Printable View
Because text creation is served by very very good programs.
such as livetype, aftereffects and photoshop...
http://www.kenstone.net/fcp_homepage...damentals.html
You can create simple or complex text in all these programs, and animate it in a way that would be impossible to do with a few dmx channels.
Peoples text needs are complex, and cant easily be crammed into a few dmx channels.
Livetype is bundled with Final Cut Pro:
http://www.apple.com/finalcutpro/livetype.html
Plus the code work alone can take months for text generation. There are too many variables that the average user doesn't think about. There would be more time spent worring about text than actual useful items that aren't handled by current pieces of software.
There are just some fantastic pieces of software out there to do text really fast.Quote:
Originally Posted by dannyb
From a design point of view- you really really dont want to go down the EX1 path - with hundreds of channels.
You need hundreds of 'channels' to do text.
In a program like after effects - the number of 'channels' is vast - thousands.
You could never or would never want to represent this on a tool designed for fast access of a small number of parameters- like a lighting console.
Every single extra channel affects the perceived complexity of a product.
Complexity or perceived complexity is NOT linear- you hit the wall of unuseability very fast.
Im already close to it. Thats why I reduced the number of channels between v1 and v3 from 54 to 40.
The number of parameters i have is 23 plus 8 keystone parameters.
You can ignore the keystone parameters most of the time.
Designers of software have to shift complexity elsewhere.
As systems become 'more powerful' they must at the same time become simpler- not more complex.