hello! i'm looking to get back into using Avenue now with version 6, and i have a lot of video files i have been using with Wirecast (for a bit of mixing up to live stream), compressed to Apple ProRes 422 LT (as Telestream/Wirecast recommends), and i'm wondering if this codec will work "decent" with Avenue 6?
I understand that DXV is the ideal, but it would be nice if i don't have to prepare multiple versions of files on my drive, if possible (i know there might be some trade-off, but wondering how severe of a trade-off? and if Apple ProRes 422 LT might be a second-best?.. which also uses the GPU rather then CPU, like DXV?). i have the current top MacBook Pro 3.1ghz i7 16gb 1TB SSD 4GB graphics, and i'm not doing any heavy-duty mixing of multiple layers at this point. H264 files actually "work", and i'd imagine Apple ProRes 422 LT is much better than H264; but wanted to check with any experts here about it (or something similar) before i start some batches. Many thanks for any info!
Also, i had prepped a lot of files some years ago with DXV back around Avenue version 3 and 4... wondering if the current version of DXV is different and/or far superior, and if i might need to re-transcode?
thanks again, and cheers,
Greg
SolarSonic / Los Angeles
next best codecs, compared to DXV?
Re: next best codecs, compared to DXV?
Yes, will be decent. I used to play last time prores 422 hq without compromise fps.
But that's just if you can't recompress it. I doubt if you will gain the hardware decoding playin'it on resolume, but plays definitly better than h264. I can play 4-layers, 1080Prores422hq on a regular macbook ,and still get a steady 60fps (not try'ed how much until drops).
About DXV, new versions of the codecs have the hability to use a HQ setting (gives you a little bit more quality over 'normal quality'), so if you have some material that think needs that little more, make a test (I think is a must for text over alpha, not too much noticeable on regular image).
In other hand, old dxv compressed files are just the same as actual 'normal quality'. You will don't have any drawback to use it 'as is', and will not have any improvement if encode it again.
But that's just if you can't recompress it. I doubt if you will gain the hardware decoding playin'it on resolume, but plays definitly better than h264. I can play 4-layers, 1080Prores422hq on a regular macbook ,and still get a steady 60fps (not try'ed how much until drops).
About DXV, new versions of the codecs have the hability to use a HQ setting (gives you a little bit more quality over 'normal quality'), so if you have some material that think needs that little more, make a test (I think is a must for text over alpha, not too much noticeable on regular image).
In other hand, old dxv compressed files are just the same as actual 'normal quality'. You will don't have any drawback to use it 'as is', and will not have any improvement if encode it again.
Re: next best codecs, compared to DXV?
thanks for your detailed reply Francoe 
that confirms what i was thinking
and now i can get to work!
cheers
that confirms what i was thinking
and now i can get to work!
cheers