Resolume Forum

Hi guys,
It might be a better way to do this, in that case please let me know

My composition is built up with a logo layer, a effect layer and content layers.
I also have a few effects on the composition, such as color hue,

The effectlayer is a great way to add effects to the layers below it, but with the disadvantage of just being able to have one playing at the time
as far as i know, I need to have the effect as a clip and not on the actual layer in order to affect the layers below.
(there´s a hack where I have clip equipted to the layer with opacity 0, then all effects on the layer will work)
Color hue (and other effects) are something i want to use on a global scale, except.. I don´t want the logo layer to be affected

Any bright solutions?

Effect clips are the way to go for this. An effect clip can have as many effects as you want.

So just put all the effects you would normally have on the composition and put them in one effect clip, and make sure you always keep it triggered.

and if you want to keep your logo layer unaffected, either put it on the very top layer above your effect layer or put it in the very first layer, turn the opacity to 0, then create a slice in advanced output, move it to the top of the stack, uncheck the opacity checkbox and position your logo wherever your want.

That's what I though
Thanks for the clarification, ill move all my composition effects to a effect clip.

put it in the very first layer, turn the opacity to 0, then create a slice in advanced output, move it to the top of the stack, uncheck the opacity checkbox and position your logo wherever your want.

To be completely honest, I don't think this is a good approach. Oaktown is a very experienced user, and I have no doubt he knows what he's doing and is able to use this method to great success. For a new user, I wouldn't recommend this technique.

By using this approach, you head down a dead end street. You move what is essentially a compositing action out of the composition and into the advanced output. There is nothing advanced about positioning a logo, and you can easily do this in the composition. This way, you can still adjust position and scale during live performance, as opposed to having to open the advanced output and do it there.

Additionally. let's say you now still want to apply composition effects on the entire output, the logo layer will be excluded. There is no way to get these effects to apply on the logo.

Also, for me, it's a mindf*ck to have the the logo on top, but in the bottom of the layer stack. During live performance, when I want to adjust the top layers of the compositions, my hands will instinctively move to the right side of the controller or scroll to the top layers. To have the layers increment to the right, except the last layer which is on the first fader, is not intuitive at all. Granted, you could switch around your mapping, but this doesn't help make the setup easy to understand or to troubleshoot.

Joris wrote:To be completely honest, I don't think this is a good approach. Oaktown is a very experienced user, and I have no doubt he knows what he's doing and is able to use this method to great success. For a new user, I wouldn't recommend this technique.

I agree with you Joris, the opacity/adavnced output approach is not the most intuitive approach which is why I listed it second.

Joris wrote:You move what is essentially a compositing action out of the composition and into the advanced output.

My undestanding from MRmP's description was that the logo was not a compositing action. If you want to place a corporate logo on your screen, exclude it from the comp's effects and forget about it, it's definitely the most flexible for placement. The one thing I forgot to mention is to turn on "Ignore Column Trigger" on that layer.

Joris wrote:Additionally. let's say you now still want to apply composition effects on the entire output, the logo layer will be excluded. There is no way to get these effects to apply on the logo.
Also, for me, it's a mindf*ck to have the the logo on top, but in the bottom of the layer stack. During live performance, when I want to adjust the top layers of the compositions, my hands will instinctively move to the right side of the controller or scroll to the top layers. To have the layers increment to the right, except the last layer which is on the first fader, is not intuitive at all. Granted, you could switch around your mapping, but this doesn't help make the setup easy to understand or to troubleshoot.

I typically place this type of layers at the bottom of my stacks because of my workflow but the logo layer could be placed anywhere you want since it's not showing in the comp.

All this brings an interesting point though which is definitely part of different conversation but I think there has been a shift in paradigm (especially since you released R5) and there are quite a few users out there who actively use the advanced output during live performance. It realize it's not how you intended it and you don't recommend doing that but quite often I will have my advanced output open full screen on a second UI monitor so that I can have access to all my mapping work on the fly. It'd actually be interesting to find out how people really use the advanced output.

That is indeed a very interesting discussion, and I know for a fact that the majority of our users actually uses the advanced output as you do. That doesn't necessarily make it the best way to do it though.

I would say that if you have a need for having the advanced output open (or for midi/osc/dmx control over the advanced output, same thing really), you are using the advanced output to position or control the opacity of content. Which are per definition *compositing* actions.

I think that unless your stage is physically changing shape, there shouldn't be a need to change anything in the advanced output. The advanced output is used once to adjust your output for a LED processor's pixelmap or to align content to a physical object.

Positioning of content, opacity of content, anything to do with content really, are *compositing* actions and should happen in the composition.

If you don't do this in the comp but via layer to slice routing, you end up in all sorts of dead ends, as you are well aware. These dead ends in turn lead to all sorts of feature requests like effects for slices, blend modes for slices etc. These feature requests are basically the result of an XY problem.

Let's define X as follows: the user needs an easy way to position content and to easily make changes in this positioning.

The first half of X is easily done in the AO, but the second half isn't. This leads to the request for what the user thinks is the best solution, namely Y: external control over the AO (and by extension effects and blend modes in the AO). This is indeed a logical request once you've headed down the dead end of positioning in the AO. It's also how for instance Madmapper solves things, which makes sense because they have no friggin' compositing stage. Of course they would add blends in the AO, where else are they going to put them? So I can see how this request can come up, it's just logical thinking.

But, but, buuuuut....

If you take a step back, a far better solution would be to actually give the user X, which is better tools to position and control content in the composition. Which is the thing that they are actually trying to do.

If X can be done easily and intuitively, there is no need for solution Y. The user gets all the benefits of working in the composition (blend modes, a preview that makes sense, a layer stack that makes sense, global effects that are actually global, etc etc). They also get all the benefits of easy positioning and changing setups, because these can be treated as clips or layer effects. They can be turned on and off, like all other clips and effects, without the need of having a second window open or to remember a midi map of something that you can't even see during live performance.

Is it possible to say exclude a layer from composition effects?

Sure, I can use an Effect Layer and control whatever is beneath that layer, but in my view I think it is best to have composition effects where they belong.

In my view it would make sense to have a mappable button on a layer so I can toggle global effects on that specific layer.

Of such a great toggle button existed one can add effects on an excluded layer or a single clip which opens up for a lot of fun ways to mix effects and have greater control.

Or perhaps it is already possible to do this somehow?

Amritus wrote:Is it possible to say exclude a layer from composition effects?

Sure, I can use an Effect Layer and control whatever is beneath that layer, but in my view I think it is best to have composition effects where they belong.

In my view it would make sense to have a mappable button on a layer so I can toggle global effects on that specific layer.

Of such a great toggle button existed one can add effects on an excluded layer or a single clip which opens up for a lot of fun ways to mix effects and have greater control.

Or perhaps it is already possible to do this somehow?

agree.
I want to turn off/bypass all composition effects with one toggle?
is it possible?

Not directly but you could put all your comp effects in a top layer instead of in the comp which give you the option to turn it on or off.

As an alternative, you could map all the effect modes to the same keyboard key or DMX/MIDI channel.