So I finally really got my hands into Programming DL2's.....

TimMillerTimMiller Registered User
edited February 2008 in DL.3/DL.2
All I can say is what a great instrument. As soon as i got used to navigating around everything, it became really easy. Preloaded content seemed endless. And all of the content was easy to pull up from the Hog. Also the onboard camera is a really cool feature. We were doing a christmas party with Motley Crue and Poison. They performed great. The college generator worked perfectly. It took me a little time to play with it and get everything lined up, but once i did it was sweet. My only two complaints is i wish the DL2's were brighter, and i wish it had something better than just S-Video. Also if they had a 5 wire out to link up to a video switcher so i can show the content on the projectors that we had on the sides of the stage it would have been really sweet.

Great product guys!

Comments

  • SBlairSBlair Registered User, HES Alumni
    edited January 2008
    Tim,

    Thanks for the kind words! In regards to the 5-wire out. Your best option would be to use an Axon for feeding other devices as you would likely want to manipulate the output independantly from what the onboard projector is doing anyway.

    Thanks.
    Scott
  • TimMillerTimMiller Registered User
    edited February 2008
    I was wondering with the axon media server, say i'm using 4 projectors, two on the cyc (its too big for one projector to fill it without losing too much intensity) and then two, other projectors focused on screens on both sides of the stage. I would one the two hitting the cyc colleged together. And then the same media (or maybe even different media) on either side of the stage. Can one axon server do all this? Or will i need two, one to take care of the cyc and one for the side screens? Also will the axon server do all the same stuff a catalyst do? Or will i need to run catalyst into the axon?
  • Woodj32177Woodj32177 Registered User
    edited February 2008
    Hey tim,
    For Axon, you need 1 Axon per projector,
    There is only 1 output per axon.
    Although, if you used some sort of splitter, for the 2 on the outside, you could use a single axon.
    So for that project, you would need 3 axons, and a RGBHV Splitter.
    If you want the 2 on either side of the stage to have different content however, you would need 4 axons. (Probably the best option for flexibility in setup)
    For the most part, axon does do the same stuff that catalyst does, and in some cases it does more, some cases less.
    That being said, a catalyst server or 2 seems to be a better option for this,
    You could edgeblend the center screen with a dual head to go out of 1 output, and use another dual head to go on the other one to get 2 more outputs.
    Now, you would need a very good Catalyst server to do this, I would recommend at the very least an quad core Mac Pro, with the ATI 1900xt video card.
    and at the very least a SCSI hard drive for content, although a SSD (Solid State Drive) would be much better.

    Let us know if you have any more questions,
    Joshua Wood
  • Marty PostmaMarty Postma Registered User
    edited February 2008
    TimMiller wrote:
    Also will the axon server do all the same stuff a catalyst do? Or will i need to run catalyst into the axon?

    Catalyst and AXON are two VERY different products....far too many differences to list here.

    The biggest difference to remember about DL.2/AXON vs. Catalyst when doing large edge blended projections is that the DL.2/AXON system will automatically cut up your content to be used in Collage. Whereas on Catalyst you will need to pre-cut your content and load each piece as a separate file with pre-determined blend % for overlay, etc...

    If there is specific functionality you are looking for, please ask about it.
  • FxDrewFxDrew Registered User
    edited February 2008
    Whereas on Catalyst you will need to pre-cut your content and load each piece as a separate file with pre-determined blend % for overlay, etc...

    Not entirely true. If you are doing a 2x1, 2x2, 3x1 and 4x1 with a triplehead2go, then your source file stays whole and you adjust the mix options to do the blending/keystoning. When you get past the number of outputs a single catalyst server can do, then you would have to start splicing your source content.

    EDIT* Even thinking about it more, if your source content isn't over 2048x2048... then you could use the same media on each server and set the mix options to only do certain parts of that content. You would want to sync the servers over a network, but it would still work.
  • Marty PostmaMarty Postma Registered User
    edited February 2008
    FxDrew wrote:
    Not entirely true. If you are doing a 2x1, 2x2, 3x1 and 4x1 with a triplehead2go, then your source file stays whole and you adjust the mix options to do the blending/keystoning. When you get past the number of outputs a single catalyst server can do, then you would have to start splicing your source content.

    EDIT* Even thinking about it more, if your source content isn't over 2048x2048... then you could use the same media on each server and set the mix options to only do certain parts of that content. You would want to sync the servers over a network, but it would still work.

    Has this changed then with the newer 165 software? I have not had to opportunity to try that one yet.

    From my experience with prior versions, if you want to use the Edge Blending option in the Mixes then you need a separate Mix per output of the Triple Head.

    I suppose you could scale and position a single piece of content repeated within 3 separate layers, but then you run the risk of losing resolution, and this also becomes tricky to align properly without visual "tearing". So really you want to pre-cut your content to to fit each part.

    An additional loss of resolution will occur if you have say (x3) 1024x768 "screens" b/c the full raster is 3072x768 which is greater than the 2048 max allowable on either axis on Catalyst so you will never get full resolution without cutting the content up into smaller pieces.

    If you stretch a single Mix across all three outputs of the Triple Head, then you lose the Edge Blending between "screens" because you are within a single Mix, and you still have the 3072 size issue. Stretching a mix in this fashion is not possible to do with a 4x1, 5x1, or 6x1 setup b/c you have to go to the other output of the video card/Catalyst.
  • FxDrewFxDrew Registered User
    edited February 2008
    This has been around since Richard endorsed the Triple Head2Go. Say we are just doing a 3X1. A submix is used for each output which Richard has made offset presets for (they are offsets and sizes for what makes up each output on this one giant desktop). Then you offset each submix position (in the submix menu) in the video space allowing for your 10%-20% blend. With that done, you assign all the same layers you want to use for the collage to the submixes. Each submix will only display the portion it has been set to. You are not playing back 3 instances of each file, but one mapped across all 3 submixes. I've found the submix options to be really flexible, and it's nice being able to click and drag each position and keystone point/curve.

    Since richard allows you direct control to the overlap percentages and the ability to blend all 4 corners, it is a really robust system, you just can't control it from the console yet (i may be wrong). All keystone parameters cannot be corssfaded that are done in the submixes.
  • FxDrewFxDrew Registered User
    edited February 2008
    An additional loss of resolution will occur if you have say (x3) 1024x768 "screens" b/c the full raster is 3072x768 which is greater than the 2048 max allowable on either axis on Catalyst so you will never get full resolution without cutting the content up into smaller pieces.

    Once you figure in the 10%-20% overlap, you wouldn't have that full 3072x768. HES also warns about going over the 2048x2048 allotment with their products.
  • Marty PostmaMarty Postma Registered User
    edited February 2008
    FxDrew wrote:
    you offset each submix position (in the submix menu) in the video space allowing for your 10%-20% blend. With that done, you assign all the same layers you want to use for the collage to the submixes. Each submix will only display the portion it has been set to. You are not playing back 3 instances of each file,

    Right in theory, but I was not able to get this to work properly the last time I tried it.

    I'm going to have to go back and look at this b/c it wasn't working properly on the 2 servers I had last time & had to go back and cut the content up...It would not surprise me though if it turns out to be a server or software issue though b/c they are older machines.

    Don't get me wrong here either, Catalyst is still a really great system that I also enjoy using....just very different from DL.2/AXON.
    FxDrew wrote:
    Once you figure in the 10%-20% overlap, you wouldn't have that full 3072x768. HES also warns about going over the 2048x2048 allotment with their products.

    True, you would end up closer to 2500x768 or thereabouts, but unlike Catalyst where I've found that going over 2048 on a single axis creates a problem (even with a very small size on the other axis), on DL.2/AXON you can go over 2048 on a single axis with no worries as long as you stay under the 800,000 total pixel mark (say for a 5x1, 6x1, 7x1, or 8x1 collage). It is also more of a warning than a hard and fast rule the way way it is on Catalyst as the newest DL.2/AXONs can handle much larger files than the original realase ones can.
  • FxDrewFxDrew Registered User
    edited February 2008
    Right in theory, but I was not able to get this to work properly the last time I tried it.

    Here is a picture of a 3x1 Blend using a TH2G

    http://ruehlingassoc.com/ruehlingweb/demodazefall2007_files/006%20-%20Warehouse%2003.jpg
    It would not surprise me though if it turns out to be a server or software issue though b/c they are older machines.

    More often than not, it's a machine problem. Reading large files have gotten easier with SSD's. It's barely ever the software's fault.
Sign In or Register to comment.