Master intensity per mix

[emilianomorgia]

I do realize that with 12 layers + 4 mixes this goes way over a single DMX universe, but this is easily overcome by using ArtNET, or using fewer layers/mixes.

I'd love a light version of layers layout . No Keystone , no strobe , no trail .

Very basic stuf to control only the contents .

All other control could then go in the Mix control .

Not as standard , I do not say I don't want the 40ch , but I'll like a light version of the layer .

Also I wish a A/B crossfade layout . Say 6 A/B xfade layers .

the A/B xfade it's very useful , once you set the geometry in the Layer what you have to do it's only to select different contents and fade from A to B
Easy simple and useful , 90% of catalyst programming it's about crossfade from one content to an other .

I'm sure someone will jump in and will say that I'm having the worst idea by thinking to the A/B xfade but this is what I wish .

[Marty Postma]

Not at all...in fact there is some similar discussion going on in the DL.2 forums.

The PRG MBox already does this.

All we really need is two extra channels...one that determines the type of crossfade, and another that determines the speed.

So that once you change your Folder/File values...instead of "snapping" to the next piece of content...it follows the settings on these two new channels.

This should be added to the layers....maybe even as a Visual FX...with FX Param-1 being "type of crossfade" and Param-2 being "crossfade speed".

[Marty Postma]

Here is the thread on the HES forums for anyone who is interested:

http://forums.highend.com/showthread.php?t=4931

[emilianomorgia]

All we really need is two extra channels...one that determines the type of crossfade, and another that determines the speed.

So that once you change your Folder/File values...instead of "snapping" to the next piece of content...it follows the settings on these two new channels.

This should be added to the layers....maybe even as a Visual FX...with FX Param-1 being "type of crossfade" and Param-2 being "crossfade speed".

I wish it could be so easy to do , but i think transitions cost a lots of GPU resources . May be it could be possible if a A/B layer stand as Two .
As far I know this is a very old request but it's never come to light , there must be some reason .



Also, Martin this A/B will solve even your transparency issue , isn't it ?

[Marty Postma]

I wish it could be so easy to do , but i think transitions cost a lots of GPU resources......As far I know this is a very old request but it's never come to light , there must be some reason .

I certainly hope it is easy....I'm sure Richard will make it look that way if it is possible. I would think that with the newer machines that there are enough resources for this.

Also, Martin this A/B will solve even your transparency issue , isn't it ?

Yes A/B could solve some of the earlier mentioned transparency issues, but so could a Visual FX on a Layer as the crossfade would then be occuring on a single Layer as opposed to two.

[jasonrudolph]

Yes A/B could solve some of the earlier mentioned transparency issues, but so could a Visual FX on a Layer as the crossfade would then be occuring on a single Layer as opposed to two.

Actually, this really wouldn't solve the transparency issues. Most of the problem comes from when you have two layers composited (via alpha or an effect) and you need to decrease the intensity of the image on the output for camera (too bright of a background, etc), and the top layer starts to become transparent and shows the layer behind it. I have run into this problem many times, and it is a very annoying problem.
Having a master intensity that does not effect opacity of the layers is really what is needed to solve this problem.

[Marty Postma]

Having a master intensity that does not effect opacity of the layers is really what is needed

I agree completely on the need for a Mix Intensity.

[SourceChild]

...Most of the problem comes from when...you need to decrease the intensity of the image on the output...and the top layer starts to become transparent and shows the layer behind it...

A Trick for this I have posted in another thread is to take your top layer and decrease the RGB simultaneously to darken the layer, the same way you would when you use colorFX 1 and 2 to decrease the brighness of each fx.

Conversely, you can also have another layer on top of the stack with Lib 000 and file 001 (which is black) and by fading that layer up, it darkens the mix.

Granted this isn't what you are talking about, but a fix for the issue.

[jasonrudolph]

A Trick for this I have posted in another thread is to take your top layer and decrease the RGB simultaneously to darken the layer, the same way you would when you use colorFX 1 and 2 to decrease the brighness of each fx.

Conversely, you can also have another layer on top of the stack with Lib 000 and file 001 (which is black) and by fading that layer up, it darkens the mix.

Granted this isn't what you are talking about, but a fix for the issue.

Yes, there are ways to fix this when you can program it ahead of time, but my biggest problem is that I need to be able to adjust this on the fly, usually by creating a group master/inhibitive to ride levels on the fly. It changes based on the content, the camera shot, the way cameras were shaded that day, etc. It is not something that can always bee foreseen as well, and that is where the problem normally shows up. Also, there are times when I am using the color fx (actually, I normally end up using color controls in every cue, whether it be an HSC mode to adjust for the particular display devices to match on camera, or just changing a color) so it's normally not an option for me to use the color parameters.

On other servers, its not as big of an issue, as there are dedicated Sat/Contrast controls or you have multiple effects on each layer, but in catalyst, you only have one color effect, which is controlled by the RGB parameters, so it is a much bigger problem for me with Catalyst.

[Marty Postma]

I'd love a light version of layers layout . No Keystone , no strobe , no trail .

Very basic stuf to control only the contents .

All other control could then go in the Mix control .

Not as standard , I do not say I don't want the 40ch , but I'll like a light version of the layer .

I agree that a smaller DMX footprint for Layers would be great too, especially if some of the control (such as keystone, etc) goes into a Mix Control "fixture".

Losing Keystone would save 8 channels per layer alone