Snow Leopard to offer screen recording via QuickTime X Player

[AppleInsider]

With the introduction of Snow Leopard, QuickTime Player will assume more of a utilitarian role, with screen recording features reportedly joining the software's exiting repertoire of basic audio and video capture capabilities.

People familiar with the latest betas of Mac OS X 10.6 Snow Leopard have been reporting over the past several weeks the addition of a 'Screen recording' option in the File menu of the new Quick Time X Player due to ship with the OS overhaul later this summer.

Similar in many ways to a feature long offered by Ambrosia Software through its Snapz Pro X utility, the option will allow users to capture in motion video their Mac's screen -- essentially video screenshots.

Such a feature will be particularly useful for software developers and educators, as it will simplify the process of creating video tutorials, software demonstrations, and anything else best captured in live motion as opposed to still shots.

When selecting the screen recording option under recent pre-release distributions of Snow Leopard, a recording interface prompts the user to begin a video capture then disappears. A small footprint controller in the upper-right hand side of the Mac OS X menubar can be used to end the video capture.

While its unclear if the feature is fully functional in build 10A335 released Thursday, it wasn't in earlier builds, often creating an empty .mov file, those familiar with the software say.

An artist's mockup of the minimal QuickTime X Player window interface with the "trim" tools overlay.

QuickTime X -- along with the minimal-interfaced QuickTime X Player (renditions) -- leverages media technology pioneered by Apple for the iPhone OS. When it makes its debut on the Mac with Snow Leopard, it'll offer optimize support for modern audio and video formats resulting in extremely efficient media playback, the company has said. [ View this article at AppleInsider.com ] (http://www.appleinsider.com/article.php?id=11205)

[solipsism]

Snapz Pro X always gets mentioned, but I find ScreenFlow (http://www.apple.com/downloads/macosx/video/screenflow.html)to be an excellent and lightweight recording app that harnesses the power of CoreAnimation to record you screen, audio, webcam, and even your keyboard input with powerful and simple editing tools included. I hope Apple is taking notes from that amazing app for QuickTime X.

[whatisgoingon]

This will just lead to widespread copyright infringement.

[malax]

Does it strike anyone else that QuickTime Player would be the application you use to record video?

Having said that I would really appreciate this functionality.

[modular]

This will just lead to widespread copyright infringement.

no it wont. the ability to screen capture has been around for a while. this will hurt snapz pro sales, and thats about it.

[solipsism]

This will just lead to widespread copyright infringement.

I'm not so sure about that. The removal of DRM off iTS music isn't creating any new copyright infringement as the audio could be had elsewhere and probably in better quality for free. I think the same goes for screen recording. There are already programs that do screen recording but popping in a DVD movie and recording your screen is by far one of the least efficent ways to copy video. Google already caches images and you can already drag-n-drop images or take a screen shoot of an image with OS X so I don't see what else there would be to infringe upon with built-in screen recording.

[nace33]

This will just lead to widespread copyright infringement.

Comments like this (and and the narrow minds that generate them) are what stifle growth. If people want to pirate, they'll pirate. It is ALL already available. Besides you can already screen capture if you really want to. If you are afraid that giving the end user more and more features that are easier and easier to use will just end up in copyright infringement, don't make any content to which you could be subject to such a loss.

[kim kap sol]

Does it strike anyone else that QuickTime Player would be the application you use to record video?

Having said that I would really appreciate this functionality.

The QuickTime and iTunes team have long made retarded decisions. Instead of spinning this stuff off into other apps the QT team insists on bloating the QuickTime Player with recording features.

This feature should be in Grab.app...but NOOOOOOOOOOO, Apple's QuickTime team insists on muddling the waters by making users use two different apps for screen captures.

Seriously, Apple, where's the logic? It kills me to see parts of OS X so brilliantly designed and other parts so neglected.

[Zweben]

Sounds good, but I have a feeling that this is going to be heavily locked down to keep people from removing DRM from videos. Just as you can't take screenshots with DVD player open, I bet this won't let you record video when iTunes is playing a video.

[digitalclips]

Sounds good, but I have a feeling that this is going to be heavily locked down to keep people from removing DRM from videos. Just as you can't take screenshots with DVD player open, I bet this won't let you record video when iTunes is playing a video.

I agree with you

[Trajectory]

This will be fracking AWESOME if they add this feature! It will allow my company to more easily create video tutorials of our own software products for clients.

[supremedesigner]

no it wont. the ability to screen capture has been around for a while. this will hurt snapz pro sales, and thats about it.

Well, not only snapz but other programs such as LiteSwitch X (tabbing), Lil Snitch (apple now included blocking thing), and other countless programs I cannot remember.

[walshbj]

Snapz Pro X always gets mentioned, but I find ScreenFlow (http://www.apple.com/downloads/macosx/video/screenflow.html)to be an excellent and lightweight recording app that harnesses the power of CoreAnimation to record you screen, audio, webcam, and even your keyboard input with powerful and simple editing tools included....

Screen flow shows promise. But I can't use it for annotated screencasts, even after trying a few workarounds. I couldn't find a way to make it pause playback of the recording at a given point either, to provide time for emphasizing something.

It's a great idea, but even with its new text features it falls short of what I'm looking for.

[Dlux]

Sounds good, but I have a feeling that this is going to be heavily locked down to keep people from removing DRM from videos. Just as you can't take screenshots with DVD player open, I bet this won't let you record video when iTunes is playing a video.

Actually, you can take screen shots of DVDs using Grab.app if you play them using VLC.

Not that I would ever advocate anything that would deprive the motion picture studios of their rightful licensing fees or anything...

[mdriftmeyer]

The QuickTime and iTunes team have long made retarded decisions. Instead of spinning this stuff off into other apps the QT team insists on bloating the QuickTime Player with recording features.

This feature should be in Grab.app...but NOOOOOOOOOOO, Apple's QuickTime team insists on muddling the waters by making users use two different apps for screen captures.

Seriously, Apple, where's the logic? It kills me to see parts of OS X so brilliantly designed and other parts so neglected.

Seriously, what's stopping you from working at Apple and sitting in on engineering meetings to shape the direction of the software? Your comment is a joke when you understand this "Service" won't "bloat" the software.

[hmurchison]

Ambrosia has said their successor to Snapz Pro is under development. I doubt that the developers of ScreenFlow or Snapz Pro will be significantly harmed. Just because you can record video on the screen doesn't mean you have the toolset needed to keep a current Snapz Pro, ScreenFlow or whatever screencasting app is out there.

We've long passed the "hey I can record my desktop" and now people need special features to deliver polished programs.

[timgriff84]

Whenever I see something about Quicktime it always disappoints me, not because when Apple have done isn't good, it always is. But because they just still haven't done anything to make the format popular.

For a while it was a battle between the WMP format and Quicktime and particularly in browsers neither were that great so people turned to flash and that took over internet video as it could be easily styled and could always look perfect on any site. Then came iTunes and Apples chance to get people to adopt quicktime formats, but they don't let anyone else use fairplay so the rest of the industry goes to MS as its the only choice and there fine letting people use their digital rights management. Now at least MS put support for the WMP format in Silverlight to compete with Flash along with digital rights management so its no supprise that 2 of the major tv networks in the UK have decided to go with that for there online services.

Apple could have made Quicktime great but they never make it great and easy for developers and thus they keep missing out.

[hmurchison]

Apple could have made Quicktime great but they never make it great and easy for developers and thus they keep missing out.

I think you mean Quicktime Player. Quicktime is the bedrock API behind Apple's media efforts over the last decade and a half so regardless of whether someone enjoys using the player they are benefiting from Quicktime in ways they don't even realize.

[walshbj]

Have you tried iShowU?

I'm pretty sure I tried every screencasting tool there was at the time I started my site. The lack of annotation tools forced me into a home-brew method. I don't think iShowU supports annotation, they add them in afterwards with iMovie. I actually might take a look at that. I think I did before though.

I like the way I do it because I can annotate and highlight at the same time. Still, making a decent screencast is a painful process. And there are few voices I want to listen to while watching one, including my own !

[Cubert]

The QuickTime and iTunes team have long made retarded decisions. Instead of spinning this stuff off into other apps the QT team insists on bloating the QuickTime Player with recording features.

This feature should be in Grab.app...but NOOOOOOOOOOO, Apple's QuickTime team insists on muddling the waters by making users use two different apps for screen captures.

Seriously, Apple, where's the logic? It kills me to see parts of OS X so brilliantly designed and other parts so neglected.

My guess is that it has to do with the underlying architecture of QuickTime.

[bedouin]

Good riddance. Can finally dump Snapz Pro and its retarded interface.

[kaiwai]

Don't feed the troll, whatisgoingon is yet another one of those people who post and run. Notice he couldn't be bothered hanging around for the discussion? thats the kind of scum who make such remarks simply to invoke a flame war.

[kim kap sol]

Seriously, what's stopping you from working at Apple and sitting in on engineering meetings to shape the direction of the software? Your comment is a joke when you understand this "Service" won't "bloat" the software.

Well holy shit, Mr. I-Know-It's-A-Service-And-Not-Some-Exclusive-QuickTime-Player-Feature. Are you breaking an NDA and killing bothans to get this information or are you just guessing like the rest of us?

If it's indeed a service or part of the framework and available to developers, give us some evidence.

BTW, you still haven't explained how OpenCL is dependent on OpenGL 3.1. Methinks you're just blowing a lot of hot air as usual.

[greglo]

Seriously, what's stopping you from working at Apple and sitting in on engineering meetings to shape the direction of the software? Your comment is a joke when you understand this "Service" won't "bloat" the software.

Probably a lot less than what's stopping you.

[Marvin]

I would agree that screen recording in Quicktime Player is less logical than in Grab but they may deprecate Grab altogether and just have Quicktime Player do it all.

I'm really hoping they don't have separate apps as mentioned a while back. Having Quicktime Player X separate from a Quicktime Pro app. It'll be like having to keep both imovie 08 and imovie 07.

I never actually use Grab.app as I just hit the hot-key so it makes sense to be just a quicktime service but what would be nice is if the hot-key brought up a minimal capture control so you could edit your selection. Having another hot-key for video allows you to capture video inside a running fullscreen app too.

[webraider]

no it wont. the ability to screen capture has been around for a while. this will hurt snapz pro sales, and thats about it.

Not necessarily, This could be limited in it's ability. It may not capture external and internal audio for example. It probably won't work at all on DVD's like Apple's built in screen capture won't capture images while DVD player is going. It may not have a lot of options on how the image is captured. We'll have to wait and see.

[mdriftmeyer]

Probably a lot less than what's stopping you.

I've worked there greglo. Twice for Steve. I'd read more and find out about who posts here before you assume.

[mdriftmeyer]

I would agree that screen recording in Quicktime Player is less logical than in Grab but they may deprecate Grab altogether and just have Quicktime Player do it all.

I'm really hoping they don't have separate apps as mentioned a while back. Having Quicktime Player X separate from a Quicktime Pro app. It'll be like having to keep both imovie 08 and imovie 07.

I never actually use Grab.app as I just hit the hot-key so it makes sense to be just a quicktime service but what would be nice is if the hot-key brought up a minimal capture control so you could edit your selection. Having another hot-key for video allows you to capture video inside a running fullscreen app too.

Grab has been around since NEXTSTEP 2.0. It's a Demonstration application that was moved to Utilities and extended a bit over time. It won't go anywhere. It's a lightweight Cocoa app.

QuickTime Player X may or may not merge all present functionality with QT Pro [I doubt it] but I'd think they'd want to make QT Player X be extended for the Cocoa move to work more with OS X and possibly end-of-life it for Windows.

[MartiNZ]

Well, not only snapz but other programs such as LiteSwitch X (tabbing), Lil Snitch (apple now included blocking thing), and other countless programs I cannot remember.

All of the dashboard-like apps that were better than what we ended up with - and stopped using completely within days of installing Tiger.

Anyway, if they could also include vector-based screenshot capability it would be brilliant.

[PG4G]

Mdriftmeyer,

I'm not sure if you were at apple when they were developing Quicktime X but maybe it's best for me to clarify what's going on with it.

QuickTime X is the new framework project Apple is working on for porting full movie capabilities into a lightweight an processor friendly API. Apple started it for iPhone but as early as 2006 were telling developers to move to QTKit because they would be the ones to benefit from "future improvements".

Later on, they told us why: Apple was porting iPhone's low power movie playing software to the mac to make movie playing far more efficient and lightweight - for all developers.

People should stop thinking of Quicktime X as a player and more as the framework that Quicktime player uses. Apple's said they're "beginning" to roll with QuickTime X - Snow leopard is the playback section. Next will be Quicktime's editing capabilities. Unfortunately, because iPhone is driving QuickTime X development, and because playback was all that was needed up until now, there was no need to clean up the editing API at this time.

[bsenka]

This will just lead to widespread copyright infringement.

That horse left the barn a long time ago.

[jowie74]

Well, not only snapz but other programs such as LiteSwitch X (tabbing), Lil Snitch (apple now included blocking thing), and other countless programs I cannot remember.
Does anyone know if these apps are being bought and integrated rather than just being in competition with them? In the (good) old days Apple would buy up popular shareware and integrate it into the operating system. As far as I can recall, it happened to Window Shade, and even iTunes (originally SoundJam). This was beneficial for both parties.

It would be a shame if Apple didn't buy and integrate Little Snitch because it is a brilliantly executed piece of software.

[hezekiahb]

no it wont. the ability to screen capture has been around for a while. this will hurt snapz pro sales, and thats about it.

Not necessarily, I suspect the screen capture will not be part of the Mac architecture up front, you will likely have to purchase pro version of quicktime to get that feature.

Quicktime Pro is more than a screen capture app so companies making screen capture apps should be fine, they may just loose a few people who intend to get quicktime pro & thus will no longer need another app for screen capture.

Course it's all speculation, guess we will see. :)

[hmurchison]

Does anyone know if these apps are being bought and integrated rather than just being in competition with them? In the (good) old days Apple would buy up popular shareware and integrate it into the operating system. As far as I can recall, it happened to Window Shade, and even iTunes (originally SoundJam). This was beneficial for both parties.

It would be a shame if Apple didn't buy and integrate Little Snitch because it is a brilliantly executed piece of software.

They have to be unique or very useful for Apple to purchase. Latest purchases are Coverflow and CUPS printing. Apple wouldn't purchase an app for altruistic reasons if they knew they could easily create their own version.

I'm looking to invest in a screenrecording features and I'll need more than what's included with Quicktime X to do it in the manner that I want.

[kaiwai]

Well holy shit, Mr. I-Know-It's-A-Service-And-Not-Some-Exclusive-QuickTime-Player-Feature. Are you breaking an NDA and killing bothans to get this information or are you just guessing like the rest of us?

If it's indeed a service or part of the framework and available to developers, give us some evidence.

BTW, you still haven't explained how OpenCL is dependent on OpenGL 3.1. Methinks you're just blowing a lot of hot air as usual.

I think his guess might be on the basis that there are features in OpenGL 3.1 which OpenCL requires; I don't think that is correct though given that OpenCL is loosely based on Nvidia's own technology (and thus Apple's sudden swerve to Nvidia) which is before OpenGL 3.1 was evenbeing planned.

With that being said, I'd love to see Snow Leopard get OpenGL 3.1 given that it includes a new audio standard - will that mean OpenGL will finally have a complete drop in replacement for DirectX soon? I hope so :)

http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=NzE2Nw

[ouragan]

QuickTime X -- along with the minimal-interfaced QuickTime X Player -- leverages media technology pioneered by Apple for the iPhone OS. When it makes its debut on the Mac with Snow Leopard, it'll offer optimized support for modern audio and video formats resulting in extremely efficient media playback, the company has said.


Let's hope that QuickTime X offers support for modern lossless audio formats like Flac, WavePack and Ape. At present, only Apple lossless is supported if you want lossless audio.


:???::???::???:

[solipsism]

Let's hope that QuickTime X offers support for modern lossless audio formats like Flac, WavePack and Ape. At present, only Apple lossless is supported if you want lossless audio.

Are these codecs completely royalty free and without any legal issues whatsoever as to who actually owns them?

While it's a slight inconvenience, especially to new users who just don't know better, installing Perian isn't a big deal for getting the most common codecs for playback. But I don't think it even covers those lossless codecs. So how common are these codecs? Can you find these codecs on the internet so you can install into your QuickTime folder to get support?

[hmurchison]

I believe Apple doesn't support FLAC and Ogg Vorbis because of lack of Patent indemnity. People love to sue Apple for anything so they're at risk moreso than smaller companies.

Since I don't bounce around with music devices I don't really have a need for FLAC but I would like to see more modern video support like MKV and DIVX.

[MacGregor]

This is less, adding features to an application, as it is the next step in video functionality going beyond applications.

QT was and is great and ground breaking, but you can see that video and media are not going to require opening an app, selecting a file and then seeing a fake media player screen sitting on your desktop. Video is going to become as persistent and foundational to the OS as the cursor/pointer.

You will be moving a video window around, not a QT window around. You will manipulate video from your iSight to the screen itself without all the bells and whistles that have traditionally been required. The HUD effects in this new QT and in iPhoto and other apps foreshadow a future intelligent OS that predicts what you need to do with media and gives you the services without having to worry about the last century metaphor of opening an app. That is what the core services are about and what the iPhone and later tablet interfaces will get to. We are just on a step in that direction.

Now, there will always be a place for apps like Photoshop and SnapZ when you have a job and you want to create something beyond the basics, but simple display (QuickView and Coverflow), manipulation (iPhoto HUD) and sharing (email, YouTube, Twitter, etc.) of information and media will all become OS jobs, not traditional application jobs. Recording will just be the latest functionality to this feature set.

[addabox]

Excellent post, and I completely agree.

Modern hardware is powerful enough for Apple to revisit its OpenDoc ideas, without worrying unduly about the processing overhead.

Interestingly, it seems likely that touch devices will help break the app metaphor and usher in an era of mainstream, file centric computing, since touch manipulation encourages the sense that the file at hand is the "stuff" that you working on directly, rather than the "contents" of a given app.

So you start to watch a video stream, pause with a tap, drag that frame onto the desktop, invoke text entry with a gesture, type a caption on the soft keyboard that popped up, make another gesture to invoke email addressing, and "toss" the captioned frame grab onto the outgoing email icon.

This is where Apple is headed, and I think their technologies put them in a great position to make it happen.

[IQatEdo]

Excellent post, and I completely agree.

Modern hardware is powerful enough for Apple to revisit its OpenDoc ideas, without worrying unduly about the processing overhead.

Interestingly, it seems likely that touch devices will help break the app metaphor and usher in an era of mainstream, file centric computing, since touch manipulation encourages the sense that the file at hand is the "stuff" that you working on directly, rather than the "contents" of a given app.

So you start to watch a video stream, pause with a tap, drag that frame onto the desktop, invoke text entry with a gesture, type a caption on the soft keyboard that popped up, make another gesture to invoke email addressing, and "toss" the captioned frame grab onto the outgoing email icon.

This is where Apple is headed, and I think their technologies put them in a great position to make it happen.

I for my part admit to having been excited by OpenDoc. :wow:

[addabox]

I for my part admit to having been excited by OpenDoc. :wow:

Yeah! It was one of those really interesting, forward thinking initiatives that sort of got lost in the shuffle during the dark years.

I mean, there were problems, for sure, but Apple couldn't decide if it wanted to fully commit or just doodle in the margins, and that's no way to drive adoption.

[ivan.rnn01]

I will not regret letting Snapz fly off my HD...

[doh123]

I always hated Snapz, but used it.... but recently I started using Screenium, and its sooo much better than Snapz. Everyone should switch over to Screenium, its even cheaper too.

[kaiwai]

Yeah! It was one of those really interesting, forward thinking initiatives that sort of got lost in the shuffle during the dark years.

I mean, there were problems, for sure, but Apple couldn't decide if it wanted to fully commit or just doodle in the margins, and that's no way to drive adoption.

I think the issue was that they were waiting for Microsoft to get on board but they failed to realise that Microsoft adopting something that they couldn't control exclusively would have been a no-no.

The only real alternative would have been if they (Apple) provided frameworks for Windows themselves rather than relying on Microsoft to ship it with the operating system itself - but then again, this was before the internet so wide spread deployment would have been difficult.

[Amorya]

The problem with OpenDoc is it doesn't scale.

The vision was a grand universe where people pick and choose their software from a load of different components: a spellchecker from one company, a text editor from another, some drawing tools from another. The problems are:

1. Companies don't want to deliver their software as bitesized components. It adds value when a product is fully integrated, and making things component based removes that.

2. Writing a good, self contained component, including all its UI, in a way that fits in with a host application and is easy to use... is really difficult.

3. It makes a lot of sense for page layout apps, but all other uses of OpenDoc (including conceptual stuff) doesn't seem appropriate. Things like AudioUnits and Core Image filters already do enough for their respective disciplines.

4. How do you price things? If a user wants to mix and match products from ten companies to make their dream DTP app, those components had better be a tenth of the price. You know it's not going to happen.

5. OpenDoc's native document format was a mess. It was hard to parse, and components could not read each other's files. Therefore, to view a document, you had to have the same set of components installed as its creator.

6. One problem that could be solved now but wasn't then, is the RAM usage. When I first used System 7.5, I had 4MB of RAM. OpenDoc used over half of this.

Amorya

[nolt]

mmm..I use Macvide ScreenCap .....anybody else??