REs (apparently) ready for 4K GUI?

[antic604]

[MODs please move this to RE sub-forum, if you think it's more appropriate there]

There's been several topics where we were discussing Reason's GUI not being fit for modern 4K screens or high-res screens of small size (high-DPI screens, like Surface Pro or MBP) - things are either too small or have to blown up to pixelated - or blurry - image, to be usable. I think everyone is on the same page that this needs to be addressed by Props. However, during the discussions I saw it mentioned several times that REs are already ready for 4K GUI, so I wanted to ask what this means exactly?
- are the bitmaps already provided in much higher resolution than what we see on screen, because they've the same pixelation as native devices in Rack when displayed, so they must be downsampled somehow?
- is the underlying RE API relying on fixed resolution for devices, eg. it expects them to be of certain width & height(s) and thus all controls - knobs, faders, switches, screens - are defined by pixel distance from top left corner (or wherever else) and their operational range is also defined in pixels - what I'm asking here, does the API allow for easy scaling of the devices in a way that the underlying logic is still able to locate and correctly respond to moving knobs/faders/switches when resized?
- are there any mechanisms in RE API that allow for vectorised GUI instead of "pixel art" we have now, ideally GPU accelerated?
- are there any RE API guidelines that - even indirectly - hint that high-res GUI is being worked on?

Sorry to bring this up again, but I struggle with this daily - I open Reason (on my Surface Pro 4) at 200% Windows scaling and it looks great and sharp despite "huge" 2x2 pixels (comparatively to other applications), but I need to constantly scroll & hide elements of the GUI to work efficiently, because they're just too big. After getting fed up with this I switch Windows to 175% or 150% zoom levels - which are perfectly legible in Bitwig or Live for me, even on a 12" screen - but then it becomes very blurry, because of uneven mapping of pixels (since you can't stretch pixels, so at 150% Windows will display alternately 1st pixel of the original bitmap, then twice the 2nd pixel to average at 1,5 pixels; even more complex for 175%). Because of that, I can't work like this for very long - after 20-30min my eyes start to tear up and I get irritated from trying to focus on blurry graphic elements.

Sure, the best solution for me would be to buy a 1080p or 1440p 27-32'' screen and use that, but I don't really have space where to stand it and - as said - other DAWs work just fine on Surface Pro. I'm an in-the-box hobbyist & not planning on building a full-blown studio anytime soon.

I'd greatly appreciate if RE devs could chime in on the questions above

[EnochLight]

However, during the discussions I saw it mentioned several times that REs are already ready for 4K GUI, so I wanted to ask what this means exactly?

Without saying too much (you know, NDA and all) suffice to say that the assets are in place to support 4K in RE's. But that doesn't mean it can simply be "turned on". There's still a ton of work that would need to occur elsewhere for it to work. Basically, the ball is in Prop's court. If you want 4K support in Reason, please continue to email Props, reach out to them via all of their social networking channels, and continue to make feature requests directly to them that point it out.

If no one requests 4K support from them, we won't see it until sometime between 2028 and when the sun goes red giant.

[Steedus]

My understanding is that Rack Extensions aren't pixel art, or vector. They are actually made as 3D models (but then rendered as a 2D image) which can in theory be rendered to an image at virtually any resolution. There was alot of excitement before their launch that the Reason rack might be getting re-imagined in 3D somehow, but this obviously wasn't the case. I think the 3D requirement was just a way to future-proof them for any adjustments in resolution (or other rendering changes) that might (MIGHT) happen in the future.

[Biolumin3sc3nt]

5k Imac here, still in low resolution mode

[Psuper]

Many of us had serious problems with Reasons gui on 1024x 768 up to 1080p and I personally spent oh so many years on many forums pitching for a change, sending direct mail, making a killer GUI mockup to make the clunk less clunky. It never happened (typical for bull-headed Props) despite being such a crowded mess.

However I now find the GUI perfect for 4k at 100% on a 43" monitor, and wouldn't change a thing for my tastes - I get more than ample sequencer vertically and horizontally, 3 racks side by side, and 10 mix channels all happily on screen at once without playing musical chair windows.

However... viewtopic.php?f=4&t=7505940&p=381772&hi ... te#p381772

...needs to happen yesterday.

[antic604]

They are actually made as 3D models (but then rendered as a 2D image) which can in theory be rendered to an image at virtually any resolution.

Is there really such an requirement?

I doubt it, because most REs look like they were drawn in Paint by the coder themselves (which is not an exception, as such is the case with many VSTs as well). Sure, some of them do have detailed 3D models used for promotional purposes - either done as a starting point for the design, or after RE is finalised - but the actual device is "dumbed down", ie. shadows, light bleed & highlights, textures are being simplified, no perspective/parallax efect; to better fit with native devices, that definitely aren't a 2D renderings of 3D models. Good example is Reasonista's lates CORE:

3D models:





Actual RE:

[Steedus]

I think they are, they’re just rendered a certain way which gets rid of any depth or perspective like you can see in your example there. I think it’s called orthographic view.. I remember it from years ago when I tried 3D modelling. There’s a perspective view which looks more realistic, and then there was a different render method which showed you a single view point with no perspective or depth. Imagine viewing a cone shape from directly above , in this orthographic view it would appear as a flat circle. But again, I’m not positive.

[antic604]

I think they are, they’re just rendered a certain way which gets rid of any depth or perspective like you can see in your example there. I think it’s called orthographic view.. I remember it from years ago when I tried 3D modelling. There’s a perspective view which looks more realistic, and then there was a different render method which showed you a single view point with no perspective or depth. Imagine viewing a cone shape from directly above , in this orthographic view it would appear as a flat circle. But again, I’m not positive.

Yes, I get that but there's no way below devices are 2D renderings of 3D objects.

All I mean is that it's not required to use a 3D object to create RE GUI, which you seem to suggest (unless I misunderstand you):

[EnochLight]

Yes, I get that but there's no way below devices are 2D renderings of 3D objects.

All I mean is that it's not required to use a 3D object to create RE GUI, which you seem to suggest (unless I misunderstand you):

You're not completely wrong.

[JiggeryPokery]

there's no way below devices are 2D renderings of 3D objects.

That is a render and downsample of a 3D object.

I'm not suggesting it's my best work, but it's 100% 3D. The only new 3D modelling I did for Ammo was the connector on the back, which I always thought came out really well, but all the rest on there are stock parts.

Capture.PNG (190.27 KiB) Viewed 4642 times

[avasopht]

If there were a perspective effect, every device would look wrong in the rack, as the perspective from each device will be in contradiction.

What they seem to have done is chosen lighting settings that do give shadows, but are mild enough that you don't end up with too much conflicting detail in the rack.

[antic604]

Ok, so I stand corrected

[fieldframe]

However I now find the GUI perfect for 4k at 100% on a 43" monitor, and wouldn't change a thing for my tastes - I get more than ample sequencer vertically and horizontally, 3 racks side by side, and 10 mix channels all happily on screen at once without playing musical chair windows.

This is why "4K support" is the wrong term for what's being requested here - 4K is just a certain number of pixels; make those pixels big enough and everything's great!

"High DPI support" is the correct term ("high PPI support" is technically even more correct, but no one says PPI).

The problem with this is, as I've said before, that Reason appears to use its own software renderer that dates back to MacOS 9 and Windows 98. I don't know how much Propellerhead has changed it over the years, but it's definitely not hardware-accelerated, and if you suddenly start pushing 4x as many pixels through it, it's going to slow to a crawl even on modern hardware.

Before Propellerhead can implement high DPI support, they will almost certainly have to rewrite the entire Reason UI layer with platform-specific technologies, probably Metal on MacOS and DirectX on Windows. When they do this, it'll be obvious: Imagine scrolling through the rack at 60fps, as smoothly as you scroll through web pages right now.

[buddard]

Yes, I get that but there's no way below devices are 2D renderings of 3D objects.

Actually, most or all of the examples you provided are renderings of 3D objects. But when they are rendered for the rack (which is done by PH's own tools to guarantee consistent lighting, perspective etc), they are all rendered using orthographic projection to make all widgets look like they are viewed straight from the front. (Or it would look really weird scrolling around in the rack)

All I mean is that it's not required to use a 3D object to create RE GUI, which you seem to suggest (unless I misunderstand you):

That is correct, the 3D requirement was dropped three years ago, so you can also provide the GUI in a high res 2D format. (This is no secret since it was mentioned in the press release accompanying SDK 2.2)

It's all pixels, though, no vector graphics are supported. But the resolution is high enough to support 4K and beyond.

[antic604]

Yes, I get that but there's no way below devices are 2D renderings of 3D objects.

Actually, most or all of the examples you provided are renderings of 3D objects. But when they are rendered for the rack (which is done by PH's own tools to guarantee consistent lighting, perspective etc), they are all rendered using orthographic projection to make all widgets look like they are viewed straight from the front. (Or it would look really weird scrolling around in the rack)

All I mean is that it's not required to use a 3D object to create RE GUI, which you seem to suggest (unless I misunderstand you):

That is correct, the 3D requirement was dropped three years ago, so you can also provide the GUI in a high res 2D format. (This is no secret since it was mentioned in the press release accompanying SDK 2.2)

It's all pixels, though, no vector graphics are supported. But the resolution is high enough to support 4K and beyond.

Thank you for that info! I'm using reason since last year, so I've not followed all the SDK developments

[botnotbot]

Before Propellerhead can implement high DPI support, they will almost certainly have to rewrite the entire Reason UI layer with platform-specific technologies, probably Metal on MacOS and DirectX on Windows. When they do this, it'll be obvious: Imagine scrolling through the rack at 60fps, as smoothly as you scroll through web pages right now.

Note: This post represents speculation on my part. There is nothing official backing these claims, just my own interpretation of Propellerhead's approach to modernizing the Reason platform.

I think that this is a dynamic that people might not be appreciating WRT Reason: it's very hard to piecemeal upgrade a platform like this.

For example, I believe we all want to see upgraded MIDI routing. Without going into details, there are prerequisites in the RE spec that point towards us having MIDI routing in the rack -- eventually.

However, it would be insane for them to implement MIDI routing into the current rack GUI code -- as fieldframe points out, this code is not using a modern rendering pipeline, therefore bolting new functionality on it makes much less sense than integrating it into the GUI rewrite.

In most (all?) other DAWs, adding more advanced MIDI routing would not be blocking on a GUI rewrite (if blocked by anything, it would likely be an audio engine rewrite).

Props have been doing a very interesting end-run around these issues by creating and dogfooding their RE SDK. The player devices are the only device class not currently accounted for in the SDK -- only Props can create them.

But they already include features that we (or at least, I) expect to see in SDK 3.0 -- namely print MIDI to track.

This, incidentally, is one of the last features "missing" that would be required to update the pre-SDK devices (ie, all our golden oldies going back to 1.0) to use the SDK. This porting of older devices is also something that would block a transition to a new GUI pipeline. Imagine if Props released a Reason version that can't load it's legacy devices!

So, just from the examples here, we have this kind of dependency hell that they need to navigate: modern MIDI routing is blocking on a GUI upgrade which is blocking on porting old devices which is blocking on an SDK update which includes print-to-track which (for all we know) is blocking on a piano/roll sequencer upgrade (which could easily be blocking on the GUI upgrade... etc).

Personally, I believe that this was the intention behind the marketing talking about Reason 10 being the biggest ever: they aren't talking about 10.0 being the "biggest release ever", they are hinting that the 10.x cycle will contain some of the most massive updates the program has ever seen.

[antic604]

Personally, I believe that this was the intention behind the marketing talking about Reason 10 being the biggest ever: they aren't talking about 10.0 being the "biggest release ever", they are hinting that the 10.x cycle will contain some of the most massive updates the program has ever seen.

I got all sweaty just imagining this

Hope you're right and hope that the recent investors' money injection is aimed for the long run development of Reason, not for the hit-and-run actions like heavily discounted upgrades to mostly dead Essentials/Adapted licenses, Deal of The Week RE sales and Intro version, that all look like ways to get quick money without actually doing anything. Hope it's going towards hiring of talented developers

[chimp_spanner]

For example, I believe we all want to see upgraded MIDI routing. Without going into details, there are prerequisites in the RE spec that point towards us having MIDI routing in the rack -- eventually.

I always thought it would've been kinda sick if they virtualised the *entire* signal flow. Like, MIDI is transmitted on actual cables. 16 channels. Thru ports. All that. But I think that might've scared a LOT of people off. Sometimes I dig out all my little desktop synths and get a MIDI setup going and I realise how nice it is to just not have to bother haha.

[antic604]

I always thought it would've been kinda sick if they virtualised the *entire* signal flow. Like, MIDI is transmitted on actual cables. 16 channels. Thru ports. All that. But I think that might've scared a LOT of people off. Sometimes I dig out all my little desktop synths and get a MIDI setup going and I realise how nice it is to just not have to bother haha.

To be honest, that's what I miss the most. The fact that I can't (easily) re-use the same MIDI clips in one sequencer track in other tracks is a let down and it's inconsistent. I really would like that all cables were visible, including the ones connecting Mix Channels with Master, etc. There's always the 'K' key to temporarily hide other cables and you can set the level of 'cable clutter' in Preferences.

[Psuper]

Personally, I believe that this was the intention behind the marketing talking about Reason 10 being the biggest ever: they aren't talking about 10.0 being the "biggest release ever", they are hinting that the 10.x cycle will contain some of the most massive updates the program has ever seen.

I'm always optimistic however I'm certain this was not the case, R10 has been released and they blew it labeling it "Biggest Upgrade Ever" and sticking 2 synths REs and 3rd party crippled demos in there. Now could they change course with R10.5 or beyond? I sure hope so.

[selig]

For example, I believe we all want to see upgraded MIDI routing. Without going into details, there are prerequisites in the RE spec that point towards us having MIDI routing in the rack -- eventually.

I always thought it would've been kinda sick if they virtualised the *entire* signal flow. Like, MIDI is transmitted on actual cables. 16 channels. Thru ports. All that. But I think that might've scared a LOT of people off. Sometimes I dig out all my little desktop synths and get a MIDI setup going and I realise how nice it is to just not have to bother haha.

Just like with modular synths, sometimes it’s nice not to have to connect all the cables.

Same with audio in apps like Pro Tools or Logic, where you don’t have cables to deal with and get in your way.

But in all cases, you ALSO don’t have the same flexibility as you do with free routing.

The idea that MIDI cables would scare folks off, but audio and CV cables would not, is odd to me.

You don’t have to connect a single audio cable in Reason if you don’t want to - all the work is done for you behind the scenes. No reason it couldn’t be the same for MIDI cables.

Always thought it was odd that in Reason there were CV cables for devices, which is not something common on compressors or reverbs etc. in the “real world”, but no MIDI cables, something that is TOTALLY common in the “real world”. IMO that makes MIDI cables something most folks would understand, and CV cables something that should be “scaring folks off”…hmmmm…


Sent from some crappy device using Tapatalk