[PD] Approaches to "show control" platforms
s9lucas at gmail.com
Mon Nov 17 07:57:17 CET 2014
We've been very interested in implementing a custom show runner with a
focus on making cues for reliable routing of multichannel audio and
multichannel video. I built a player in Max6 to get 3ch video 2ch audio for
somebody's show and it ran pretty well. However, when trying to implement
the same code for a piece that relied on having very consistent, very
smooth HD video, we couldn't maintain a consistent framerate. Ultimately,
we used QLab, but we'd prefer to not need their expensive licenses.
I'd be interested to know benchmarks for multichannel audio and HD video
playback using Pd/GEM. We hadn't investigated it since I assumed Jitter
rendering to GPU with HAP should be better than what GEM can do, but I
would be ecstatic to go to Pd for this if the playback performance was good.
On Sun, Nov 16, 2014 at 8:56 PM, Simon Wise <simonzwise at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 17/11/14 04:53, Pagano, Patrick wrote:
>> I would love to see this idea expanded or developed. The issue i have run
>> into over and over again is that pd would need to be CUED from patch to
>> so one could design a linear show. I have not seen this possible the way
>> designed. For this reason i use Isadora,
> I often trigger one patch from another, on the same machine or other
> machines ... or trigger many patches from a single simple master patch used
> to run a show, with just the cues and/or follow-ons plus maybe an overall
> volume or such that gets sent to all the patches. Essentially it is very
> easy to make a single interface patch to do the kinds of things Isadora and
> others have as a built-in GUI layer. I usually use [netsend], it is almost
> as straightforward as [send] locally, and fairly trival onto a local
> network. But there are other options. The fact that I can trigger to and
> from scripts in exactly the same way, using pdreceive, is great.
> I have not used Isadora for many many years .... I switched to Pd exactly
> because I was frustrated with the limitations the built-in workflows, GUIs
> and assumptions imposed, and the frustrating inflexibility of OSX ...
> Isadora is designed for and tested with a particular workflow and if that
> matches your own workflow then it may be a very sensible choice for you,
> likewise for choosing OSX ... one big advantage of that built-in approach
> is exactly that it is limited to the commonly needed features and hence it
> is always familiar, and requires less configuration and less under-the-hood
> knowledge than a more general and flexible system.
> Pd-list at lists.iem.at mailing list
> UNSUBSCRIBE and account-management -> http://lists.puredata.info/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Pd-list