nutz4lights
Full time elf
Hey all,
I have heard Eddy reference this many times (most recently in one of my posts where I was battling poor performance out of the scheduler). The suggestion is that, as you create macros, even if you start with ZERO timing marks when you create the sequence, you are always adding timing marks with the macro creation. Eddy's recent suggestion to me was, when creating "whole RGB display" effects, which for my display is around 30,000 channels, should be done with a frames per second setting of 8-10 instead of 15. Basically cutting the number of timing marks created in the grid below in half.
As I was thinking about this a little bit more, something hit me and it is confusing the @#$% out of me right now.
Due to challenges with the sequencing I have been trying to do, I have so far limited myself to creating 1-2 minute sequences wherein all the effects are "whole display" macros. So, if I start with a blank sequence, no timing marks, and I go through and create, let's say, nine x 10 second macro effects in a 90 second sequence, using 10FPS as the macro setting, I should wind up with 90 x 10 timing marks = 900 timing marks. What I have seen happen, is, I don't get perfect alignment between one macro to the next, so where the macro ends and a new one begins, I end up with two timing marks instead of one on top of each other. That's what got me thinking...
... If I was sequencing the way that most everybody sequences (hence my question to y'all), I would probably end up wanting to do something like the following:
From time interval 0:35 to 0:45 (10 seconds):
macro #1 applied to the megatree
macro #2 applied to the minitrees
macro #3 applied to the twig trees
macro #4 applied to the tall palm trees
macro #5 applied to the roof (if it wasn't dead because of the @#$% Technicolor pixels!!)
macro #6 applied to ornaments
macro #7 applied to the wreaths
macro #8 applied to bushes, short palm trees, and oaks
macro #9 applied to Merry Christmas sign
You might see where I'm going with this... when I did the "whole display" macro, within the 0:35 to 0:45 time window, there was no way I was going to wind up with more than 10 x 10 = 100 timing marks using 10FPS. I can almost guarantee that it is impossible to get perfect alignment of my 9 macros in the example above, which could wind up giving me, worse case scenario, 9 x 10 x 10 = 900 timing marks in the same 10 second window instead of 100.... let's say that I get lucky and half of the macros line up perfectly... I'd still wind up with 500 timing marks instead of 100...
So, if timing marks are so important to display performance with high channel counts, how do y'all do your sequencing? I have seen plenty of videos and it appears to me that most folks don't apply "whole display" macros throughout their songs... only in places... is it necessary to meticulously line up all of the macros so the timing marks line up?
Thanks for reading, sorry for the length,
-Louie
I have heard Eddy reference this many times (most recently in one of my posts where I was battling poor performance out of the scheduler). The suggestion is that, as you create macros, even if you start with ZERO timing marks when you create the sequence, you are always adding timing marks with the macro creation. Eddy's recent suggestion to me was, when creating "whole RGB display" effects, which for my display is around 30,000 channels, should be done with a frames per second setting of 8-10 instead of 15. Basically cutting the number of timing marks created in the grid below in half.
As I was thinking about this a little bit more, something hit me and it is confusing the @#$% out of me right now.
Due to challenges with the sequencing I have been trying to do, I have so far limited myself to creating 1-2 minute sequences wherein all the effects are "whole display" macros. So, if I start with a blank sequence, no timing marks, and I go through and create, let's say, nine x 10 second macro effects in a 90 second sequence, using 10FPS as the macro setting, I should wind up with 90 x 10 timing marks = 900 timing marks. What I have seen happen, is, I don't get perfect alignment between one macro to the next, so where the macro ends and a new one begins, I end up with two timing marks instead of one on top of each other. That's what got me thinking...
... If I was sequencing the way that most everybody sequences (hence my question to y'all), I would probably end up wanting to do something like the following:
From time interval 0:35 to 0:45 (10 seconds):
macro #1 applied to the megatree
macro #2 applied to the minitrees
macro #3 applied to the twig trees
macro #4 applied to the tall palm trees
macro #5 applied to the roof (if it wasn't dead because of the @#$% Technicolor pixels!!)
macro #6 applied to ornaments
macro #7 applied to the wreaths
macro #8 applied to bushes, short palm trees, and oaks
macro #9 applied to Merry Christmas sign
You might see where I'm going with this... when I did the "whole display" macro, within the 0:35 to 0:45 time window, there was no way I was going to wind up with more than 10 x 10 = 100 timing marks using 10FPS. I can almost guarantee that it is impossible to get perfect alignment of my 9 macros in the example above, which could wind up giving me, worse case scenario, 9 x 10 x 10 = 900 timing marks in the same 10 second window instead of 100.... let's say that I get lucky and half of the macros line up perfectly... I'd still wind up with 500 timing marks instead of 100...
So, if timing marks are so important to display performance with high channel counts, how do y'all do your sequencing? I have seen plenty of videos and it appears to me that most folks don't apply "whole display" macros throughout their songs... only in places... is it necessary to meticulously line up all of the macros so the timing marks line up?
Thanks for reading, sorry for the length,
-Louie