IzzyMap Output - X and Y Position & Size, in pixels.

Skulpture

Hi All.

I really think the community would benefit from being able to set the X and Y positions and the size, in pixels, of the regions/slices made in IzzyMap.

There have been quite a few projects (both my own freelance and my students' projects) where we have had to do this by eye, or I've made a pretty complex workaround.

A feature that could export and import a file to remember these settings would also be amazing. A .txt .csv or similar perhaps? But this would just be a bonus.

Is this on the roadmap staff team?

Thanks.

Woland

@skulpture said:

Is this on the roadmap staff team?

Currently it's not on the roadmap but we'll log this

dbini

nice idea G. while we're on the subject of IzzyMap - is there a way to lock input and output points so that if you move a point in the input panel, it also moves the corresponding point in the output panel? sometime's i'm projecting on a surface that's not standard ratio, and i want to use IzzyMap to crop the image to the screen without distorting it, so the input and output maps need to be the same.

Fred

@skulpture I have asked for this years ago - it's kind of vital if you have a complex setup where you have a frame jammed with precisely arranged pieces to go to multiple LED walls, or specific shaped projections. Eyeballing is so slow and just not accurate - the info is there we just need to be able to type it in - and even better let us load it from json or csv - when you have to do lots of slices mistakes are easy to make - loading from a json means no errors.

DillTheKraut

@skulpture

I can only second this and what is commented here after you. And I'm wondering why this isn't already asked for. Actually I'm not sure if I did not already asked for the pixel based mapping already ages ago.
The only solution for now is a specific test pattern for each project/ canvas, which is a time consuming extra step.
An alternative/ extra could be an internal, adjustable test pattern generator.

Skulpture

@dillthekraut said:

@skulptureI can only second this and what is commented here after you. And I'm wondering why this isn't already asked for. Actually I'm not sure if I did not already asked for the pixel based mapping already ages ago. The only solution for now is a specific test pattern for each project/ canvas, which is a time consuming extra step. An alternative/ extra could be an internal, adjustable test pattern generator.

I think you have spoken about this. I think the reason it isn't asked for that much is that the demographic of Isadora users might not be using LED panel technology (I mean this kindly and respectfully) but mostly projectors; hence why the projector actor is also called projector actor and not "output" actor, or similar. But that's a side note and a thought of my own.

Anyway; I know Mark works so so hard and he's amazing. He can't do everything all the time for us all. But I think this request might come in time.

Woland

@dillthekraut said:

I'm wondering why this isn't already asked for

It probably has been (I haven't had the time to log this yet so I haven't checked). When there's a feature request we first search our records to see if a similar/identical one already exists. If one exists, we add the new request to the existing one, lending the existing request more weight. If there's not one, then a fresh feature request is created.

Fred

@skulpture even without led screens I have needed this a few times. Projecting onto irregular shapes where the source is packed into a regular video and a lot of small pieces need to be sliced and then output. Getting either the source or destination positions correct is much more difficult without pixel positions. Zooming in and hoping the line or point is in th right place is less than ideal. Adding a point and the moving it to the correct place precisely with pixel coordinates is a sure thing.

I might be alone but a large reason for having a mapping tool is to be able to slice and move and arrange complex shapes easily and precisely. I do understand that it is probably more regularly used to square up projection.

Skulpture

@fred said:

Getting either the source or destination positions correct is much more difficult without pixel positions

Yes good point.

DillTheKraut

@skulpture

Sorry, I didn't mean to criticize anyone in anyway! I was just expressing my curiosity, why this doesn't seem to bother a lot more than it is mentioned before.
Especially, as I'm with @Fred about the issue not only being tied to LED setups. It already applies to a simple screen/content, which is not in standard aspect. I often work with other media servers and it is a really helpful feature, if you can just type coordinates or even calculations like n*px/2 or n*px + n*px.

To make this totally clear, as a long term user I absolutely appreciate Marks work, time and energy he puts into this often underestimated bead. The respect for the efforts of him and your surrounding team I have, probably often is a reason I don't always even ask for every little new 'might be a possible feature' I have in mind.

Skulpture

@dillthekraut said:

@skulpture Sorry, I didn't mean to criticize anyone in anyway! I was just expressing my curiosity, why this doesn't seem to bother a lot more than it is mentioned before. Especially, as I'm with @Fred about the issue not only being tied to LED setups. It already applies to a simple screen/content, which is not in standard aspect. I often work with other media servers and it is a really helpful feature if you can just type coordinates or even calculations like n*px/2 or n*px + n*px. To make this totally clear, as a long term user I absolutely appreciate Marks work, time and energy he puts into this often underestimated bead. The respect for the efforts of him and your surrounding team I have, probably often is a reason I don't always even ask for every little new 'might be a possible feature' I have in mind.

Even if there was any criticism it went over my head lol. I don't take anything anyone has said as negative these days. I always assume the positive in people. No issues here - just a bunch of Izzy users having a chat about a potential feature that might benefit the already amazing software that Mark has made for us.

Juriaan

Hi all,

The conversation about doing calculations inside input fields Is something that was brought up before, especially in the context of projection mapping.

+1 from me regarding the X/Y position & size in pixels.

bonemap

Hi,

Self-calculating input fields have got to be one of the highest-ranking feature requests that I can think of. When suggested previously, there seemed to be some enthusiasm for that feature. I would also find it beneficial to have pixel-based calibrations on the output points of IssyMap—using the arrow keys to get pixel-level adjustment is currently an option, but having addressable and publishable output points conforming to pixel scale would be next level.

Best Wishes
Russell

Fred

@woland

FYI I found my post from 2020 asking for numeric pixel based control in the output mapper.:

https://community.troikatronix...

Woland

@fred said:

FYI I found my post from 2020 asking for numeric pixel based control in the output mapper.:

So I was correct when I wrote above that it's probably been requested before.