MPE Support in CUPC 8

Hi,
Did Cisco remove support for MeetingPlace Express from CUPC 8?
I recently upgraded my CUP Server to 8 which has MeetingPlace Express listed as a supported conference server type but when I upgraded my client to 8 I get "An unexpected error occured".
Has anyone else run into this?
Thanks
Frank

Hi All,
Apologies to reiterate the question but I think there are many of us out here who are needing to have CUPC8 and MeetingPlace Express working together.
I've had various information saying that CSF doesn't support MPX and others saying it should. Has anyone managed to get this working?
Cheers,
Stu

Similar Messages

Multi-Language supported by CUPC & presence

Hi,
Devices:-
Presence Server 7.0
CUPC 7.0
Most of the user are using English as language in CUPC, few user want to use Japanese language for CUPC.
Is it possible to use different languages for different user in above mentioned setup.
Regards,
Abhas Jain

You may download Japanese version from here: http://tools.cisco.com/support/downloads/go/ImageList.x?relVer=7.1%281%29&mdfid=280455801&sftType=Unified+Personal+Communicator+%28CUPC%29+System+Software&optPlat=Windows&nodecount=3&edesignator=null&modelName=Cisco+Unified+Personal+Communicator&treeMdfId=278875240&treeName=Voice+and+Unified+Communications&modifmdfid=&imname=&hybrid=&imst=&lr=Y
cupc-Admin-ffr.7-1-1-k9_JPN.zip is Janapense version.
Michael
http://htluo.blogspot.com

OS X Support for CUPC 8.0

Hi all
I haven't found any information about CUPC 8.0 to be supported on MAC/OS X (7.1 does...). Did I miss something or is this really the case?
Thanks for your feedbacks.
Cyril

You're correct there's no Mac client yet. The reason for this is that CUPC 8 uses the Client Services Framework (CSF) which hasn't yet been released for OS X.

16 Gb vs. 8 Gb of RAM for CS5.5, Lightroom 3 on the Mac?

Hi!
I've ordered a Macbook Pro 15-inch with a 2.2GHz quad-core Intel Core i7 processor. I'm going to be using it, most importantly, to run the CS5.5 Master collection (though I probably won't be using Premier much for now) -- as well as Lightroom 3, in which I'm a total newbie.
My question is: should I bite the bullet and get 16 Gb of RAM right away? Or would that be just a waste of money, 8 Gb being sufficient for my purposes? That is, how much of a difference would the RAM doubling make? I generally work with moderate-sized images (< 200 Mb). I do like to keep several big apps open (e.g. Bridge, Photoshop, and InDesign).
The 16 Gb vs. 8 Gb price difference is, of course, huge (something like 350 euros vs. 50 euros). Money's kind of tight (I got the Adobe student discount for the software), and I feel I really should be saving up for a better camera.
-opm10

If you can still cancel the order, I would do that immediately and go for a Windows laptop, if you really need the portability. If you go for a Windows desktop that will improve performance by a factor 10 or more. But even a Windows laptop will give you a much better machine when you have two internal SATA disks installed, and the memory upgrade from 8 to 16 GB is far less expensive. In addition it will have better connection capabilities, more choices in video cards and you can gain hardware MPE support with the proper video card. A proper Windows laptop is at least 2 times faster than a MBP and much more affordable.
If you really want to stay with a MBP, which does not meet minimum requirements for use with PR, it seems a further waste of money to get additional memory, since the system is deprived of a good video card, an eSATA port and has only a single hard disk, where two are required.

Now that CS5 has arrived, what does it mean for your system setup?

Apart from nice added features, improved stability and increased speed, there are two major factors that impact on your system setup:
1. 64 bit
2. Mercury Playback Engine
64 Bit only
This means a couple of things:
You need a 64 bit OS, you need 64 bit plug-ins and you can use much more memory than the 4 GB limitation that applied to 32 bit OS'es (with effective memory in the 2 - 3 GB range, depending on the Boot.ini switch).
In practice, to benefit from the move from 32 bit to 64 bit, the recommended memory needs to be around 8 or 12 GB, depending on your mobo and chipset and the number of DIMM slots available. With current prices (May 2010) it is not yet economical to opt for 4 GB sticks.
If you have a dual socket board with 12 or more DIMM slots, 24 GB is optimal.
Mercury Playback Engine
This is where it gets interesting.
In the past, up to and including CS4 4.2.1, performance was largely impacted by:
1. CPU
2. Memory
3. Disk setup
4. OS & Tuning
5. ...
and finally by the video card. It did not really matter what video card you had installed. There never was any discernable performance gain from expensive video cards.
The tables have turned.
With CS5, installing a CUDA enabled video card has a large impact on performance and lessens the burden on the CPU. The GPU does a lot of the work.
However, since the CPU gets a lot more breathing space, the CPU will no longer be the primary bottelneck, as was often the case in the past. And since all DIMM slots in the average machine will be occupied, it is a costly exercise to exchange the DIMM sticks with larger capacity ones. People who have only 3 slots in use on a X58 motherboard can directly benefit from adding three more sticks, but this does not happen very often.
So with the CPU running with a relatively low load and memory more or less a given, the only thing that may be a bottleneck to be improved upon is the disk setup. This can be seen easily by scrubbing fast through the time line with the popular AVCHD material. Due to the MPEG nature, while scrubbing one needs to look backwards and forwards to create the image under the CTI and that means a lot of disk activity. CPU is not a bottleneck, memory is not a bottleneck and the GPU is not the bottleneck, it is the disk setup.
Do not be fooled by the claims that SATA2 or SATA3 have enough bandwidth to support the data rate of AVCHD or other MPEG streams. Tests have shown that significant performance gains can be achieved by using a large number of disks, preferably in a raid. This is especially true when one has multiple tracks.
SSD's are not yet an economical alternative for conventional hard disks, with prices that are a factor 30 - 50 higher per gigabyte than conventional disks.
Conclusion
To fully benefit from the performance gains that CS5 allows, it may be that using a MPE supported card will lead to the disk setup being the new bottleneck. Be aware of that fact.

at this point we are still trying to figure out whats up.
bear in mind DV VS AVCHD or Red is a completely different animal. there is a lot to process on encoding vs DV
we think the processors and HDDs are sitting there waiting on CS5
even with Dual Xeon 2.8GHz 12 cores its no faster than the 980x niether are CPU pegging, HDD pegging or ram..
interesting is the Dual Xeons will use about 10G (with 24G installed) ram vs the 980x using 6 (with 12 installed)
dual Xeons have dual memoery pipe lines 1 for each cpu so we think thats where its coming from
but we are still scratching our heads with a good deal of what we are finding in these benchmarks.
most is pointing to CS5 coding.
i am sure Eric will poke his head in here...
Scott
ADK

Are there any difference between fx. the Nvidia FX3800 and GTX 260?

Does anybody understand why I fell frustrated and confused about all this videocard discussions?
Some tells me that the FX3800 is a better card - more pro - stabillity etc. than low-price cards - like GTX 260/285/295 - and some tells me that GTX 260 = FX3800. I read on other webpages about how people are having problems having their GTX 260 recognized as a FX 3800 (not in PPro but by Nvidia software). Other places tells about how to softmod GTX 260 to a FX 3800. Some tells me that there is a big difference between these cards - others they are almost alike - same GPU etc. I read that the difference between GTX 260 and FX 3800 is only the looks of it from outside - inside they are alike - and that apart from that only drivers are different.
I have ordered the FX 3800 - believing it will perform better and more stable and give me really good playback rendering inside PPro CS5 compared to my GTX 260. If I get the same performance and stability by just changing two lines in a textfile with my old GTX 260 I feel cheated...I hope this is not happening.
Someone from Adobe or Nvidida - please tell us - what there is a differnece between fx. the GTX 260 and the FX 3800 besides from the outside look and some drivers? If there is no difference between them - I can not see any other reason for only supporting the FX cards than $$$...If there are a difference in Quadra/FX favour - and I sincerly hope so - I understand why you choose Quadro cards - but if they are just alike inside - I just feel we have all been mislead. I could have saved my money...time will show - I get the FX 3800 in a few days...can´t return it (danish rules when you buy it as a company) - so I´m 1000$ short this month...:(
I would feel much more comfortable in having ordered the FX 3800 if someone from Adobe could tell me excactly how much better FX 3800 is from the GTX 260 - apart from being supported and the GTX is not. And if there is more in it than just changing a simple textfile? Are there any more things going on inside PPro - deep inside - that affects performance with FX cards besides from two lines in a textfile? Who can help answering that question - and I mean really answering it in serious way - not just saying - off course the FX is better - because its more expenssive.
Haven´t we all experienced this in other situations? Like buying a car? Fx. Inside SKODA FABIA is a VW engine like the ones used in much more expensive VW cars. Only difference is the name and the outside look - and some comfort. The engine is the same - and in a way you could say that from an engine-point-of-view - the cars are alike. But you pay for comfort.
Is the same thing going on here? I pay more for FX 3800 for the looks of it from the outside and some software-drivers that makes it more stable - but inside it is just like GTX 260? So from a graphic-performance-GPU-point-of-view I actually have two cards that are alike and I reaaly am paying for software and not hardware?
/Morten

You are right -. and I keep spanking myself in the head with a wet towel.
I will lie in my bed - thinking of the nice new bicycle I could have bought instead of the FX 3800....;-)
No seriously - I know what I have done - and maybe I have done right - I don´t know? Time will show and I will sell or buy.
What I am frustrated about is the fact that I actually just decided to buy FX 3800 because Adobe and Nvidida toold me too - to get support for MPE and now it seems that my old GTX 260 is much like the FX 3800 if not the same inside? And I am frustrated about that it is possible to change a line in a simple textfile and suddenly get support for the GTX 260 to play MPE. This fact only put more lit on the conspiracy-fire about Adobe and Nvidia having made a simple software-trick to make some cards work others not = making a lot of money on fools like me...
You must admitt it is a rather tempting conclusion - if one is in the conspiracy-mood. Well - I try to think good about people. And Adobe convinced me at last that I needed the FX 3800 card. So I did order it eventually - because I need the MPE NOW - Can´t wait - having so bad performance and issues with PPro 4 - been so frustrated about edditting for almost ½ a year now - constantly having issues etc. And I am going to start new big project in 7 days. Have just spend 2000$ on upgrade to Master Collection and have making thoughts about wich card to buy long time ago - the GTX 285 or FX 3800 - to get the MPE support. And same day I order I suddenly see that the softmod makes my old GTX 260 to a FX 3800. And other posts claim that the cards are the same inside. No wonder I get frustrated - others must be the same.
So what I am trying to say is that: I feel like Adobe and Nvidida is not being honest with us. If it turns out that the only thing Adobe has done is making a simple textfile to make cards supported or not by enteringior changing the names of the cards inside the textfile - and nothing else....And if fx. a softmoded GTX 260 turns out to perform excactly the same and be as stable as a FX 3800 to 5-6 x the price - I will feel cheated and feel like a stupid fool.
I certainly do not hope this is what is going on. But it seems no one can help me but myself - testing and trying these cards - and I will try to post my results in this forum - so others might have easier tomake a choice...
I´l be back....
Cheers

Video card decision for CS5

Hi all.
I have just purchased CS5 Production Premium, and am trying to decide on the Nvidia GTX 285 or the Quadro FX 3800. We are moving from SD to HD footage and outputting to MiniDV, Beta SP or DVD for broadcast TV.
Would anyone care to give me a quick comparison of these two cards from experience, or even just thoughts on your experience with either card? My current setup with CS4 and the GTS250 just won't cut it with HD, as it takes forever to render anything. I don't have the time or patience to just sit and wait....
Thanks a lot.
Keith

Keith,
In theory more cores should be faster, but we have not yet seen that during our testing. It may be the immaturity of CUDA/MPE support. One system was tested with both the 285 and the 480 and there was no discernible difference, despite double the cores.
In theory more memory should be faster because it reduces the latency of RAM - GPU - RAM transfers, but again, no hard data yet. We have seen the negative effect of dual processors versus single processor on MPE rendering however, due to the latency introduced by dual processor systems.
There is not much difference between the various suppliers, Asus, EVGA, Gigabyte, MSI, PNY, POV, etc. so the choice is based on specific features one may have over the other in terms of better cooling, quieter fan, longer warranty, better price, higher clock speed, more memory and the like. Use customer reviews on sites like Newegg to find which ones are liked.
The law of diminishing returns may apply to video cards as well. Theoretically the 480 will be faster than the 470, but if the difference in cores will compensate the difference in price and seconds gained is something to be seen.

5.0.2 and GTX 480 / 470

Probably one for Adobe:
The 5.0.2 update adds support for the GTX470 but not the GTX480 - I was a bit surprised that the 480 was missing as it seems to have a very similar architecture to the 470 but faster and more cores etc.
Can anyone shed some light on what the differences are with MPE support on the two cards?
Oh well, time to mod the supported cards list again...
Thanks,
Paul.

Thanks for your reply!
Oh i get the typical corporate response...and i see all the frustration it brings with it from customers.
I am suure we are at the end of this post and will be locked down soon.
But i would just love one day to get a response like this from a Tech corporation.
Hey Mark!
Thanks so much for you interest in Adobe:-)
We welcome your business and hope that your transition will be as smooth as possible.
If you have any issues please visit our Forums first as you can see we have a lot of excellent
support from our customers.
If you cannot get an answer...please write tech support and we will do our very best to get your issue resolved.
As far as the 480 card. While we are looking at implementing it but we have not yet decided if this card is right for Premiere CS5. Because of company policy we are not allowed to tell people one way or another until we are sure and have worked out all the bugs.
So for now we can for sure tell you that the 470 will work. ( and if we do decide not to include the 480 we will announce this as well so as not to keep folks waiting )
Thanks for this great question!
Welcome aboard,
XXXX
Now i know i am really stretching it but i think your business would literally explode if you answered it something like this.
The 480 is a great card. We would love to include this card not only for you.....but all the people using Adobe CS5 with the 480 card already installed.
Here is the deal...we have a deal with Nvidia in the works and we have to follow it.
Nvidia has a bunch of XXXX cards they need to sell first ( based on our estimates) before we authorize another card.
But dont worry Between us and Nvidia we see that a huge part of our customer base...including you are interested in this card because of the new fermi technology.
We want to make you happy...so hold tight...we also see an opportunity for us to increase sales based on what our customers want.
WOW that felt good just pretending !!!
Am i dreaming?...lol

Should I shoot RAW or JPG and what ratio should I pick when shooting stills?

I want to take artistic pictures. Does that mean I should shoot RAW and then deal with the settings in Photoshop? I realize I can't for the corporate photo contest because I am not allowed to Photoshop anything for the contest. And pictures at a party that I intend to share or immediately upload, I understand why I would not shoot RAW.
Are there other reasons not to do so?
Many of you know me. I have been shooting video for a while and I am just now starting to shoot stills. These are tough questions for me.
I always assumed I would shoot stills using the maximum frame size possible. However, I have other choices.
When the aspect ratio setting is [4:3]
4608x3456 pixels, 3264x2448 pixels, 2336x1752 pixels
When the aspect ratio setting is [3:2]
4608x3072 pixels, 3264x2176 pixels, 2336x1560 pixels
When the aspect ratio setting is [16:9]
4608x2592 pixels, 3264x1840 pixels, 1920x1080 pixels
When the aspect ratio setting is [1:1 ]
3456x3456 pixels, 2448x2448 pixels, 1744x1744 pixels
Now, to be honest, I can't think of a reason to shoot stills at any size other than the 4:3 based 4608x3456 except to save room on the memory card. But I figured I should probably ask just in case I am missing something. Storage is not an issue as far as I can tell at this time. I bought two 64GB cards and I will be able to use part of my 16GB Smartphone memory card for additional storage should the need arise. Most likely I will have plenty of room until I can copy over to my laptop and then on to an external drive.
For reference: http://www.herviewphotography.com/2012/06/18/raw-vs-jpg-file-formats.html

Steven,
You are correct, that you should not shoot the Holiday Party pics in RAW, as they will only be used to blackmail your boss, and co-workers, so JPEG would be adequate for that (unless you really need to do Photoshop work, to make the images more "compromising... ").
Now, shooting in Camera RAW has several advantages, and really only two disadvantages, that I can think of.
Camera RAW captures everything that the sensor can, but it is in unprocessed form (one of the disadvantages), and then Photoshop with the ACR (Adobe Camera RAW) can "process" your images. I do this, when I have real use for the Images. I have developed a Preset for my Nikon Camera RAW, for each camera, so it's fairly easy to batch process. I always Save_As PSD, since I will very likely do additional work (not useful for the company competition, but CAN be useful for those black-mail pictures, if you have much "work" to do).
I Save my NEF's (Nikon Camera RAW) Images, and then, in a separate folder, my processed PSD's. Those are sort of like duplicate transparencies, but with slightly different data in each. From the first, the NEF's, I could always run them through ACR again, should something happen to my PSD's. The reverse is not true, but at least I would have my PSD's.
For use in Video, I will almost always Open my PSD's, and Scale them, plus possibly do other Image-editing, per my needs. As I shoot at max. resolution (~ 4000 x 3000), I will be Scaling, and then likely Cropping (as most Projects now, are 16:9). If you do any 4:3 Projects, then you are already there, save for the Square Pixel vs Rectangular Pixel issue, but if you Scale the 4:3 material to 640 x 480 Square, it should look just fine in a 4:3 PAR=0.9 Project's Frame.
In camera, I always try to mentally compose the Images into 16:9 horizontal, if I see the potential for Video use. It's like keeping 11 x 17 in the back of my mind, when shooting for potential double-truck magazine use. [Back in film days, I made several Nikon screens, to fit various common uses.]
Though PrPro CS 6 (as of CS 5), with full CUDA/MPE support, can do a great job of Scaling, I still use my PS Actions to batch process entire folders, and usually on Bicubic Sharper, though for some subjects, I choose Bicubic Smoother. This means that I am not "pushing around" a bunch of unused pixels. I Crop each Image, and then Scale it, with the Action, to match the Frame Size of the Project.
Now, back to RAW. That allows you the full capture from the sensor, so you have everything to work with. I shoot in 16-bit, for as much data, as I can get. One step in the process, but usually well after the ARC processing, and Saving_As PSD, will be the conversion to 8-bit Mode, but only after ALL of my processing, as PrPro cannot use 16-bit Bit-Depth, for Video.
For just general shooting (usually "happy-snaps"), with no inteneded high-rez printing, or Video use, I will shoot JPEG, at the highest quality setting (lowest compression), and be done with it.
One disatvantage of Camera RAW is the write time to the card, but with newer cameras, and faster cards, that is less of a problem, than it once was. Still, even high-rez JPEG's, though they do require in-camera processing to JPEG, will allow one to shoot more quickly. [That can be very important with those Holiday Party pics, as who knows what will happen in the next nanosecond?]
To me, Camera RAW is sort of like standing in front of a photograph, with my entire set of cameras. I ask, "Is this really a great shot?" If so, out comes the 4 x 5. If the answer is "maybe," then I grab a Hassleblad. If the answer is "no, but it IS interesting," then the 35mm is my choice. Sort of the same thing, but instead of cameras, it's RAW vs High-rez JPEG.
Just some thoughts.
Hunt
[Edit] PS - what the linked article said.

Cisco Unified Provisioning Manager 2.0 Capabilities

Wanted to know from users that have actually used CUPM 2.0 if it supports the following:
1. Creating a new phone with two distinct line appearances and can add them at the same time the phone device is created (one pass) - don't have to create separate orders
2. Adding the CUPC device (not just updating the users with the correct license info)
3. Associating an end user to an actual device DN - for example to support the CUPC configuration
4. Creating Remote Destination Profiles for a group of users
5. Updating LDAP enabled users with new devices (device association), such as associating an RDP with the user account
6. Creating new Unity Connection voicemail boxes with users that are already sync'd with AD
7. Can templates be created for specific devices/configurations and be applied in bulk or to a specific user/device
Thanks,
Jeremy.

Ok,
located the issue. A previous user with the same extension number still existed on the unity server. Not sure how this missed the deletion process.
Cheers
Mike

Cisco Unified MeetingPlace Express Compatibility with Cisco Unified Communications Manager Release 8.X

I have a customer that would like to upgrade CUCM to either 7.1 or 8.0 and has Meeting Place Express.
In trying to establish compatability I found this link: http://www.cisco.com/en/US/docs/voice_ip_comm/cucm/compat/ccmcompmatr.html#wp56211 which shows compatabilty up to CUCM 7.0.
If CUCM 7.0 is in fact the highest version supported with MPE 2.1(1.2), that would mean that they would loose their conferencing server.
Can anyone confirm if there will be MPE support for CUCM 7.1 or 8?
Thank you.

7.1 is still supported, however 8.X was never tested with MPE as it was already going to be replaced with MP.
Since the BU never tested it, it falls under not supported, MP8 is supported with CUCM 8.
But, since it uses a standard H323 trunk it should work fine.
HTH
java
If this helps, please rate
www.cisco.com/go/pdihelpdesk

AMD graphics acceleration questions

Hi!
I'm planing to buy of new laptop. I found some interesting options, but with AMD graphics. I want to stuck with CS6, and I want to know, is there any way to use AMD graphics for Mercury Playback Engine? I hope there's a way...
If I will have to move to CC (that's what I really don't want to do, but...) how can I understand will PP and AE support it or not?
The cards are AMD Radeon HD 7670M and AMD Radeon HD 8670M

I have been looking in to this myself and the conventional knowledge is NVIDIA however on delving a little deeper I have found that is not the case. Admittedly when the Mecury Playback Engine (MPE) was first developed it only supported CUDA which is ofcourse NVIDIA technology however, over the past two years AMD have been working closely with Adobe to get their technology working with Adobe products: And apparently now the MPE supports OpenCL and OpenGL: http://sites.amd.com/us/business/software-partners/adobe/Pages/adobe-solutions.aspx the opensource answer to CUDA that the whole industry is moving towards.
Finally I looked at some side by side comparisons of the 780Ti and the R9 290X http://www.anandtech.com/show/7492/the-geforce-gtx-780-ti-review/14 and, OK it is in Sony Vegas but, the video render times are significantly faster! Infact the R9 is faster in most catagories. At the moment CUDA support is more mature but I think the future is with OpenCL and OpenGL which is why I plumped for the cheaper R9 290X.

Does PP CS6 support DV output with MPE (CUDA) Hardware Acceleration turned on?

I am wondering if Adobe has addressed the issue of not allowing DV (firewire, ieee1394) output when MPE is turned on with hardware support? Any ideas? I am using CS5.52 and wonder if this is corrected in CS6.
Thanks,
Doug A

CS6 will let you play directly off the timeline to DV or print to tape using DV with the MPE on. In PAL land we do have a field problem however - all DV output through hardware (ie not making a DV file) has the fields the wrong way round.
When previewing off the timeline you do not notice so much unless you have "both fields" enabled. They you will see a peculiar wobble on shots. The best soloution we have found, if you really need to export to DV, is render the timeline to a file (we make a standard DV PAL file), put it on a new timeline and invert the fields for that file. Then export to tape works fine.
There is not reallt a great solution for playing live off the timeline apart from only watching a single field output.
I do not know if it is problem for NTSC but I am guessing it is not, which is why it was missed.

CUPC supported on 64-bit version of Windows 7?

Hi there,
anybody knows when we can expect CUPC to be supported on 64-bit version of Windows 7 platform?
Regards,
Tenaro

CUPC 8 is already supported in 64-bit versions of Windows 7, but will not run natively in 64-bit until quarter 3 of 2011. See this table from Cisco.

ANyone know a H323 video conferencing Client that supports Mpe

I am looking to add Video to Mpe 2.02 with Gatekeeper/Gateway (one Router). No Call Manager involved.
I need a H323 video conferencing Client that supports:
Out-of-Band DTMF
mid-call video escalation

Hello Meryl,
Are you looking to embded youtube, vimeo etc. videos in Muse? If yes, that can be done very easily by simply inserting the "Embed Code" for the video into Muse using the "Object -> Insert HTML" option. Take a look at the below mentioned links:
http://tv.adobe.com/watch/learn-adobe-muse-cc/inserting-a-youtube-flickr-or-hulu-video
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KnBFLQheOk4
Hope this helps.
Cheers
Parikshit

MPE Support in CUPC 8

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for