Open Collections

UBC Undergraduate Research

An investigation into the UBC Pharmaceutical Sciences Impact Media Wall and possible alternatives Chan, Nathan; Garcia, Lawrence; Kyfiuk, Dean; Wong, Eleanor 2013-11-28

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Notice for Google Chrome users:
If you are having trouble viewing or searching the PDF with Google Chrome, please download it here instead.

Item Metadata


18861-Chan_N_et_al_SEEDS_2013.pdf [ 2.08MB ]
JSON: 18861-1.0108808.json
JSON-LD: 18861-1.0108808-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 18861-1.0108808-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 18861-1.0108808-rdf.json
Turtle: 18861-1.0108808-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 18861-1.0108808-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 18861-1.0108808-source.json
Full Text

Full Text

Applied Science 261 Sustainability Project:An Investigation into the UBC Pharmaceutical Sciences Impact MediaWall and possible alternativesSubmitted by: Nathan Chan, Lawrence Garcia, Dean Kyfiuk, Eleanor WongNovember 28, 2013Submitted to:Dr. Paul WinklemanProject Stakeholders:Phil Chatterton, Director of Digital Media Technologies, UBC ITMike Coughtrie, Dean of Faculty of Pharmaceutical SciencesAbstractOn September 18, 2012, the Pharmaceutical Sciences Building unveiled an Impact Media Wall(IMW) portraying pharmacy’s contribution to healthcare in the form of an exhibit called “The Storyof Medicines” (SOM). Since its implementation, the IMW has encountered high operational andmaintenance costs, namely the constant replacement of projector bulbs and excessive powerconsumption. Other problems posed by the current media wall include uneven light distribution,restrictive back-end proprietary software, and limitations in display content.Using a triple bottom line analysis, the current IMW installed by NGX Interactive was assessedalong with a proposed alternative using Christie MicroTiles, a video display system produced byChristie Digital, an industry leader in digital signage. The investigation on the comparison of thesetwo products is evaluated based on economic, environmental, and social impacts. Data and sources foran analytic investigation was obtained mainly through manufacturers’ websites and datasheets, agroup of UBC graduate students conducting an ongoing life cycle analysis on the current media wall,and primary data in the form of an unbiased survey.While Christie MicroTiles require a large up-front cost of implementation from an economicstandpoint, the overall effectiveness of the microtile system addresses many of the current issues andpresents many unique features, such as touch-screen interactivity. Furthermore, the microtilealternative has appreciably lower recurring annual costs, which would help offset the initial capital costsof the installation. Due to the absence of replaceable consumable parts like bulbs, the operational costsand the total cost of ownership (TCO) is minimized, providing a viable alternative in the long term.ContentsList of Figures iList of Tables iiGlossary and List of Abbreviations iii1 Introduction 12 Current Media Wall 32.1 Components . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32.2 Power Consumption . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53 Triple Bottom Line Assessment of Current Media Wall 63.1 Environmental Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73.2 Economic Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103.3 Social Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 134 Alternative Media Wall 154.1 Implementation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 155 Triple Bottom Line Assessment of Alternative Media Wall 175.1 Environmental Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 175.2 Economic Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 195.2.1 Power Consumption . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 195.2.2 Capital, Operation, and Maintenance Costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 205.3 Social Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 216 Comparative Assessment 236.1 Environmental Comparison . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 236.2 Economic Comparison . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 256.3 Social Comparison . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 267 Conclusion and Recommendations 27Appendices 31An Investigation into the Impact Media Wall iList of Figures1 Photo of the Impact Media Wall at the UBC Pharmaceutical Sciences Building . . . . . . 12 Impact Media Wall Component Reference Sheet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 Impact Media Wall Hardware Diagram . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 Photo of the hardware behind the IMW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 Photo of the uneven light distribution on the IMW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66 Capital Cost Breakdown of Impact Media Wall . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117 Operation and Maintenance Costs Breakdown . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128 Pharmaceutical Sciences IMW Survey Template . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139 Christie MicroTiles Physical Specifications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1510 Dimensions of Christie MicroTiles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1511 Christie MicroTiles RoHS Component Breakdown (Christie Digital, 2013a) . . . . . . . . 1812 Christie MicroTiles Power Consumption Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1913 Comparison of Yearly Energy Consumption and Greenhouse Gas Emissions . . . . . . . . 2414 Comparison of Annual Operation and Maintenance Costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25An Investigation into the Impact Media Wall iiList of Tables1 Power Consumption of Impact Media Wall Projectors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52 Environmental effect of manufacture and transportation of the IMW components . . . . . 73 Ongoing Environmental Effect of Operating the Impact Media Wall . . . . . . . . . . . . 84 Capital Cost Breakdown of the Impact Media Wall* . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105 Operation and Maintenance Costs of IMW . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116 Christie MicroTiles Power Consumption . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 197 Christie MicroTiles Capital Cost and Installation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 208 Tabulated Survey Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32An Investigation into the Impact Media Wall iiiGlossary and List of AbbreviationsCDI: Creation, Distrubtion, InstallationDLP: Digital Light ProcessingEMS: Environmental Management SystemGHG: Greenhouse GasesIMW: Impact Media WallLEDs: Light Emitting DiodesRoHS: Restriction of Hazardous MaterialsSEER: Seasonal Energy Efficiency RatingSOM: Story of MedicinesTCO: Total Cost of OwnershipUBC: University of British ColumbiaAn Investigation into the Impact Media Wall 11 IntroductionDigital signs are becoming increasingly ubiquitous, and are used for purposes such as advertising,providing information, and image enhancement (Dennis et al., 2012). At its most basic level, a digitalsign is composed of a display device and a display controller. Since their inception, digital signagetechnologies have gained popularity because of their advantages over conventional signage, namely:support of dynamic multimedia presentations and a reduced cost in the “creation, distribution, andinstallation (CDI)” cycle (Harrison & Andrusiewicz, 2004). Another oft-cited benefit of digital signageis that it reduces environmental costs associated with printed signage, which in turn can havelong-term financial benefits. Various papers have also studied the social uses of digital signage as retailor advertising tools (Dennis et al., 2012) or as a learning media (Dale et al., 2011), as well as thegeneral effects of digital media (Coyne, 2010).Figure 1: Photo of the Impact Media Wall at the UBC Pharmaceutical Sciences BuildingThe UBC Faculty of Pharmaceutical Sciences Impact Media Wall (IMW), constructed in 2012 andsituated in the UBC Pharmaceutical Sciences Building, falls under the digital signage category (seeFigure 1). Installed by NGX Interactive, the 26 by 7 foot glass media wall, one of the largest in NorthAmerica, tells part of the “Story of Medicines” (SOM), a collective display that conveys thecontribution of pharmacy to health care. During its hours of operation, the IMW projects pharmacyand health care related “Twitter style facts” (UBC Pharmaceutical Sciences, 2013). The stakeholdersof the IMW include Phil Chatterton, Director of Digital Media Technologies from UBC IT, MikeCoughtrie, the Dean of the Faculty of Pharmaceutical Sciences and all students, staff and visitors ofthe UBC Pharmaceutical Sciences building.Since its installation however, the IMW has incurred high operational costs due to the frequent andAn Investigation into the Impact Media Wall 2costly replacement of the projector bulbs and the high power consumption of the projectors. Moreover,there is uneven light distribution on the display, diminishing the overall aesthetic of the IMW. Finally,the back-end software is proprietary, which adds a dimension of difficulty with regards to softwareupdates and ongoing support. At the moment, the IMW only runs for four hours a day due to theexpensive cost of operation.An Investigation into the Impact Media Wall 32 Current Media WallThe IMW is a large 26 by 7 foot rear-projected media wall powered by six projectors. Images arereflected off of a set of large mirrors and thrown onto a thin film that covers the back of the glass wall.The IMW was designed by NGX Interactive for the UBC Pharmaceutical Sciences building and is oneof the largest displays of its type in North America. Currently, the wall is running from 10AM to 2PMduring the weekdays. It displays rotating “Twitter-style facts” conveying “Story of Medicines” (SOM)(UBC Pharmaceutical Sciences, 2013).2.1 ComponentsBelow is a summary of the hardware and software components of the IMW (See Figure 2). Thisdata was provided by NGX Interactive, the developers of the IMW.Figure 2: Impact Media Wall Component Reference Sheet(NGX Interactive, 2010)The current IMW hardware setup is composed of the following components:• Six (6) PT-DW6300ULS projectors• One (1) Dell T3500 computer• One (1) Matrox M9188 video card• Four (4) TV-One C2-2450A edge blending devices• Six (6) Millenium mirror assemblies• Six (6) EOS-procured rear-projection films• One (1) TOC22UD AV rack• One (1) Toten TODWR2U AV rack drawerAn Investigation into the Impact Media Wall 4The basic configuration of the hardware components is shown below (See Figure 3):Figure 3: Impact Media Wall Hardware Diagram(NGX Interactive, 2010)Altogether, the display sits behind large glass panels with a rear projection film that allows for theprojection to be displayed against the glass panels. Below is a photo showing the internal setup of theIMW (See Figure 4).Figure 4: Photo of the hardware behind the IMWAn Investigation into the Impact Media Wall 52.2 Power ConsumptionBased on electrical meter data taken from October 7 to October 16, 2013, the power consumptionof the media wall can be summarized in the table below (See Table 1).Unit Power Consumption (W) Energy per functional unit**(kWh)per projector when on 757 W* 2006.05 kWhper projector when off 7 W 42.812 kWh6 projectors when on 4542 W 12036.3 kWh6 projectors when off 42 W 256.872 kWh6 projectors (total) 4584 W 12293.17 kWhTable 1: Power Consumption of Impact Media Wall Projectors* Comparable to power rating of 780 W on PT-DW6300ULS data sheet (Panasonic, 2009)** Note: The functional unit used in this calculation for the on state of the projectors is 2650 hoursper year, while the functional unit for the off state of the projectors is 6116 hours per year (total hoursper year subtracted by on state functional unit).An Investigation into the Impact Media Wall 63 Triple Bottom Line Assessment of Current Media WallThe current IMW represents a significant investment by the UBC Faculty of PharmaceuticalSciences. In order to fully assess the IMW, an analysis of the economic, environmental and socialaspects was conducted as part of a triple bottom line assessment. According to the projectstakeholders, the main issues with the current IMW are its high operational costs due to frequent andcostly replacement of projector bulbs, uneven light distribution on the display (See Figure 5), andproprietary back-end software.Figure 5: Photo of the uneven light distribution on the IMWThe assessment of the economic and environmental aspects of the current IMW was aided by anongoing life cycle analysis conducted by a group of UBC graduate students: Eric Paice, Joshua Power,and Wendy Lee. Direct inquiries to the Faculty of Pharmaceutical Sciences resulted in a referral to theaforementioned group, as significant resources had already been expended by the faculty to compile thedata, and any further inquiries were not possible. This group of graduate students completed cost ofownership analyses, as well as energy usage and greenhouse gas emission estimates from themanufacture, transport, and end operation of the current media wall. In line with the stakeholder’sestimate of the ideal run-time of the IMW, used also by Eric Paice et. al, the functional unit used forthe analysis of the IMW display is 2,650 hours per year.With regards to the social assessment of the current IMW, primary data in the form of a surveywas collected, specifically on the social implications of the media wall, and how changing it may ormay not improve public opinion of the Pharmaceutical Sciences building.An Investigation into the Impact Media Wall 73.1 Environmental ConsiderationsThe manufacture and transportation of all the individual components of the IMW has significantenvironmental impact. Often, computer and electrical components are manufactured overseas andshipped to North America, as was the case with the many of the pieces of the media wall. Since theseprocedures have already taken place, the analyses of the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions andelectrical consumption data are incidental to the main assessment of the environmental impact of thecurrent IMW; the aforementioned data is included in Table 2. The salient aspects of the environmentalimpact assessment involve the ongoing operation of the IMW and replacement part production andtransportation. Both electrical energy consumption and GHG emissions have been examined. Table 3outlines the ongoing environmental effects of running and maintaining the IMW.Component Number ofUnitsElectrical Consump-tion per unit (MJ)GHG Emissions perunit (kg CO2 equiv-alent)Projector 6 29.08 7.5Computer 1 5058.12 504.38Video Card 1 16.52 1.17Edge Blender 4 13.55 0.96Mirror Assembly 6 379.32 4.17Glass Assembly 6 729.71 8.03Rear-Projection Film 6 10.21 0.72AV Rack 1 66.29 5.00AV Rack Drawer 1 132.99 10.03TOTAL 12,218.04 646.94Table 2: Environmental effect of manufacture andtransportation of the IMW components* The data for these analyses was provided by Eric Paice et. al, who obtained the numbers directly from thedepartment of Pharmaceutical Sciences. Note that some of the assembly and transportation data (specifically of therear-projection film, glass assembly, and mirror assembly) were unavailable, so educated approximations were madebased on similar products.From Table 2 above, it is evident that the energy required and GHGs emitted for themanufacture and transportation of the computer running the display are by far the largestportion of the respective totals, making up 41.4% of all the energy required, and 78.0% of allthe GHGs emitted. Fortunately, the computer already in use would be compatible with ourproposed alternative wall, so those environmental impacts would not have to be replicated.An Investigation into the Impact Media Wall 8Electrical consumption of the current IMW totals 12,293.16 MJ per year, as noted inTable 3 below. This is the collective total of all of the electrical components involved inrunning the media wall, obtained from a single power meter installed between the powersupply and IMW circuitry. Individual device consumption is unknown, however we were ableto use precise readings from times when the wall was running and times when it was off toextrapolate one functional unit’s worth of overall power consumption for the wall.Component Numberof UnitsElectrical Con-sumption per unitper year (MJ)GHGs Produced to Gener-ate Power per unit per year(kg CO2 eq.)Projector 62048.86* 21.34*Computer 1Video Card 1Edge Blender 4Mirror Assembly 60 N/AGlass Assembly 6Rear-Projection Film 6AV Rack 1AV Rack Drawer 1TOTAL 12,293.16 MJ 128.05 kg CO2 eq.Table 3: Ongoing Environmental Effect of Operating the Impact Media Wall* The electrical consumption and consequent GHG emissions of all the electrical components havebeen grouped together, as power consumption information was only available for the IMW as a whole.According to the BC Hydro website (BC Hydro, 2013a), 90% of BC Hydro’s powergeneration comes from hydroelectric means. The only significant portion of BC Hydro’selectricity generation occurs at the Burrard Thermal Generating Station, which burns naturalgas to produce 7.5% of BC Hydro’s generated electricity. Using an average GHG emission of1100 lbs CO2 eq. per megaWatt hour of electricity generation by natural gas combustion(Jaramillo et al., 2007), it was calculated that since the IMW is being run in BC, 128.05 kgCO2 eq. are produced each year to generate the power used by the wall (see Appendix A forthe calculation). This number would increase dramatically if the IMW was being operated ina part of the world where 90% of the generated power was not hydroelectric.An Investigation into the Impact Media Wall 9Since each projector has 2 bulbs and they are only lasting about 1100 hours each, the IMWas a unit should go through 28.8 bulbs per functional unit (per year), on average. Accordingto (2013), the shipping weight of one of these Panasonic ET-LAD60 lamps is 2lbs, however we assumed that if they were shipped in bulk, the weight would be closer to 1.5lbs each. To ship these from the Chinese factory requires another 10.71 kg CO2 eq.The total environmental impact of running the media wall and shipping in replacementbulbs, then, comes to the equivalent of 138.76 kg CO2 eq. per year. It should be noted thatthe electrical consumption total and GHG emission total in Table 3 each individuallyrepresent the same environmental impact (that of running the media wall), just expressed indifferent units. The electrical consumption and GHG emission totals from Table 2, however,are separate pieces of the total environmental impact of manufacture and transportation, andshould be considered together to evaluate the total impact of these processes.An Investigation into the Impact Media Wall 103.2 Economic ConsiderationsThe IMW represents a substantial part of the Story of Medicines digital media display.Aside from high initial capital costs (See Table 4), the IMW also requires high operation andmaintenance costs which are a major concern of the project stakeholders. The total capitalcosts associated with the hardware and software components, as well as the shipping,handling and installation of the media wall are listed below:Components CostHardwareProjectors$155,850ComputerVideo CardEdge Blending DevicesMirror AssemblyRear-projection FilmAV rackAV rack drawerSoftwareSoftware development and design $40,850Project management and consulting $24,800Installation Services – Set Up, Testing and Configuration $30,045TOTAL $251,545Table 4: Capital Cost Breakdown of the Impact Media Wall**Note: Capital cost calculations do not include: content development and copywriting, videomultimedia development, and exhibit design and fabrication (Paice et al., 2013).In comparison, the capital cost of the the media wall at McCarran International Airport,the largest in the world measuring 33ft by 19ft cost $570,000, and is almost four times the sizeof our wall. This media wall, developed by Samsung, has a similar function to the IMW(O’Reiley, 2011). Scaled to the size of the current wall, the cost of the media wall atMcCarran International would be approximately $160,000. Note that this price does notinclude software development and maintenance. Overall, the capital cost of the IMW is higherthan the relative cost to create a larger LCD display wall.The capital costs by percentage of total cost can also be seen in the chart below (SeeAn Investigation into the Impact Media Wall 11Figure 6).Figure 6: Capital Cost Breakdown of Impact Media WallAs mentioned earlier, the most concerning costs are the ongoing operation andmaintenance costs associated with the IMW (see Table 5).Activity Unit Cost Cost relative tofunctional unitCleaning IMW $500/year $500Dual projector lamps $590/projector $7,818Projector replacement costs $11,500/projectorper estimated 8 yearlifetime*$8,625Power consumption $0.0928/kWh** $1140Lamp shipping costs $55/shipment $121UBC IT labour for lamp replacement $325/replacement $718TOTAL $18,922Table 5: Operation and Maintenance Costs of IMW* Lifetime of 8 years based on a similar DLP projector with a lifespan corresponding to about 7years (TARR, 2009). The projector cost was estimated from a recognized seller of the particularPanasonic PT-DW6300 ULS projector model (Projector Zone, 2013).** Based on BC Hydro Small General Service Rate (BC Hydro, 2013a).The table above (See Table 5) shows that the IMW represents a significant yearly cost forthe UBC Faculty of Pharmaceutical Sciences. The total cost is $18,922 per annum. The mostAn Investigation into the Impact Media Wall 12significant costs however are given by the lamp replacement of the six dual projectors(45.6%), which are composed of: dual replacement lamp costs (41.3%), shipping costs (0.6%)and labour costs (3.7%), as well as the replacement of the projectors themselves (46%). SeeFigure 7 for more details. This $18,922 per annum is 7.5% the capital cost of the wall, andthe majority of that maintenance is going towards replacing the projector bulbs and theprojectors. After ten years of the current set up, the equivalent of three quarters of the entirecapital cost would be spent on replacement of lamps and projectors alone.Figure 7: Operation and Maintenance Costs BreakdownThe cost associated with lamp replacement costs currently represents 76 percent of totaloperation and maintenance costs. These high costs are due mainly to the fact that the dualPT-DW6300 Panasonic projector lamps last only an estimated 1200 hours, as opposed to the2000 hour rating (Pureland Supply, 2013). According to the data sheet for the Panasonicprojectors used in this application, the lamp replacement cycle is shortened if the projector isrepeatedly operated for short periods of time (Panasonic, 2009). Since the IMW and itsrear-projectors are currently operated roughly between 10 am and 2 pm only, or about fourhours daily, the replacement cycle is expectedly reduced.An Investigation into the Impact Media Wall 133.3 Social ConsiderationsA survey was conducted in the Pharmaceutical Sciences building to gauge public interestin the wall and to investigate how building visitors and users think the wall can be improved.Fifty (50) students and faculty were surveyed in the foyer of the Pharmaceutical Sciencesbuilding, near the wall itself. A concerted effort was made to ensure the survey was unbiasedto leave considerable room for free thinking, without influencing the public’s feedback. Atemplate of the conducted survey can be seen below in Figure 8. Tabulated results of all thesurvey data can be found in Appendix B.Figure 8: Pharmaceutical Sciences IMW Survey TemplateAnalysis of our survey responses yielded varied and interesting results. It should be notedthat every survey respondent indicated that they are frequent visitors to the PharmaceuticalSciences building, and are therefore familiar (to some extent) with the IMW and its usualoperations. The vast majority of respondents were most concerned with the content of thewall. Of the received responses, 73.8% of the public’s suggestions involved the content of theIMW display: either integrating news into the display (36.3% of suggestions), updating thefactual content more regularly or making it more interesting (27.5% of suggestions), orincluding pictures, videos, or more graphic content (10.0% of suggestions). Of thesesuggestions, it was reported that inclusion of news updates and updating the wall’s factswould on average have a moderately positive effect on the public opinion of thePharmaceutical Sciences building. The respondents who suggested greater inclusion ofgraphics reported (on average) that it would have a moderate to significant positive impact onAn Investigation into the Impact Media Wall 14their opinion of the building.Empirical studies have shown that interactivity increases the appeal of digital mediaoverall (Exeler et al., 2009). However, only 12.0% of respondents suggested wall interactivity;but, that full twelve per cent all reported that this feature would have a significantly positiveimpact on their opinion of the space. 14.0% of respondents reported that, although they mayhave had other suggestions also, they were happy with how the wall is currently being run.Surprisingly, even though the IMW is currently operating on reduced hours, only 6.0% ofrespondents expressed interest in the wall being operational for more time each day. In fact,8.0% of respondents indicated that the wall was currently running too much considering thesmall fraction of visitors that actively use it. On average, it was reported that all suggestionsabout running hours would have a slight to moderate effect on the respondents’ opinion of thePharmaceutical Sciences building if they were implemented.An Investigation into the Impact Media Wall 154 Alternative Media WallA suitable alternative to the IMW would ideally have a low total cost of ownership (TCO),address the main problems of the current IMW, and present an advantage over the currentwall environmentally, financially, and socially. Christie Digital, an industry leader in digitalsignage, produces a product known as Christie MicroTiles that meets these criteria and couldpresent a viable alternative to the current IMW installed by NGX Interactive.4.1 ImplementationTo fully replace the current IMW with a Christie MicroTiles solution would require thatwe cut the glass panel display out of the current wall and create a pseudo wall to install themicrotiles. In the housing space of the current projectors, a single computer would be storedalong with four control units that power a maximum of 140 tiles. Each tile has physicalspecifications as shown in the table below (See Figure 9).Figure 9: Christie MicroTiles Physical SpecificationsFigure 10: Dimensions of Christie MicroTilesEach tile has a height of 12 inches and a width of 16 inches (See Figure 10). As the currentmedia wall is 26ft by 7ft, which corresponds to an area of 182 square feet, the proposed wall is19 tiles by 7 tiles, which gives dimensions of 7.03 ft by 25.4 ft and a display area of 178.73square feet. The width of the new wall is about 6 inches shorter than that of the originalIMW; but given a wall of this size, this difference is negligible. Thus, for all subsequentcalculations and assessments of the proposed Christie MicroTiles display wall, a unit of 133An Investigation into the Impact Media Wall 16tiles will be used. However, the number of tiles can be scaled down because it is impracticalto have a wall the size of the IMW to be made of touch-enabled microtiles.Christie MicroTiles have a matte surface with a spacing of 1mm around all the edges of atile. They are virtually seamless and are automatically calibrated to the same brightnesslevel. Given the 133 tile setup, the resolution of the display using microtiles would be 13680by 3780 pixels, almost triple the resolution of the current IMW. A microtile display wouldhave three times the pixel density. The actual display system is made of LEDs in an arraysimilar to that of an LED television set (See Appendix C).An Investigation into the Impact Media Wall 175 Triple Bottom Line Assessment of Alternative Media WallTo investigate the validity of using Christie MicroTiles as an alternative to the currentIMW set-up, a triple bottom line assessment was conducted, with specific emphasis on thefeatures that set the microtiles apart from our current wall, namely: an advertised low TCO,environmental friendly production and operation, claimed lower power consumption, and aninteractivity option. The extent to which the alternative media wall addresses the currentproblems of the media wall will also be determined. Data for the economic, environmental,and social assessments was gathered mainly from Christie website and Christie MicroTiledatasheets, which contained data regarding the production of materials, energy consumption,and interactivity options.5.1 Environmental ConsiderationsAs a whole, Christie MicroTiles implements both a green and sustainable design that isrecognized for meeting environmental and energy standards. In the production of ChristieMicroTiles, the materials used are in line with the Restriction of Hazardous Materials (RoHS)compliant, a directive implemented by the European Union to limit certain hazardoussubstances in electrical and electronic equipment. These hazardous substances includecadmium (Cd), lead (Pb), mercury (Hg), hexavalent chromium (Cr6+), polybrominatedbiphenyl (PBB), and polybrominated diphenyl ether (PBDE), all of which must containconcentrations less than their associated maximum limit value, shown in Figure 11. Unlessotherwise exempted, all parts and components are manufactured to satisfy the RoHS directive(Christie Digital, 2013a).Compared to projector-based digital media walls, a Christie MicroTiles display consumes acomparable amount of energy. However, as Christie MicroTiles are built with light emittingdiodes (LEDs), turning specific parts of the wall off when not in use is much more efficient.Christie MicroTiles are also extremely durable compared to projector technology. As a resultof combining both digital light processing (DLP) projection and LEDs, the benefits of eachtechnology are able to create a sustainable solution for implementing in the IMW. The LEDcomponents of the Christie MicroTiles have an extremely long lifespan and are rated at65,000 hours. The microtiles also contain no consumable parts, are able to instantly turn on,and operate 24 hours a day without overheating or causing screen burn-in. At typical,An Investigation into the Impact Media Wall 18Figure 11: Christie MicroTiles RoHS Component Breakdown (Christie Digital, 2013a)calibrated settings, DLP projection technology allows Christie MicroTiles to operate at 1.4candelas per Watt. This provides and outputs more light, more efficiently as very little light isabsorbed. Since the most light possible is being emitted per one Watt of energy consumption,very little energy is consumed to produce heat, which provides a cool surface conducive totouch-screen interactivity. Per tile, the typical power consumption is 70W with a design limitof 110W and a standby power consumption of 16W. A energy saving feature included inChristie MicroTiles is the built-in ecopower energy consumption modes, allowing minimalenergy consumption while adequately displaying digital media (Digital, 2013). Furtherdiscussion on power usage will be provided in the economic analysis.In the production of Christie MicroTiles, the components and parts are designed such thatthey can be reused or recycled to prevent an accumulation of electronic waste. In addition, themicrotiles are extremely versatile and can be easily transported, reassembled, and reconfiguredAn Investigation into the Impact Media Wall 19after their initial implementation. Of the metal and internal components, 80% of the materialcan be recycled and 90% is produced from recoverable materials (Christie Digital, 2013a).5.2 Economic ConsiderationsTo conduct an economic assessment of the Christie MicroTiles alternative, the powerconsumption, capital cost, and operational costs of a full implementation were factored intorelevant calculations. Assessments of the microtile implementation without the interactivityoption and with the interactivity option were conducted separately in order to provide a morecomprehensive assessment. Calculations were mainly done using resources from ChristieDigital.5.2.1 Power ConsumptionUsing the power consumption ratings presented in Figure 12 below, calculations of a fullimplementation were made and summarized in Table 6 that follows.Figure 12: Christie MicroTiles Power Consumption DataUnit Power Con-sumption*Energy Consump-tion per functionalunitwithoutinteractivityper tile (on) 70W 185.5kWhper tile (standby) 16W 97.856 kWhper tile (total) 283.356 kWhTotal of all tiles 37686.348 kWhwithinteractivityper tile (on) 16W 97.856kWhper tile (standby) 16W 97.856 kWhper tile (total) 325.756 kWhtotal of al tiles 43325.548 kWhTable 6: Christie MicroTiles Power ConsumptionAn Investigation into the Impact Media Wall 20* Note: For power consumption calculations, totals can only be done per functional unit since onand standby times are not identical.Overall, Christie MicroTiles use quite a significant amount of energy, especially consideringthere are around 133 units that each consume the same energy as a light bulb. Even ifoperating at a low brightness, a full implementation of a microtile based wall uses asignificantly larger amount of energy than the current projector setup. Below is a discussionof the cost associated with the energy usage of a full microtile system as well as the costs toimplement it.5.2.2 Capital, Operation, and Maintenance CostsCost Cost (with inter-activity features)Total Relative to Func-tional UnitTotal Relative to Func-tional UnitUpfront Hard-ware and labour$279,300 $34,912,50 $518,700 64,837.50Operating andCooling$13,989 $1,748.65 $15,082.48 $2,010.31Replacement andMaintenance$29,880 $3735.00 $56,116 $7,014.50Salvage Value(Return afteroperation)-$18,614 -$2,326.75 -$35,366.00 -$-4,420.75Total $304,551.20 $38,068.90 $555,532,48 $68,441.56Table 7: Christie MicroTiles Capital Cost and InstallationCalculations of the capital cost of a Christie MicroTile solution used the total cost ofownership (TCO) calculator retrieved from the company website (Chrisite Digital, 2013).Calculations used the following parameters (see Appendix D for more details):• Price per tile– Without interactivity: $2000– With interactivity: $3800• Operating informationAn Investigation into the Impact Media Wall 21– Operating hours per day: 8– Operating days per year: 330– Operating hours per year: 2640 (approximate functional unit)– Operating lifetime (years): 8• Energy Costs (per kilowatt-hour): $0.0298• Cooling Costs– Air conditioner SEER rating*: 16– Watts of cooling per kW: 213• Installation and maintenance costs per hour– Full burdened labour rate: $100* The SEER or seasonal energy efficiency rating (or ratio) is a measure of the efficiency of centralair conditioners (Natural Resources Canada, 2013).The overall cost of a Christie MicroTile solution was calculated to be $302,551 without theinteractivity option, and $551,532 with the interactivity option. Note that this calculationdoes not include any labour associated with removing the current IMW.As mentioned earlier, the microtiles use an LED-based digital light processing (DLP)optical system technology, with an LED lifespan rating of 65,000 hours at 50% brightness(Digital, 2013). This rating alone represents 24.5 functional units or even 7.4 years if operatedcontinuously (i.e. 24/7), which precludes the need for high-capital replacement costs. Inaddition, the microtile technology has the added advantage of cutting out scheduledmaintenance or replacement costs, owing to its lack of consumables or moving parts.However, because it takes over 100 tiles to replace the current IMW with a completeMicroTile solution, the maintenance costs of Christie MicroTiles still remain quite high,approximately $8000 per year. Replacement cost was calculated assuming a 2% failure rate ofthe tiles per year as indicated in manufacturing specifications. The possibility of failurewithin the tiles adds significantly to the operational costs because of the high cost of each tile.5.3 Social ConsiderationsOne of the most promising aspects of the microtile option is that it potentially addressestwo of the major improvements suggested by the surveyed visitors of the UBCAn Investigation into the Impact Media Wall 22Pharmaceutical Sciences building: dynamic content and interactivity. Since the content of thecurrent IMW is both read-only and static, repeated viewing or use of the display, especiallyby regular users, is unlikely. Various studies have identified the importance of (real-world)context when it comes to human computer interaction (Schmidt, 2000). In line with thesefindings, the microtile technology would allow for updated dynamic content in the form ofnews or current information which would engage users of the IMW.The microtile option also allows for the inclusion of interactivity using a ChristieInteractivity Kit, which uses Baanto Shadowsense technology, alongside the implementation ofthe Christie MicroTiles (Baanto, 2013). With this kit, one can change an existing ChristieMicroTile displays to a touch-enabled display with suitable sensitivity for a large scale wall.With only an additional 16W of power needed for an interactivity function, this interactivitykit is a practical addition to the wall, provided that a Christie MicroTile display isimplemented. However, the interactivity kit can only be scaled to a wall the size of 16 by 6feet and also requires an unbroken rectangular perimeter. Hence, different design changes,such as interactive sections of panels as opposed to an entirely interactive wall, would beneeded in order to work around these limitations (Christie Digital, 2013b).Even with these limitations, the microtile option still remains an extremely viablepossibility because of the added social engagement it provides. According to Phil Chattertonof the UBC IT department, the inclusion of interactivity would be an ideal addition to thecurrent IMW which is also in line with survey suggestions from regular visitors to the IMWthat indicated the advantages of touchscreen interactivity.A variety of empirical studies have also shown the increased appeal of interactive digitalsignage to users compared to pure one-way information (Exeler et al., 2009). Hence, thepossible inclusion of an interactivity function coupled with updated dynamic content couldsignificantly increase usage of the wall. Visitors would be able to personally interact with theIMW and discover content suited to their interests. With the inclusion of interactivity, thewall could also be programmed to have games, social feeds, and RSS feeds from health andpharmacy-related news websites. Overall, these additions to the media display would offerincreased engagement to both first-time users and frequent visitors.An Investigation into the Impact Media Wall 236 Comparative AssessmentIn order to determine recommendations concerning the UBC Pharmaceutical SciencesIMW, a comparative assessment of the current IMW and the proposed microtile alternativewas conducted. The assessment weighs the costs and benefits of each aspect, environmental,economic and social, as well as the extent to which the alternative addresses the current issueswith the IMW.Christie MicroTiles do seem to address all of the major issues with the current IMW. Themicrotile technology, with its internal LED technology as well as its self-calibrating display(which automatically adjusts brightness and color during set-up and continuously during thedisplay duration) ensures that there will be no uneven light distribution across the displayarea. Furthermore, the microtile technology has an ultra-thin seam of 1mm between tiles,ensuring that media wall presents a near seamless display.6.1 Environmental ComparisonIn terms of energy consumption, which comes with associated environmental impacts, theChristie MicroTiles consume a larger amount of energy per functional unit. Using a scalingfactor of 6 metric tonnes per gigawatt hour of CO2 (or 6 grams per kilowatt hour), thecorresponding GHG emissions were determined and summarized in Figure 13 below. Thescaling factor is taken by the 2010 measurement of GHG intensity per calendary yearconducted by BC Hydro (BC Hydro, 2013b).Figure 13 above shows that compared to the current IMW, the microtile alternative has a53.2% and 76.2% higher gross GHG emission rate per year for the options with and withoutinteractivity respectively. While this is a large comparative increase, the raw quantitativeincreases of 39.3 kg CO2 and 56.2 kg CO2 are not as significant when considering the relativecontribution of energy resources that do not utilize BC Hydro electricity rates. As abenchmark, the relative intensity of energy from fossil fuels is almost 100 times larger thanthat of electricity provided by BC Hydro (BC Hydro, 2013b).It is worth noting however, that despite the higher energy costs of the microtiles, they alsoallow for much more flexibility during implementation. The estimates of power consumptionused in the assessment assume a continuous high level of brightness during the on period ofthe functional unit. In line with this, the current wall runs at full conditions whether or notAn Investigation into the Impact Media Wall 24Figure 13: Comparison of Yearly Energy Consumption and Greenhouse Gas Emissionsusers are viewing the display, which wastes both energy and potential user engagement due tothe limitations of the technology. With the interactivity option of the microtiles, significantpower savings could occur if a majority of the wall was on standby mode when not in use andwould only fully engage when approached by a user. This would not only cut powerconsumption costs, but also increase user engagement, display usage, and prolong the lives ofthe tiles due to the diminished run time.In the context of electronic waste, the Christie MicroTile option is much moreadvantageous as there are no consumable parts that require replacing, unlike the dual lampsof the projector currently being replaced more than twice per functional unit. The LEDtechnology of the microtiles is rated at 65,000 hours, while the documented projector bulblifespan is only 2000 hours, with an actual lifespan estimated at 1200 hours. Furthermore, thematerials in the microtile system are RoHS compliant and composed of 80% recyclablematerials, which allows for safe and easy disposal of the Christie MicroTiles after its lifespanand ensures that the tiles will not contribute to the addition of cadmium, lead, mercury, andother restricted substances in electronic waste landfills. Unlike the projector lamps, theChristie MicroTiles also have a salvage option once the tiles have expired past their lifetime,which would allow for the return and repurpose of the expended tiles to the manufacturingAn Investigation into the Impact Media Wall 25company, thereby reducing waste and the accompanying environmental impact.6.2 Economic ComparisonOne of the major issues with the current IMW is the high operation and maintenance costsof about $19,000, 86% of which come from the replacement of the projectors and projectorlamps. This cost would only continue to increase throughout the lifespan of the display as theprojector hardware deteriorates over time. A full microtile implementation on the other hand,expectedly comes with high initial capital costs: about $300,000 without interactivity and$555,000 with interactivity. Furthermore, the microtile option would still have replacementcosts due to the documented 2% failure rate of the tiles as well as the increased powerconsumption costs. In terms of yearly operation and maintenance costs however, the microtileoption presents a much cheaper alternative, as summarized in Figure 14 below.Figure 14: Comparison of Annual Operation and Maintenance CostsThe annual cost for a microtile implementation (without interactivity) is about $5,983.65 ayear, about 68 percent less than the annual IMW costs of $18,922. Over the estimatedlifetime of 8 years used in the calculation, this amounts to $103,506.80 in savings, alreadyabout 34% of the entire capital costs of implementation which would help offset theimplementation costs of the microtile option.An Investigation into the Impact Media Wall 26With interactivity, the operational cost advantages of the microtile implementation areexpectedly diminished since the implementation has a yearly cost of $9524.81, about 50percent less than the current IMW. It should be noted that despite the noticeable differencein power consumption costs per year, the difference is marginal compared to the dualprojector lamp, projector and microtile replacement costs respectively. Furthermore, despitethe higher power costs initially, the microtiles have a more consistent energy use over longperiods compared to the projectors which degrade much more noticeably over time, thuspresenting an appealing alternative.6.3 Social ComparisonMicrotiles can potentially fix many of the content related issues of the wall noted by thepeople we surveyed. Currently, the display content of the IMW is limited to a static set ofread-only information as part of the collective SOM display. With the proprietary software ofthe current wall however, implementing changing content also presents a challenge for themedia display. The current IMW is bound to the same limitations as traditional paper-basedmedia in that it is both read only and non-contextual (Schmidt, 2000) and does not takeadvantage of the potential of digital signage and the reduced CDI cycle (Harrison &Andrusiewicz, 2004). Visually and practically, having an interactive microtile display wouldbe attractive to all stakeholders alike. However, a microtile system would also require newand more complex display graphics to be created on top of implementing interactivefunctionality, which would create additional costs. Despite these concerns, the social benefitsof the microtile technology far outweigh the incidental costs, which would also be notablymarginal compared to the initial capital costs. Consequently, the microtile alternative wouldincrease the usage and overall impact of the media display for users in all sectors.Another aspect to consider are the respective companies involved in each media walloption: NGX Interactive, a local Vancouver-based company responsible for installing thecurrent IMW, and Christie Digital Systems Canada, Inc., which produces the ChristieMicroTiles for the possible alternative media wall. Despite the benefits of contracting a localcompany, it should be noted that the current concerns with the IMW are outside the scope ofNGX Interactive. Thus, contracting Christie Digital, an Ontario-based company, for thealternative option is extremely viable in that respect.An Investigation into the Impact Media Wall 277 Conclusion and RecommendationsFrom the comparative assessment of the current IMW and the alternative ChristieMicroTile implementation, there are a number of recommendations that could rectify thecurrent issues with the media wall, as well as increase its overall usage and impact. Theproposed microtile display presents numerous benefits: economic, social and environmental.Aside from fixing the edge-blending and light distribution issues, and significantly reducingyearly replacement and maintenance costs, the proposed wall not only improves functionality,but would likely increase the overall usage of the wall display. However, the initial capitalcosts, particularly for an interactive display, are not negligible. Hence, a full ChristieMicroTile display with integrated partial interactivity would likely be the most viablerecommendation.With this option, the advantages of interactivity would be obtained at reduced cost,maximizing both the social and economic benefits. Furthermore, the savings from yearlymaintenance and operations costs over eight years already offset about a third of the initialcapital costs, making the option rather affordable. An initial two-year warranty would alsotemporarily negate early maintenance and replacement costs for the microtile technology. Theversatility of the interactive touchscreen technology would also allow for more power savingoptions if the wall was placed on standby mode when not in use and only activated whendesired by approaching users. This would decrease energy consumptions costs and increasethe lifetime of each individual tile, consequently reducing replacement costs and the overallfailure rate. By extension, the associated environmental costs from electronics productionwaste and power consumption would also be reduced.Without the implementation of new hardware, however, the easiest and potentially themost efficacious change to increase the overall public interest in the wall is to introducedynamic content into the current IMW display in the form of news and videos. This changewould increase the overall public interest in the wall without incurring significant costs.Implementing dynamic content would increase the overall functionality of the IMW and alsoactively convey the ever-changing Story of Medicines. However, as this solution does notaddress the other issues of the IMW, this recommendation is best implemented in conjunctionwith the microtile alternative.An Investigation into the Impact Media Wall 28ReferencesBaanto. (2013). Christie interactivity kit — baanto, scalable touch solutions. Retrieved2013-11-24, from Hydro. (2013a). Bc hydro - business rate prices. Retrieved 2013-11-24, from Hydro. (2013b). En16 greenhouse gas intensities. Retrieved 2013-11-24, from reports/2011 gri/f2011 environmental/f2011 environmental EN16 2.htmlChrisite Digital. (2013). Total cost of ownership (tco) calculator. Retrieved 2013-11-24, from Digital. (2013a). Christie digital certificate of compliance. Retrieved 2013-11-24,from Digital. (2013b). Christie interactivity kit data sheet. Retrieved 2013-11-24, from, R. (2010). The tuning of place. MIT Press. Retrieved from, P., Beard, J., & Holland, M. (2011). University libraries and digital learningenvironments. Ashgate. Retrieved from, C., Michon, R., Brakus, J. J., Newman, A., & Alamanos, E. (2012). New insights intothe impact of digital signage as a retail atmospheric tool. Journal of Consumer Behaviour ,11 (6), 454–466.Digital, C. (2013). Chrisite microtiles data sheet. Retrieved 2013-11-24, from Investigation into the Impact Media Wall 29Exeler, J., Buzeck, M., & Mller, J. (2009). emir: Digital signs that react to audience emotion.In Gi jahrestagung (Vol. 154, p. 3904-3910). GI.Harrison, J. V., & Andrusiewicz, A. (2004). A virtual marketplace for advertising narrowcastover digital signage networks. Electronic Commerce Research and Applications, 3 (2),163-175.Jaramillo, P., Griffin, W. M., & Matthews, H. S. (2007). Comparative life-cycle air emissionsof coal, domestic natural gas, lng, and sng for electricity generation. Environmental ScienceTechnology , 41 (17), 6290-6296. Retrieved 2013-11-24, from doi: 10.1021/es063031oNatural Resources Canada. (2013). Central air conditioners — office of energy efficiency.Retrieved 2013-11-24, from Interactive. (2010). Ngx digital exhibits operations and maintenance manual. version 1.(Source: UBC Faculty of Pharmaceutical Sciences - Story of Medicines (SOM))O’Reiley, T. (2011). Samsung unveils $570,000 video wall at McCarran. Retrieved2013-11-24, from, E., Power, J., & Lee, W. (2013). Life cycle analysis of impact media wall. (Data fromGraduate Students)Panasonic. (2009). Pt-dw6300uls data sheet. Retrieved 2013-11-24, from cad.pdfProjector Zone. (2013). Panasonic pt-dw6300uls projector. Retrieved 2013-11-24, from Supply. (2013). Pt-dw6300 panasonic twin-pack pt-dw6300 lamp replacement.Retrieved 2013-11-24, from Investigation into the Impact Media Wall 30Schmidt, A. (2000). Implicit human computer interaction through context. PersonalTechnologies, 4 (2-3), 191-199. Retrieved from 10.1007/BF01324126TARR, G. (2009). Dpi to debut led-powered dlp projector. TWICE: This Week in ConsumerElectronics, 24 (18), 38. Retrieved from Pharmaceutical Sciences. (2013). Impact media wall — ubc pharmaceutical sciences.Retrieved 2013-11-24, from Investigation into the Impact Media Wall 31AppendicesAppendix A - Greenhouse Gase Emissions CalculationGHG Emissions from BC Hydro electricity generation to supply the current IMW withpower:kg CO2 eq. = 1100 ∗lbs CO2 eq.MWh∗1MWh3600MJ∗1kg2.2lbs∗ 2048.86MJ ∗ 7.5%= 21.34 kg CO2 eq.An Investigation into the Impact Media Wall 32Appendix B - Impact Media Wall Survey ResultsThe survey was completed by 50 students and faculty on the main floor of thePharmaceutical Sciences building, in the seating area in front of the media wall. All 50respondents indicated that they were frequent visitors to the Pharmaceutical Sciencesbuilding.Proposed Change Number oftimes thesuggestionappearedSizeof setASizeof setBsize ofset CAverage Social Im-pact [0(slight) -3(significant)]Display news onthe wall29 5 18 6 2.03Increase variety ofdispalyed facts22 4 16 2 1.90Include picturesand/or videos9 0 4 5 2.55Do nothing 7 N/A N/A N/A N/AMake the wall in-teractive6 0 0 6 3.00Reduce operatingtime4 2 2 0 1.50Increase operat-ing time3 1 2 0 1.67Table 8: Tabulated Survey ResultsFor each proposed change we encountered, Set A is the group of people who said themodification would only slightly improve their opinion of the IMW and the PharmaceuticalSciences building, Set B is the group of people who said the modification would moderatelyimprove their opinion of the IMW and the Pharmaceutical Sciences building, and Set C is thegroup of people who said the modification would significantly improve their opinion of theIMW and the Pharmaceutical Sciences building. Note that the calculated Average SocialImpact index is a value between 0 and 3 indicating the average magnitude of improvementthat respondents reported their opinions of the wall and building would undergo if the changewas implemented. It is calculated by the following formula:Average Social Impact Index =(1 ∗A) + (2 ∗B) + (3 ∗ C)Number of time the suggestions appearedAn Investigation into the Impact Media Wall 33Appendix C - Christie MicroTile DesignerAn Investigation into the Impact Media Wall 34Appendix D - Christie MicroTiles TCOAn Investigation into the Impact Media Wall 35


Citation Scheme:


Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics



Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            async >
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:


Related Items