How can I output my comp to a full screen second monitor?

Hi there.

I'm new to Fusion and I'm loving it, I have a question now:

How can I output my comp (one of the selected nodes) to a second screen attached to my computer?

My second screen has the same resolution as my comp (1920x1080) and I want to "project" that in the second monitor.

Some help please

Cheers and thanks in advance!

BMD sells several cards that can do this. I think the cheapest is the DeckLink Mini Monitor at $145.

I saw that this is possible within Fusion without any additional hardware, but Fusion Studio is needed.

Reason number 1 to acquire the Studio verision achieved, now some more training and I see Fusio completely replacing After Effects in our pipeline

Cheers.

you can go to 'window----new view' and drag that to your second monitor...not sure if this is studio only

it is just a regular fusion viewer...but you can make it the full screen size

you can create the new view in the free version, but to go fullscreen you need the studio version

Michael,

Even in the Studio version, is it real "fullscreen"? Or does it have a slight border?

Slight border with view controls

So we need the hardware for a real full screen preview?

Cheers

Correct, and for the money it isn't bad, so long as you aren't on a laptop.

Not unless your laptop has Thunderbolt!

How about bringing back DirectX full screen...

How about bringing back DirectX full screen...

you can't make it universal code across Win/Mac/Linux if you do that.

How about bringing back DirectX full screen...

you can't make it universal code across Win/Mac/Linux if you do that.

But that's not an issue is it? I mean, if that's the criteria you can't have 10-bit viewers or DirectShow or DDS or OpenGL 4.5 or OpenCL 2.0 or ProRes 4444, right? What's so great about universal code, especially when the platform specific code is already written?

does it have to be opengl? I mean every platform must have its solution to have full-screen borderless windows...

But that's not an issue is it? I mean, if that's the criteria you can't have 10-bit viewers or DirectShow or DDS or OpenGL 4.5 or OpenCL 2.0 or ProRes 4444, right? What's so great about universal code, especially when the platform specific code is already written?

Well the Codec and Preview-issue are both things that also regard DaVinci a lot, and there things aren't too complicated.
Cheap Output-Hardware and the problem is pretty much solved.

I think the good thing with universal code would be that it would be easier and faster to get other OS joining into the Fusion-Family

does it have to be opengl? I mean every platform must have its solution to have full-screen borderless windows...

Full screen borderless OpenGL in Fusion would be awesome, but it would require a Quadro/FirePro. The benefit of the DirectX view was that it was universal (for Windows users at least). Even a Surface Pro tablet could use it. Without that feature, a huge chunk of devices will be unable to have monitor out.

Cheap Output-Hardware and the problem is pretty much solved.

There's something a bit funny feeling about removing a working software feature in order to sell some hardware, but it is what it is. Unfortunately the fact is, BMD doesn't have a piece of hardware that replicates 100% what the removed feature does, nor can every computer use the hardware they do have. DirectX is ubiquitous, available PCIe slots and thunderbolt ports are not. The DirectX output feature gave you 3D on any 3D Vision approved display, output to DisplayPort or DVI or VGA, or the ability to use your main monitor as the output monitor with a hotkey toggle. Do any of the available hardware addons have that?

I think a decent compromise would be to sell the DirectX feature back to users for $150, which is more money than BMD would make from selling a monitor card. Rename it "BMD Software Monitor (Windows)".

I think the good thing with universal code would be that it would be easier and faster to get other OS joining into the Fusion-Family

But many of the things I listed, like 10-bit OpenGL, DirectShow, DDS output, DirectX viewers, are ALREADY working on Windows. Nothing new has to be done to them. If you shipped the OSX version without them, no one would care. Likewise, if the OSX version of Fusion have ProRes support, no one on the Windows side would care. Neutering features from the Windows version just to maintain future OS parity is a bit extreme. Or to put another way, removing a feature that 100% of your customers had access to because 0% of your customers are running an OS that doesn't support it seems extreme.

I actually never saw a fullscreen preview on a UI monitor as essential in my coming life to be honest.
For my taste, a monitor I can not properly work on while comping is pretty useless unless it's additional; I'm using a setup of two monitors (one for the flow, one for the video preview) for working, and if I needed a fullframe preview then only on a third reference monitor. But that's more optional to me. I do it like that in Nuke for years, and I like that. I do like a fullscreen output, but only additionally.
If the reason behind banning that feature is to sell more hardware, that's a keen assumption

I actually never saw a fullscreen preview on a UI monitor as essential in my coming life to be honest.

Essential? No.
Very useful in some cases - yes.
I've got a dual set-up here (4K to work on, 1920x1200 as a secondary) and I don't see a reason to purchase additional hardware to get back a feature that allows me to use my second desktop monitor for a specific use case - occasionally. (which wouldn't work anyhow, since I'd lose the primary use of it).

If the reason behind banning that feature is to sell more hardware, that's a keen assumption

Well, given the current information, it's the only logical assumption that's left.

Cheers,
Mike

I bought such a card for 130€ or so some years back, and at work we have these Thunderbolt ones. As I see it only as addition, I personally don't mind that much. I usually have a full-screen UI view on the 2nd Monitor so I can work on it, a normal fullframe preview makes only sense to me if it's a broadcast one, and in that case I'm not trusting the signal provided by Windows that much

I'm not a former Fusion customer, but wasn't Fusion around 2,5K$?
Now with only 1K$ an additional card would be neglectable in terms of how much you save. I mean that doesn't make a difference for former customers, but still?

I'm not a former Fusion customer, but wasn't Fusion around 2,5K$?
Now with only 1K$ an additional card would be neglectable in terms of how much you save. I mean that doesn't make a difference for former customers, but still?

Even more when I initially bought in... but I've been on a sub for ages.
The problem isn't just an additional card though - but also an additional display (since you can't re-purpose a "normal" secondary display on the fly). Something that tends to be overlooked in this conversation.

Broadcast is (in my case) of no relevance - most of my gigs end up on PoS systems of varying resolutions (from 640x480 to 5120x720 and a myriad of resolutions in-between).

Just to point out that there's more than one use case for Fusion.

Cheers,
Mike

For me the biggest issue Is not the Full screen view (which I use alot) but more, now I cant preview S3D anymore on my 3D Vision Monitor with my geforce card. So thats the biggest issue.

So BMD forces me to buy a quadro card to get back my S3D preview and thats a bad joke,

I think this is were we differ.
I mean, you could just switch the Monitors input and achieve it, yet I understand that this often sucks.
However, as a two-screen-worker, I see no reason to "waste" one monitor for a fullframe preview (that I can't work on) when that leaves me to work on one monitor. If it's just for preview, one button on my monitor (actually I have a remote) would do the trick.

However I have to say of course, that's my point of view and I don't want to sound like, "hey I don't have that issue, the feature is stupid and no one should use it". I also see bigger issues than this of course

How about bringing back DirectX full screen...

you can't make it universal code across Win/Mac/Linux if you do that.

Remember, every body who uses Fusion uses Windows... So, to be perfectly frank, we don't really care if something doesn't work on Mac or linux. We just care that a useful feature has been removed from Fusion.

Anyway, that is what #ifdef is for

It only makes sense that the original host platform for Fusion would have more features than a new platform.

does it have to be opengl? I mean every platform must have its solution to have full-screen borderless windows...

Yes, it does. Programs like Mocha and Z-Brush do it with their goofy full screen borderless interfaces.

As a side note please do NOT make Fusion have of those silly fullscreen-cover-the-taskbar-borderless interfaces! That trend is just so annoying.

I think this is were we differ.

Which is perfectly fine.

I mean, you could just switch the Monitors input and achieve it, yet I understand that this often sucks.

Yup... it's not something I'd like to do constantly, just to get a feature that existed back.

However, as a two-screen-worker, I see no reason to "waste" one monitor for a fullframe preview (that I can't work on) when that leaves me to work on one monitor. If it's just for preview, one button on my monitor (actually I have a remote) would do the trick.

To be honest, ever since I got a 4K display as my main monitor, the second one isn't used half as much as it used to be.
But then I used the DX feature with my previous set-up as well. Which made sense considering that the GUI of Fusion wasn't quite as flexible back then either.

Markus also brings up a good point - S3D on consumer hardware (I presume that was one of the main reasons to introduce it in the first place).

Cheers,
Mike

For me the biggest issue Is not the Full screen view (which I use alot) but more, now I cant preview S3D anymore on my 3D Vision Monitor with my geforce card. So thats the biggest issue.

So BMD forces me to buy a quadro card to get back my S3D preview and thats a bad joke,

And Fusion only lets you use one video card, so you have to have to buy a Quadro not to supplement, but replace your Geforce card.

A quadro card will not change a thing at the moment as Fusion will not use that feature.

Allow me to put my Blackmagic Design hat on for a second....

It's a difference between millions of users getting a free fusion, vs 1000s having DirectX display. Effectively giving users access to a great tool that doesn't have a feature they never could use.

I know it already 'works' in windows, but it is essential for the flow of cross platform releases to share the same code/workflow, otherwise you suffer from having different release dates as different teams will be working on that feature, or they will all be released at the same time, but internally, one had to be delayed.

If you are a pro users, and not a casual/free user, the idea of not wanting a $150 card that is a real I/O card, becomes a personal choice, not financial one. Especially considering it's less than half the price of last years maintenance cost for a single license of Fusion.

Now, taking my hat off...

yes, I agree that it was a useful feature, there is NO question, as was floating licenses, but I have faith moving forward, that the give and take will always benefit the user, given the sum of all the features and improvements we've all been waiting for.

A quadro card will not change a thing at the moment as Fusion will not use that feature.

If you are a pro users, and not a casual/free user, the idea of not wanting a $150 card that is a real I/O card, becomes a personal choice, not financial one. Especially considering it's less than half the price of last years maintenance cost for a single license of Fusion.

The Quadro gives you access to 3D Vision, which users lost with DirectX. That's the only reason that it was given as an alternative option. Currently it won't do what the DirectX view did, but it COULD, and would be cross-platform capable while doing it.

And AFAIK, nothing that BMD sells, from $150 to $15000 will give you fullscreen playback (in 3D, no less) on whatever monitor is connected to the computer (including the built in one for laptop users).

While I have no problem with the idea of selling some BMD cards, it's really apples and oranges. I think BMD should just sell the DirectX "software monitor" as a plugin back to Fusion users. It's easy money with no inventory.

- Chad

Just to add.
We are paying costumers since FU5 and still are with Fusion Studio.

And I still don´t get it why BMD removed a feature saying because of crossplattform , when there is no other OS version out yet?

If it was so easy to just remove it from 1 version to the other why now?

So my point of view is, bring it back in Fusion Studio until there are solid Linux and OSX versions out which offers an alternative way for all of us.

I also would accept Chad Capeland´s Idea to sell it as a separate windows Plug in.

And please dont do assumptions on why your costumers dont want an I/O Card or whatever.
My main Monitor is my 3d vision monitor and I previewed my S3d here. Thats something else then having a grading monitor for fullscreen view.

btw: Just as a note Unified features: How comes that Resolve OSX can browse throu folders but Win Resolve need always a added media drive to accsess anything? including a restart of resolve. (no answer needed as OT but still its not "Unified"

And again I´m always talking about Fusion Studio, I´m long enough in the business to know if someone does something well he deserves to get paid. I wanna get paid for my work as well.

And last : I´m not native English speaking so if something sounded harsh or as a attack, it´s not meant that way.
I just tried to express my self.
Kind regards
Markus

I think BMD should just sell the DirectX "software monitor" as a plugin back to Fusion users. It's easy money with no inventory.

Or just open source it (maybe as part of the, yet to be released, SDK) and let the community take care of it.

Cheers,
Mike

But many of the things I listed, like 10-bit OpenGL, DirectShow, DDS output, DirectX viewers, are ALREADY working on Windows. Nothing new has to be done to them. If you shipped the OSX version without them, no one would care. Likewise, if the OSX version of Fusion have ProRes support, no one on the Windows side would care. Neutering features from the Windows version just to maintain future OS parity is a bit extreme.

Or to put another way, removing a feature that 100% of your customers had access to because 0% of your customers are running an OS that doesn't support it seems extreme.

I noticed Rony Soussan's Blackmagic Design response to this issue. I can't yet post a link to his response, but it's 4 posts above this post.

For my money (and I'm a paying Studio version customer), Chad's argument in bold above makes a lot more sense.

I am not disagreeing. it's just what it is right now, and I don't know what it will be tomorrow.

Bottom line is people are listening and hearing you guys, and the formerly knows as 'eyeon' team is obviously aware of these needs.
I think a little more time and things will start lining up.

But many of the things I listed, like 10-bit OpenGL, DirectShow, DDS output, DirectX viewers, are ALREADY working on Windows. Nothing new has to be done to them. If you shipped the OSX version without them, no one would care. Likewise, if the OSX version of Fusion have ProRes support, no one on the Windows side would care. Neutering features from the Windows version just to maintain future OS parity is a bit extreme.

Or to put another way, removing a feature that 100% of your customers had access to because 0% of your customers are running an OS that doesn't support it seems extreme.

I noticed Rony Soussan's Blackmagic Design response to this issue. I can't yet post a link to his response, but it's 4 posts above this post.

For my money (and I'm a paying Studio version customer), Chad's argument in bold above makes a lot more sense.

I'm not a crusader here, I didn't put it in bold. This isn't my fight. I very rarely do client attended sessions so I don't worry much about the "clean" monitor output, and I use quadbuffer OpenGL for 3D. In fact, in Fusion 6, DirectX views were mandatory, you couldn't turn them off, in Fusion 7, an "enabled" checkbox was added to make it optional. That was MY feature request because I kept accidentally bumping the 3rd viewer pip on the tools in the flow and I was on a machine that didn't have a DirectX capable monitor output (I was running Quadro Mosaic at the time). So when the next build came out a few days later, I was able to disable it and all was right with the world. Three cheers for a responsive developer!

So regarding this topic, I should have kept my mouth shut and let the people who actually use the DirectX I/O plugin fight for this, but it just seemed to me that simultaneously removing the AJA plugin and the DirectX plugin is consistent with BMD wanting to sell more hardware, and I don't have a problem with that but what I do have a problem with is the idea of removing a feature and blaming it on an unannounced OSX version, especially in light of the list of other features that aren't likely going to make the OSX build either. Either OSX is being made the scapegoat here or the prioritization of lowest-common-denominator development is hampering customers. Neither one sits right with me. I'm not saying I'm angry or incensed or anything, it's more of me raising an eyebrow, cocking my head to the side and saying "Really?"

When Apple said "We aren't going to sell Shake for Windows", no one thought that it was because Apple wanted to have an easier to maintain codebase; it was pretty clear that it was done to sell more Apple hardware, and that's all Apple really wanted from their purchase of Nothing Real. It worked, too, both wonderfully and tragically. If BMD said "We're removing features in an effort to sell more hardware and finance further development of software that is now priced at 0%-20% of what it used to sell for, so please understand this new business model", then I think we would all shrug, maybe nod even, and probably just ask for BMD to sell the DirectX plugin for a reasonable amount to people who really need it for things other than broadcast monitoring on dedicated reference displays.

So you want BMD to have an optional plugin for the windows version that will never be available in the OSX version, and you dont think that that would have a new thread in the forum every week "Why isn't meh meh available for OSX"
I hazzard to even guess how many emails that would equate to.

So you want BMD to have an optional plugin for the windows version that will never be available in the OSX version, and you dont think that that would have a new thread in the forum every week "Why isn't meh meh available for OSX"
I hazzard to even guess how many emails that would equate to.

There already are going to be features that are only in one OS or the other. Like I said, 10 bit application GUI's aren't supported in OSX currently. Same thing with DDS and possibly DirectShow. Lots of file formats may not make the cut either. I have no idea how well Apple's drivers for OpenCL will match to the Nvidia OpenCL drivers either. 3rd party plugins may not work either. I doubt Generation will be included in the OSX version, either.

That's just the nature of the beast though. Support will not be fielding emails for things that are documented or in the FAQ, and if they do, then there's nothing stopping the flood. You'll have users asking why CUDA isn't working or why it won't install on their iPad or why their renders don't have checkerboard backgrounds or why the gamma is different on their Quicktimes. This sort of thing will happen no matter what. OSX users aren't idiots. They'll understand that there are platform differences. They know that's the way things work.

More likely? Exactly what is already happening, users who HAD a feature contacting support trying to figure out what happened to it.

I don't know how many people have those eagle eyes that are necessary to discern different shades on 10bit monitors. This discussion reminds me of an audiophile forum I never heard the difference between 48kHz or 96kHz

In the end, there ARE high end graphics apps on Mac. There ARE cross platform apps ( Nuke ) and there ARE apps that can do full-screen video on every OS (flash player). So I think the world will not end because Fusion will finally no longer be locked to Windows.

I don't know how many people have those eagle eyes that are necessary to discern different shades on 10bit monitors. This discussion reminds me of an audiophile forum I never heard the difference between 48kHz or 96kHz

In the end, there ARE high end graphics apps on Mac. There ARE cross platform apps ( Nuke ) and there ARE apps that can do full-screen video on every OS (flash player). So I think the world will not end because Fusion will finally no longer be locked to Windows.

Eagle eyes? I'm not talking about 16bit, I'm talking the difference between 256 and 1024 levels, which pretty much everyone can see. That's like saying the difference between 8kHz and 22kHz is stuff for audiophiles only.

Code: Select all

{
   Tools = ordered() {
      Background1 = Background {
         CtrlWZoom = false,
         Inputs = {
            Width = Input { Value = 4096, },
            Height = Input { Value = 2160, },
            Depth = Input { Value = 4, },
            Type = Input { Value = FuID { "Horizontal", }, },
            TopRightRed = Input { Value = 1, },
            TopRightGreen = Input { Value = 1, },
            TopRightBlue = Input { Value = 1, },
            Gradient = Input {
               Value = Gradient {
                  Colors = {
                     [0] = { 0, 0, 0, 1, },
                     [1] = { 1, 1, 1, 1, },
                  },
               },
            },
         },
         ViewInfo = OperatorInfo { Pos = { 935, 181.5, }, },
      },
   },
   ActiveTool = "Background1",
}

That's a 32-bit float gradient at a "normal" resolution, and you can plainly see HUGE banding issues, even if you have dithering on, right? There's even a Mach band effect. Enable 10-bit display and those 16 pixel wide bands become just 4 pixels wide, something dithering can reasonably take care of, and it's small enough that you don't get a Mach band effect.

If running a 10-bit GUI on OSX was easy, wouldn't Resolve be doing that? And 10-bit isn't just for Windows, Linux supports it too. Other professional cross-platform apps have this segmentation too. Like Adobe has 10-bit GUI for Photoshop and Premiere, just not under OSX.

I don't think the world will end with Fusion running on OSX, no. I just think it's crazy to say "you can't have these features, Windows and Linux users, because it would be unfair to OSX customers, and they might complain." Adobe doesn't take this approach, they allow 10-bit color on platforms that support it, and they haven't been crushed under the weight of public outcry.

Forcing 100% parity on all platforms puts undue stress on developers or on users. Would you cripple the Windows and Linux version OpenGL and OpenCL because you don't want to have an ifdef? There is no benefit, really. Heck, having 10-bit display even on some platforms gives Fusion a competitive advantage over Nuke and AE.