Results
5 FXScript Language Items:
4 User Comments:
Slower than Matte
When used to transfer one frame to another without scaling, Blit is basically the same as Matte, except nearly five times slower.
When scaling, Blit is slower than creating the same effect with a combination of BlitRect and Matte.
...
Opaque? Not quite.
The FCP manual states that BlitRect is "treated as opaque," but that's a little misleading. What BlitRect actually does is completely replace pixels in the destination buffer. If the source pixels are transparent, the destination pixels will be transparent as well. Considering how much slower Blit is, in most cases BlitRect is a better option...
Speed: BlitRect vs. Blit
Using a simple speed test filter to compare Blit to BlitRect, Blit took 30% longer to render....
Bugs
There is a bug in ImageXor which will do something to corrupt the first source image passed to it. I've found it will taint the whole image buffer even affecting processes later on. The effect is unpredictable color, either on the desktop preview or the video monitor. This can sometimes look like a RGB in YUV color error, but doesn't seem to be correctable with PixelFormat functions.
A workaround I've found...
