my profile | my password | search | faq & rules | forum home

» Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE   » Operations   » Digital Cinema Forum   » Whatever happened to the Barco "CineMate" app?

Author Topic: Whatever happened to the Barco "CineMate" app? Alan Gouger Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 501 From: Bradenton, FL, USA Registered: Jul 2000 posted 04-02-2018 12:29 AM                        It seems to have disappeared:( Is there anything that will work on an IOS device?  |  IP: Logged Tom Bert Expert Film Handler Posts: 134 From: Belgium Registered: Apr 2010 posted 04-03-2018 02:50 AM                     The app was in a de facto "maintenance mode" since some years. Recently we discovered it was no longer compatible with recent versions of iOS and Android, so it was decided to remove it completely. Our UI will become more and more web-based anyhow (cfr Web Commander on ICMP), need for a standalone app is fading out  |  IP: Logged Jonathan Jensen Film Handler Posts: 23 From: Copenhagen V, Copenhagen/Denmark Registered: Sep 2010 posted 04-03-2018 11:34 AM                     Web-based is indeed great if done right. With more equipment on the scene that have a web-interface, it could become natural for the local projectionist to have a tablet with a VNC client for AP20/Doremi, and weblinks to the ICMP/Doremi. (This is just our setup, my guess is Christie/Sony probably has somewhat the same possibilities for remote control.) This would essentially give the local projectionist the ability to control everything from the auditorium if he/she has to. However, doing technical maintenance in a cinema should include checking for focus drift and being able to correct this by adjusting the lens and saving the lens file. The Communicator LITE web app doesn't come with the ability to save files afaik (please correct me if I am wrong). This would be a really great feature to have, as calling a cinema tech onsite every time a lens goes slightly out of focus is a bit overkill. This really should be something the local projectionist can do, even without a Barco Touchscreen as not everyone has them. Sure, it's possible with the full Communicator on a PC/Mac, but a tablet is somewhat more handy and as you say Tom, web-based interface is the way of the future  |  IP: Logged Alan Gouger Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 501 From: Bradenton, FL, USA Registered: Jul 2000 posted 04-03-2018 11:53 AM                        Thanks for the reply Tom.  |  IP: Logged Leo Enticknap Film God Posts: 7474 From: Loma Linda, CA Registered: Jul 2000 posted 04-03-2018 02:37 PM                        The advantages of a web GUI are that it's OS-agnostic and gives you a quick response time to button pushes; the disadvantages are that it tends to work more reliably with some browsers than with others (and so you have to go through a process of trial and error to find out which one works best), and there can be a significant lag in response times, especially for time critical functions (e.g. pushing pause during a show). For example, I found that the Barco Alchemy web GUI works excellently in Firefox and acceptably in Microsoft Edge, but can be glitchy with the other browsers I've tried. But the OS-neutral consideration is for me important. The Linux version of Barco Communicator is so glitchy (in Ubuntu and CentOS) that I find that the Windows one running in WINE is actually better, even for serial communication with a projector.  |  IP: Logged Ioannis Syrogiannis Expert Film Handler Posts: 147 From: Reykjavík, Iceland Registered: Jun 2005 posted 04-05-2018 05:09 AM                     I occasionally find the mac flavor of the communicator to be tricky, concerning interface refresh, but I didn't have the chance (or the ability, for that matter) to find out if there is something to tweak for the display to get smoother. There are a lot of advantages to be considered with a web interface. I would also like for ICP to be able to be handled that way, the NEC or the rest of the Christie projectors, the ones with the TPC, even though I know that the actual device would still be needed. Until now, I find the web user interface of Alchemy easier to use than the stand alone application, if you remember the 43744 port to fill. Dolby/Doremi gave a good example when imported the WUI made for the IMSs to the DCP2K/SV servers. I can't forget, though, the trouble I came across when firefox and chrome enforced SSLv3 security implementation and the phone started ringing from frustrated users that could not remotely connect to the web user interface of certain servers the way they used to. And while the procedure is relatively easy for configuring firefox, the cipher suite blacklist option on launching chrome is not. So, I am all in for web user interfaces, making the stand alone applications obsolete and our lives a bit easier, but those web servers need to be updated according to the safety protocols in use. Advertising remote controlling, ease of use and platform independence on the one hand and suggesting in practice that the computer(/s) to be connected to the cinema devices is(/are) not to be connected to the WWW for security reasons, or that for certain stand alone applications to work, you'll have to use an operating system close to its end of support, is giving up responsibility. (What I write, obviously, doesn't have to do with Alchemy or Communicator Lite. It's more of a "would like and do need to see" reference.)  |  IP: Logged Steve Guttag We forgot the crackers Gromit!!! Posts: 12814 From: Annapolis, MD Registered: Dec 1999 posted 04-05-2018 06:11 AM                     I prefer the standalone apps for technician use and the Web interface for user use. The standalone apps typically are faster and less flaky. A problem with Web GUI is that it is dependent on uncontrolled forces like the web browsers themselves. I'm all but abandoning Firefox now because it has been insanely slow to start working. After you launch it you need to give it minutes to acclimate before it works at normal speed. I used to use Opera (and still do, to a degree because it is fast an no-frills) but then you get into the odd security issue and one has to use a particular web browser for things to be reliable. I don't think there is just one right answer. However, a company built app has them in just about 100% control over the use/performance. BTW, I agree on the Alchemy, the Web interface is the best one for it. It is clear that they develop that one first and then port it to the apps.  |  IP: Logged Harold Hallikainen Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 906 From: Denver, CO, USA Registered: Aug 2009 posted 04-05-2018 11:56 AM                        I like web interfaces since there's less software to write. We only have to do the server side and not the client side. I've also had problems with USB drivers, so I prefer Ethernet interface. I've now done a few products where a web interface with no USB is the only interface. So, it's easier on an implementer's side. With advances in browsers, HTML5, etc., we should see web interfaces getting as "snappy" as native applications. I'm pretty impressed with what can be done with javascript. We've got an audio codec written in javascript running in one product. Security, though, is an interesting issue. I've generally just done HTTP and TCP instead of HTTPS and SSH on the assumption the cinema network is private. Any remote access would be over a VPN. Is cinema equipment being put directly on the Internet? Harold  |  IP: Logged Carsten Kurz Film God Posts: 4340 From: Cologne, NRW, Germany Registered: Aug 2009 posted 04-05-2018 06:57 PM                     In general, if a minimum of IT knowledge is present, auditorium networks are isolated, but many smaller cinemas usually do not invest in professional network management, and the level of security is more of less the same as on private home networks. You may be lucky to have bought equipment that does more things right per default than other/cheaper gear. I don't think internal networks are safe enough, but of course, what you do depends on the assumed damage than can be done. Even if a soundprocessor or CCAP controller is a less critical infrastructure device, you don't want it to be converted into a DDoS client. Also depends on the integration level of your device - if it runs proprietary software with your own stripped down ip stack, chances are low that it can be abused. If it is based on a common embedded os/linux, there is a higher risc for vulnerabilities. I can only assume that currently, the risc is real for dci servers, but rather low for other gear like CPs, automation controlers, etc. But that can change quickly. Documentation is another issue that may need to be addressed - do I know wether our AP20 offers a shell login? Is it wise to change manufacturer set config passwords? - Carsten  |  IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

Printer-friendly view of this topic

Hop To: Select a Forum: Category: Operations -------------------- Digital Cinema Forum Film Handlers' Forum Large Format Forum Ground Level Feature Info, Trailer Attachments & REAL Credit Offsets Category: Community -------------------- Film-Yak Film Handlers' Movie Reviews The Afterlife Bob Maar's Joke-A-Thon Category: Classified -------------------- Equipment and Supplies Wanted/For Sale Help Wanted/Seeking Employment Category: System -------------------- Software Beta Testing Forum

The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.