![]() Software companies can focus on what they do best and what their users want, while knowing their users can leverage other applications up / downstream of theirs in a way that benefits everyone… an ecosystem.Īs an interesting aside, I recently learned that QLab (3, not sure about 4) uses Syphon internally as part of their rendering pipeline. Creative programmers can focus their time on what makes their work unique and then share it into playback, mapping or effects software with Syphon. It enables artists to assemble complex and specific video pipelines and workflows that can’t - and arguably shouldn’t - be possible with a single application. I feel like this is what has helped live video artists and creative coders flourish on the Mac platform in recent years. You can mix these tools and more to find unique solutions to your creative problems. The above software is a mix of both end-user applications with GUIs like QLab, and creative coding frameworks and languages like openFrameworks, Processing, Cinder and visual programming apps like Max / Jitter and Pure Data.Īnother key line from Syphon’s website is ![]() Just look at the number of video applications make use of Syphon ![]() By incorporating support for Syphon (using Syphon’s SDK), an application can share frames with any other Syphon compatible application. In so many cases the word ‘ecosystem’ is misused but in the case of Syphon, it feels right. Syphon provides an ecosystem for sharing imagery between applications and new media development environments. In my case, Syphon has never not worked - it’s so solid - but as I slowly work towards trying to use Linux more and more, I’m realising that not having a Syphon alternative for Linux is not only holding me back, but also likely hampering the adoption of Linux by creative coders and video artists. *There is a similar frame sharing framework available on Windows called Spout / Spout2. Syphon - the open-source frame-sharing system for MacOS* is one of those things for me. There's still just one "Show Control" but using OSC with an iPad would let you control it remotely, without losing local control at the computer.Often, it’s only when something stops working that you are reminded how much you use it and how important it is. I've never tried using MULTIPLE iPads with that but I don't know of a reason why you couldn't. If you do want multiple OPERATORS working on Show Control, an alternative would be to use an iPad or similar with an OSC application like TouchOSC. but for a single operator, that should work. But if it's just wanting to see MORE of Show Control, multiple tabs directly viewable etc. ![]() The mouse is on one screen or another, if two people are fiddling with the two instances at once you're bound to have conflicts. So while you could, in theory, have multiple windows open and controllable - they'd not be SIMULTANEOUSLY controllable. I do see some problems with that scheme, a "Touch screen" on a computer is just a way of controlling the mouse via touch. Well, I don't think it's something we'd use - but I understand more about what you're asking now. Oh, I see - so by using a "Control surface" you mean directly controlling multiple instances of Show Control on the computer itself, not using an external surface like an ENTTEC Wing to manipulate it.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |