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

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.

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:

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)

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...

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.

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

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

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

+1 to Hirbels resizable and dockagle elements. ...Rowby.

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