I have intended no general disrespect here, but can see how that may come across; not so much in what I’ve said, but perhaps in what I haven’t:
I think the Resolume team has done an amazing job creating Resolume, and I’m grateful that it exists in the way that it does. I have direct experience with other options and am still onboard with you guys, so this in itself is a testament. I think its easy to take technology for granted, and I’m guilty of that here. My apologies.
I can see how my tone may sound “aggressive”, but not in a way that’s violent or threatening; rather, in a forceful sense, and I can’t say I regret that. The subject is of high importance to me, and other approaches in the HAP threads haven’t produced the needed result, or seemingly even affected the Resolume priority list. HAP has become a sort of priority debate. Debate can be healthy. Conflict is part of life, and can be constructive, so I’ll address a few other points on the subject, this time coming also from a more authentic place that will ultimately include more gratitude and respect:
You said: “The Hap team made a Mac/Quicktime centric implementation and left the rest to the open source community… …Resolume is a cross-platform software, and when we say that we support HAP, we need to figure out how to deal with all these versions on both platforms.”
>> The Windows aspect of implementation seems a legit challenge, but how is it that Derivative here in Toronto was able to get HAP not only playing back on Windows; but also properly recording; and all the way back in September 2013?
You said: “…This resulted in that there are now several .mov and .avi versions of Hap, none of which plays nice with both Mac and PC”
>> Why can’t you use a version that works on Windows for the Windows version, and a version that works on Mac for the Mac version?
You said: “If you think that we all drive fancy cars and sit on our asses doing nothing while we take your cash, you're living in a strange fantasy world.”
>> I didn’t think this until reading it here, and haven’t said anything near that extreme in this thread! (Admit it, you’re just big pimpin’
You said: “…we're committed to helping you get the best performance possible, now and in the future.”
>> Sounds good. Is an important aspect of “performance now” not the resolution of the great functionality you’ve already developed? Can this not basically be equated to HAP functionality? Is the word NOW appropriate to describe something that still doesn’t exist over a year and a half after successful competitor development? Also, ought the name RESOLUME not be congruent with the word RESOLUTION?
The need for me is for good visual quality, at unusual aspect ratios, and higher resolutions—even if at the expense of some real-time processing; number or simultaneous layers; and/or frame rates above 24. I’m surprised this wouldn’t be a top priority development initiative considering how dirty DXV looks. The real-time functionality DXV enables is AMAZING, and I have mad respect for you pulling that off so far ahead of other developers back when you guys did, period. AWESOME, my hat off to you. AND, I’m now not gonna lie and say it looks good or agree that improving it shouldn’t be a top priority.
I don’t know enough about your development challenges to judge how much actual time and energy HAP implementation has taken for you, but I do know that making it available would certainly add value for me personally, and I would be happy to compensate you for a reasonably priced MAC HAPQ “plugin”. I would also be ok paying for the overall upgraded version—obviously including this—but within January. Beyond that time, I would personally need to go with another path of solutions. Will you make either of these happen? Pretty Please??