Historically, IP did not have a significant impact on the command/ control environment. That, however, is undoubtedly changing, as the network within which the control centre sits becomes increasingly IP-centric. IP brings many advantages in terms
of scalability – the ability to address routers and switches across the network allows a larger number of inputs to be managed in a more structured fashion – and interoperability, but handling IP streams can be onerous. That’s why the industry is looking to
offload processing to dedicated controllers to minimise impact on the performance of the display wall. Matrox, for example, is developing a
dedicated IPTV controller for the CCTV industry, while eyevis has created an IP Decoding Unit for its Netpix Controller series. Elsewhere, IP networking is at
the heart of Barco’s network visualisation system, while NEC says that it has seen a rapid growth in interest in the IP-based Hiperwall software solution.
such as viruses, and improves overall reliability as you’re not dependent on third-party operating systems.” Mawer agrees when it comes to
performance. “The Sierra approach, which relies on proprietary technology, allows the absolute highest quality of image,” he says. On the other hand, advances in GPU
– graphics processing unit – technology in recent years have been remarkable. “The Matrox Mura approach can be described as a ‘videowall controller on a card’,” says Moodey. “By putting multiple inputs, outputs, scalers and compositor functions onto a single card, we have dramatically reduced the number of slots needed while at the same time increased the number of Full HD streams that can be simultaneously captured, processed and displayed – without needing to use the ‘tricks’ of reducing frame rate or colour depth.” Cooper believes that display wall
control solutions are becoming less proprietary. Hiperwall uses a Windows/Intel platform, with a recommended minimum hardware configuration of a 2.4GHz quad core processor and a 512MB dedicated graphics card. There are, of course, arguments for
and against each approach. The main consideration is the needs of the application. “Electrosonic is an agnostic supplier/integrator and therefore would
always choose the right technology – whether based on PC/Windows platform or on solid-state technology – depending on the client requirements,” avers Paul Brooks, sales manager for control room solutions at Electrosonic. “Every application will need to balance cost against features,” says van Dijk. “Multiple redundant power supplies, hot swappable input boards and 100,000 hour fan packs would be unlikely specifications in a relatively undemanding application.”
Gap widens And the breadth of choice is widening. “The gap between controllers at the high and low end of the scale is increasing,” continues van Dijk. “Control room displays generally have to cope with a large number of, increasingly high-bandwidth inputs, which in turn requires an increasing amount of processing power. Conversely, simpler applications are dispensing with the controller hardware altogether, with some cubes capable of generating a multi-window display just using their own internal processor.”
It is, of course, a truism to say that, when it comes to display wall management, everything depends on the application – and the available budget. The industry offers a broad range of price/performance options, and each option will typically have both advantages and disadvantages. It becomes clear that, whether it’s deciding on the most important features, deciding on the supplying vendor or deciding on commercial off- the-shelf or purpose-built solution – or a combination of the two – a choice is, inevitably, something of a trade-off. The display wall controller manufacturers’ pursuit of excellence is, however, a pursuit of which Bill Shankly would have thoroughly approved. IE