logo

Live Production Software Forums


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

Notification

Icon
Error

Options
Go to last post Go to first unread
mkusmic  
#1 Posted : Sunday, November 7, 2021 10:15:41 PM(UTC)
mkusmic

Rank: Newbie

Groups: Registered
Joined: 2/10/2021(UTC)
Posts: 6
Netherlands

Thanks: 1 times
Was thanked: 1 time(s) in 1 post(s)
From a professional/broadcast perspective the naming convention of vMix is really confusing and needless difficult. Output External Mix are all interconnected in a weird way. Mix 1 = Output 1 = fixed but Mix 2 is an input that has to be routed to output 2??? Its not consistent.

Suggestions:

Maybe introduce an offspring for the true professionals/broadcasters called vMixPro so existing / less demanding users can keep working the way they're used.

Let vMixPro have Mix/Effect (ME) busses as outputs like a real vision switcher. Cheap license has one ME, the more expensive the license the more ME busses (up till 4). Call them ME1 ME2 ME3 ME4. Each ME has a PGM and PVW bus. ME1PGM, ME1PVW, ME2PGM etc.
All ME's work in the same resolution/framerate so each input only needs 1x conversion.

Same for AUX busses. Cheap license 1 or no AUX, more expensive licenses more AUX busses (up till 6-10). Call them AUX 1, AUX 2 etc.

Each bus can be turned on or off to NDI. Optional scaling for each NDI feed.

Each physical output (SDI, graphics card) can select one of the busses. Optional scaling for each physical output.

Streaming can select one bus per stream. Optional scaling for each stream.

Other wishes

Multicorder can also select iso audio inputs. Preferably per each video track but separate recording would help.

Audiomixer has (a license dependent number of?) fixed channels and each channel can select an input from either embedded audio, audio interface / dante.

Audio inputs can be direct outputs on DANTE

Each ME can be assigned an audio bus.

Each caller return can receive a dedicated audio input (via Dante)

Each caller return can receive a dedicated video bus (AUX)

These improvement would make an already remarkable piece of software even more amazing.
doggy  
#2 Posted : Sunday, November 7, 2021 11:46:22 PM(UTC)
doggy

Rank: Advanced Member

Groups: Registered
Joined: 12/27/2012(UTC)
Posts: 4,038
Belgium
Location: Belgium

Thanks: 240 times
Was thanked: 731 time(s) in 595 post(s)
Originally Posted by: mkusmic Go to Quoted Post
Mix 1 = Output 1 = fixed but Mix 2 is an input that has to be routed to output 2???


Nope (says who?)

Mix input allows adding up to three additional "mini mixers" that support basic transitions and cuts between two different inputs. Output also refers to Mix1 (main mix)

Any Input (+ main Mix named output) can be routed to output 1 - 4 (and NDI/SRT)

Quote:
Maybe introduce an offspring for the true professionals/broadcasters called vMixPro so existing / less demanding users can keep working the way they're used.


isn't there a PRO version already ? ;-)

BTW can you define true professionals please ? (engaged in a paid activity? ). Please do not look down on other users !
mkusmic  
#3 Posted : Monday, November 8, 2021 2:37:55 AM(UTC)
mkusmic

Rank: Newbie

Groups: Registered
Joined: 2/10/2021(UTC)
Posts: 6
Netherlands

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

Thanks for replying.

Originally Posted by: doggy Go to Quoted Post
Originally Posted by: mkusmic Go to Quoted Post
Mix 1 = Output 1 = fixed but Mix 2 is an input that has to be routed to output 2???


Nope (says who?)

Mix input allows adding up to three additional "mini mixers" that support basic transitions and cuts between two different inputs. Output also refers to Mix1 (main mix)

Any Input (+ main Mix named output) can be routed to output 1 - 4 (and NDI/SRT)

You're right about output 1 not being fixed to mix 1. But the Mix 1 vs Mix 2-4 is just not consistent. Main problem is that output 1 is fixed to external 1 and output 2 to external 2. So one SDI output is always fixed to the PGM to stream leaving only one 'AUX' if not reverting to NDI. We work with ATEM 2 M/E with 6 Auxes a lot and would love for vMix to support more flexibility in creating outputs (over SDI). Not to mention the totally not intuitive Settings -> External output page. Some mouseover tooltips would be nice and not all options are explained in the manual.

Quote:
Maybe introduce an offspring for the true professionals/broadcasters called vMixPro so existing / less demanding users can keep working the way they're used.


isn't there a PRO version already ? ;-) They can call that PLUS ;-)

BTW can you define true professionals please ? (engaged in a paid activity? ). Please do not look down on other users !


Ok, maybe not the best choice of words. Let's say people with a broadcast or AV background used to working with hardware based switchers. Not to be negative about others but these people do tend to do multicam a tad longer then the 'vMix generation'. And as vMix matures more of these experienced multicam people use the tool, but I'm sure they al frown on this choice of structure/naming. Sure you can say they are of the 'old' generation and should adapt to the new way of business. That would be fine if it was an improvement, but I can't say that it truly is. I can imagine it grew out of resource limitations but maybe it is about time to switch to a structure that fits more in the industry standard regarding setup and naming. I'm sure it would even make it easier to sell the software as a replacement for hardware switching and make it easier for the people coming from hardware switcher to adapt and thus easier to sell the switch to managers.

Another feature missing is the possibility to choose outputs as sources in the multiviewer or at least have some status text field in the UI that says what source is going to output 2-4. Not so nice if your in a position where you don't have eyes on all set screens.

Curious what type of usecases you are using vmix in and if such a radical change in structure / naming would benefit you or would make it impossible for you to use vMix?

Best Regards

Milo

doggy  
#4 Posted : Monday, November 8, 2021 4:00:36 AM(UTC)
doggy

Rank: Advanced Member

Groups: Registered
Joined: 12/27/2012(UTC)
Posts: 4,038
Belgium
Location: Belgium

Thanks: 240 times
Was thanked: 731 time(s) in 595 post(s)
Originally Posted by: mkusmic Go to Quoted Post
Another feature missing is the possibility to choose outputs as sources in the multiviewer or at least have some status text field in the UI that says what source is going to output 2-4. Not so nice if your in a position where you don't have eyes on all set screens.


What about routing back these outputs through NDI as inputs and put them in your multiviewer if the inputs themselves are not enough
WaltG12  
#5 Posted : Saturday, January 8, 2022 1:13:21 PM(UTC)
WaltG12

Rank: Advanced Member

Groups: Registered
Joined: 7/4/2021(UTC)
Posts: 110
United States

Thanks: 3 times
Was thanked: 16 time(s) in 16 post(s)
Originally Posted by: mkusmic Go to Quoted Post
Not to be negative about others but these people do tend to do multicam a tad longer then the 'vMix generation'.


Very possibly, considering vMix was first released in 2009.

Anyone who's been in the field since before 2009 has been in the field longer than people who have solely used vMix, which is what I assume "vMix generation" means.

Originally Posted by: mkusmic Go to Quoted Post
And as vMix matures more of these experienced multicam people use the tool


Great. The more the merrier.

Originally Posted by: mkusmic Go to Quoted Post
but I'm sure they al frown on this choice of structure/naming. Sure you can say they are of the 'old' generation and should adapt to the new way of business.


Great. I'm glad we're all on the same page.

What works best for a hardware solution won't necessarily work for a software solution.

And one of the best things about vMix is how easy it is to just start & go. There's very little learning curve & the naming conventions are all descriptive & intuitive.

Originally Posted by: mkusmic Go to Quoted Post
ME1PGM, ME1PVW, ME2PGM etc.


is not that.

Originally Posted by: mkusmic Go to Quoted Post
That would be fine if it was an improvement, but I can't say that it truly is.


Why not?

You talk a lot about "the industry standard" and what you're used to, but you don't once say why this is worse.

Originally Posted by: mkusmic Go to Quoted Post
maybe it is about time to switch to a structure that fits more in the industry standard regarding setup and naming.


Why?

As it stands now, it's intuitive, it's simple, and it works.

What benefit would be derived from making the naming system more convoluted?

Originally Posted by: mkusmic Go to Quoted Post
I'm sure it would even make it easier to sell the software as a replacement for hardware switching and make it easier for the people coming from hardware switcher to adapt and thus easier to sell the switch to managers.


What you're missing is that this isn't a benefit.

People used to hardware switches can still learn vMix just like everyone else. Most of the functions are named in an intuitive way that renders their functions self-explanatory.

There's nothing about vMix that will cause someone used to hardware switching to be any more confused than a layman, and there's very little about vMix that would confuse a layman.

What you're proposing is changing that dynamic completely & making it so that people used to hardware switches are the only ones able to look at vMix and figure out what's going on without studying the manual or googling everything.

That's not a positive.

Originally Posted by: mkusmic Go to Quoted Post
Curious what type of usecases you are using vmix in and if such a radical change in structure / naming would benefit you or would make it impossible for you to use vMix?


With how simplistic & self-explanatory the vMix UI is, the only people who'd benefit from "a radical change in structure/naming" are the people used to that structure/naming.

And, as I pointed out, those people are just as capable of using the current one as everyone else. It is, again, extremely simple, intuitive, and self-explanatory.

The same is not true for the reverse.

If you need something overly technical & convoluted, there are other options available to you. But there's no situation in which the massive overhaul you suggest is a good idea.
thanks 1 user thanked WaltG12 for this useful post.
mkusmic on 1/8/2022(UTC)
mkusmic  
#6 Posted : Saturday, January 8, 2022 7:12:23 PM(UTC)
mkusmic

Rank: Newbie

Groups: Registered
Joined: 2/10/2021(UTC)
Posts: 6
Netherlands

Thanks: 1 times
Was thanked: 1 time(s) in 1 post(s)
Thanks for your reply Walt. I think if you look at it from your perspective it seems like you’re totally right, but you’re not.

Change can be a good thing. Lets turn it around. Hardware switchers also wen’t through years of evolution to get to the point they are now. If any manufacturer came up with something that worked more natural/logical/quicker/easier than the competition that would change the market.

From that point of view it is paramount that vmix stays ahead of competition by being the best possible solution.

Your argument about users that know hardware mixers can adapt is true but it’s my whole point that it should not need to be so, or at least less.

Why would a system where calling ‘main pgm’ and mix 2,3,4 Mix effect 1, mix effect 2, mix effect 3 and mix effect 4 be any more difficult for the laymen to comprehend? And i can understand why a mix is in with the sources as with hardware switchers it is possible to use additional M/E’s as a source in m/e1. But in a hardware switcher you have so much better overview on these additional mixes. I think that’s whats bothering me the most in vmix.

What is so difficult in programming to being able to put outputs on a multiview? Or at least the status text of the outputs. Why do we have to go to settings to change the source we send to an output?

The UI of vMix as it is is far from self explanatory. It starts at the add input. Apart from the hidden right mouse button options the long list of possible input is a UI mistake in it’s own. Brains can’t oversee such long list at a glance. To make it work faster it would be much better to make categories in some way.

The right mouse button acces to parts of the UI is an other thing. It is ok if you know it but I never met an operator that found it intuitively by themselves without being pointed to it by someone else. So my guess is there are lots of laymen struggling every day to find part of the UI and thus not getting maximum performance of the powerfull tool they have at hand.

I am a vmix lover, but that does not mean I approve of every choice they made or leave it at ‘it is what it is’. I see possibility for improvement without making it more difficult for the laymen.

For now we keep using an atem 2me with 6 auxes if we need a lot of confidence monitor and set monitor circuits switching. Hope to see that change in the future.

Best regards



WaltG12  
#7 Posted : Monday, January 10, 2022 12:35:18 PM(UTC)
WaltG12

Rank: Advanced Member

Groups: Registered
Joined: 7/4/2021(UTC)
Posts: 110
United States

Thanks: 3 times
Was thanked: 16 time(s) in 16 post(s)
Originally Posted by: mkusmic Go to Quoted Post
Why would a system where calling ‘main pgm’ and mix 2,3,4 Mix effect 1, mix effect 2, mix effect 3 and mix effect 4 be any more difficult for the laymen to comprehend?


Why is an abbreviation that most people have never heard, which abbreviates industry jargon that most people have never heard, more difficult for those people to understand than a straightforward descriptor that requires nothing more than the knowledge of what they hope to accomplish?

You're seriously asking that?

Originally Posted by: mkusmic Go to Quoted Post
The UI of vMix as it is is far from self explanatory.


I disagree, as do most people who use the program.

One of the biggest complaints is that it's overly simplistic & dumbed down (which I, naturally, take issue with).

In fact, that's your complaint.

Originally Posted by: mkusmic Go to Quoted Post
the long list of possible input is a UI mistake in it’s own. Brains can’t oversee such long list at a glance.


I don't understand what this means, nor do I relate to it.

Originally Posted by: mkusmic Go to Quoted Post
To make it work faster it would be much better to make categories in some way.


That's exactly what's there.

When you click "Add input" you get a popup that lists all the categories on the left. You select the category for the input you want to add, and you go from there.

Originally Posted by: mkusmic Go to Quoted Post
It is ok if you know it but I never met an operator that found it intuitively by themselves without being pointed to it by someone else.


You have now. Hi.

Unless this is your first time using a Windows program, you should know that buttons & features are often in context menus.

Want to add another row to a table in Microsoft Word? Right click.

Want to refresh your desktop? Right click.

So, if there's a function you want, but can't find, instinct says to right click.

Regardless, even if certain elements aren't intuitive, overhauling it to resemble the convoluted nature of a hardware switcher is in no way a positive solution.

Originally Posted by: mkusmic Go to Quoted Post
So my guess is there are lots of laymen struggling every day to find part of the UI and thus not getting maximum performance of the powerfull tool they have at hand.


And making the process even more convoluted will help them by...?

I've been using vMix for productions since version 16 or 17.

My first live show was back when you had to use Hangouts on Air to go live on YouTube.

The only thing I had to look up before I hit the ground running was what to do to get the Hangouts on Air box to recognize my vMix feed as a webcam, and it was simple as clicking the button that was front and center.

Over the years, vMix has grown a decent amount & I've had to refer to the help pages a lot more often to read up on using the new features.

There hasn't, however, been one that I can think of that's been in a location that I felt didn't make sense or was named in a way that didn't match pretty much exactly what I was looking for.

Originally Posted by: mkusmic Go to Quoted Post
I am a vmix lover, but that does not mean I approve of every choice they made or leave it at ‘it is what it is’.


Neither do I.

I've made posts in "Feature Requests" and "+1'ed" others'.

What I haven't done, however, is advocate a complete overhaul to the design & naming system.

You "love vMix", but you want to change everything about it beyond the core functionality, even though the simplicity of both is the reason that most people without your background & knowledge use the program, myself included.

Originally Posted by: mkusmic Go to Quoted Post
I see possibility for improvement without making it more difficult for the laymen.


Great, then post about that. I may even +1 some of your ideas.

But, in this thread, from your very first post in it, you've been talking about wanting vMix to adapt to suit the industry professionals at the expense of everyone else.

Originally Posted by: mkusmic Go to Quoted Post
For now we keep using an atem 2me with 6 auxes if we need a lot of confidence monitor and set monitor circuits switching. Hope to see that change in the future.


I have absolutely no idea what any of that means, and, given how much money I've saved up over the years & invested in my vMix license key, I hope they never change it in such a way that I have to understand what you just said.
thanks 1 user thanked WaltG12 for this useful post.
nikosman88 on 1/11/2022(UTC)
Users browsing this topic
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.