VP9 Wishlist - Item 003 - Multiroll

farss wrote on 9/12/2007, 6:28 AM
I was originally going to suggest this for V12, because it'd be a killer.

I've called it Multiroll rather than Multicam just so no one gets confused and I think that's what Avid calls it and charges a bomb for on their high end systems.

Difference is you have one preview monitor per source, and one for the output. Not knocking what the various script solutions offer, it works very nicely for the money but I cannot see a director type putting up with watching tally lights jump around quadrants.

Just think it'd be nice for Vegas to come out with something really startlingly new that no one else (except maybe Newtek?) have to offer.

Bob.

Edit: Didn't realise someone already had 002!

Comments

rmack350 wrote on 9/15/2007, 11:22 AM
Great Idea, Bob.

The reason you didn't realize there was a 002 is because you started a new thread. You may think I'm nuts but it really seems to make more sense if you're making a "list" to keep all the list items in the same thread and just change the subject lines. This way you can actually keep track of the topic numbers.

While it makes more sense, getting people to actually do it is probably harder than herding cats. But let's all be individuals together ;-)

Rob
DataMeister wrote on 9/15/2007, 1:32 PM
Farss,

Can you elaborate more on the differences that multiroll would have from the current multicam in VP8?

farss wrote on 9/15/2007, 3:02 PM
You have one discrete monitor per input, not a split screen.
You have another monitor that displays the output.
So 4 cameras = 5 monitors. The individual camera monitors can be reasonably small. The concept is the same as how a live vision switcher works.
One way it is done off air is with say 4 VCRs, each VCR is an input to the switcher and feeds a monitor. The output of the switcher goes to another VCR and monitor.
Of course that gets to be a pretty expensive setup and we're not using VCRs, we're using tracks.
I'm certain one of the old timers could explain this better than me and why it's easier to work with visually.

Bob.
DataMeister wrote on 9/15/2007, 4:44 PM
So the fifth output monitor would be the primary change over the current split screen setup. Or are you primarily wanting full res preview of each track?

Seems like the split screen option is perfectly fine until you get more than 4 cameras at once. What might be nice however would be a resizable split-screen monitor that would flow the cameras into a row or column as you change it's dimensions. Then an option for preset scaling of each camera preview (50%, 25%).

rjkrash wrote on 9/15/2007, 6:06 PM
would something like this suit your needs:

Put each track in say a 4x4 PIP with a 5th PIP of the Output below the 4x4 grid.

Using keyboard shortcuts or special device similar a live video mixer board (a Shuttle Pro perhaps?) be able to edit on the fly seeing the results as you go.

When I edit muti-cam I am constantly soloing the Master Track to review the edit and then going back to change things if need be. I think a setup like this would be very usable.

would something like this get you near your "wish" or don't I understand what you are asking?
farss wrote on 9/15/2007, 9:51 PM
Firstly this sure isn't something I'm desperately needing, the current tools fill my needs quite well. I'm talking about something that would make Vegas stand out from the rest of the crowd.

Yes, one split screen for all the inputs and a full monitor for the output would work pretty well. In fact we have a cheap quad split box that we use with our MX50s to monitor the 4 inputs. We use a full sized monitor for the output or the A/B busses. Most people are pretty happy with this setup doing it real time live although we now also have a 3 LCD monitor Marshall strip for input monitoring that's visually better to work with.

As you've seen, chasing a tally lamp around gives very little clue to how a cut or transition is working. It's fine for most of us too, but we'll pay for the upgrades anyway.