VidBlaster's Mike Versteeg is at it again!

[Amnon]

Im hoping the next thing we can start working on is CPU optimization.

(IMHO) If he can do that, than he is worse than I thought as far as a business man. I wonder how many people jumped ship (to Wirecast) because there was no Slow motion, or no 'new VVD' ??? I think I read that a few jumped ship because of CPU load. What do you guys think is more important for him (as a business man) to work on? :-)

[BradShoemaker]

Slow Motion and VVD are important, but I agree with Andrew. It is a resource hog and I think several people don't try it because they can't get it to work with their systems. So in some ways he may lose customers to those features not existing, but in other ways he is losing new customers because they can run Wirecast on a lesser machine.

[Amnon]

Slow Motion and VVD are important, but I agree with Andrew. It is a resource hog and I think several people don't try it because they can't get it to work with their systems. So in some ways he may lose customers to those features not existing, but in other ways he is losing new customers because they can run Wirecast on a lesser machine.

I mentioned these two features because I was under the impression that WC did not have them either :-)

[TomSinclair]

As the cost ratio of PC hardware (cost vs. power) continues to drop,
VidBlaster's CPU use will become less and less of an issue. I'm not
suggesting we wouldn't want it to become more efficient in its use of
resources, but that CPUs will catch up, and folks will inevitably
upgrade their systems as more powerful and less expensive options emerge.

And... Slo-mo Instant Replay will bring a flood of new users into the
marketplace, from small colleges and semi-pro sports teams to local high
schools & sports clubs. Its not that these new users were on the
fence asking themselves: "Should I chose Wirecast or VidBlaster?" No,
this will be a whole new class of users that will be drawn into the live
streaming software market and choose VidBlaster because of this
feature. Plus, compared what it costs today to purchase a live slo-mo
instant replay system, VidBlaster will be clearly more cost effective.

This is a game changer, folks.

[Amnon]

Plus, compared what it costs today to purchase a live slo-mo
instant replay system, VidBlaster will be clearly more cost effective.
This is a game changer, folks.

I cannot argue with you Tom. You have been in this a lot longer than me, and you know your stuff :-) I guess I shouldn't have started this thread without having all the facts.
Onward....

[TomSinclair]

Not sure if this was intended, but Mike let slip that he was going to be working on the new Slo-Mo Instant Replay system for the next two weeks. Does that mean we will have a beta to play with by mid June???

WOW!

[Linuxcooldude]

As the cost ratio of PC hardware (cost vs. power) continues to drop,
VidBlaster's CPU use will become less and less of an issue. I'm not
suggesting we wouldn't want it to become more efficient in its use of
resources, but that CPUs will catch up, and folks will inevitably
upgrade their systems as more powerful and less expensive options emerge.

And... Slo-mo Instant Replay will bring a flood of new users into the
marketplace, from small colleges and semi-pro sports teams to local high
schools & sports clubs. Its not that these new users were on the
fence asking themselves: "Should I chose Wirecast or VidBlaster?" No,
this will be a whole new class of users that will be drawn into the live
streaming software market and choose VidBlaster because of this
feature. Plus, compared what it costs today to purchase a live slo-mo
instant replay system, VidBlaster will be clearly more cost effective.

This is a game changer, folks.

Waiting for newer technology to solve a software issue is not really fixing the problem. They will add more features in future upgrades that could even make it worse by bogging down the processor further, even with faster CPU or whatever.

Don't see Slo-Mo feature in of itself as a game changer. A really neat feature to be sure. Broadcasting software is really for a niche market, let alone a niche feature primarily useful in sports. As a broadcaster I don't see where I would ever use such a feature, now or in the future.

[TomSinclair]

Ah, my cool dude friend. You and I are probably from the same generation or close. You'd be amazed at the number of inquiries I still get about my sports broadcasting venture. They don't want to hire me, they want to do it themselves. High school. Junior High School. Little League, Club soccer, volleyball, and the list goes on and on.

It's not the existing internet broadcasters that will jump on the new VidBlaster, it's a whole new crop of broadcasters. All newbies, well, mostly.

Case in point: I was at a high school sports booster club meeting last week and after the meeting one of the geeky dads on the back row approached me and asked me if I was the sportscaster guy. Turned out he was a former TV broadcast engineer and was amazed at what we could do with a little PC and a few cameras. He's probably never watched an internet talk show like yours or mine (and probably never will), but he was tuned on by the thought that he could put his kid (a football player, go figure) on internet TV for his far-away family to watch.

It a new game. Played by new players.

BTW, software always pushes the limits of hardware, rarely the opposite.

[Linuxcooldude]

BTW, software always pushes the limits of hardware, rarely the opposite.

I usually find the exact opposite. I think its because of the natural progression of hardware gets developed first, then followed by software is written to support it. Microsoft for instance does not develop any PC's that their software runs on, as well as the multitude of third party hardware devices and software that follow. Obviously It took a long time to get operating systems to 64 bit, then software applications to suport multiple cores. Some still don't.