If you can't justify spending $30 on this, then don't. Fullscreen playback, thats all you want? H.264 existed prior to QT7, try one of the free players like VLC. I've encoded H.264 DVD-rips for my PSP and played them back using that.
There should also, shortly, be smaller 3rd parties that will whip-up some fullscreen apps. Head to MacUpdate and see just how many apps offer fullscreen QT playback.
I'm not against Apple crippled QT7 as much as I am "what" they cripple. Make it an authoring upgrade, don't piss people off by not offering options every other media player on earth has. I'm looking at you fullscreen
Alas, I've been a pro user since 5 (or maybe 4 back on PC) and will remain so. Once I purchase Tiger and or a Mac mini QT7 Pro will come along with the ride.
If you can't justify spending $30 on this, then don't. Fullscreen playback, thats all you want? H.264 existed prior to QT7, try one of the free players like VLC. I've encoded H.264 DVD-rips for my PSP and played them back using that.
There should also, shortly, be smaller 3rd parties that will whip-up some fullscreen apps. Head to MacUpdate and see just how many apps offer fullscreen QT playback.
I'm not against Apple crippled QT7 as much as I am "what" they cripple. Make it an authoring upgrade, don't piss people off by not offering options every other media player on earth has. I'm looking at you fullscreen
Alas, I've been a pro user since 5 (or maybe 4 back on PC) and will remain so. Once I purchase Tiger and or a Mac mini QT7 Pro will come along with the ride.
If I had even one peice of media to author - I would go pro - but I do not - for me QT player is a PLAYER - no more no less - well alot less since I cannot do full screen
Wait a minute...open with empty player window is a pro feature? I had done that since QT4 in windows because it was good for context and I had no use for the ADS...well pro MAY be in my future if I find too many other thinks missing...
If the free QuickTime player only included full screen playback, I could care less if they charged $30 for the rest of the Pro features. Charging $30 extra for full screen playback in the default Mac OS video player is ridiculous.
I suspect that Apple's charge for quicktime pro is more about the royalties that Apple has to pay, then trying to nickle and dime people.
I'm sorry, I'm with some others, I don't believe there is a legitimate reason to pay $30 to play a movie full screen. There are free commercial programs and media players that offer full screen. I just keep FullScreenMoviePlayer around and be done with it. If I wanted encoders, I'd have no problem with paying that money for a good encoder.
Another thing I'd want is the MPEG-2 decoder. Heck, their DVD player program has an MPEG-2 decoder, but I guess it's a bit much to tap into that. I've seen other commercial DVD player programs that let you play straight MPEG-2 files.
Another thing I'd want is the MPEG-2 decoder. Heck, their DVD player program has an MPEG-2 decoder, but I guess it's a bit much to tap into that. I've seen other commercial DVD player programs that let you play straight MPEG-2 files.
Well the QT6 component appears to be the same for QT7 for what it's worth so if you had it before you don't need to repurchase that.
If the free QuickTime player only included full screen playback, I could care less if they charged $30 for the rest of the Pro features. Charging $30 extra for full screen playback in the default Mac OS video player is ridiculous.
You said it! I actually think $30 is a very good price for all the functionality QT Pro gives you. But to have to pay $30 for full-screen playback is completely ridiculous. I'm a little surprised Apple is still pulling this stuff. I guess some things never change ...
I am not in the full screen playback camp. I go for Pro because I want to copy the movie and download it to my computer. As well as a few other things that Pro gives you.
I don't know why Apple couldn't throw in the full screen thing for free, but somehow I am betting that there would still be those that would then say that you should be able to copy the movie file for free.
I am not in the full screen playback camp. I go for Pro because I want to copy the movie and download it to my computer. As well as a few other things that Pro gives you.
I don't know why Apple couldn't throw in the full screen thing for free, but somehow I am betting that there would still be those that would then say that you should be able to copy the movie file for free.
yup, kind of a slippery slope, but i draw the line at full screen playback for free player,
saving and copying movie files, exporting, trimming, full encoding exports etc etc for Pro...
at least kcmac offered an alternative argument to the whining going on here
Comments
There should also, shortly, be smaller 3rd parties that will whip-up some fullscreen apps. Head to MacUpdate and see just how many apps offer fullscreen QT playback.
I'm not against Apple crippled QT7 as much as I am "what" they cripple. Make it an authoring upgrade, don't piss people off by not offering options every other media player on earth has. I'm looking at you fullscreen
Alas, I've been a pro user since 5 (or maybe 4 back on PC) and will remain so. Once I purchase Tiger and or a Mac mini QT7 Pro will come along with the ride.
Originally posted by IonYz
If you can't justify spending $30 on this, then don't. Fullscreen playback, thats all you want? H.264 existed prior to QT7, try one of the free players like VLC. I've encoded H.264 DVD-rips for my PSP and played them back using that.
There should also, shortly, be smaller 3rd parties that will whip-up some fullscreen apps. Head to MacUpdate and see just how many apps offer fullscreen QT playback.
I'm not against Apple crippled QT7 as much as I am "what" they cripple. Make it an authoring upgrade, don't piss people off by not offering options every other media player on earth has. I'm looking at you fullscreen
Alas, I've been a pro user since 5 (or maybe 4 back on PC) and will remain so. Once I purchase Tiger and or a Mac mini QT7 Pro will come along with the ride.
If I had even one peice of media to author - I would go pro - but I do not - for me QT player is a PLAYER - no more no less - well alot less since I cannot do full screen
Wait a minute...open with empty player window is a pro feature? I had done that since QT4 in windows because it was good for context and I had no use for the ADS...well pro MAY be in my future if I find too many other thinks missing...
Originally posted by a_greer
.......well pro MAY be in my future if I find too many other thinks missing...
well, that's AAPL's plan for your $30.
Originally posted by sunilraman
well, that's AAPL's plan for your $30.
Did I say anything about BUYING a key???
Originally posted by a_greer
Did I say anything about BUYING a key???
i suspect all my piracy activities will come back to bite me in the a55... if not in this lifetime maybe one of my next ones
Originally posted by melevittfl
I suspect that Apple's charge for quicktime pro is more about the royalties that Apple has to pay, then trying to nickle and dime people.
I'm sorry, I'm with some others, I don't believe there is a legitimate reason to pay $30 to play a movie full screen. There are free commercial programs and media players that offer full screen. I just keep FullScreenMoviePlayer around and be done with it. If I wanted encoders, I'd have no problem with paying that money for a good encoder.
Another thing I'd want is the MPEG-2 decoder. Heck, their DVD player program has an MPEG-2 decoder, but I guess it's a bit much to tap into that. I've seen other commercial DVD player programs that let you play straight MPEG-2 files.
Its not a question about licenses. The functions are not crippled in the framework, only in the QT app. Any app can use these "Pro" features.
Originally posted by JeffDM
Another thing I'd want is the MPEG-2 decoder. Heck, their DVD player program has an MPEG-2 decoder, but I guess it's a bit much to tap into that. I've seen other commercial DVD player programs that let you play straight MPEG-2 files.
Well the QT6 component appears to be the same for QT7 for what it's worth so if you had it before you don't need to repurchase that.
Originally posted by pmjoe
If the free QuickTime player only included full screen playback, I could care less if they charged $30 for the rest of the Pro features. Charging $30 extra for full screen playback in the default Mac OS video player is ridiculous.
You said it! I actually think $30 is a very good price for all the functionality QT Pro gives you. But to have to pay $30 for full-screen playback is completely ridiculous. I'm a little surprised Apple is still pulling this stuff. I guess some things never change ...
I don't know why Apple couldn't throw in the full screen thing for free, but somehow I am betting that there would still be those that would then say that you should be able to copy the movie file for free.
Originally posted by kcmac
I am not in the full screen playback camp. I go for Pro because I want to copy the movie and download it to my computer. As well as a few other things that Pro gives you.
I don't know why Apple couldn't throw in the full screen thing for free, but somehow I am betting that there would still be those that would then say that you should be able to copy the movie file for free.
yup, kind of a slippery slope, but i draw the line at full screen playback for free player,
saving and copying movie files, exporting, trimming, full encoding exports etc etc for Pro...
at least kcmac offered an alternative argument to the whining going on here