buffo
That's not entirely true. Quickshow has 6 base shapes built-in, yes. However, you can use any frame (no matter how complicated) as the basis for an abstract in Quickshow, although the process is different for creating abstracts from custom frames.Originally Posted by White-Light
What's more, I believe that LSX also allows you to use custom frames for abstract creation. In fact, even the LD-2000 abstract generator allows this. (DZ posted a short tutorial on how to do this several years ago, but I can't find it now...)
Anyway, the built-in shapes in Quickshow are just there to speed the process of creating an abstract. So technically you have an unlimited number of shapes to use if you want to, in both LSX and Quickshow. LSX simply shows more of them in the editor.
Remember that Quickshow was designed to be easy to use. (And fast!) Still, there are lots of advanced features right there at you fingertips, but you'll need to look at the help files to see how they work. (I've actually met people who didn't know that Quickshow had a timeline editor, because they never looked at anything other than the live-play workspace that comes up when you first launch the software.)
With regard to the capabilities of either package, I think that at the raw function level, they are probably *both* capable of astounding effects. But I feel that in Quickshow it's easier to access that power.
As an example - I used to be fond of saying that there were some things that LSX could do that even Pangolin's Quickshow could not do. However, I have recently discovered Pango-Script, and now I'm no longer confident that my original assertation is true. Pango-Script is every bit as powerful as the expression editor in LSX. However, just like the expression editor in LSX, it's unlikely that the average laserist would ever mess with Pango-Script. But it is there...
Heh! That's probably about as good of a compromise as we're ever likely to see here on PL! Well said.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.
I hear you John. And it could be that part of the reason there are more shows for Pangolin than LSX boils down to market share. But I can't help wondering why Quickshow has so many more shows that are good (if not completely mind-blowing), compared to LSX. Surely it can't all be due to market share?
Most true "masters" do not share their work for free, because they can earn a living by selling it. I don't blame them for that. And I think if you have someone with the experience and talent of a true "master", then it doesn't matter what software they use, because they'll be able to create wonders with it no matter what.either people are not sharing or there are not that many masters
I think where the difference is telling is in the hobbyist crowd, where the shows are probably not quite good enough to be sold for money, but are nonetheless more than good enough to be enjoyed by lots of regular people. And in that category, Quickshow out-performs LSX. The reason why could be due to market share, or the user interface, or some other factor...
Fair enough. I agree that even with the best software tools available, some people are never going to be able to produce world-class shows. Make that most people. But us amateurs can still produce some pretty cool stuff even so.I guess the reference to "easier to master" rubbed me wrong. perhaps "easier to play with".
Swami is fond of saying that he just "pushes buttons in LSX until he finds something that he likes". I'd call that playing around for sure. But he has created some really great shows too. (Then again, the time he spent making those shows is significant.) Likewise, I've played around with the LD-2000 abstract editor a little bit, and while I haven't created a lot of great abstracts, there are one or two that I've made that are especially unique...
Good question Chris. I honestly don't know. My initial suggestion to Dream was to convert the .bmp files to an animation and then wash them through a video trace engine rather than trying to convert them one at a time. (Pangolin's VST will do this, and I *think* Lasercam will also do it.)
It used to cost extra for ILD-S.O.S. Are you sure it's now included for free?
Nevertheless, Dream does not have a 3D editor to create his graphics, so ILDA-S.O.S won't really help him that much. His graphics have already been converted from their original video form (using some sort of video editing software - I forget exactly what he used) to a bunch of black and white bit-mapped images. Now he needs to convert (trace) those bit-maps to laser frames, and then he needs some show software (and a controller) to put them together into a show and play them through the controller to his projector.
In a perfect world, this would be a great solution for sure. However, Dream has already lamented the high cost of this project (like all of us, he is discovering the painful reality that this is a MONEY-PIT hobby), and purchasing two separate software packages is out of the question for him at this point. As it is, with the cost of the projector plus the software and controller, he has already blown his budget.
Unfortunately, there wasn't much I could say to comfort him in this regard. We've all had to face the fact that this hobby will bankrupt you if you're not careful. (Right Brad?)
Adam
Reply With Quote
