3 requests

[Mr_P]

Re manual & DMX control....
It would get horribly confusing from a programmer / operator point of view. Its usually sensible to keep all the programming in ONE place. Once you start programming a bit in catalyst, then a bit on the desk - it becomes a big mess.... in short - DMX OR Manual keep the programming in ONE place

With regard to the camera - the intensity is controlled by the layer - all you would have to do is fade down the layer and the 'dead' camera is gone.

Solution I use for live input at the production desk is to DA the source and send it down a loom. - VLC udp multicast IP video stream would be interesting!....

[kiwi]

Re manual & DMX control....
It would get horribly confusing from a programmer / operator point of view. Its usually sensible to keep all the programming in ONE place. Once you start programming a bit in catalyst, then a bit on the desk - it becomes a big mess.... in short - DMX OR Manual keep the programming in ONE place

With regard to the camera - the intensity is controlled by the layer - all you would have to do is fade down the layer and the 'dead' camera is gone.

Solution I use for live input at the production desk is to DA the source and send it down a loom. - VLC udp multicast IP video stream would be interesting!....

I agree that it is best to keep programming in one place, however I also think that there should be flexability. There are applications when having control from different sources is very useful -busking a live show for example.

As for the camera, you are correct, you can just fade out the layer providing the camera always appears on the same layer in each cue. For my show it jumps between 3 different layers (on purpose) and sometimes appears on muliple layers. having an opacity control pre layer would enable me to fade this live input out in one place.