View Full Version : Wirecast 4.2 released tonight (9/19/12)

09-19-2012, 10:22 PM
Wirecast 4.2 with the long-awaited Virtual Camera Output was released tonight. Download your copy here (http://kari.telestream.net/lz//lz.aspx?p1=05078855S3701&CC=&w=2685&cID=0&cValue=1). Release notes here (http://www.telestream.net/download-files/wirecast/4-2/rel-Wirecast-4.2.pdf).

No, I have not gone over to the dark side, just trying to be fair. :)

09-19-2012, 10:56 PM
;) Thanks.
Added 1920x2080 to canvas size in addition to 1440x1080. That can help resolution when using a full 1920x1080 source.
Custom Canvas Size good for games and other odd screen sized sources.

09-20-2012, 02:44 AM
And now there aren't any software switchers that can compete. Bye bye Vidblaster (sorry Tom).

09-20-2012, 04:09 AM
I spent a couple of hours last night trying to create a video setup that would allow me to create some YouTube tutorials. While I could always get the video to work (Vidblaster, XSplit, and Logitech Webcam), the audio seemed compressed. My next test was Wirecast on my Macbook Air. That didn't go well, either. It crashed with a spinning color wheel icon. After I forcefully shut down the app and restarted it. Wirecast said there was an update. After I updated it, things seemed to work well. Unfortunately it was late, so I didn't get much time to experiment.

So at this point I'm going to try to get these reviews done using the Mac, but I need to find out what's going on with the other applications in Windows 7. At one point I thought my sound card might be bad, but upon further testing, it seemed fine. Maybe I have something set wrong in the audio settings.

Video recording software is still magic to me. I may just go buy a video camera.

09-20-2012, 05:18 AM
What do you guys think of it? I have been using it for some time now and think there are some great features.

09-20-2012, 05:23 AM
And now there aren't any software switchers that can compete. Bye bye Vidblaster
Bye bye spino !!!

09-20-2012, 05:45 AM
Spino I still think Vidbaster is a major competitor. Im a fan of the modular UI. But with that said there are a few things Vidblaster needs to fix ASAP.

HD Optimization, Dropped Framerate, Tearing video....

09-20-2012, 06:55 AM
Spino I still think Vidbaster is a major competitor. Im a fan of the modular UI. But with that said there are a few things Vidblaster needs to fix ASAP.

HD Optimization, Dropped Framerate, Tearing video....

As I wrote in another post, I think that at a first look, the Vidblaster interface can be attractive because it is more close to what happens in a real TV control room, the switcher module is similar at a (very small) portion of a professional switcher like Grass Valley. That said I think that Wirecast has a different approach to the production but with many more capabilities (I already describe this in another post). My opinion is that we must forget the traditional way used to produce TV shows because a software switcher, even if well written, can't replay all the functions a professional switcher has (you need an hardware switcher for that) but we must think at our live production with a different approach and I think that, at the moment, Wirecast, for what it can do, hasn't any rival. This is just my opinion of course.

09-20-2012, 07:27 AM
My opinion is that we must forget the traditional way used to produce TV shows
I was never involved with producing a TV show, so I don't have any idea what I am suppose to forget :-) All I know is that VB allows me to do what I want, how I want it, and with little to no effort. I am the owner of WC too, and from time to time I try it, but I still can't figure out how to do a show with it. All the extra features and approaches that WC has, cannot compare (IMHO) to the ease of VB use. Sure, I had a fax machine that had 100 buttons on the front and did many things, but when it came down to it, all I needed was to send a fax, and receive one, and those buttons and features stayed unused. Get my point ???
Do I like Mike's attitude? No! Would I want to see other options added to VB? You bet! And it will happen, slowly but surely. When there are two main competitors, the users are the winners.

09-20-2012, 07:35 AM
And now there aren't any software switchers that can compete. Bye bye Vidblaster (sorry Tom).

Shall I rise to the bait??? Don't think so. Sorry Spino.

09-20-2012, 07:57 AM
To me the biggest difference between VidBlaster and Wirecast is the compositing. Maybe some people don't like the potential density/complexity in Wirecast. I go back to linear editing days with Grass Valley 300 switchers (actually before that but I show my age).

In Wirecast each shot can have 7 layers. Layers can be anything from cameras to screengrabs, video files, logos, audio, lower thirds, layers of all the above for picture in picture. That includes things like separate audio from each source if needed. All these "travel" with the composited shot.

In addition to that there are five master layers. They too can be anything. This allows you to separate bring on cameras, titles, transition between audio sources, etc. These might be somewhat similar to a VidBlaster module but not quite.

For me, the 7 layers shots are like Mix/Effects buses (keep in mind I have no limit to the number of shots). The 5 Master Layers are like "Downstream" keyers etc. These are titles and audio, etc that I can control independent of the shot that on air.

For example: I may have One 4 way PiP with lower third and guest audio, Then Three 2 way Pip with each guest and their audio and lower third. Then 4 solo shots tied to guest audio and lower third (except my shot). This is in one Master layer.

In a Master Layer below that I have my audio so I can bring it in and out independent of the other shots which the audio of the guest is tied to so their audio is gone when I cut away from them. I can keep my audio on so I can talk on air to guests even if my video isn't in the shot. In another Master Layer below that I have a background that all the PiP shots go over (and am free to change independent of the PiP shots. in an upper Master Layer I have lower thirds that go over my shot (they may change for various reasons, I can also use them to cover the lower thirds tied to the guest shots/PiP shots. All this might be hard to visualize.

In VidBlaster it seems I only have Master Layers (although many more than 5 though). That means things need to be brought on independently so I find I'm doing a lot more clicking around during a show. It seems a hardware audio mixer plays a much more important role.

VidBlaster does have some excellent features such as multiple screengrabbers, replay, built in playlist and Virtual Camera (which Wirecast finally has) but I just can't get the composite complexity and the ability to go from one shot (7 layers) to another shot (can be different 7 layers) like I can in Wirecast in as few clicks since I can pre build it in Wirecast. Granted many people don't do shows like that, hence my comment the density/complexity. Some people don't like it or need it. Some might prefer more modules than just 5 Master Layers feeling that forces you into pre building some things.

09-20-2012, 08:30 AM
Ok guys, I must ask to excuse me if I appear polemical, I haven't any problem with the users of this forum and with Tom at most (I have a lot of problems with Mike Versteeg: the last one is that after a lot of messages sent to Mr. Versteeg with no response asking to remove my account from Vidblaster forum, I had to ask my attorney to write to European Commission for Protecting Data to denounce this situation). Anyway I'm really convinced that the capabilities that Wirecast offers are many more than what Vidblaster offers, I already explained this with argued opinions in another post and I don't want repeat those here. Amnon, I understand you like Vidblaster, I don't know what you need for your productions but I can guarantee that Wirecast can have the same ease that Vidblaster has. I confess that when I started to try these two programs (some years ago) I had the same your impression: Vidblaster is easy, Wirecast is complicated but, after some time to analyze them I totally changed my mind. Probably just some more time is required to understand the "philosophy" of Wirecast but if you try, I'm sure you can do what you are doing now with the same ease.
Again excuse me, the last thing I want is to appear rude and probably also my poor English contributes to this.

09-20-2012, 08:51 AM
I got a chance to test out the new Wirecast last night! To me the little changes they made to the layout really makes the product look and feel better. Don't know why but it did! Also the Wirecast Virtual Camera Output worked great! I got a full 30fps in Skype to my co-host and it was almost in real time when I switched on Wirecast to what they saw in Skype. Like 0.5 second difference.

The virtual camera has come a long way since the beta version and I am VERY excited to be able to send return video to my co-host.

Now if they could find a way to send the virtual camera across the network to another machine THAT would be amazing. :)

CPU Usage was still at around 50 percent sending 720p, recording and sending the virtual camera. So they have improved some code in the main Wirecast program as well.

I am very happy with the new update and can't wait to use it for next weeks show!