Texture picture player vs picture player

  • performance question

    I am anxiously waiting for "texture picture player" to come to v2 for Windows, and in the meantime, I would like to understand the following:
    1\. Does it make sense to use "texture picture player" instead of "picture player" to reproduce a jpg or tiff file if immediately after this actor I have to use a "texture to video" actor to be able to manipulate it?
    2\. Which is the best file format for fix images in order to achieve the best performance?
  • Tech Staff

    As for format I would suggest Jpeg, simply because of the smaller files size.
    You only need consider the files size and time required to decompress.

    If you are converting to texture, there is a small hit in moving the image to the gpu, but if images are not loading quickly (like video) it shouldn't be a big one.
    If you are running effects on the image (especially if the image is large, like HD) FFGL will give you the best results.
    especially if you have parameters animated (wave generator connected to FFGL inputs) since this will turn the image into a full video feed.

  • The Texture Pictrure player will be in the next release for you. But, inside the plugin, it is doing the same thing as Picture Player -> Video to Texture, so that is a fine way to do it for the moment.

    Best Wishes,

  • Understood! thanks for the aclarations!

    I have some performance issues with a project that involves only pictures. I will try to identify the source of the issue and perhaps post a new discussion. I thought that "texture picture player" would improve the performance of the project but after reading this I think it has little to do with this.
    thanks again!