Which one do you use and why? Both are amazing programs for broadcasting and have their pros and cons?
Printable View
Which one do you use and why? Both are amazing programs for broadcasting and have their pros and cons?
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
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.
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.
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...
Joe Loves Vidblaster :)
Please do.Quote:
Originally Posted by joedemax
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by TomSinclair
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"Quote:
Originally Posted by TomSinclair
This is a nice featureQuote:
Originally Posted by TomSinclair
Again, this is an excellent feature.Quote:
Originally Posted by TomSinclair
In my experience Wirecast's chroma keyer is far far better.Quote:
Originally Posted by TomSinclair
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]Quote:
Originally Posted by TomSinclair
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by TomSinclair
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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!
Perhaps the poll could be expanded to include other software options out there? (hint hint!)
Martin
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/Quote:
Originally Posted by andrewzarian
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
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.
Welcome to the IAIB Marin! You might want to introduce yourself and your software in the Industry Provider section of the forum here:Quote:
Originally Posted by vmix
http://forum.ibroadcastnetwork.org/f...stry-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!
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.
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.
James try not to, use to much CPU when running Vidblaster. Not too many other programs and windows open, on your computer.Quote:
Originally Posted by jamesdelfresco
A big reason why I like Wirecast.Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt Casillas
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.
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
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...
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by William Thomas
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by William Thomas
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.
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?op...nica&Itemid=57
.
or this:
.
http://www.maxsalino.it/index.php?op...nica&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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Vidblaster has a full trial version so there is no need to waste your money to see if it will work for you.
It appears that Mr. 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.
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).
