've ever received an email/newsletter about my VT.

J.


I'll make sure you get an email about your VT tomorrow. :)

Glad to join in the conversation. I have been getting lots of inquiries for HD and the future so I wanted to get some other thoughts besides my direct clients.

PIZAZZ
05-21-2009, 09:44 PM
Yes. For six cameras.

What cameras?
Good question.

I have several clients in the same boat as you Jim. 3 is just a starting point I have been told. One cool thing pointed out to me at NAB on the XD300 is you could do the old TC Pro trick of connecting 3 digital SDI inputs and 3 analog inputs then you could software switch between the inputs. It is not elegant but at least if you need to only use that 4th camera every once in a while, it would be possible.

PIZAZZ
05-21-2009, 09:52 PM
I still have clients coming to me with VHS, SVHS, Hi8, BetaSP, tape that I need to import into VTSE and without the breakout box SE can only import through firewire.

Remember, when I bought VT2 there was no SE, only VT2 with uncompressed editing which was great at the time. I didn't buy it for live switching.

Rich I am not trying to bust your chops here but why do you need a HD editor to do VHS, SVHS, Hi8, BetaSP tape editing? Your VT currently can handle that. So use the VT to do the oldschool SD stuff and use a XD300 for the HD stuff down the road if you need it's feature set.

There is nothing stopping a person from slapping a Blackmagic or AJA card in their system for ingesting from and outputting to tape in HD. I did it in a VT system last summer for outputting EX1 full res HD footage into a DVCPro HD recorder from SpeedEdit.

If you don't need the live feature set of VT then why wait and stress about there not being an HD card. A Blackmagic card would save you literally thousands and get you rolling in HD right now. You gotta do what you gotta do to keep your business going.

Slapdash
05-21-2009, 10:57 PM
Yes. For six cameras.

What cameras?
Good question.

What Jim said...

Live HD switching/production using multiple HD sources.

fboulene
05-22-2009, 12:46 AM
There is nothing stopping a person from slapping a Blackmagic or AJA card in their system for ingesting from and outputting to tape in HD. I did it in a VT system last summer for outputting EX1 full res HD footage into a DVCPro HD recorder from SpeedEdit.

Jef, 2 questions if I may :
- I can have a BlackMagic card and VT in the same computer ?
- When you say you were outputting HD into a HD recorder from SE, do you mean playing SE timeline and getting real time HD output, or do you have to go throught some intermediate render, and then play this render with the BlackMagic software.

Sorry for not understanding your post.

Thanks.

PIZAZZ
05-22-2009, 07:41 AM
Jef, 2 questions if I may :
- I can have a BlackMagic card and VT in the same computer ?
- When you say you were outputting HD into a HD recorder from SE, do you mean playing SE timeline and getting real time HD output, or do you have to go throught some intermediate render, and then play this render with the BlackMagic software.

Sorry for not understanding your post.

Thanks.

Yes you can have a BlackMagic and a VT card in the same computer.

Sorry I didn't go into details but yes you would use the bundled software that comes with the card to ingest and output the HD video. You could do a render to the SpeedHQ codec if you like or just use the .avi wrapper and the Blackmagic player module should pick that up too.

We used SpeedHQ in the WSOP situation since he was editing highlight reels and we had 12 terabytes of space to work with.

fboulene
05-22-2009, 07:46 AM
Thank you very much for all these explanations.

Slapdash
05-23-2009, 11:44 AM
Jef K., do you care to comment on the likelihood of seeing a VT6 with the aforementioned HD support from Newtek either this year or at all? Without confirmation from Paul or Newtek via NAB, I'm left to assume that the upgrade path at this time is the XD300 coming later this year.

Can anyone easily breakdown/bullet point the comparable/impt. features that would not be in theXD300 that are in VT suite today?

For myself, I need an HD capable(live production/switching) version of the VT5 I have today and am going to need it by end year. If it's not XD300, then I need to figure out what options will be available and from whom.

PIZAZZ
05-23-2009, 03:05 PM
Jef K., do you care to comment on the likelihood of seeing a VT6 with the aforementioned HD support from Newtek either this year or at all? Without confirmation from Paul or Newtek via NAB, I'm left to assume that the upgrade path at this time is the XD300 coming later this year.

Can anyone easily breakdown/bullet point the comparable/impt. features that would not be in theXD300 that are in VT suite today?

For myself, I need an HD capable(live production/switching) version of the VT5 I have today and am going to need it by end year. If it's not XD300, then I need to figure out what options will be available and from whom.


Sorry but I cannot say much more due to multiple NDAs. I am working on the guys back in SA to give you guys a more official answer. I could definitely say though that I work with no other vendor that takes care of their past clients like NewTek does. Especially when it comes to upgrades. You might not have a specific number now but rest assured they will take care of you.

RE:XD300
There is no final spec on the XD300 so there is no way to give a comparable list against a VT.
Maybe you could list what features of the VT suite that you couldn't live without in the XD300?? I have my own list and several others from clients. From what I saw at NAB of the XD300 there is very little on my list that wasn't already implemented. It is amazing to see engineers and designers listen to the needs of their clientele.


Depending on the number of inputs you need, the XD300 sounds like it will be the ticket for you if you can wait till the end of the year.

Rich Deustachio
05-24-2009, 07:37 AM
Rich I am not trying to bust your chops here but why do you need a HD editor to do VHS, SVHS, Hi8, BetaSP tape editing? Your VT currently can handle that. So use the VT to do the oldschool SD stuff and use a XD300 for the HD stuff down the road if you need it's feature set.

There is nothing stopping a person from slapping a Blackmagic or AJA card in their system for ingesting from and outputting to tape in HD. I did it in a VT system last summer for outputting EX1 full res HD footage into a DVCPro HD recorder from SpeedEdit.

If you don't need the live feature set of VT then why wait and stress about there not being an HD card. A Blackmagic card would save you literally thousands and get you rolling in HD right now. You gotta do what you gotta do to keep your business going.

I do get some HD/HDV editing work coming in, I was just stating why I bought the VT system with the breakout box in the first place and why I still need it to import older formats as well as new formats.

I would never spend the money on an XD300 just to edit HD/HDV when I could build a new faster computer than I have and use VT, SE or Vegas9 for less than one third the price, with (as you stated) a Blackmagic card installed if needed.

I never said I wanted VT5 to have an HD card, I just want SE to have updated features like other NLEs. SE is VTs editor no? I do have both VT5 and standalone SE.

I don't think asking for good interpolated slow motion, or being able to import the new codecs, etc. (you know the rest of the list) is asking too much.

Quiet1onTheSet
05-29-2009, 06:16 PM
I still have clients coming to me with VHS, SVHS, Hi8, BetaSP, tape that I need to import into VTSE and without the breakout box SE can only import through firewire...

...and also, Rich, it'll allow analogue audio I/O; plus component, Y/C, or composite IN/OUT via the two DB-15 to multi-BNC adaptor cable, that shipped with the VT card.

Many of us put those two cables away somewhere, and perhaps are only now, thinking,
"Oh, yeah -- 'wonder what did I do with those."
:hey:

Quiet1onTheSet
05-29-2009, 06:28 PM
For myself, I need an HD capable(live production/switching) version of the VT5 I have today and am going to need it by end year. If it's not XD300, then I need to figure out what options will be available and from whom.

Our buddy Steve's minimalist preference for VT notwithstanding, I'm with you on that, Slapdash!

In fact, VT[5] in its current form has me lickin' ma' chops for an upgrade from the current 24-input jaunt to an SX-SDI HD option with XD300 features added, plus much more.
:tongue:

Let the minimalist buy just the card and some form of SpeedEDIT software suite tied to a digital I/O and BNC-laden octopus breakout thingy already.

But why on earth should the die-hard VT User be willing to give up the power and flexibility we currently enjoy, in exchange for a gutted-out, stripped down "HD Toaster"?

Given the famed history of our present technological Live & Post-Production jewel, being sold alongside TriCaster products, isn't "a Toaster that can't switch" an utterly oxymoronic notion?

Let the hardcore VT fans amongst us have our HD Toast, and eat it too.


"The VT Ultimate. Ginormously Bigger. Sharper. Cheaper."

"Switch or Die!"

ScorpioProd
05-29-2009, 10:49 PM
Isn't it more an issue of "follow the money"?

You really think there are enough people that would want a VT HD to justify the R&D and after sale support for it versus the quite formidable TriCaster XD300?

Quiet1onTheSet
05-30-2009, 02:48 AM
You really think there are enough people that would want a VT HD to justify the R&D and after sale support for it versus the quite formidable TriCaster XD300?[/QUOTE]

With more inputs and real-time, simultaneous interoperability between Live and Post tools?
"Yup".
:beerchug:

SBowie
05-30-2009, 06:15 AM
With more inputs and real-time, simultaneous interoperability between Live and Post tools?
Just a personal comment, but the kind of things XD300 does (not all of which have been seen yet by any means) put some serious stress on a pretty high end system. Frankly, I think attempts to do post production at the same time could well risk compromising live performance. I'd be surprised if we ship an XD class product that supports simultaneous live and post operations any time soon.

Quiet1onTheSet
05-30-2009, 09:54 AM
Just a personal comment...I'd be surprised if we ship an XD class product that supports simultaneous live and post operations any time soon.Ah, Steve, but witty engineers at NewTek have been known to break with conventional thinking, in coming up with ever increasing production solutions, with limited platform resources, that even blow their own selves away. :heart:

Witness their exhuberant hours up late at night, playing with the new live and post possibilities when LiveSet's real-time live 3D functionality first heralded yet another prime example of such Alien exploits.
:boogiedow:yoda::boogiedow:alien::rock:::caffeine:

SBowie
05-30-2009, 11:12 AM
Well, as I said, this seems quite unlikely to me, but hang on to your dreams Peter. :)

As I've written previously, the XD formula seems an ideal live solution, following in the tried and overwhelmingly successful TriCaster approach. Setting aside Aura and LW (available separately anyway) the only edge VT offers over the XD300 is the number of inputs available via the SX-84 ... and who can yet say whether later additions to the XD family might well not address that aspect? XD essentially blows VT away for live production apart from that one item. So what is left to consider? Post production.

The number of people who really need to do both live and post simultaneously has to be a very small subset of either of those markets. Looking forward, it's actually pretty hard to conceive of a situation that justifies the expense, complexity and overhead of a combined product - much less the very substantial resources required to develop, market and support that much more complex dual-market product.

Again, this is just my personal opinion, but you're right - VT certainly did lead to TC. By this point in time, though, it seems to me that the results are clear - TC wins the "ideal live solution" competition hands down. For live needs, it is no longer VT's 'little brother' (there are certainly some situations where VT is a better fit, but these are not plentiful imho). Some of the new XD generation tech can definitely contribute to a powerful post production environment, but going forward I don't think there is nearly as much demand for the VT-style combined live/post product as there is need for well conceived dedicated solutions. My VT will continue to provide valuable SD functionality for a long time yet, but given a choice between A) a hypothetical 'VTXD' of some sort and B) a TC XD plus a free-standing post workstation (or laptop) with maybe SE, LW, a compositor and some affordable high end i/o hardware - my own choice would be "B". (If I really need to link my live and post systems, I can easily do it over a network).

PIZAZZ
05-30-2009, 11:29 AM
I can say with confidence that all of my clients excluding 1 would be perfectly happy with a rock solid live production tool. Post work should be done in, well, post.

Gone are the days where we have to try to do it all on one system. Computers are cheap and it is really painless to share storage/files to an editor's machine.

I see a TriCaster approach to HD much much more effective then a diy approach like the VT had. I look forward to not having stacks of hardware that aren't compatible with the VT card.

I applaud NewTek for designing a system on consistant known working hardware. Much better than people complaining about not being able to stick a card in a Dell or a Mac and expecting it to work while they surf their facebook page.

ted
05-30-2009, 01:16 PM
I gotta somewhat agree with Jef.
As much as I LOVE and brag about VT's all in one, full studio capabilities, it might be time to look at specific solutions for specific tasks.
Don't get me wrong, I would love to see VT6 be the same as VT5 but all HD.
But like Jef said, it would be a MUST that people bought a system built for it and nothing else.
That's why TriCaster can be as rock solid and do so much. Because it ain't built by regular guys that are also doing DVD authoring, lightwave and a multitude of other non-VT stuff.

SBowie
05-30-2009, 01:47 PM
I think we probably have a quorum; now, if this was a democracy ... ;)

Quiet1onTheSet
05-30-2009, 09:11 PM
I think we probably have a quorum; now, if this was a democracy ... ;)

Never had I imagined you guys becoming poster boys for championing the possible eclipse of the VideoToaster paradigm.

In a democracy, varying points of view ought to be welcome, right? Well, that said, I like your argument concerning the ease of combining live with post, via XD300, and the simple addition of yet another machine -- one that's smaller than a VT. Your point Steve, about integrating that, even via a network is compelling as well.

That said, I concur with Ted's somewhat acquiescence to what Jef conveyed. Still, like Ted, I'd like to see an HD VT system, largely because it would certainly be representative of more than just the addition of an increase in number of inputs vis a vis XD300.

It might be, Steve, that your minimalist approach to the subject relative to what you'd prefer in new hardware, has you temporarily forgetful regarding the integration between switcher and a good number of other tools in the VT toolset, beyond LiveSET, graphics and text. But because I count you amongst the most faithful of VT-user brethren, that's forgivable.
:)

PIZAZZ
05-30-2009, 11:03 PM
So Peter....

What I would love to know is this,
What is on a VT that is perceived as missing on what has been shown on the XD300?

Keeping in mind that a complete feature set for the XD300 has not been declared at this time.

One major difference that pretty much everyone admits is there are more video inputs on the VT and the XD300 has 3.

SBowie
05-31-2009, 05:58 AM
In a democracy, varying points of view ought to be welcome, rightAbsolutely (and not just in a democracy).


It might be, Steve, that your minimalist approach to the subject relative to what you'd prefer in new hardware, has you temporarily forgetful regarding the integration between switcher and a good number of other tools in the VT toolset, beyond LiveSET, graphics and text.To distill Jefs' question - like what (apart from the SX8 or SX84)?

Quiet1onTheSet
05-31-2009, 07:44 PM
So Peter....

What I would love to know is this,
What is on a VT that is perceived as missing on what has been shown on the XD300?

I can't answer that, having not seen XD300 just yet. But, Steve's representation of what he *doesn't* want, in a VT, is sending chills up mah'...

Well, let's just say I personally dislike the pared-down, less shiny, thin-slice Toaster he's advocating.

But since the feature-set is not yet final on the XD300, and since mah' bul' Steveo thinks more inputs is basically the advantage difference that VT has over XD300, it appears there really oughta' be a graphics tool as capable as Aura and Lightwave inside, to make it a more complete studio.

But this advantage is huge, for a good number of us VT users:
Uber flexibility and expansion possibilities, once we're inside the case.
:D
"But Wait! There's *More*..."

As one alarming example, Om'afraid Steve's shennanigans :D may even lead us down the path of missing out on the luxury of other programs' audio appearing on the virtual audio mixer...

SBowie
05-31-2009, 08:16 PM
You did say "beyond LiveSET, graphics and text", Peter ... so I set them aside. That said, while it's entirely possible to install LW or other graphics apps on a live system, I don't think there's a strong case for doing so. VT[5] doesn't include LW, and it really has no direct live application. I also doubt very many use Aura on the Switcher either. Do you?

As far as audio goes, I'd be interested in hearing examples of the use of audio from an external app in a live setting that can't be replicated fairly readily in one manner or another.

ScorpioProd
05-31-2009, 09:31 PM
I would also expect a TriCaster XD300, being that it is a TriCaster, to not encourage you to have other programs on it anyway.

As for a reason for Aura, (is Newtek even doing anything with Aura anymore?), telestrating is what some used to use it for in a LIVE situation, as I recall. I don't think the XD300 has an equivalent to that.

As for LW, it was encouraged for TriCaster users to do LW stuff, even 3D Arsenal, on another PC, as I recall.

Quiet1onTheSet
05-31-2009, 11:26 PM
I also doubt very many use Aura on the Switcher either. Do you?.
Wait. You did say, "...if this was a demacracy", didn't you? So why establish now, that scenario by such framing of the question, mate?
:hey:


As for a reason for Aura, (is Newtek even doing anything with Aura anymore?), telestrating is what some used to use it for in a LIVE situation, as I recall. I don't think the XD300 has an equivalent to that.

"S-s-s-core!" for you, Eugene.
:thumbsup:

SBowie
06-01-2009, 05:35 AM
Wait. You did say, "...if this was a demacracy", didn't you? So why establish now, that scenario by such framing of the question, mate?Peter, I've been arguing that - in future - separating live production from post production is sensible. Your proposal is for a 'next generation VT', a combined live/post platform. In that context you asserted (regarding XD300) that "there really oughta' be a graphics tool as capable as Aura and Lightwave inside". I am simply asking why. How is that undemocratic?


"S-s-s-core!" for you, Eugene.I don't imagine you would really think the Aura's telestrator capability didn't occur to me, do you Peter? I was long Aura's biggest fan, and can easily name a couple of other uses too.

However - the fact that you didn't do so suggests you don't actually use it yourself in a live setting (or surely you'd have thought of something). No shame in that ... as I mentioned, I really doubt many do. Nevertheless, it rather validates my point. (And for those who need an integrated telestrator, at the moment there's at least one very affordable dedicated solution).

Remember, I didn't bring up Aura and LW Peter - you did, with the obvious implication that their absence from XD300 somehow strengthens your case for a combined live/post platform. Yet LW isn't included with VT[5], and, as far as Aura goes, even even its most ardent fans seldom use it apart from post. So I'm still waiting for that compelling point you want to make that clearly demonstrates that a combined live/post approach is superior (and equally important, where customers for such a product would come from in sufficient numbers to make it profitable).

SBowie
06-01-2009, 05:41 AM
... telestrating is what some used to use it for in a LIVE situation, as I recall.I think I could probably fit everyone in North America who has done that often enough to know confidently how to set Aura up as a telestrator (without having to experiment or turn to the manual) into a minivan .... with room left over for a dozen TriCasters. ;)

Quiet1onTheSet
06-01-2009, 06:42 AM
For sure, Aura seems to have been the oft-overlooked stepchild in the VT toolset, but that may well be somewhat of a marketing style and training methodologies issue.

I suppose highly conspicuous, and easily accessible (read: from NewTek's home page),viewable and even downloadable training modules via the Web , might have gone a long way (by now), in stimulating greater interest and use of such powerful tools that've long been among their cool product offerings.

'Wonder if there might possibly be some further development for Aura, as an example -- to make it an even more compelling Swiss Army knife for the new, "unspecified" as of yet, XD platform, and to provide for some new, freely-accessible training content via the web, in the realm of up-to-date applications for Aura's use in the new century (what with the power of newer OSes and NewTek hardware/software tools we have going for us)...

Quiet1onTheSet
06-01-2009, 06:48 AM
I think I could probably fit everyone in North America who has done that often enough to know confidently how to set Aura up as a telestrator (without having to experiment or turn to the manual) into a minivan .... with room left over for a dozen TriCasters. ;)

Perhaps that's an example of what results when there hasn't been a constantly-growing freely accessible library of video training shorts, (as has been popularized by another media graphics software company one can think of) for owners and would-be purchasers (via "suite" or standalone) of a given creative production tool .

Hey, what'd'ya know -- there isn't even an Aura logo, within the Smiles box to my right! Not that one being there would've displaced the dozen TriCasters, to accommodate one more user in the cargo area of that hypothetical minivan!
:D

kleima
06-01-2009, 10:35 PM
I would be happy to give up my VT (and hopes of an HD VT) for the TriCaster XD300, except for one thing - price. Don't get me wrong, it is an awesome piece of equipment, and probably even the best price for the features in the industry. But, it is still expensive, and really in a different price bracket than the VT was. (Unless, of course, you bought a fully configured system several years back. I always built my own computers for the VT.)

The only other thing that I would have a hard time with is not being able to use other applications on the TriCaster.
I have all my applications from Adobe CS to Quickbooks on my VT machine, and it is highly efficient to be able to design a DVD menu in Photoshop, bring a still of it into VT, and then combine the rendered video from VT with the menu from Photoshop and author it in DVD lab Pro, burn a master, and invoice the client, all on the same machine. And, don't tell me that this would be just as easy by networking with the TriCaster!

Three HD inputs would be enough for me. But, the price is too much. If there was a very attractive upgrade path from the VT to the TriCaster XD300, I might even try to get over my issue of not having other applications on the TriCaster!

SBowie
06-02-2009, 05:39 AM
I have all my applications from Adobe CS to Quickbooks on my VT machine, and it is highly efficient to be able to design a DVD menu in Photoshop, bring a still of it into VT, and then combine the rendered video from VT with the menu from Photoshop and author it in DVD lab Pro, burn a master, and invoice the client, all on the same machine. And, don't tell me that this would be just as easy by networking with the TriCaster!You don't mention any live aspect in the workflow above, so I have to ask - could you not do all of that on a laptop or workstation with the same apps installed? Your Adobe suite, Photoshop, SE, etc., plus an i/o card supported by SE?


If there was a very attractive upgrade path from the VT to the TriCaster XD300, I might even try to get over my issue of not having other applications on the TriCaster!Just personal speculation, but I wouldn't be surprised to see something in that vein in due course - but not, I imagine, until XD300 is shipping (at the earliest). That said, it seems most HD hardware (from any mfr.) comes at a hefty cost, and XD300 looks to be competitively priced (it's not actually a lot more than many paid for their full-blown VT systems over the years). The current TC price guarantee seems like a way for some to get started in a 'phased' approach - pick up an SD TC now, make some money with it during the wait, then capitalize on the purchase when XD300 ships.

Quiet1onTheSet
06-02-2009, 02:34 PM
I would be happy to give up my VT (and hopes of an HD VT) for the TriCaster XD300, except for one thing - price. Don't get me wrong, it is an awesome piece of equipment, and probably even the best price for the features in the industry. But, it is still expensive, and really in a different price bracket than the VT was. (Unless, of course, you bought a fully configured system several years back. I always built my own computers for the VT.)

The only other thing that I would have a hard time with is not being able to use other applications on the TriCaster.

Thanks for your contribution to this discussion, kleima; I don't think simultaneous activity on the "Live" and "Post" side is as critical a need (or shall I say "desire", as at least being able to rock with solid applications on both side of the equation, and on the same machine.

That said, the VT paradigm of having both Live and Post accessible to the user, is indeed, a marvelous arrangement nonetheless.

"...But that's not all!"


It would be cool if you could have folders in the DDR and you could play a folder in selection mode. So lets say you could put three or more clips in a folder and you could then play that folder as if it was a signal clip and in the order that you put the clips in.

-patrick



The VT can do this. Haven't tried it in the TriCaster in a while.

Try dragging a folder from an open media file requester.

I used to do this like I said with VT but there was no control of the in/outs of the clips in the folder.

Another thing that I do with the VT to simplify what I believe you are trying to do is use VTEdit projects with the intended clips in the project. Alas the TriCaster does not allow this in order to prevent someone from trying to play a 40 layer project instead of rendering it to a flat file.




Tried it today... TC can't do it.

Would be nice if it could.

-patrick

'Looks like you fellas have hit on some more "sweet" advantages that the VT suite paradigm has over the phenomenal TriCaster!
:vticon:

SBowie
06-02-2009, 03:36 PM
It's only an advantage if it works. The reason it's not in TC is because it is somewhat risky to support this for live production. VT users are considered to be more ... adventurous. :)

Jim_C
06-02-2009, 05:15 PM
But, it is still expensive, and really in a different price bracket than the VT was.

If you were to build a system with enough horsepower to switch HD, add a VTpro card, an SX-84, and a LC-11 (all needed to match the VT with the TC), you would be at almost the exact same price point as the XD300.

ScorpioProd
06-02-2009, 09:31 PM
...plus an i/o card supported by SE?

Uh, is this something that exists as a third-party card or is coming? I assume you don't mean the current VT card. Personally, I think it would be great to see SE directly supporting something like the BlackMagic Intensity Pro.

SBowie
06-03-2009, 06:14 AM
Uh, is this something that exists as a third-party card or is coming?Since we were discussing a hypothetical standalone post-oriented system that would serve in place of a full-blow next generation VT (with XD systems taking care of the live HD market), it could be either of those, Eugene. (How the future will turn out remains to be seen, and would not be mine to reveal in any case.) :)

Quiet1onTheSet
06-03-2009, 01:43 PM
If you were to build a system with enough horsepower to switch HD, add a VTpro card, an SX-84, and a LC-11 (all needed to match the VT with the TC), you would be at almost the exact same price point as the XD300.
If you took the $2K USD LC-11 out of the equation, that comparison would be much less jaundiced, IMHO. Additionally, a system with enough horsepower to switch HD today, might not necessarily be as expensive as one might have us believe.

Not nit-pick'n. Om' jus' *sayin'*...
:hey:

jcupp
06-03-2009, 02:54 PM
I'm more than a little conflicted about this whole TriCaster vs. VT thing.

On one hand I like the VT because I can build custom machines for my customers, some want a portable, others want a rack mount, some like giant server cases with multi-terabytes of storage. Simple and easy with the VT. The TriCaster - not so much.

On the other hand TriCasters are easier to support. There functionality is more circumscribed so the user doesn't need as much help.

On the gripping hand the TriCaster's functionality is more circumscribed so the user has fewer options. Need three or four DDRs? - sorry. Want to run three monitors? - uh, no. Want a backup machine you can just throw the VT card into in an emergency? out o' luck.

My suggestions:

Build a Live set construction tool that is either a plugin for Photoshop or entirely standalone that will read PSD files. This is the only real reason anyone needs Aura anymore. (Steve and I may be the last two people who prefer Aura but I could live without it.)

Build an assortment of HD TriCasters, I'm pretty sure we'd be better served by fewer models without the confusing array of features than we have now. Four and eight inputs would really be better than three and six.

Develop a higher end VT like system for live production but only allow Elite Resellers (who presumably know what they're doing) build systems for it. This would compete directly with Broadcast Pix. NewTek could offer hardware packages (motherboard/graphics card) but let the reseller integrate the system so they can brand. And repair!

A HD VT really doesn't need that many more features than the TriCaster XD just more i/o and more flexibility. A more robust toaster script and skinning system would be a nice feature to allow for more customization. Sell all the post production software like Aura, Lightwave (3D Arsenal) and SpeedEDIT separately or as an add-on bundle.

Most of the reliability issues with the VT have always been mostly misconfigured systems from dealers who didn't put in the effort to get it right, end-users building machines from random parts or inadequate development on NewTek's part as there are bugs that are years old. So if NewTek were to build a serious and reliable switcher/virtual set system with an extended feature set there should be a market for it.

SBowie
06-03-2009, 03:24 PM
(Steve and I may be the last two people who prefer Aura but I could live without it.)Heresy! ;)

I do agree we need more/better LiveSet tools though/

Thing is that, from what I've seen, at the moment adding truckloads of features (more DDRs, etc.) to an XD class system just isn't feasible .. (and when it is, it will doubtless be done). I think attempts to 'open it up' VT-style likely wouldn't get you much more in terms of reliable functionality.

More inputs, yep, bring em on; rack mount, you bet ... proprietary skins for targeted applications, why not? But in a lot of ways I think NewTek is already pushing the boundaries of what can safely be done in realtime with current gen hdwe.

jcupp
06-03-2009, 03:50 PM
But you might have a user who needs cpu cycle hungry feature X but not cpu cycle hungry feature Y so they could make the trade off e.g. they don't use live sets but want to do the Bloomburg TV overlay bit (multiple crawls and scrolls and overlays of graphics).

The problem is that if the interface is simple enough to be easy to use by the neophyte may not be flexible enough for the power user. I will admit though the TriCaster XD's UI is a big improvement but the VT "scalable" interface makes the wholesale reconfiguring of the interface easier.

Fortunately?! by the time any VTish HD machine could possibly ship we'll be using the next gen hardware.

Quiet1onTheSet
06-03-2009, 08:44 PM
VT users are considered to be more ... adventurous. :)
With respect to the use of the currently available technology, I'll take that as another way of saying "VT users have the capacity to enjoy a much broader aspect of the card's capability, and hence, a significantly greater degree of freedom".
:hey:

By the way, Jeff Cupp, despite my having some reservations with some minor aspects, IMHO, your recent, eloquent commentary on this VT vs. TriCaster thread (reference: post #64), if not quite compelling, is refreshingly imaginative.:deal:

Quiet1onTheSet
06-03-2009, 08:47 PM
But you might have a user who needs cpu cycle hungry feature X but not cpu cycle hungry feature Y so they could make the trade off.
*That's* what *Om'* talkin' about! :beerchug:
...and consciously or not, isn't that trade-off effected on any given day, by most TriCaster users?

Even a mere allusion to that obvious dichotomy is conspicuously absent in our buddy Steve's ardent defense of his half-baked :D proposition for a stripped-down Toaster.

SBowie
06-03-2009, 09:00 PM
I'll take that as another way of saying "VT users have the capacity to enjoy a much broader aspect of the card's capability, and hence, a significantly greater degree of freedom".Here's another way to take it: a preponderance of VT users come from an Amiga heritage. Almost to a man (and the occasional woman), they are a breed apart - technically astute, imaginative, experienced, generous with their knowledge, etc., etc. Such hardy souls are the sort that can generally make intelligent use of a complex toolbox such as that provided VT. (Unfortunately, we don't live in a world with a large population of such individuals.)

SBowie
06-03-2009, 09:08 PM
Even a mere mention of that obvious dichotomy is conspicuously absent in Steve's ardent defense of his stripped-down Toaster.If it's so obvious, funny you didn't bring it up Peter. ;)

Don't get me wrong - for me personally, and probably a number of others (possibly reaching high into the double digits) an open-ended toolbox like VT is a thing of beauty.

But imho that approach is never going to turn numbers anything like those necessary to justify the effort. And that effort would be a long, long way from trivial. There'd be a lot more to it than plunking another skin on XD300 - the marketing effort alone would take substantial resources, never mind documentation, engineering, testing - and the small matter of support. Tens of thousands of decisions to make and implement .... and only a very small market segment who would thank you for it.

Quiet1onTheSet
06-03-2009, 09:09 PM
[QUOTE=SBowie;890182]If it's so obvious, funny you didn't bring it up Peter. ;)

Because my bringing it up could not have made it more obvious, than it already was.:twak:

SBowie
06-03-2009, 09:10 PM
My bringing it up would not have made it more obvious, than it already was.Nice try .. :twak:

Quiet1onTheSet
06-03-2009, 09:14 PM
and only a very small market segment who would thank you for it.For an XD based VT "Ultimate"? I should not even think to claim credit for such a monumental achievement! :tsktsk:

But such doom and gloom in your VT reminiscing and prognostication sends chills up my spine.:rock:


Don't get me wrong - for me personally, and probably a number of others (possibly reaching high into the double digits) an open-ended toolbox like VT is a thing of beauty.

(Is he kiddin'? I can hardly believe it's him!)

Steve-o! Come back!!

(Hey! Somebody get out the smellin' salts...)

Quick! How many fingers do I have up, Steve. :rock: Steve?!

:)

kleima
06-04-2009, 12:55 PM
Steve,

It's true I didn't mention much about live, because most of what I do at the moment is post (although, I did mention that 3 cameras would be enough for me). However, I am gearing up to do almost exclusively live shoots in a controlled studio setting, for awhile. The laptop idea, with I/O has long been a contemplation. I almost did that when Pizazz had such an option right before version 5 increased bandwidth to the point it was not feasible over PCMCIA.
However, having post and live in the same box would be a significant appeal to me. Maybe opening up the possibility of installing additional software (not hardware) on the TriCaster boxes that had been approved for compatibility would be the solution. I'm sure this would be somewhat of a burden, or risk, but I also know that many in the BETA testing catagory would be happy to help test such programs on the TriCaster and report their results/ recommendations. After all, once you a done with a live shoot, it has to be authored, and the packages has to be designed, etc., many times on location. I know this could all be accomplished on a laptop, but it still adds steps that take time, (like transferring the files, etc.) and requires more equipment to be carted along.

Jim, et. al.,

I know that if you add all the components up over the years (and I
don't have them all), the price is about the same, but that's part of the point - with the VT you could get the components as needed or as they could be afforded, which is what I did. With the XD300, the whole lump is upfront.
Also, the pricing of the original Toaster was record breaking, as to do anything close, at the time. would have cost $100's of thousands. Now, although there is no product that can do quite what the TriCaster can do all in one box, there are products in the same, or even less price range that can do many of these functions. Serious Magic's Ultra 2 does virtual sets (albeit in post) with many more sets and features, for a lot less money (and I don't know there exact status since being swallowed up by Adobe), and Focus Enhancements does HD switching for $11K. So, though the TriCaster itself is a groundbreaking, amazing product, and I really wouldn't buy any of those other products instead, the price (particularly the XD300), while certainly fair, is not as ground breaking and revolutionary as price of the Toaster was. I know this is many years later, with inflation and so on. But, when the Toaster was first introduced it was literally the least expensive solution on the market. Soon, there were many products that could do many of the things the Toaster/VT could do, for around $500. The "Toaster"/VT was no longer the least expensive. Vegas, for example could do everything and more (except live switching) for a tenth the price. Fortunately NT remedied that somewhat with the release of SE in the same price range. So, despite inflation, technology-type products have generally gone down by large amounts, rather than inflating.
I love Newtek and their products, and I think they are the best. I want them to succeed, and am not blaming them for the price they chose. But, although, NBC who is used to paying $100's of K's for such things probably gasped at how low the price was, those of us who could never have entered the business originally without Newtek's products, held our breaths at the price. You know what I mean.
Anyway, just some of my thoughts on the subject.

ScorpioProd
06-04-2009, 01:13 PM
I think it's also worth considering that the existing Newtek market may not be the target for the XD300 (or 3PLAY) anyway. Newtek is considerably more upscale than they used to be.

As pointed out, though the XD300 is much cheaper than "traditional" solutions that do the same thing, there are other alternatives close to its functionality close or even cheaper than its price. No, they can't do everything it can do, but...

SBowie
06-04-2009, 01:19 PM
Understood. I'm a garage door haywire and G-clamp budget kinda guy myself, so I sympathize. That said, in the event that a (very) hypothetical 'VTXD' solution were ever prepared, it hardly seems very likely that it would be in the price range of the original VT. So considering just cost, the modularity argument carries some weight, but maybe some of the other points are influenced by nostalgia for the more pocketbook friendly SD days?

That said, back then putting a VT together seemed like a major investment (for me personally, doing so again today would still be a big deal). I think part of the trick to accomplishing that sort of thing is taking advantage of specials, but much more importantly, letting the work pay for the hdwe. to the greatest extent possible. Again, I think the current 'buy now, trade up later' deal poses a good way to do that. Hard to say whether or not some VT trade-up program might come along later - I really do hope so.

SBowie
06-04-2009, 01:21 PM
No, they can't do everything it can do, but...Competition is a good thing. :)

ACross
06-04-2009, 04:36 PM
As pointed out, though the XD300 is much cheaper than "traditional" solutions that do the same thing, there are other alternatives close to its functionality close or even cheaper than its price. No, they can't do everything it can do, but...

I do not want to wade into the wider issue and subject of this thread that I have found a very interesting read however I do not personally agree with this statement.

It is true that if you just need basic switching or titling or a DDR you probably should can do it cheaper, but if you need a production system that does more than two of more of those things it is an amazing deal. Its the fact that a TC (or VT) is a system that integrates a lot of components together into one system, at an amazing price (probably the cost of one individual component) that is it's compelling feature, not that it is the cheapest way to get one of them.

Andrew

ps. Ultra is to LiveSets what Premiere is to a Switcher. LiveSets are real-time and can be used in live production with very quick set up; Ultra is very much a post system ... Its very cool, but a different beast. Just take a quick walk around NAB and you can amuse yourself by going and looking at what typical Virtual Set systems will set you back ... In some cities a house would cost you less.

billmi
06-04-2009, 08:12 PM
LiveSet - it's cheaper than a house, unless it's a really crappy house.

ScorpioProd
06-04-2009, 08:59 PM
LiveSets are great if you need them, no doubt about that.

But just as some people only wanted SpeedEDIT to be an unbundled VT-EDIT with HD support added, I'm sure there are users that need a switcher in the traditional sense that just adds HD support. Especially if the cost is significantly less.

As Steve said, competition is good. :)

ACross
06-05-2009, 09:06 AM
Once again, not really hitting the core of the thread, but maybe some useful information ...

The bandwidth and processing requirements of HD are about 6x that required by SD. For many of us here it just "seems natural" that computers today should be fast enough to do all of this Live production on a modern computer because VT has done it for some time. That is however not anywhere near as simple as it sounds ... you have to imagine that for whatever feature set that you need with VT that you would be able to run 6 copies of it at once, all in real-time, on the same machine in order to do that same thing in HD.

My point is that although computers that run VT are pretty easy to build these days, finding ones that are consistently ~6x faster than that in all areas is not. It is not enough for instance that the CPU is six times faster (difficult but not impossible on the more expensive dual CPU machines), but memory needs to be as well (MUCH more difficult), as do drives, chip-set, bus, path to GPU, etc...

I hope this puts XD300 and what it does in a slightly different light.

Andrew

billmi
06-05-2009, 09:36 AM
To me, at least, that puts it in the light of the VTNT days.

Although computers that run VT[5] well are easy to build today, computers that ran VTNT well were not when it was new. Just setting up a drive array to reliably deliver video was an exercise in coltroller and drive selection as well as configuration. I'm sure there are many of us on the VT side (the types that Steve mentioned - My first look at an original Video Toaster was while I worked for Commodore) who would expect those same kind of configuration and set-up challenges going into VTHD territory.

Steve hit the nail on the head though - the VT die-hards are a relatively small group. Although a super VTHD sounds great to us, that doesn't mean its potential sales levels would be high enough to justify development cost. Fully configured systems with locked down, less configurable interfaces (i.e. Tricasters) have shown themselves to sell much better than the more powerful, more configurable, yet more complex to set-up VTs.

I would hope though, that even if a VTHD system is not developed, that won't be the death-knell of advancement for the VT. We've already seen trickle-down for Tricaster, as LiveSets came out for high-end models, and then became available in a software update for Tricaster Pro. I expect we will probably see similar trickle-down from XD300 to the Tricaster line for things that can be handled by Tricaster CPUs and won't depend on HD I/O hardware (pan/scan/zoom LiveSet capability comes to mind.)

With the shared code-base we've heard so much about, I would expect bringing those features from the Tricaster line to a future VT update would require a tiny fraction of the development effort needed for a VT incarnation running on XD hardware.

SBowie
06-05-2009, 09:39 AM
With the shared code-base we've heard so much about, I would expect bringing those features from the Tricaster line to a future VT update would require a tiny fraction of the development effort needed for a VT incarnation running on XD hardware.Considering that SE and LT also lie at the heart of all of our major products lines, I think you are exactly right to anticipate that worthwhile advancements 'seep' into the whole family as they individually move forward, Bill.

PIZAZZ
06-05-2009, 04:56 PM
Thank you Andrew for sharing that information. I have been biting my lip for the last few days. :) I suspected this was the situation but didn't want to overstep anyone.

Looking forward to hearing and seeing more about the TriCaster XD300. I have clients licking their lips in anticipation. Many of those clients are VT Clients too. The consensus from my internal client poll is that as long as there is some kind of upgrade discount for VT owners there are going to be lots of XD300s sold. Not every VT owner wants to build another system. I believe it would be a limited few.

Slapdash
06-07-2009, 03:55 PM
Glad to see so much discussion kick up around this topic.

So from reading between the lines, it's clear that a VT HD is not in the works for 09. Please say nothing if this is true. :hey:

Understanding that, the Newtek upgrade path for those of us needing HD in 09 is the XD300. While not a Tricaster user, I'm not opposed to becoming one. At the end of the day, I'm more interested in a production solution that works (and works well) as opposed to holding out for the plethora of options that the VT affords me.

That only leaves one question for my use case. How many HD inputs will the XD300 support for live production? I personally need more than 3 as I shoot with 5 at the present time. Andrew threw out the number six many times up above as a technical challenge so I'm hoping that's the number of inputs Newtek is targeting with the product. Has that number been communicated yet?

Rich Deustachio
06-07-2009, 09:52 PM
I just came from a job in Delaware at Delaware University and they had a Sony live HD switching system that was switching 6 live HD inputs.

I asked the guy how many inputs they can switch and he said depends on how many cards they put in the system. I asked him how much the system configured the was it was with 6 inputs and he said around $11,000.

Although it was a very tall box, it was still a computer based system with HD input cards.

Jim_C
06-09-2009, 04:53 PM
configured the was it was with 6 inputs and he said around $11,000.
.

He was misinformed. Sony doesn't have a single HD switching system that even starts at 11k.

http://pro.sony.com/bbsc/ssr/cat-switchersdandrouters/cat-switchers/

Adam_LightPlay
06-09-2009, 07:03 PM
I can't believe I'm saying this, but I could move beyond the VT if the XD300 ...

Gave me several choices of format to live record to. The TriCaster 2.0 MPEG is kludgy and less dependable. I miss Speed HQ. I've had two hour recordings, with an hour 45 of audio. I've had clips that go gray for no reason. I think I once had clips with the audio out of sync. And I had the D: drive just seem to get tired and poop out and stop recording without telling me. (Yes, this has been with several different TriCaster 2.0 and 2.5's.

Other fairly important feature I hope NewTek will port over to the XD family are:
Support for multiple monitors and custom GUI layout, and more than 3 video inputs

Rich Deustachio
06-09-2009, 07:41 PM
He was misinformed. Sony doesn't have a single HD switching system that even starts at 11k.

http://pro.sony.com/bbsc/ssr/cat-switchersdandrouters/cat-switchers/

Well maybe it wasn't made by Sony (they did have lots of Sony equipment in the room), but I did see the large black box (5 feet tall way bigger than the XD300) and it had 6 live HD camera inputs showing and they were switching it and overlaying titles etc. I don't know what card he meant when he said they just add another card for more inputs, but I did see the six working.

You can contact University of Delaware audio video department and find out what they were using because that's who owned the system. I really didn't have a lot of time to talk to them or look at it any more than a quick look. I wasn't there doing video work, I was doing my other entertainment business, Dance Heads.

SBowie
06-10-2009, 06:12 AM
I can't believe I'm saying this, but I could move beyond the VT if the XD300 ...Gave me several choices of format to live record to.Adam, if you run into specific issues with the MPEG2 captures from TC, please be sure to report them to Fogbugz.

Blairness
06-12-2009, 10:08 AM
He was misinformed. Sony doesn't have a single HD switching system that even starts at 11k.

http://pro.sony.com/bbsc/ssr/cat-switchersdandrouters/cat-switchers/

The BRS-200 on that page is under 11k...? Although that doesn't fit Rich's description...

Rich Deustachio
06-12-2009, 10:39 AM
I wish I had time to take a picture of it with my phone.

It could have been a custom made unit.

kleima
06-12-2009, 05:34 PM
Focus Enhancements HX-1 - (4) SD/HD-SDI inputs & (6) HD-SDI outputs: $7,675

Focus Enhancements HX-2 - (8) SD/HD-SDI inputs & (7) SD/HD-SDI outputs:
$15,300

Quiet1onTheSet
06-16-2009, 09:16 AM
I think it's also worth considering that the existing Newtek market may not be the target for the XD300 (or 3PLAY) anyway. Newtek is considerably more upscale than they used to be...

What'chu tryin' ta' *say*? We who comprise of the existing NewTek market, are on a lower rung of some imagined, technological totem pole, than, say, Fox Sports?

Such heresy!
:ohmy:

Interestingly, they and others in the broadcast arena have come to embrace our tools as being capable of aiding their watching the bottom line: something most of us have had to do all along.

In fact, increasingly widespread availability of NewTek's VideoToaster technology has always been about facilitating the leveling of that above-referenced, old-school paradigm!

csandy
06-16-2009, 10:28 AM
Once again, not really hitting the core of the thread, but maybe some useful information ...

The bandwidth and processing requirements of HD are about 6x that required by SD. For many of us here it just "seems natural" that computers today should be fast enough to do all of this Live production on a modern computer because VT has done it for some time. That is however not anywhere near as simple as it sounds ... you have to imagine that for whatever feature set that you need with VT that you would be able to run 6 copies of it at once, all in real-time, on the same machine in order to do that same thing in HD.
Andrew

I'm not a software engineer or computer scientist, so you'll have to explain this to me. Your statement seems to defy logic, but that's probably because I don't understand the technical details.

Here's what I'm having trouble wrapping my head around:

The XD300 is HD and allows you to switch three sources.
The TriCaster is SD and allows you to switch three sources.

The XD300 is built on a PCI-E customized card installed in a modified microATX computer.
The TriCaster is built on a PCI customized card installed in a modified microATX computer.

The XD300 PCI-E card in theory could be installed in any compatible computer.
The TriCaster PCI card in theory could be installed in any compatible computer.

Now.... given that the computers housing the XD300 and the TriCaster are nothing special (though expertly sourced and configured) I have difficulty seeing why the product concepts for the XD300 would be any different than that for the TriCaster/VT line.

Logic dictates that if the computer that hosts the XD300 is powerful enough to provide switching, streaming, customizable GUI etc, then a VT-like option in an even more power full sized computer would allow at very least the base fuctionality of the XD300.

Following this same logical, a more powerful system would allow for more flexible options, just as the VT allows more flexibility in confirguration than the current TriCaster line.

Maintaining this logic, if you were to add a router like the current SX-3, SX-6, or SX-84 to the system, it would allow the systm to handle many more than 3 HD inputs.

From your posting, it suggest that for the XD300 to be a, say XD600 with with a 6 input switcher, the computation power of the host PC would have to double or increase by 100%. This seems to defy logic and must be me misreading your post.

Now, I do understant Bill's post on why a VTXD would not make business sense for NewTek, but I don't get the technical reasoning.

For us grunts that don't hold a Ph.D. in anything can you please explain why a high definition VT would be difficult to produce at a reasonable price point?

Quiet1onTheSet
06-16-2009, 12:40 PM
:rolleyes: Those questions you've just asked, CSandy were in the back of my mind. 'Hope some qualified, bright, and knowledgeable whippersnapper is able to answer them.

Some other questions, fairly early in this thread have remained unanswered. Not sure if this is deliberate.


(Modified)
Q1. Would we likely be required to have a motherboard with dual PCIe x16 slots, if we were to have the opportunity to configure a VT system with a NewTek I/O card that's based on the XD300: one for the NewTek Hi-Def video card -- and the other for a PCIe graphics card?

Q2. Is the TriCaster XD300, as is currently configured, housed in a box with two x16 PCIe slots?

Q3. Does/Will the NewTek IO card in the XD300 serve also, as the system graphics card? If not,

Q4. Will the XD300 system utilize the system's graphics card GPU to aid in completing heavy, computational tasks?
:question:[/B]

PIZAZZ
06-16-2009, 01:27 PM
:rolleyes: Those questions you've just asked, CSandy were in the back of my mind. 'Hope some qualified, bright, and knowledgeable whippersnapper is able to answer them.

Some other questions, fairly early in this thread have remained unanswered. Not sure if this is deliberate.

Peter,

I believe you are asking questions that don't necessarily need to be answered in a public forum. There are competitors among us. It doesn't make sense to be too open about what magic is inside the little magic box.

CSandy, your questions are fair though for those of us building hardware, the questions are somewhat simplistic.


I am sure Andrew can elaborate more on this but here goes:

The current VT and TriCaster PCI card only processes 3 video analog to digital conversions so that is why you only can get 3 preview inputs on the TriCasters. You refer to a "router" to interface more inputs. I am sure this would be possible in some fashion but it would not give you the Live input monitoring that most people expect now. Remember how upset TC users were on the Studio and Broadcast because you could not see all 6 inputs at once.

As Andrew mentioned, there is only X amount of bandwidth available on the current generation of hardware. Processing multiple HD streams at once is not as trivial as you make it out to be. You are not only switching those HD inputs at 6 times the bandwidth of SD, you are also processing each input to the onscreen preview, you are processing each input through a live set, and recording all of this at one time in 4th HD stream. Remember these HD inputs are being processed in 32bit floating point color space. There is no other product doing this or close to it.

This is quite a bit of overhead to manage. I am sure there will be better hardware as time goes on. That is without a doubt. The capabilities of the XD line should improve with that hardware advancement. Reminds me of the good ol days doing uncompressed SD video on the VTNT platform.

csandy
06-16-2009, 08:50 PM
CSandy, your questions are fair though for those of us building hardware, the questions are somewhat simplistic.


Thanks Pizazz. Your balun products are indeed innovative and you have saved a number of users lots of money in reducing cabling costs by using inexpensive Cat5.

By your reasoning we shouldn't expect to see an XDnnn with more than three inputs or more than 3 previews any time soon. This would be a deal breaker and a product killer in my humble opinion.

If that's not what you meant, then you're missing my logic I think.

You do make a valid point with the TriCaster STUDIO and BROADCAST however. I wouldn't mind having 6 live previews on my BROADCASTs, but they don't, so I use real monitors instead. That's a limitation I live with to use the other great features of that particular machine. NewTek when developing the product I gather made the correct assertion that I and similarly situated users would still buy one even though this limitation exists.

Perhaps a similar decision will be made in future products.

And it's not a bad management decision. Where the current HD product falls short is when you compare it to other similarly priced HD switchers. These HD switchers do not have the same bells and whistles as the TriCaster, but they do the basic job of switching the desired number of cameras for larger productions.

My guess is those who opt for models beyond the TriCaster PRO in large part do so because they need more inputs and would rather not have to roll with a stand-alone switcher and the TriCaster as well. I'm guessing similar decisions will be made when making HD purchasing decisions in the coming months.

It'll be interesting to look back at this thread in 18 months.

PIZAZZ
06-16-2009, 09:52 PM
Thanks Pizazz. Your balun products are indeed innovative and you have saved a number of users lots of money in reducing cabling costs by using inexpensive Cat5.

Thanks. I appreciate your comments.



By your reasoning we shouldn't expect to see an XDnnn with more than three inputs or more than 3 previews any time soon. This would be a deal breaker and a product killer in my humble opinion.

If that's not what you meant, then you're missing my logic I think. .
I believe the XD300 is the first of many variations of the HD product line. It may be a little while before we see a 6 or more input version.




You do make a valid point with the TriCaster STUDIO and BROADCAST however. I wouldn't mind having 6 live previews on my BROADCASTs, but they don't, so I use real monitors instead. That's a limitation I live with to use the other great features of that particular machine. NewTek when developing the product I gather made the correct assertion that I and similarly situated users would still buy one even though this limitation exists.


I agree with you here without a doubt. Glad to hear you are also a Broadcast owner that has felt the pain and found a workable solution. Coming from a VT, I am used to switching with one hand on the preview bus toggling those camera inputs. The TriCaster Pro spoiled me with those input monitors. Not having them on the Studio/Broadcast just made me find a monitoring solution via hardware. It was not the end of the world but to some people it is. I am one of those people also that would be glad to give up the onscreen monitors if I had a choice of more HD inputs. I would just rather have the inputs available. I could care less about the onscreen monitoring. :) (strictly Jef's opinion)
Now for my clients, I would love to transition my VT clients and some of my higher end TriCaster clients into a HD TriCaster XD300 but the number of inputs will keep me from being able to do that. Some of those clients depend on the onscreen preview monitoring completely, some other clients just need a bunch of inputs.

Like I said earlier though, with the speed of computer hardware increasing on a daily basis, there is no way to truly estimate what the future holds.

Quiet1onTheSet
06-17-2009, 12:56 AM
Peter,

I believe you are asking questions that don't necessarily need to be answered in a public forum. There are competitors among us.


That's reasonable, Jef. I just wanted to push a bit, just in case it was OK to hear how many PCIe busses are in the current incarnation of XD300.

Also, your layman's explanation in response to CSandy's concerns about the heavy throughput requirements for a PC system suitable for XD300 technology is admirable.

On a side note, I suspect CSandy and others among us are somewhat fixated on the idea that the technology could still easily serve a good number of endusers, if it were to be made available for use in a VT form factor, with additional benefits -- even if those don't include more input switching, in the initial release.

SBowie
06-17-2009, 06:32 AM
I think the point csandy is making is that:

if '>3 input' SD TC's and VT's based on a 3 input card be made, why couldn't an XD-generation VT (>3 inputs) work following the same approach?
further, if we can envision a TriCaster XD model with >3 inputs, can the case not be made that an identically-hosted 'VT-XD' should be viable?


...although computers that run VT are pretty easy to build these days, finding ones that are consistently ~6x faster than that in all areas is not. It is not enough for instance that the CPU is six times faster (difficult but not impossible on the more expensive dual CPU machines), but memory needs to be as well (MUCH more difficult), as do drives, chip-set, bus, path to GPU, etc...As I read it, Andrew's remark isn't stating that a 'VT-XD' is technically impossible. Rather, it suggests that we are aggressively pushing the boundaries of current hardware, that some could easily underestimate to what degree - and the impact this has on the discussion.

Given the demands, assume that the requirements for such a system as the one proposed (both hardware and software) would be very restrictive. Rather than offering 'suggested host specifications', the only way for NewTek to assure satisfactory and reliable performance (from both an end-user standpoint and a tech support one) might well be to ship the system as a complete* unit.


* NOTE: This is not to suggest some dealers (and even some individuals) would be incapable of preparing such a system, as in the past - but many would not, and much trouble could ensue.


Consider then, that we might well need prepare this mythical beast as a complete system. In that case, many of the presumed advantages of the 'VT approach' disappear (e.g., no savings resulting from home-built kits), and new issues come into play. Even setting that aside, what pros remain?

possibly a little more flexibility in UI configuration and functionality (i.e., the user being free choose to trade off one function for another as some have suggested, since we're assuming we are always making nearly full utilization of resources)
some might argue that there would still be a little more extensibility, but I suspect the host case would be jammed pretty tightly, and that some internal additions would be ruled out as potential conflicts anyway.
making Peter and possibly a few dozen others very happy (though not as happy as they might have been prior to realizing they can't just drop an ''XD board' and VT software into the 8-core system they got from Santa)


It's been interesting to follow this discussion, but my own answer to csandy's earlier query would have been as follows:


You're probably right on several counts. Technically, it likely could be done. To do it, though, some of VT's legendary software flexibility might have to be sacrificed; and it might well be that the only way to ensure adequate consistency in the majority of cases would be for NewTek to ship complete systems. There is also the fact that we would have to expect such a system to retail for more than a comparable TriCaster - not less.

When you consider these ramifications and the 'VT' system that is left after considering them, we're basically talking about a slightly jetted up TriCaster XD - more inputs, and more flexibility. But I'm here to tell you that XD is already a lot more flexible and powerful than any VT you've ever seen. And that we haven't even seen 'XD 1.0' yet. And that it seems obvious that later XD models and software releases will add to both XD's ability and number of inputs.

I have to say that, considering the possible advantages (and sales) up against against the costs of development, marketing and support, I just don't see any justification for NewTek to pursue such a design. Viewed differently, you might even state it as "A next generation >3 input HD VT' would effectively be a TriCaster XDx00!"

I think you were right on when you wrote "Now, I do understant Bill's post on why a VTXD would not make business sense for NewTek".

And now, the inevitable disclaimer - all of the above is my personal 2 cents as a long-time VT enthusiast, and nothing more than that, It does not represent NewTek policy, official or otherwise.


p.s. - I don't think a better live solution can be contrived than by continuing down the TriCaster XD path. I think the best solution for those VT users who need an HD solution is a generous upgrade path, and I hope that happens when the time is right. Given past practice, I even hope that such an opportunity would be ongoing, not a 'act now or forget it' kind of things ... so that those who want to wait for a model with more inputs (and who don't absolutely need HD switching immediately) are comfortable biding their time.

Quiet1onTheSet
06-17-2009, 07:51 AM
I think the best solution for those VT users who need an HD solution is a generous upgrade path, and I hope that happens when the time is right. Given past practice, I even hope that such an opportunity would be ongoing, not a 'act now or forget it' kind of things ... so that those who want to wait for a model with more inputs (and who don't absolutely need HD switching immediately) are comfortable biding their time.[/INDENT]
Ahhhhhh. You've got my enthusiastic vote on that, Steve. There's yet a "VT Enthusiast" within you, for sure.
:beerchug:

But I take issue with the notion that only a few dozen people besides myself, would be "happy" with a VTHDx00.
:heart:

And as for the impression that slapping an XDx00 card into an 8 core machine, being met with disappointment -- again, there may well be aspects of that system that perform in such a way, that the benefits outweigh the "disappointments".

Not too far removed from the situation that had been experienced with the current generation of VT hardware. (Granted, we'd have to face that 6x performance hurdle for multiple subsystems within the host PC.)

As for the extra inputs scenario needing to have previews for each -- we VTers are a hearty bunch, willing to put up with hardware support for one preview/alpha feed to an external monitor, without *any* ISO previews, if it yields providing us more available "umph" along critical paths within in the system.

But Jef's discussion on that ISO preview issue is more fitting for TriCaster users. That's due in part to NewTek's wowwing the masses from the very beginning, with the initial video press release and NAB demos for TriCaster TC-100. What a beautiful sight it was, to see those little previews dotting the TriCaster GUI, along with all those other on-screen hardware-replication, Live Production goodies!
:tongue:

SBowie
06-17-2009, 08:33 AM
And as for the impression that slapping an XDx00 card into an 8 core machine, being met with disappointment -- again, there may well be aspects of that system that perform in such a way, that the benefits outweigh the "disappointments".:tongue:So you'd be ok with a 'VT-XD' that you had to buy as a complete system then? And which cost more than a similar TC-XD? And, in that scenario, what do you suppose it would give you that the (similarly-kitted) XD did not?



But Jef's discussion on that ISO preview issue is more fitting for TriCaster users.I agree that ISO monitors in the UI are very nice to have, for many reasons. I'm pleased that the XD as currently viewed has them, but also allows the user to switch to other UI monitor configs simply by clicking a tab.

csandy
06-17-2009, 09:14 AM
Thanks Steve,

That's right on the money. As you likely know, I'm a VT and a TriCaster user so this thread is of particular interest to me. Great comments.

You are more than likely correct. I've also been a long time Media 100 user (actually, now that you have me thinking about it, I've used just about every major system. Some of them are piled up in my garage and I shudder to think the number of Porches I could have bought instead of them.... 8~).

Media 100 had a very detailed "compatible peripherals list" that must have been hideously expensive for them to maintain. There were quite a few options and vendors you could use to build the host PC. There were also very well written documentation on the optimal configurations of the PC itself and SCSI host cards. As a word smith, their old documentation is worth a look - extremely well crafted. Unfortunately their product was not as well crafted as the docs, and if I were to choose, I'd have it the other way around.

ACross
06-17-2009, 10:25 AM
There are a good number of questions in the thread above that I might be able to help with.

First of all, I should probably highlight that we simply have not announced a version of VT that might support HD. This does not mean that we have announced that there will not be one.

I have highlighted in previous posts that HD is still quite a challenge on current computer systems. It is absolutely possible that one could build a system that could do it (as we have with XD300) however it is also very hard currently to make a product that would reliably run on a large number of possible motherboards, graphics cards, memory controllers, etc...

Something that we have learned over the years is that reliability is important in live production and achieving this when very close to the maximum capability of a computer system is very difficult. It is entirely possible that you might build a system that works reliably for hours at a time but then it drops a frame that is caused because your memory inserted a wait-state, or your PCIe controller does not support burst packets of the correct lengths, or your network controller holds onto the bus for to long, etc... These things are not at all easy to diagnose or understand and require significant R&D to test and build reliable systems.

A number of people has asked what specific technologies we use in our new architecture. I would prefer not to answer this given that there is very significant propriety technical information. Suffice to say that in order to pull of what we do, we use almost every component of the computer to it's maximum capability and in some clever ways.

As a final, conceptual note, I would highlight that XD300 is not simply an HD version of TC (which is why it is not called TC HD). In practice it is quite a different product that reflects the things that we have done right - and wrong - over the past ten years. In terms of functionality it is actually much closer to VT than TC.

Correct me if I am wrong, but it seems that when people on this thread are asking for VT, what they really want is a "DIY system" more than a particular product feature-set.

Andrew

kdkuntz
06-17-2009, 11:14 AM
From my perspective, and from comments made by my customers, it's not a DYI issue - they aren't doing it themselves, they're having us build their systems.

There is a bit of an anspect to that, however. With a VT system if a better graphics card, faster CPU, larger hard drive comes along, we can upgrade the unit. With TriCasters we are not offered that option even from NewTek. I don't think even my least savvy customers don't realize that the TriCaster is a computer and they know that computers frequently need to be upgraded to take advantage of new features. The cost to upgrade hardware is generally less than buying a whole new unit. In many cases they don't need more inputs so upgrading say from a TC Pro to a TC Studio isn't really necessary in their minds. With a VT they know that upgrading hardware is a simple task. I* know that the TC Pro units we receive now have different hardware in them than they did when they first started shipping. NewTek could have control of the upgrade hardware and offer this as an option if they wanted to.

The main reason our customers are still buying the VT is for the scalability and features. I'll use one of my current customers as an example. He travels areound the country doing a wide variety of productions. He has one of our more portable VT units. He has plenty of inputs tohandle whatever he needs for the situation. He has a full audio mixer so he down't have to travel with a mixer. He (successfully)uses the CG live and he has other programs for business and creating graphics, etc. on the machine sohe doesn't need to travel with yet another computer for his production work. It is truly a 'studio in a box' as the VT was originally promoted. The TriCaster solution would require more components for him to drag around and that just doesn't appeal to him.

He came to NAB to look at the new HD technology. He liked it but made it very clear that he wasn't interested in an 'appliance', he wanted a computer system. He also can't work with only 3 inputs so the XD300 is not in his future. He was planning to go HD by the end of this year. I've been trying to hold him off, but ... .

He's not the only customer I have who feels this way.

A built by NewTek TriCaster Ultimate (what we like to call the VT) would be fine for him if it had a more scalable interface, the Windows Desktop was easier to get to and work with and ithad upgrade potential for hardware. Yes, this means potentially differnt skins but the way the skinage looked on the XD300 (which already seems much less cluttered and easier to deal with) it might not be that big a deal.

I agree with Dr. Cross - the interface and feature set that we saw in the XD was much closer to a VT and that's good. I didn't see any audio so I'm sure that's still being worked on and I'm hoping it's at least a bit more full featured than the current TriCaster line, even if it's not a full mixer. (Audio follow video and some ability for scenes, please?)

The big issue for my TriCaster Sudio, Broadcast and VT users is more inputs. If they only wanted 3 they would have purchased a TC Pro. I think they'd be okay with not being able to see all of them (that's a cool upgrade option, yes?) but more is necessary. the question then is how longwill it take for computer bus technology to advance to what NewTek needs to support this.

I hope really really quickly!

Kris @ Digital Arts

SBowie
06-17-2009, 11:44 AM
Hi Kris. :)


The TriCaster solution would require more components for him to drag around and that just doesn't appeal to him.I have to ask - why? Setting aside the number of inputs, what is missing on an XD (as we know it so far that he would be able to use on a VT. I'm not being facetious - I am well aware of your experience and am really interested in your view. From where I sit, again ignoring for now the matter of an SX-84, it seems quite the opposite. That is, that VT requires a lot more to be dragged around than does any TC, including XD300.


He liked it but made it very clear that he wasn't interested in an 'appliance', he wanted a computer system.It's hard for me to take this argument to heart. What, he wants a bigger case? A DVD drive? Something taller? More drives? Any and all of that sort of thing is easily managed externally, but I suppose someone could put the guts of an XD into another case - I just don't think many would really want that. Functionally, it's not meaningful. I think a better case could be made for a rack-mount system, personally.


He also can't work with only 3 inputs so the XD300 is not in his future. He was planning to go HD by the end of this year. I've been trying to hold him off, but ... VTNT had 1 input. The first TC's had 3. I expect the future probably holds >3 for future XD class models, but if he needs it now, granted it's not here now - but he'd wait even longer for a (purely speculative) 'VT-XD'.


I agree with Dr. Cross - the interface and feature set that we saw in the XD was much closer to a VT and that's good.I agree as well. XD is stronger and more flexible than VT in many, many ways - incuding the UI. But the main point I drew from Andrew's post was that XD-class performance might well require that (managed hardware). If strict hdwe. control for reliability and performance *reasons sake did require a complete system shipped from NewTek - a 'VT-XD' might well turn out to be TC XDx00.

* Again, as before, I note the fact that some of our more exceptional dealers (yourself included) would form an exception to the rule - but not in sufficient numbers to warrant the exception, imho.



I didn't see any audio ...I think you're going to be happy. :)

Quiet1onTheSet
06-17-2009, 12:12 PM
Your expressed views and insights are always appreciated, Dr. Cross. Thanks for peeping in and providing some nuggets for this thread, from time to time.

Perhaps one of the biggest benefits to what I see in a potential XD based VT, is that of a significant ability to do other things with that very same box (for example, outside the context of Live production), while yet enjoying the benefits of its Live Production utility at other times.

I'd imagine such "flexibility potential" would improve over time, as the state of PC hardware matures.

But going back to your suggestion concerning a "D.I.Y." interpretation for a future HD capable VT system, I'll concede that I can't get out of my mind, the article in Business Week magazine, just over a decade ago, in which Tim Jenison was said to be in earnest for an HD Toaster that was as affordable as the $2,500 Amiga based VideoToaster was back in 1990.

If that could have happened, such would certainly facilitate having a system custom built to suit more customer-specific needs and desires in terms of flexibility, while still having a respectable level of affordability built-in.

Admittedly, the taste for that HD VideoToaster's been on my mouth ever since.
:tongue:
While I'm on that point, I think it prudent to concede that most likely, the TriCaster XD300 itself, is a development in HD production tools, that's far, far and away, much, much more than Tim had ever envisioned at the time of that article's publishing, for an HD Toaster at any price.

SBowie
06-17-2009, 12:22 PM
Wonder what $2500 '1990 dollars' are today? I know that many spent well over $10k on our SD VT systems.

Rich Deustachio
06-17-2009, 12:39 PM
Wouldn't it be nice to have an XD unit that was upgradable and customizable by just buying and adding hot swappable modules.

You buy a basic XD300 that does 3 HD sources, then it also has open slots so you can add a 3play module, or add another module to add more inputs.

This way it would be customizable for each users needs and the hardware would still be tested and approved by NewTek.

Quiet1onTheSet
06-17-2009, 01:08 PM
You buy a basic XD300 that does 3 HD sources, then it also has open slots so you can add a 3play module, or add another module to add more inputs.

Eeeww... Sounds like an HD-enabled GlobeCaster.
:D
But O'm not skeeered' of a larger case, with accessible slots and ports, to facilitate expansion.

ACross
06-17-2009, 01:10 PM
Wouldn't it be nice to have an XD unit that was upgradable and customizable by just buying and adding hot swappable modules.

You buy a basic XD300 that does 3 HD sources, then it also has open slots so you can add a 3play module, or add another module to add more inputs.

This way it would be customizable for each users needs and the hardware would still be tested and approved by NewTek.

We are still heavily reliant on the CPU (besides other things) for some of our processing. As such, it is highly doubtful that XD300 and 3Play could run on the same machine.

Andrew

Quiet1onTheSet
06-17-2009, 01:26 PM
NONE Of the current hardware, PCI card, SX84, or SX-SDI is capable of HD.
I got the PCI card's inability to support, say -- component analogue HD.

But what aspect internally, limits SX84 and SX-SDI inability to support component analogue HD (other than the fact that it's externally tied to the now legacy PCI buss?

Actually, I had imagined that those 2 add-ons for VT, really could be modified in some fashion for at least the aforementioned HD connectivity.

kdkuntz
06-17-2009, 04:29 PM
I'm not being facetious[/U] - I am well aware of your experience and am really interested in your view. From where I sit, again ignoring for now the matter of an SX-84, it seems quite the opposite. That is, that VT requires a lot more to be dragged around than does any TC, including XD300.

Our current system is the same basic size and weight of a TriCaster Studio. It has 3 hard drives and an internal DVD drive. We can upgrade it to support two graphics cards so you can use the two monitor system display as well as send video to a projector. Yes,you dohave to cart around an SX-84 but that seems to me to be easier to manage than a laptop, and external DVD drive and perhaps an external hard drive. Everything else should be the same (with possibly an audio mixer necessary for the TriCaster which can be handled directly with the VT if someone wants to). Seems like less not more to me.

One of the other current values to the VT is its multitasking capability and ability to easily run other software. It's nice to be working in the VT and jump out to grab a graphic from an FTP site or tweak something in Photoshop (or Aura ;) ) and then drop it in the CG. This is great part is the 'computer' aspect - as well as upgrabeability - that my customer wants. NewTek could upgrade their own systems if they wanted to so that issue is solvable. It sounds like multitasking in an way may be a big issue on the HD system at this point and not solvable currently.




I don't know that he would. A bit longer but not ayear or more. This is the downside of having amazing engineering. As had been questioned earlier, if you can do 3 inputs then why not put in a router/switcher likethe SX-6 or SX-84 which still only actually allows 3 inputs to the card but allows more inputs to be accessible. I realize the hardware is completely different so maybe choosing inputs in this way is not possible with the new card. Problem is they've seen it work on SD and expect that you should be able to make the same thing work in HD.

[QUOTE=SBowie;894718
I agree as well. XD is stronger and more flexible than VT in many, many ways - incuding the UI. But the main point I drew from Andrew's post was that XD-class performance might well require that (managed hardware). If strict hdwe. control for reliability and performance *reasons sake did require a complete system shipped from NewTek - a 'VT-XD' might well turn out to be TC XDx00. :)

Again, don't confuse me with my Jeff (at Digital Arts). I know he'd prefer to have branded systems and from our personal business perspective I know we lose a lot by not having them. I also understand from a business perspective that it's better and easier in the end for NewTek to build their own. Many many centuries ago in that old Amiga place NewTek did, for a very short time, build Toaster machines. Now they're back builtding machines again. Great - I'd just ask that they consider an XD machine that encompasses theVT concept. If we can do it currently then, of course, NewTek can do it. It's not about who builds it for me, it's about what it offers and does it cover wants/needs of customers. In the end, they're really the only ones who matter to any of us! ;)

SBowie
06-17-2009, 04:44 PM
Again, don't confuse me with my Jeff (at Digital Arts).Well, that's not very likely. ;)

ACross
06-17-2009, 06:45 PM
But what aspect internally, limits SX84 and SX-SDI inability to support component analogue HD (other than the fact that it's externally tied to the now legacy PCI buss?

These are not simple analog routine devices, they have video multiplexers that which need to satisfy the correct frequency responses, input and output impedance, termination, etc... This is exactly why we could not just use an SX84 as a SDI switcher, even in SD.

Rich Deustachio
06-17-2009, 09:56 PM
We are still heavily reliant on the CPU (besides other things) for some of our processing. As such, it is highly doubtful that XD300 and 3Play could run on the same machine.

Andrew

So the add on unit would use it's own CPU. But the additional inputs could be module based.

csandy
06-18-2009, 01:27 PM
Wonder what $2500 '1990 dollars' are today? I know that many spent well over $10k on our SD VT systems.

Steve,

According to the United States Government, $2500 in 1990 expressed in today's dollars would be $4,090.59.

See http://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/cpicalc.pl.

SBowie
06-18-2009, 02:15 PM
Wait a minute - I paid quite a bit more than that for my Amigas ... that $2500 must not include the host?

csandy
06-18-2009, 03:10 PM
Wait a minute - I paid quite a bit more than that for my Amigas ... that $2500 must not include the host?

Who knows... that's alledgedly Mr. Jenison's figure from some alledged meeting almost 2 decades ago.

Besides, in 1990 a Macintosh cost over $10,000. My Amiga itself cost about $2500 back then as well. I remember that being a heck of a lot of money. A lot has changed.

Imagine the system you could buy off the shelf or even build for that kind of dough today.

csandy
06-18-2009, 03:11 PM
Seems like this thread can be summarized* like this:

1) HD pushes the limits of current personal computing hardware.

2) End users and some dealers want a product with

a) configurability
i) some what DIY
ii) others want dealer "build-to-order" systems
A) R&D is expensive, and a Media100 like configurability database takes a lot of testing
B) Probably one of the reasons why Media100 went out of business (the DataTranslation folks, not the Artel folks)
C) NewTek needs all the hands they have to test their current offerings and likely does not have the resources to test a myriad of consumer set-ups

b) scalability
i) the wise know that HD today will not be HD tomorrow
ii) must balance against a reasonable product lifetime
iii) may not be practical to go from current HD to a, say 4K system using the same hardwared.
iv) must be juxtaposed with "upgradeability" and a business-savvy path that identifies sub-markets correctly and incents consumers to purchase systems that meet their needs.

c) affordability
i) you can purchase an HD switcher for around $10,000
ii) manufacturer and consumers must weigh how much value is added in all of the other features
A) are livesets highly utilized?
B) can HD titled be done better cheaper as a stand-alone application?
C) are their the same number of Aura users as there are Calibar users?
D) do you roll with a stand-alone compresser/limiter/expander; mic mixer/pre-amp; effects rack anyway?
E) do you need external storage? More flexible CODECs? (For example, odd that you can't use NewTek's RTV uncompressed format on a TriCaster [actually it's not, the PC would probably choke]. Do you need to provide back-up recording like a DVD Recorder?
F) would you rely on a better/faster/cheaper stand-alone editor based on other vendor's proprietary, yet host flexible units (i.e. Black Magic, Kona, Pinnacle) instead of the bundled offering?

d) compatibility
i) at least one user would like to leverage current inventment by using add-on hardware on new equipment
ii) SX-xyz products are not signal compatible with future products
iii) will controllers like the LC-11 be used on future machines?

e) capacity (to switch more than three cameras)

3) There will likely be a >3 input high definition offering from NewTek in the future.
a) will it be in time to capture current users transitioning to HD?
b) will it attract new customers?
c) are there any competitors in the all-in-one video box niche?
i) is the niche still a viable sub-market?
ii) is it a growing or declining market if it still exists?

4) NewTek has made no announcements or promises with regard to future products.

Hopefully some will be made soon after the XD300 is in production. NewTek can then share a product outlook with Dealers so that their customers can in turn make some forward looking purchasing plans.

*okay... summary with some commentary

SBowie
06-18-2009, 03:27 PM
I think I paid around CAD$2995 for my 4000/030.

ScorpioProd
06-18-2009, 03:50 PM
Of course, just cause the dollar is worth less now, and we paid a lot for our original systems back then, that doesn't mean that today's users expect to be paying that much, since everything comes down as technology improves.

SBowie
06-18-2009, 04:13 PM
It's a wonderful world.

Quiet1onTheSet
06-18-2009, 06:21 PM
Wait a minute - I paid quite a bit more than that for my Amigas ... that $2500 must not include the host?
A least you bought 'em *after* that dreadful Commodore-Amiga CEO refused to reinvest, driving the company into the ground.
:D

The price jump on those discontinued A3000 and A4000 puppies was unbelievable!

Rich Deustachio
06-21-2009, 12:09 AM
I spent $1500 for an 030 card for my Amiga. Actually I traded my Yamaha 1100 which was worth $1500 for the card. I wish I had that bike back.

I still have a 3000 in my attic.

ScorpioProd
06-21-2009, 01:16 AM
I upgraded my A2000 T/F system to an '060 processor. That wasn't cheap, either.

GaryG
07-08-2009, 07:55 AM
Speaking of processing power and the ability to deal with more than three streams of video:

As far as I know, there isn't a single Newtek product that deals with more than three streams of video. The 24 inputs we have available on the Toaster aren't all ingested and scaled and processed continuously. The machine only handles three streams: Preview, FX, and Program.

The breakout boxes then provide a hardware switch between inputs feeding the Preview input. I bet this same hardware switch architecture is used in the higher-input Tricasters.

So to say that you'd need a behemoth of a machine to add more than three inputs isn't really accurate. The hardware/software architecture should be easily expandable with external hardware-switch breakouts like the SX series.

We have a VT5 system and a Tricaster Pro. Here are the things we like about the VT5:

1) Up to 24 inputs.
3) Ability to add as many DDR etc. as our system can handle. We find this realllllly helps us keep clips organized on large shows.
4) Ability to re-arrange the display.
5) Ability to use a dual-monitor system. We put the DDRs on a second monitor and let our "tape op" control them with Timewarp.
6) Price point. VT gives us the ability to save money by accepting the responsibility for building the system and sacrificing our expected level of support.

The dual-screen thing has gotten to be a really big deal for us. Newtek hit a home run with the concept of hardware and software controllers allowing more hands to get involved in complex productions. Giving the tape op a full screen of just his DDRs and an FX row preview (so he can que them) is rediculously slick.

That all said.

I'd be willing to give up the VT system if I had a HD Tricaster with expandable inputs and three DDRs. We could live with a mirror display for the tape op.

PIZAZZ
07-08-2009, 08:16 AM
Speaking of processing power and the ability to deal with more than three streams of video:

As far as I know, there isn't a single Newtek product that deals with more than three streams of video. .

Actually the 3Play box records 3 streams and outputs 3 streams at one time.




The 24 inputs we have available on the Toaster aren't all ingested and scaled and processed continuously. The machine only handles three streams: Preview, FX, and Program.

The breakout boxes then provide a hardware switch between inputs feeding the Preview input. I bet this same hardware switch architecture is used in the higher-input Tricasters.

So to say that you'd need a behemoth of a machine to add more than three inputs isn't really accurate. The hardware/software architecture should be easily expandable with external hardware-switch breakouts like the SX series.

We have a VT5 system and a Tricaster Pro. Here are the things we like about the VT5:

1) Up to 24 inputs.
3) Ability to add as many DDR etc. as our system can handle. We find this realllllly helps us keep clips organized on large shows.
4) Ability to re-arrange the display.
5) Ability to use a dual-monitor system. We put the DDRs on a second monitor and let our "tape op" control them with Timewarp.
6) Price point. VT gives us the ability to save money by accepting the responsibility for building the system and sacrificing our expected level of support.

The dual-screen thing has gotten to be a really big deal for us. Newtek hit a home run with the concept of hardware and software controllers allowing more hands to get involved in complex productions. Giving the tape op a full screen of just his DDRs and an FX row preview (so he can que them) is rediculously slick.

That all said.

I'd be willing to give up the VT system if I had a HD Tricaster with expandable inputs and three DDRs. We could live with a mirror display for the tape op.

You are correct about how the SX BOBs and TC Studio/Broadcast handle the video in/outs. It sounds like you are putting to good use your VT system maximizing it to the full potential.

Curious though Gary, what type of events are you using your VT system mostly for?

Other comments to your points you listed are below:
1) Up to 24 inputs.
I agree that more inputs would be welcome. How many do you use on your normal productions?

3) Ability to add as many DDR etc. as our system can handle. We find this realllllly helps us keep clips organized on large shows.
The new way the XD line uses playlists will make it even easier to use the DDRs for playout. Think of it as 2 DDRs with instant access to 10 lists of content.

4) Ability to re-arrange the display.
the XD line has this ability to resize and adjust the display.

5) Ability to use a dual-monitor system. We put the DDRs on a second monitor and let our "tape op" control them with Timewarp.
This is still possible by mirroring the GUI output with a simple DVI splitter like you mentioned to give your Tape Op the ability to see the DDR lists. Is this operator your Replay guy or are you talking about clips for insertion, bumpers, or tags? Just curious why you are not using the Cue in/out features of the DDR. Besides someone for Instant Replay applications in sporting events, I have not used a "Tape Op" in nearly a decade.

SBowie
07-08-2009, 08:35 AM
So to say that you'd need a behemoth of a machine to add more than three inputs isn't really accurate.Setting aside your other points, I'm not sure anyone actually said this.

csandy
07-08-2009, 09:12 AM
So to say that you'd need a behemoth of a machine to add more than three inputs isn't really accurate. The hardware/software architecture should be easily expandable with external hardware-switch breakouts like the SX series.


Asked and answered. I think NewTek's response to this conceptual issue is reasonable. Read back through the thread and note responses from Dr. Cross and Mr. Bowie.

SBowie
07-08-2009, 09:17 AM
... and Mr. Bowie.My dad was "Mr. Bowie" to the people who worked under him - but I can't think of a time when I was "Mr. Bowie", unless it was back in my mispent youth when I was being addressed by a member of the local gendarmes. ;)

Quiet1onTheSet
07-08-2009, 01:36 PM
We have a VT5 system and a Tricaster Pro. Here are the things we like about the VT5:

1) Up to 24 inputs.
The addition of the SX-SDI breakout brings that up to 32 inputs, of course. ;)


5) Ability to use a dual-monitor system. We put the DDRs on a second monitor and let our "tape op" control them with Timewarp.

It certainly is one of VT's luxuries -- that is, to be able to freely move panels to a different display altogether, regardless of the reason you'd want to do that.
:thumbsup:


6) Price point. VT gives us the ability to save money by accepting the responsibility for building the system and sacrificing our expected level of support.

Not only so, but that DIY paradigm also provides for a NewTek video enthusiast option: to take on the challenge of assembling a system, and seeing it work to perfection, provides for yet another outlet for the feeling of youthful exuberance.
:D


The dual-screen thing has gotten to be a really big deal for us. NewTek hit a home run with the concept of hardware and software controllers allowing more hands to get involved in complex productions. Giving the tape op a full screen of just his DDRs and an FX row preview (so he can cue them) is ridiculously slick.
Just curious, Gary -- do you prefer having clips set up for cueing during the show, rather than having that set up during preproduction, then automating the cue from the DDR's GUI? If so, care to share with us, any advantages?


...We could live with a mirror display for the tape op.
Again, adding the VT-style option for increasing the number of "desktop" displays for an XD series TriCaster could provide for tremendous flexibility in parsing out various Live Production modules across several monitors. I'm thinking that would indeed be an attractive plus -- and that's not to mention how a "spanned to all displays" paradigm could be helpful in the post production aspect.
:)

SBowie
07-08-2009, 01:45 PM
DIY is not without its advantages. Still ....

"By the 1980s, the continuation of the integration trend (printed circuit boards, integrated circuits, etc), and mass production of electronics (perhaps especially computers overseas and in plug in modules) eroded the basic Heathkit business model. Assembling a kit might still be fun, but it could no longer save much money. The switch to surface mount components and LSI ICs finally made it impossible for the home assembler to construct an electronic device for significantly less money than assembly line factory products. As sales of its kits dwindled during the decade, Heath relied on its training materials and a new venture in home automation and lighting products to stay afloat. When Zenith eventually sold ZDS to Groupe Bull in 1989, Heathkit was included in the deal.

On March 30, 1992, the end came. Heath announced that it was closing out its kits and leaving the business after 45 years, an event important enough to a number of people that it was reported on the front page of the New York Times."

billmi
07-08-2009, 02:50 PM
That doesn't seem very comparable to me.

Building a custom PC to suit the individual customer's needs is done all the time at the local mom-and-pop computer vendors in my area, giants like Tiger Direct build to order, and if the sales of motherboards, graphics cards, RAM etc. from companies like NewEgg is any indicator, home-built PC's are in great numbers.

It's true that folks aren't soldering components to circuit boards themselves, like they did with Heathkit products. End user construction at that level may no longer be viable, but at the level of assembling components into a computer I would say it is definitely still thriving.

I suspect that there far more more customers DIY building PCs, and having dealer built/configured systems now than there were in 1992 when Heathkit closed out their kits.

SBowie
07-08-2009, 03:22 PM
Sure - and yet, there's a reason Apple doesn't go down that path ... and there are reasons TC doesn't either. But at this point, the conversation loops. :)

billmi
07-08-2009, 04:02 PM
Absolutely.

More than anything - look at Tricaster sales vs VT sales. That should say it all right there. Us non-insiders don't have those hard numbers, but it's been my distinct impression that the Tricasters far outsell the VTs.

I just didn't think the reasons behind the disappearance of Heathkits were the same as the Build/bundle VT/TC issues.

GaryG
07-08-2009, 04:45 PM
Just curious, Gary -- do you prefer having clips set up for cueing during the show, rather than having that set up during preproduction, then automating the cue from the DDR's GUI? If so, care to share with us, any advantages?

It boils down to sharing the workload. When we are switching 8 cameras at a MMA fight, and cuing up rolls from two DDRs (typically one for instant replay and one for sponsor reels, graphics, round cards, and commercials), it is a whole lot easier for the director to ask the tape op to cue up a clip instead of asking the TD to do it.

It's so simple for our DDR guy to cue up a clip, hit pause, and the clip is set. "Ready three.. take three. I'll need the round 2 card in 15 seconds. Ready one. Take one. End of round, ready DDR: Take DDR."

We do use it in cue mode.. we just have someone else cue it up. There's not time for the TD to scroll through a list of 30 clips to find the right one.





Curious though Gary, what type of events are you using your VT system mostly for?


The VT goes out mostly for sports. The Tricaster for any variety of iMag.



Other comments to your points you listed are below:
I agree that more inputs would be welcome. How many do you use on your normal productions?

Three gets us through basic imag. A MMA fight, for example, will have up to eight:

Ringside 1, Ringside 2, Overhead 1, Overhead 2, Commentator booth lockdown, entryway steadicam, high wide (usually with remote zoom), boom.


Besides someone for Instant Replay applications in sporting events, I have not used a "Tape Op" in nearly a decade. [/COLOR]

See above. Our sports productions are way too fast paced for the guy running the switcher to scroll through a list of clips and pull up the right one. We do our best to put them in order, but (again returning to the MMA example) we use animated round cards between each round, and sponsor reels between each fight, and often pre-recorded face-off clips as each fighter is introduced. Add to that lower thirds for each fighter, having to cue up the right transition (we use lots of custom transitions, often with sponsor logos embedded in them), and it's just too much for one guy to do.

Oh... the TD also has to handle lower thirds.. we devote Livetext to ring timer and scorecard. (PS, feature request: Have the DSK source buttons on the control surface be freely assignable.. including to a second Livetext source! And did I hear something about the XD series having two DSK? Be still my beating heart!!)

We are fond of asking the warehouse staff to "Be sure to pack the video truck," referring of course to the flight case that houses what we believe to be equivalent to about a standard 40' TV truck.

http://www.newtek.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=75036&stc=1&d=1247092905

GaryG
07-08-2009, 04:52 PM
PS, that input list doesn't include external DVD player, which we ALWAYS have because, despite many lines in the contract stating "All playback media must be turned in 12 hours in advance" there is ALWAYS someone who comes to a corpie event "Oh hi, you need to play this video during my presentation." or someone delivers a new commercial for a sporting event 40 seconds before it's supposed to play.

And powerpoint presentations with video need to come in through a scaler (frame rate on iVGA is too slow).. so there's another input...

Of course that could be pared down if we got the media ahead of time on a DDR which is our preference. Just doesn't always (usually?) happen that way with our clients.

Quiet1onTheSet
07-08-2009, 07:44 PM
But at this point, the conversation loops. :)
Well, perhaps if you'd like it to.

Billmi's commentary was on-point. And by the way, the "reason" (actually, they're likely varied) companies don't go down the path of selling cards from hardware in their product lines doesn't necessarily negate the viability of successful sales of the [hypothetical] "kit".
:hey:
"But what do *I* know? I'm just the 800 pound gorilla in the room."

Lookin' good, there GaryG!

On another note, anybody notice Blackmagic Designs® is now offering a version of their Intensity™ card with compatibility for Mac, PC and Linux?? That latter option intrigues me.

PIZAZZ
07-09-2009, 09:46 AM
PS, that input list doesn't include external DVD player, which we ALWAYS have because, despite many lines in the contract stating "All playback media must be turned in 12 hours in advance" there is ALWAYS someone who comes to a corpie event "Oh hi, you need to play this video during my presentation." or someone delivers a new commercial for a sporting event 40 seconds before it's supposed to play.

And powerpoint presentations with video need to come in through a scaler (frame rate on iVGA is too slow).. so there's another input...

Of course that could be pared down if we got the media ahead of time on a DDR which is our preference. Just doesn't always (usually?) happen that way with our clients.

I totally hear you Gary and yes I feel your pain. I have done quite a bit of MMA and Boxing events also both with VT and TC systems. Definitely fast paced compared to say... Field Hockey. Just shoot me first before I have to do one of those again.

Your needs are very similar to a couple of my own clients needing more inputs for sporting events.

A couple more questions if you don't mind so I can understand better where you are coming from.

1. When you mention cueing, you basically mean selecting the clip right? of course on replay's you might have to actually search and seek to cue the correct play.
2. Do you have a director and a technical director at most shows or is your director your TD/switcher monkey too?
3. Why don't you have all the graphics come from the LiveText operator? Take that load off the TD. I see you are already using Kris's scoreboards. You can easily do both a timer and whatever lower thirds you need too. Just a suggestion since that is how we do it here.

We recently did some custom scripting and development for a client that would definitely make your TD's job much easier. We did the programming necessary so that one button push on a programmable keyboard selects the correct sponsor DVE, sets the correct DVE speed, does the transition in and then reverses the transition for the way out. We use this for a Moment of the Match scenario.

You could also use this programming to assign a specific button to play a specific clip in the DDR or for that matter a specific location in the DDR. SO if you lay out your sponsors at clip locations 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 etc, the TD only has to push that one button without even having to glance at the DDR list. Same thing can happen for audio clips.

If you are interested in something like this for your events, feel free to contact me via phone or email. 409-860-9283 ext 102 or jef at pizazzme dot com.

ted
07-09-2009, 10:31 AM
Gary, as Jef mentioned, I feel your pain. The upside of TC is that you "can" eliminate many of the usual crew. The downside is...you have eliminated many of the crew! :D
Thank God NewTek is coming out with outboard tools for those gigs that need the larger crews.

On a recent MMA fight the producer walks up to me while I'm Directing/TDing a fight and asks me to shoot a commercial with a "big wig" that was with him....RIGHT THEN! :rolleyes:
Sure, I'll just grab one of the fight cameras, set up a few lights and mikes and start shooting. No problem!
Gotta love the clueless.

At a recent awards show the 30 video clips were supposed to be "in our box" the day before to do a test run. The producer walked in with a drive 20 minutes before the doors opened and we were supposed to have some playing on screen.
Yes, we gotter done, but it cost me a few gray hairs!

GaryG
07-09-2009, 11:40 AM
1. When you mention cueing, you basically mean selecting the clip right? of course on replay's you might have to actually search and seek to cue the correct play.

Yes, both of those. So we have an operator who runs replay on DDR1 and sets DDR2 clips (all other playback) into standby/cue mode.



2. Do you have a director and a technical director at most shows or is your director your TD/switcher monkey too?

Depends on the complexity of the show. We typically also provide sound and lights on our jobs, so we'll have an overall show director who will call critical parts of the event, but the TD usually takes over calling camera shots during speaches/fight rounds/songs/whatever.



3. Why don't you have all the graphics come from the LiveText operator? Take that load off the TD. I see you are already using Kris's scoreboards. You can easily do both a timer and whatever lower thirds you need too. Just a suggestion since that is how we do it here.


Because we haven't really figured out a graceful way to run the scorecard skin alongside lower thirds/graphics in Livetext. I should experiment with this more, but generally the scoreboard operator needs to keep a finger on the start/stop button for when the buzzer or bell goes off.



We recently did some custom scripting and development for a client that would definitely make your TD's job much easier. We did the programming necessary so that one button push on a programmable keyboard selects the correct sponsor DVE, sets the correct DVE speed, does the transition in and then reverses the transition for the way out. We use this for a Moment of the Match scenario.


Now this we would be interested in... especially if it could happen on a midi surface or something with big labeled buttons! I'll shoot you an email in a few days. I'm sitting by the pool right now, weening myself away from the internet for a few days!

PIZAZZ
07-09-2009, 01:43 PM
I'm sitting by the pool right now, weening myself away from the internet for a few days!

By all means Gary, sit, soak and enjoy some time away.

I look forward to talking with you. I will make a post in the next couple of days detailing one of our new advanced control solutions. I think you will like it ALOT.

kdkuntz
08-05-2009, 04:02 PM
And there's another of the advantages of the VT. Jef has written scripts to make life easier. So have we. So have many others - some for sale and some just for their own company's use. There's an actual SDK for the VT (poor as it is). There is no such beast for the TriCasters and the gneneral impression we've gotten is that they really aren't very happy about people writing scripts for the TriCaster.

I understand their concern about third party products hurting the reliabitiy of the system but if someone really needs something that NewTek has not seen to be important enough or that will happen eventually in some later update, it would be nice to be able to script it. The issues of reliability would be greatly enhanced by a more verbose SDK as well. I know this isn't a purely technical issue - it's more of a mindset issue but another thing that gives the VT an advantage.

Kris
Digital Arts

Quiet1onTheSet
08-06-2009, 06:35 PM
Excerpts from kdkuntz:

And there's another of the advantages of the VT. Jef has written scripts to make life easier. So have we. So have many others - some for sale and some just for their own company's use. There's an actual SDK for the VT...There's no such beast for the TriCasters...I know this isn't a purely technical issue - it's more of a mindset issue but another thing that gives the VT an advantage..."
:beerchug:
Hear-hear!


Long live VT[x] Whilst for VT[x] HD -- We Hope!
:heart::tongue::o:dito::ohmy::beta::rolleyes:

Mr_Smith
12-18-2009, 07:00 PM
So how does everyone feel now that the XD300 is out?

SBowie
12-19-2009, 06:13 AM
I suspect that there far more more customers DIY building PCs, and having dealer built/configured systems now than there were in 1992 when Heathkit closed out their kits.Compare that percentage against those buying pre-builts though, Bill.

The quote I included above said "Assembling a kit might still be fun, but it could no longer save much money." At the prices of over-the-counter computers, there's little or no money saved in self-assembly, especially if your time is worth anything. I still like custom-built, but just because it let's me decide every detail myself. That's the only remaining argument for doing so that hasn't been whittled away to nearly nothing imho.

csandy
12-19-2009, 07:15 AM
So how does everyone feel now that the XD300 is out?

I feel joy and sadness and anticipation. Longing, love, fear and envy.

csandy
12-19-2009, 07:24 AM
Compare that percentage against those buying pre-builts though, Bill.

The quote I included above said "Assembling a kit might still be fun, but it could no longer save much money." At the prices of over-the-counter computers, there's little or no money saved in self-assembly, especially if your time is worth anything. I still like custom-built, but just because it let's me decide every detail myself. That's the only remaining argument for doing so that hasn't been whittled away to nearly nothing imho.

Based on hard data I can't agree. I took the liberty of pricing out every component of my TriCaster BROADCAST and indexed it against the cost of my similarly configured VT [5] system. Even at retail prices, it would be cheaper to roll your own.

I'm not going to post details here, as NewTek probably wouldn't like that and the information is probably valuable, but figures are pretty stark.

I think NewTek really hit a home run with the TriCasters. Resale value on TriCasters vs. VTs alone show that people are willing to pay a high premium for convenience and portability.

SBowie
12-19-2009, 07:31 AM
I took the liberty of pricing out every component of my TriCaster BROADCAST and indexed it against the cost of my similarly configured VT [5] system. Even at retail prices, it would be cheaper to roll your own.I daresay - but I am talking about general computing in the context of the 'Heathkit' discussion, as opposed to a special case.

Quiet1onTheSet
12-19-2009, 12:13 PM
I daresay - but I am talking about general computing in the context of the 'Heathkit' discussion, as opposed to a special case. But the fact that one might have allowed Heathkit to decide on each and every component that went into those computer kits, is just one of the points on which the arguably odd comparison to vendor-sourced and Do-It-Yourself VT system-building falls flat.
8~

Q1
p.s.: It's not even *winter* yet, but so far today, we've got at least a foot of snow outside the patio door here. 'Hope you'll fare well in this Nor'easter, Steve.

Mr_Smith
12-19-2009, 12:46 PM
Based on hard data I can't agree. I took the liberty of pricing out every component of my TriCaster BROADCAST and indexed it against the cost of my similarly configured VT [5] system. Even at retail prices, it would be cheaper to roll your own.

I'm not going to post details here, as NewTek probably wouldn't like that and the information is probably valuable, but figures are pretty stark.

I think NewTek really hit a home run with the TriCasters. Resale value on TriCasters vs. VTs alone show that people are willing to pay a high premium for convenience and portability.

But how long will that last?

I loved my VT and Tricaster, but I'm one of the few that needed to switch to HD in early 2008. That meant leaving them behind and building something on my own. I won't go into the full details either, but I was able to build a Live HD switching solution using HD capture cards and wirecast. I was surprised at how easy it was... If I needed more inputs I just added another capture card. Sure there were issues, but it wasn't any harder then building a VT system, and some things were better (not all, but some).

Thats why this thread surprised me, and I couldn't believe it when I was reading things like "Todays PC buses can't handle HD" or "The VT started with just 1 input". I know that there are software only solutions out there that can do it with the right capture cards, etc.

So it all comes down to this... My plea to NT.

Please remember your roots and continue your VT product line. There is a need for a fully customizable "studio in a box" solution. Lots of people need to create custom DVEs, or Live Studios, or to use the SDK to create specific automation for their needs, and to have some kind of system to add more inputs as needed. Please... The VT should not only be the DEV system for the TCs, but the thing that people goto when they need to customize a system to their needs.

csandy
12-23-2009, 04:02 AM
But how long will that last?

I have full faith in the laziness of the average consumer.

Quiet1onTheSet
12-23-2009, 10:00 PM
I have full faith in the laziness of the average consumer.Hear-hear!
And I dare say, we VT'ers are anything *but* the "average". :hey:

SBowie
12-24-2009, 06:40 AM
And I dare say, we VT'ers are anything *but* the "average". :hey:Hear-hear. ;)

Demon8
12-25-2009, 04:35 AM
So have we reached the end of life for VT5 or any future versions of the VT PRODUCT LINE????

Matt Drabick
12-25-2009, 08:30 AM
NewTek has just released their TCXD300 hi-def TriCaster, which works with both HD and SD Video, which includes a new "video card" (not display card but video card or video engine which inputs and outputs video and audio much like the VTPRO and earlier VT cards). If enough people expressed an interest in NewTek releasing a standalone version of that card, a breakbout BOX and the software to operate it, you could have a standalone hi-def VT system. I think a lot of people would have to be interested, or someone willing to buy 500 or 1000 hi-def VT cards at a time to be used in a kiosk and other applications, for NewTek to release such a product. In the meantime I would take a long hard look at the TCXD300 . . . it is really a remarkable product!

Matt Drabick,
DigiTek Systems

Rendesigns
12-27-2009, 07:20 PM
my only concern is that I take my system on the road, and have clients that want HD. I currently have to record at the camera and go to post with it, while live switching an SD version. my stumbling block is that I rarely run less than 8 cameras, and the local conference center that I work at every now and then is in the same boat. SD does good for most stuff, but we are all switching to HD cameras, and kind of being pushed off the VT. both I and the conference center would trade up in a heartbeat if givven an oppotuniy, where is the petition at!!!

Quiet1onTheSet
12-27-2009, 07:50 PM
...I and the conference center would trade up in a heartbeat if given an opportunity! [Where do I sign the petition?]

Budgetary considerations aside, I'm sure *many* VT users would be interested in the prospect of having a VT that switches HD.

Despite the absence of affordable HD hardware back then, I firmly hold out in hope, that NewTek would provide the market
1. an SD/HD card,
2. an "HX" (sic) breakout,
3. a complimentary software suite based on what we have in TriCaster XD300
4. a "limited" tech support scenario from NewTek (with more extensive support made available through dealer network and/or through NewTek, via a newly-implemented, fee-for-service model (but without the horrific price-gouging schemes Avid® has long been condemned for).

It's my heartfelt belief that there's long been a firmly entrenched passion for an SD/HD based VT system based on a card, since our hero, Tim Jenison was spotlighted in an interview with Newsweek Magazine, back before the introduction of VideoToaster [2].

Q1
:Tricaster
...but an SD/HD VT system, even with a new model for tech support, would be an awesome adjunct to TriCaster as a live production game-changer.

Posted to the VT[5] Feature Requests area.

radams
12-27-2009, 09:12 PM
Hi All,

Just my point of view and opinion.

The existing VT 5 system has come to the end of its capability in regards to not being able to do LIVE HD...for SD Production and Internet production it still has life...can capability especially when dealing with multiple cameras (more than 3)...

It is also modular and user definable UI makes it great as well.

But it also lacks many or the UI enhancments and refinements that exist in the XD series...ie: virtual sources, DVE/Scaling engine, Float Color space, etc.

I expect to see NT improve upon their XD300 and develope further source inputs when the computer hardware allows...which is one of the stubling blocks at the moment.

I would love to see a scalable system like that of a VT like product line...or an OEM line to allow system developers to help create custom solutions with the XD series Hardware and Software.

But for the moment...the only solution is the XD 300 ...and it is very impressive all the capabilities and UI operational enhancements it has.

So if you're needing to go HD...and need the improved UI functionality...then at this time you'll need to purchase the XD300.

I hope that there will be an upgrade path for us VT users....
But I even hope more that NT will look at developing an OEM market or create a VT Product line...

Cheers,

PIZAZZ
12-27-2009, 09:17 PM
How about a TriCaster with enough inputs for everyone?

If I had an XD300 with 6 or more inputs then I could satisfy many of my client's and my needs.

Many of my clients do not actually "need" the modular nature of the VT. They are used to it but a properly designed Tricaster like the XD300 is a perfect solution for them. They just need more inputs.

Novaman350
12-28-2009, 11:45 AM
Hopefully,NT will not drop the vt- line ,but infuze it with a newer card/system. With the newer x-58 systems mobo's ,chipsets,higher res cameras in the film industry which has really seen the use of Newtek software, ie LightWave surely NT can be innovative in this area just as they have done with the 3Play/xd300TC boxes.

hruffin3
12-28-2009, 12:14 PM
here is my 1/2 sense worth -- i can't understand -- the tv is bigger, the cameras cost more, the resolution is higher, the colors are better,
but when i see stuff on TELEVISION (remote viewing) i cannot READ THEIR LIPS:stop: -- so all this digital stuff is NOT as good as what we had??

how do i know what is/was
being said if what i see is not even tracking MONOLOGUE????????????????????????????????????????? ???????????????

do i just lack the dollars and every digital broadcast looks better in the studio or do people wanna not be able to PERCEIVE motion as it really IS

reality can be altered or should i be assuming that what i see is so screwy that it must be what they actually said or what actually transpired.

it really might belong in another thread but here it is:stop::hey::stop:

ps i rarely watch tv nor go to the theaters!

ted
12-28-2009, 03:39 PM
hr, I "think" you are talking about 2 things.
The first is lip sync on broadcast. I see a lot of TV Spots where the audio is off by one to several frames. Yup, it's anoying, but it's the editor's slpooy editing that creates this or the TV stations HD transmitter that is in error. I don't see transmission errors as much now days, but it used to be a real problem.

This morning I saw a spot we shot in our studio, (edited by the advertising agency), :devil: where the talent's lips were at least 4-5 frames off from her audio. Arrrrgggg!!!!

The other issue I "think" you are discussing is poor conversion where the image is "softened" by bad conversion techniques. Not the camera's, edit system's or TV's fault.
It comes from someone not knowing what they are doing with the coversion from HD to SD or vise verse, or they screw it up in the delivery process.

csandy
12-28-2009, 04:36 PM
How about a TriCaster with enough inputs for everyone?

. . . They just need more inputs.

I second that.

Quiet1onTheSet
12-28-2009, 08:26 PM
I second that.

Turd.
:D
Q1

nevmoor
12-29-2009, 11:06 AM
8 inputs at least!

Mr_Smith
12-29-2009, 11:47 AM
Things I'd like to see:


Make HD standard SD an option
An HD-SDI breakout box with 4 to 8 inputs that can be stacked to add more inputs as needed
A multiple layered or module type shot/transition system that allows complete control of each shot. (see wirecast or vidblaster for examples)
a usable iVGA system that can handle at least 24 fps and sound.
Lightwave back in the Live Bundle

radams
12-29-2009, 02:02 PM
Things I'd like to see:


Make HD standard SD an option
An HD-SDI breakout box with 4 to 8 inputs that can be stacked to add more inputs as needed
A multiple layered or module type shot/transition system that allows complete control of each shot. (see wirecast or vidblaster for examples)
a usable iVGA system that can handle at least 24 fps and sound.
Lightwave back in the Live Bundle


Hi Mr. Smith,

SD nor HD are options...the XD300 supports both out of the box.

The Tricaster at this time is a production appliance...
What you are asking for is like the SX breakout box to attach to a computer system...which is how VT works now. Remember that the number of streams a system can handle isn't limited by the connections...it is limited by what the system's resouces can actually handle...thus the limited three for the XD300 at this time.

I would love to see iVGA support even hight FPS...and I would like to see ethernet connections for cameras as well ;) (over TCPIP)

The latest UI and controls on the XD series are amazing...and blow away the options you showed...checkout the virtual inputs for the XD300...

(FYI - I would HATE to switch a show with wirecast...that is a horrible interface...and vidblaster is very limited...)

I would like to see Lightwave back...but even more would be post tools and FX creation tools.

Cheers,

PIZAZZ
12-30-2009, 12:49 PM
Things I'd like to see:


Make HD standard SD an option
An HD-SDI breakout box with 4 to 8 inputs that can be stacked to add more inputs as needed
A multiple layered or module type shot/transition system that allows complete control of each shot. (see wirecast or vidblaster for examples)
a usable iVGA system that can handle at least 24 fps and sound.
Lightwave back in the Live Bundle


1. already addressed in the XD platform which handles both formats
2. I used to think this but the bottom line is standardized PC hardware for the HD platform is 100% more reliable than roll your own approach of VT.
3. Virtual inputs would more or less give you the capability you are looking for
4. I understand some interesting things might be coming with IVGA enhancements
5. You could always just add Lightwave onto a system. Of all the VTs I have sold, I would say 1% use Lightwave bundled with it. I would prefer a simpler version of VT to make the learning curve easier for new users. Oh wait that already exists. It is called a TriCaster... :)

Mr_Smith
12-30-2009, 01:30 PM
Hi Mr. Smith,

SD nor HD are options...the XD300 supports both out of the box.

The Tricaster at this time is a production appliance...
What you are asking for is like the SX breakout box to attach to a computer system...which is how VT works now. Remember that the number of streams a system can handle isn't limited by the connections...it is limited by what the system's resouces can actually handle...thus the limited three for the XD300 at this time.

I would love to see iVGA support even hight FPS...and I would like to see ethernet connections for cameras as well ;) (over TCPIP)

The latest UI and controls on the XD series are amazing...and blow away the options you showed...checkout the virtual inputs for the XD300...

(FYI - I would HATE to switch a show with wirecast...that is a horrible interface...and vidblaster is very limited...)

I would like to see Lightwave back...but even more would be post tools and FX creation tools.

Cheers,

Hi Ray,

I've checked out the XD300 and it is an amazing piece of hardware. Its clear that it has some of the best features of the VT and the Tricaster put together in one small powerful package. But (for me) it is missing that one thing that set the VT apart from the Tricaster, the ability to setup and customize a system to your needs. The whole point of the Tricaster is a simple, easy to use, small powerful portable switching system. I'm not looking for that. :)

IMHO there is a market for a customizable system where one can have the amount of inputs they need, use the SDK to automate the interface/features, and create custom DVEs / Effects / Transitions / LiveSets, etc...


Best Regards,


Mr Smith

Mr_Smith
12-30-2009, 01:42 PM
1. already addressed in the XD platform which handles both formats
2. I used to think this but the bottom line is standardized PC hardware for the HD platform is 100% more reliable than roll your own approach of VT.
3. Virtual inputs would more or less give you the capability you are looking for
4. I understand some interesting things might be coming with IVGA enhancements
5. You could always just add Lightwave onto a system. Of all the VTs I have sold, I would say 1% use Lightwave bundled with it. I would prefer a simpler version of VT to make the learning curve easier for new users. Oh wait that already exists. It is called a TriCaster... :)

Hey Jef,
I hope changes are coming iVGA :)

But like I said above, I'm not looking for a simpler version of the VT.

PIZAZZ
12-30-2009, 02:02 PM
Hey Jef,
I hope changes are coming iVGA :)

But like I said above, I'm not looking for a simpler version of the VT.
.....
IMHO there is a market for a customizable system where one can have the amount of inputs they need, use the SDK to automate the interface/features, and create custom DVEs / Effects / Transitions / LiveSets, etc...



I respect your opinion. Keep in mind though that the days of NewTek selling to a bunch of tinkerers has come and gone. NewTek's gear is being used by the masses more and more. I have found that as a whole the average video producer is no where near as technical as they were in the past. (I call it the Mac dumbing down paradigm) The masses want simple to use, reliability of standardized hardware, and dependability. This is the thing that could never be achieved with the VT platform.

I have a client that uses 3 VT systems for their road shows. Every one of them is on different computer hardware. 2 of the systems were built a year apart and 1 is 3 years old. It is very frustrating to them to have to keep in mind each VT Systems unique personality and limitations. For instance the 3 year old box runs super stable but only has 240 gigs of SCSI storage compared to the Terabytes of SATA storage on the newer machines. Having to remember that one machine can handle 4 DDRs playing back while the other 2 only do 3 is something else to worry about.

With the TriCaster and it's standardized hardware, any user can sit down and know exactly what to expect from it. Want to record? sure. Want to playback 2 DDRs at once? done. Want to stream? check.
On 3 different VT system this is not always possible to do.


Regarding the creation of
custom DVEs / Effects / Transitions / LiveSets, etc...
I understand that with the XD300 platform this will be something looked further into to make things easier for end users. Keep in mind my comments above of the Mac Dumbing Down Paradigm, not all newer NewTek users are going to have the necessary mindset to do this. They will just look to outside 3rd Party vendors to do the hard work for them.

Regarding "use the SDK to automate the interface/features"
What exactly are wanting to do? From a 3rd Party developer point of view, I am curious to what type of automation you are looking for.

ted
12-30-2009, 09:18 PM
I have found that as a whole the average video producer is no where near as technical as they were in the past.

Oh so VERY true!
There are creative types out there that can't hook up a DVD player. :D
I think it's become the majority now days...as we old timers are becoming the Seniors of the industry. :hey:

And personally, I still prefer to let a dealer configure my VT's.
Even the Church Lady can handle the TC. But it's got enough to be Prime Time caliber.

radams
12-31-2009, 06:52 AM
Well, this unforunately is being more the norm.

I still prefer to know what's going on under the hood...and have complete control of configuring and setup of all my systems.

Even if I'm an old timer...it has saved my butt more than a few times.

But today it is more like producers are buying a car....instead of a production.


Like most people...they may take it for a test drive...does it have the proper sound system...video system...does it steer okay...how does the outside look...but few if ever someone looks under the hood...or checks the specs of the drive train etc...

So for most the Tricaster is a perfect fit...ready to go.

But there are those that will need more...and more flexibility...thus my comments in another thread...that I would love to see NT create an OEM part of NT...to OEM some of their technology for those like you Jef and others to allow you to create custom/specific systems to meet the needs to clients...and for other companies to create new products and solutions based on NT technology.

Cheers,

billmi
01-02-2010, 08:48 AM
Excellent analogy, Ray.

view3d
01-28-2010, 01:12 AM
I respect your opinion. Keep in mind though that the days of NewTek selling to a bunch of tinkerers has come and gone. NewTek's

...
I have a client that uses 3 VT systems for their road shows. Every one of them is on different computer hardware. 2 of the systems were built a year apart and 1 is 3 years old. It is very frustrating to them to have to keep in mind each VT Systems unique personality and limitations. For instance the 3 year old box runs super stable but only has 240 gigs of SCSI storage compared to the Terabytes of SATA storage on the newer machines. Having to remember that one machine can handle 4 DDRs playing back while the other 2 only do 3 is something else to worry about.

With the TriCaster and it's standardized hardware, any user can sit down and know exactly what to expect from it. Want to record? sure. Want to playback 2 DDRs at once? done. Want to stream? check.
On 3 different VT system this is not always possible to do.


I for one hate "standardized hardware" it just means I'm always limited by what newtek decides to put under the hood.

We constantly upgrade motherboards, processors, videocards, storage all the time to take advantage of the latest tech. I'm really disappointed that newtek has turned into apple.

The old days of newtek being the only one with real-time etc.. are long gone.. Fortunately there are many players now.

Since vt is dead, I'd love to see newtek offer a way for us to add the tricaster hardware to our own boxes or at least give the vt5 software an update that greatly expands it's capabilities and fixes the many bugs.

-Daniel
view3d.tv

spotduster
05-09-2010, 05:53 PM
Has anyone personally seen the TriCaster TCXD850? If so do you have anything to add to this discussion?

Adam_LightPlay
05-09-2010, 07:33 PM
Yes, tens of thousands saw the TCXD850 at NAB. And we were visibly moist.
Hey, I've loved the VT since it was the Video Toaster. (Amiga and PC). But at this point I can't think of many VT features that were not on the new HD TC. As long as it lets me record an AVI, and not just some annoying MPEG.

NewTek's VARs have done a spectacular job over the years. But now that we want 8 channels of HD video to pass thru a PC, I think it's better if it all comes from NewTek, certified to work. Just my opinion.

Here, this will ease the transition... Ask your dealer how many thousands of dollars trade-in value you can get for your VT3, 4, or 5, when you purchase a TCXD850. :dance:

jcupp
05-10-2010, 07:33 PM
...we were visibly moist.
:dance:
Too Much Information!

I think the TCXD850 is a worthy successor to the VT and I'm one of the biggest proponents of the dealer built system. The TCXD has a couple of "limitations" over what you would expect from an HD VT but all in all it's probably a fair trade off.

And since I know someone will ask - what limitations: The TCXDs have no scripting ability and like all TriCasters have a limited number of DDRs (one for the 300, two for the 850). But in exchange your get rock solid reliability, multiple layers of positionable, re-sizable, and in the case of the 850, rotatable keys and tons of other new features.

The DDR issue is taken care of by one-button loading of playlists and hopefully some solution to the scripting will be added at some point.

ACross
05-11-2010, 12:27 PM
[ The TCXDs have no scripting ability ]

On this issue, I think that we will add more control for external support of the product as time goes by. One thing I want to avoid with the new TriCaster is just to "dump" an SDK on the world, but rather develop proper SDKs for particular product areas that we can document and support properly.

Andrew

animlab
05-11-2010, 08:30 PM
:agree:
That will be great and save developers a lots of time to develope and maintain their's addon.

jcupp
05-12-2010, 08:54 AM
Any well documented SDKs, scripting functions etc. are always appreciated. The way the VT 3rd party developer tools came about was a little too ad hoc. So taking the time to get it right is cool.


On this issue, I think that we will add more control for external support of the product as time goes by. One thing I want to avoid with the new TriCaster is just to "dump" an SDK on the world, but rather develop proper SDKs for particular product areas that we can document and support properly.

Andrew