logo

Live Production Software Forums


Welcome Guest! To enable all features please Login or Register.

Notification

Icon
Error

2 Pages12>
Options
Go to last post Go to first unread
mavchicago  
#1 Posted : Friday, March 30, 2018 3:25:12 PM(UTC)
mavchicago

Rank: Member

Groups: Registered
Joined: 3/24/2018(UTC)
Posts: 14
Man
Location: Chicago

Hello all,

This is a duplicate feature request, but previous requests are essentially dead and start off with the wrong terminology.

For the unaware, an M/E is essentially what you have in vMix already, but only one. Traditional switchers have an M/E or 4 or 8 to allow technical directors to build multi part scenes and take those live, to use multiple ME in split screen interview situations, among many other creative things.

vMix already takes care of the effects side of an M/E by including 10 sources in each input. However there is still only 1 mixer in the system and there is no ability to pipe different mixes to different output as one might do in a live event situation. So essentially vMix is a 1M/1000E.

The Newtek tricaster, a main vMix competition, includes multiple mixers. This includes 4 M/E on the 410, 460, Mini advance, and TC1 model and more on some of the others like IP series. The newtek device is a fully software platform much like vMix. It is however worth noting that the vMix software already has a 10 input effects engines in each input, making it more powerful for single output production which do not rely on multiple mixers.

In live event work (my industry) it is often a requirement to use multiple mixers. That is why the barco FSN (about $100,000 fully loaded) is a mainstay in my work. There are several other competitors such as grass valley, other barco models, Ross, and now black magic. In fact black magic has recently revealed a small form factor switcher and control surface with 4 M/E with a panel at under $10,000.

The downside of hardware is first the cost and also the input standards required. I cannot use NDI with the barco (natively) i can not mix and match input resolutions and frame rate. Because of that, the cost of entry is greater due to standards conversion and rack space required. Typically a switcher will live in a 20-24 U shock mounted case with a router, format converters, and patch bay. Depending on the company, sometimes CCUs are also in that Rack too. Since I rent my cameras this means the CCUs sit on top. This means that a vMix solution could potentially be in a 4U shock mount rack. Indeed, this is how I transport my vMix today. A perceived upside of hardware is high resilience, stability, and manufactured quality.

The Tricaster has long been thought of as a “real” switcher. While a UPS would be highly recommended for any mission critical hardware, nobody would think twice about a tricaster in the small to medium sized event space. These devices have been used on much larger budget production. PC, when done right, has a MTBF similar to hardware. And for what it’s worth, I can reboot my vMix on Windows 10 and be up and running in less than 20 seconds. I have personally seen many tricaster of these installed in houses of worship where they provide more than the needed resilience for that market and come in at an OK cost. So to that vMix is not suitable for a certain kind of production I think this loses credibility when you look at the full picture which includes tricaster being used in in place of hardware switchers right now.

Markets that would benefit from vMix having M/E and thus being able to produce IMAG and graphics from the same box:
-Live mobile production (in general)
-installed conference room AV
-house of worship
-esports
And others.

The interface of vMix presents some challenges in turning it into a multi M/E mixer. potentially the best solution to this would be in making a new kind of input called an M/E and allowing something like a double click on an input to open an additional window. This could be aided by a systemwide limit on the number of M/E (probably 8) to aide shortcut creation and limit system burden. For instance, an XKEYS layout could have 8 buttons hard coded to set This would basically be like a virtual set but instead of smooth transitions between camera angles it would be fades and cuts between camera angles. It is likely that each virtual M/E would allow selection of its first 8 inputs for preview and auto/cut from the main control panel. It is also likely that systemwide M/E delegated inputs numbered 1-300 would be helpful so users could create a system similar to the new Blackmagic 1 M/E panel or the tricaster Mini or TC1 panel with a single strip for ME preview program. (Ie treat the ME preview and program bus buttons as variables and allow them to point to whichever M/E was presently delegated).

Some forum users have suggested the following workaround:
1. Use overlays to at least get transitions on secondary outputs - this works but is extremely confusing and unhelpful when needing to actually run a real intense show.
2. Forget about transitions and just use cuts and shortcuts - this gives us no preview bus, and besides, transitions may be mandatory depends on customer desire
3. Use NDI to link multiple machines. Issue with this is complexity of setup and double the risk of crashing (literally half the MTBF in a QA sense). In many cases the death of one machine will be full system failure so deploying multiple identical systems in a non primary/backup situation is risky. This is akin to RAID 1 vs RAID 0, although it is an admittedly loose analogy

As such, my current workaround is hiring one, with the plan to buy a tricaster assuming vMix does not meet my needs before that purchase makes business sense.

I have compiled all similar feature requests, only one of which accurately refers to this as being an M/E issue. The other feature requests represent your community of users who are attempting to do something which was solved by the addition of M/E to vision mixers long ago. I am not a history expert, but the M/E has references in technical documentation in the 1970s.

This is a feature in the tricaster which appears prominently in their marketing copy and usually in the product blurbs on product lists. It is THE primary spec on many switchers (which is unsurprising, as input count is frequently determined by the number of cards). Black magic switchers are almost all identical except this one difference. It is a lost business opportunity for vMix. It would be extremely beneficial to vMix reseller / hardware solution resellers and implementation because it would allow them to provide an end to end solution for customers with multiple screens. This feature would also benefit my immensely as I would be able to save myself tens of thousands of dollars which is why I decided to work so long on researching and writing this request.

Hopefully exhaustive List of feature requests that could be closed over the last about 2 years if mixers were implemented:
https://forums.vmix.com/....aspx?g=posts&t=5260
https://forums.vmix.com/....aspx?g=posts&t=6600
https://forums.vmix.com/....aspx?g=posts&t=8622
https://forums.vmix.com/....aspx?g=posts&t=9462
https://forums.vmix.com/....aspx?g=posts&t=6237
https://forums.vmix.com/...aspx?g=posts&t=10615
https://forums.vmix.com/...aspx?g=posts&t=11131
https://forums.vmix.com/...aspx?g=posts&t=11345
DWAM  
#2 Posted : Saturday, March 31, 2018 1:58:58 AM(UTC)
DWAM

Rank: Advanced Member

Groups: Registered
Joined: 3/20/2014(UTC)
Posts: 2,121
Man
France
Location: Bordeaux, France

Thanks: 149 times
Was thanked: 606 time(s) in 469 post(s)
Hi

regarding the M/E question : in vMix all inputs are potential M/Es, that makes vMix a 1000 M/E switcher.
Though they are not called this way, if you think a little, you realize that this M/E thing is a thing from the past for hardware switchers. vMix is way beyond that...

No time right now to comment the rest of your post. Will be back...

Guillaume
thanks 1 user thanked DWAM for this useful post.
stigaard on 3/31/2018(UTC)
mavchicago  
#3 Posted : Saturday, March 31, 2018 2:03:47 AM(UTC)
mavchicago

Rank: Member

Groups: Registered
Joined: 3/24/2018(UTC)
Posts: 14
Man
Location: Chicago

DWAM wrote:
Hi

regarding the M/E question : in vMix all inputs are potential M/Es, that makes vMix a 1000 M/E switcher.
Guillaume


I have it on good authority that the inputs cannot be made into mixers. Effects yes mixers no.

My goal with this feature request is to dismiss any ambiguity that vMix in it's current state is capable of driving two outputs with transitions.

Regardless... carry on.
DWAM  
#4 Posted : Saturday, March 31, 2018 5:55:43 AM(UTC)
DWAM

Rank: Advanced Member

Groups: Registered
Joined: 3/20/2014(UTC)
Posts: 2,121
Man
France
Location: Bordeaux, France

Thanks: 149 times
Was thanked: 606 time(s) in 469 post(s)
Quote:
I have it on good authority that the inputs cannot be made into mixers. Effects yes mixers no.


Show these videos to your good authority



Especially the part where I demo how to switch inside multiview (M/E).

And try to do this with a tricaster...

Quote:
My goal with this feature request is to dismiss any ambiguity that vMix in it's current state is capable of driving two outputs with transitions.

In its current state vMix is capable of driving 4 outputs, not 2.
I agree that outputs 2 to 4 are only CUT (which is a transition anyway).

However, as you compared vMix with Tricaster, let's consider what you can do for the same price.
One Tricaster costs at least the same as 2 vMix (with decent hardware).
Think what you can do with 2 NDI/API-linked vMix... 2 independent outputs with full transitions, up to 8 outputs... And it's possible to drive them both from a single control panel...

You gotta understand that vMix is not a traditional switcher. If you expect vMix to behave as one, you'll be disappointed but you also miss the point.

vMix is not perfect, it lacks some pro features, like color correction (CCU equivalent) and a few other things, it has latency on the outputs for IMAG... But for only a fraction of the cost compared to the competition, it brings to open-minded and creative people so much more for 90% of what is required for live production.
thanks 3 users thanked DWAM for this useful post.
doggy on 3/31/2018(UTC), RichShumaker on 9/13/2018(UTC), AgentPete on 5/3/2019(UTC)
DWAM  
#5 Posted : Saturday, March 31, 2018 6:32:18 AM(UTC)
DWAM

Rank: Advanced Member

Groups: Registered
Joined: 3/20/2014(UTC)
Posts: 2,121
Man
France
Location: Bordeaux, France

Thanks: 149 times
Was thanked: 606 time(s) in 469 post(s)
I'm back to your post. Your excellent english makes it difficult for me to fully understand all of your arguments (I agree on some of them btw) so I will try to answer what I consider "not so true"

Ex:
Quote:
there is no ability to pipe different mixes to different output as one might do in a live event situation

Yes there is

- load your inputs
- create a blank input (#24 for example)
- set input #24 to be exclusively used as an output for external rendering or NDI
- use the API commands to send anything you want to #24 (by using the overlays controls)

> You can do double or triple independent switching... It's just a matter of creating the right buttons on your control panel along with the good commands. I do this in live productions:
output 1 (PGM) goes to stream and record
output 2 goes to projector or LED screen
output 3 goes to remote guests via vMixCall for example.
None of these outputs are showing the same thing at the same moment. All of them are switchable anytime.

It's not default builtin (I mean plug and play) but it's possible by DIY. Especially if you don't use a traditional control panel (obviously as vMix is not a traditional switcher)

thanks 1 user thanked DWAM for this useful post.
stigaard on 3/31/2018(UTC)
DWAM  
#6 Posted : Saturday, March 31, 2018 7:32:33 AM(UTC)
DWAM

Rank: Advanced Member

Groups: Registered
Joined: 3/20/2014(UTC)
Posts: 2,121
Man
France
Location: Bordeaux, France

Thanks: 149 times
Was thanked: 606 time(s) in 469 post(s)
Quote:
In live event work (my industry) it is often a requirement to use multiple mixers. That is why the barco FSN (about $100,000 fully loaded) is a mainstay in my work. There are several other competitors such as grass valley, other barco models, Ross, and now black magic. In fact black magic has recently revealed a small form factor switcher and control surface with 4 M/E with a panel at under $10,000.

Are you underlying vMix should offer the same things for $1200 as those equipments between $10,000 and $100,000?
I too use Barco or Analogway hardware switchers when latency for IMAG is not an option (or when the output resolution for screens is not standard). I know what they're good at, I know what they cost. I also see what they miss in terms of flexibility, protocols support. Not to mention that they also have latency when scaling is required...

I quite don't understand your point here... Yes a Ferrari costs more than a regular car... and also offers more features/power and so on. And I don't understand the point of comparing 2 products which are not in the same category.
DWAM  
#7 Posted : Saturday, March 31, 2018 7:54:45 AM(UTC)
DWAM

Rank: Advanced Member

Groups: Registered
Joined: 3/20/2014(UTC)
Posts: 2,121
Man
France
Location: Bordeaux, France

Thanks: 149 times
Was thanked: 606 time(s) in 469 post(s)
Quote:
Markets that would benefit from vMix having M/E and thus being able to produce IMAG and graphics from the same box:
-Live mobile production (in general)
-installed conference room AV
-house of worship
-esports
And others.

All those markets already use vMix and don't really need more M/E (most users don't even know what it is). I agree that at some certain level (high end) vMix is not the solution but who cares? At this level, companies have the means to buy the equipments you referred to before. It's not the same customers, not the same budgets. Nobody here claims that you can do $20,000+ productions with vMix. But in the range of $3000 to $15000 I believe I can do more with vMix setups and a small crew than with a competition solution.

As of latency, it's been explained in the forum before, don't expect vMix to be zero latency cause the hardware it relies on is not zero latency. I agree that if the goal is IMAG, vMix is not the solution (As I said before I go for a mix of hardware and software setups when I need this > BMD or Barco or Analogway).

Regarding graphics, it's the same. By default vMix offers more than what 90% of its users need. If you enter DIY world, using Blend for animation is very easy and free. Using NDI brings a lot of possibilities for creation too. And controlling graphics is piece of cake with free tools like vmixUTC and/or the API. I don't think tricasters or even Roland/Sony/etc offer more on this subject. AFAIK when you need complex graphics, it's always a matter of teamwork involving A LOT of equipments...
DWAM  
#8 Posted : Saturday, March 31, 2018 8:44:05 AM(UTC)
DWAM

Rank: Advanced Member

Groups: Registered
Joined: 3/20/2014(UTC)
Posts: 2,121
Man
France
Location: Bordeaux, France

Thanks: 149 times
Was thanked: 606 time(s) in 469 post(s)
Regarding the posts you referred to :

- most of them are 2 or 3 years old and have been solved one way or another.
- as you may notice I was the OP of that one about M/E. Meanwhile I have worked and tried to take advantage of everything vMix has to offer and found multiple ways to achieve what I initially requested. Yes still lacking fades sometimes but 95% of the TV/Live production relies on CUTS. The client wants fades? OK, I can do it, I just charge a lot more for these 2 seconds (that changes nothing in the end imho). OK they pay extra, I bring 2 vMix. They don't, I do cuts.

vMix is like an iceberg. The visible part is already impressive but it's nothing compared to the immersed part (API and so on). It just takes a little time and efforts to master it... like anything else...
thanks 1 user thanked DWAM for this useful post.
stigaard on 3/31/2018(UTC)
mavchicago  
#9 Posted : Saturday, March 31, 2018 9:11:17 AM(UTC)
mavchicago

Rank: Member

Groups: Registered
Joined: 3/24/2018(UTC)
Posts: 14
Man
Location: Chicago

DWAM wrote:
Yes still lacking fades sometimes but 95% of the TV/Live production relies on CUTS. The client wants fades? OK, I can do it, I just charge a lot more for these 2 seconds (that changes nothing in the end imho). OK they pay extra, I bring 2 vMix. They don't, I do cuts.


I appreciate the thought you have put into this. While you are right that the fade is less useful than the cut, I don't want that restriction. More importantly, I want a preview bus on my "2nd M/E" because in my workflow. sometimes the M/E will be providing the video for both IMAG and on air (during panel discussions for instance)

I'm shocked there isn't wide support for this. When I emailed vMix support they told me to go here to make a suggestion. I think the suggestion page feels like a trap, because between this, and my previous post in the general discussion asking if it could be achieved, the overwhelming point is that "I don't want what I am asking for".

I don't want a bespoke solution!!! I want something that is easy to train people on and not complicated.
stevespaw  
#10 Posted : Saturday, March 31, 2018 11:28:49 AM(UTC)
stevespaw

Rank: Advanced Member

Groups: Registered
Joined: 3/12/2015(UTC)
Posts: 373
Man
Location: Kansas City, MO USA

Thanks: 87 times
Was thanked: 61 time(s) in 47 post(s)
MavChicago,
I have worked with all of the products you mentioned and more. Each of these products has its own place and purpose. You did not even get into screen blending technologies which can also be built and incorporated with PC solutions. vMix is not really a multi output solution but with the outputs does have, you can do a lot of things with scripting. I now use scripting exclusively instead of relying on any triggers what so ever, they are way more powerful and actually easier to maintain then trying to use triggers. They are very similar to the world of Ross Custom Controls. I have scripts that run stingers as transitions in inputs all the time. No they are not fades or DVE's we do some pretty high impact stuff.

I agree with most of what Guillaume has said, especially in the area of latency. Lip sync I mag applications will be difficult in general on critical shows with vMix as the main solution. Also on complicated live shows vMix will always be complicated. It is too deep too just build shows on the fly. It is absolutely awesome what you can do with it when you prebuild a solution for a particular show.

Yes in general I would like to see more outputs and functionality there but I am not sure it is the deal breaker for many people in terms of priority of new features.

Steve
thanks 1 user thanked stevespaw for this useful post.
DWAM on 3/31/2018(UTC)
mavchicago  
#11 Posted : Saturday, March 31, 2018 12:26:11 PM(UTC)
mavchicago

Rank: Member

Groups: Registered
Joined: 3/24/2018(UTC)
Posts: 14
Man
Location: Chicago

stevespaw wrote:
MavChicago,
I have worked with all of the products you mentioned and more. Each of these products has its own place and purpose. You did not even get into screen blending technologies which can also be built and incorporated with PC solutions. vMix is not really a multi output solution but with the outputs does have, you can do a lot of things with scripting. I now use scripting exclusively instead of relying on any triggers what so ever, they are way more powerful and actually easier to maintain then trying to use triggers. They are very similar to the world of Ross Custom Controls. I have scripts that run stingers as transitions in inputs all the time. No they are not fades or DVE's we do some pretty high impact stuff.

I agree with most of what Guillaume has said, especially in the area of latency. Lip sync I mag applications will be difficult in general on critical shows with vMix as the main solution. Also on complicated live shows vMix will always be complicated. It is too deep too just build shows on the fly. It is absolutely awesome what you can do with it when you prebuild a solution for a particular show.

Yes in general I would like to see more outputs and functionality there but I am not sure it is the deal breaker for many people in terms of priority of new features.

Steve


For my customers without the budget for me to rent in a proper switcher I think the lip sync is a non issue. But funny enough I find the input delay to be quite minimal. At one point I was unhappy but then I realized it was the scaler I was using on my video wall. What I ended up doing in end end seemed extremely low latency and what’s more I would have to use that scaler with a hardware switch. OTOH absolutely nothing will beat a properly standards based environment and the scaling I do on the wall is admittedly a nicety as the scaler built in to the processor, while it looks like trash, is instantaneous and I’m just... Very picky.

For me the real limitations on running two vMix rig are operator confusion with two separate PCs. I realize now that there may be some way to preconfigured NDI. I wish I could name streams instead of just rely on auto discovery.

Regarding screen blending, look into Arkaos media master. I have used that software with vMix to create a hybrid system. They just updated the blending software to be even more powerful. I am looking to do more ultra wide format like that. Obviously an E2 would be the “right tool for the job” but mediamaster does the trick for me.

There is so much going on here. I really think I could be on to something special by allowing a new type of input, kind of like a virtual set, where producers can stage something on the fly.

Mark Amber
mjgraves  
#12 Posted : Tuesday, April 3, 2018 10:34:35 AM(UTC)
mjgraves

Rank: Advanced Member

Groups: Registered
Joined: 7/1/2015(UTC)
Posts: 896
Man
United States
Location: Houston TX

Thanks: 267 times
Was thanked: 201 time(s) in 178 post(s)
Just to add my 2 cents - what's being discussed is a conceptual shift, not merely adding a feature. If you're accustomed to traditional switchers with multiple M/Es, vMix must seem very foreign indeed. I would argue that in asking for M/Es you're trying to adapt vMix to what you know vs getting to know vMix.

If what you're seeking is multiple outputs, say to offer separate clean and branded output, perhaps wholesale switching to an M/E based thought process isn't necessary.

I admit that I could be way out-to-lunch on this. Ages ago I lived through a similar debate when there were a couple of new switchers designed for layering vs traditional production. Anyone remember the Abekas A66?
kane  
#13 Posted : Tuesday, April 3, 2018 10:48:55 PM(UTC)
kane

Rank: Advanced Member

Groups: Registered
Joined: 3/24/2016(UTC)
Posts: 329
Location: Chicago, IL

Was thanked: 140 time(s) in 94 post(s)
Sounds like to me he wants at least two outputs, both that can operate as a production switcher with separate transitions (and possible DSK's) used on each output.

Kane Peterson
NewTek
ask  
#14 Posted : Tuesday, April 3, 2018 11:10:28 PM(UTC)
ask

Rank: Advanced Member

Groups: Registered
Joined: 10/13/2012(UTC)
Posts: 886
Australia
Location: Melbourne

Thanks: 139 times
Was thanked: 155 time(s) in 141 post(s)
You can do this now by operating multiple instances of vMix on the one computer. Read the help files and this forum for how to do this. Bring in camera sources from the 1st instance via NDI. Specify the output to a discrete monitor on the graphics card or external output card.

OR if you simply want a clean/dirty output use the various output settings available in the single instance.

My thought process is to start with what you want to achieve then look for how to do it, using the current functionality. 9/10 times vMix will give you a way.
admin  
#15 Posted : Wednesday, April 4, 2018 1:26:14 AM(UTC)
admin

Rank: Administration

Groups: Administrators
Joined: 1/13/2010(UTC)
Posts: 4,234
Man
Location: Gold Coast, Australia

Was thanked: 2354 time(s) in 1031 post(s)
Hi all,

One of the key things I think of with each new release is how I can make features in vMix easier to use.
In this case, I think the gist of what mavchicago is asking for is an easier way to quickly switch (and transition) sources
to one of the many outputs now available in vMix.

Many have pointed out that there are ways of achieving some of this already, but I am the first to admit there could certainly be improvements to the ease of use in this area!
(And it's worth noting that we would not recommend running multiple instances of vMix due to audio limitations)

So what I am interested in gauging in these feature request, is how many would benefit from an easier UI workflow for changing those additional outputs?
There are a few use cases where I can imagine this might be useful, and as vMix users tend to be an imaginative and resourceful bunch I am sure you can think of potential benefits as well.

So +1 if you agree! Bonus points for suggestions on how you think it should be implemented.

Regards,

Martin
vMix
thanks 1 user thanked admin for this useful post.
tbimages on 10/31/2018(UTC)
Horbel  
#16 Posted : Wednesday, April 4, 2018 5:48:37 AM(UTC)
Horbel

Rank: Member

Groups: Registered
Joined: 5/7/2017(UTC)
Posts: 11
Location: Belgium

Thanks: 2 times
Was thanked: 1 time(s) in 1 post(s)
Hi,

Big +1.

This is a very interresting subject. We also have this need in our usage and currently we do the trick of setting up shortcuts that act on SetMultiViewOverlay to fake secondarys mix outputs.

Martin, I think there is a need to take the vMix UI to the next level to optimize these workflows. vMix UI is perfect for simple usage and I think it should probably remain as is on default. But as vMix allows more and more complex productions, the UI start to become a bottleneck. Bigger screens (think 4K 43", ultrawide 34") or multiscreen setups can provide all the surface needed to monitor everything, but yet the actual vMix UI can't really take advantage of them because of fixed UI.

So I'd like to suggest an approach where the default vMix interface stay the same, but where any elements (inputs pools, outputs views with or without preview, audio mixer, lists, vMix call status page..) is resizable and freely dockable where you want it to be. Someting like Adobe Premiere, etc. I think the ability to have the input setup windows dockable at a fixed place could be great, because it allow live modifications with less distraction for the production.

I've made some modifications that suggest how multiple output mixes would be handled.

(The positions of elements in this exemple is really bad, but the point is to demonstrate the freedom it would offer :) )

Hugo
Horbel attached the following image(s):
vMixsuggest.png (85kb) downloaded 36 time(s).

You cannot view/download attachments. Try to login or register.
rowby  
#17 Posted : Wednesday, April 4, 2018 9:23:30 AM(UTC)
rowby

Rank: Advanced Member

Groups: Registered
Joined: 11/23/2016(UTC)
Posts: 330
Man
Location: USA

Thanks: 179 times
Was thanked: 25 time(s) in 24 post(s)
+1 to Hirbels resizable and dockagle elements. ...Rowby.
JAIRODJ  
#18 Posted : Wednesday, April 4, 2018 11:29:14 AM(UTC)
JAIRODJ

Rank: Advanced Member

Groups: Registered
Joined: 9/1/2015(UTC)
Posts: 92
Man
Location: Ecuador

Was thanked: 12 time(s) in 8 post(s)
Let's analyze the possibilities of vMIx in relation to the issue of video outputs.

Does vMix have independent video outputs? = Yes, 6 outputs
How? = 2 FullScreen, 2 external/NDI and 2 NDI (and the plus is that these outputs can be assigned the main screen or any input that is available in vMix.

On the other hand, if each entry of vMix has 10 overlays, and when using the switches to activate and deactivate each of the overlays, then practically each entry becomes a minimixer with a cutting transition.

Now, what would happen if instead of just cutting directly the superpopulations, you add the option of choosing a transition for the switching of each superposition, and in the case of using xaml graphics these take their transition of IN / OUT of the design (from the same way overlays are activated currently). The result would be a complete minimixer for each vMix entry with transition and dynamic graphics.

Wow ... the incredible potential that vMix will have ... is another level.
It is only in you to imagine how they would use it.

This suggestion or request I have already made, I hope you can add it

https://forums.vmix.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=14550
admin  
#19 Posted : Wednesday, April 4, 2018 1:33:48 PM(UTC)
admin

Rank: Administration

Groups: Administrators
Joined: 1/13/2010(UTC)
Posts: 4,234
Man
Location: Gold Coast, Australia

Was thanked: 2354 time(s) in 1031 post(s)
Hi Horbel,

That sounds like a separate feature request, however I do need to point out that there are big performance limitations
to using resizable and separate windows for video previews, so this is not likely to be possible unfortunately.

Regards,

Martin
vMix
watchfulone  
#20 Posted : Wednesday, April 4, 2018 4:56:23 PM(UTC)
watchfulone

Rank: Advanced Member

Groups: Registered
Joined: 11/15/2010(UTC)
Posts: 99
Man
Location: Jamaica

Thanks: 23 times
Was thanked: 17 time(s) in 14 post(s)
DWAM wrote:
Regarding the posts you referred to :

- most of them are 2 or 3 years old and have been solved one way or another.
- as you may notice I was the OP of that one about M/E. Meanwhile I have worked and tried to take advantage of everything vMix has to offer and found multiple ways to achieve what I initially requested. Yes still lacking fades sometimes but 95% of the TV/Live production relies on CUTS. The client wants fades? OK, I can do it, I just charge a lot more for these 2 seconds (that changes nothing in the end imho). OK they pay extra, I bring 2 vMix. They don't, I do cuts.

vMix is like an iceberg. The visible part is already impressive but it's nothing compared to the immersed part (API and so on). It just takes a little time and efforts to master it... like anything else...



Dawn straight vMix is the best, hahahhaha
Users browsing this topic
2 Pages12>
Forum Jump  
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.