the best quality video i've achieved - high praise for resolume

edward_ · Post by **edward_** » Sun Nov 09, 2003 22:32

after using cinepak, and wanting to try something else, i think many people would be happy with what i'm pulling off right now:

codec: indeo 5

size: 512x384

bit rate: 806 KB/sec (6445 kilobits/sec, 6.3 megabits/sec - i'm spelling that out so there can be no confusion. bits, bytes, MB, KB, Kbps.. it gets confusing)

frame rate: 24 fps

computer:

dell laptop, inspiron 600m
1.4 Ghz pentium-M processor
512 MB's RAM
windows XP professional
resolume thread priority set to "above normal" in processes

disk:

western digital firewire/USB 250 GB special edition (8 MB cache), connected via USB (faster than firewire)

settings in resolume:

512x384x16 scaled to 800x600x16, output through S-video, "use full frames only" is deselected. also, scaling to 640x480 didn't look as good for some reason.

usage:

when i have all three layers visible, with an effect on every layer, the playback is smooth. the frame rate of all the clips slows noticeably, but i can live with it. occasional lag in a clip here and there, but still okay for my purposes. i am more inclined to place effects on the videos ahead of time, and make multiple versions of them with different effects.

indeo uses MUCH more processor than cinepak. a single cinepak movie at the same resolution and frame rate uses less than 10% of my processor. indeo at the same res. uses 30%, so three indeo clips takes up 90%. i will be interested to test other codecs and see how they work out.

finally, there's a bug in version 1.51: without warning, at random times, moving the alpha slider to 100 causes the layer to go black. it will only show at 98 or lower. i believe someone else has pointed that out somewhere in this forum.

with that said, i want to thank resolume for helping me on my path to superstar-VJ status here in new york. in the time i have tested resolume, i have shown my work at a new level in some of the top places, in front of the A-list, models, and celebrities (britney spears has even been in the room.. whoopdy-doo!)

prior to resolume i was showing loops of my original work on DVD's, but i am happy to say i have whipped out the credit card and am about to purchase a license. never have i felt more compelled to purchase a piece of software, but as i am getting paid good money at these gigs it is now more than appropriate.

much respect,
edward

art portfolio: http://www.metaprofessor.com

noce_ · Post by **noce_** » Mon Nov 10, 2003 10:40

which videocard in your laptop?

edward_ · Post by **edward_** » Mon Nov 10, 2003 11:26

sorry, i forgot to add that info: ati mobility radeon 9000.

edward_ · Post by **edward_** » Mon Nov 10, 2003 19:34

i should also mention that with the indeo codec, running all three layers with effects might cause a slower frame rate than is acceptable for certain types of footage, like really crisp computer graphics that need fluid motion, for example.

fading between two layers still looks almost perfect in terms of frame rate, so right there resolume is a godsend. i still have much more experimentation to do with codecs, bitrates, and resolutions.

pablo_ · Post by **pablo_** » Fri Aug 20, 2004 17:39

what do you tyhink is the best laptop for resolume workinÂ´??

pxl addict_ · Post by **pxl addict_** » Fri Aug 20, 2004 18:36

so what's better for good playback? cinepak or ideo codec???

edward_ · Post by **edward_** » Fri Aug 20, 2004 19:02

cinepak is better for smooth playback, but indeo is better for colors and overall picture quality (a LOT better).

i love the way indeo looks, but i've been thinking about going back to cinepak on clips that don't require the extra quality (clips with only one color, for example). running three indeo clips with lots of effects really taxes the processor and slows the framerate significantly.

as far as the best laptop for resolume, i wish i had ten laptops to test so i could choose! all i can say is that dell, with the added warranty plan where they visit your house and fix anything no questions asked, a good intel processor (the "M" or P4), and that mobility 9000 video card - it's working great.

i would really like to try a dell with a 2.6 Ghz P4 though. not sure if the 1.4 M chip is fast enough for what i want to do.

DinkyToys_ · Post by **DinkyToys_** » Fri Aug 20, 2004 21:42

I'm here using an Acer Travelmate 800 serie. Also with een Mobile 9000 and een M1.4 Gig.
It's fast

Ruud_ · Post by **Ruud_** » Wed Aug 25, 2004 20:57

Here I am using the HP Compaq nx7010 business series laptop with mobility radeon 9200 and p-M1.6 ghz

Only need a faster HD ..

Edward> You're saying this:

"disk:

western digital firewire/USB 250 GB special edition (8 MB cache), connected via USB (faster than firewire)"

guess This is not a firewire hard disk if you connect it to USB?

All> More enthousiast about indeo codec?

I have downloaded cinepak and am curious about the indeo codec to.

edward_ · Post by **edward_** » Wed Aug 25, 2004 21:02

the western digital 250 GB drive: it has BOTH firewire AND USB connections, so if a computer doesn't have firewire i can hook it up to USB. since that post i've switched to using USB exclusively (it's faster).

indeo has superior image quality. cinepak can't even compare to it, but cinepak is much faster to decompress.