don't rely too much on software

[MoRpH]

James I have to agree on the TZT front, however oTZT (1.2.5) is definately as solid as the last Triplet release. Newer versions (once multires and FF support was added) are still more experimental with bugs needing to be squished.

Thats said I have always been a fan of dedicated hardware from back in my Fairlight CVI days.

Personally now I'm running 2 laptops with oTZT 1.2.5 (with a variety of midi controllers, dm2, etc...) into a V4 (which I tweek like a mofo) and occationally bust out the CVI producer.

[asterix]

inopiaCGA - what are you talking about? How many pieces of software do you know of are 100% stable (including micro$oft which is the largest distributed piece of crap on the planet).

About 5 years ago most desktop publishing programs would crash every 20 mins. Now they crash every week. The difference between something like corel/macromedia/adobe dtp programs and your VJ software is about 20,000,000 copies and about $1500au each license. Thats alot of moolah.

Most graphics software will RESERVE memory/cpu so it is not constantly battling for it with other programs. 2D processing requires shitloads of CPU unlike 3d apps.

[DFUNC]

Also, i wanted to add that i think the VJ sets that will really stand out as performances in their own right are the ones that use lots of different pieces of gear.

I disagree. For me content is king.
Have you seen the show from Plastic Reality together with Norman Cook at Brighton Beach a couple of years ago? BTW: There is a nice DVD out. He could have played with a computer only.

[thomase]

exactly! e.g. Spark does amazing things with just one computer...

[karl]

Originally posted by inopiaCGA

VJ software is usually created by amateur programmers. And what is worse, everybody is trying to make a buck off these crappy programs, so there's no code sharing and nobody is fixing the bugs because they're all out hunting for new features (it's more fun to code new features than to fix old bugs, memory leaks or bloat ... one of the reasons gnome/gtk/firefox are so bloated

I dont agree that is a bad thing, as i have worked as a professional programmer for more than six years i would say that a lot of crap programming is done due to deadlines and political issues. Amateur software is lacking corprate drive, but amateur projects usually recieves 10% more love than the next leading corporate brand. It's almost like biological food, better for you but more expencive.

Just my 2 eurocents thu.

[sketchyj]

Originally posted by DFUNC
I disagree. For me content is king.
Have you seen the show from Plastic Reality together with Norman Cook at Brighton Beach a couple of years ago? BTW: There is a nice DVD out. He could have played with a computer only.

that goes without saying...but content aside, i think that someone using a DVJ, 2 lappys running different software, at least one V4, and an entrancer will produce a better show than someone just using a simple computer setup, don't you agree? I'd like to run resolume if i had a second lappy up there, it has a totally unique feel that would compliment arkaos...and with a backup laptop i would feel safer about computer problems disturbing my set. But the most kickass rig in the world won't help you if your content stinks, for sure. Just yesterday i was trying to explain to someone what i do as a VJ and he said "oh..like what iTunes does." GOD NO! i told him (how rude!)...if my content ever looks as bland and soulless as one of those visualization programs then you have permission to pull me off stage with a cane. It's the content that sucks all of my time to prepare. When it comes time to perform it i want it to do what it is supposed to (in theory) do. When it doesn't perform well because of god knows what reason, your show starts to look amateur, like you can't keep the beat. That's when people start ranting about this stuff in the hopes that maybe somebody at some company somewhere will hear and agree and decide to fill a void in the market that people are clamoring for. I actually find it bewildering that some VJs would not get 100 percent behind a shift towards dedicated machines that would eliminate the need for a computer in a live performance. I think i will make a rendering of my dream machine and put it up on here. Maybe i could convince someone that even if they don't believe it would be more reliable, it would at least be more ergonomic, efficient, space saving, easier to use, sturdier, and way cooler looking than connecting a bunch of separate components with a million wires. I use probably 5 power strips along with all kinds of extension cords, usb cables, and what-not. Trying to set up a rig from scratch is not a fun part of the day when you have so many cords it's practically some kind of parody when you begin pulling them out. I don't want to be a lampie/roadie. I'd like to set up in under an hour (HA!) and have it working. I'd like to be able to have a kickass desktop workstation instead of a laptop to create my content, but i can't afford both. Next time it's that time to buy a new computer, i hope that i have the option of using a decent video synth onstage so that i could buy my computer solely to use at home, a nice big tower that i can upgrade myself, something that will really render content at the speed i want it to. It will stay home, not to be jostled or transported, and when it's time for a gig i would like to have a proper tool that was made for a VJ gig. Here's an analogy for those that disagree. What would you think of a Porsche mechanic that decided to use an adjustable crescent wrench for almost everything, rather than buy an extensive set of different sized wrenches? It's asinine. A crescent wrench will work if nothing else is available, but you have to first adjust it, then after a few turns it becomes fussy and doesn't grip right so you adjust it again as many times as necessary. That is a hillbilly method. A mechanic who makes his living repairing cars knows that he needs the correct tool for any operation, and he needs reliable tools that will not break. When the day arrives that i can ditch my lappy, it's gone. Then it will be left to the wannabe's, amateurs, and part-timers to cling to these multipurpose machines while they learn the ropes and decide if they are dedicated enough to be real VJs and buy real machines.

[Amukidi]

...but content aside, i think that someone using a DVJ, 2 lappys running different software, at least one V4, and an entrancer will produce a better show than someone just using a simple computer setup, don't you agree?

Absolutely not! You believe this and you're off down the slippery slope of "Gear-whore-ism" - don't go there, you'll end up being dictated to by your tools, which, in a creative context, is suicide. Sure, if your whole show is designed and executed with these machines, specifically in mind, then they will deliver. If you just grab this gear and try to work with it, you'll more than likely miss the point. Believe me - I've got a lot of Demos for the Big Chill here, and content & context shine through every time - regardless of what was used to create/perform it.
The best VJ sets I've seen so far, this year, were both performed on a single powerbook, one using GridPro and the other, Isadora.

And Im a hardware VJ.....

[gpvillamil]

One of the best sets I've seen this year was by a guy who was running a tiny camera with a macro lens through an Edirol V4.

He'd printed a bunch of his visuals (in a tiny size!) on a bunch of cards and papers.

So he'd apply effects with the V4, then introduce motion by moving and rippling the paper, tapping the camera, etc. At some points he'd pour water (or his drink!) on the paper as well.

He'd also point the camera at his preview monitors, and wave the papers between the camera and the monitor, for a feedback effect.

It looked really cool, the motion was smooth and "organic", and very closely matched to the music.

It was a great set - and no laptop. (Though I personally run a laptop, myself)

[sketchyj]

well, perhaps it's true that you can also overcomplicate with too much gear, but the whole discussion started from my general feeling that relying on a computer as the central part of your rig is inviting disaster. I wouldn't use a DVJ for 2 hours, but i would certainly use it for the kind of clips where you need that kind of control. Personally (speaking for me only), it would be a godsend for me because im trying to achieve results that would look so much better if i had a precision tool like a DVJ when i need it. At this point in the evolution of VJ technology i would have to say that the reason i would advocate the setup that i described as opposed to a minimal computer setup is because after 2 gigs of scraping by computer disasters by the skin of my teeth, i really want to build in to my rig some other failsafes that i can fall back on. Right now my emergency backup consists of a DVD i keep cued up so that when the computer decides to take it's break i can try to keep the show at least half assed looking like it's supposed to. Having to make cuts between a computer thats out to lunch and a dvd isn't the best way to make a genuinely impressive performance. I would feel better about it if i had some other hardware to fall back on for those times when windoze is taking a snooze. About the "gear whore der" aspect of it....what i was really trying to illustrate about having something like a video synth is that i want to ELIMINATE gear (laptop, hard drive, usb hub, scan converter, mouse, midi controller, DVJ machine). A cool video synth could replace all of those and do things that all that junk put together cannot. I believe you that a stellar, mind blowing show can be had with just a computer. I also believe that having better, more reliable tools combined into a piece of dedicated hardware would be a better solution, even if you didn't use all the features, like the scratch pad. But i'd rather have features on a synth that i didn't use than not enough features. Mainly, it needs to simplify my life, and be powerful enough that you have room to experiment and grow into it.
I have also seen cool visuals without any high tech stuff....one show this guy used a powerful overhead projector and mixed colored oils in a bowl...essentially a liquid light effect, but better because of the human element and the vibrant colors most lights like that don't project. We VJs for the most part are using lappys as our bread and butter. If you are not prepared with some extra gear you might end up doing a shadow puppet performance or tap dancing and that could possibly be a disgraceful way to end the show in front of hundreds or thousands of people.

[Stuart]

i think that someone using a DVJ, 2 lappys running different software, at least one V4, and an entrancer will produce a better show than someone just using a simple computer setup, don't you agree?

No way, because

For me content is king.

I never intended to get into the live mixing gig. I made long form programs for specific events with specific soundtracks burned on DVD. One too many DJs/promoters told me they would rather have my hour long loop of canned content than look at interactive oversaturated fractals all night. There exists no software that can replicate in real time the richness and detail of the content/effects I get out of Maya and AE. Shit, I've got one long loop that took 40 days to render. The best I can hope for, at this time, is a tool that will let me composite my pre-made, fully rendered layers in real time. Do I use more than one tool in production? Yes. But, and YMMV certainly, live I only need one (and a DVD player and switcher in case the compy craps out (has not happened yet though)).