Cut and Past in Visulizer

[chartrand]

Is there a way to move an item drawn in the LOR visualizer to another location without having to completely redraw it? I purchased HLD and find it so hard to use that I'm going to just stick with the the native on in LOR, but would really like to cut and paste.

[Don]

chartrand wrote:

Is there a way to move an item drawn in the LOR visualizer to another location without having to completely redraw it? I purchased HLD and find it so hard to use that I'm going to just stick with the the native on in LOR, but would really like to cut and paste.

At this point in time there isn't a way to drag/drop items around on the visualizer.

[chakorules]

I think I would almost give my left nut to have this function. I dunno how many times when drawing, I would like to move that MEGA TREE a few more inches over.

Copy and Paste would an EXCELLENT feature to have....

[ItsMeBobO]

While the programmers are looking at this one.

Also need a hover over indicator to say which channel will light each cell. This could be in the left control panel instead of hovering overlaying the animation.

[traveler911]

I would also like this. I changed the layout of the mini trees this year. It would be great to be able to move them.

Oh well, maybe some day.

[Ed P]

Consider the following response a hunch.

I believe we will all be getting a better visualizer in the near future (by August).

It should be much easier to use and have better tools and ways to do some depth visualization too.

But I could be blowing smoke and dreaming too.

[jem5136]

One thing I would like to see in the visualizer is the mixture of colors/channels per "pixel". It is really difficult to try to have three or four colors for a part in your display in the relative same spot in the visualizer.

And another thing, when you have things like arches, or mega trees, stuff that takes up a bit of channels, it would be nice if all I had to do was use the scroll of my mouse to change to the next channel so I don't have to keep going up to the top of the screen for every channel.


Just my two cents,
Jesse

[iresq]

Dan posted this last year -

New “major” changes -- say we add a new visualizer for example -- would go into a major release. Those major releases will be free for one year from your purchase date (all S2 owners have a purchase date of 6/16/2009 or later). So everyone will get all major enhancements until at least 6/17/2010 (or one year from their date of purchase).

Coincidence?

Dan, any chance of getting this done in the next day or two?

[Ed P]

iresq wrote:

Dan posted this last year -

New “major” changes -- say we add a new visualizer for example -- would go into a major release. Those major releases will be free for one year from your purchase date (all S2 owners have a purchase date of 6/16/2009 or later). So everyone will get all major enhancements until at least 6/17/2010 (or one year from their date of purchase).

Coincidence?

Dan, any chance of getting this done in the next day or two?

You should read the following thread because as with many things LOR this has changed since Dan wrote it. So I think we are still covered.

http://lightorama.mywowbb.com/forum72/19185-1.html

[iresq]

Never mind

[kzaas]

After reading that thread my brain is fried:shock:. But I think I have the mud cleared off of my goggles now. Thanks for the thread link.

[Don In Kenner-LA]

Hi:

What if you just purchased a upgrade for you S2 does that start from the purchase of the software oringnal or when you purchased the upgrade just curious..

Don In Kenner,LA

[LightORamaDan]

The new visualizer has been in progress for many months. We will have it out this year exact date TBD.

Dan

[Cabbage]

:shock::shock:



Thanks Dan!

[Nurples]

It's almost the end of the year. Any word on a cut and paste function?

[Shanta]

LightORamaDan wrote:

The new visualizer has been in progress for many months. We will have it out this year exact date TBD.

Dan

How about this year? I am soon going to buy my first LOR controller and am very torn between LOR S2 and LSP. A decent visualizer in LOR would go a long way toward closing the debate. The only other feature that LSP tempts me with is the ability to scrub the timeline to help with the placement of events.

[George Simmons]

Shanta wrote:

The only other feature that LSP tempts me with is the ability to scrub the timeline to help with the placement of events.

Can you please explain/describe what "scrub the timeline" means? Thanks.

[Shanta]

"Scrubbing" is a common technique for examining and editing time-based media, like audio and video (and now light shows) where you grab the playback "head" and as you drag it around the audio under the head plays and the other media previews (in this case the lights trigger). It allows you to easily nail exactly where sound cues occur and mate light events to it. You can drag fast or slow, forward or backward to quickly examine the audio. With LOR it seems like you listen to a section of music in real time and try to approximate where on the screen a cue happens, rough-in an event and play again to see how it syncs and adjust as needed.

The other major difference is that (as far as I can tell) with LOR you are locked into a specific "resolution", usually 10 or 20 events per second, whereas with LSP you can resize and divide cells to any length you want. So you might start with one cell per beat and in busy parts of the song you might divide those cells into 16 parts and in serene parts only 4 (or less). Or, you might have sections of a song wher the beat is irrelevant and you want to sync to voices, you could resize the cells to match syllables. All of these things may or may not neatly line up in 1/10th or 1/20th increments (but, of course, the finer the resolution the more likely you'll get close).

Anyhow, I write all this not to bash LOR, but to share what I find compelling about LSP (which I have no connection with, btw). What I find compelling about LOR is it's stability, which LSP apparently has some issues with, and that it is a lean program. It sounds like LSP sequences tend to bloat to huge sizes, and can draw down performance on even a powerhouse of a machine. So bottom-line, I'm undecided.

Here is a video that well-demonstrates the workflow with LSP, and shows how scrubbing works.

[George Simmons]

Shanta wrote:

"Scrubbing" is a common technique for examining and editing time-based media, like audio and video (and now light shows) where you grab the playback "head" and as you drag it around the audio under the head plays and the other media previews (in this case the lights trigger). Thanks for the explanation. I wasn't familiar with the term. It allows you to easily nail exactly where sound cues occur and mate light events to it. You can drag fast or slow, forward or backward to quickly examine the audio. With LOR it seems like you listen to a section of music in real time and try to approximate where on the screen a cue happens, rough-in an event and play again to see how it syncs and adjust as needed. When you become experienced with the software, if you're any good at all you'll find that between using the wave form, the beat wizard and/or tapper, and half or quarter speed there are very few "approximations" that need to be moved. And if there is, it's a snap.

The other major difference is that (as far as I can tell) with LOR you are locked into a specific "resolution", usually 10 or 20 events per second, I believe the resolution in LOR goes down to 1/100th of a second whereas with LSP you can resize and divide cells to any length you want. So you might start with one cell per beat and in busy parts of the song you might divide those cells into 16 parts and in serene parts only 4 (or less). Or, you might have sections of a song wher the beat is irrelevant and you want to sync to voices, you could resize the cells to match syllables. All of these things may or may not neatly line up in 1/10th or 1/20th increments (but, of course, the finer the resolution the more likely you'll get close). Resizing or dividing cells takes about one tenth the time it took you to describe it. Selecting a different timing grid is even quicker.

Anyhow, I write all this not to bash LOR, but to share what I find compelling about LSP (which I have no connection with, btw). Nor do I have any connection to LOR. I do, however, know a few things about using their software and its clear you don't. Maybe you should actually try using it before authoring such an authoritative-sounding review.What I find compelling about LOR is it's stability, which LSP apparently has some issues with, and that it is a lean program. It sounds like LSP sequences tend to bloat to huge sizes, and can draw down performance on even a powerhouse of a machine. So bottom-line, I'm undecided. If, after reading your own words, you're truly undecided, I doubt there's anything anyone here can say to affect your thinking. Thanks again for the scrubbing explanation.

Here is a video that well-demonstrates the workflow with LSP, and shows how scrubbing works.
http://vimeo.com/11969010

[Shanta]

Wow, thanks for the warm welcome! I just feel all cozy and warm here!

First, I never claimed to be any kind of authority on sequencing software, be it LOR or LSP, and my comments hardly constitute a review... more like first impressions. I'm brand new to the whole arena and trying to decide for myself which to go with. I am just now leaving the Mr Christmas behind and hoping to buy my first controller in the next month or so. I have some experience in audio and video editing and simply implied that I found the workflow of LSP translates better to workflows I'm accustomed to. I don't understand why this comes across like an attack on you or your choice of software.

I have been devouring the boards here, at PlanetChristmas, and at LSP trying to learn all I can. Watching every YouTube video. Downloading sequences by the masters and studying them. And yes, trying the demos for BOTH LOR and LSP. Maybe I have just seen videos of bad editors working in LOR, but it seems to me from watching them that there is a lot of guess-work involved in placing events. It seems, based on my limited experience, that being able to grab the edge of a column and drag it to where you HEAR the audio cue is a lot easier than trying to listen to a 10 second clip and spot where on the time line to place an event once the playback is done. But I have only scratched the surface of LOR, I'm sure. For instance I did not know that you can divide a cell, so thanks, I'll seek out how to do that (you'll note that in my previous post I said that "as far as I could tell" LOR locks you into a predetermined resolution... hardly sounds authoritative to me). And yes, I knew that you could set the resolution as fine as 1/100th of a second but it seems that all the best editors use 1/10 or 1/20, and generally their beat tracks will show a beat every 8 cells for several beats and then there will be 9 cells for one because the granularity was too coarse to match up precisely. With LSP, there is no time-based grid but rather timing marks placed exactly wherever the beat is, or wherever the user wants them with no regard if they align with the nearest 1/10, 1/20 or 1/100 of a second. I'm sure that for the viewer of the show this is a distinction without a difference, but it makes a difference to how the editing is approached. I'm not even going to say that one is better than the other, just that the LSP model makes more sense to me (for now). Again, how you can find this type of an observation to be a personal assault baffles me.

If there were some good videos out there about how to approach sequencing with LOR I wouldn't feel so lost. Maybe there are and I just haven't found them. That is one thing the guys at LSP seem to have done really well with, producing videos that demonstrate the features of their software. At this point, I remain (truly) undecided. But if the tenor of your reply is any indication of the brand of 'help' I might receive around here, perhaps I will reserve my questions and observations for PlanetChristmas.