Unless you are recording clips on your cellphone or cheap point&shoot, why in the hell would you record at anything less than 720P? Especially considering decent HD video cameras cost the same as SD cameras from only a few years ago.
960x540 for a brand new format? right....
It does seem like a waste and I have to wonder what the thought process was here. Ideally you should record in standard formats for your originals. It would be a different story if this format was something Apple transcoded to for smaller file sizes. Shipping full length HD movies around is time consuming.
Maybe I will see the light but right now I don't get it.
It does seem like a waste and I have to wonder what the thought process was here. Ideally you should record in standard formats for your originals. It would be a different story if this format was something Apple transcoded to for smaller file sizes. Shipping full length HD movies around is time consuming.
Maybe I will see the light but right now I don't get it.
Dave
it's really for iPhones/touches/iPods folks. get that?
well congrats, you figured it out! this new format is clearly optimal for PMP's like the iPod and iPhone where smaller file sizes and low-power chip editing really matter. what is interesting is it combines DVD quality with a native 16:9 aspect (SD DVD's stretch a 4:3 image to widescreen or worse crop it to letterbox), so it's a new format all right. it's for casual everyday use, not prosumers masterpieces.
expect to see it along with iMovie "light" on the iPhone certainly next June if not sooner. and the touch as soon as it has a camera. and the new iTab? all January i bet.
I think you hit something. I wonder if the development of this format has anything to do with the video quality on the iPhone & where Apple hopes to take iPhone/iPod Touch/iPod Nano type devices This format seems like it's targeted towards the casual home user who doesn't care about having 720p or 1080p.
Telling ya, something else is going on here for Apple to create a new format. They aren't just looking to speed up the import/export process for a few 3rd party vendors.
Huh? AVCHD is NOT MPEG-2, it is MPEG-4 PART 10 (that is: it uses H.264/AVC compression) and practically everything you wrote is wrong. AVCHD uses interframe and intraframe compression and therefore it must be decoded for editing, as most frames do not include all picture data. Even the Sony Vegas software that pretends to edit AVCHD "natively" does internally read in entire GOPs, calculates each single frame and then edits. It just does it "on-the-fly", while Apple does it on import. AVCHD is not an editing format, it is a distribution format and editing will always require the software to fill up the partial frames first.
AVCHD defines a variety of H.264 video, a variety of AAC audio, and an MPEG2 container. The container is just as important as everything else. An MPEG2 container can be built progressively while an MPEG4/Quicktime container can not be built until the video is complete.
Frame dependencies are nothing new to QuickTime and not a problem for editing. The original video stream is used to render cached key frames for use at points of editing. Apple has to convert AVCHD to another format only because the QuickTime H.264 codec doesn't support the features used in AVCHD or Blu-ray. (My guess is that licensing fees are too high.)
1. Apple should support most AVCHD implementations from major camcorder manufacturers.
2. Apple should support such implementations without any transcoding involved until final render.
3. Apple should leverage the new massive power of the consumer Macs and Snow Leopard to have iMovie work great with 1080p.
4. Apple should support writing of 720p or 1080p video, and high-res slideshows out of iPhoto/iMovie to BluRay. Seriously. Why iMovie cannot burn BluRay for archiving purposes, and sharing, etc., I have no idea. Cost? Profit margin? Not a priority?
5. 1080i from most camcorders should be handled natively rather than iMovie asking you to up- or down-convert.
The difference between MPEG4/QuickTime and AVCHD isn't in media multiplexing. It's how the table of contents is stored....
Yeah exactly. I don't think the multiplexing part opts for a new format. But in order to edit an i-frame based codec (no pun intented) such as h.264 the software needs to decode what happens between the i-frames blazing fast, backwards, forwards, sporadically, jumping between frames here and there without frame drops and stalling the cpu.
What I think has to be done in order to use h.264 in a video editor such as iMovie or Final Cut they must reinvent a new editor specific h.264 decoder that figures out what's in between the i-frames in real time, in draft mode. Doesn't matter if the frames go low resolution in between edits while you play or while you scrub, as long as there are no frame drops.
The coolest thing would be in the end to be able to save such an edit losslessly, without changes to the actual stream, other than coding new iFrames only where they're needed such as between edits and where the image has been altered. But this would only make sense the day QuickTime is color correct... Oh well.
You know, I can now play on my Macbook Alu 2.0ghz with 4GB RAM 9400M GPU ... 4 standard def H.264 clips at once, and at any time scrub through them, jump between points, all while they are all playing and only hitting both cores about 50% CPU. With a lot of other stuff open in the background (but not running).
The tech is there. Most GPUs have H.264 decoding down easy. Now we have OpenCL and Grand Central.
Of course all editing would be lossless because except for transitions/ compositing it's all just pointers to parts of files.
iMovie '09 is good, as I outlined above Apple could do some amazing stuff with iMovie '10. But it seems they might cater to the sub-720p market for most of 2010/2011?
Apple could do it easy if it wanted. But then maybe if it started working so well on consumer Macs people would stop buying Mac Pros and FCP packages.
Quote:
Originally Posted by palegolas
Yeah exactly. I don't think the multiplexing part opts for a new format. But in order to edit an i-frame based codec (no pun intented) such as h.264 the software needs to decode what happens between the i-frames blazing fast, backwards, forwards, sporadically, jumping between frames here and there without frame drops and stalling the cpu.
What I think has to be done in order to use h.264 in a video editor such as iMovie or Final Cut they must reinvent a new editor specific h.264 decoder that figures out what's in between the i-frames in real time, in draft mode. Doesn't matter if the frames go low resolution in between edits while you play or while you scrub, as long as there are no frame drops.
The coolest thing would be in the end to be able to save such an edit losslessly, without changes to the actual stream, other than coding new iFrames only where they're needed such as between edits and where the image has been altered. But this would only make sense the day QuickTime is color correct... Oh well.
The difference between MPEG4/QuickTime and AVCHD isn't in media multiplexing. It's how the table of contents is stored.
AVCHD is in an MPEG2 streaming format comprised of blocks of media, with each block having its own short description. Cameras can record this format without needing to buffer anything more than the current block of media. Random-access playback requires a scan through the file to build a table of contents. It does not need to be imported before editing as Apple would like you to think. Importing is performed because QuickTime does not support certain H.264 extensions in AVCHD.
The MPEG4/QuickTime file format has one contiguous table of contents. That's great for random access playback but awful for everything else. To produce an MPEG4, a camera would have to write raw data and metadata to two files during recording. When the stop button is pushed, the camera would have to copy the two components to a single file, re-index the metadata into table of contents, then delete the two component files. It's a long process that would make the camera unresponsive and prone to data loss.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dreyfus2
Huh? AVCHD is NOT MPEG-2, it is MPEG-4 PART 10 (that is: it uses H.264/AVC compression) and practically everything you wrote is wrong. AVCHD uses interframe and intraframe compression and therefore it must be decoded for editing, as most frames do not include all picture data. Even the Sony Vegas software that pretends to edit AVCHD "natively" does internally read in entire GOPs, calculates each single frame and then edits. It just does it "on-the-fly", while Apple does it on import. AVCHD is not an editing format, it is a distribution format and editing will always require the software to fill up the partial frames first.
Factual links plz to support your comments, so we can read for ourselves.
for yrs steve pushed us ever higher in video quality
well i guess hd iframe will arrive soon
Steve is slowly releasing control to the rest of the team. The rest of the team probably want to push more iPhone and iPod with video.
Apple is focusing first on a wider group of people with video-enabled iPod and iPhone ... rather than improving support (maybe it is already good enough) for those with 720p or 1080i/1080p camcorders.
Like I said, maybe some people in the "team" at Apple worry about Mac Pro and FCP revenue/profit if iMovie gets too good especially when it comes to full HD video.
...With that said, I can certainly see why Apple would introduce their own format for the masses. Something that can be edited quickly, is relatively small in size and has better-than-DVD quality (if only slightly) will most likely be good enough for most iMovie users out there.
That's what's confusing me. Maybe I haven't seen the stats but I thought we were all moving towards 1080i and even 1080p camcorders by now. But I guess people want quick fast and easy so that has gone against the push towards consumer 1080p camcorders.
Maybe most people trying to edit movies on their Vista PCs can't handle 1080i video so that has been a hindrance to better quality video on camcorders.
I mean, 2 years ago we had fairly affordable Sony 1080i camcorders with USB transfer to Mac and PC.
Can someone shed some light on the state of the camcorder world? Maybe the economic sting and shorter attention spans, YouTube, has contributed to a different way people want to record and use video...?
What? Are you kidding? I don't record anything below full 1080p HD.
I dunno, on a consumer HD camcorder, the benefit of recording 1080p seems kind of iffy. I have a couple and the lenses just don't lend themselves to getting good detail at 1080p. Might as well save as 720p and save the drive space and CPU power. If you're using a professional HD camcorder, then you're probably not going to be using iMovie.
Comments
<sigh> couldn't Apple have created a better than than iFrame?
Tell me about this than than. I truly want to know know.
Unless you are recording clips on your cellphone or cheap point&shoot, why in the hell would you record at anything less than 720P? Especially considering decent HD video cameras cost the same as SD cameras from only a few years ago.
960x540 for a brand new format? right....
It does seem like a waste and I have to wonder what the thought process was here. Ideally you should record in standard formats for your originals. It would be a different story if this format was something Apple transcoded to for smaller file sizes. Shipping full length HD movies around is time consuming.
Maybe I will see the light but right now I don't get it.
Dave
It does seem like a waste and I have to wonder what the thought process was here. Ideally you should record in standard formats for your originals. It would be a different story if this format was something Apple transcoded to for smaller file sizes. Shipping full length HD movies around is time consuming.
Maybe I will see the light but right now I don't get it.
Dave
it's really for iPhones/touches/iPods folks. get that?
Thank you for sharing. Now calm down.
I beg your forgiveness for my highly inappropriate comment. However, I feel constantly disappointed by Apple consumer video offerings, while this hardware: http://www.macworld.com/article/1432.../wdtvlive.html
gets me super excited! This box plays my 1080p videos the way I want and I will not accept anything less!
How about Panasonics new(ish) 'AVCHD Lite' format though, maybe that's a middle ground in terms of actually being HD, but not full HD.
well congrats, you figured it out! this new format is clearly optimal for PMP's like the iPod and iPhone where smaller file sizes and low-power chip editing really matter. what is interesting is it combines DVD quality with a native 16:9 aspect (SD DVD's stretch a 4:3 image to widescreen or worse crop it to letterbox), so it's a new format all right. it's for casual everyday use, not prosumers masterpieces.
expect to see it along with iMovie "light" on the iPhone certainly next June if not sooner. and the touch as soon as it has a camera. and the new iTab? all January i bet.
I think you hit something. I wonder if the development of this format has anything to do with the video quality on the iPhone & where Apple hopes to take iPhone/iPod Touch/iPod Nano type devices This format seems like it's targeted towards the casual home user who doesn't care about having 720p or 1080p.
Telling ya, something else is going on here for Apple to create a new format. They aren't just looking to speed up the import/export process for a few 3rd party vendors.
Huh? AVCHD is NOT MPEG-2, it is MPEG-4 PART 10 (that is: it uses H.264/AVC compression) and practically everything you wrote is wrong. AVCHD uses interframe and intraframe compression and therefore it must be decoded for editing, as most frames do not include all picture data. Even the Sony Vegas software that pretends to edit AVCHD "natively" does internally read in entire GOPs, calculates each single frame and then edits. It just does it "on-the-fly", while Apple does it on import. AVCHD is not an editing format, it is a distribution format and editing will always require the software to fill up the partial frames first.
AVCHD defines a variety of H.264 video, a variety of AAC audio, and an MPEG2 container. The container is just as important as everything else. An MPEG2 container can be built progressively while an MPEG4/Quicktime container can not be built until the video is complete.
Frame dependencies are nothing new to QuickTime and not a problem for editing. The original video stream is used to render cached key frames for use at points of editing. Apple has to convert AVCHD to another format only because the QuickTime H.264 codec doesn't support the features used in AVCHD or Blu-ray. (My guess is that licensing fees are too high.)
2. Apple should support such implementations without any transcoding involved until final render.
3. Apple should leverage the new massive power of the consumer Macs and Snow Leopard to have iMovie work great with 1080p.
4. Apple should support writing of 720p or 1080p video, and high-res slideshows out of iPhoto/iMovie to BluRay. Seriously. Why iMovie cannot burn BluRay for archiving purposes, and sharing, etc., I have no idea. Cost? Profit margin? Not a priority?
5. 1080i from most camcorders should be handled natively rather than iMovie asking you to up- or down-convert.
looking forward to this dying like AAC to MP3
Ah, gawd bless AAC and its short life. May it have moved on to a better standard in the afterdigitallife.
The difference between MPEG4/QuickTime and AVCHD isn't in media multiplexing. It's how the table of contents is stored....
Yeah exactly. I don't think the multiplexing part opts for a new format. But in order to edit an i-frame based codec (no pun intented) such as h.264 the software needs to decode what happens between the i-frames blazing fast, backwards, forwards, sporadically, jumping between frames here and there without frame drops and stalling the cpu.
What I think has to be done in order to use h.264 in a video editor such as iMovie or Final Cut they must reinvent a new editor specific h.264 decoder that figures out what's in between the i-frames in real time, in draft mode. Doesn't matter if the frames go low resolution in between edits while you play or while you scrub, as long as there are no frame drops.
The coolest thing would be in the end to be able to save such an edit losslessly, without changes to the actual stream, other than coding new iFrames only where they're needed such as between edits and where the image has been altered. But this would only make sense the day QuickTime is color correct... Oh well.
The tech is there. Most GPUs have H.264 decoding down easy. Now we have OpenCL and Grand Central.
Of course all editing would be lossless because except for transitions/ compositing it's all just pointers to parts of files.
iMovie '09 is good, as I outlined above Apple could do some amazing stuff with iMovie '10. But it seems they might cater to the sub-720p market for most of 2010/2011?
Apple could do it easy if it wanted. But then maybe if it started working so well on consumer Macs people would stop buying Mac Pros and FCP packages.
Yeah exactly. I don't think the multiplexing part opts for a new format. But in order to edit an i-frame based codec (no pun intented) such as h.264 the software needs to decode what happens between the i-frames blazing fast, backwards, forwards, sporadically, jumping between frames here and there without frame drops and stalling the cpu.
What I think has to be done in order to use h.264 in a video editor such as iMovie or Final Cut they must reinvent a new editor specific h.264 decoder that figures out what's in between the i-frames in real time, in draft mode. Doesn't matter if the frames go low resolution in between edits while you play or while you scrub, as long as there are no frame drops.
The coolest thing would be in the end to be able to save such an edit losslessly, without changes to the actual stream, other than coding new iFrames only where they're needed such as between edits and where the image has been altered. But this would only make sense the day QuickTime is color correct... Oh well.
The difference between MPEG4/QuickTime and AVCHD isn't in media multiplexing. It's how the table of contents is stored.
AVCHD is in an MPEG2 streaming format comprised of blocks of media, with each block having its own short description. Cameras can record this format without needing to buffer anything more than the current block of media. Random-access playback requires a scan through the file to build a table of contents. It does not need to be imported before editing as Apple would like you to think.
The MPEG4/QuickTime file format has one contiguous table of contents. That's great for random access playback but awful for everything else. To produce an MPEG4, a camera would have to write raw data and metadata to two files during recording. When the stop button is pushed, the camera would have to copy the two components to a single file, re-index the metadata into table of contents, then delete the two component files. It's a long process that would make the camera unresponsive and prone to data loss.
Huh? AVCHD is NOT MPEG-2, it is MPEG-4 PART 10 (that is: it uses H.264/AVC compression) and practically everything you wrote is wrong. AVCHD uses interframe and intraframe compression and therefore it must be decoded for editing, as most frames do not include all picture data. Even the Sony Vegas software that pretends to edit AVCHD "natively" does internally read in entire GOPs, calculates each single frame and then edits. It just does it "on-the-fly", while Apple does it on import. AVCHD is not an editing format, it is a distribution format and editing will always require the software to fill up the partial frames first.
Factual links plz to support your comments, so we can read for ourselves.
Just what the world needs... another f'in video format.
And it's suppose to simplify things. riight
this format works best for small screens
for yrs steve pushed us ever higher in video quality
well i guess hd iframe will arrive soon
i don't understand
this format works best for small screens
for yrs steve pushed us ever higher in video quality
well i guess hd iframe will arrive soon
Steve is slowly releasing control to the rest of the team. The rest of the team probably want to push more iPhone and iPod with video.
Apple is focusing first on a wider group of people with video-enabled iPod and iPhone ... rather than improving support (maybe it is already good enough) for those with 720p or 1080i/1080p camcorders.
Like I said, maybe some people in the "team" at Apple worry about Mac Pro and FCP revenue/profit if iMovie gets too good especially when it comes to full HD video.
Open source vs. proprietary. Guess which wins?
Why can't people just follow the damn MPEG-4 specs that's what MPEG is there for.
...With that said, I can certainly see why Apple would introduce their own format for the masses. Something that can be edited quickly, is relatively small in size and has better-than-DVD quality (if only slightly) will most likely be good enough for most iMovie users out there.
That's what's confusing me. Maybe I haven't seen the stats but I thought we were all moving towards 1080i and even 1080p camcorders by now. But I guess people want quick fast and easy so that has gone against the push towards consumer 1080p camcorders.
Maybe most people trying to edit movies on their Vista PCs can't handle 1080i video so that has been a hindrance to better quality video on camcorders.
I mean, 2 years ago we had fairly affordable Sony 1080i camcorders with USB transfer to Mac and PC.
Can someone shed some light on the state of the camcorder world? Maybe the economic sting and shorter attention spans, YouTube, has contributed to a different way people want to record and use video...?
What? Are you kidding? I don't record anything below full 1080p HD.
I dunno, on a consumer HD camcorder, the benefit of recording 1080p seems kind of iffy. I have a couple and the lenses just don't lend themselves to getting good detail at 1080p. Might as well save as 720p and save the drive space and CPU power. If you're using a professional HD camcorder, then you're probably not going to be using iMovie.
Factual links plz to support your comments, so we can read for ourselves.
Surprisingly, they're both right, at least to an extent:
http://www.avchd-info.org/format/index.html
MPEG-4 compression, but held within an MPEG-2 transport stream.