getting rid of an fx

User submitted ideas for how we can make the Palette and Light Palette Consoles better
Post Reply
User avatar
mat
Posts: 448
Joined: Thu Nov 15, 2007 12:05 pm
Primary Venue / Use: Professional Theatre
Where I Am: An opera in France
Location: Dijon;France
Contact:

getting rid of an fx

Post by mat » Thu Jun 04, 2009 1:14 pm

Could we imagine a simple way to get rid of an fx (a tracking one) ?
For example having the possibility to edit the "action" blue box and delete the fx symbol.
And we could also copy it or move it between cues in the action column...
drag and drop thing...
Mat-Opera de Dijon
France
lightpalette VL
palette VL 16
10.8.8

User avatar
BobbyHarrell
Posts: 2281
Joined: Fri Oct 12, 2007 10:51 am
Location: Livingston, NJ
Contact:

Re: getting rid of an fx

Post by BobbyHarrell » Thu Jun 04, 2009 9:21 pm

like the idea.
Bobby Harrell - Product Specialist
Philips Entertainment - Strand Lighting

User avatar
PhilFoleen
Posts: 158
Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2008 8:50 am
Location: New York, NY
Contact:

Re: getting rid of an fx

Post by PhilFoleen » Fri Jun 05, 2009 4:31 pm

me too
If you want to paint with light, you're going to need a Palette

User avatar
RobertBell
Posts: 2421
Joined: Fri Oct 12, 2007 1:11 pm
Primary Venue / Use: Other
Where I Am: Horizon Control Inc
Location: On the dark side just north of Toronto
Contact:

Re: getting rid of an fx

Post by RobertBell » Fri Jun 05, 2009 4:36 pm

If cue 1 has an FX icon, then cue 3 adds another FX, then you are tracking both to cue 100, how do you know (except by looking in the Running FX grid) which is coming from where?
Robert Bell - Product Manager - Horizon Control Inc.

User avatar
TaineGilliam
Posts: 1183
Joined: Tue Oct 23, 2007 5:15 pm
Location: Cleveland, OH
Contact:

Re: getting rid of an fx

Post by TaineGilliam » Fri Jun 05, 2009 6:17 pm

Sounds like a perfect question for the console to ask the user when they go to drag/drop, edit or delete. If there are multiple FX then you get a small dialog to let the user choose.

This also sounds like a door to at least a portion of the Blind FX editor, If not all of the parameters then at least the Duration related options.

There are other possibilities with tracksheet or even timeline style editors that could prove very useful here, too.

User avatar
JohnGrimshaw
Posts: 1233
Joined: Tue Oct 16, 2007 12:51 pm
Primary Venue / Use: Other
Where I Am: International Man of Mystery
Location: Sydney, Australia
Contact:

Re: getting rid of an fx

Post by JohnGrimshaw » Sat Jun 06, 2009 12:46 am

This kinda links into the question about how you would control an FX by Macros.

I have always tought that an effect recorded somewhere should also get a unique name: FX1, FX2, FX3 etc, and that could be the "key" to selectively controlling an effect later. Whether it be a later cue, or a macro.

Horizon could then also create two simple macro commands to control the effect, or selectively manipulate any parameter of a specific effect, assuming it is running:
HC.EffectControl([EffectName],[Action - Release/Pause/Start/Step])
HC.EffectModify([EffectName],[Parameter],[NewValue],([time]))

What "EffectModify" could do is put ANY individual parameter of an effect onto a sub. Think about this...
HC.EffectModify('FX1','Rate',HC.LookGetValue('SubPage1',16))
...the above code would put the RATE of that specific effect onto a fader.
...and for more entertainment industry trivia and useless facts, just ask:
John Grimshaw
Managing Director
Stage Fast Pty Ltd

User avatar
BrianEvans
Posts: 700
Joined: Fri Oct 12, 2007 1:11 pm
Location: Orlando, Florida

Re: getting rid of an fx

Post by BrianEvans » Sat Jun 06, 2009 9:50 am

I think we have shy'd away from effects macro out of shell shock.

Effects in Horizon were ONLY macros.
What a nightmare.

I think a higher priority that may even make this discussion null,
is using an effect in a look as a palette.

Draggin and dropping things,
everyone complains about using the mouse anyway.
Brian Evans - System Specialist - Horizon Control Inc.

User avatar
TaineGilliam
Posts: 1183
Joined: Tue Oct 23, 2007 5:15 pm
Location: Cleveland, OH
Contact:

Re: getting rid of an fx

Post by TaineGilliam » Mon Jun 08, 2009 12:53 am

I think John is really on to something. If we were to treat an FX as an entity (allow the user to name if desired) we open the door to lots of cool advantages.

1) They would be easy to copy or move.
2) They would be reusable as Palettes - different from "copy" in that changes to the original are seen in the second instance.
3) It would be easier to adjust parameter especially in the widely anticipated blind FX editor.
4) It would open he door for Lua control of effects. I especially like linking parameters to variables and/or sub-handles.
5) Stopping is easy - in the required Q(or part) you adjust the duration for the running FX to "Cue Time" and have it fade away.

Accessing the FXs that are attached to Cues could be easy from clicking on the Wand or Blue box edit dialog boxes. A column with Wand for Looks with attached FX would unify this.

FX that have Duration set to a defined number of Cycles or Time would not be seen as tracking. However FX with a duration of Continuous would be seen as tracking and get a "Tracked Wand" symbol until either all of the "effected" channels are Deltaed or the FX duration is changed to a something finite.

Depending how we view the structure of active and inactive effects this may also open up some possibilities for multiple FX resolving at the same time. And this is where my plug for a new parameter for many of the FX type comes in: absolute vs. relative - consider an intensity chase that instead of having levels of 0 and full used the under lying intensity and a +25%. Even more fun for a Color Block wrap that used the underlying color and a boost to saturation... Especially nifty if the "off" channels are not stolen by the effect as fun pile-ons and multiple FX layers becomes a reality.

As for the active vs all effects, it seems useful to have Lua access to both list - active being a subset of all effects in the show.

In the longer term building this from the inside out for maximum flexiblity later as our ideas evolve seems prudent rather than a quick "Effect on subs as palattes" that doesn't allow for further growth.

User avatar
RobertBell
Posts: 2421
Joined: Fri Oct 12, 2007 1:11 pm
Primary Venue / Use: Other
Where I Am: Horizon Control Inc
Location: On the dark side just north of Toronto
Contact:

Re: getting rid of an fx

Post by RobertBell » Mon Jun 08, 2009 8:05 am

On a side note, an undocumented feature of 10.6.1 is a new cue list property called Cue List Type. Apart from Normal (tracking) there is Chase Forward, Chase Reverse, Chase Bounce and Chase Random. The unique thing about chase cue lists is that ONLY recorded values are asserted as the step (cue) is active. Nothing tracks and values you would expect to track in a normal cue list fade to the underlying values. This type of (let's say) 'effect' offers functionality never before offered in our products. i.e., two 'things' running on the same attribute at the same time. Another example is setting a base value (say a blue wall of light) with random pops to a specific (recorded) colour. Obviously you use standrad Macro Commands to GO and RELEASE these cue lists. FYI - if you don't specify any follow, the cues follow with the longest fade time (i.e. Follow After Fade).
Robert Bell - Product Manager - Horizon Control Inc.

User avatar
TaineGilliam
Posts: 1183
Joined: Tue Oct 23, 2007 5:15 pm
Location: Cleveland, OH
Contact:

Re: getting rid of an fx

Post by TaineGilliam » Mon Jun 08, 2009 4:20 pm

Robert - I LOVE undocumented features.

Now all we need to do is create a few scripts to build the cues - writing all of the cues with just a couple fixtures each for a hundred fixtures in just the sort of thing a computer is for.

Post Reply