allnjns Posted April 17, 2014 Share Posted April 17, 2014 Hi I am trying to use some 2811 smart pixels this year I would like to use 12 strands with 150 pixels per and I have a few questions.1. If I want to use a pixlite 16 controller for them is that fairly straight forward to setup and use (if anyone is using that controller)2. If I opt to use dmx outputs instead will I basically have to use 1 universe per strand?3. Is the only real effective way to program them by using superstar or is there another software available to sequence them ( the superstar add on is a little out of my budget for doing 12 strands) I am sorry if any of these questions have been asked to death but I didn't find them in a search or if I didn't explain what I want to do very well. Thank You, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dennis Laff Posted April 17, 2014 Share Posted April 17, 2014 (edited) Never used the pixelate controller I use jousha systems if you going dmx dongle you need one dongle for every string with a few channels left on each universe as for programming you can use Xlights/nutcracker and its free Edited April 17, 2014 by Dennis Laff Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dennis Laff Posted April 17, 2014 Share Posted April 17, 2014 Never used the pixelate controller I use Jousha Systems similar units . If your going to use a dmx dongle than you would need 1 dongle per string with a few channels left over in each universe as for programming look into X-Lights/nutcracker its free - Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron Boyd Posted April 17, 2014 Share Posted April 17, 2014 (edited) Hi I am trying to use some 2811 smart pixels this year I would like to use 12 strands with 150 pixels per and I have a few questions.1. If I want to use a pixlite 16 controller for them is that fairly straight forward to setup and use (if anyone is using that controller) Have not used this nor do I know anyone who has, so I'm afraid I can't help you with this.2. If I opt to use dmx outputs instead will I basically have to use 1 universe per strand? As Dennis stated above, If using DMX output, it requires 1 dongle per universe. E1.31 is the best way to utilize this controller. The J1SYS P12 will do 1 Universe per output (12). The Sandevices E682 or E6804 will do 7 universes in Multicast mode and 12 Universes in Unicast mode. All 3 of these controllers are solid performers.3. Is the only real effective way to program them by using superstar or is there another software available to sequence them ( the superstar add on is a little out of my budget for doing 12 strands) Although Nutcracker is a fantastic program and it's free, I, myself, use it sparingly. It will do some amazing effects, but it does it at the element level, ie., Pixel tree, matrix, windows, arches. Superstar creates it's effects at the single pixel level. It all depends on the look you want and whether or not you want that single pixel control. As an example, I have a 16 leg, 50 pixels per leg, 180 degree, tree. If I so desire, I can make each individual pixel, all 800 of them, a different color in Superstar. Nutcracker fills my voids where I want an effect such as a spiral. Either I haven't figured out how to do it in SS or it can't be created for a 180 degree tree. A 360 degree tree spiral, is no problem in SS. The downside in SS is channel collision. If you run blue over red, you'll get purple. Other than these 2 examples, Superstar is my choice for sequencing large items. Of course, when the new updates are implemented, we'll have the best of both worlds, Superstar and some form of Nutcracker. The announcement by Dan at the first of March was a little vague on how it will be implemented. If it's put in how I think it will be, (purely speculation) you'll create your sequence in either the Sequence Editor or Superstar, leave the area blank where you want the NC effect, and then, create the NC effect in the blank portion of the sequence. Again, this is just speculation, I have zero data to back this statement up. it's purely a gut instinct. I am sorry if any of these questions have been asked to death but I didn't find them in a search or if I didn't explain what I want to do very well. Thank You, Hope this helps a bit. These are just my thoughts on the matter. I prefer Superstar. Nutcracker is a fantastic program and that's why I use it, but again, I use it sparingly. Edited April 17, 2014 by Ron Boyd Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
allnjns Posted April 24, 2014 Author Share Posted April 24, 2014 Thank you very much for the information and your input this will help me greatly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sticks4legs Posted April 30, 2014 Share Posted April 30, 2014 As someone who has recently gotten into RGB pixels I have found the sequence editor and superstar the most helpful. I appreciate the visual usefulness of nutcracker but the effort to bounce between the systems and timings I find unneeded. That's not to say I'm new any this and time would improve that. Once you see how many of the effects work you start to piece together how it should look in either SE or SS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liberty-Laser Posted April 30, 2014 Share Posted April 30, 2014 I have < 1 year with pixels, but a whole Christmas season. If you are using LOR to control it, there is a heavy cost to using pixels. The sequence files are massive!!!!! I use an i7 machine for my programming & it's working hard. Although I do use an older laptop to play the show. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron Boyd Posted April 30, 2014 Share Posted April 30, 2014 (edited) As per Dan's post about the new enhancements in March , I think the "massive" sequence files will be a thing of the past. I ran 5k channels last year with only a couple of lags on fast morphs on the 800 pixel tree. I also know at least 2 people personally that ran 20k channels with LOR and didn't have any problems either. I don't think it's a heavy cost, there is a cost with the files being big, but I wouldn't say heavy. Just an opinion. Edited April 30, 2014 by Ron Boyd Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Liberty-Laser Posted April 30, 2014 Share Posted April 30, 2014 (edited) I welcome anything that makes these smaller. Editing was very painful, even on an i7. I have 10 universes with a total of 1,350 pixels. Edited April 30, 2014 by Liberty-Laser Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ron Boyd Posted April 30, 2014 Share Posted April 30, 2014 Andy posted some very useful tips to make sequencing easier in this thread: http://forums.lightorama.com/index.php?/topic/30960-6-tips-for-large-channel-count-sequencing/#entry285321If you do all of these, your sequences should come down in size. The clipboard removal and turning off auto undo recording could be 2 of the most consequential things to do. The 4 gb patch and turning off the compressed sequence til you need it are probably the next 2. Vegomatic is a bunch quicker to add RGB channels to the SE. All of these tips and tricks make saving the sequences a lot quicker and doesn't tax the CPU as much. It still will be a way longer save than just regular channels, but IMHO, it;s the only way to sequence large channel counts Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts