7

Be able to set static images for PTZ recall shots

 I need to be able to refresh a shot manually or set a static image for a shot for my PTZ control shots. In previous versions I could right click each shot and click refresh shot icon. It doesn't work for me to have all my PTZ control shots to be live.  I would also love to have a special layer(s) or shot type for PTZ shot recall shots that is static shots and the rest of my layers can be live. If that is not possible I would just be happy to have the old functionality back. Based on what I've seen in your API automation library you should have the ability to get a PNG of a shot and save that as a static image for that shot and not have it update when the others update.

 

My workflow is something like this to explain my use case a little better.

I have 3 PTZOptics 20x PTZ cameras that we bring in via an SDI capture device. I add each camera as a dedicated shot so cam1,2,3 on a layer (3) then the next layer (4) down I make duplicated shots for each PTZ preset that we need each of the cameras all on layer 4 about 6 to 8 PTZ recall shots per cameras so layer 4 is very full. In version 11.1.2 we had live icons (shots) off so we could call each shot after we opened our saved doc and then hit refresh shot icon one by one. What this did for us was give us a snippet of what shot would be once recalled worked good. Now in version 13 you took that away it's either live or static shot of whatever the camera sees when you open the doc with no way to refresh the icon.

If there is a better workflow for dealing with PTZ recall shots please help me out here because right now we will not be moving to WC 13 till something is changes as it has broken our workflow and my other tech volunteers hated the new always live PTZ shots.

Perhaps a special type of shot for PTZ recall that you can set a static image would awesome where you set the PTZ recall and trigger the recall and maybe hit set image or something like that.

16replies Oldest first
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Active threads
  • Popular
  • Thanks for posting this. Fill out the Feature Request Form and we'll email you a case number to log the request. Others can vote for it here. Don't forget to vote for your own request.

    Like
  • CraigS I don't have PTZ cameras, but its on my wish-list. While waiting, let me add a thought for the original poster.

    What would make sense is to use LIVE icons for PTZ shots while they are live, and auto freeze on transition to another shot. I think that would be better than manual refreshing of shot icons...

    Anyway, just sharing the idea.

    GK

    Like
  • Greg Kuhnert I agree with you that manually refreshing is not ideal, but I want the "Freeze frame image" that gets set the first time I call the PTZ recall shot to be the image that stays. I don't want that to ever change unless I tell it to. If I only had one shot per camera and was using an external controller to switch presets your suggestion would be fine in-fact in that case I would just use live icons low frame-rate.

    All I really need is a way to set an image that represents what the shot will be when I trigger the PTZ recall by pushing the shot to Preview or live.

    Like
  • Kevin Amos Schmuhl We are discussing this issue. Making sure you've filled out the form because it's possible the developers may have some questions about this at some point as they consider implementation. 

    Like
  • CraigS  here is the info for enhancement request I submitted I believe:
    Here is the feature request I submitted before. 00631683. I don't see a way to find or add to my previous feature requests. Here is the link to my orriginal post I created that you told me to create a feature request from. https://telestreamforum.forumbee.com/t/36nqgz/need-to-keep-static-shot-icons-wc-11

    Like
  • Kevin Amos Schmuhl Thanks for that. Good enough.

    Like
  • REFRESH SHOT

    I thought i lost my marbles and just wasn't seeing it.  I thought surely Telestream wouldn't fall pray to the nonsense google pulls quite often... things like removing the ability to alphabetize folders in google photos so things are easier to find.  you know, simple things that seems like they would be common sense, or at the very least, just don't remove a something that would make a feature pretty much worthless.

    so here we go.  can someone tell me why on earth you would remove such an amazing feature???  Seriously, i would very much like to hear an explanation for this and here's the reason.  i literally just upgraded a client to 13.1.1 from 8.3 for literally no other reason except this exact feature which i found on this youtube video.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iroIOLxi0lA

    I talked this up and now i feel like an idiot having to tell them tomorrow that the AMAZING new feature that i sold them on, and wasted their money on, was removed. 

    Quite frankly, without the proper image in the shot, being able to call up the ptz settings seems to be completely worthless now.  i mean really, how are you suppose to know what shot is stored if everything looks the same?  i spent a bunch of time setting up shots for them tonight, only to find out that not only was this feature removed, but there are glitches in your system as well. 

    1.  Half the time, the shots don't even recall the ptz preset assigned to the shot, or they are VERY delayed.  (like 2-3 seconds)

    2.  On the ptz control window, the keyboard arrows that the guy in this video said were factory mapped to the pan and tilt in fact don't want to respond in "map" mode UNTIL you click inside the map.  ugh  then as soon as you hit the home button, they stop responding again.

    3.  as well, going into preferences and turning off "live gpu accelerated icons" does nothing at all, the shot tiles just stay live.

    if it sounds like i'm aggravated, well sorry.  I'm really don't want to be a butthead, but i honest to goodness just don't understand this.  I guess i'll have to tell them to continue to just use their three shots (cam 1, 2, 3) and just move their joystick around as they've been doing for a couple years.  you guys may want to remove that youtube video that shows the cool "refresh shot" feature that is no longer a part of your product, at least as far as i can tell.

    i understand not having certain features that someone would like, because it's not a priority or not enough people have ask for it, but this is like marketing a car without anything to attach the wheels to.

    I would love for you to reply and tell me I'm an idiot and it's right there in plain sight and i'm just missing it... really i would and i would publicly apologize for being a buffoon.  Please tell me i'm  a buffoon. 

    Thanks and have a great day

    By the way... i do love how much faster 13 opens up!

    Like
  • Jimmy Fleming The feature wasn't so much "removed" as we did a fundmental change to handling such images which is why it's a feature request (it has to be built differently).

    Like
  • CraigS 

    CraigS said:
    The feature wasn't so much "removed" as we did a fundmental change to handling such images which is why it's a feature request (it has to be built differently).

    Yes, it is acknowledged that you improved live shot icons with GPU handling. But that methodology did not make it compulsory / mandatory to remove still images for those that use PTZ cameras. Lets be honest, it was a mistake to remove it, as has been previously pointed out when the GPU accelerated icons were first introduced. Just waiting to see when/if it will be restored.

    GK

    Like
  • CraigS  I've been hunting for why "Refresh Shot Icon" is missing. I also upgraded to Pro and Purchased a Gen2 PTZOptics specifically for PTZ Presets and shot image control, only to find out it's gone.

    My question now, after reading these posts is... why in the world would it be the customers responsibility to 1st - find out that a feature has been removed, 2nd - hunt down what's happened to it, and Finally - be told it's our job to submit a "New Feature Request"?

    It's NOT a freaking new feature. It used to be there. We made buying decisions because it was there. Nobody told anybody externally that it was removed.

    When there's a "fundamental change of how images are handled", it's the responsibility of the developer (Telestream) to figure-out how to re-write the code and re-structure the data in order to maintain that feature, knowing that your existing customers depend on it.

    Sorry to unload on you, Craig... but, you're on the front lines here, and it's frustrating issues like this and others (features and process, both) that are causing long-time customers to consider other options.

    Like
  • Jeff Widgren When substantial code is changed some things need to be completely rewritten. Developers see this as new code (new feature). This is certainly not unique to Wirecast (I can cite examples in other programs but that would be pointless). There's significant work to do this code given other changes made in the code so the developers want to hear from users regarding priority. Sorry for the inconvenience.

    Like
  • CraigS 

    CraigS said:
    When substantial code is changed some things need to be completely rewritten. Developers see this as new code (new feature). This is certainly not unique to Wirecast (I can cite examples in other programs but that would be pointless). There's significant work to do this code given other changes made in the code so the developers want to hear from users regarding priority. Sorry for the inconvenience.

    Craig.

    I will challenge you on the above statement, as I have before.

    Changes to the handling of LIVE shot icons absolutely required significant code changes. There is no disagreement there. However, the code changes required to do that would have in NO way had a dependency to remove the static shot icon feature that was previously available.

    Lets call a spade a spade. Someone made a mistake when it was decided to remove that part of code from the user interface. Someone who does not understand the implications particularly for those using PTZ cameras.

    And again, lets call a spade a spade. Re-enabling that GUI element, and linking it to generate a snapshot of the current input would not be a "heavy lift" in terms of development effort. Its something that should have been done months ago when people first reported this problem.

    Let me ask the question a different way. Show me where in the feature notes where it documents that static shot icon updates was removed as a feature. If its not in the release notes, the removal was clearly unintentional and needs to be remediated immediately.

    Greg Kuhnert

    Like
  • Greg Kuhnert As a software developer for 35 years, for large and small corporations, I can relate these coding mistakes when publishing a release. However, the issues I have with this problem has been that some of the support staff being short with answers, pointing you to a video of how to do this when you are telling them with screen shots those options aren't there, and giving you things to try that you clearly spelled out in the email that you have already done these things. At last but not least, when we did mess up something, we worked around the clock to fix what was broken.

    Like
  • CraigS , You and I think very differently when it comes to the word "feature". I understand a "feature" or list of "features" as something that will make our product attractive and appealing enough to cause shoppers to purchase our solutions over the competitors.

    You seem to be of the understanding that a feature is directly related to "code" and is tied to the developers.

    I would say there is a big difference between these two definitions. Potentials buyers buy from an attractive list of features that are well aligned with their specific requirements... in no way does this decision making have anything to do with who the developers are, how much work it is for them to accomplish a task such as re-writing code, or anything else behind the scenes.

    When a software providing organization creates a product with a list of features that cause people to purchase that product, it then becomes the responsibility of that company to maintain that list of features, even when and if they change, through communications and code development efforts.

    I have owned a software development firm for a number of years, and understand the difficult task associated with upgrades and maintenance.

    I'm beginning to get very nervous about my continued investment in Wirecast along with the many recommendations to others that I've made on its behalf. My concern is, that there doesn't appear to be a "product manager" who is paying attention to Wirecast any longer. The focus and momentum seem to be dwindling. Maybe the Telestream product catalog is just too large to manage, or the focus has changed.

    I'm personally quite saddened by the whole thing, as I've been a tremendous advocate.

    -Jeff

    Like
  • Jay Myrick said:
    the issues I have with this problem has been that some of the support staff being short with answers

    Hi Jay.

    I don't think the issue is with the support staff. I previously had monthly meetings with the support team, where we reviewed a laundry list of outstanding issues. But the power to fix this is not within their control. The support team does not control development resources.

    This comes down to a philosophical discussion of two types of companies. Some companies are what you could call a "sales led organisation". The effort to get another sale will drive development resources to build the newest shiny features. Other companies are what I would call a support led organisation, where development efforts are mostly driven through support, not sales and marketing departments. By listening to customer demands, they increase their customer satisfaction which in turn turns existing customers into the best marketing tool you can ever ask for. Word of mouth. 

    If Telestream had listened to concerns in the past and taken action based on feedback, I'd be telling many more people to buy the software. But I can't do that. My reputation would be tarnished. I've influenced two others to buy Wirecast. One gave up, and is using a competing product, and the other uses colourful language to describe it on a regular basis.

    Fixing this requires leadership. I hope someone will step up to the plate, and lead. I've always said, Wirecast COULD be a great product that we can all be proud to endorse... but it will take leadership to get there.

    Greg Kuhnert

    Like
  • Jeff Widgren 

    Jeff Widgren said:
    I'm beginning to get very nervous about my continued investment in Wirecast along with the many recommendations to others that I've made on its behalf. My concern is, that there doesn't appear to be a "product manager" who is paying attention to Wirecast any longer. The focus and momentum seem to be dwindling. Maybe the Telestream product catalog is just too large to manage, or the focus has changed. I'm personally quite saddened by the whole thing, as I've been a tremendous advocate.

    Hi Jeff.

    I've had meetings with the product managers (past and present). They don't want this product to fail. The issue has a number of facets.

    1. Capacity - Development resources are inadequate, or split across too many products.
    2. Systems - The tool stack to get something from a customer via forum or their SalesForce based ticketing system, into Jira, and then stack ranked, and finally to development is cumbersome.
    3. Transparency - Leading vendors have a more transparent interaction with their clients. I've been advocating for a long time to use something like uservoice as a customer facing web tool as an input to the process. It was intended there would be a trial of that tool, but I am guessing that capacity issues mentioned above prevented moving forward with that.

    I've previously offered to work for Telestream for free for 3 months to help get this turned around. I truely believe it COULD be a good product. Despite promises, I was never given an answer. This needs C level visibility and leadership to make decision to transform this into a viable product, or acknowledge it is not a core focus and sell it to someone that has vision of what it could become. Sorry to be blunt, but thats my belief. 

    Greg Kuhnert

    Like
Vote7 Follow
  • 7 Votes
  • 3 wk agoLast active
  • 16Replies
  • 87Views
  • 6 Following