What would be awesome

j250x · Post by **j250x** » Sun Feb 15, 2009 7:25 pm

Well personally I think it would be awesome. But that's just me. I like the ableton workflow and I think it could be applied to video very well to make a really great app. Doesn't anyone else think that this would be a good thing to exist? Regardless of whether it is at all likely to ever exist.

An add-on could be possible, however for reasons of performance and stability I think it would still be better to have a dedicated app.

bosonHavoc · Post by **bosonHavoc** » Sun Feb 15, 2009 7:49 pm

i think to get the most out of a video/music performance you would need a video computer and an audio computer working together.

i may get to experiment with some of this soon... my VJ friend that i mentioned earlier may be joining my band. (he is also a musician)

Tone Deft · Post by **Tone Deft** » Sun Feb 15, 2009 7:51 pm

if you want it, keep asking

there was a mac only project that I can't find!

the video showed the user tweaking video by twiddling with Live's built in plug ins. very cool video, I lost interest when I saw it was Mac only.

anyone remember?

j250x · Post by **j250x** » Sun Feb 15, 2009 7:54 pm

Yeah unless you have a really powerful computer it helps to have two. My band have sync'd visuals for our live sets. The entire thing is programmed in Ableton with a MIDI track rewired to the VJ program. Currently we're using Arkaos VJ. We do it on the same laptop at the moment as it's mostly just playing straight video clips and doesn't need much CPU power.

Arkaos VJ is okay but the user interface is fairly bad and you can only put one effect per clip/signal source on. I'll look at livid like you suggested and see if that could work for us.

stonee · Post by **stonee** » Sun Feb 15, 2009 8:17 pm

ok, this might be a dumb question, but wouldn't a good graphics card take some of the cpu load off of graphics processing?

friend_kami · Post by **friend_kami** » Sun Feb 15, 2009 8:20 pm

jonny72 wrote:
hoffman2k wrote:Cough Max for Live cough...

Jitter is a video processing environment built into max and soon built into Live.
On top of that we'll probably be able to make Live talk with Apple's Quartz Composer, Modul8 and on the Pc side VVVV I think and anything else that supports OSC and MIDI input.
Its a bit worrying that Max for Live is being used as the answer to so many questions and feature requests. If Ableton start thinking the same was it will be very bad news.

Sure you might be able to do this with Max, but it doesn't change the fact that it would be better (and cheaper) if this functionality was available in Live. It would seem a logical step to bring the video handling more in line with audio.

but...
but..
live is for audio, and was never intended to be a video sequencer, and probably never will be.

i know i know, we have the video output window, but that was put there to help composers compose to video, not perform video.

if you want a video sequencer, either make yer own of find a piece of software that was made for video performances as opposed to audio.

"
Its a bit worrying that Max for Live is being used as the answer to so many questions and feature requests. If Ableton start thinking the same was it will be very bad news."

i agree with this though. alot.

xherv · Post by **xherv** » Sun Feb 15, 2009 8:20 pm

j250x wrote: An add-on could be possible, however for reasons of performance and stability I think it would still be better to have a dedicated app.

There are a ton of VJ apps or certainly video editing apps, those will always make sense for what they're designed to do. But really I think kind of the whole idea behind Max/MSP/Jitter is a little bit getting away from the paradigm of a dedicated app.

http://www.cycling74.com/?op=search&topic=jitter shows a lot of interesting things being done with Jitter, I liked http://www.cycling74.com/story/2006/7/17/163443/130 and http://www.cycling74.com/story/2006/2/6/172933/2775 for getting a little bit of a sense of it all.

There are some really interesting things going on here that can be appreciated on many levels. Remember when multimedia meant 16-bit color and sound?

friend_kami · Post by **friend_kami** » Sun Feb 15, 2009 9:49 pm

Tone Deft wrote:if you want it, keep asking

there was a mac only project that I can't find!

the video showed the user tweaking video by twiddling with Live's built in plug ins. very cool video, I lost interest when I saw it was Mac only.

anyone remember?

that was called JAM, or Just Add Music.
http://www.google.se/search?q=just+add+ ... =firefox-a

one of those pages should give your some information about it.
afaik, the project died though.

Tone Deft · Post by **Tone Deft** » Mon Feb 16, 2009 3:45 am

many thanks for finding that!!

it's even cooler than I remember.

here's the setup...
Ms Pinky has a video mode.
record Ms Pinky vinyl or whichever of your choosing into a clip in Live.
play that clip through Beat Repeat, send its audio to Ms Pinky in video mode.
Live controls video, Beat Repeat replaces the turntablist.
relative mode a must for the needle drop.

LoopStationZebra · Post by **LoopStationZebra** » Mon Feb 16, 2009 4:40 am

hoffman2k wrote:Watch the videos again. There are objects that allow access to functions you couldn't access before and on top of that there will be an official API.
That means that nobody is stopped to create a 4th kind of track for video that is housed in a different window. You can even make it look exactly like session view and so far nobody has said that you can't use the dropclip object to drop video into max from the Live interface.

And you can do more than just mix video clips. You can mix LIVE video and output it to multiple sources.

Not trying to be a dick here, but you can't say its impossible with such strong conviction without backing it up. The game has changed, so have the possibilities.

Give me a time frame that the average person, with absolute zero experience using Jitter, could create exactly everything that you just described above.

friend_kami · Post by **friend_kami** » Mon Feb 16, 2009 9:16 am

LoopStationZebra wrote:
hoffman2k wrote:Watch the videos again. There are objects that allow access to functions you couldn't access before and on top of that there will be an official API.
That means that nobody is stopped to create a 4th kind of track for video that is housed in a different window. You can even make it look exactly like session view and so far nobody has said that you can't use the dropclip object to drop video into max from the Live interface.

And you can do more than just mix video clips. You can mix LIVE video and output it to multiple sources.

Not trying to be a dick here, but you can't say its impossible with such strong conviction without backing it up. The game has changed, so have the possibilities.

Give me a time frame that the average person, with absolute zero experience using Jitter, could create exactly everything that you just described above.

2 billion years, give or take a few.

pepezabala · Post by **pepezabala** » Mon Feb 16, 2009 9:26 am

I am looking forward to see great video apps in max4live. However I am afraid that it might be quite expensive to get the necessary licences.

The other day I saw a presentation of some italian guy who programmed a beuatiful VJ-app in pure data:

http://www.estereotips.net/qeve/

Green Lemon · Post by **Green Lemon** » Mon Feb 16, 2009 9:46 am

LoopStationZebra wrote:
hoffman2k wrote:Watch the videos again. There are objects that allow access to functions you couldn't access before and on top of that there will be an official API.
That means that nobody is stopped to create a 4th kind of track for video that is housed in a different window. You can even make it look exactly like session view and so far nobody has said that you can't use the dropclip object to drop video into max from the Live interface.

And you can do more than just mix video clips. You can mix LIVE video and output it to multiple sources.

Not trying to be a dick here, but you can't say its impossible with such strong conviction without backing it up. The game has changed, so have the possibilities.

Give me a time frame that the average person, with absolute zero experience using Jitter, could create exactly everything that you just described above.

Isn't the relevant question more, are the CovOps are going to release this video monster? I mean, surely we don't all need to patch our own Jitter/Live Frankenberry Crunch?

hoffman2k · Post by **hoffman2k** » Mon Feb 16, 2009 10:43 am

LoopStationZebra wrote:
hoffman2k wrote:Watch the videos again. There are objects that allow access to functions you couldn't access before and on top of that there will be an official API.
That means that nobody is stopped to create a 4th kind of track for video that is housed in a different window. You can even make it look exactly like session view and so far nobody has said that you can't use the dropclip object to drop video into max from the Live interface.

And you can do more than just mix video clips. You can mix LIVE video and output it to multiple sources.

Not trying to be a dick here, but you can't say its impossible with such strong conviction without backing it up. The game has changed, so have the possibilities.
Give me a time frame that the average person, with absolute zero experience using Jitter, could create exactly everything that you just described above.

30 to 60 days. Less if they actually know a thing or 2 about math (which I don't).

Only one person has to create and share it though. Its not like every Live user will have to build everything. The same video explaining what you can do also mentions that everything can be shared.

leonard · Post by **leonard** » Mon Feb 16, 2009 12:02 pm

maybe with the slew of imaging tools in jitter this may be redundant, but can you use things like image units in jitter (never got that far in the demo)? i always thought (always for the last 6 months or so) that an app like live, esp. the session view, but for video, where a video clip in a clip slot, and an ability to drop image units or some such into an effects chain would be cool. maybe thats what the op was getting at?