Is it necessary to convert all content to DXV?

[pet-span]

I'm building my first show file in resolume and wondering if it's necessary to convert everything to DXV. I converted some files and noticed they are actually bigger than the originals.

It also seems that when I convert them, the new DXV file thumbnail doesn't show an image so that I know what file it is visually when scrolling thru the folder.

The original files are .mov using photo-jpeg codec.

Thank you in advance for advice!

[Arvol]

If you care about performance, then yes.

[vj8k3]

I always do because that what you have to do to make it smooth. and I did find a way to make it so you could see the thumb nails but I lost the thread of how to do it...something like Converter General...? if someone finds that please link!

adobe media converter can batch convert them. I pull every clip into a editing program and resize/ adjust them by hand then convert them

[jaydeeshow]

Since I use Alley, for all the files I never had an issues. The best thing to do.

[intentiontribe]

I always do because that what you have to do to make it smooth. and I did find a way to make it so you could see the thumb nails but I lost the thread of how to do it...something like Converter General...? if someone finds that please link!
penalty kick online
adobe media converter can batch convert them. I pull every clip into a editing program and resize/ adjust them by hand then convert them

adobe media is very useful for me.

[Arvol]

I always do because that what you have to do to make it smooth. and I did find a way to make it so you could see the thumb nails but I lost the thread of how to do it...something like Converter General...? if someone finds that please link!
penalty kick online
adobe media converter can batch convert them. I pull every clip into a editing program and resize/ adjust them by hand then convert them

adobe media is very useful for me.

Alley is faster than AME.

[ceecrb1]

In an emergency: non important file, low budget show, ultra last moment literally no time give to do anything other than drag it to desktop, drag into resolume and play it. No.

Realistically. Yes. Very.

ANY media server/playback software is tuned to use "it's codec" and or preferred OS.
Hell even other systems I use are VERY version specific with GPU drivers, capture card drivers etc etc to their version of software, to squeeze all the performance and more importantly, stability out of the system.

Oversimplifying here with this example/analogy so you understand the principal of things:
When things are done right, the data just flows through the "internal system" from hard drive to the software and onto the output and there should be very little hit on gpu and cpu.
So video files in the preffered codec, and same resolution as the output layer/screen. A pixel just flows through the system from the video file to the output with little or no processing, think just a nice big pipe of water with no turbulence, flowing smoothly, laminar flow type idea.
This is why a hugely larger file size of the correct codec can be way smoother than a tiny file of the wrong codec. It's not just about quantity of data, but what needs doing with it.
Later, when you learn that some codecs can be high CPU loads and others high GPU loads, it opens a can of worms on how best to organize media content and what you are asking of a media server on very large shows.
Just like copying a large video file takes FAR less time than a video conversion (again, simplifying, you can imagine a conversion as a normal copy process but with with extra work).

Any time you are asking software to alter anything, you are asking it to do work which interrupts that flow or makes it turbulent. Resizing, altering colours, adding effects, different codec etc etc.

Beyond that, the conversion stage is where you find any failures of video files BEFORE live playback. Again, simplifying but if it gets through the conversion stage, massively improved chances of playback during a show without any issues. Purely because the conversion would spit out any errors before you get to the playback stage.

[najork]

DXV prioritizes efficient playback and low burden on the system, not compression. The files are often much larger than better looking codecs, but that isn't it's point.

I sometimes use Prores files though, when beauty takes priority over performance. The image quality is noticeably better than DXV, especially with saturated colors, and it works well enough in many situations. But I notice a slight lag when triggering Pores clips.

What's fine for simple sustained playback might be unusable for something complex or precise.

[Arvol]

422/4444 and DXV3 should look the same. Could you post a link to a sample content or screen shots of the differnces?

[Zoltán]

With DXV HQ you can get better gradients, but for quality go prores. But yeah, don't go prores from mp4

Most people though won't notice the difference.