PDA

View Full Version : Vidblaster Vs Wirecast



andrewzarian
03-26-2012, 02:54 PM
Which one do you use and why? Both are amazing programs for broadcasting and have their pros and cons?

gfqnetwork
03-26-2012, 02:55 PM
Over the past few months I have been experiencing an issue with Ustream. We are no longer able to see the total number of viewers. Anyone else experience this problem

RadarGaming
03-27-2012, 08:04 PM
For my podcast I enjoy changing th lower thirds based on who is on camara. With Wirecast this is very easy but with Vidblaster it can be a pain. Now Andrew you keep the 1 lower third up the whole show so for you. Having that ability in Wirecast might not matter.

andrewzarian
03-28-2012, 08:54 AM
that's one (of the many) things that is lacking in vidblaster. I would love to assign a lower thirds to a specific Camera Module. I know this is possible with using the Video effects module but still not what i want.

joedemax
04-03-2012, 04:50 PM
It's gotta be Wirecast.

Wirecast has it's own written from the ground up encoder
Wirecast can stream to multiple locations and record multiple formats to disk
Wirecast is 1000x better at any kind of compositing (be it lower thirds or full on virtual sets)
It has Applescript support on the Mac version(great for controlling it in hardware)
Wirecast can use more than one audio source.
It also has more than 2 transitions!

I could go on for much longer...

andrewzarian
04-03-2012, 04:51 PM
Joe Loves Vidblaster :)

mcphillips
04-03-2012, 04:52 PM
I could go on for much longer...
Please do.

TomSinclair
04-14-2012, 11:09 PM
I can't give an impartial and fair comparison as I only used Wirecast for a short period of time several years ago and have used VidBlaster regularly since version 0.42 (early 2009). In the interest of full disclosure, I became a VidBlaster reseller later that same year and am a mod on the VidBlaster support forum. So you may want to independently verify my review.


I like VidBlaster because its easy to use, yet powerful, too.


Features I really like are...


Virtual camera ("virtual video device")- VidBlaster can be used as a camera source in many other programs including older version of Skype.
It's modular. Only use the modules you need. Only buy the version of VidBlaster based on the number of modules you need (7, 15, 25 or 50).
Instant Replay - I do a lot of sports broadcasting, mostly soccer. It's neat to show the audience a replay of a goal or some other event on the field. You can do a replay for each camera.
Player/Playlist - You can set up a playlist of video or audio-only files and play them when ever. I generally set up four playlists for the commercials that I run: one for pre-game, one for halftime and one for post-game (no timeouts in soccer!). Extra playlist for stoppage due to injuries, weather or other delays.
Chroma-key - Easy to use.
Picture-in-Picture - You actually do multiple PIPs, resize them and move them around the screen.


These are the features that I use the most. Not all of them are unique to VidBlaster. I think Wirecast will do many of these things, too.


The VidBlaster API was just opened up this week in the free Trial edition, so it will be interesting to see what folk do with it. So far there's been an app to control functions in VidBlaster from your smartphone. Also a midi-mapping utility to control VidBlaster from any number of midi-devices. I'm looking at a Berhinger BCF2000 as a possible controller candidate.

joedemax
04-15-2012, 05:47 AM
Features I really like are...


Virtual camera ("virtual video device")- VidBlaster can be used as a camera source in many other programs including older version of Skype.
As soon as Skype stops allowing you to use 4.X this will no longer be such a feature for VidBlaster. Mike will not take responsibility for VB's virtual output not working in Skype 5, even though many other switchers work with Skype 5.



It's modular. Only use the modules you need. Only buy the version of VidBlaster based on the number of modules you need (7, 15, 25 or 50).
Mike is very happy to remove the amount of modules you can have in an update(after you've paid), so the amount you buy isn't necessarily what you'll always have. VidBlaster Pro at $499 gives you only 15 modules, Wirecast at $449 allows you to have as many sources as you can get on your system, and it doesen't count extremely basic things such as audio, recording, and streaming as a "module"



Instant Replay - I do a lot of sports broadcasting, mostly soccer. It's neat to show the audience a replay of a goal or some other event on the field. You can do a replay for each camera.
This is a nice feature



Player/Playlist - You can set up a playlist of video or audio-only files and play them when ever. I generally set up four playlists for the commercials that I run: one for pre-game, one for halftime and one for post-game (no timeouts in soccer!). Extra playlist for stoppage due to injuries, weather or other delays.
Again, this is an excellent feature.



Chroma-key - Easy to use.
In my experience Wirecast's chroma keyer is far far better.



Picture-in-Picture - You actually do multiple PIPs, resize them and move them around the screen.
I can do up to 35 picture in pictures in Wirecast, without any of them being counted as a module. Also with Wirecast's layering concept, any kind of compositing is much much easier.[/QUOTE]






The VidBlaster API was just opened up this week in the free Trial edition, so it will be interesting to see what folk do with it. So far there's been an app to control functions in VidBlaster from your smartphone. Also a midi-mapping utility to control VidBlaster from any number of midi-devices. I'm looking at a Berhinger BCF2000 as a possible controller candidate.

With Wirecast you can use Applescript on the Mac version(there's also a windows equivalent) making it easy for even non programmers to scrip and control Wirecast using hardware devices such as the Korg Nano Kontrol using free application Midipipes.

I will also say Wirecast is FAR better at charecter gen. Any kind of lower third over lay is near impossible in VidBlaster because rather than using layers like in Wirecast, the lower third on top is the one that one that was most recently turned on. This makes any kind of fast switching between lower thirds impossible. In Wirecast i can also create lower third templates and tie lower thirds to a camera shot.

TomSinclair
04-16-2012, 08:41 AM
Wirecast and VidBlaster are more different than they are alike, I think.

Wirecast is from Telestream, a major campany. VidBlaster from CombiTech, a one-man shop. Wirecast with a huge marketing budget, and a vast field of dealers/resellers. VidBlaster with a website, resellers and word of mouth. Wirecast slow to implement features but very professionally managed. VidBlaster adding major features sometimes as frequently as monthly, but more of a club led by a genuis coder.

Strenghts and weakness to both. Nice that they are different enough to have a real choice. Talk shows and churches don't care about instant replay. Sports broadcasters don't care about virtual sets.


__________________________________________________ ____
I forgot to mention that with VidBlaster I like being able to do everthing on one PC: take Skype calls, stream three streams, record, etc.

Another feature that many folks think is important is RTMP/RTSP support.

andrewzarian
04-17-2012, 06:07 AM
Hey Tom Its great seeing you here. One thing that has bugged me is that the latest version of Skype does not work with Vidblaster. Currently the last Version that works is 4.2.187. From what I know Wirecast will support VVD (Virtual Video Drivers) in its next Major release. VVD is a very important feature in Vidblaster but if Wirecast implements it in its software many people will make the jump over. I am hoping Mike can work with Skype in getting this issue sorted out.

direktetv
04-22-2012, 02:49 AM
I can only talk about Wirecast.
At first I had a bit of learning curve understanding the interface. It didn't look like a typical "broadcast" software. To be honest Vidblaster looked more appealing.
As soon as I started to understand the capabilities in Wirecast, I learn to love it more and more every day. It is awesomely flexible and no restrictions to number of shots. The layer logic is also very flexible allowing me to make a shot just the way I want.

Also Wirecast has an API that allow third party applications to interact with it. I've made s small program called "Wirecast Toolbox" (Windows) that allows me to change shots with a wireless numeric numpad.
As I'm doing everything in my shows, It's important to concentrate on the content and not the software.

Spino
04-22-2012, 09:18 AM
Wirecast and Vidblaster are differentand I think that each one has good features. Vidblaster has an easy interface, replay module, playlist module but Wirecast has the capability to emulate a real DVE. Wirecast hasn't (yet) a virtual video device and it's a real problem but it has a great layout, the cost is lower than Vidblaster and the CPU is less stressed. Actually I bought Wirecast because I like the friendly support, while the owner of Vidblaster (Mike) has a very rude attitude. He's legitimated to do what he wants in his forum but, at the same time, following the market rules, the customers are legitimated to choose a competitor.

jamesdelfresco
04-22-2012, 09:41 AM
I just started using the vidblaster and really like it. the problem I have is my comptuer that is too slow. I would like to upgrade soon and try again.

James

TomSinclair
04-23-2012, 01:37 PM
Mike @ VidBlaster announced today that his next project is to develope a Virtual Video Device that works with Skype 5.0, Google Hangout, etc. Stay tuned!

vmix
04-23-2012, 08:34 PM
Perhaps the poll could be expanded to include other software options out there? (hint hint!)

Martin

andrewzarian
04-24-2012, 06:26 AM
What do you use Vmix?

vmix
04-24-2012, 10:19 AM
What do you use Vmix?

Well, I hope it is ok to post this here. We've just joined IAIB as an Industry Provider and our software is called vMix which can be found on our web site http://www.vmix.com.au/

The main feature of vMix is the ability to switch multiple sources of HD video (cameras, videos etc) using low CPU and then record or stream it to the web.

So I thought it might be appropriate to include it in this poll. (Though my guess is many here have not heard of it before)

Martin

andrewzarian
04-24-2012, 10:26 AM
Hello Martin,

Of course its ok to post it. Welcome to the IAIB. Unfortunately I can not modify the post but Please if possible make a new thread highlighting the software. Im sure many of our members will be interested to learn more and have an open discussion with you in the thread.

Spencer Kobren
04-24-2012, 10:30 AM
Well, I hope it is ok to post this here. We've just joined IAIB as an Industry Provider and our software is called vMix which can be found on our web site http://www.vmix.com.au/

The main feature of vMix is the ability to switch multiple sources of HD video (cameras, videos etc) using low CPU and then record or stream it to the web.

So I thought it might be appropriate to include it in this poll. (Though my guess is many here have not heard of it before)

Martin

Welcome to the IAIB Marin! You might want to introduce yourself and your software in the Industry Provider section of the forum here:
http://forum.ibroadcastnetwork.org/forumdisplay.php/6-Industry-Providers

You can also post a new thread and perhaps post a video tutorial and a rundown of vMix here in the software area of the forum. Again, welcome to the IAIB!

joedemax
04-24-2012, 10:39 AM
Welcome Martin!

I remember a email exchange with you a few months back regarding the UI of Vmix. I love your product but sadly right now it just doesn't work as well as Wirecast. Virutal genlock is excellent though! That said its a few million times bet than VidBlaster.

vmix
04-24-2012, 10:52 AM
Thanks for your help. I am currently hard at work on the next release of vMix, so maybe I will post a release thread when it is complete.

Matt Casillas
05-03-2012, 06:54 AM
I just started using the vidblaster and really like it. the problem I have is my comptuer that is too slow. I would like to upgrade soon and try again.

James

James try not to, use to much CPU when running Vidblaster. Not too many other programs and windows open, on your computer.

cseeman
05-05-2012, 12:51 PM
James try not to, use to much CPU when running Vidblaster. Not too many other programs and windows open, on your computer.

A big reason why I like Wirecast.
It can use GPU compression which lowers CPU use.
It has Desktop Presenter which can send video and audio over LAN making it easy send programs from other computers.
Because the shot icons aren't "live" it uses less CPU . . . but it does have a Camera Preview option so you can see all your video sources live. That does jump up the CPU use though.
I've even used it on a Pentium D (just a webcam though).
I can run with a few sources on a Core2Duo.

Dahalabit
08-14-2012, 07:58 PM
I have used both in the past and have to say i can see how Wirecast is liked a lot more. Even thought i personally feel that Vidblasters interface is better the developers awful personality effects my purchase. I have seen him yell at paying customers on his website. I could never purchase that software for my company and risk getter yelled at over some BS. I would suggest he seek help

William Thomas
08-15-2012, 08:06 AM
I own Vidblaster and use it all the time . I have more points for infractions that i feel like i am in the 8th grade again. I try to avoid that site like the plague if i can.

Seems like everytime I ask a question over there Mike has a shitty comment about some BS. Thinking now that wirecast may be more user friendly and the forum seems more helpful than vidblasters forum.

I asked one guy a question about updating my computer and he said that he was done giving out free information....lol...never heard things like that before in a forum...why is he there if not to help...he was a forum mod....oh well....

i like the VB software and the lower price to start out helped with my decision. Instead of 450.00 only 195.00. But you always need more modules.....maybe wirecast can give a discount to vid people for switching....lol...

Spino
09-14-2012, 09:46 AM
It happened one more time: I wrote a message in Vidblaster forum answering a Tom Sinclair post. I wrote in a very kind way. Tom wrote why he prefers the Vidblaster forum and I just wrote that I prefer Wirecast explaining my reasons and opinions. Result? Topic closed by Mike Versteeg (the owner of Combitech/Vidblaster). Well, this is one between other thousand of reason, why I like Wirecast.

William Thomas
09-14-2012, 10:17 AM
Mike V. is a Dick####,

Mike would be better off hiring someone to handle the forum and the marketing and stay out of dealing with people. I once told him that as i know he has raised a teenager he should be able to deal with people better than he does. I don't go there anymore. I get my answers here from Tom. Tom is much nicer and gives me information I can handle.

Wirecast was beyond my budget at the time. I could get home version of VB for 195.00. Decision was made completely on money.

Spino
09-14-2012, 10:22 AM
Mike V. is a Dick####,

Mike would be better off hiring someone to handle the forum and the marketing and stay out of dealing with people. I once told him that as i know he has raised a teenager he should be able to deal with people better than he does. I don't go there anymore. I get my answers here from Tom. Tom is much nicer and gives me information I can handle.

Wirecast was beyond my budget at the time. I could get home version of VB for 195.00. Decision was made completely on money.

No William, I don't agree with insults. I have good reasons to prefer Wirecast (and the behaviour of Mike is just one) but we must have a good mood everytime. I know sometime it is very hard but my opinion is that we must control ourselves, we don't have to go on same plane.
I wrote I think that the problem is Combitech=one man and I read a kind answer by another user who said that it could be a right way. Well, I respect other opinions even when I don't agree and I would be happy to discuss this aspect in that forum. Ok, I can't do that there.

William Thomas
09-14-2012, 10:32 AM
Sorry Spino but i was not asking for you to agree.

It is one man's opinion and it's mine. I really don't appreciate being scolded but of course that is your opinion of which you are entitled, and you can control yourself if you want. Obviously VB is a better Software but Mike is the problem. I will bet Mike V has sold more wirecast than anyone else.

Spino
09-14-2012, 11:05 AM
Sorry Spino but i was not asking for you to agree.

It is one man's opinion and it's mine. I really don't appreciate being scolded but of course that is your opinion of which you are entitled, and you can control yourself if you want. Obviously VB is a better Software but Mike is the problem. I will bet Mike V has sold more wirecast than anyone else.

Ok William, we have different opinions about our behaviour and I respect your even if I don't agree. Now I'm verifying that in his forum, Mike is offending me and I can't answer because I'm not a licensed user.

TomSinclair
09-14-2012, 01:10 PM
Readers of this thread might be interested in my post in a related but separate thread. I will not repost here, but you can read it here (http://forum.ibroadcastnetwork.org/showthread.php/224-VidBlaster-s-Mike-Versteeg-is-at-it-again!?p=2659&viewfull=1#post2659).

Spino
09-15-2012, 08:31 AM
I think this is the right place to write why, in my opinion, Wirecast is much better than Vidblaster. I write my opinions here and, as soon as, the new Wirecast version with Virtual camera is available (I’ve good reasons to think this happens very soon) I make a video that I’ll post on Youtube and Vimeo. You’ll excuse me for my bad English but I hope and I’m sure you understand.
.
Before all, the question is: “Why people need Wirecast, Vidblaster or other software like those?” The simple answer is “Because they need to replay, with a quite low budget, a TV control room”.
In a professional TV control room, the heart of the system is the switcher and all the cameras, the video players, the video libraries, the graphics, etc…. are connected to it. The real problem in the professional TV is the synchronizing of all those signals and this the reason why a genlock or what we call a black color is used (we are used to synchronize two semifields of video signal but I don’t go ahead on technical problems because I could go on a complicated way). Luckily both Wirecast, Vidblaster and the appropriate hardware can do this operation so this isn’t a real problem.
Basically both these software can switch between cameras, videos, graphic files, they can overlay graphic (Vidblaster with some limit I explain afterwards), they can manage audio sources, etc… and at the end of this chain they can stream in Internet, can send to an external system and/or record video files.
I think that the big difference between those software is the way they can do that and the effects they have and analyzing this aspect I’ve no doubt, Wirecast can do that much much better. Let me go in details:
.
VIDBLASTER
.
This a software written by Mike Versteeg who is the owner of Combitech (a company with just one employer: Mike Versteeg himself). The architecture of the software is based on a modular approach, you can choose which module you need in your interface (program of course, cameras, videoplayers, videoeffects, streaming, recording, etc…) and you can load in that module the cameras or the files you need. At a first look this can appear an easy way to switch between all your devices but I think that it’s also its limit, you haven’t the flexibility that Wirecast can offer, with Vidblaster you have just the possibility to switch with just two transitions (cut and dissolve), you can resize the cameras just in a 2D world and you can make just a simple picture in picture, you can’t overlay a video with alpha channel (you can use a chromakey function but it isn’t flexible) and the video effects are limited to what is offered by the effect module and you can’t manage the shot in any way. Furthermore I see that the interface is becoming confused (why two camera modules? Why three video replay modules?). Ok, Vidblaster has a video replay and a playlist function but how many users really need a video replay? Probably just the sport producers and about the playlist, Wirecast can do that with an external software, anyway to be honest these two functions are not present in Wirecast but I don’t see anything else that Wirecast can’t do.
.
WIRECAST
.
This software is made by Telestream, a big company who has many other hardware and software products. The architecture of the software is based on a layer approach (something close to Photoshop) and at a first look this can appear more complicated than Vidblaster interface but it can give you the complete freedom to build your shots as you want. You have five main layers and in each main layer you can build your shot working on more layers. You can resize and move your elements in 3D world and you can use all your creativity to show what you want in the way you want. Furthermore you have the possibility to work with virtual sets (I think that this is good even if Telestream can improve this). In other words with Vidblaster you can’t do this live:
.
http://www.maxsalino.it/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=252%3Amystreamok&catid=39%3Atecnica&Itemid=57
.
or this:
.
http://www.maxsalino.it/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=253%3Amystreamok2&catid=39%3Atecnica&Itemid=57
.
Just a couple of examples I made in a couple of minutes at a low resolution.
Another great feature of Wirecast is Desktop Presenter, with this third part you can not only capture portions of screen (Vidblaster can do this) but you can capture any remote desktop connected via LAN, you have just to write the correct IP and you have the video and the audio (delay included for the sync) in your system.
In Wirecast you have an audio mixer too (not present in Vidblaster).
Finally the CPU is much less stressed with Wirecast, Vidblaster requires a lot of CPU.
.
STORE
.
Wirecast has two versions: Studio and Pro for Windows and Mac (€395 and €795) The difference is that in Pro version you have virtualsets , audio mixer and graphic for sport score
Vidblaster has four versions: Home, Pro, Studio and Broadcast (€154, €392, €791 and €1582) The difference is the number of modules you can load.
.
SUPPORT
.
Both these products have a forum but in Wirecast there is practically just one moderator (CraigS) very friendly and when the problem is hard to solve, he gives an address of the support company who responds in just a couple of days. Furthermore there are some “Wirecast Insiders” that test new versions of the product before it is on the market.
In Vidblaster there are some good people who can help but the owner (Mike) is very rude and he doesn’t accept any criticism (I was banned because I wrote that in my opinion Wirecast is better than Vidblaster).
.
There is much more to say and to see (as I said I’ll publish a video on Youtube and on Vimeo) but I don’t want be too long here and I’m not Mike Versteeg so I’m glad to discuss about these software here even if other opinions are different than mine.

cseeman
09-15-2012, 10:51 AM
Nice overview Spino.

There are some third party Free playlist software for Wirecast
ShotKicker v2 (shot sequencer)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_3cfy12Zwvw
might be easier to see
https://vimeo.com/21720344
He also developed
AutoMate (scheduler)
which has a different approach.
He doesn't have a video demo but he did give this talk about AutoMate.
Audio is very hard to hear but go to 5 minutes in to see the interface.
https://vimeo.com/29456667

CamTwist on Mac has a good playlist function and Wirecast sees CamTwist just as it does Desktop Presenter. That means you can also use CamTwist's other features in Wirecast such as its Clock function.

Spino
09-20-2012, 02:56 AM
Wirecast 4.2 with Virtual Video Device is released. Now Wirecast is really great and the audio problem I talked about here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wclo5_r0LAs&feature=plcp is now overcome.

BlitzStein
02-10-2013, 02:08 PM
I've used both. I wasted my money paying a little fortune to buy VidBlaster. And this was a mistake.

- Very Unstable
- Absurd concept of GUI
- No real layers
- No Alpha
- Stream unstability
- High Frame dropping under a good designed hardware
- Barely no assistance

Wirecast simply works well. It has bugs, of course, but is not the nightmare vidblaster is.

I don't know if really wirecast is the best software, but I know what is vidblaster. Really, don't waste your money buying this product.

andrewzarian
02-10-2013, 04:17 PM
Hi BlitzStein welcome to the IAIB. I use Vidblaster as my video switcher and Wirecast for all my encoding. I think they both have their advantages and weaknesses. I personally really like the modular UI in Vidblaster.

erictimmer
02-10-2013, 05:28 PM
Vidblaster has a full trial version so there is no need to waste your money to see if it will work for you.

TomSinclair
02-13-2013, 11:50 AM
It appears that Mr. BlitzStein (http://forum.ibroadcastnetwork.org/member.php/597-BlitzStein) has only visited this forum for the purpose of denigrating VidBlaster. He has not returned to the forum since his first post above. If I were looking for accurate information about either VidBlaster or Wirecast, I might consider his post as negative spam and look elsewhere for an honest review.

cseeman
03-06-2013, 03:00 PM
Wirecast 4.2.4 just added Virtual Camera and Virtual Mic on Mac and Virtual Mic on Windows (Virtual Camera Windows was in a previous updated).

Dahalabit
04-04-2013, 08:17 PM
Has there been any changes to the Wirecast / Vidblaster Battle? I hear really good stuff about both but what bothers me is the lack of support from vidblaster

TomSinclair
04-04-2013, 08:40 PM
@Dahalabit: Don't be bothered. Just check out That VidBlaster Guy! (http://thatvidblasterguy.com) I may be prejudiced, but he (me) gives good support! Email, Skype, cell phone. :)

cseeman
04-05-2013, 05:01 AM
Has there been any changes to the Wirecast / Vidblaster Battle? I hear really good stuff about both but what bothers me is the lack of support from vidblaster

Changes have to be referenced to a specific point in time. Wirecast has been rolling out features with nearly every "minor" update so what's important depends on what you need.
Virtual Camera and Virtual Microphone is one. More and custom canvas sizes is another but not critical for some and must haves for others.
XOS Digital® ThunderCloud LiveScore for professional sports casters is a niche feature but major in that niche. It brings in real time scoreboard data for overlay.
http://www.telestream.net/wirecast/thundercloud-livescore.htm
Matrox VS4 Video In card support gives Wirecast ISO recording for each source.
While you can alway DIY there's now a good variety of turnkey solutions built around the VS4.
http://www.telestream.net/wirecast/matrox-vs4.htm

Amnon
04-05-2013, 03:56 PM
Has there been any changes to the Wirecast / Vidblaster Battle? I hear really good stuff about both but what bothers me is the lack of support from vidblaster
You cannot get any better support than what Tom Sinclair, ThatVidBlasterGuy, provides !!!

oscarmartz
09-14-2013, 07:22 PM
By far Wirecast at this point. Vidblaster seems to have removed features like the playlist and for many people there is no longer anything holding them back from jumping ship to wirecast. I have said this for years that wirecast is the total package.... Hey they even help you out if you have a problem rather then having a ruthless tyrant give people "infractions"

cseeman
09-14-2013, 07:53 PM
And more good stuff announced for Wirecast. x264 encoding is a major under the hood improvement. I also think the WebStream plugin is going to be interesting.

TommySulivan
09-15-2013, 07:14 AM
Cseeman,

What is the Webstream Plugin?

cseeman
09-15-2013, 07:37 AM
Cseeman,

What is the Webstream Plugin?


http://www.telestream.net/company/press/2013-09-12.htm

Web stream plugin allows an IP or web-based live feed to be used as a source, supporting RTMP, RTSP, MMS or HTTP as input sources into Wirecast. This enables a Wirecast live stream to be used as a source in another Wirecast.

Allows Wirecast to use multiple streams as sources and at the same time too. Think of multiple field reporters streaming to servers in which their streams can then be used as camera shots in Wirecast.

carinder1
09-23-2013, 01:44 AM
i enjoeyd wirecast more because u can do lots with it and i love wirecast

joedemax
09-23-2013, 01:20 PM
So I like Wirecast a lot. The X.264 encoding blows away any H.264 FMLE based solution (VidBlaster) and that's one reason why I use it to encode the output of my TriCaster. I also think Wirecast's paradigm of GPU processing demolishes CPU based video processing. Wirecast was ahead of the game in that regard - they built it on OpenGL in 2004 and years later they are still doing it that way.

To sum up - things I like about Wirecast over VidBlaster:

GPU YUV processing (OpenGL)
New local Desktop Presenter - It's awesome for games
Desktop presenter
Scaling (especially 3D perspective, Wirecast looks way better)
Multiple destination streaming
Layers are much more intuitive than modules in many ways.
Use any Quicktime codec to record - VB is limited to MPEG2.
Price - WC Studio will do pretty much everything you need for $499 and that license allows any operator to use it. To get the same functionality you'd probably need VidBlaster Broadcast desktop license which goes for around $6k. At this point I'd probably be inclined to look at TriCaster 40 or 410.

Joe

AndrewSeabrook
09-23-2013, 03:49 PM
OK. So lets separate the fact from the opinion. Yes Wirecast does have its own encoder as Joe says. But Vidblaster, and Vmix, whilst natively supporting FMLE can use ANY encoder. Including Wirecast, or FFMPEG which are both x.264 solutions. When there are critisicms of the encoding on both VB and VMix, the author is really criticizing Adobe.

VB will allow you to record in multiple formats. If you want .wmv for example it is there in v2 builds. Understand that the current build supports MPEG recording only AT THIS STAGE, but as with other functionality the developer has indicated that there are intentions to expand the codec support. It is quite a common practice to offload the recording to another machine (irrespective of whether you use Wirecast or VB or any other switching software) so this part of the debate is somewhat irrelevant.

All of the Switchers are very different products. You will find things that you like in each and things you don't like. For me I like the intuitive nature of VB and for broadcasting Sports I find it the best switching solution of all of the products I have tried. Can you broadcast sports with other switchers? Of course, but for me, and I stress me, VB works. I love vMix's desktop capture and the Web Interface. Both free and there well before Wirecast's offerings. I like the cleanness of the the Wirecast interface and the composition tools. That is an indication of the size of the Telestream development team.

The price on all of the tools is pretty normal when you compare them against other niche or enterprise toolsets. A tool such as SAP for example will cost over $2000.00 per user and then an ongoing maintenance charge of between 15% and 25% RRP per annum. We should think ourselves lucky that the manufacturers of our products do not charge in the same way.....

joedemax
09-23-2013, 04:00 PM
Andrew,

You make some good points. However I am not sure that I agree with your perspective. Your comment about the "Size of the Telestream development team" is certainly not correct. The WC development team consists of 2 people (according to the WC blog).

I am not sure that I would choose to broadcast sports with VidBlaster, considering I am yet to see someone sustain 720p60 or 1080i60 with VidBlaster with multiple cameras, however I would love to see any videos of this done.

As for the pricing thing, I don't know that I can agree with this. VidBlaster desktop license @ $6k seems very high considering WC starts at $500 (anyone can operate). Of course it's probably worth mentioning that you could also get a NewTek TriCaster for that price, at which point you get the hardware bundled and anyone can operate it. I'm not sure that we should considering ourselves lucky, considering it only seems to be VidBlaster that charges that much for the SW.

AndrewSeabrook
09-23-2013, 05:10 PM
Joe, You keep harping on about 1080p etc. This misses the point. Most sports venues cannot provide the connectivity to stream at that resolution anyway, so most broadcaster do not try to do it. Yes the Premier League clubs can but that is not the audience of the software switcher developers. So as a broadcaster, I look for other things than simply the maximum resolution and frame rate that the tool supports. Also most of the people who use VB/vMix/Xsplit etc do not purchase the high end licences. And even with VB I would expect there be very few Broadcaster licences sold in comparison to the Pro licence which is the equivalent to the WC licence you keep referencing. As for the licencing model, yes you can disagree with how it is presented, but it is the Manufacturer's decision and you either accept the condition or you don't. As I said, it is comparable to what happens in the business world with specialist line of business applications. These are bespoke applications with a limited audience. By default their pricing will be very much higher than we see with tools such as Office etc. I would love to see you raise the same line of argument with Adobe re. their pricing for the CC Suite and see where you get! Would I like to pay less? Sure! But am I going to sway any of the manufacturers as the purchaser of 1 licence. No. So get over it.

By the way I own licences for all of the tools. Do you?

Amnon
09-23-2013, 06:01 PM
And even with VB I would expect there be very few Broadcaster licences sold in comparison to the Pro licence which is the equivalent to the WC licence you keep referencing.
Hi Andrew, this caught my attention. I don't think that statement is correct. The WC license does not limit you to just so many "modules" or shots, and anybody can operate it :-) The cost is same, you are right, but you get more for your money I think. Am I right? I use wirecast for encoding now, so I don't know much about the rest of it.
I know you know your stuff, so I was wondering about this statement.

joedemax
09-23-2013, 06:11 PM
Andrew,

The live streamed delivery of the production can be a very small piece of the puzzle. Sometimes you may need to deliver a program feed (or a separate mix) to a screen etc, at this point the resolution and framerate is very important. The media often needs to be reused, and of course for that reason it must look great.

What I do not understand is - it makes no sense to not process the video at the highest possible resolution. Pretty much any high definition camcorder you buy today is going to output 1080i50/60, so why would you not process the video at this resolution? If you do it the other way and downscale everything coming in, you have taken a big quality hit before the video even hits the switcher. By the time you have done any effects that you want to do, the video is already being scaled twice which will result in some pretty unpleasant aliasing and scaling artefacts. The goal should be that if you need to scale, you do it at the last possible point in the pipeline. Over wise the video will not look as good as it can. It's also far more efficient to deinterlace or scale the final program output, rather than processing everything coming into the switcher. The point is - if your cameras output 1080i50 - process at 1080i50. If they output 720P60 - do all your processing at 720P60. Doing it any other way does not make all that much sense.

FWIW, I own 2 Wirecast Pro licenses, 1 Wirecast Studio license as well as a license for TriCaster 8000.

brianmonroe
09-23-2013, 06:51 PM
Joe,

You are correct! This is just like the same discussion that goes on in the world of still photography when discussing camera RAW versus JPEG. If you are doing pro level stuff you will always want to shoot your stuff in RAW formant and process your files in the same resolution. Only when you are done with doing your editing should you save your files as JPEG and at a lower resolution. Once you throw those bit away you can not get them back.

Things do not work like in the movies where you can just zoom on in to an area that is blurry and have it get clearer if the data has been thrown away to make the file smaller.

- Brian

TomSinclair
09-23-2013, 07:14 PM
Joe,

I think you are being disingenuous when you to refer to VidBlaster as a $6k package. The equivalent to Wirecast Pro would be VidBlaster Studio retailing for $995, same as Wirecast.

joedemax
09-23-2013, 07:20 PM
Tom,

There are 2 issues here. One is the feature set, and one is the licensing type. On the feature set thing, I'd say Wirecast Pro is equivalent to VidBlaster Broadcast. Wirecast Pro can pretty much do anything that VidBlaster Broadcast can do (Check the feature matrix for both products, FWIW Wirecast Studio comes pretty close to VB Broadcast). For example in Wirecast Pro I can do unlimited shots, where in VidBlaster Broadcast I am limited to 50 modules.

As for the $6k thing, as I noted in my post I am referring to the desktop license. The thing is that if you buy the single user license, if say you where at an event and suddenly you fell down some stairs and broke your neck (worse things have been known to happen) and you need someone to fill in, you'd be breaking the license agreement at which point your license could be terminated. With a Wirecast license or TriCaster anyone is free to use it, without any licensing restrictions.

Thoughts?

brianmonroe
09-23-2013, 07:37 PM
Joe,

This is quite interesting. As an IT consultant and having worked in the IT industry for decades I can say that I do not get the logic behind restricting software to a user and not a system. I have seen way to many situations where people need to move software from system to system or person to person. If you look at Microsoft as an example, they do not care if an employee comes or goes but as long as the system that the software is on does not change. When it comes to site licenses, those are handled differently of course but they are still per device/computer and not restricted to a person.

Of course, any developer can chose how they want people to use their software. Either by giving it away or charging as much money as the market will allow. The thing here is that it does look to me quite shady to tie software that should be a tool to be used to a single person. This would be like Sears with their Craftsman tools saying that only one person can use a hammer and anyone else who touches the hammer has to pay more for access to that hammer. Of course that is just as insane as tying licensing to a person the way that VidBlaster has done. Just as Joe has said above, there can and will be many situations where more than one person needs to use a single copy of a software on a single install without being called a pirate.

- Brian

TommySulivan
09-23-2013, 07:39 PM
I am sorry Tom but the only one being disingenuous is Mike from Vidblaster. Desktop License ? Personal License? Mike is looking to screw its customers. I have been wanting to but Vidblaster for months and his bullshit licensing and the way he talks to paying customers on his forum have made me go buy Wirecast. I will gladly spend the 1000 dollars and know I will get support and not get banned from a support group becasue i dared to ask a question.

The Truth is Vidblaster is not a good product. It may have been better then Wirecast at one point but not anymore. It can not perform at the at the level of Wirecast. Your Broadcast quality is a prime example of all that is wrong with Vidblaster. Another great example is people like Brian Brushwood and Andrew Zarian no longer using the software. Why would these two broadcasters no longer use Vidblaster after many years?

Podnutter
09-23-2013, 07:50 PM
Wow... I didnt know it was that bad for people who moved over to the latest Version of Vidblaster. what changed ? I know Brian Brushwood was a big supporter of Vidblaster.

brianmonroe
09-23-2013, 07:50 PM
Tommy,

I am glad you can see things clearly. I agree 100 percent that it does look like Mike is trying to screw his paying customers by trying to make it look like VidBlaster is less expensive than it is if you follow the licensing to the letter of the law (as you should). Plus, getting "infractions" and being banned from a support group that should be there to provide a place to discuss the product pre and post sale just does not make sense at all.

Ultimately, there are only so many people that need video switcher software and the more people you alienate the less future sales you will have. It is just like many of those restaurants that have been featured on Kitchen Nightmares. Once their reputation is shot, people stop coming and they have to close their doors. Good customer service goes a long way to getting future sales and keeping the business going for the long haul.

- Brian

AndrewSeabrook
09-23-2013, 08:19 PM
Ammon...WC has two licence points essentially. http://www.telestream.net/wirecast/compare.htm The $500.00 has limits on the feature sets. Some of the things that you can do in the $500 version of VB you can't do in WC Studio and visa versa. VB has 4 price points. The feature sets available are limited by the level of licence you buy. Essentially it a similar approach. Where the difference is that VB also is offered as a named user licence or a concurrent model and wirecast is simply concurrent. I am not certain on the upper limit of shots in WC. I haven't seen them but the Studio version does not allow scoreboards, IP cameras, virtual sets etc that you can do in VB Pro.

WC then charges a yearly fee for "premium" support. VB doesn't.

When you say that you are using WC to encode you are really saying that you have stopped using FMLE. You are still using VB to output to WC.

The vMix model is similar to VB in that there are restrictions on the Inputs(modules) and resolution at the different price points. The product however is much cheaper at each price point than both VB and WC.

JackWarner
09-24-2013, 05:51 AM
Ammon...WC has two licence points essentially. http://www.telestream.net/wirecast/compare.htm The $500.00 has limits on the feature sets. Some of the things that you can do in the $500 version of VB you can't do in WC Studio and visa versa. VB has 4 price points. The feature sets available are limited by the level of licence you buy. Essentially it a similar approach. Where the difference is that VB also is offered as a named user licence or a concurrent model and wirecast is simply concurrent. I am not certain on the upper limit of shots in WC. I haven't seen them but the Studio version does not allow scoreboards, IP cameras, virtual sets etc that you can do in VB Pro.

WC then charges a yearly fee for "premium" support. VB doesn't.

When you say that you are using WC to encode you are really saying that you have stopped using FMLE. You are still using VB to output to WC.

The vMix model is similar to VB in that there are restrictions on the Inputs(modules) and resolution at the different price points. The product however is much cheaper at each price point than both VB and WC.


Andrew.... i don't think you understand what you're talking about. Going into a forum and being banned and yelled at is not support. The virtual set thing is not true either. VB has no support for virtual set at all, where as in WC (even studio) you can build a virtual set with layers.

oscarmartz
09-24-2013, 09:00 AM
Andrew The "Premium" support is for phone call support. I do not see how that is a negative.. Does Vidblaster offer the ability to call and get one on one support?

cseeman
09-24-2013, 10:04 AM
Clarifying a few things regarding Wirecast.

You can have Wirecast actively licensed on two systems at the same time. You can easily move the licenses from machine to machine as needed (wait about 15 minutes for deactivation/reactivation)
This means you can have a backup system up and running at the same time if one system should go down. For some this is a must in a professional streaming environment.
Also these two system can even be different OSs, one on Mac one on Windows at the same time.
This also allows you to take advantage of OS specific features. For example, on Mac you can record to Apple ProRes which is good for post workflow. On Windows you can record to WMV and stream MMS.
VidBlaster limits upload to 1mbps unless one goes to Broadcast version (30mbps) which is nearly $2K for Single license and nearly $6K for Desktop License. Wirecast has no limit even at $495 (and see licensing above). This also means it's easy to do a 720 stream in Wirecast in the base priced version.
Note that Ustream and YouTube have Wirecast versions that are limited to their services at much lower prices starting at free.
As per Joe's comments yes, even if you're only streaming at a standard def frame size you may be recording at 720 or 1080 for post workflow for VOD use.
Wirecast streams to multiple servers with the $495 version whereas VidBlaster requires Broadcast.
You'll probably see more features at the same price points when Wirecast 5 arrives very soon.
Premium support is an optional addition which not only includes phone support but remote access so support can login to your system to help troubleshoot. Email support is also expedited.
Regarding sports, Wirecast Windows can integrate with Xos Digital Thundercloud live scoreboard service.
There's no "module" limit. As many shots as your system can handle each can be 7 layers deep and with 5 additional Master Layers.
Don't underestimate the important of built in x264 encoding and its ability to customize so you can use a single computer for both switching and live streaming without overrunning the CPU resources.

thetechbuzz
09-24-2013, 10:34 AM
Wirecast and VidBlaster are more different than they are alike, I think.

Wirecast is from Telestream, a major campany. VidBlaster from CombiTech, a one-man shop. Wirecast with a huge marketing budget, and a vast field of dealers/resellers. VidBlaster with a website, resellers and word of mouth. Wirecast slow to implement features but very professionally managed. VidBlaster adding major features sometimes as frequently as monthly, but more of a club led by a genuis coder.

Strenghts and weakness to both. Nice that they are different enough to have a real choice. Talk shows and churches don't care about instant replay. Sports broadcasters don't care about virtual sets.


__________________________________________________ ____
I forgot to mention that with VidBlaster I like being able to do everthing on one PC: take Skype calls, stream three streams, record, etc.

Another feature that many folks think is important is RTMP/RTSP support.

I like to look at Telestream the same way I look at apple with certain features. Other companies may be first to implement features, but like Apple, Telestream does it best and RIGHT! Virtual Camera out. Perfect example. Telestream doesn't cease to amaze me with the innovation level. Love them, hate them, but they are ballers and you have to except it! There is a reason people flock to buy the software. Because it is reliable, and I will say no software is perfect, but I will say, if I was planning a big event, and my job depended on it, Telestream would be my choice over VidBlaster. Which is why I've used it in many ways over the last 5 years. We can sit and debate until the cows come home. But I would like to say, if you don't know the software, don't compare it. Meaning I see a lot of "Wirecast can't do this and vidblaster can." I would like to challenge your statement and say your wrong. Get the facts before comparing. This is why people are improperly informed.

cseeman
09-24-2013, 12:04 PM
I can see that VidBlaster had a strong feature set that Wirecast didn't support for some time.
VB had virtual camera out and live thumbnails for a long time before Wirecast.
Wirecast's live thumbnails allow control of the frame rate or can be disable to lower CPU use.
Wirecast is adding RTMPT/RTSP/MMS/HTTP support through its WebStream plugin in Wirecast 5.
VidBlaster's Advanced Chroma is very good and replay is also a nice feature.
Telestream may be slower to add those features but they're also working cross platform.

Regarding company resources, Wirecast was originally just a couple of guys with a small company Varasoft. Telestream bought them and added supporting resources so the coders could focus on just that rather than running every aspect of a company. In those early days Wirecast was Mac only and Quicktime only (no Flash). Telestream is the key reason for Wirecast's feature growth.

While Mike V has done a lot on his own perhaps it's time that he consider going the Varasoft route and look for a buyer to expand the company. At the very least CombiTech may need partners to grow. He may need to consider hiring support staff.

brianmonroe
09-24-2013, 01:11 PM
CseeMan,

I agree that it would be best for Mike V to look at selling off VidBlaster to a company that can handle customers professionally and courteously. From everything I have read, it sounds like he does not like to deal with people and probably has Asperger Syndrome and an Introvert. While he may not like to work for someone else, it would be much better for VidBlaster as a solution. This way he could go back to being a programmer and not have to worry about sales and marketing. While it is great to run your own company. It does take a special kind of person who can make it work well. At the end, Mike V needs to do what is best for him.

- Brian

Amnon
09-24-2013, 02:18 PM
Andrew The "Premium" support is for phone call support. I do not see how that is a negative.. Does Vidblaster offer the ability to call and get one on one support?
Tom Sinclair offers that to those who buy from him. But that is by no means a "company" policy.

AndrewSeabrook
09-24-2013, 03:22 PM
Brian, so where have I said that any of this is a negative? If you don't like the product, don't buy or use it. It is as simple as that.

My intention with my comments is to lower the personal nature of the debate and stick to more objective and observable fact. As I said above all of the tools are fine. Each has its strengths and weaknesses. I use all of them for different purposes and love that fact that they will all inter-operate. I have had excellent support on each forum and have had excellent support from each company./ Let us get the tenor of the discussion away from the abusive and destructive personal rants about individuals and instead concentrate on improving our production values in the product we are all producing. The switcher software we use, whilst important, is in reality only one small part of that puzzle.

CseeMan. Your explanation on the background of Wirecast was interesting. I hadn't realized that WC had been around as long as it has. It also supported my comment that Telestream provides a much larger team for the development of the product, and for those who will quickly chime in that there are only two developers, don't underestimate the graphic designers, testers, support people etc that the broader Telestream supplies. That is why they are more able to work with external companies to develop interfaces and functionallity than a single person team.

Quick restatement about streaming...VB and vMIx use FMLE as the default encoder. You can stream to multiple CDN's using FMLE and you can stream at multiple bitrates. FMLE can achieve the same result as the WC encoder, but it does it differently. Both VB and vMix can use other encoders...WC for example or FFMEG....or hardware encoders. Please let us stop confusing the encoding question with the switcher.

Backup systems. In WC/VB/vMix you are able to have a second copy of the software installed on a backup machine. In all cases, only one copy may be operated at any one time.

Streaming settings. Yes VB has restrictions on the upload stream if you are using the inbuilt interface to FMLE, but you can input directly to FMLE and bypass this restriction on all versions of VB.

Recording and streaming at different resolutions. You can do this with all three products. As I said before there are different ways of achieving this result.

Yes, VB and vMIx are resticted to windowsOS's, but you can run them on Macs using a Windows install on that hardware. I have also been able to run them, and WC, in virtual machines on WindowsOS.

Recording Codecs. What most miss in the discussion about codecs is that they, in the main, have to be licenced, and therefore add to the cost of the product. Also as the codecs are updated, so there is an increased resource load on the development teams to test and modify their code to support the new codecs. Each of the companies makes a commercial decision about the codecs that they will bundle and support into their product.

Your point about CPU use is valid. WC and vMix take a lot of advantage of the GPU, whilst VB primarily targets the CPU. The VB chromakey module uses both CPU and GPU resources.

thetechbuzz
09-24-2013, 03:52 PM
I agree with what you said, just one small correction, Wirecast will allow 2 computers to operate off 1 serial at the same time. But other then that, agree 100 percent :)

cseeman
09-24-2013, 05:23 PM
Andrew, I'm not sure if or why you want to limit discussion to switchers when, in Wirecast's case, it includes an encoder as a key feature.

I'm willing to be educated but Adobe FMLE, at least through the GUI, has a destination and backup destination URL server points. Are there more I'm not seeing? Wirecast is not limited to two.
Adobe FMLE can use VP6 and MainConcept H.264. Wirecast can use VP6, MainConcept H.264, x264 (which is better quality efficiency than MainConcept), WMV (on Windows), Quicktime. Yes there's license fees involved and they are factored into the cost of the product and that's one reason we compare cost and features (including the encoder).
Adobe FMLE allows up to three bit rates. Wirecast can use any number of bit rates even using different codecs going to different servers.
Adobe FMLE does support multibitrate Dynamic Streaming whereas Wirecast doesn't yet sync the keyframes to do that.
So while the switchers can stream to external encoders both software and hardware, Wirecast has a much more flexible built in encoder than others dependent on Adobe FMLE.
Wirecast does have a built in DSS for Quicktime streaming although the demand for that is relatively small these days.

Wirecast's encoder is more flexible than Adobe FMLE. Of course one can use Wirecast's encoder with other programs including VidBlaster (and some have done that) but that certainly speaks to the importance of developing a good encoder. Given that, for VB to use Wirecast's encoder it's an additional purchase of course. For Wirecast to use Adobe FMLE is no additional cost.

I'm honestly not sure why VB would limit bit rate to 1mbps in all but Broadcast if it's so easy to work around (and free). I'm open to hearing an explanation.
Granted Wirecast is also pursuing its encoder as a desirable feature even if one isn't using the switcher whereas VidBlaster is not. I do think that's worthy of comparison though.

Yes Telestream has greatly expanded support for the original Varasoft Wirecast team which is why I suggest that Mike V and CombiTech consider looking for partner. Some might consider having a QA team and a Customer Support team important features.

After all this forum thread is "VidBlaster vs Wirecast" so we are participating to make comparisons.

JackWarner
09-24-2013, 05:54 PM
Andrew - Can you link to a recording of your show? i would really like to see the results you get out of VB. I will put money on the fact that there are loads of dropped frames in your recording.

joedemax
09-24-2013, 06:03 PM
Recording Codecs. What most miss in the discussion about codecs is that they, in the main, have to be licenced, and therefore add to the cost of the product. Also as the codecs are updated, so there is an increased resource load on the development teams to test and modify their code to support the new codecs. Each of the companies makes a commercial decision about the codecs that they will bundle and support into their product.

Your point about CPU use is valid. WC and vMix take a lot of advantage of the GPU, whilst VB primarily targets the CPU. The VB chromakey module uses both CPU and GPU resources.

The statement on codecs is not necessarily true. In Wirecast's case, it is able to access any Quicktime codec installed on the system and write a file to that codec in real time. Telestream does not have to pay any money to license these codecs as they are available system wide. So the argument that codecs must be licensed and tested is really non sensical in the case of Wirecast, as the user can use any codec they wish (and the developer of the codec will have tested it in another QT app where it will work the same). On the Mac version of Wirecast users can get Apple's ProRes codec for free - http://support.apple.com/kb/dl1396

As for the comment about GPU use, I think the "takes a lot of advantage of the GPU" is kind of disingenuous. Both of them exclusively process the images on the GPU, as there is no other way to do it. Wirecast is an OpenGL app and VMix is either OpenGL or DirectX. If you watched Tim Jenison's interview with Leo Laporte you'd also note that the TriCaster uses OpenGL for processing. From years of using these products, I can comfortably say that this is the only way that a computer based switcher can work. VMix Wirecast seem able to output pretty solid frame rate video, stack layer after layer of video all in real time . The CPU should only really be used to handle the encoding, playback of media, audio mixing etc.

Joe

AndrewSeabrook
09-24-2013, 06:12 PM
Cseeman...not trying to limit discussion but want people to understand that VB, and vMix are not encoders. WC is.

Joe, even Open-Source codecs have to be licenced and supported. There is a cost to all of that. Using the GPU is not the only way to manipulate images, however it may be the best way...no argument there,

Glad that the discussion seems to be moving further away from personality!

AndrewSeabrook
09-24-2013, 06:42 PM
Jack...and what will that show really? That my cameras are outputting at the wrong settings? That my capture cards and their drivers are dodgy, that the recording tool that I use has issues? By the way I record on a separate device to lower the system requirements on my switching machine....irrespective of the switching software. The point being that frames drops can be generated in a number of places in the chain and why they is generated are dependent on a number of factors. The switching software being only one of these. That is why NewTek has designed the Tricaster in the way it did, matching dedicated hardware and software to optimise performance of both.

Using an audio analogy. If I hear clipping on my audio does that automatically mean that it is my microphone at fault? My mixer? My recording device? My Audio streamer? My CDN? My audio client? Or is it a combination of all of those and how I have configured and calibrated them to work together?

cseeman
09-24-2013, 06:53 PM
My concern about depending on Adobe FMLE is that version 3 came out in Jan 2009 and 3.2 was late Dec 2010. It's now approaching Oct 2013 and no updates. On the Mac side it's a problem since FMLE is still Quicktime based whereas Apple as moved from QTKit to AVFoundation CoreMediaIO. Basically FMLE is nearly dead on Mac and while that might not impact Windows users directly we're approaching 3 years without an update. It's conceivable that it's EOL. That would mean Switchers without Encoders may need to start developing Encoders. Of course maybe we'll see a 3.5 or 4.0 soon... but 3 years is a long time between updates.

AndrewSeabrook
09-24-2013, 07:05 PM
I share the concern about FMLE, particularly as HTML5 becomes more important on the web. All vendors will need to respond to these changes. I don't know that it means that the necessarily need to develop bespoke encoders, but certainly there needs to be the ability to take advantage of external encoders whether they be software or hardware based.

andrewzarian
09-24-2013, 07:43 PM
I love the discussion, lets keep it going.. but lets remember to be respectful of everyone's opinion :)

With that said I have used both Vidblaster and Wirecast for an extended amount of time. I started using Vidblaster in 2009 and I was generally happy with it until 2012 when I went to HD. The modular interface makes Vidblaster very easy to learn and use. Wirecast was a little intimidating to me. in 2012 we started to use Wirecast as our encoder due Vidblaster's limitations as far as an encoding a live stream goes (By limitations I mean not having the ability to add custom settings for Bitrate)

When we went to Wirecast we were shocked at how little CPU usage it uses when encoding to multiple CDNs. We went from having to use 4 different computers to just one encoding box.

Early 2013 we started playing around with Wirecast as a video recorder rather than using Vidblaster. At first we did this to free up some CPU usage on our Vidblaster machine but after a few weeks we realized that Wirecast is a far better system to record our shows. At this point I was still hanging onto Vidblaster due to loyalty and the financial investment that I had made into the software. The more I read and researched the more I had realized we needed to move on the bigger and better things.

There were a number of issues that I'm not going to go into right now but the two biggest ones were dropped frames and video tearing. We can argue that the issue is caused by hardware / drivers but I do not think that is the case. When we moved over to Wirecast The problems all went away

When It was announced that Vidblaster 3 would be released I was excited to hear about all the “ HD optimization” that was incorporated in the new Vidblaster. Along with better HD support Vidblaster had now re-written many of the modules to better optimize cpu usage. Sounds great right ? Well it was not. I bought my copy from Tom Sinclair in June of 2013 and started using it. Boy was I wrong about the software. Many of the key features like a playlist and different video recording options were removed from the latest version and I still had many of the frame rate issues and tearing. It was then that I realized it was time to move on.

I installed Wirecast with the help of the IAIB community. Nick Craig, Jim Castro, Steve Heywood, Joe De Max, and Sunkast made sure everything that I needed was setup and spent hours teaching me how to use the software. I immediately noticed a quality difference. My frame rate issue was gone, no video tearing and I was able to build about 65 shots in Wirecast with my CPU being under 30 percent This was a huge improvement from my previous setup. Also key features like desktop presenter, and the ability to create different video effects were huge improvements to my video production.

Looking back I'm a little disappointed in myself for not giving Wirecast an opportunity early on. I spent endless hours trying to fix something that couldn't be fix, and spent thousands of dollars upgrading something I no longer use. I recently did the math and it was shocking. I have spent over 3000 dollars for Vidblaster over the last 4 years and spent nearly 4,000 dollars upgrading and adding computers to our workflow for a total of 7,000 dollars.

In my humble opinion I think its fair to say Wirecast is the superior software based solution for Internet Broadcasting at this time. It outperforms Vidblaster in every possible feature. I know that there is still an argument for using Vidblaster in the sporting world but when it comes to Internet Broadcasting I have yet to see someone use Vidblaster at 720p and not have dropped frames and quality issues.

TomSinclair
09-24-2013, 08:22 PM
But I would like to say, if you don't know the software, don't compare it. Meaning I see a lot of "Wirecast can't do this and vidblaster can." I would like to challenge your statement and say your wrong. Get the facts before comparing.

Stephen,

What part of my statement (from April of last year) that you quoted do you disagree with and believe is wrong?

As an aside, I am currently testing Wirecast on several PCs and look forward to becoming familiar enough with it to make a good comparison. If I ever decide to do a head-to-head review of Wirecast and VidBlaster, rest assured I will be as proficient with one as with the other. It seems to me that too many "reviewers" are, in fact, champions of a particular brand, and seem to have more experience with one than the other. Hence, their conclusions are predictable.

thetechbuzz
09-25-2013, 08:15 AM
Tom if you took that as a direct shot at you I apologize because it wasn't. I'm still learning this "forum" thing and I just clicked reply on your post since at the time it was the last one written. My point was simple. Like you said the "champions" that know the software will stand by what they like and what they know. There is something for everyone. But what gets my goat, is when people say Wirecast can't do something and it can, or VidBlaster can't do something and it can, or Tricaster can't do something but it can. All I'm asking for is folks to post the facts. Not opinions, when comparing. You can state your opinion, just don't present it as gospel.

TomSinclair
09-25-2013, 09:16 AM
Steve,

No problem. Understood. Relieved you were not calling me out. :)

It's all good.

ronknights
10-26-2013, 11:59 AM
I skimmed through this thread. I had a brief experience with Vidblaster when I was trying to get started on live shows a few years ago. As a beginner, I found Vidblaster was nice enough. I considered buying the least expensive license. I visited the forums, and everything seemed nice enough at the time. This may have been 3-5 years ago.

Most of my online contacts recommended Wirecast. I finally got Wirecast, and loved it. Telestream is very helpful and their forums are fantastic. It also helped to know people like Steve Heywood, Rob Johnson & others were around to provide some encouragement and support (within reason!).

I used Wirecast on and off for at least two years, when doing live shows. I found Wirecast pretty easy to use. But I did get hung up on some features because I have a different way of understanding things. I probably only used the most basic functions, and felt happy enough.

I stopped doing live broadcasts maybe 3 years ago. I just couldn't handle the stress as a one-man operation. For awhile I used Wirecast's Record to Disc function, but experienced audio synch problems. Perhaps my 2009 Mac mini is showing its age, and lack of power. I keep Wirecast around, but don't use it. I can't justify the expense of upgrading to the latest version.

I need to upgrade my computers first. Even then I'd only consider it if I planned to do more live shows. These days no one is interested in my live shows.

cseeman
10-26-2013, 01:10 PM
Hi ron,
2009 MacMini can be a bit underpowered when you consider the CPU and the limited integrated GPU.
At this point Wirecast 5 x264 encoder is such a major step up in quality and efficiency (there are settings that can control CPU use if needed) compared to MainConcept's H.264 (used by Adobe FMLE and others) that even some Tricaster users are starting to use Wirecast 5 just as their encoder.

For recording I always use Apple ProRes. The sync issues had been related to NLE handling of timing. The same files play fine in Quicktime. FCPX, which is CoreMedia based (not Quicktime) handles the sync much better (Wirecast will vary the frame rate slightly when recording to avoid dropped frames).

I'm often a one man band as well. I don't get stressed about it at all. I build my shots in advance. Set up Skype for my guest call ins. I'm all set. I'll often have a backup computer ready to go just in case.

ronknights
10-26-2013, 01:58 PM
cseeman, thanks for responding. I have a history of dealing with depression & stress. Because of that problem, I live off Social Security Disability. Over the years I've shared those struggles as well as my enthusiasm for tech etc

Yes, I'm very aware the Mac Mini is underpowered. It's a challenge for me to come up with the money to buy a better computer. I'm hoping I can buy something later next year. At this point I'd prefer a 27" iMac.

cseeman
10-26-2013, 04:03 PM
Yet so many who stream talk just about tech. I think it's important to use the medium to communicate. Perhaps a talk show talking about depression, stress and related could garner a unique audience.

Granted upgrading is always an expense but in the new Wirecast 5 there's controls in the x264 encoder to use less CPU if one's computer needs that. That could also make a refurbished or used MacMini or iMac a viable option.

A lot of my personal work as a streaming advocate is working with people with very limited means. Sometimes I have to deal with audiences who might ridicule such streams for their lack of quality. I usually have to point out that even an older computer and a webcam can be a major step forward. I have the utmost respect for those who undertake to get a message out and interact with a live audience through live streaming.

ronknights
10-26-2013, 04:55 PM
My YouTube videos describe my tech interests as well as my adventures in taking better control over my health.

Here is an example, good news about my weight loss: http://youtu.be/OjqjRGXArLQ

TomSinclair
03-08-2014, 08:29 PM
Some may say I'm going over to the dark side....

But, I've started a new show about online broadcasting called Streaming Idiots. It's still in the "alpha" shows as it don't have its own website yet, graphics are still in development, but we have two shows "in the can."

The concept behind the show is neither original nor unique. It is another in a long line of tech shows about internet broadcasting. I'll be reviewing & critiquing hardware & software as well as passing along tips & tricks. Real original, right? So, you probably wouldn't be interested in it.

But if you were, you could watch it live immediately following the That VidBlaster Guy! (http://www.thatvidblasterguy.com) show on Wednesdays at 3 ET/8 UK. Reruns are on YouTube on the VBGuy channel (http://www.youtube.com/user/ThatVidBlasterGuy).

If you are interested in being a guest to shamelessly promote your own show or product, drop me a note. We're probably very compatible.

mcphillips
03-08-2014, 09:14 PM
At your age, you need to get in as many shows as you can before it's too late.

TomSinclair
03-10-2014, 10:38 AM
You're right. I get any older and I'll be forced to do a Sunday AM tech show!

mcphillips
03-10-2014, 10:59 AM
That's the problem with the age thing, Tom. You don't realize that you're WAY past that point.

JDavidPugh
03-11-2014, 08:54 AM
All I can say is wow.......

I wish I had found this site/forum before my experience with the pompous dick@@@@ owner of VidBlaster.
This guy is some piece of work.......... I invested $1000 in purchasing his software only to be treated like a 2 year old
by him on the Forum when asking questions about the software, bugs, features, etc..
I guess Forum means "only as I see fit" according to the law of Mike on the VidBlaster site....

Sadly, this is your only means of obtaining any support and patch fixes as the numerous bugs in this software are repaired.
For my latest attempt to join in a forum discussion of one of this modules this is the result.

208

So not only am I a paying customer, I am an ignorant paying customer........Interesting........
I may have thought it at times but have never had the guts to say that to one of my customers.....
I don't think I would be in business long........

So now as a paying customer I am without tech support and denied access to a patch to correct several bugs I found, reported, and offered solution guidance on.

Unfortunately for me, at this point, I cannot comment to the favorable attributes of Wirecast.
I can only enlighten you with my experience with VidBlaster which has not been a pleasant one.

The software is decent but the licensing structure and features are limited without a $2000 investment of which you buy features now that may or may not be available in future updates.

Simple common features such as adjusting camera settings are buried deep in menus with elaborate key schemes to access which are also by the way undocumented in any of the manuals. Which according to a snarky message from Mike were "Undocumented for your own good". Seriously? Camera Settings? Oh that's right.......I am a two year old.......

Why would one feel the need to bury camera image exposure settings in a program supposedly geared toward quality image broadcast?

Part of our purchasing decision was based on the ability to have a pseudo-hardware switcher setup utilizing the Novation Launchpad as advertised by Vidblaster.

After purchasing the software (which was rushed in an attempt to get a broadcast online) we now discover that this was specific only to the Novation Launchpad (No Longer In Production) is the only unit supported in the integrated package within VidBlaster. Not the Launchpad S or the Launchpad Mini which are the currently available units from Novation. If you are planning on implementing this feature utilizing VidBlaster search the pawn shops for a controller first. As of now I have struck out in finding one.

VidBlasters only redeeming feature is the presence of Tom Sinclair. My mistake was purchasing directly from Mike and not through a reseller like Tom. Tom has tried his best to answer question albeit in the form of PM's and emails as apparently you dare not ask a question on the forum without fear of repercussion.

Mike is non-appreciative of his customers and will not be receiving another penny of my money...

My recommendation is that unless VidBlaster offers you some feature that is just totally irresistible and other vendors cannot offer the same or even marginally the same..........Save your money........Dealing with Mike is just not worth it........

oscarmartz
03-11-2014, 08:57 AM
and another one bites the dust.... I would suggest trying Wirecast. There are a lot of people on this forum that use it everyday.

JDavidPugh
03-11-2014, 09:55 AM
and another one bites the dust.... I would suggest trying Wirecast. There are a lot of people on this forum that use it everyday.

Thanks Oscar......that is the plan...........I have been hearing a lot of good and far less bad things about it......
Just got to wait until the budget piggy bank refills after the failure with VidBlaster.........
I have requested, but do not expect, a refund from Mike for my 2 weeks of use from VidBlaster........
HAHAHAHA I know right! :D

cseeman
03-11-2014, 10:05 AM
Probably one of the best features of Wirecast is its support.
The Telestream Wirecast forum is very active (with yours truly of course). They also provide email support.
There's also an 99$/year Premium support which expedites the email response, adds phone support and also includes remote login so one of the techs can look at your setup first hand.

I'm not sure about VidBlaster's licensing but Wirecast allows you to activate a second computer so you can have a backup ready to go if needed. Additionally you can move the licenses from one to another computer in 15 minutes or less.

Support has to be considered a key feature.

I think it would serve Mike V. best if he handed sales and support to his VARs and focus on programming. I think that would greatly improve the VidBlaster user experience.

JDavidPugh
03-11-2014, 11:06 AM
That depends on the package you buy.........

Single user can be installed and activated on multiple computers but single use per session only.....
Desktop is tied to a single machine but can be used by multiple users? I didn't get this at all.......... as its more expensive.....

Oh wait the far superior being Mike V. has some super secret NSA link that's stealing your Webcam signal so see who is sitting at the console running your licensed copy of VB

Oh well just chalk that up to the goofiness of the whole VidBlaster Experience "scuse me while I eat some pie"....in a vague Jimmy Hendrix style....... LOL

JDavidPugh
03-11-2014, 11:49 AM
Ok I have had a full 15 minutes to play with Wirecast............
GOD WAS I AN IDIOT!
;)

JDavidPugh
03-12-2014, 02:56 AM
Ok I am sold! As a user of both Vidblaster (former) and Wirecast I can honestly say now that Wirecast is far superior on every front.....
The whole system is running at about 1/3 the CPU requirement (encoding at 720p) of just running the VidBlaster interface alone (no encoder active).
The layering concept (both from the master layers and shot layers) is a powerhouse for shot development and the ability to save complex shots in a single block without using up 3-5 of your precious VidBlaster modules is incredible........
The Chroma Keyer is already has more separation than that of VB even testing on a dimly lit hotel room wall. I cannot wait to get my actual green screen behind me to see how well it works..........I could go on and on just from about 8 hours of initial testing but you get the picture (pun) LOL.

Somebody send a message to the Wirecast group and be sure they send Mike V. his commission check........He sold another (and quite possibly several if my project flies) copy(s) of WireCast yesterday!

JDavidPugh
03-12-2014, 04:19 AM
Sorry to keep hammering this post guys but Wirecast will just not stop impressing me!

I just figured out a neat new feature that is going to keep me from lugging extra screens around just for capture! Which by the way was impossible with VidBlaster!

With the formidable powers I now posses to crop video windows with ease I can now setup all of my capture screens (weather radar feeds, Skype video windows, and send them off to separate virtual full screen desktops never to be "popped over" again! FULL HD
screen captures! WOOOOOOOOOHOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!

This is available using the NVidia NView desktop manager...........

Its a little tricky at first..........you have to setup the application capture on your main (default) desktop and get the capture started before you send it to its holding desktop. But other than that flawless..........

JDavidPugh
03-12-2014, 04:45 AM
Probably one of the best features of Wirecast is its support.
The Telestream Wirecast forum is very active (with yours truly of course). They also provide email support.
There's also an 99$/year Premium support which expedites the email response, adds phone support and also includes remote login so one of the techs can look at your setup first hand..

Support? Whats support? LOL........... Glad to hear that, but honestly at this point I have not even had a moment of possibly needing any due to the intuitive nature of the layering. I have tested some pretty complex scenes with in one shot. Overlays, chromakey, 4 layered video feeds including two virtual desktop captures and live text...........Amazing how simple the setup is and that you can save it for immediate recall! And I did all this without a single forum infraction point!

I now see that this whole thread was a mute point as THERE IS NO COMPARISON!

In the words of the infamous Mike V.
[Topic Closed] You have Received (5) Infraction Points For Even Starting This Thread! :cool:

JDavidPugh
03-15-2014, 07:14 AM
Well after a few days to really evaluate the full picture...........Every thing about Wirecast is superior to Vidblaster in every way.
CPU usage with Wirecast streaming at Maximum settings about 50 percent of the usage of just the VB interface alone.
My stream quality at 720p (with a ingress limit of 1000kbps) is far superior to that of VB.
The addition of actively developed third party applications to control Wirecast (ShotKicker and MidiMate) is phenomenal!
Users actively engaged and friendly on the support forum! SWEET!
I really have to give many thumbs up to those guys over there but I only have 2!
I have immediately licensed Pro and am not turning back unless I decide to buy a Tricaster! LOL

Amnon
03-16-2014, 03:14 PM
Well, the only reason I still use VB for switching, is 'the way' it handles capturing multiple screen regions. The minute WC makes it similar to VB, I'll go with WC all the way. Everything else you say about WC is true though.

cseeman
03-16-2014, 04:19 PM
Well, the only reason I still use VB for switching, is 'the way' it handles capturing multiple screen regions. The minute WC makes it similar to VB, I'll go with WC all the way. Everything else you say about WC is true though.

Amnon, have you seen Wirecast 5 Local Desktop Presenter? You can now run multiple instances, each grabbing a different window for example.

Amnon
03-16-2014, 04:31 PM
I use version 5 (for streaming only right now), and from what I am told the 'local' DTP has to run in full screen. The problem is also that cropping the area you want on DTP takes time, while in VB you mark the top left and swipe to the lower right. With Skype group video (we use that for our show) as people drop and then maybe come back, the content of the modules (shots) changes because the screen changes, and you have to quickly recapture new shots. Fast with VB (less than 5 seconds each shot) vs WC (20 to 30 seconds if you are real good). We asked them to look into that :-)
Now, if we were running multiple Skype machines (on per guest) then yes, it will work.

cseeman
03-16-2014, 05:04 PM
I use version 5 (for streaming only right now), and from what I am told the 'local' DTP has to run in full screen. .....
Who told you that. Not true. Local can target a program window. Local DTP doesn't have Region Selections (yet) but it can select separate program windows. Group Skype would be one window though. I just want to clarify you can definitely capture separate program windows though.

andrewzarian
03-16-2014, 05:10 PM
@Cseeman . It actually wouldn't for for Amnon via Local Desktop Presenter. He is doing a group Skype call then individually selecting each person. On a side note I use Desktop Presenter on my Wirecast machine and capture the region. Never had had any issues

cseeman
03-16-2014, 05:49 PM
@Cseeman . It actually wouldn't for for Amnon via Local Desktop Presenter. He is doing a group Skype call then individually selecting each person. On a side note I use Desktop Presenter on my Wirecast machine and capture the region. Never had had any issues

Remote Desktop Presenter does have region select but only one instance. Local Desktop Presenter doesn't have region select but does allow multiple instances.

I would like Local DTP to have region selections. I use Group Skype as well.

JDavidPugh
03-18-2014, 06:53 AM
UPDATE!:

Sweet! My rave reviews of Wirecast qualified me for a free "upgrade" from VidBlaster!

http://i1316.photobucket.com/albums/t609/jdavidpugh/VidblasterBanPermanent_zps19b7b32e.png

ROFL

JDavidPugh
03-18-2014, 07:22 AM
I use multiple shot instances of the presenter (local and remote) to capture a single window with different "crop" settings to capture different portions of a single window into unique shots.......

I am quite sure with a little creativity you could get the effect you want........

I think the key here is remembering the Master Layers as well..........as you can "build up" the shot similar to the way you have to use the PIP modules in Vidblaster currently to build the shot you are using now.....

Same effect......just different methodology........

I do agree however that click and drag cropping/resize cropping would be a nice feature to add to Wirecast!

But do not remove the sliders.......they are great for "exact" cropping to remove windows borders etc......from screen captures...

After reading this I wanted to clarify how I am doing this with remote.....

I capture the whole window in the remote..........Then I use different "shots" of the remote with different crop settings to part out the screen into the information I want at the time.

Another useless tip that I have come across is the use of the Nvidia NView Desktop manager....
I have created several virtual desktops to keep the real estate on the main desktop clear when doing captures......
Once I set up the capture for a screen I send it to a virtual desktop where it is free from items popping up over it.....

The trick here is that the capture has to be initiated on the Default desktop (The one where you are running Wirecast). If you do not do this Wirecast will not "see" the application so that you can start the capture with the presenter. Once you have started the window capture send it off to another desktop where it will continue capturing as normal leaving your main desktop free to do with as you wish without interrupting the capture screen.

The real beauty of this is the ability to freely resize the captured screen closer to the size of the actual broadcast area so that artifacts/aliasing are minimized due to rescaling for broadcast.

AlBurr
03-18-2014, 08:36 AM
UPDATE!:

Sweet! My rave reviews of Wirecast qualified me for a free "upgrade" from VidBlaster!

http://i1316.photobucket.com/albums/t609/jdavidpugh/VidblasterBanPermanent_zps19b7b32e.png

ROFL

Wow I work in a highly competitive space can't imagine us ever banning a customer from our forums for speaking the truth or even expressing their opinions about our competitors. We moderate for language and personal attacks but not open discussions regarding our software. We welcome the feedback.

Amnon
03-18-2014, 12:34 PM
You have sense !!!

JDavidPugh
03-18-2014, 01:37 PM
Wow I work in a highly competitive space can't imagine us ever banning a customer from our forums for speaking the truth or even expressing their opinions about our competitors. We moderate for language and personal attacks but not open discussions regarding our software. We welcome the feedback.

Yeah the really sad part is I was banned from that forum apparently from what I said on THIS forum....LOL
Since I have not been on that forum since my earlier ban which was only supposed to be for a month! LOL
Its the all seeing stink eye!!!!!!!!!!! ROFL

I can say with a pretty high level of confidence that the only person lower on the customer service totem pole is the guy who serves the ice water in hell! LOL

Amnon
03-18-2014, 03:02 PM
You are being banned from nothing !!! really, it is a worthless forum at this point.

JDavidPugh
03-18-2014, 05:40 PM
You are being banned from nothing !!! really, it is a worthless forum at this point.

Totally agreed Amnon...........

PaulSaunders
05-22-2014, 06:14 AM
Serious question :

Is anyone here still using Vidblaster? I could see the argument to use it a few years ago but between the lack of support and crudeness of the creator of the software I don't see why anyone would use it.

andrewzarian
05-22-2014, 04:58 PM
I have gone 100% Wirecast at this point. Its sad for a few reasons. 1. the amount of money that I had invested in Vidbaster was probably around 4 grand. 2. The software had many advantages over Wirecast for a while. It just couldn't keep up and evolve

jamesdelfresco
05-22-2014, 07:25 PM
Have not looked back since switching over from Vidblaster a while ago. Wirecast and Vmix are great replacements for Vidblaster