CCP Santa House

[scubado]

Very cool! But what's up with quite a few pixels not lighting up? Bad pixels, or just clitches in setup?

[thebaronn]

scubado wrote:

Very cool! But what's up with quite a few pixels not lighting up? Bad pixels, or just clitches in setup?

The pixels aren't "set" in place yet, they are just resting in the holes. They are all there and working, just either pushed in so you can't see them or pulled too far forward so it looks odd.

[Steven]

thebaronn wrote:

I guess a video would help.

The most distracting thing about the video is the camera's automatic light control trying to keep up with the changing intensity. Can that be turned off?

Other than that, I suppose it's more noticeable live, because it doesn't look bad on the video.

[thebaronn]

Steven wrote:

thebaronn wrote:

I guess a video would help.

The most distracting thing about the video is the camera's automatic light control trying to keep up with the changing intensity.  Can that be turned off?

Other than that, I suppose it's more noticeable live, because it doesn't look bad on the video.

But it is noticable, and that is a problem.
Imagine if when you told your mega arch come on all at once and there was a lag from one end to the other!!!

[LightORamaDan]

Using things like Macros (especially in this case where it is a single color on the string)will reduce the network traffic by 95%+ and make things very snappy.

Also with the release of super speed comm, in the near future, the effects you are seeing with your current configuration will be so fast that they will be transparent to the eye.

Dan

[thebaronn]

LightORamaDan wrote:

Using things like Macros (especially in this case where it is a single color on the string)will reduce the network traffic by 95%+ and make things very snappy.

Also with the release of super speed comm, in the near future, the effects you are seeing with your current configuration will be so fast that they will be transparent to the eye.

Dan

Oh, I just created that emailed sequence as a test. Most of my sequencing will consist of pictures, scrolling text and rendered video on the house. (well if it looks good)

So I guess I will just have to wait for the super speed comm......By any chance do you have a rough eta?

[LightORamaDan]

thebaronn wrote:

LightORamaDan wrote:

Using things like Macros (especially in this case where it is a single color on the string)will reduce the network traffic by 95%+ and make things very snappy.

Also with the release of super speed comm, in the near future, the effects you are seeing with your current configuration will be so fast that they will be transparent to the eye.

Dan

Oh, I just created that emailed sequence as a test. Most of my sequencing will consist of pictures, scrolling text and rendered video on the house. (well if it looks good)

So I guess I will just have to wait for the super speed comm......By any chance do you have a rough eta?

I do not have a firm date on it but it should be in the July/August time frame. It has already been tested in the CCBs and in the LOR software so there are no technical issues that will get in the way.

[thebaronn]

Ok, guess I will sequence away and cross my fingers!

[thebaronn]

Steven wrote:

thebaronn wrote:

I guess a video would help.

The most distracting thing about the video is the camera's automatic light control trying to keep up with the changing intensity.  Can that be turned off?

Other than that, I suppose it's more noticeable live, because it doesn't look bad on the video.

I thought maybe I was crazy so I slowed down the video.

Going to try a different computer this weekend and maybe 1 CCPixel per comm

[Steven]

thebaronn wrote:

I thought maybe I was crazy so I slowed down the video.

Yes! The problem is clearly visible in that video.

[thebaronn]

I originally was doing the sequencing using LightShowPro and I was worried that the program was the problem. The last sequence I posted was created and played with S3 (the video where I slowed it down and there were issues). After I saw the same problems with both programs, I decided to go back to LightShowPro and created the following sequence.
This time I used the scheduler to run the show and I disabled pretty much every startup program on my computer. It looks a lot better (but I did take out ALL fades) and the 2 videos I rendered on the house actually look....OKAY!
They were good enough that my audience guessed what they were and thought they were awesome(which is all I want)!
It is pretty good, especially since the video is rentered on only 1/2 the house. So, let me know if you can guess the 2 videos that are played.

The first is right at the beginning of the video, the second is at 1:03

Things are looking up!

Edit: I added another network so it is 200/200/200/100 CCPixels per network (I ran out of USB ports on my laptop)

[thebaronn]

Today I built another sequence, decided to use music this time cause LSP has an issue with exporting an animation sequence (or it is me....) I exported to LOR and ran the sequence with 4 networks from my laptop. Here is the new Santa House sequence. I ran it from S3. It looks good on the solid colors but when it comes to a lot of pixels changing at once, there are still problems. In the sequence, at 1:39 I start 10 pictures (in the video it is 1:45) In the sequencer, all the pixels are programed to come on at the same time, but in the video, you can clearly see that they do not (almost looks like a fade of sorts).

Is an intesity more bandwisth than a full 100% on color? Cause that is the only thing I can think of that is really different than the rest of the show, is that the pictures and video use many intesities (no fades though).


I do notice a significant difference in playback. With LSP there were missed commands time to time, but of the 10 times I ran this sequence I only had 31&32 controller miss a command an not turn on.

Let me know if you have any thoughts.

Thank you
Eric

[Steven]

thebaronn wrote:

It looks good on the solid colors but when it comes to a lot of pixels changing at once, there are still problems.

If I understand the LOR protocol correctly, it takes less bandwidth to change multiple channels to the same color than it does to make them different colors. Perhaps that's the difference?

I know it would change the look, but as a workaround you could use fades instead of switching the colors immediately. If you send a 1/2 second fade to all pixels at once, then if some pixels were late, it wouldn't be as noticeable.

[thebaronn]

Hello!

So Mschell and Donny over at LSP motivated me to nix the sleep and work on the set up. And I have to say I am quite impressed that it worked on the first try! We decided to try and run the CCPixels with the DMX option. We used an E1.31 DMX over Ethernet Gateway to control 450 pixels. The original idea was to have 4 universes with 150 pixels on each. But It turns out that either I was too sleepy to figure it out or my setup would have had to be switched around, I ended up doing the following besause it was easiest:

Universe 1: channels 1-300 (I00 CCPixels)

Universe 2: channels 301-600 (I00 CCPixels)

Universe 3: channels 601-900 (I00 CCPixels)

Universe 4: channels 901-1200 and 1205-1354 (I50 CCPixels)

Universe 4 was the only one that I daisy chained another controller to get the extra 50 pixels, and that did work! It took me forever to find that LOR to DMX address table at the end of the manual!

So here is the video dmx promises - YouTube

There were some good and bad. The solid colors look bad, it is just bad, much worse that when I used the LOR protocol in the previous video Promises by Nero Light-O-Rama CCPixel Santa House trial - YouTube

BUT!!!! the rendered video looks awesome! You tell me that that isn't Oogie Boogie!!! The part at ):47 where you see 1/2 his face looks beautiful. The pictures that were rendered from video look great, there were no lagging pixels.

And because I am so sick, here is video of the two side by side side by side - YouTube

Then, Donny sent me a video link LSP Test Promises on Vimeo he used my sequence on his RGB LED Pixels, have to say they look great, and I do not see any of the problems that I have (the string on the far right seems slower than the rest though??)

The good news is that the CCPixels seem capable of doing exactly what I want (Using DMX the pixels lag wasn't there, but weird goings on with solid colors) now I have to figure out the best way to get the most out of them. But I am in crunch time and I will have to make a decision on them soon.

[spomalley]

Looks Good! This is seriously cool especially how you've integrated the matrix into your display.

[thebaronn]

Looks Good! This is seriously cool especially how you've integrated the matrix into your display.

Thank you, if only I could get them at 100% working!!!

[SoCalJimH]

Any word on the "Super Speed" LOR adapters mentioned? Are they out yet? Didn't see any mention in the "Accessories" page.

[thebaronn]

Any word on the "Super Speed" LOR adapters mentioned? Are they out yet? Didn't see any mention in the "Accessories" page.

This was my last email with Dan (7/31/12, it was a response to me thinking that maybe Superspeed was the E1.31 support in 3.5)

Super speed is not e1.31... With superspeed you plug in a usb adapter just like you always have. (the little usb adapter). It just runs at much higher speed and the CCB/CCP/CCR and all GEN3 controllers can handle the the super speed. So configuation is exactly the same as it is today except you select superspeed as the speed on the network.

Dan

I am patiently waiting, sigh, will have to pass on the summer sale.....

[thebaronn]

Now tell me what you see!

[scubado]

NICE!