The Future Of QuickTime

Stonefield wrote on 5/11/2005, 12:43 AM
For those who are interested , ( and this isn't a plug for FCP )...

QuickTime 7 is looking pretty cool.

http://www.apple.com/quicktime/

Love those High Def movie trailers.

Produce professional-quality live events for online delivery to the desktop or mobile phone — quickly, easily and affordably...( Now you'll be able to watch those Stonefield Media model shoots live ! )

QuickTime 7 features a state-of-the-art video codec called H.264, which delivers stunning quality at remarkably low data rates.

..............for those of us that have HUGE online aspirations, the future of internet video is looking really sweet, cool and fun.

On to the future....

Stonefield

PS....yes I still prefer WMV , but Apple just makes stuff look so cool.

Comments

Jay Gladwell wrote on 5/11/2005, 5:23 AM

Stan, where did you get QuickTime 7? As best I can tell, it isn't available yet.


cspvideo wrote on 5/11/2005, 5:26 AM
It's not available for Windows yet.
Jay Gladwell wrote on 5/11/2005, 5:44 AM

Wow... so Stan is one of them, huh? I would have never guessed it. Gee whiz... it's hard to tell just by looking, isn't it?

;o)


Spot|DSE wrote on 5/11/2005, 6:16 AM
Hey! I'm one of "them" too. Quicktime 7 is a great step up, but frankly, most of that is because Windows is just too dang lazy to make/host codecs that can be used for easy file interchange. The only really sweet thing about Quicktime is the H.264 packaging, IMO. I wish Windows, Sony, and everyone else would get this slammin' sooner rather than the inevitable later.
Jay Gladwell wrote on 5/11/2005, 6:30 AM

Douglas, you just shattered my image of you! You're an Apple-type. too? Well, such is life, I guess. Nobody's perfect.

;o)


Coursedesign wrote on 5/11/2005, 7:27 AM
Jay,

Apple didn't invent H.264.

They had to get something new to replace the older generation of codecs, and they had three choices: Windows Media 9, DivX or H.264.

WM9 would not have been possible obviously... Accept anything from the Evil Empire?

DivX, sure, but not the right connotations for Apple perhaps

H.264 wasn't ready when Apple made the decision, and it wasn't for sure that it would be so great. Still, it had the imprimatur of an international standard and its buzz got hotter and hotter. Good choice I think.

Just remember that it's early days for this codec. On the Apple platform, only those with recent high performance Macs will be able to play the files, so don't get carried away about its usefulness.

Bill Ravens wrote on 5/11/2005, 7:28 AM
Spot's ambi-dextrous.
John_Cline wrote on 5/11/2005, 7:33 AM
"Spot's ambi-dextrous."

I think he's just a platform agnostic. It's all about the software and what it can do for you, not the platform on which it runs. I own a MAC, too. And it makes a damn fine (and stylish) doorstop.

John
Bill Ravens wrote on 5/11/2005, 8:22 AM
John...

Really? I thought it made a pretty nice trivett, and it fit my refried bean platter really well.
p@mast3rs wrote on 5/11/2005, 8:23 AM
Just an FYI, Apple's H.264 codec is sub par in quality to anything offered at this point. For the best quality H.264 codec, one only needs to look at Nero. The sad thing is QT 7 takes much longer to encode H.264 on their "faster" <wink> dual proc machines than it does for Nero to encode the same source on PC. Sadly, Nero still produces BETTER quality in half the time.

Word also has it that Apple used some of the Sorenson H.264 code in QT 7 and if true, then QT H.264 goes as Sorenson H.264 goes. At this point, Sorenson sorely lacks the speed and quality to be a major player at this point in the game.

The only thing Apple has going for itself right now in the H.264 game is that DVD Studio Pro 4 will produce "early" HD-DVDs with H.264. Thats the ONLY benefit for them with regards to H.264. It still may mature into a great codec but if QT's history is any indication, they will rely on Sorenson to provide the quality.
John_Cline wrote on 5/11/2005, 8:36 AM
As long as we're on the subject of H.264, does anyone have an opinion on the difference in quality between the NERO H.264 codec and the one from MainConcept?

John
Bill Ravens wrote on 5/11/2005, 8:48 AM
to date, the Nero H.264 is the best, bar none.
p@mast3rs wrote on 5/11/2005, 9:00 AM
John,

Mainconcept has to be the worst commercially available H.264 codec. Slowest by far and way too much blocking. Its quite sad considering the price point for it as well.

Check out the doom9 forums as there is a thread that discusses the poor quality of the mainconcept encoder.
[r]Evolution wrote on 5/11/2005, 7:19 PM
I use Mac at times also.

I drive a Chevrolet... my girlfriend drives a Ford. And... Yes, we sometimes swap vehicles.

The ends justifies the means. That's the reason I use Vegas 6. I feel it's means are what I need to find my ends. If it were only available on the Mac platform... that's what I would use.

Must admit, it's a lot cheaper and easier to work on and upgrade my PC. At the same time, I rarely have conflicting devices on my Mac but I don't have as big a range of choice.

Stonefield wrote on 5/11/2005, 9:37 PM

For the record, I'm a 100 percent user of PC and Vegas.

I've nothing against Macs probably because I don't use them. But they ARE quite pretty. I know by not using one I'm an extremely uncool person, but the lingerie and bikini clad models I work with think my uncoolness is sweet.

It's a good time to be a nerd. Thank you Sony Vegas.

Jay_Mitchell wrote on 5/12/2005, 1:16 AM
I think that Motion-JPEG2000 beats the pants off of H.264 in that you can scale down from a mother file to a lower resolution on the fly. And, it has alot to offer for those who archive.

BTW, I am one of them also. H.264 comes with the the new Tiger OS from Apple.

Jay Mitchell
B_JM wrote on 5/12/2005, 6:24 AM
Motion-JPEG2000 is more a storage / interm file (and very good) , while H264 is a delivery format and the two should not be compared ..


like comparing gifs to cineon
riredale wrote on 5/12/2005, 8:51 AM
Has anyone done any tests to compare H.264 with MPEG2? What kind of a bitrate reduction is reasonable? I've seen the static shots on MainConcept's site, but find their claims a bit hard to swallow.

Let's say I have an MPEG2 encoded at 6Mb/sec, 480x720. At that rate, pretty darn clean. Now, what bitrate would H.264 need to match it? 2? 1?
B_JM wrote on 5/12/2005, 8:55 AM
25% - 33% generally
kentwolf wrote on 5/25/2005, 1:45 AM
Can someone please tell me:

1.) Can I render to Quicktime (*.MOV) files with Vegas 6 if I install a Quicktime codec?

I ask because I imported an Extensis Portfolio Quicktime image movie to the Vegas 6 timeline and it doesn't seem to be working too well. Lots of "blackness" on the preview screen. It seems to be choking like MPG2.

2.) If so, exactly what constitutes the Quicktime codec? I thought it would be Quicktime Pro, however, after reading it, it seems like a just a glorified player. Does anyone have a link to the codec buy age; again, only if #1 is correct.

I am completely new to QT, so if someone can get me started here, I will be on my way... :)

Thanks!
farss wrote on 5/25/2005, 3:41 AM
Quicktime is only a wrapper like avi, so a .mov file can use any of a number of codecs.
kentwolf wrote on 5/25/2005, 3:44 AM
I see. I did not realize that.

At the end of the day, however, what would I need to buy in order to make Quicktime files, or is that not even answerable?

Thanks.
MarkWWW wrote on 5/25/2005, 11:56 AM
No need to pay for QuickTime Pro, just download the free version of Quicktime from the Apple website.

When you install it, you *must* install the "authoring components" - easiest way is just to do a full install rather than the typical one it suggests.

Then you should be all set to render to .mov from Vegas.

Mark
Coursedesign wrote on 5/25/2005, 12:15 PM
This works well, just be sure to change the default keyframe value to 300 or so.

The default is a fraction of that, and this creates huge files.

Also remember that QT for inexplicable reasons specifies bit rates in kilobytes/second instead of kilobits/second like everybody else. Just multiply whatever it shows by 8, so you know that "40" [kB/s] is really 320 kb/s...

The kB instead of kb concept must have been created by the same guy at Apple who insists on single-button mice, perhaps to honor of the original Xerox Star 8010 (a beautiful word processing computer that was way ahead of its time and had the first mouse).

Good to see that many of Apple's application developers have switched to supporting at least two-button mice, and that computer stores that specialize in Apple gear also sell multi-button mice nowadays.

Me, I couldn't live without my 7-button Logitech mouse... :O)

I have switched from MS keyboards and mice to Logitech (the LX700 wireless kbd & mouse is my favorite, they work 100% and feel great). Recently, I haven't seen a single MS keyboard at any price that I would want to use, it's sad to see them deteriorate so much. Their mice are still OK, but Logitech has definitely passed them in this area too.