Any info on Pixlet?

Posted:
in Mac Software edited January 2014
I read a short blurb on a new codec on Apple.com



"Pixlet is the first studio-grade codec for filmmakers. Pixlet provides 20-25:1 compression, allowing a 75MB/sec series of frames to be delivered in a 3MB/sec movie, similar to DV data rates. Or a series of frames that are over 6GB in size can be contained within a 250MB movie. Pixlet lets high-end digital film frames play in real time with any Panther Mac, without investing in costly, proprietary playback hardware."



Sounds really great! anyone have more info on it?
«1

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 23
    hmurchisonhmurchison Posts: 12,425member
    Try this thread at Ars. Very informative



    http://arstechnica.infopop.net/OpenT...1&m=1770938175
  • Reply 2 of 23
    ast3r3xast3r3x Posts: 5,012member
    can somone explain the feasibility of this for me...



    if you've ever downloaded a movie you'd know that a 1gb mpg movie is pretty good quality...well with pixlet wouldn't that be only 50mb? (@ 20:1)





    iTMS = iTunes Media Store...music and movies?
  • Reply 3 of 23
    hmurchisonhmurchison Posts: 12,425member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by ast3r3x

    can somone explain the feasibility of this for me...



    if you've ever downloaded a movie you'd know that a 1gb mpg movie is pretty good quality...well with pixlet wouldn't that be only 50mb? (@ 20:1)





    iTMS = iTunes Media Store...music and movies?




    Pixlet would make a nice Output option for Final Cut Pro. I don't think of it as a Downloadable Format but rather a format for Distributing on Hard Media.



    One thing that Jobs mentioned is that it provides HD quality but the Decoder doesn't require alot of horsepower and that's a good thing. WM9 HD requires like a 2.4Ghz P4 and above to playback.
  • Reply 4 of 23
    ast3r3xast3r3x Posts: 5,012member
    i think it would be great for FCP too but why not streaming movies or temp downloadable movies? small, good quality, sounds like a winner to me





    the real question is...is it 20-25:1 from HD...what is it from mpg? cuz 1gb mpg movie is good, i doubt pixlet could compress mpg as much as HD
  • Reply 5 of 23
    chuckerchucker Posts: 5,089member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by ast3r3x

    can somone explain the feasibility of this for me...



    if you've ever downloaded a movie you'd know that a 1gb mpg movie is pretty good quality...well with pixlet wouldn't that be only 50mb? (@ 20:1)





    iTMS = iTunes Media Store...music and movies?




    Nah. Pixlet isn't made for anything web-related, or user-related, for that matter. It's meant as an aid for HDTV production.
  • Reply 6 of 23
    ast3r3xast3r3x Posts: 5,012member
    what does it matter what its meant for...isn't what it CAN be used for more important?
  • Reply 7 of 23
    matsumatsu Posts: 6,558member
    Is Pixlet in any way related to MPEG4 ?



    It looks very cool.
  • Reply 8 of 23
    chuckerchucker Posts: 5,089member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by ast3r3x

    what does it matter what its meant for...isn't what it CAN be used for more important?



    MPEG-1 CAN be used for streaming video off the web. Whether you want to do that is another question.



    What I meant to say by my post - and I think that was quite clear - is that you would NOT want to use Pixlet as a streaming format.
  • Reply 9 of 23
    ast3r3xast3r3x Posts: 5,012member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Chucker

    MPEG-1 CAN be used for streaming video off the web. Whether you want to do that is another question.



    What I meant to say by my post - and I think that was quite clear - is that you would NOT want to use Pixlet as a streaming format.




    but could you explain why? (i'm not purposly trying to be dificult)



    good compress scheme/quality = good streaming format no?
  • Reply 10 of 23
    matsumatsu Posts: 6,558member
    Perhaps pixlets compression refers to compression of raw data. In that case 25:1 is not very heavily compressed at all, less compression than a DVD in fact, and files would still be huge, but they would be manageable enough that data could be streamed of a regular HDD. In a studio, you can currently only stream RAW HD level video off a RAID (as you need over 150MBps) If pixlet gest that down to about 3-4MBps, that's much more manageable, more like miniDV, and still about twice as much as a DVD-V
  • Reply 11 of 23
    ast3r3xast3r3x Posts: 5,012member
    ahh see that is what i wsa asking earlier when i asked if it was just the compression ratio for HD or not
  • Reply 12 of 23
    chuckerchucker Posts: 5,089member
    The "State of the Union" video stream contains some more information on Pixlet. To put it simple (because I'm no video expert either):



    1. Pixlet is optimized for HDTV sizes, so basically way beyond what you could stream over broadband internet anyway (with today's compression technology). 1920x1200 (I believe they call it "p1920" or so in HD biz?), for instance.



    2. Pixlet uses JPEG2000's Wavelet techniques (hence the name: "Pixar Wavelet") so that there is hardly any sort of artefacts. This is important because:



    3. The quality must be so close to the original uncompressed data that you can publish it on HD-DVD, HDTV, etc. without it looking low-quality.



    On the web, you would use medium or low quality for to be able to reach acceptable datarates (in the few hundred kilobits per second range).



    You wouldn't stream a video DVD over the web, would you? It has multiple thousands of kilobits per second. Now imagine that a HD-DVD has a lot more (no, I do not have exact figures).



    Does that answer it?
  • Reply 13 of 23
    matsumatsu Posts: 6,558member
    I wonder if the tech has distinct advantage over MPEG2/4, it might be really cool to write HDTV quality video down to miniDV tapes using this codec in-camera. The current plan in the works is to do it with MPEG2, I wonder if Apple would open-source their codec in a move to capture the consumer HDTV market in 3-4 years?
  • Reply 14 of 23
    cowerdcowerd Posts: 579member
    pixlet thread at ars: more technical info, but its all euskadi to me.



    http://arstechnica.infopop.net/OpenT...1&m=1770938175
  • Reply 15 of 23
    medialabmedialab Posts: 19member
    Pixlet is meant for content creation. It will never be used for consumer viewing. However, there IS a new high-quality codec for MPEG-4 coming that goes by the very sexy name of H.264. It should give Windows Media 9 and DivX a run for their money. I'm surprised nothing was mentioned at the Panther preview (probably mired in politics like MPEG-4 licensing was last year). I hope Apple brands it with a more user-friendly handle (a la 1394 > FireWire) before they release it.
  • Reply 16 of 23
    chuckerchucker Posts: 5,089member
    medialab: iChat AV adds the H.263 codec to QuickTime, if I'm not mistaken. QuickTime Broadcaster also supports H.261. I couldn't find signs of H.263 or H.323 support, though.
  • Reply 17 of 23
    wmfwmf Posts: 1,164member
    H.263 has been in QuickTime for 5 years or so. H.263 is semi-obsolete; it's the predecessor to MPEG-4. H.264 is the successor to MPEG-4, and Apple's already working on it.
  • Reply 18 of 23
    Quote:

    Originally posted by ast3r3x

    can somone explain the feasibility of this for me...



    if you've ever downloaded a movie you'd know that a 1gb mpg movie is pretty good quality...well with pixlet wouldn't that be only 50mb? (@ 20:1)




    Well, first off, your calculations are assuming that you can compress already compressed data at 20:1. The ratios that compressions schemes are given are always based on starting with uncompressed data. So for D1 NTSC, which is 720x486, an uncompressed frame of video is about 1MB... so 30MB/sec is uncompressed D1 NTSC. Now apply a 20:1 ratio to that, and that is what pixlet would do.



    Quote:

    1. Pixlet is optimized for HDTV sizes, so basically way beyond what you could stream over broadband internet anyway (with today's compression technology). 1920x1200 (I believe they call it "p1920" or so in HD biz?), for instance.



    HDTV is in two flavours currently



    720p - 1280x720

    1080i - 1920x1080



    The "p" and "i" stand for progressive and interlaced, respectively. Apple's Cinema HD display runs at 1920x1200, and this is roughly 16:10. All computer based widescreen displays are 16:10 as opposed to the 16:9 format that HDTV is. Also note that most feature films are not 16:9, rather in a format called CineScope, which is roughly 2.76:1. This is why even on a 16:9 television, you get black bars at the top and bottom of films. Some DVDs are in an anamorphic widescreen, which causes the film to take on a 16:9 ratio... but you lose some of the image that way.
  • Reply 19 of 23
    matsumatsu Posts: 6,558member
    I don't mean to imply that it would be used for consumer streaming, but if the bit rate is similar to MiniDV it could concievably be used in an in-camera codec to write HDTV level resolution to miniDV tapes. Mebbe Apple will never license it for such use, but that would be similar to the HDV plans currently afoot to write MPEG 1080i60 and 720p to miniDV tapes for consumer camcorders.



    Mebbe Apple might be interested in pushing this codec into pro and consumer camera recording schemes, if there is some advantage over MPEG2? iDunno.



    In any case, pros will need even stronger compression scheme ere long. Plans for UltraHDTV are already in the works, I don't imagine this will be for anything other than Professional CINEMATOGRAPHY (not even video) for years to come, but I'm sure studios will be interested in the, wait for it... 4000x2000 (2:1 widescreen) format that ought to go well past 35mm film.
  • Reply 20 of 23
    IANAE (I Am Not An Engineer), but Pixlet has been explained to me as being a codec for a very specific purpose. As such, i do not believe it can really be adapted well to other disciplines. Choose the right tools for the job.
Sign In or Register to comment.