MA
It's usually the other way round. The hardware (i.e. the engine) is <relatively> cheap, the software licence (and associated dongle that enables the licence) is the bit that costs. (Hardware is thousands, licences are tens of thousands I think)
Not sure how possible it would be to what you suggest in the NBH environment.
I realize NBH all the equipment is independent but I was assuming (and surprised if there wasn't) a patch panel where they could route signals to different equipment / galleries. In this case it would be the input to one or more Viz Engines to do the AR.
I presume all the studios at NBH sit on the same routing system, don't they ?
I imagine the licenses are cheaper than purchasing an Viz Engine.
Plus they're probably using the Viz Virtual Studio license that's used for studio A. I imagine when A's studio is not in use B can take their specified cameras if they wanted full AR. I assume they could route the signals from B into those Viz engines that are normally handle A.
Plus they're probably using the Viz Virtual Studio license that's used for studio A. I imagine when A's studio is not in use B can take their specified cameras if they wanted full AR. I assume they could route the signals from B into those Viz engines that are normally handle A.
It's usually the other way round. The hardware (i.e. the engine) is <relatively> cheap, the software licence (and associated dongle that enables the licence) is the bit that costs. (Hardware is thousands, licences are tens of thousands I think)
Not sure how possible it would be to what you suggest in the NBH environment.
I realize NBH all the equipment is independent but I was assuming (and surprised if there wasn't) a patch panel where they could route signals to different equipment / galleries. In this case it would be the input to one or more Viz Engines to do the AR.
I presume all the studios at NBH sit on the same routing system, don't they ?
RK
It's usually the other way round. The hardware (i.e. the engine) is <relatively> cheap, the software licence (and associated dongle that enables the licence) is the bit that costs. (Hardware is thousands, licences are tens of thousands I think)
Not sure how possible it would be to what you suggest in the NBH environment.
I realize NBH all the equipment is independent but I was assuming (and surprised if there wasn't) a patch panel where they could route signals to different equipment / galleries. In this case it would be the input to one or more Viz Engines to do the AR.
I presume all the studios at NBH sit on the same routing system, don't they ?
They weren't because of costs but what I was getting at was that there's obviously a house master router that's used to distribute all the incoming feeds to multiple studios as well as to handle the switching of one studio to the next for both WN and Domestic. I assumed that in order for them to use virtual reality in B they would have to patch a camera from there to one of the pooled Viz VR engines. With the way modern routers work they could probably have had a duplicate feed from a camera from Studio B and send it to the house router to the Viz engine for input.
It's usually the other way round. The hardware (i.e. the engine) is <relatively> cheap, the software licence (and associated dongle that enables the licence) is the bit that costs. (Hardware is thousands, licences are tens of thousands I think)
Not sure how possible it would be to what you suggest in the NBH environment.
I realize NBH all the equipment is independent but I was assuming (and surprised if there wasn't) a patch panel where they could route signals to different equipment / galleries. In this case it would be the input to one or more Viz Engines to do the AR.
I presume all the studios at NBH sit on the same routing system, don't they ?
WO
To a degree yes, but its not all presented from a single touchscreen. We also get Outside Source at 9pm on the News channel.
Victoria Derbyshire is the UK version of Outside Source, Apart from the fact that Outside Source at least sticks to the weather times.
To a degree yes, but its not all presented from a single touchscreen. We also get Outside Source at 9pm on the News channel.
LL
I consider VD to be a sister show to Newsnight, although a much more dumbed down show.
London Lite
Founding member
Victoria Derbyshire is the UK version of Outside Source, Apart from the fact that Outside Source at least sticks to the weather times.
I consider VD to be a sister show to Newsnight, although a much more dumbed down show.
WO
I consider VD to be a sister show to Newsnight, although a much more dumbed down show.
To some degree it bares more similarities to what was Afternoon Live on Sky News.
Victoria Derbyshire is the UK version of Outside Source, Apart from the fact that Outside Source at least sticks to the weather times.
I consider VD to be a sister show to Newsnight, although a much more dumbed down show.
To some degree it bares more similarities to what was Afternoon Live on Sky News.
DT
I consider VD to be a sister show to Newsnight, although a much more dumbed down show.
In a sense Newsnight for the This Morning audience. Although a better way to describe it might be to imagine every single gimmick or feature possible in one show - touchscreens, handheld cameras, roadtrips, tough exclusive interviews, human interest interviews, pointless video filters, studio audience participation, social media participation, pointless graphics on every surface imaginable, bizarre logos that don't mean anything, 'lovely' films, 'gurus' over correspondents, sports...
Victoria Derbyshire is the UK version of Outside Source, Apart from the fact that Outside Source at least sticks to the weather times.
I consider VD to be a sister show to Newsnight, although a much more dumbed down show.
In a sense Newsnight for the This Morning audience. Although a better way to describe it might be to imagine every single gimmick or feature possible in one show - touchscreens, handheld cameras, roadtrips, tough exclusive interviews, human interest interviews, pointless video filters, studio audience participation, social media participation, pointless graphics on every surface imaginable, bizarre logos that don't mean anything, 'lovely' films, 'gurus' over correspondents, sports...
NG
I realize NBH all the equipment is independent but I was assuming (and surprised if there wasn't) a patch panel where they could route signals to different equipment / galleries. In this case it would be the input to one or more Viz Engines to do the AR.
I presume all the studios at NBH sit on the same routing system, don't they ?
They weren't because of costs but what I was getting at was that there's obviously a house master router that's used to distribute all the incoming feeds to multiple studios as well as to handle the switching of one studio to the next for both WN and Domestic. I assumed that in order for them to use virtual reality in B they would have to patch a camera from there to one of the pooled Viz VR engines. With the way modern routers work they could probably have had a duplicate feed from a camera from Studio B and send it to the house router to the Viz engine for input.
The local Viz engines would be on a studio router, not on a 'house router'. The downstream Viz engines may be downstream of the studio router, but the upstream engines would be upstream (and local). A Viz to do the effect discussed would likely be upstream as it would be pre-keyed over the camera (either in the vision mixer or upstream of it - depending on your approach)
Not all VizRTs will be pooled - some will be potentially - but these are likely to be those downstream of the studios and assigned as required as feeds are routed. For upstream VizRTs they are likely to be dedicated to each studio as you can probably guarantee all studios will be on-air simultaneously and thus a full complement of upstream sources needed.
When building a multi-studio centre (on a budget) you still have local routers in each studio, and only route a relatively modest number of circuits in and out via the building-wide routers via incoming outside source feeds and outgoing studio output and ISO feeds. Sure you can design a system with a distributed router methodology (where multiple routers are configured to work together to simulate a much larger single router) - but that doesn't always solve the problems you need to.
noggin
Founding member
I realize NBH all the equipment is independent but I was assuming (and surprised if there wasn't) a patch panel where they could route signals to different equipment / galleries. In this case it would be the input to one or more Viz Engines to do the AR.
I presume all the studios at NBH sit on the same routing system, don't they ?
The local Viz engines would be on a studio router, not on a 'house router'. The downstream Viz engines may be downstream of the studio router, but the upstream engines would be upstream (and local). A Viz to do the effect discussed would likely be upstream as it would be pre-keyed over the camera (either in the vision mixer or upstream of it - depending on your approach)
Not all VizRTs will be pooled - some will be potentially - but these are likely to be those downstream of the studios and assigned as required as feeds are routed. For upstream VizRTs they are likely to be dedicated to each studio as you can probably guarantee all studios will be on-air simultaneously and thus a full complement of upstream sources needed.
When building a multi-studio centre (on a budget) you still have local routers in each studio, and only route a relatively modest number of circuits in and out via the building-wide routers via incoming outside source feeds and outgoing studio output and ISO feeds. Sure you can design a system with a distributed router methodology (where multiple routers are configured to work together to simulate a much larger single router) - but that doesn't always solve the problems you need to.
Last edited by noggin on 15 January 2016 12:23am
NG
It's usually the other way round. The hardware (i.e. the engine) is <relatively> cheap, the software licence (and associated dongle that enables the licence) is the bit that costs. (Hardware is thousands, licences are tens of thousands I think)
Not sure how possible it would be to what you suggest in the NBH environment.
I realize NBH all the equipment is independent but I was assuming (and surprised if there wasn't) a patch panel where they could route signals to different equipment / galleries. In this case it would be the input to one or more Viz Engines to do the AR.
I presume all the studios at NBH sit on the same routing system, don't they ?
A number of brands - but all of them are usually controlled by BNCS, but in many cases, separately and independently (i.e. you have a number of virtual panels for different routers on a single workstation - building wide to control sources routed into and out of your studio, local to route within, possibly additional local router controls for auxiliary routers etc.)
There are obvious resilience advantages to not fully integrating every router into a single system.
noggin
Founding member
It's usually the other way round. The hardware (i.e. the engine) is <relatively> cheap, the software licence (and associated dongle that enables the licence) is the bit that costs. (Hardware is thousands, licences are tens of thousands I think)
Not sure how possible it would be to what you suggest in the NBH environment.
I realize NBH all the equipment is independent but I was assuming (and surprised if there wasn't) a patch panel where they could route signals to different equipment / galleries. In this case it would be the input to one or more Viz Engines to do the AR.
I presume all the studios at NBH sit on the same routing system, don't they ?
A number of brands - but all of them are usually controlled by BNCS, but in many cases, separately and independently (i.e. you have a number of virtual panels for different routers on a single workstation - building wide to control sources routed into and out of your studio, local to route within, possibly additional local router controls for auxiliary routers etc.)
There are obvious resilience advantages to not fully integrating every router into a single system.
RK
When building a multi-studio centre (on a budget) you still have local routers in each studio, and only route a relatively modest number of circuits in and out via the building-wide routers via incoming outside source feeds and outgoing studio output and ISO feeds. Sure you can design a system with a distributed router methodology (where multiple routers are configured to work together to simulate a much larger single router) - but that doesn't always solve the problems you need to.
I was thinking of this and the model of my thinking was based off of 30 Rock. When NBC went HD studio by studio (probably started back in 2004 and ended in 2009 when MSNBC flipped the switch) I believe each studio had their own router I think something like 256x256 but those were connected to a large house router to which the users could choose from any source in the building. I wish I had the articles discussing the transistor but when Broadcast Engineering magazine was bought by TVTechnology not every article was transferred.
Anyway sorry for getting this thread off topic. But what you said about studio makes sense.
When building a multi-studio centre (on a budget) you still have local routers in each studio, and only route a relatively modest number of circuits in and out via the building-wide routers via incoming outside source feeds and outgoing studio output and ISO feeds. Sure you can design a system with a distributed router methodology (where multiple routers are configured to work together to simulate a much larger single router) - but that doesn't always solve the problems you need to.
I was thinking of this and the model of my thinking was based off of 30 Rock. When NBC went HD studio by studio (probably started back in 2004 and ended in 2009 when MSNBC flipped the switch) I believe each studio had their own router I think something like 256x256 but those were connected to a large house router to which the users could choose from any source in the building. I wish I had the articles discussing the transistor but when Broadcast Engineering magazine was bought by TVTechnology not every article was transferred.
Anyway sorry for getting this thread off topic. But what you said about studio makes sense.