At the moment when you make a Merge transition between a source and its virtual input with different Position values ​​the transition smoothly changes the Position parameters of one to the other, however, if you enable Flatten Layers on both inputs the Merge turns into a regular crossfade. It would be great if there was an option to make a Merge with a Flatten Layered input and its virtual input.

I've been saying for a while now that, if there was ever a use for AI in vMix, it'd be image analysis-based merge transitions.

So I'm going +1 this, but I feel like tracking a particular image through mixes is going to be a tough ask, and the image analysis idea is probably too resource intensive.


The simple answer is that, in the best case scenario, it's a boondoggle. You're doubling inputs just to get a clean merge transition.

In a worst case scenario, it's even more of a boondoggle.

I have a Zoom split screen setup, for example.

People aren't always centered on their webcam. This isn't always obvious with the full image, but it is pretty obvious when they're put in a smaller square/rectangle on the split screen. And there's only so much maneuvering of them or their camera that can be done sometimes.

So as part of the onboarding, I have an input where I discretely realign them so they're centered. That's the input I use for the split screen.

But because the crop and positioning of the image on the split screen needs to be independent of the center positioning, it needs to be flattened.

I can't merge to the actual layer, because the adjustment means there's a variable sized chunk missing from the side of the frame.

So the only option is to switch from layer flattening to a Mix input (which I'm running up against the limit on as it is)

Then add another input and layer the Mix input under the full frame input & merge to that.

For each person.

Is it possible? Sure.

But it's enough of a hassle that I just use cuts.

I appreciate your concern, but, no, I'm not.

Within the constraints I'm dealing with, I can assure you that I'm going about this the right way.



Because it messes with the image.

The only way to not cut off the image is to zoom in. Which messes with the vertical composition of the image, which is sometimes overly tight as it is. In the ~15 years I've been doing this, I've had one person in memory who was too far away from the camera. Almost everyone else has been perfect, and a few have been too close.

I send positioning information with my confirmations, and it's far easier for guests to ensure they have adequate clearances above and below their head for my stylistic liking & audience preference than it is to ensure they're dead center.

Their environment often dictates where the camera is positioned, and where they are in relation to it.

When you do the type of interviews I do, the guests are doing you a favor and you take what they're able to offer and work around it if (and when) it's less than ideal.

I'm also dealing with max 720p Zoom inputs being recorded at 1080p in a 4K project. The last thing I need is to reduce their resolution further with a virtual zoom.

Additionally, the virtual PTZ functions the same as the regular PTZ and requires an explicit "stop" command that isn't compatible with controller knobs.



Considering that the virtual PTZ, again, doesn't work with knobs, it's no way easier to use with my knob-based control surface than the thing that does work with knobs.

And the amount of control I have is perfectly sufficient. Even if I bought into your premise that virtual PTZ offers finer control (I don't), it's not something I need, especially with all of the drawbacks it comes with.



At the expense of everything outlined above.

Again, I appreciate your concern, but the months I spent building, workshopping, and troubleshooting the various options over the years (including the one you suggest), as well as the time I've spent developing and mastering my preferred style in connection with focus grouping my audience, and the time I've spent talking to past and future guests to hone in on what causes certain decisions and how I can best emphasize what I need to get the best production possible while still acknowledging that they're doing me a favor with the limited time they have available, most likely outweigh the (I assume) less than an hour you spent between reading my situation and deciding I'm "approaching this the wrong way".

I know it says I joined the forum less than 5 years ago, which I did.

But I've been using vMix for almost a decade and a half and this point. And I've been doing these types of interviews longer than that.

I have a pretty good handle what my average guest can/can't/will/won't do and I have an extremely good handle on what the software can/can't do within the realm of what I need done.

I knew what it could do when I started. I know what it can do now. And every time new functionality is introduced, if it provides a new workflow of doing what I need done, I test it. If interacts with existing functions that I previously tested, but might impact how they perform, I retest them.

My goal, from the very beginning, has always been to make the best production possible within the constraints posed by my circumstances and my guests'.

Which is exactly why I can point to 3 reasons, immediately, that what you believe to be the best choice is worse than my current option. Because I've tried it, more than once, and, despite your claim that I'm "approaching this the wrong way" & that I should be doing it your way, your way does not yield the best production possible within those constraints.

If you have other suggestions, I'm open to listening to them, but I'd recommend keeping in mind that I've been doing the types of interviews I've been doing, within the circumstances they're done in, for longer than you've been thinking about them, so the odds are that anything you can come up with is something I've already tried and rejected.

So maybe try to stick to the "Why don't you..." questions and less of the baseless "You're approaching this the wrong way" nonsense.

I know what I'm doing and I know why I'm doing it. And I didn't appreciate what I interpreted as a claim to the contrary.

But it was also a bad time for me, and I overreacted.

I'm sorry.


I agree--garbage in, garbage out. 100%.

But Zoom mirroring by default doesn't help, but I've had a number of cases where, for example, the layout of the room and the viewing angle of the camera are such that they position themselves to block something the camera is picking up in the background.

I actively discourage the use of tools like AI background blurring or fake backgrounds for performance and aesthetic reasons, which I know contributes to that issue, but it's a tradeoff I make knowingly.



Position based shortcuts allow for incremental adjustment, which is how I do it (through knobs/dials).

Turn the knob left, the person moves left a click. Turn the knob right, the person moves right a click.

The crop remains consistent, so I just have to do that until they're centered within the crop (and 1/3 grid that I have up over the crop).

I generally do it as soon as they're logged in and settled, while we're engaging in the "Hi, how are you?" chitchat that I also use for adjusting levels on the next knob over.



This is something I don't have.

I get that minute or so of chit chat before we start, but I've had (the rare, but still) experiences where my guests have been so exasperated by that they've threatened to walk if we don't hit the ground running.

I think they were just jerks, but combined with a few times that I have asked for more and been met with a less than warm reaction, it's enough to make me wary of trying to get more, even if it is for the betterment of the production.



I started with MIDI, but I kept turning the wrong knob (since I'm doing everything at a glance and from memory while engaging in the aforementioned chit chat), so I switched to StreamDeck+, since it lets me lock the knob function (through an admittedly contrived workflow).

That also solved the problem entirely though because the display tells me what each knob does, so even at a quick glance, I can see that I'm on the right one.

When I first started, I did everything in the GUI, because the shortcuts were limited and so were the devices that could use them. I could never remember which keyboard key I'd assigned would do what, so I did everything manually.

Never again.

More recently, I didn't even have the GUI open on my monitors.

Even more recently, I finally upgraded to a system that'd support additional monitors and added one so I could have the GUI open, but I just use it to open the Zoom Manager (since there's no shortcut for that) and watch the audio meters.



If I'm understanding correctly, which I may not be, that would cause the merge to not merge properly, because the adjusted input being used for the split screen isn't going to align with the original being merged to, since "center" moved in the one but not the other.