722066 - Extron Design for Prototypical Vidyo Room

Status: RESOLVED FIXED

(Air Mozilla :: Venues, defect)

Description

[Richard A Milewski[:richard]]

Attachment: Extron's initial design proposal.

Richard requested a design from Extron for a Vidyo room for the Vancouver office.  The intent of the design is to move the room control from Crestron (closed control software) to Extron (more open control software with freely available development tools).

Extron responded very quickly with a design that is now the first attachment to this bug.   Please look it over and comment here.   We need to move anon to keep the Vancouver project on schedule.

Comment 1

[Richard A Milewski[:richard]]

This comment is the transcript of an email exchange between Richard and Zandr:

***

Richard:  Two things seemed wrong about the Extron design for Vancouver.  The first is a nit.  The HDMI output of the Intensity doesn't need to be routed back to an input on the 4x4.

Zandr: Well, we wouldn't want the Intensity output, but we would want to bring in the output from the mini we run it from. (Fair enough, that wasn't on the drawing)

Richard: The second is a bit more complicated.   The Vidyo HD220 is still hard wired to the camera.  My first reaction was to move the HD220 to the 4th output on the 4x4.  I think that's still the right answer but it does raise the issue of how we control the camera if we're not feeding it to the HD220.   Do we know if the Vidyo camera controls even work if you're not in a call?

Zandr: That's an interesting question. If they do, we're home free. If they don't, we'll need a couple of additional serial ports to loop VISCA through the controller. I wonder if we care, though. Does having the HD220 control the camera buy us anything? I don't think I can control a far-end camera with Vidyo, I probably could through the IPLink. We'll be using the touchpad/Ipad not the Vidyo remote in these rooms, so just controlling the camera directly might be more flexible. This still requires one more serial port, but I think we can ditch the Xantech, actually.

We are going to need to move up to the 8x4. If we connect the HD220 to a matrix output, we need to bring the camera into the matrix. Fortunately, the 8x4 is only $1k (MSRP) more than the 4x4. This also future-proofs the design a bit, giving us some extra inputs for a second camera, Cable/Satellite TV, whatever.

There's another issue with the design, which is that there's no way to get room audio into the Blackmagic. I think that's just an analog connection from the ClearOne to the Blackmagic. (might need a balun if we end up with an Ultrastudio3D instead of an Extreme), but running an ClearOne output through whatever the inverse of the HAE100 is would get us audio in the matrix that we could route anywhere.

Comment 2

[Ace Gomez]

(In reply to Richard A Milewski[:richard] from comment #1)
> This comment is the transcript of an email exchange between Richard and
> Zandr:
> 
> ***
> 
> Richard:  Two things seemed wrong about the Extron design for Vancouver. 
> The first is a nit.  The HDMI output of the Intensity doesn't need to be
> routed back to an input on the 4x4.
> 
> Zandr: Well, we wouldn't want the Intensity output, but we would want to
> bring in the output from the mini we run it from. (Fair enough, that wasn't
> on the drawing)

Ace:  I will add the MAC mini as a source device attached to the Intensity.

> 
> Richard: The second is a bit more complicated.   The Vidyo HD220 is still
> hard wired to the camera.  My first reaction was to move the HD220 to the
> 4th output on the 4x4.  I think that's still the right answer but it does
> raise the issue of how we control the camera if we're not feeding it to the
> HD220.   Do we know if the Vidyo camera controls even work if you're not in
> a call?
> 
> Zandr: That's an interesting question. If they do, we're home free. If they
> don't, we'll need a couple of additional serial ports to loop VISCA through
> the controller. I wonder if we care, though. Does having the HD220 control
> the camera buy us anything? I don't think I can control a far-end camera
> with Vidyo, I probably could through the IPLink. We'll be using the
> touchpad/Ipad not the Vidyo remote in these rooms, so just controlling the
> camera directly might be more flexible. This still requires one more serial
> port, but I think we can ditch the Xantech, actually.

Ace:  The challenge is here is not so much whether the Sony HD7V is controllable outside of the Vidyo product, but rather the Vidyo control itself.   My intent was to mimic the IR controller provided Vidyo.  From the user side, it will be controlled either via the provided IR Remote, from our TouchPanel or via a webportal.  Unfortunately, the Vidyo product doesn't have any other means of control.  Far end control is available via the Vidyo remote.  We can certainly move the camera control, so that you are not bound by the Vidyo to use the cemera.  This will give you guys more flexibility.  I'm a bit hesitant on placing the HD220 on the output side of the matrix as I am using a dedicated camera input on the HD220.  For data sharing, I believe that we would need to use another hardware appliance.

We can ditch the Xantech IR repeater if we do away with the IR remote completely. We won't be to use an iOS device for controlling the Vidyo as it doesn't support flash.  The web portal for the Vidyo product is only through a flash application.

> 
> We are going to need to move up to the 8x4. If we connect the HD220 to a
> matrix output, we need to bring the camera into the matrix. Fortunately, the
> 8x4 is only $1k (MSRP) more than the 4x4. This also future-proofs the design
> a bit, giving us some extra inputs for a second camera, Cable/Satellite TV,
> whatever.
> 
> There's another issue with the design, which is that there's no way to get
> room audio into the Blackmagic. I think that's just an analog connection
> from the ClearOne to the Blackmagic. (might need a balun if we end up with
> an Ultrastudio3D instead of an Extreme), but running an ClearOne output
> through whatever the inverse of the HAE100 is would get us audio in the
> matrix that we could route anywhere.

Ace:  The Intensity Extreme does have an analog audio support for input/outpu through its breakout connector.  I just don't know how their software would work.  These I/O could be added to the Clearone.

Comment 3

[Ace Gomez]

Attachment: 2nd Revision

Comment 4

[Richard A Milewski[:richard]]

Ace,

I wasn't thinking that we needed to put the HD-220 on the other side of the matrix because of data sharing.  It's that we might want to use the camera as a feed for Intensity Extreme.

For data sharing over Vidyo, we would use Vidyo client software in the individual notebooks.

Am I correct in assuming we could build this with only a web interface and replace the TLP710CV with a simple cable cubby?  (Not sure we really want to do that, but it's a move in the direction of being standards based).   

Zandr & Tim,

Do we still want to support VGA inputs at the table?

For MtView F & G do we want a second input at the other end of the table?

Comment 5

[Ace Gomez]

(In reply to Richard A Milewski[:richard] from comment #4)
> Ace,
> 
> I wasn't thinking that we needed to put the HD-220 on the other side of the
> matrix because of data sharing.  It's that we might want to use the camera
> as a feed for Intensity Extreme.

Ace:  We can certainly do this.  I will make that change.

> 
> For data sharing over Vidyo, we would use Vidyo client software in the
> individual notebooks.
> 
> Am I correct in assuming we could build this with only a web interface and
> replace the TLP710CV with a simple cable cubby?  (Not sure we really want to
> do that, but it's a move in the direction of being standards based).   

Ace:  We can definitely do this without the TLP, my only concern is just the development time needed for the software Graphical UI.  If we go with this route, we probably should start defining what we will need.

> 
> Zandr & Tim,
> 
> Do we still want to support VGA inputs at the table?
> 
> For MtView F & G do we want a second input at the other end of the table?

Ace:  I will await input on this before the next revision of the design docs.

Comment 6

[Zandr Milewski [:zandr]]

(In reply to Ace Gomez from comment #2)

> I'm a bit hesitant on placing the HD220 on the output side of the matrix as
> I am using a dedicated camera input on the HD220.  

We routinely feed the HD220's from the output of a Crestron DM or the MGP, depending on the room.

> Ace:  The Intensity Extreme does have an analog audio support for
> input/outpu through its breakout connector.  I just don't know how their
> software would work.  These I/O could be added to the Clearone.

This isn't a problem, I can select the analog audio inputs and HDMI video as a combination in the BlackMagic config. Indeed, that's how I stream from the field most of the time.

Comment 7

[Richard A Milewski[:richard]]

Let's keep the TLP in the design. That way we can learn what the trade-offs are between the various control options.

Comment 8

[Ace Gomez]

I've updated the design document to Rev3 reflecting some of the above changes.

Comment 9

[Ace Gomez]

Attachment: 3rd Revision

Comment 10

[Richard A Milewski[:richard]]

This looks really close.   I think all the blocks are there.   We need a LAN connection to the MAC mini, and Audio Out on the Mac Mini should go to the Clearone 880 (if there are inputs left.  ...if not I'm don't think we need the audio feed from the Intensity Extreme).

Zandr is on a plane to London right now, but I'll get him to look at it as soon as he lands.  I hope to pull the trigger on this with Avidex tomorrow.

Comment 11

[Richard A Milewski[:richard]]

Caught Zandr in the departure lounge.   We're good to go.  Peter, can you have a quote for this in time for our meeting tomorrow?

Comment 12

[Peter Rafanan]

yes, I'll get together with Bill today and we'll have something to review tomorrow

Comment 13

[Peter Rafanan]

Have you guys put the brakes on Vancouver and London until we flesh this out?

Comment 14

[Richard A Milewski[:richard]]

I think that's a question for Rob.  I don't know enough about the timeline for London.  I think we want to implement this design in Vancouver.  I don't know if we do that in parallel with #Fail or not.   We should talk about this in the meeting tomorrow.

Comment 15

[Zandr Milewski [:zandr]]

(In reply to Peter Rafanan from comment #13)
> Have you guys put the brakes on Vancouver and London until we flesh this out?

I'm going to say yes. As there will be at most a dozen people in this office on day one, we're going to run with iMacs and the Vidyo soft client while we figure out the room plans. This design will likely become the generic Vidyo room design, which we can run everywhere.

Comment 16

[Peter Rafanan]

Attachment: Standard Vidyo Conference Room Cost Model

I've attached a Extron based cost model for discussion this afternoon.

Comment 17

[Peter Rafanan]

Attachment: Updated Avidex Functional Diagram for Standard Vidyo Room

Zandr/Richard  I attached an update to our functional diagram for the Standard Vidyo Room based on Ace's Extron one line.  There are some differences between our diagram and Ace's one line... We moved to an 8X8 DXP switch to accomodate getting HDMI into the HD220 using a DVI-USB dongle.  We are researching options for this with Ami.  The other addition is a power sequencer that is IP enabled something we talked about way back.  Also, we are also assuming equipment is remoted to an IDF closet.  I'll update the cost model shortly.

Comment 18

[Richard A Milewski[:richard]]

Thanks Peter!   I'm a little confused as to why there are now two video inputs into the HD220.  That's not the case in any of your other drawings for Vancouver, London or the 10Fwd rebuild.   Can you educate me?

Comment 19

[Peter Rafanan]

The second input addresses the question that came up yesterday regarding sending computer graphics in-band through the HD220 (USB-DVI dongle) instead of using the screen sharing software.  This may not be a priority for these rooms.  Maybe in the Common Spaces it makes more sense.  just thought we'd add it in for the sake of conversation.

Comment 20

[Richard A Milewski[:richard]]

If that gives us a way to stream video to a conference at reasonable frame rates, that could be a big win.  That would certainly be a must-have in the bigger spaces, and maybe justified in all the rooms if we can make the U/I easy enough to understand.

Comment 21

[Richard A Milewski[:richard]]

Peter,

Can you get me an updated price for this design, including the USB capture dongle, and the 8x8 Matrix switch?

Comment 22

[Peter Rafanan]

Attachment: Can't Fail Proposal with Itemized Equipment List

Richard-  I've attached a proposal with itemized costs for Can't Fail which is the Standard Vidyo Conference Room Model.

Comment 23

[Peter Rafanan]

Attachment: Crestron/Extron Standard Vidyo Room Process Flow Chart

This is a flow chart representation of the Standard Vidyo Conference Room interface.  It's based on the recent changes to the Crestron GUI and would essentially be carried forward to the new Extron GUI.  Please review and comment.  I'd like to take a closer look at this during the Thursday meeting as well.

Comment 24

[Richard A Milewski[:richard]]

Peter,

What the status on this order?  Are we waiting on anything?

Comment 25

[Peter Rafanan]

Need the proposal signed and a PO assigned if necessary.(In reply to Richard A Milewski[:richard] from comment #24)
> Peter,
> 
> What the status on this order?  Are we waiting on anything?

Comment 26

[matthew zeier [:mrz]]

Have passed to Cook to sign.

Comment 27

[matthew zeier [:mrz]]

Forwarded signed copy.

Comment 28

[bmacleod]

Richard is it possible to conduct a site visit to confirm that there is adequate power and conduit infrastructure to support the Prototypical Vidyo Room?  It’s my understanding this is an existing conference room in Mountain View.

Comment 29

[bmacleod]

Attachment: SF 3rd Floor Drawings

Comment 30

[bmacleod]

Attached are some recent drawings that were developed for SF 3rd floor.  We will need similar conduit and electrical infrastructure in place in MV for the Extron prototypical Vidyo room.  When can we schedule a site visit to coordinate the infrastructure requirements?

Comment 31

[Richard A Milewski[:richard]]

I'm closing this bug. We've deployed in three rooms so we're about finished with the prototype stage.  Most of the near-term follow-on will be in the Room History bugs for MTV-3Z Zombocom, SFO-319 and SFO-324.