I don't believe it's DMX that has extravagant licensing fees for commercials products, although EDMX (ETCNet2/Net3) is the only Ethernet protocol i believe requires a license fee.
I'm more inclined to believe that the price is the result of the quality control and R&D on the units, and to ensure that the units will still be working in 10 or 20 years, since a few companies will give long-term support for products for free at least 15 years after they stop making them (ETC maintaining a complete database of both datasheets and product manuals back to their first light board, as well as providing phone support for them). I've also encountered units from the mid/late 80's which were still fully functional, and had cost several thousand dollars when new, where the only "problems" were being manufactured before USITT revised DMX512 in 1990, and pins 2 & 3 were swapped.
I find it hard to believe that there will be demand for this protocol on the scale you're suggesting, especially taking a few things into account.
Currently, low-end DJ lighting and party equipment includes no controls with the exception of either a proprietary controller or automatic sound-changes based on loudness. In addition, manufactures are less likely to adopt a new protocol now without USITT standardization, meaning they have no standards organization guarantee that the protocol will adhere to the same standards everywhere, even with an informal standard written. (This was a big problem at the formation of DMX, and even lead to the 3-pin and 5-pin debate, and 5-pin is now the normalized standard by both USITT and ISO, although 3-pin and using RJ45 standards are also written into the DMX 512a spec) Because of this, no control operators will want to spend their time including support for a protocol that isn't being professionally used, making it a purely hobbiest thing.
Yes, there will be small scale use amongst people who need small systems, but a home made fixture will never match the quality of a professionally produced fixtures, which even within that world there are major differenced based on price. Look at low/mid end LED colour changed washes at Guitar Center (Venue, Chavaut, American DJ) then compare quality of them, and see which ones have real control on them from a console, which ones cycle colours based on presets, and which ones have sound triggering. Even within these, there is a huge quality gap, so then take a step up and look at the ETC Selador LED fixtures in a demo at a local theatre store. There's a huge gap in both price and quality between mid and high end LED fixtures, and the price for a home made fixture to rival a professional one would make it more cost effective to purchase one, especially considering that lighting designers expect a certain quality from a product, and don't tolerate colours not keeping uniform, unless they purposely alter it to be, again: making a demand for DMX converters to use anything of quality.
Hobbiests making their own lights will not create a demand to out-shine commercial protocols even in the home market, especially considering that DMX will remain a necessary part of the protocol, considering hobbiests will still use DMX Dimmer Packs (as low as $80 for 4-channel and 10Amps per channel using a fuse) for conventional lights, and every serious hobbiest i know either has created their own DMX Board or has purchased a DMX board BECAUSE it is a standard, and they recognize they need to work with it. This will not replace any professional protocols, or create enough of a demand among non-savvy home users to warrant professional production of equipment, especially unless it it isn't off of computers and used in embedded devices.
Honestly, I think once this has working DMX units incorporated, it'll be less limited to hobbiests using it play with their own lights, and more use from hobbiests or DJs (not in large clubs) to control low-end LED changers or moving mirror DMX fixtures.
No, but my point was that I don't belive that large-scale manufacturers (Levation/American DJ, ETC, Martin) won't adopt it, just as they haven't even adopted any other Ethernet protocols (Including ETC and their own protocol) in their Intelligent Light units.
I can see this stopping at DJs or small theatres building their own equipment just as a way to transfer DMX to a chain of Dimmer Packs when they can't afford a Dimmer Rack with runs, or afford pre-made hardware.
I figured most people outside of the trade wouldn't really care that wifi is the worst idea for a light desk, so i didn't think to mention it, especially considering this generations obsession with wireless. Personally, if i wanted a wireless light system for anything but an RVI, i would actually spend the money for the dedicated WDMX nodes that are FCC Class A devices, even if they cost several times more than a typical 802.11g/n router.
Being state-side, I've only gotten to work with Ethernet system that run EDMX, but do know of Art-net just don't know specifics, but i'm going to take some time to look it up now.
As for adding protocols, i don't doubt that any Ethernet-based protocols could easily be added to most newer boards (Hog3, Congo, etc) via software update, like the Congo (which does ArtNet, ACN, and Net2/3) got Net3 support in the v5 release.
I'm saying that EDMX is in no present danger of being replaced by a new alternative because of the process USITT takes to ratify protocol, so even if this is accepted as a USITT standard most if not all equipment will remain (as it is now) with only the 5-pin or 3-pin DMX protocol, requiring extra hardware to convert the new protocol into DMX, with software upgrades to support this protocol possible with the newer software revisions of the current-generation light desks.
EDMX/ETCNet is still going to remain the control standard for using Wifi to control lights, especially when DMX information is readily available online.
This method will probably only lend way to hobbiests who can't justify purchasing the equipment, when even DJs use DMX now. (Although Net2 touring nodes are relatively cheap now, and Net2 compatible light boards are popping up on eBay with the new generation of light boards replacing the old ones)
I'm not quite sure why, but it appearers that according to some moderator pointing out a problem with the summary is Offtopic. A better Mod please fix this
My interpretation was that MS misinterpreted the intent of the contest: to be able to *use* Kinect, not to flash custom firmware or reverse engineer it, therefore somewhere between HR, PR, and the exec board somebody made a mistake.
I agree. The sad part is that many 360 owners will not even give this a once-over glance, much less consider buying it on a serious level. I would want to get one to see what my computer can do with it honestly (assuming that either it uses generic webcam/microphone drivers or that people will write them soon enough like the 360 wired controllers)
Nice going at making assumptions before the OS is on the market. Win7 Phone is going to be a locked iPhone like system for apps, so it's an issue of "if an app does something we didn't see" not "if malicious code installs itself"
I was trying to be funny because i find this ridiculous. The point that was trying to be made was that copyrighting a light display is in every other sense not feasible, and to use it to limit photograph is a gross misinterpretation. I'm very sorry you took that seriously, but I'm very firmly in a camp against copyrighting light displays not only for the reasons you mentioned, but simply because copyrighting it is putting a stifle on a lot creativity, because i and other LDs i know copy each other when they see an element they life and want to reuse.
As a Theatre Lighting Designer, i ask how i too can claim copyright on a lighting design and defeat a longstanding tradition which says i am unable to copyright anything but my paperwork.
So, by citing many unrelated facts, and some things which the average user doesn't know enough about to care, he has proved that Desktop Linux is dead. Okay, i buy that.
Unfortunately, many of these sites don't actually sell the real drugs and instead sett knock-offs that are sugar-pills coated or mixed with lead paint or other harmful substances.
Puritans were (as far as I know) the only Christians to officially say that sex while courting or engaged isn't a sin of instant hellfire, although it wasn't exactly encouraged in the former state. The only being catch is that if you don't marry the person you knock up both of you are going to Hell, which was actually the problem with the situation in The Scarlet Letter (not that she was necessarily adulterous)
Slashdot Mirror
I don't believe it's DMX that has extravagant licensing fees for commercials products, although EDMX (ETCNet2/Net3) is the only Ethernet protocol i believe requires a license fee.
I'm more inclined to believe that the price is the result of the quality control and R&D on the units, and to ensure that the units will still be working in 10 or 20 years, since a few companies will give long-term support for products for free at least 15 years after they stop making them (ETC maintaining a complete database of both datasheets and product manuals back to their first light board, as well as providing phone support for them). I've also encountered units from the mid/late 80's which were still fully functional, and had cost several thousand dollars when new, where the only "problems" were being manufactured before USITT revised DMX512 in 1990, and pins 2 & 3 were swapped.
Currently, low-end DJ lighting and party equipment includes no controls with the exception of either a proprietary controller or automatic sound-changes based on loudness. In addition, manufactures are less likely to adopt a new protocol now without USITT standardization, meaning they have no standards organization guarantee that the protocol will adhere to the same standards everywhere, even with an informal standard written. (This was a big problem at the formation of DMX, and even lead to the 3-pin and 5-pin debate, and 5-pin is now the normalized standard by both USITT and ISO, although 3-pin and using RJ45 standards are also written into the DMX 512a spec) Because of this, no control operators will want to spend their time including support for a protocol that isn't being professionally used, making it a purely hobbiest thing.
Yes, there will be small scale use amongst people who need small systems, but a home made fixture will never match the quality of a professionally produced fixtures, which even within that world there are major differenced based on price. Look at low/mid end LED colour changed washes at Guitar Center (Venue, Chavaut, American DJ) then compare quality of them, and see which ones have real control on them from a console, which ones cycle colours based on presets, and which ones have sound triggering. Even within these, there is a huge quality gap, so then take a step up and look at the ETC Selador LED fixtures in a demo at a local theatre store. There's a huge gap in both price and quality between mid and high end LED fixtures, and the price for a home made fixture to rival a professional one would make it more cost effective to purchase one, especially considering that lighting designers expect a certain quality from a product, and don't tolerate colours not keeping uniform, unless they purposely alter it to be, again: making a demand for DMX converters to use anything of quality.
Hobbiests making their own lights will not create a demand to out-shine commercial protocols even in the home market, especially considering that DMX will remain a necessary part of the protocol, considering hobbiests will still use DMX Dimmer Packs (as low as $80 for 4-channel and 10Amps per channel using a fuse) for conventional lights, and every serious hobbiest i know either has created their own DMX Board or has purchased a DMX board BECAUSE it is a standard, and they recognize they need to work with it. This will not replace any professional protocols, or create enough of a demand among non-savvy home users to warrant professional production of equipment, especially unless it it isn't off of computers and used in embedded devices.
Honestly, I think once this has working DMX units incorporated, it'll be less limited to hobbiests using it play with their own lights, and more use from hobbiests or DJs (not in large clubs) to control low-end LED changers or moving mirror DMX fixtures.
I can see this stopping at DJs or small theatres building their own equipment just as a way to transfer DMX to a chain of Dimmer Packs when they can't afford a Dimmer Rack with runs, or afford pre-made hardware.
I figured most people outside of the trade wouldn't really care that wifi is the worst idea for a light desk, so i didn't think to mention it, especially considering this generations obsession with wireless. Personally, if i wanted a wireless light system for anything but an RVI, i would actually spend the money for the dedicated WDMX nodes that are FCC Class A devices, even if they cost several times more than a typical 802.11g/n router.
Being state-side, I've only gotten to work with Ethernet system that run EDMX, but do know of Art-net just don't know specifics, but i'm going to take some time to look it up now.
As for adding protocols, i don't doubt that any Ethernet-based protocols could easily be added to most newer boards (Hog3, Congo, etc) via software update, like the Congo (which does ArtNet, ACN, and Net2/3) got Net3 support in the v5 release.
I'm saying that EDMX is in no present danger of being replaced by a new alternative because of the process USITT takes to ratify protocol, so even if this is accepted as a USITT standard most if not all equipment will remain (as it is now) with only the 5-pin or 3-pin DMX protocol, requiring extra hardware to convert the new protocol into DMX, with software upgrades to support this protocol possible with the newer software revisions of the current-generation light desks.
This method will probably only lend way to hobbiests who can't justify purchasing the equipment, when even DJs use DMX now. (Although Net2 touring nodes are relatively cheap now, and Net2 compatible light boards are popping up on eBay with the new generation of light boards replacing the old ones)
I'm not quite sure why, but it appearers that according to some moderator pointing out a problem with the summary is Offtopic. A better Mod please fix this
My interpretation was that MS misinterpreted the intent of the contest: to be able to *use* Kinect, not to flash custom firmware or reverse engineer it, therefore somewhere between HR, PR, and the exec board somebody made a mistake.
Hank: So are you Chinese or Japanese?
I agree. The sad part is that many 360 owners will not even give this a once-over glance, much less consider buying it on a serious level. I would want to get one to see what my computer can do with it honestly (assuming that either it uses generic webcam/microphone drivers or that people will write them soon enough like the 360 wired controllers)
Nice going at making assumptions before the OS is on the market. Win7 Phone is going to be a locked iPhone like system for apps, so it's an issue of "if an app does something we didn't see" not "if malicious code installs itself"
mod parent insightful
Yeah, that's what tipped most of us off
the funny part is that i thought i had copy+pasted from wikipedia because i kept typoing that
Limewire just added minimal servers to the Gnutella network, not created one, and Gnutella is a decrtalized network network so...
Gnutella at wikipedia incase you were wondering
It always has been, especially when it's tied closer to scenography and is used as an active element in the set and costume design.
I was trying to be funny because i find this ridiculous. The point that was trying to be made was that copyrighting a light display is in every other sense not feasible, and to use it to limit photograph is a gross misinterpretation. I'm very sorry you took that seriously, but I'm very firmly in a camp against copyrighting light displays not only for the reasons you mentioned, but simply because copyrighting it is putting a stifle on a lot creativity, because i and other LDs i know copy each other when they see an element they life and want to reuse.
As a Theatre Lighting Designer, i ask how i too can claim copyright on a lighting design and defeat a longstanding tradition which says i am unable to copyright anything but my paperwork.
Actually, OWA 2010 recognizes FireFox (on any platform) and Safari as capable of running it on full settings. (not chrome yet though)
I was making an attempt at sarcasm, which, unfortunately is hard to communicate written.
So, by citing many unrelated facts, and some things which the average user doesn't know enough about to care, he has proved that Desktop Linux is dead. Okay, i buy that.
So could she but using a different part of the law.
Unfortunately, many of these sites don't actually sell the real drugs and instead sett knock-offs that are sugar-pills coated or mixed with lead paint or other harmful substances.
Puritans were (as far as I know) the only Christians to officially say that sex while courting or engaged isn't a sin of instant hellfire, although it wasn't exactly encouraged in the former state. The only being catch is that if you don't marry the person you knock up both of you are going to Hell, which was actually the problem with the situation in The Scarlet Letter (not that she was necessarily adulterous)
That would be true anywhere else, but remember that nobody will RTFA ;P