Send shots out as NDI sources (separate from NDI Output)
It would be useful to be able to send specific shots out as their own NDI source, sort of like an AUX, to be able to send feeds that aren't necessarily the Live feed to monitors for talent to view.
Or, instead of selecting a shot to output, I could also see it working like Blackmagic ATEMs where there is an AUX and you can toggle between shots.
CraigS How about the ones that I've submitted already:
- Custom NDI output for remote guests
- Other local monitors
- Permanent lobby displays
- Custom return video for rendezvous
- ISO recordings with baked in graphics
- Social media manager feeds
- Custom host screen to show all guests and control room.
Just because your engineers can't think of ways that they would use it, doesn't mean that others don't have a need. Perhaps if they look at the other 2 top pieces of software for live production they will see that both have this ability (multiple custom NDI outputs that can be assigned to pre-composed scenes).
Heck, one of the biggest things I've been doing during this lockdown is providing a return feed comfort monitor to remote guests using a custom built multiview that includes a clock, a countdown, a message area, all the participants in the panel/event, the program feed that is going to the stream, and the slide deck (if there is one).
I've received more feedback from remote guests stating that they like seeing this coming back since it feels like when the actually present on stage more.
And yes, that is a freeze frame of the actual screen. The green overlays are actually over the videos. The bottom left is a feed from my camera, the bottom centre is timecodes and message area, the desktop is a feed of one of my computers right now but it is normally a remote screen share. The return video of each guest is mirrored horizontally so they can adjust themselves to be in the middle easily. Far more efficient to send back a single feed to everybody then it is for each person to send to one another. Minimizes the bandwidth requirements too (*cough* rendezvous *cough*)
Matthew Potter said:
Just because your engineers can't think of ways that they would use it, doesn't mean that others don't have a need.
Engineers want those examples. They can prioritize based on uses. They may have found that features people ask for may be rarely used or have a narrow purpose so courteously provide that information to them to advocate for a feature you think would be useful.
CraigS based on what I've seen for the response to the red "?", that stance isn't really suiting them: https://twitter.com/imryh/status/1273719085394612224 Remember when I had been trying to push for this change several years ago but was told that nobody else was concerned with it? Or the transformation issues that were brought up that are now such a big deal?
Just because nobody is complaining or making the request specifically for Wirecast, doesn't mean the need isn't there. Especially when every other tool on the market has the feature. If you have a functionality that is lacking but others don't, you can expect people will simply use other tools.
That power users group that Telestream had setup was originally designed to help the engineers build out the tools and features. They would push the software to it's limit and ask for additional help or options. These users were more than happy to help provide insights into potential opportunities that Wirecast would be able to be a leader for. It's interesting to see that since its disbanding, Wirecast has become 3rd tier to OBS and vMix. You had the lead. But decisions internally to change to a more internal process and ignore those users you once prided yourself in working with, have made it so that Wirecast is now playing catch-up to the competition.
Perhaps it's time to re-evaluate how it is that the Telestream team evaluates it's development priorities.