Converting from obession to expression and visa versa

Unfortunately, there is no way to input ASCII to Obsession II Offline.  I don't work for ETC, but I believe ASCII output was added to version 5.2 Offline as an "upgrade path" to Eos.  That's why they went to so much effort to create and implement the many ASCII extension-keywords that weren't part of the elderly ASCII standard.

The only way to create an Obsession show from ASCII is to contact one of the people who've written software to do it themselves.

Timothy Buchman (retired)
NY City Center Theater
http://secondcut.home.att.net/
 

@ Tbuchman ~ thanks for your insight into this dilemma. As much as I'd like to employ your services, over time, it's cost-prohibitive. For example, I might need the same piece of rep with different cue numbers multiple times over a couple of years, combined with a wide variety other pieces from the rep. Doing it myself is cheapest, but takes a long time and keeps me from doing other work.

@ ETC personnel: Is it not possible to help out the masses of folks who have years of repertory in OBS II format and no inexpensive way to manipulate that data back into the OBS II console in varying ways? I'd happily settle for an offline ASCII import, with no channel moving options. That at least would get my cues for the next rep from three different years into the console with minimal cost/effort.

MJMazzola

Resident Designer  OBT

Michael, I realize that I don't have full information on your console operation needs.  But as a long-time operator, I'd like to risk your ire by making a few alternative suggestions:

No question, Obsession I is painfully slow in reading in a show.  But Obsession II is so much faster, why don't you just keep one ballet at a time in the board?  Even in a ballet pause, I've always had time to load an (Obsn I) hard-disk show before anyone had to wait on me. (That is, I'd put up the color-change submaster before disking, and be ready with the new show before the color-change guys were now free for shutter cuts)  And I believe that irritating fader-clear bug is long gone from Obsession II.  I think most dance theater board ops are used to ignoring the hundreds digit in what the stage manager says.  But companies that have adopted the one-ballet-per-disk show (like Paul Taylor, for example) seem to prefer that, to having different hundreds digits to read in different repertoires.

On the other hand, I understand that Alvin Ailey (...EOS) likes the idea of putting each ballet on a different cue list and having the entire repertoire in the board at all times!  But I know that they are tremendously efficient users of time, and might very well work on three ballets that won't even be set or danced on stage "today", while a new set is being changed into for some fourth ballet. They have always used macros to control special patches, so they already didn't need to segregate many patches from different ballets.

Perhaps the biggest need for renumbering is creation of cues for one-off galas, or programs with multiple excerpts from multiple ballets.  I didn't normally run Obsession II, but doesn't the relatively recent availability of selective cue import of disk-shows eliminate a lot of manual work for you?  I ask that question partly out of ignorance.

Tim 

Michael, I realize that I don't have full information on your console operation needs.  But as a long-time operator, I'd like to risk your ire by making a few alternative suggestions:

No question, Obsession I is painfully slow in reading in a show.  But Obsession II is so much faster, why don't you just keep one ballet at a time in the board?  Even in a ballet pause, I've always had time to load an (Obsn I) hard-disk show before anyone had to wait on me. (That is, I'd put up the color-change submaster before disking, and be ready with the new show before the color-change guys were now free for shutter cuts)  And I believe that irritating fader-clear bug is long gone from Obsession II.  I think most dance theater board ops are used to ignoring the hundreds digit in what the stage manager says.  But companies that have adopted the one-ballet-per-disk show (like Paul Taylor, for example) seem to prefer that, to having different hundreds digits to read in different repertoires.

On the other hand, I understand that Alvin Ailey (...EOS) likes the idea of putting each ballet on a different cue list and having the entire repertoire in the board at all times!  But I know that they are tremendously efficient users of time, and might very well work on three ballets that won't even be set or danced on stage "today", while a new set is being changed into for some fourth ballet. They have always used macros to control special patches, so they already didn't need to segregate many patches from different ballets.

Perhaps the biggest need for renumbering is creation of cues for one-off galas, or programs with multiple excerpts from multiple ballets.  I didn't normally run Obsession II, but doesn't the relatively recent availability of selective cue import of disk-shows eliminate a lot of manual work for you?  I ask that question partly out of ignorance.

Tim