Pixel shader

Share your wishes for the future of Ableton Live
Dan
Posts: 26
Joined: Fri Apr 22, 2005 9:30 am

Pixel shader

Post by Dan » Sun Apr 02, 2006 5:08 pm

Pixel shader accelerated graphical interface

liquidfx
Posts: 121
Joined: Tue Feb 08, 2005 5:51 am
Contact:

Post by liquidfx » Mon Apr 03, 2006 12:11 am

pffft... bwaaaahhahahhaaaaaa!!!!!!



heres a tip...sell live and buy yourself photoshop.

dumbest. idea. ever.

how is that supposed to improve musical production?

live is fine the way it looks.
Image

Dan
Posts: 26
Joined: Fri Apr 22, 2005 9:30 am

Post by Dan » Mon Apr 03, 2006 1:50 pm

I would be careful claiming its the 'dumbest. idea. ever.' Why?

Pixel shaders can speed up all interface (GUI) action, and at the
same time free up power from the main processor:

Just a few examples:

* Displaying/Generating wave audio data
* Zooming
* Monitoring feedback

And I would imagine that VST/VSTi in the near future will init Pixel shaders.

p.s. liquidfx (the dumbest teenager ever?), Photoshop does
not support pixel shaders...

p.p.s. And your graphical foot-note breaks the Ableton forum layout!

ILTK
Posts: 800
Joined: Fri Dec 02, 2005 6:41 pm
Location: Denmark, land of the awesome

Post by ILTK » Mon Apr 03, 2006 4:04 pm

It may be able to speed up the interface a bit which would be a good thing, but the last thing I want to see in Live or any other program I use to make music (Or any program for that matter) is animated effects and sliding menus and things that zips in and zooms out like animated dialog windows, those things are the first I try to find a way to turn off in any program that has them, they have no value whatsoever, and all they do is rob time waiting for the 'cool' effects to be over, and I fear that if developers had those options available in the form of accelerated graphics UI they would jump on it to try to make thier things 'cool' - just look at someting like windows media player (Or lots of other media players with 'skinning'), the interface could be a study in how NOT to design an efficient interface, and that's without an accelerated gui, imagine if they had that available, they would jump at the chance to make the gui wobble and gyrate and zoom and zip, ugh.

One of the things I fear with the new version of windows for example is tons of animated pretty crap that serves no purpose other than 'looking cool'

Accelerated gui would be cool, if only there was a way to force developers to not go overboard and use it only to enhance effeciency.

Dan
Posts: 26
Joined: Fri Apr 22, 2005 9:30 am

Post by Dan » Mon Apr 03, 2006 5:46 pm

Indeed, the interface should NOT be an animated theme park from hell…
I wouldn’t fear the developers would go overboard either, they know their
success is based on keeping the interface simple (and of cause the incredible
Live audio engine).

I see why some people might think that pixel shaders are used for effects,
as they are very common in games… But the fact is that pixel shaders are
useful for most 2D graphical acceleration (could be considered as a
graphical DSP).

We are not talking a bit faster, but much faster… Specially when working
on 30+ audio/midi tracks in high resolutions and many plugins open at
the same time.

p.s. I'm a big fan of Ableton's simple (4 bit?) interface (see my previous postings).

atom_b
Posts: 264
Joined: Mon Mar 18, 2002 11:02 am
Location: North by Northeast

Post by atom_b » Mon Apr 03, 2006 9:33 pm

The abletons did a lot of thinking before they came up with that interface. It not only doesn't need to look like real gear, it is to the contrary supposed to look the way it actually does.

The idea was to design an interface that lets you react to things in an instance, just like in an aeroplane cockpit, and not to be distracted by the real gear look of knobs and faders.

There's certainly room for improvement, but not for real knobs. If pixel shading actually can improve the graphical display, they will go this way. But don't underestimate that at least the waveform you see, it the waveform you hear.

Regards
Vaio AR11S
XP Pro SP2
2GB RAM
intel T2500 2GHz
200GB RAID-0
RME FF400

Dan
Posts: 26
Joined: Fri Apr 22, 2005 9:30 am

Post by Dan » Tue Apr 04, 2006 4:38 am

Hey BV, what are yor actual saying?

Pixel shaders might improve the interface, and sugestionis like this is what the 'Feature Wishlist' area is designed for...

atom_b
Posts: 264
Joined: Mon Mar 18, 2002 11:02 am
Location: North by Northeast

Post by atom_b » Tue Apr 04, 2006 9:54 am

Dan wrote:Hey BV, what are yor actual saying?

Pixel shaders might improve the interface, and sugestionis like this is what the 'Feature Wishlist' area is designed for...
I wish not to have any real gear lookalike interface, because this would be good for nothing childish crap.

If pixel shading can improve the graphical display of what the interface currently shows, and which is by the way sort of professional environment I prefer to work with (like you might have already guessed), I second the use of the techniqe. I think this should be clear enough.

And the feature wishlist is more than just a list of what you'd like to see under the christmas tree. This forum is a discussion group.

Regards
Vaio AR11S
XP Pro SP2
2GB RAM
intel T2500 2GHz
200GB RAID-0
RME FF400

Dan
Posts: 26
Joined: Fri Apr 22, 2005 9:30 am

Post by Dan » Tue Apr 04, 2006 1:27 pm

Okay, time for clarifying.
I’m NOT suggest skinning or fancy interface stuff.. Pixel shaders does NOT
change the look of Live's brilliant interface, it will only render the interface
faster (much faster), and that is equal == Live will perform better.

LiquidFX, can you please resize your graphical foot note?

liquidfx
Posts: 121
Joined: Tue Feb 08, 2005 5:51 am
Contact:

Post by liquidfx » Fri Apr 07, 2006 6:30 am

haha. fluck off losers.

seems like the true audiophiles agree with me. we are working with AUDIO software dedicated to creating musical/audio wonders. If you want something graphical, get photoshop or avid.

Simply put, if you want something fancy to look at, buy a ticket and go watch ICEAGE 2.

And as for my "sig" you kids are just jealous you couldn't whip up something so visually appealing yourself. if you oppose, i dare you to post something better. a true artist can paint masterpieces over multiple forms and mediums of "so called" art. Live is one of my canvases, photoshop is just another. later dorks. :P

let me reiterate. dumbest. idea. ever. Live is made for sound, not visual effects...thats why we can all apreciate its simple "dumbed down" gui. aka it gets to the point without all the smoke n' mirrors. :D
Image

ILTK
Posts: 800
Joined: Fri Dec 02, 2005 6:41 pm
Location: Denmark, land of the awesome

Post by ILTK » Fri Apr 07, 2006 11:21 am

Didnt your momma tell you to not speak when the grownups are talking?

Now go pickup your toys before daddy takes of the belt.

liquidfx
Posts: 121
Joined: Tue Feb 08, 2005 5:51 am
Contact:

Post by liquidfx » Fri Apr 07, 2006 11:27 am

do agree that if it makes Live faster, and flow easier, then go for it. but is its nothing but pretty bells and whistles then fluck it.
Image

Dan
Posts: 26
Joined: Fri Apr 22, 2005 9:30 am

Post by Dan » Sat Apr 08, 2006 2:20 pm

Summarized:
Pixel Shaders will Not make any difference in how Live is looking.
Pixel Shaders will dramaticly SPEED UP the interface.
Pixel Shaders will releasing the main processor from doing graphical calculations.
All in all, this is equal (==) MORE main processor power for Audio calculations.

Wouldn’t we all want that?

Liquidfx, In your rage/blindness you seemed to had lost the point!
Now, I guess you get the point (no pretty bells)! I still believe ILTK should use his Belt...

Beside, you made me really curious, is it possible to hear some of
your Music/Audio productions online or can I buy it in any real shop?
Because if your Audio talent is as great as your graphics talent,
I guess it’s a must have in my collection.
Last edited by Dan on Sat Apr 08, 2006 2:38 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Dan
Posts: 26
Joined: Fri Apr 22, 2005 9:30 am

Post by Dan » Sat Apr 08, 2006 2:36 pm

LiquidFX, I didn't ask you to change you 'sig', just resize it to fit the forum

rizem
Posts: 5
Joined: Sun Apr 02, 2006 4:08 pm

Post by rizem » Sat Apr 15, 2006 3:57 am

Dan,

Your points are valid, they would contribute to the overall performance and efficiency of the program itself, which by standard is not a bad idea, it on the other hand is actually a very good idea.

Why people would not want a well trimmed piece of software that utilises every efficienct aspect of programming technology there is today is beyond me.

Lives interface is still a bit to cartoonish for me as it stands now, I'd like to revert it back to something even more simplistic, but thats a personal thing.

&...

Liquidfx,

You colour outside the lines, you need more practice. Very bad...

Post Reply