You need to set the layer you are using to Play Audio or Play Audio Loop in the play mode. You also ensure that the volume is up - this can also be controlled with DMX
You need to set the layer you are using to Play Audio or Play Audio Loop in the play mode. You also ensure that the volume is up - this can also be controlled with DMX
Well.. that would explain it.. I haven't ever played audio through it.. so that would explain it..
Thanks
apple intermediate codec in this thread-
http://chaldee1.gotadsl.co.uk/~richa...ead.php?t=1267
Thanks for all the info Richard. The original test with the 1080p clips were the DJ HD quicktime files without any additional compression and I did realize that I would need to recompress them at some point.
I have done some further testing and by reducing the resolution to 720p along with the PhotoJPG CODEC at 50% I was getting good performance with 2 layers playing back in sync without dropping frames. If I reduce the resolution even further, say to 640 vertical pixels, then I can get four layers playing back in sync simultaneously without any droped frames. I performed this test showing two halves on a blended 3:1 RP screen (15' x 45') and the quality between the 720 version and the 640 version was barely noticeable.
I will try the CODEC that you mention above and see how that works for me. Speaking of different CODECs, what do you know about H.264? It looks like a very promising new HD CODEC and I would like to try this with Catalyst as well. Been hearing a great buzz about this.
Check this out:
http://www.apple.com/quicktime/technologies/h264/
Best regards,
Scott Riley
make sure you test the latest software build - m147 - there are some optimisations for higher definition codecs.
buzz yes - useful no.
h264 is not good.
try apple intermediate codec.
try different image sizes with this - and compare-
ignore the buzz - h264 is an internet codec- data rates are not contrained in a media server - what a media server needs is quick...
these are not the qualities one needs for a media server:
all these advanced technologies mean its slow-Ratified as part of the MPEG-4 standard (MPEG-4 Part 10), this ultra-efficient technology gives you excellent results across a broad range of bandwidths, from 3G for mobile devices to iChat AV for video conferencing to HD for broadcast and DVD.
H.264 in QuickTime 7 for Tiger implements a set of advanced technologies and patent-pending techniques to create pristine video at low data rates. The H.264 encoder features:
Intelligent multi-pass encoding for the best possible results at the desired bit rate with the optimal number of compression passes.
Time-saving single-pass encoding for creating draft encodes, meeting impending deadlines and live encoding with QuickTime Broadcaster.
Peak-constrained VBR options for limited data-rate scenarios such as streaming and CD/DVD playback.
Advanced frame reordering (B-frame) support to more efficiently represent movie data.
4x4 integer transform for reducing traditional blocking and ringing artifacts, especially in areas of fine detail.
Improved intraframe prediction for more efficient compression of details and gradients in high-motion video.
Increased precision in motion estimation for crisp reconstruction of objects in motion.
Flexible block sizes in motion estimation for more efficient encoding of complicated motion in areas of fine detail.
Adaptively tuned in-loop deblocking filter for eliminating blocking artifacts, resulting in a smooth, clean image.
I am quite impressed:
3 layers running 1920x1080p 25 fps with Apple Intermediate Codec!
That´s a really good result. Though Harddrives seem to have hard work - judging by the sound of them.
System setup: MacPro 8xCore 3G 4GB Ram internal 3x500GB SATA Raid Level 0
Olli
------
Oliver Ranft, Aachen, Germany
I did try a fourth layer - but that ran at 12 fps and layer 3 dropped to 18 fps.
For the next test I wanted to use reproduceable content for the test - so everyone can try them themselves. I encoded the 1920x1080 test movie that came with the latest Catalyst version (4 Frames Black / Colour Bars / Picture 1 / Picture 2) to Apple Intermediate Codec. So I have a new picture every frame and not big areas of the same colour.
It ran poorly (Layer 1 at 25 fps and Layer 2 dropping from 25 fps to 24 alot).
Then I wanted to make a more realistic test and copied the 4 frames up to a movie length of 30 second or 180 MB. I usually don´t have 4 frame movies to play back - in reality it would be 30 sceonds to some minutes.
I managed to run three layers with these longer test movies at 25 fps. Layer 4 would run at 22 fps - with layer 4 running layer 3 drops to 24 fps.
This works best if each layer runs its own file and not all layer accessing the data.
That gave me the conclusion that the effect that I saw with the short files is the access time of the SATA Raid level 0. The slow access time compared to fast SCSI disks reduces performance with short files (jumping from end to start alot) - on the other hand the bandwith of the SATA Raid has advantages when playing back long files.
Would be nice if someone could check the performance of the AI codec on an 8xCore with a Fast SCSI disk.
Apple Intermediate Codec seems to be a good way to go - quality of picture seems to be better than Photo-JPEG 50%.
Here are the results of the same file encoded to Photo-JPEG 75% and 50%:
Photo-JPEG 75% Layer 1 and Layer 2 25 fps - Layer 3 18 fps
Photo-JPEG 50% Layer 1 and Layer 2 25 fps - LAyer 3 20 fps
I would have thought there would be a bigger difference in performance than two frames...
I will go for Apple Intermediate Codec for HD. now its time for bed.
Cheers, Olli
Olli
------
Oliver Ranft, Aachen, Germany