Or is it back to the never ending (for me) quest for the most efficient deck layout? Which goes back to how can we use the least amount of layers for best Resolume performance and still get the flexibility we want.ĭon't really see how this could speed up workflow or simplify things, how could this be a better way, than copy pasting a clip to where you'd place the clip router. If tied to a clip or next to a clip, how can we toggle clip router on and off quickly if it caused an undesired result for a clip? We can't rely on the Layer X (eject) if the Clip & Router are next to each other, then we lose the video on that layer until a clip is re triggered. I picture this feature more as a plugin or effect that can easily be applied to a clip & Bypassed if needed. I did see that you said this will be next to the clip in the same layer, but how would we trigger that? (two clips same layer) When you trigger a clip in it's place, it should be easy to visualize what should happen due to Resolume's very predictable behavior. My concern is, what happens when we forget we had this clip routed somewhere else? If you trigger a layer router, you expect it will do something different. You see Resolume is somewhat limited in layout and trigger options which makes it very predictable, which in turn is why we are discussing this feature (expanded flexibility). I am going somewhere to help plan the initial concept development of this, I promise I am just not sure how to implement/use it for total newbies (like myself) when it adds a variable to the expected clip playback behavior. Less gaps just to make automated column triggers. By the description above, I can see layout of each deck would be less important. I love the idea and have thought the Layer Router could be so much more. This could be a great evolution of the initial Layer Router concept.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |