HUGE PROPS on 2.2

Just let it all out, buddy. You're among friends here.
Post Reply
VJ Nexus
Is seriously in love with Resolume. Met the parents and everything
Posts: 262
Joined: Tue Nov 09, 2004 18:42
Location: Kansas City / Chicago

HUGE PROPS on 2.2

Post by VJ Nexus »

For the first time ever I was able to use resolume 2.2 for over 6 hours straight, full blast without a single crash. (problems with capture card mentioned in bugs section, but performance was great) I love the fact that I can now minimize resolume without stalling my video output.

Not once did resolume fail or freeze or crash, despite a very gruelling show. once again huge props. love the morgan mjpeg support now too.
All clips were morgan mjpeg 640x480, process at 640x480 scaled to 800x600. Was able to run all 3 layers with effects on layers and in effect tabs, still pushing 15-20 fps. incredible! with just 2 layers and no effects was pushing around 60-70 fps. Dont know what you guys did, but great work on streamlining the program, it runs much better now. (although i did recently slightly overclock my machine, the performance is still phenomenal)

Did have an issue with vidnet in 2.2, i'll talk about that in bugs section though. Overall, incredible work bart and edwin, the vj world is greatly appreciative!

2 comps:

athlon64 3000+ (overclocked ~200mhz over factory) desktop
1gb ddr400
2x80gb 7200 in raid_0 (clips) 160gb 7200 (system) 250gb 7200 (video work space)
radeon 9800pro 256
(its this athlon64 that showed the best performance for me)

p4 3.2ghzHT (HT doesn't work well with resolume so essentially 1.6gz) notebook
512mb ddr400
60gb 7200
radeon mobility 9700
(ran best with indeo5.10 640x480 - 3 layers with effects ~12 fps w/o effects ~18-22 fps)

all processing done at 640x480 on both machines - don't know why some people still only push 400x300 as i have no problems with 640x480

User avatar
juLiE
Hasn't felt like this about software in a long time
Posts: 121
Joined: Sat Apr 30, 2005 17:30
Location: Lyon/Detroit

Post by juLiE »

Originally posted by NexusIntent
all processing done at 640x480 on both machines - don't know why some people still only push 400x300 as i have no problems with 640x480
yes, i would like to know why too.

actually why is it recommend by resolume to render/output-process at 400x300? why this specific resolution (i can understand 320*, but 400*?...and maybe this has been asked already, but i searched a bit and have not found any posts...yet).

also, i'm assuming if rendered clip is detected in resolume to be the same as output process, no further output-processing is done during live mixing, that it is done only when detected, beforehand? does this make sense?

thanx, juLiE

mfo
Is seriously in love with Resolume. Met the parents and everything
Posts: 321
Joined: Fri Oct 08, 2004 11:48

Post by mfo »

Originally posted by NexusIntent
I love the fact that I can now minimize resolume without stalling my video output.
I don't get the advantage of that. When i minimize Resolume the output keeps running only as long as Resolume is the selected application. But when i click to some other program (you probably want to do that), the output stalls.
So what's the advantage??


Btw. 640x480 is a veritable resolution for me too - as long as i work with video clips only. But when i start with scripted, a bit more complex flash movies, i reach a point where the output is lagging like hell.

User avatar
juLiE
Hasn't felt like this about software in a long time
Posts: 121
Joined: Sat Apr 30, 2005 17:30
Location: Lyon/Detroit

Post by juLiE »

Originally posted by mfo

Btw. 640x480 is a veritable resolution for me too - as long as i work with video clips only.
do you know why resolume recommends 400x300 for rendered/output process?

User avatar
bart
Team Resolume
Posts: 2144
Joined: Wed Sep 29, 2004 10:01
Location: Resolume HQ

Post by bart »

we recommend 400x300 because then is will run fine useing 3 layers ans effects on an average computer. 400x300 resolution is a safe reccommendation that will work for most people.

if you do not use layers so much and no effects or you just have the latest computer you can run a higher resolution!

Anonymous

Post by Anonymous »

raid 0 also helps, doesn't fit in my laptop though, and 12 fps for indeo 640 is just too low. So that's why ;) You probably have a fixed setup, mobility is an issue too.

Niels | Sense

User avatar
juLiE
Hasn't felt like this about software in a long time
Posts: 121
Joined: Sat Apr 30, 2005 17:30
Location: Lyon/Detroit

Post by juLiE »

ahhhh, ok, thanx very much Bart, gotcha all the way :)

yes, i love the 3 layers/effects and do use 'em, however i've experimented w/different processs/output resolutions and found ones (higher) that work on my pc (shuttle is rather decent/fast)...but yeah a raid 0 would be nice too (to: anonymous).

have a grOOvie-olah day!

Anonymous

Post by Anonymous »

Originally posted by bart
we recommend 400x300 because then is will run fine useing 3 layers ans effects on an average computer. 400x300 resolution is a safe reccommendation that will work for most people.

if you do not use layers so much and no effects or you just have the latest computer you can run a higher resolution!
and if you are outputting to 800x600, then 400x300 scales very well cos its a multiple.......

baxter

Post Reply