Difference in Playback Performance between Catalyst and Quicktime

[Seantava]

AIC is the ONLY thing that works at these huge sizes- ( DV isnt the most efficient any more AIC is - and you cant change image size )

i do a lot more things on the screen than quicktime player- it doesnt have any graphics processing- it buffers ahead- it doesnt have to deal with compositing more than 1 layers -

Hi Richard,
hi Todd,

i know that Catalyst is working in a different way than the quicktime player. I´m just wondering that the playback speed difference is that big. Normally i´m using the AIC Codec for all of my things, but from time to time the image quality is not good enough. In that special case i tried the animation codec because of the higher quality. Anyway i did some testing with foto jpg as well, and fotojpg 100 is working nearly fine (only one frame drop to 24 FPS, compared to the drop to 13 FPS with the Animation Codec). So, i think foto jpg 75% will work! From time to time i´m using Animation Codec with Alpha to playback Textinformation over Background Images or Movies. So, i was thinking that the animation codec is working the same way than foto JPG 100%, but as you said you have only implemented some codecs in the system. Maybe the Animation Codec could be the next one ?
Apple Intermediate Codec is for some reasons not the best choice, because the image quality is not that good (Rendererd out of Final Cuts Compressor).

Thanks for your response.

Greetings from Germany,

Holger