Also, it could be that Apple, to get people to download and use iTunes even more, will offer certian functionailty we are used to if you play/view video through it.
Also, it could be that Apple, to get people to download and use iTunes even more, will offer certian functionailty we are used to if you play/view video through it.
QuickTime 7 will be introduced as part of MacOS X 10.4.
QT7 will play in 10.3 as well. Maybe even 10.2. Basically, logic dictates this (OK, logic and apple don't go together well, but let's try, huh). If Apple limited QT 7 to just 10.4, then they've just minimized the use of their software to the 10% of the Mac population that'll upgrade in the early months. And because of that, no one will use it (this is why the likes of CoreVideo and CoreAudio aren't going to be used in most mainstream apps, because the code isn't cross-platform nor backward compatible).
A lot of the new features of QT7 rely on underlying changes to the system architecture introduced in Tiger. So Apple may make the H.264 codec available for Panther and below, they won't be giving them the new player, or any of the new features of that player. I'm mostly interested in how they'll implement the QT7 features on Windows, since it seems like that would take even more work than getting it to work on older versions of OS X.
I don't see how that's possible, unless they're back porting all of the changes they made to CoreAudio and other audio systems to enable true multichannel sound. And considering QT7 is entirely based on the new QTKit in Tiger, they'd have to use the old player for Panther, which would be a major pain to match the features in QT7.
I'm using the latest builds of QT7 in 10.3 and Windows and I'm under NDA... thats how I know
I know yer under NDA, zo, but can you describe whether there seems to be any GUI clues to how QT may converge with the iApps? QT was Media Player before there was the idea of Media Player, but it seems to be fading to the background in the public eye behind the glare of iTunes and iPhoto and iMovie, etc.
Web-based media of course will always use it, but to the consumer, I wonder how it will be presented to switchers and their ilk. Just a player window?
Lets say you have an iSight and just want to make a small recording. Instead of loading up iMovie or other, just select in Quicktime menu and record. Start. stop. done. same with the audio recording.
aside from that, there isnt much else to do with QTPro unless you're a prosumer and try to modify some movies/clips with QT Pro's builtin filters, etc etc that have been available since... well.. forever.
Just for the record.. H.264 is AWESOME
Otherwise, no, QT remains the media layer upon which all iApps are dependent and is transparent to the enduser (as it should be). Imagine getting consumers educated about Quicktime... and one time some poor joe says "its encoded in quicktime" or "I want to encode it in quicktime". There are dozens of audio and video codecs that make up qt... its just a mess.
Agreed. IMO, QuickTime should fade into the background to be an 'underlying technology'. QuickTime Player should be renamed to something else, in my mind. Get the word 'QuickTime' out of the consumer's face, except as a *brand*. It *could* come to mean 'best of breed video and audio, no matter where it came from or where it's going'. Instead, most consumers think that the *player* is QuickTime, and that's it. They don't understand the depth and richness of the underlying technology, and here's the kicker... *they shouldn't have to*.
In an optimal world, people would just look for the Blue Q as a mark of quality and interoperability, and not worry about it otherwise.
Otherwise, no, QT remains the media layer upon which all iApps are dependent and is transparent to the enduser (as it should be). Imagine getting consumers educated about Quicktime... and one time some poor joe says "its encoded in quicktime" or "I want to encode it in quicktime". There are dozens of audio and video codecs that make up qt... its just a mess.
Thanks, that's a great thumbnail. I figured that is what the future would hold, but it would be hard to say good-bye to QT, just like hypercard. My main concern is for QT to be still prominent while Media Player and Real Player are such prominent front ends too.
In an optimal world, people would just look for the Blue Q as a mark of quality and interoperability, and not worry about it otherwise.
Instead of like now, where it is the crappy video player that you cannot resize without paying money. I curse when video is only available in quicktime format, because it means that it will be postage stamp sized.
Web-based media of course will always use it, but to the consumer, I wonder how it will be presented to switchers and their ilk. Just a player window?
The problem with Quicktime fading into the background is that web-based media now doesn't use it very often. Clients usually want Real or Windows Media when they need video. Usually I try and push them toward using Macromedia Flash based flv video these days--but Apple is loosing the underlying format war on the web. Other than Apple itself, most folks aren't using quicktime on the web.
Instead of like now, where it is the crappy video player that you cannot resize without paying money. I curse when video is only available in quicktime format, because it means that it will be postage stamp sized.
You can resize the window all you want, including stretching it to full Desktop.
What you can't do is view it fullscreen where the menu bar and window frame go away.
The problem with Quicktime fading into the background is that web-based media now doesn't use it very often. Clients usually want Real or Windows Media when they need video. Usually I try and push them toward using Macromedia Flash based flv video these days--but Apple is loosing the underlying format war on the web. Other than Apple itself, most folks aren't using quicktime on the web.
But plenty are interested in MPEG-4 as a distribution mechanism... and suddenly QT becomes the only serious game in town.
I'll never understand why a company would go with Real or WMV when QT and QT Streaming are free. Not first 100 streams, not first 1000 downloads, just free. 100%, utterly free. No licenses. Ubiquitous formats to select from. Did I mention free?
The problem with Quicktime fading into the background is that web-based media now doesn't use it very often. Clients usually want Real or Windows Media when they need video. Usually I try and push them toward using Macromedia Flash based flv video these days--but Apple is loosing the underlying format war on the web. Other than Apple itself, most folks aren't using quicktime on the web.
I'm not sure in my experience that is true. I find lots of QT on the web, but maybe in science and education that is mostly true.
Comments
Hope 10.2 will get a foot in.
Also, it could be that Apple, to get people to download and use iTunes even more, will offer certian functionailty we are used to if you play/view video through it.
Just a thought
Originally posted by ZO
BTW, so far QT7 is for 10.3 and Windoze only.
Hope 10.2 will get a foot in.
Also, it could be that Apple, to get people to download and use iTunes even more, will offer certian functionailty we are used to if you play/view video through it.
Just a thought
No, it won't be for 10.3. It will be for 10.4.
Originally posted by Mr. Me
No, it won't be for 10.3. It will be for 10.4.
huh?
Originally posted by ZO
huh?
QuickTime 7 will be introduced as part of MacOS X 10.4.
Originally posted by Mr. Me
QuickTime 7 will be introduced as part of MacOS X 10.4.
QT7 will play in 10.3 as well. Maybe even 10.2. Basically, logic dictates this (OK, logic and apple don't go together well, but let's try, huh). If Apple limited QT 7 to just 10.4, then they've just minimized the use of their software to the 10% of the Mac population that'll upgrade in the early months. And because of that, no one will use it (this is why the likes of CoreVideo and CoreAudio aren't going to be used in most mainstream apps, because the code isn't cross-platform nor backward compatible).
Now Qt7 pro may only work in 10.4.
I'm willing to bet a Mac Mini if you want
And Windows
And they have made a LOT of changes in it.
Its really really slick
Originally posted by ZO
I'm using the latest builds of QT7 in 10.3 and Windows and I'm under NDA... thats how I know
I know yer under NDA, zo, but can you describe whether there seems to be any GUI clues to how QT may converge with the iApps? QT was Media Player before there was the idea of Media Player, but it seems to be fading to the background in the public eye behind the glare of iTunes and iPhoto and iMovie, etc.
Web-based media of course will always use it, but to the consumer, I wonder how it will be presented to switchers and their ilk. Just a player window?
http://www.apple.com/macosx/tiger/quicktime.html shows you that if you have QT Pro you will be able to record a movie on the fly.
Lets say you have an iSight and just want to make a small recording. Instead of loading up iMovie or other, just select in Quicktime menu and record. Start. stop. done. same with the audio recording.
aside from that, there isnt much else to do with QTPro unless you're a prosumer and try to modify some movies/clips with QT Pro's builtin filters, etc etc that have been available since... well.. forever.
Just for the record.. H.264 is AWESOME
Otherwise, no, QT remains the media layer upon which all iApps are dependent and is transparent to the enduser (as it should be). Imagine getting consumers educated about Quicktime... and one time some poor joe says "its encoded in quicktime" or "I want to encode it in quicktime". There are dozens of audio and video codecs that make up qt... its just a mess.
In an optimal world, people would just look for the Blue Q as a mark of quality and interoperability, and not worry about it otherwise.
Originally posted by ZO
Quicktime per se (the app that with the blue Q) has a couple new functions that may get people to actually use it as an app per se.
http://www.apple.com/macosx/tiger/quicktime.html shows you that if you have QT Pro you will be able to record a movie on the fly. Just for the record.. H.264 is AWESOME
Otherwise, no, QT remains the media layer upon which all iApps are dependent and is transparent to the enduser (as it should be). Imagine getting consumers educated about Quicktime... and one time some poor joe says "its encoded in quicktime" or "I want to encode it in quicktime". There are dozens of audio and video codecs that make up qt... its just a mess.
Thanks, that's a great thumbnail. I figured that is what the future would hold, but it would be hard to say good-bye to QT, just like hypercard. My main concern is for QT to be still prominent while Media Player and Real Player are such prominent front ends too.
In an optimal world, people would just look for the Blue Q as a mark of quality and interoperability, and not worry about it otherwise.
Instead of like now, where it is the crappy video player that you cannot resize without paying money. I curse when video is only available in quicktime format, because it means that it will be postage stamp sized.
Originally posted by MacGregor
Web-based media of course will always use it, but to the consumer, I wonder how it will be presented to switchers and their ilk. Just a player window?
The problem with Quicktime fading into the background is that web-based media now doesn't use it very often. Clients usually want Real or Windows Media when they need video. Usually I try and push them toward using Macromedia Flash based flv video these days--but Apple is loosing the underlying format war on the web. Other than Apple itself, most folks aren't using quicktime on the web.
Originally posted by e1618978
Instead of like now, where it is the crappy video player that you cannot resize without paying money. I curse when video is only available in quicktime format, because it means that it will be postage stamp sized.
You can resize the window all you want, including stretching it to full Desktop.
What you can't do is view it fullscreen where the menu bar and window frame go away.
Originally posted by D.J. Adequate
The problem with Quicktime fading into the background is that web-based media now doesn't use it very often. Clients usually want Real or Windows Media when they need video. Usually I try and push them toward using Macromedia Flash based flv video these days--but Apple is loosing the underlying format war on the web. Other than Apple itself, most folks aren't using quicktime on the web.
But plenty are interested in MPEG-4 as a distribution mechanism... and suddenly QT becomes the only serious game in town.
I'll never understand why a company would go with Real or WMV when QT and QT Streaming are free. Not first 100 streams, not first 1000 downloads, just free. 100%, utterly free. No licenses. Ubiquitous formats to select from. Did I mention free?
Originally posted by D.J. Adequate
The problem with Quicktime fading into the background is that web-based media now doesn't use it very often. Clients usually want Real or Windows Media when they need video. Usually I try and push them toward using Macromedia Flash based flv video these days--but Apple is loosing the underlying format war on the web. Other than Apple itself, most folks aren't using quicktime on the web.
I'm not sure in my experience that is true. I find lots of QT on the web, but maybe in science and education that is mostly true.
Originally posted by Kickaha
You can resize the window all you want, including stretching it to full Desktop.
What you can't do is view it fullscreen where the menu bar and window frame go away.
Ah - I'd never used it on its own, just launched from a web page. When you launch it from a web browser, it is unresizable.