Collaborating on a project

crosas

Separate, but related, I'd like to better use file bins. However, they really only seem useful if all of your assets are added up front. If I add an image/video to a bin above another bin then everything below it gets renumbered. Thoughts?

not sure on first part for that many scenes other than to break down and/or use snapshots-so I'll let others chime in there but on bins---are you using get media index/etc actors?

AlanEisen

@crosas Thanks. I wasn't aware of that. May be helpful to keep things organized.

bonemap

@alaneisen said:

Is there an easy way to break up a project and put it back together

This is a good topic thanks for raising it. I have worked in two ways, but mostly using numbered iterations of patch files. When working in collaboration, keeping track of iteration files by number and date. The other way has been simple cut and paste between patch files, but I have found that control links are not copied by this means (Control Link actor numbers are somehow reset when pasted from another file). I am able to Shift/Select All - to highlight both Control Edit actors and Scene Edit actors to copy simultaneously, however, it does not appear possible to paste simultaneously to the Control Edit window and Scene Edit window in another patch file, and that creates a lot of double handling when trying to coalesce scenes from different iterations of patch files.

There are a number of refinements that could be considered to make collaboration on patching more viable. Cutting and pasting simultaneously across Control and Edit Scene windows, pasting Control actors without resetting assigned link numbers, are some. An option to merge files and/or track iterations. The option to simultaneously co- author would be amazing!

best wishes

bonemap

DusX

something I do that makes it easier is to work from my Dropbox folder. This syncs to each machine in my studio, which really helps with crossplatform work as could (in a master/slave project) help with shared working.

I suspose a network drive would be similar except that Dropbox adds some change history options so it's partly/sort of version control.

Michel

@bonemap

In the "controls" menu you can de-select "Auto Re-number ID conflicts", then the link numbers will not be reset but stay as is.

Best Michel

CraigAlfredson

I agree that the bin numbering issue is very frustrating. I wish that new bins started with index 1 and were separate to the main media bins, but I suppose that would be too significant a change to implement this late in the process. My work around is to add blank slots to my media bins. For instance, I will add 100 blank slots to my video bin, then the additional bin would start at index 101.

bonemap

@michel said:

de-select "Auto Re-number ID conflicts"

Thanks for the tip. I will give it a try. Yes, unchecking that option from the Controls menu does the trick in terms of retaining control link numbers when using copy and paste.

Regards

Bonemap

bonemap

@dusx said:

Dropbox

I use Dropbox extensively in a similar way, with the addition of setting up share folders for clients to access and comment on draft renders. It adds a bit to the monthly bills, but appears to be worth it for the convenience factor.

Best wishes

bonemap

judgeworks

@bonemap do the people you are collaborating with also have an izzy license or are they somehow able to help you with files without having to purchase?

AlanEisen

@judgeworks Right now I'm just feeding a designer still/video files; but we realize there's work that could be done with an Izzy license and a more clear approach to collaborating on a project.

Reinhard

A lot of the problems in this thread could be solved if the Izzy license would agree two computers. I'm a two license guy because of this - it's worth, but it ain't...

best

r

bonemap

@judgeworks said:

do the people you are collaborating with also have an izzy license

One of the great things about Isadora software is the total cost of a user license. Over the years, when a grant or commission has allowed, I have been able to invest in multiple user keys. When collaborating, I pass a USB Isadora key over for the duration of development. I am always nervous about loosing the usb dongle - but it hasn’t happened yet. Originally I had a show in development that was touring with two computers running Isadora and talking to each other - so at that point - I invested in extra keys. At that time the capacity of a machine to run multiple processes was not very good and video processing would often be running at 12 - 15 FPS. Sharing the load across multiple computers made a lot of sense.

Best wishes

Bonemap

Woland

I've been meaning to get a second license for this exact reason, so I can be running projections for rehearsal on the show computer while making edits to different Scenes on my laptop.

This is reminding me of a discussion I've seen previously on on the forum about people mentioning wanting a "blind" mode, as on a lighting desk, where one can have one Scene running, while working on another Scene without affecting the output.
Link: https://community.troikatronix...
The thread says that it'd be very technically complex to accomplish though, but I wonder if it'd be more or less complex than having two computers share a license and use the same Patch and media.

Working on a show recently, we had two Mac Pros and two Isadora licenses and we were Airdropping bits of Patches back and forth to each other.

AlanEisen

@bonemap how did you you have them "talking to each other". Was it a matter of tagging each other on queues or were you collaborating to develop the project between the two systems?

bonemap

@alaneisen said:

how did you you have them "talking to each other"

Hi,

I just meant assigning discrete processes to different machines. For example, one project using 2 x MacPro towers with additional PCIe graphics cards (all obsolete now) had an Isadora patch on the second machine running four projectors and doing some camera tracking and responding to midi triggers generated by a musician operating MaxMSP running on the same machine. The first machine running another four projectors, connected to a dmx lan box for the light rig, running a Kinect with Syphon from Zvector and OSC from NiMate (I used an Applescript to toggle between the two because at that time they would not run simultaneously), a 3D Processing sketch that was interactive using the OSC data input from Isadora and Syphon output back to Isadora. This machine was also the main Isadora control interface. The two computers linked using Isadora machine ID linking and a lot of wireless and wired router traffic going between them. It was a lot to keep track of and the only way to do it was to break it down into discrete processes. When operating the show I used a KVM switcher on long usb and VGA cable extensions to keep check between the two desktop UI of the computers. Because of the nature of the show - a performance installation - this congestion of processes could be maintained. Individual audience members booked in for a 15 minute experience within the installation, and performers would interact with them one-on-one. The show ran during the day with multiple 15 minute sessions concurrently. And not to make it easy on ourselves, we then switched to another two machines running different Isadora patches and ran a 40 minute evening performance in the same large black box venue. It was crazy!

Best wishes,

Bonemap

Woland

@bonemap said:

Hi,
I just meant assigning discrete processes to different machines. For example, one project using 2 x MacPro towers with additional PCIe graphics cards (all obsolete now) had an Isadora patch on a second machine running four projectors and doing some camera tracking and responding to midi triggers generated by a musician operating MaxMSP running on the same machine. The first machine running another four projectors, connected to a dmx lan box for the light rig, running a Kinect with Syphon from Zvector and OSC from NiMate (I used an Applescript to toggle between the two because at that time they would not run simultaneously), a 3D Processing sketch that was interactive using the OSC data input from Isadora and Syphon output back to Isadora. This machine was also the main Isadora control interface. The two computers linked using Isadora machine ID linking and a lot of wireless and wired router traffic going between them. It was a lot to keep track of and the only way to do it was to break it down into discrete processes. When operating the show I used a KVM switcher on long usb and VGA cable extensions to keep check between the two desktop UI of the computers. Because of the nature of the show - a performance installation - this congestion of processes could be maintained. Individual audience members booked in for a 15 minute experience within the installation, and performers would interact with them one-on-one. The show ran during the day with multiple 15 minute sessions concurrently. And not to make it easy on ourselves, we then switched to another two machines running different Isadora patches and ran a 40 minute evening performance in the same large black box venue. It was crazy!
Best wishes,
Bonemap

Once brains can be digitized and uploaded to the internet, yours is one of the first ones I'm downloading.

bonemap

@woland said:

yours is one of the first ones I'm downloading

Ha! I would be downloading Memo Atken , Matt Pyke and Mark Coniglio