CPL as compositions and multiple CPLs

[dcpforever]

Is the user interface you are after more like the one of CuteDCPTools?

CuteDCPTools is an After Effects plugin. The UI is AE with the addition of menus for importing and exporting DCP. Therefore, it is a very familiar interface for me. It also has a fully functional timeline (for example, you can fix a spelling mistake in a subtitle), which is important for a DCP modification tool. CuteDCPTools does not generate original DCPs.

As for Resolve, effectively some the options for creating DCPs are not well documented. Besides, some are missing. Furthermore, as I mentioned in the previous post, it is not fully RDD52 compliant. Or so it seems.

But as Resolve is my main work program and allows me to generate a DCP directly, it is invaluable.

[dcpforever]

Ah, another thing I don't like about DoM is that it has so many scattered tools. Let me explain.
I don't know of any other program that has as many direct links to tools as DoM does. It fills your desktop with shortcut icons. It's a bit annoying.
Couldn't many of these tools be invoked from the main program? I'm not saying they should be integrated, which could be a lot of work, but just invoked.
For example, the Combiner. I didn't even know it existed until someone mentioned it in the forum, since I usually delete icons that aren't part of the main program. You could simply put a menu in DoM main where you could invoke the Combiner.
And it's possible that some of the other tools could be invoked from the main program.

[IoannisSyrogiannis]

Ah, another thing I don't like about DoM is that it has so many scattered tools. Let me explain.
I don't know of any other program that has as many direct links to tools as DoM does. It fills your desktop with shortcut icons. It's a bit annoying.
Couldn't many of these tools be invoked from the main program? I'm not saying they should be integrated, which could be a lot of work, but just invoked.
[...]

That would ask for reconsidering the situation with Macintoshes, where different applications are installed individually. Seemingly, they could unify under one installer. I don't see much harm on it, I wouldn't know about other users. Yet, that idea would probably add another point on your list of a bit annoying not-likes, I think, when you will need to load the main program, just in order to get to the Editor or the Combiner, that are much lighter to run. This may be an extra feature, that could involve -as an example- opening on the player the delivered DCP of that project you have open on the main application, but not the solution.
I suppose - what you ask is a launcher, from where the recent projects can be opened and programs can be ran. Like what DaVinci Resolve has for the projects (similar but not he same as Adobe apps), but with the ability to open applications other than the main one as well. Therefore, not pre-loading uncommon prerequisites.

[dcpforever]

No, I was referring to simply adding another menu, which could be called “Extra tools”, for example, and opening those tools from there as a shortcut. It would also serve to let people know that they exist.
Since I don't speak English, many nuances are probably lost in translation.

[Carsten]

People already find it hard to understand why there is no direct conversion dialog, why they have to create a 'project' to do a conversion. If we force them to think about multiple compositions within a project, it won't make things easier.

Also, Multi-CPL DCPs usually consist of an OV + one or multiple VFs. In order to create the VFs, the OV has to be completed first.

I don't think we will help users with that option within the existing GUI.

Even commercial DCPs typically don't use the Multi-CPL package option. I ingest mainstream DCPs daily, and most OV/VF combos are distributed as separate CPL packages. It also makes it a bit easier for the projectionist to decide which packages to ingest and which to leave out.

I think a separate CPL merging tool makes more sense.

[carl]

Thanks all for an interesting discussion.

Launching extra tools from a menu is of course possible. I use mostly Linux (with a bit of macOS) so I confess Windows is probably the most "uncared for" of the platforms in terms of usability details. Others have complained about the number of shortcut icons that are installed, so it's on the list to improve... it seems more logical to me to leave the launching of applications to the operating system (rather than having each application invent its own method). But perhaps having a menu in the main DoM to launch the combiner, player etc. would not be so bad.

I would say that a couple of the separate applications are only for convenience, and their functionality is integrated into other things (e.g. making KDMs, verifying). The playlist editor is pretty niche (and soon to be available via a web interface), and the combiner and editor are really hacks that allow things that I would rather were possible from the main application, but are not.

Generally I have tried to keep things separate where there's a use-case to use them alone (e.g. maybe somebody made a DCP in something else and just wants to write it to disk, so they start the Disk Writer). I understand that this approach is a bit more unusual on Windows/macOS than it is on Linux.

macOS also complicates things a bit with the way it packages applications. From what I can see it's not particularly straightforward to distribute a suite of applications like DoM where there are lots of shared libraries and resources and several applications on top. The current distribution method is very wasteful as all the libraries are included in each .dmg. I should look at how others deal with this.

DCP-o-matic will of course never be as capable as Resolve. I'm really only trying to add enough of a timeline so that those with existing assets can do basic composition and arrangement to avoid them needing another intermediate render. If Resolve's workflow is useful, of course it makes sense to use it. Maybe one day they will flesh out the DCP making parts and DCP-o-matic will be redundant.

Your misunderstanding with the need to change preferences to save in different folders is useful feedback, thanks - I'll see if I can improve that.

I always felt like a big "Make DCP" button was a waste of screen space for something you don't click very often, but maybe I'm wrong about that!

I know the full screen / not-full-screen behaviour is weird, I'll make a note to look at that, as well.

[dcpforever]

If Resolve's workflow is useful, of course it makes sense to use it. Maybe one day they will flesh out the DCP making parts and DCP-o-matic will be redundant.

I highly doubt it. BMD and Resolve have many irons in the fire. They want to do so many things that many of them end up half-finished. Like exporting DCP. They have incentives to implement them, but I think very few to finish them and leave them flawless.
Tools like DoM do their job, and I hope they continue to do so.

[dcpforever]

Even commercial DCPs typically don't use the Multi-CPL package option. I ingest mainstream DCPs daily, and most OV/VF combos are distributed as separate CPL packages. It also makes it a bit easier for the projectionist to decide which packages to ingest and which to leave out.

I think a separate CPL merging tool makes more sense.

With all due respect, I have a different opinion. MultiCPL DCPs are part of the standard; they are not some strange invention. Some users may not be interested in them, which is fine. That's why the options are optional.
I come from the world of image post-production. From the beginning, a multiCPL DCP seemed like the most logical thing to me, like a DVD where you can choose which subtitles to watch a movie with.
Of the programs I know, DoM is the only one that does not allow you to create multiCPL DCPs directly.
DoM is a serious and competent program, so why couldn't it have that option?

[carl]

DoM is a serious and competent program, so why couldn't it have that option?

There is nothing to stop it happening. I just need to find a) the time and b) a neat way to arrange the GUI so that it doesn't make an already-confusing situation worse. I agree that multi-CPL DCPs make sense, even if (as Carsten says) they do not seem to be that common in "big studio" releases.

The CPL merging tool could remain, even if the main application had a way to make multi-CPLs directly.

[dcpforever]

Thank you.