confused about software/DAC requirements of laser projectors

[buffo]

Sorry I'm so late to the party folks. I finally noticed that my name had come up in this thread, so I figured I should take a peek. I've been very busy with a lot of other issues, most of which are not laser-related, sadly, so I completely missed this. That being said, however, I have been in contact with "Dream" via PM over the past few weeks regarding his needs.

Are you implying the only people that can properly use LSX are math or physics majors with a lot of time on their hands?

While I certainly don't want to start putting words into other people's mouths here, I do believe I can answer this question. It's not that you *need* to be a math wiz to use LSX, but rather that if you *are* a math wiz, you can unlock some of the more powerful features of the software.

And by comparison, Quickshow is easier to master (even the more complex effects).

This topic has already been hashed to death in other threads, and the topic in general is in danger of becoming a religious war not unlike the "X-box vs Playstation" debate, or even the "Apple vs PC" debate. So I will try to keep this brief and as impartial as I can, in the interest of averting a flame-war.

That being said - there is one salient point that people should keep in mind. There are hundreds of shows available for Quickshow that have been created by ordinary laser enthusiast's right here on PL. Sure, there are also shows that are created by laser professionals, but even untrained laser hobbyists can create (and have created) really great shows.

By comparison, there are far fewer shows that have been created for LSX by PL members. True, some of the shows (especially "Geronimo", by Swamidog) are really great (even awesomely great!), the fact remains that when it comes to LSX, it seems that "killer" shows are the exception, not the rule.

Bill has pointed this out before, and while it may be uncomfortable to hear it if you are a fan of the LSX software, the point still stands that it's more difficult to learn how to make really good shows in LSX than it is if you are using Quickshow. And I say that as someone who has used both software packages.

The other issue is user support. This has also been discussed to death in other threads, but the simple fact is that Andrew (DR Lava, the creator of LSX) is a busy person who is not always available when someone has a problem. In contrast, Pangolin is a global company with many people dedicated to supporting their customer base. So it's far easier to get a problem resolved with them. Personally, I think the small increase in price is worth it to get Pangolin's products and customer support.

And my apologies to dream for further derailment of the thread...

Honestly, this really isn't a derailment of the thread at all. Dream is trying to decide which software and controller combination he should purchase, and this discussion is absolutely germane to that decision.

In fairness however, his needs are fairly specific. He needs the ability to automatically trace the outline of several black and white animations to convert them to laser frames. LSX can't do this by itself. He would need to purchase LaserCam first, to do the tracing, and then he would need LSX to actually edit and play the show, plus a controller to connect the projector to.

Quickshow can do all of this for him without any extra purchases. Everyone has been talking about the legacy Trace-it program, or even the newer "quicktrace" that comes with Quickshow, but no one has mentioned the Pangolin VST engine, which I think is probably the best way to accomplish this. Either way though, Quickshow represents a "one-stop solution" to his needs.

I don't see LSX and Pangolin as concurrents. The price tag is from another order of magnitude

That's not true at all. LSX basic costs $189, but then you have to purchase a controller, which costs a minimum of $150 more. By comparison, quickshow is $600, and it comes with a controller (the FB3). So the Quickshow option is less than double the price, which is nowhere near an "order of magnitude". ("Order of magnitude" doesn't just mean "more". It has a specific meaning: a factor of 10.) And that doesn't even include the cost of LaserCam, which he would also need.

Bottom line - Dream might be able to save a little money by going with the LSX / Lasercam / Riya controller package verses the Quickshow package, but the difference is very slight. (less than $150.)

Indeed choosing software might very well be like choosing a religion.

A lot of people feel this way, but it really shouldn't be like that. It should be an informed decision, devoid of emotion. But given the high cost of this hobby, I think people get emotionally attached to their choices, if for no other reason than to justify the money they've spent.

I've gone through 4 complete software and hardware packages since 2005. Each time, I thought the one I had was going to be "the one". And of course, each time I ran into a problem that forced me to consider another package.

That continual cycle of elation and disappointment taught me that there is no such thing as "perfect" package (though there are some that come damned close). Now I understand that the best policy is to buy as much as you can afford and then do what you can to live with whatever shortcomings it has. (And sometimes the shortcoming is simply that you can't afford to buy two or three of something.)

Adam

[White-Light]

you are overstating the complexity of LSX. i touched on this during my presentation at SELEM, but for those that weren't able to make it:

TBH Swami having watched your LSX tutorial video from Selem I'd have to agree with that.

Equally though I'd have to disagree having seen it that LSX has some special capability for Abstracts based on your creations unless you resort to mathematical expressions. That's not in anyway to take away from the truly wonderful abstract creations you make and your fantastical show creation.

However, having seen your video what in fact you're doing is creating cues that have abstract shape rather than creating a true abstract from an abstract generator.

Does that matter? Not in the slightest!

They're just as wonderful and no-ones going to quibble or debate how they've been made whilst watching your shows which are really A+.

However in terms of the long standing claims that LSX has some truly special advantage for abstracts I'm not seeing it. The abstracts I've seen you construct in that video are basically a cue in abstract form - you take a base shape, apply clone effects, apply colour, key or oscillating effects, and what you're left with is an abstract that has movement and shape that you can't possibly get out of an abstract generator.

Is this unique to LSX? Yes in so far as Pangolin have only provided 6 or so base shapes to start from - square, circle, triangle, 2 type of lines, pentagon or similar (not counted the sides). However the effects you applied and more also exist in Pangolin software. The difference it seems from what I watched of the video is LSX has a huge library of base shapes. Everything I've seen in the video of your creation process could be created in Pangolin simply if it had a bigger base shape library. I presume Pangolin haven't done this up to now simply because they see the market for Abstracts as rather niche and something that for most is full filled by the 6 Abstract Generators that are found in Beyond (unsure how many are in QS as not been near it in years). If Pangolin ever choose to provide a large base shape library, then I predict we'll see Swami style © abstracts coming out of Pangolin, provided of course someone else has your vision and talent (definitely not me!)

I'm not going to pass further comment about features in the Pangolin vs LSX debate as like Adam I'm not trying to start a pissing match here, just mentioning how it appears from the video that the abstracts are created and how base shapes aside, there appears to be no reason why these couldn't be created in Pangolin, which is something that's been assumed by a few people for a while.

At the end of the day you choose your religion and then worship it, there's room for both religions as both have some unique features and appeal.

[sugeek]

[polishedball]

And by comparison, Quickshow is easier to master (even the more complex effects).

That being said - there is one salient point that people should keep in mind. There are hundreds of shows available for Quickshow that have been created by ordinary laser enthusiast's right here on PL. Sure, there are also shows that are created by laser professionals, but even untrained laser hobbyists can create (and have created) really great shows.

the fact remains that when it comes to LSX, it seems that "killer" shows are the exception, not the rule.

I still contend very few have mastered any laser software, as there are very few people that have made true "WOW" shows that are not live. Rupert, Mike, Jay, AVI, Tim Walsh, Aron, Chuck, LaserImages, a couple over sea's (pirates Caribbean), and a couple who have left the industry William Moore etc,that in my opinion have masters the art of making a laser show with software. I know I forgot a few, my apologies. However clearly under a hundred or so Masters, if selling 1000's of copies per month (or earning clients as it was stated) and having 300 shows on a portal, either people are not sharing or there are not that many masters (i lean this direction, as there isn't a lot for sale from users either), or they are being used "live" This applies to all software packages,(was just using the numbers stated earlier as known for general use) I guess the reference to "easier to master" rubbed me wrong. perhaps "easier to play with". I have owned or own many packages and it is an art to learn no matter the package imo.

While there are hundreds of shows out there for both packages, not many imo are really "killer", not criticizing as I am not capable to do it either, but there is a reason I have built the show library I have of artists and that is because it isn't easy to do yourself at the highest, mastered level.

my 2 cents

PS married, 4 kids (well 4th due this week) and a job, and a lsx and pango user (perhaps why I can;t master the software j/k my wife actually supports this crazyness) Also the HD24 would be the last thing pulled from my dead cold hands.

[swamidog]

buffo, excellent and well reasoned.

i spent some time experimenting with converting bitmaps in quickshow. it does an excellent job, however i was unable to make it work for batch processing. is it possible?

VST is a good idea. i have not played with it, so i can't comment on the quality, but i have no reason to suspect it wouldn't be up to snuff. i had good luck with tracit for small numbers of frames, but it failed when i tried feeding it large directories of frames.

your milage may vary, and i'm willing to accept user error on my part.

Sorry I'm so late to the party folks. I finally noticed that my name had come up in this thread, so I figured I should take a peek. I've been very busy with a lot of other issues, most of which are not laser-related, sadly, so I completely missed this. That being said, however, I have been in contact with "Dream" via PM over the past few weeks regarding his needs.



While I certainly don't want to start putting words into other people's mouths here, I do believe I can answer this question. It's not that you *need* to be a math wiz to use LSX, but rather that if you *are* a math wiz, you can unlock some of the more powerful features of the software.

And by comparison, Quickshow is easier to master (even the more complex effects).

This topic has already been hashed to death in other threads, and the topic in general is in danger of becoming a religious war not unlike the "X-box vs Playstation" debate, or even the "Apple vs PC" debate. So I will try to keep this brief and as impartial as I can, in the interest of averting a flame-war.

That being said - there is one salient point that people should keep in mind. There are hundreds of shows available for Quickshow that have been created by ordinary laser enthusiast's right here on PL. Sure, there are also shows that are created by laser professionals, but even untrained laser hobbyists can create (and have created) really great shows.

By comparison, there are far fewer shows that have been created for LSX by PL members. True, some of the shows (especially "Geronimo", by Swamidog) are really great (even awesomely great!), the fact remains that when it comes to LSX, it seems that "killer" shows are the exception, not the rule.

Bill has pointed this out before, and while it may be uncomfortable to hear it if you are a fan of the LSX software, the point still stands that it's more difficult to learn how to make really good shows in LSX than it is if you are using Quickshow. And I say that as someone who has used both software packages.

The other issue is user support. This has also been discussed to death in other threads, but the simple fact is that Andrew (DR Lava, the creator of LSX) is a busy person who is not always available when someone has a problem. In contrast, Pangolin is a global company with many people dedicated to supporting their customer base. So it's far easier to get a problem resolved with them. Personally, I think the small increase in price is worth it to get Pangolin's products and customer support.



Honestly, this really isn't a derailment of the thread at all. Dream is trying to decide which software and controller combination he should purchase, and this discussion is absolutely germane to that decision.

In fairness however, his needs are fairly specific. He needs the ability to automatically trace the outline of several black and white animations to convert them to laser frames. LSX can't do this by itself. He would need to purchase LaserCam first, to do the tracing, and then he would need LSX to actually edit and play the show, plus a controller to connect the projector to.

Quickshow can do all of this for him without any extra purchases. Everyone has been talking about the legacy Trace-it program, or even the newer "quicktrace" that comes with Quickshow, but no one has mentioned the Pangolin VST engine, which I think is probably the best way to accomplish this. Either way though, Quickshow represents a "one-stop solution" to his needs.



That's not true at all. LSX basic costs $189, but then you have to purchase a controller, which costs a minimum of $150 more. By comparison, quickshow is $600, and it comes with a controller (the FB3). So the Quickshow option is less than double the price, which is nowhere near an "order of magnitude". ("Order of magnitude" doesn't just mean "more". It has a specific meaning: a factor of 10.) And that doesn't even include the cost of LaserCam, which he would also need.

Bottom line - Dream might be able to save a little money by going with the LSX / Lasercam / Riya controller package verses the Quickshow package, but the difference is very slight. (less than $150.)



A lot of people feel this way, but it really shouldn't be like that. It should be an informed decision, devoid of emotion. But given the high cost of this hobby, I think people get emotionally attached to their choices, if for no other reason than to justify the money they've spent.

I've gone through 4 complete software and hardware packages since 2005. Each time, I thought the one I had was going to be "the one". And of course, each time I ran into a problem that forced me to consider another package.

That continual cycle of elation and disappointment taught me that there is no such thing as "perfect" package (though there are some that come damned close). Now I understand that the best policy is to buy as much as you can afford and then do what you can to live with whatever shortcomings it has. (And sometimes the shortcoming is simply that you can't afford to buy two or three of something.)

Adam

[oleger]

Why do you discuss only the abstract generator? As I understand dream interested in creating graphic shows. LSX includes a program ild SOS, which allows you to make 3D graphics in 3d max.

[swamidog]

you are 100% on the nose with this.

there are three primary methods i use for abstract creation:

1) start with a base frame. apply cloning on an axis and then add rotational, scale, and color transforms. this is what i demonstrated at SELEM.
2) use the lissajous editor. this is a traditional style virtual oscillator console.
3) mathematical expressions.

for added fun, these methods can be stacked. for instance, i can start with a live lissajous effect, clone it an an arbitrary number of times, perform rotation and scale transforms on the clones (as a group or individually), and then apply an expression on it to morph it into a sphere in real time.

TBH Swami having watched your LSX tutorial video from Selem I'd have to agree with that.

Equally though I'd have to disagree having seen it that LSX has some special capability for Abstracts based on your creations unless you resort to mathematical expressions. That's not in anyway to take away from the truly wonderful abstract creations you make and your fantastical show creation.

However, having seen your video what in fact you're doing is creating cues that have abstract shape rather than creating a true abstract from an abstract generator.

Does that matter? Not in the slightest!

They're just as wonderful and no-ones going to quibble or debate how they've been made whilst watching your shows which are really A+.

However in terms of the long standing claims that LSX has some truly special advantage for abstracts I'm not seeing it. The abstracts I've seen you construct in that video are basically a cue in abstract form - you take a base shape, apply clone effects, apply colour, key or oscillating effects, and what you're left with is an abstract that has movement and shape that you can't possibly get out of an abstract generator.

Is this unique to LSX? Yes in so far as Pangolin have only provided 6 or so base shapes to start from - square, circle, triangle, 2 type of lines, pentagon or similar (not counted the sides). However the effects you applied and more also exist in Pangolin software. The difference it seems from what I watched of the video is LSX has a huge library of base shapes. Everything I've seen in the video of your creation process could be created in Pangolin simply if it had a bigger base shape library. I presume Pangolin haven't done this up to now simply because they see the market for Abstracts as rather niche and something that for most is full filled by the 6 Abstract Generators that are found in Beyond (unsure how many are in QS as not been near it in years). If Pangolin ever choose to provide a large base shape library, then I predict we'll see Swami style © abstracts coming out of Pangolin, provided of course someone else has your vision and talent (definitely not me!)

I'm not going to pass further comment about features in the Pangolin vs LSX debate as like Adam I'm not trying to start a pissing match here, just mentioning how it appears from the video that the abstracts are created and how base shapes aside, there appears to be no reason why these couldn't be created in Pangolin, which is something that's been assumed by a few people for a while.

At the end of the day you choose your religion and then worship it, there's room for both religions as both have some unique features and appeal.

[swamidog]

oleger - your graphic shows are incredible. if you're ever interested in some collaboration, shoot me a message.

Why do you discuss only the abstract generator? As I understand dream interested in creating graphic shows. LSX includes a program ild SOS, which allows you to make 3D graphics in 3d max.

[The_Doctor]

Got to agree there. I looked at a video yesterday (I don't do it unless somethign compels me enough, because they so often lock up my system). The one about gas.. That one was like a dream, very vivid, and very enduring for a while after seeing. Can still recall bits of it lucidly now, thinking of it. Not just the subject, but the impression, this is an art form that begins to makes itself felt in a way like no other before it, even on that little video I can sense the way it fills a space, and any mind perceiving it, even as indirectly as this. Real power there. There seems to be somethign about the vector graphics that does somethign strong in its own right. Like using a synth to emulate a real instrument instead of using a sampler as analogous to projectiong 'real' video. What it loses in 'realism' it gains in spirit. Don't ask me how, I guess it';s just something to do with the extra effort required by someone's mind to put it there. In video, and samples, we see and hear it. In synths and vectors, we feel it.

[laserLips]

I do not know maths at all. I got a fucking D in my GCSEs at school.
I have a hard time spelling for gawd sake.
However, I found that after I got over the initial FEAR of using LSX, I found I could get it to do what I wanted. All it took was to keep using it. withing a month I was walking, not crawling. But isn't that half the fun? Of course it has a learning curve. Everything does. But I would have to dispel the myth that it's bloody hard and you have to use maths. I haven't used maths at all and managed to proceed a fabulous timeline show and some beautiful abstracts.
CMB, I would not say LSX and QS are equal either, but I would suggest Quickshow has superior live functionality. I was just saying get both to have all bases covered.