Jump to content
Light-O-Rama Forums

S3 and Auto Sequence


gizmomkr

Recommended Posts

I spent some time at the show looking at S3, and just thought I would share a comment about the auto sequence.

Maybe I missed an announcement someplace earlier, or just miss understood, but I was expecting the autosequence to be for use on anything, and if I understood correctly - thats not the design right now.

I dont see any reason why you couldnt just pretend like your various elements were actually parts of a ccr, but the resulting sequence wouldnt look very good.

When I started hearing about auto sequence, I thought this was going to be some type of wizzard where you could tell the software about your various channels and elements (trees, arches, etc) feed it an audio file and have frequencies converted to timings, intensities, effects, etc. (an I suppose it does just that - but only for CCR's)

I have always wished for an easier method of sequencing, and have always ended up comparing showtime software to theatrical lighting systems. Theatrical systems use a very different approach. In theatre, you are creating a sceen, or a "look" looks become cues, and cues change in time with the show (although are almost always advanced by hand based on calls from the lighting director - instead of the timeline of a song)

With more complex elements like moving head fixtures, (you really see this in use at night clubs) your look is just a compilation of effect. a popular method of building an effect is defining a starting point x,y axis or starting channel - and an ending point. then you add modifiers like color, intensity, speed. Its very quick to program a sequence using only a handfull of "FX's" and only having to adjust timings and other simple values rather than define EVERY light EVERY intensity EVERY .10 of a second.

It would be a beautiful thing to see some of these theatre type controls implemented in S3.

A really quick sequence could also come from mapping keyboard keys to channels and having a "live record" button. Then just tap keys along as you listen to the music. Maybe one day.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

evan.a wrote:

well here's a true video of s3. from what i've read. this only took 90 sec to make.


I don't have any trouble believing it only took 90 seconds... but I've gotta say that I still think Chuck's Epic auto-sequence is right up there with it.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...

I totally agree there should and could be an instant sequence mode, the technology is there. All kinds of DJ Party lighting equipment can create sequences from music tracks. Even if they are not perfect at least it would be a start. I guess we will just have to wait for later releases to see that feature included.

I will gladly pay extra for that feature even if it was an add on module. Maybe someone can work on this as a standalone module and then be acquired by LOR....lol

Ron.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

taybrynn:

No one is saying it's the future or it's great. For those of us who are not great programers or who do not have the time to program it will give us a start and that's why I bought Brian's SuperStar program just for the Instant Sequencing.

Why did you think they invented the Microwave and it's so popular. And that did not stop people from spending hours over a stove cooking meals.... lol

Ron.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

George Simmons wrote:

evan.a wrote:
well here's a true video of s3. from what i've read. this only took 90 sec to make.


I don't have any trouble believing it only took 90 seconds... but I've gotta say that I still think Chuck's Epic auto-sequence is right up there with it.

I have to agree!!
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I still think an auto-sequencer could make a great show, but it would depend on just how complex the algorithms are for it to work and whether these algorithms are even possible. (yep, been doing a lot of thinking on this one folks.)

The more complex those algorithms, the better the show would be, but these would have to be able to break down the music/song into varying catagories somehow.

For example those that use singing animations, there would need to be some type of algorithm for voice, then it would also have to be able to figure out, is it sung, spoken, or a combination.

Next, it would need to know what instruments are in the music, it would need to break these down as well, trumpet, guitar, bass, drums, tambourine, bell, cavicle, marimbas, etc. etc.

Then it'd have to break down the tempo's and speed of the music/song, it would have to be able to discern different changes throughout the entire song when these changed.

Now as much as I'd really like to see a good auto-sequencer, I have actually come to the conclusion, that a simple one, just to help someone get started on sequencing would be fine, but something that would be required to actually make great sequences using one would probably not only BLOAT the sequencing software, but end up making it a resource and memory hog as well.

Currently with S2 this is not the case, and I'm sure with S3, even with the addition of the SS software, this is still true (although I can't say for certain until S3 is released, only the beta testers know for sure).

Anyway, a very simplistic one that could help get a sequence going would be fine, but after thinking long and hard about this, I believe I have come to the conclusion, yes, it would be nice to have one to do it all, but do we really want to get that lazy and have the program do it all for us?

I look at my first years(2010) sequencing abilities, some came out fairly decent, some were just downright, gad, did I really do it that way? And then I look at what I've done/accomplished this year(2011), and my techniques have improved, maybe not as much as I'd really like, but they have improved from the first year.

Now I think, What if I had an "auto-sequencer" that would do all this for me?

Would I have become a better sequencer? Would I have improved, or even bothered to go back to try and even tweak many of my prior sequences from my first year?

The answer I keep formulating is, believe it or not, is "No, I wouldn't!"

If the software did it all for me, chances are I would get even lazier, then when or if I did do a sequence on my own, it would probably be so horrendous that I'd go back and rely on the "auto-sequencer" and therefore, not learned anything on how to improve my capabilities or even use the software to it's potential.

So guess what folks?, I do believe I have now seen the light (no pun intended) and joined the ranks of those that believe an auto-sequencer isn't really all it's cracked up to be. It just took me some time to continue to think on it, realize what it would require to actually implement, and then see, and realize what I've accomplished on my own with the current sequencer(S2) to truly realize, an auto-sequencer that would do everything for you(me), in all reality, would be detrimental to our(my) creative nature and how we(I) sequence our(my) display.

Hope no one fell out of their chair while reading this response. 'cause I know it's going to be a real :shock: to a lot of folks. :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Orville wrote:


Hope no one fell out of their chair while reading this response. 'cause I know it's going to be a real :shock: to a lot of folks. :P



I think it might be causing me to have a heart attack. :P
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Surfing4Dough wrote:

Orville wrote:

Hope no one fell out of their chair while reading this response. 'cause I know it's going to be a real :shock: to a lot of folks. :D



I think it might be causing me to have a heart attack. :D

Orville, I didn't quite have a heart attack; however, it surely is a change of opinion! We all have that right, correct?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The way I'm looking auto sequencing is the same way I look at some of the bad sequences that I did last year, or when I use a downloaded sequence and tweak/ adj it to make it fit my display.
I can use it as a base and then fix / tweak it from there. Who knows maybe it will do something that I never thought of and put me in a different direction.
anything that can help speed me up, I'm willing to try.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Surfing: Had a feeling that one was coming. LOL

CK: Yes, we do. Sometimes it just takes some time to really think on some criteria, write some notes and after really thinking on it, I realized, yes, it would make a good starting point, but would, or could it be easily done to actually "do it all?. After much deliberation and thnking and debating with myself against my notes, I finally realized, yes, a simple auto-sequencer would and could be done, but I just can't see adding everything that would be required to give one a "perfected" sequence.

Would I use one if it was available, of course, but I do believe I'd still be "tweaking" and "changing" things in it.

Jim Saul: agreed, if it is something to help get someone started and help to speed things up, that would be a good thing. But I have finally come to the conclusion it will never be able to do what the human factor can accomplish, it would just require too much bloated code, algorithms, and other criteria for the software to be able to comprehend, and understand the music fully. So to accomplish any type of automatically generated show, that would be done just by loading a song and letting the software have at it, I just think would take far too much in system resources, and even possibly, memory constraints.

I just don't think we're at that stage of "pure" artificial intelligence that would get anywhere close to creating something that still won't need to be edited, tweaked or changed around in some manner.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Orville wrote:


I just don't think we're at that stage of "pure" artificial intelligence that would get anywhere close to creating something that still won't need to be edited, tweaked or changed around in some manner.
Would I use one if it was available, of course, but I do believe I'd still be "tweaking" and "changing" things in it.

I would agree with the statements above. Especially since my time to program gets to be less and less each year. :(
Link to comment
Share on other sites

toddmoon wrote:

Orville wrote:

I just don't think we're at that stage of "pure" artificial intelligence that would get anywhere close to creating something that still won't need to be edited, tweaked or changed around in some manner.
Would I use one if it was available, of course, but I do believe I'd still be "tweaking" and "changing" things in it.

I would agree with the statements above. Especially since my time to program gets to be less and less each year. :(


Hear Hear! I have seen some pretty "smart" AI mechanisms at work (some I can't talk about)...and I think they would surprise one at what they could come up with...purely experimental (possibly Alien technology? :( and not on consumer market for years...but the "years" from experimental to in our hands is getting shorter and shorter! I am currently awaiting arrival of a relatively inexpensive laser light show Sure To WOW! I'll post info once it arrives and has been tested to see if advertising holds up.:cool:
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's my impression that autosequence was not meant to replace the manual method. Simply a way for someone new to LOR to quickly get up and running or someone more experieced to start with a baseline.

I look at it this way: I recently bought a new digital camera and for the first month or so I shot in full auto mode so I could see what settings the camera decided each shot should be taken in. This doesn't mean I will never move the camera out of auto, just letting the camera run things for a while and then tweak them as needed.

Personally I would like to use auto sequence to see how the software would analize the same tracks I have done manually and maybe there would be some things learned on how to improve on an already existing sequence.

Jeff

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Having visited with one of the best programmers of LOR George Simmons he has given S3 his blessing and highly recommends the software with it many time saving features.

Anything that helps save me time is a bonus in my book. If the auto software can even give me a basic framework and I then fill in the rest that is great with me.

For the newbie's having software that can help them put something together help bring more people on board to sequencing their lights. I got into this because I did not want to have the same thing as everyone else. I wanted my light show and display to be unique and not mass produced. Anything that helps with programming and cutting back on time needed is a bonus in my book. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

evan.a wrote:

well here's a true video of s3. from what i've read. this only took 90 sec to make.


Better late than never on replying to a thread...... I posted that video last year when I do the lighting for a Lymphoma Leukemia Society function, and the Wizards song is Not Auto Sequence, I sequenced that song back in 2007

But in the CCR world, This is a real auto sequence using Brian's Instant Sequence

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...