Best Codec for Windows?
Sorry I know nothing on Windows But try these topics http://troikatronix.com/troikatronixforum/discussion/1203/aviwmv-codec-recommendations/p1 http://troikatronix.com/troikatronixforum/discussion/622/isadora-movie-player-performances-with-respect-to-vlc/p1What size are your movies?You may want to try HAP codec as wellhttp://vdmx.vidvox.net/blog/hap-windows
If you are just playing the videos (not adjust playback speed/direction) I would recommend wmv vc1.My recommended compressor is the free microsoft expression encoder 4.These files will play using a highly multithreaded process, and the size of the files is rather small so streaming multiple from one SSD should not be a problem.However, they do not allow non 1 playback speeds (reliably), they are best just to load and play the file with.If you wish to manipulate the playback, photojpeg is the best choice.they are larger files, so streaming many from one drive can be a problem. At 100% they are going to be very large.If you wish to interact with the video in this manner you may be best to re-render the videos at 1/2 the pixel dimensions and ensure Isadora is set to scale to smallest (video preference),this will allow much quick/easier interactivity at full frame rates. (cutting to 1/2 the size works well, because when it is scaled back to the stage size (assuming that was your original size) it is fast and easy on the system since factors of 2 are clean bicubic transformations..))
Thanks to both of you.
I tried using VC1 in WMV with Microsoft Expression Encoder and things are working much better. More of the FreeFrame plugins are working now and things are much more stable.
Thanks so much DusX, your help is invaluable.
Glad to be of help.
If you make the upgrade to version 2 you also get HAP support, and with it the control of PhotoJpeg for HD video.Its really great.!
I think I'm going to wait until a final version comes out to really test it before buying a personal license. Currently using the ones we have at school.
BTW do try HAP. On mac it runs better than PhotoJPG even without GPU support.
Regarding HAP on mac: is it better than apple pro res?
Actually it seems to run a bit better.Very crude simple test: 2 identical movies coded to PR and HAP. Target rate 60 HAP runs pretty stable 58-59, PR same most of the time, but drops to 44 once'n'awhile.
Interesting, will test it also...
mark last edited by
My experience is that HAP works _much_ better under Windows than Mac. I am not sure why, except that the OpenGL functions used to decompress the video may simply be better under Windows due to it's heavier use as a game platform. (Games are where the OpenGL functions to decompress the HAP format get used a lot.)@DusX – would you agree with my instinct on this, that HAP is better on Windows than Mac?Best,Mark
I can't say, I have not run back to back tests on equal platforms.
For both Mac and PC, I found that I was able to playback and interactively control a number of HD clips.My Mac, has a 5400 rpm drive, and therefore my Hap tests were limited. (Hap files are big).However, with a USB 3 external SSD connected to the Mac, initial test show that I am getting performance closer to that of my PC, that has a 7200 rpm + SSD internally. (video cards also differ greatly.) Personally right now if I needed interactive HD video on either platform I would go straight to HAP.
primaldivine last edited by
Now that I am using an SSD drive, I have found HAP to be great in interaction mode in the new Movie Player.
But without an SSD drive, it was inferior to other choices I could make, such as PhotoJpeg (interaction mode) or Apple ProRes (performance mode).
So summing that up... imho... HAP makes worthwhile for Mac users to upgrade to an SSD hard drive.
@primaldivine sounds like you prefer HAP more then apple pro res when using an internal SSD, right?
primaldivine last edited by
Well, I find HAP and ProRes to be similar in efficiency once running on SSD. But with HAP being texture output on gpu, yet running with the QKT engine, this makes it a bit different.
Lots more testing will determine my final favorite!
But it is definitely the case that Izzy 2.0 users need to be willing to pay more attention to codecs than before. There are more variables at stake since Mac introduced the AVFoundation framework... since they also took options (such as speed and panning control!) away...
I have found some people are a bit (dare I say it) lazy when it comes to being willing to look with fresh eyes at all the codec options. New users will need to pay more attention to reading the Knowledge base... IMHO... :)