Anyone know when QT 7 is going to be released to the dark side?
Don't know, but I hope it is soon. I want to play a couple of the 1080i videos on my laptop (1920x1200) and see how they compare them to the Power Mac and my Cinema Display.
Just converted a few old avi (windows) movies to QT using H264 for the web. They look as good as the originals, but won't play using QT for Windows. Anyone know when QT 7 is going to be released to the dark side?
Well QT7 wont impove the quality of already encoded files. maybe if you had the origial DV video and encode it both ways, you will see the difference...As for when QT7 comes out to windows, no body knows.
Well QT7 wont impove the quality of already encoded files. maybe if you had the origial DV video and encode it both ways, you will see the difference...As for when QT7 comes out to windows, no body knows.
that's the thing... h.264 qt7 is an amazing codec. you can take already encoded file, compress it further, and the result is still aesthetically pleasing.
rips from DVD to a 2000bps (somewhat less than 1/2 of dvd bitrate) file, say 640x272 h.264 qt7 .mov, hold up very very well in quality when you do multipass bitrate-limited encoding.
i think i might be the only person thoroughly unimpressed by h.264. i think it is very inefficient in quality/size. anyone else with me?
i think it is one of the best codecs ever invented. seriously. have you tried multipass encoding in qt7? ichat AV between two Tiger computers? high-definition trailers coming in at 4000bps? that's all major achievements.
maybe your unhappy because it takes a dual g5 to playback smoothly and takes quite a while to encode?? i think that was all the gripe when mpeg2 first came out compared to mpeg(1)... edit: hardware based decoding and encoding solutions sorted all those mpeg2 concerns out.
i think i might be the only person thoroughly unimpressed by h.264. i think it is very inefficient in quality/size. anyone else with me?
I don't think you've spent enough time with it. Name another codec that is more efficient in size of final output vs quality.
People seem to be down on the fact that h.264 takes some serious grunt to encode in HD rez but that's been known for a while. I have yet to see any bakeoffs where h.264 hasn't looked visibly better and been one of the smallest files.
Judging from what I've seen so far h.264 is one of the brightest stars of this year. Come on would you rather look at
This
or this
I know what I'm choosing Top is h.264 QT7 bottom is likely MPEG4 QT6
Ok this is sweet. I checked the software update, and found the
"Apple Intermediate Codec" (1.0.1)
So I thought ok, just install it, only 700k. Then I decided to see if there was the slightest chance it could play H.264 any better. I ran the latest HD Batman trailer from Apple's website (720p res) from my external HD (check sig for specs).
Usually I only manage 12 fps on my humble little Powerbook, now it plays this trailer at it's full fps! Even with Limewire and MSN Messenger running it managed 20 constant fps. A very nice update.
Need a G5?? Perhaps not.
arghhhghghh bugger bugger bugger.... where is my os 10.4 ???!!!??
i can't install apple intermediate codec on my 10.3.9 coz i don't have any of the pro video apps you're sh1tt1ng me right? that drastic an fps improvement ??!!?
maybe your unhappy because it takes a dual g5 to playback smoothly and takes quite a while to encode??
well i certainly dont need to worry about having a dual g5.
in all seriouness, you guys have a point that i probably haven't spent enough time with it. i guess i was jsut frustrated because i couple of encodes i did with all the best settings turned out to be less than impressive (artifacts all over the place that shouldn't be there). as i try different types of footage, perhaps my views will change.
Let us know what you find. You're not the only person I've heard that said they weren't getting good encodes. I heard another guy that couldn't get encodes better than MPEG4. There's gotta be something awry that can be fixed. I'm seeing some good quality stuff on the internet so we'll see.
The slow encode times are a bummer. Reminds me of back in the day when I wanted a Wired Inc card to encode MPEG2.
i wish i had your machine to encode though, probably gonna run some overnights on my iBook g4 933mhz 256mb ram... i got a cold at the moment so its actually a good excuse to geek out in front of the mac with a huge ass box of tissues
hmm i'm gonna slam my g4 with another matrix revolutions clip (a bit from the rain finale) and see how the quantisation g(rain) holds... hope my poor little iBook doesn't explode under the encoding load
hey is it just me or when encoding h.264, at least, in qt7, looking at activity monitor, the qtHelper process is assigned more cpu resources when one has QuickTime Player (Pro) as the foreground app...?
some of you that have complained about slow encodes, try leaving quicktime app in the foreground while it encodes, i think that improves performance quite a bit
there's no manually setting the task-weighting on qt7 pro as far as i know...
reading lots of regrets concerning the encoding into the new H.264 codec (even BigMacs needs hours for a few minutes of video), I "feel" that maybe this is a sign?- you grab the territory for a new standard? and deliver the hardware later.-
in the "year of HD", H.264 is important - but useless, if even the pros cannot encode within lifespan
what are you're experiences??
//not to mention playback, the demos at apple.com are nice, but?//
Playing HD at full fps is hard enough - only PowerMacs above dual 2.0 GHz will do it!
720 or 1080? I'm referring to the 1080p HD - sorry I should have clarified. My point is HD is too CPU intensive.
I do not have the proper display for the 1080p. I have the 20", so it does the 720p native, but the 1080p, I am not sure about. I don't know if it would scale it down or if it would be outside the boundaries of the display.
Comments
Originally posted by Esteban
Anyone know when QT 7 is going to be released to the dark side?
Don't know, but I hope it is soon. I want to play a couple of the 1080i videos on my laptop (1920x1200) and see how they compare them to the Power Mac and my Cinema Display.
Originally posted by Esteban
Just converted a few old avi (windows) movies to QT using H264 for the web. They look as good as the originals, but won't play using QT for Windows. Anyone know when QT 7 is going to be released to the dark side?
Well QT7 wont impove the quality of already encoded files. maybe if you had the origial DV video and encode it both ways, you will see the difference...As for when QT7 comes out to windows, no body knows.
Originally posted by sogo
Well QT7 wont impove the quality of already encoded files. maybe if you had the origial DV video and encode it both ways, you will see the difference...As for when QT7 comes out to windows, no body knows.
that's the thing... h.264 qt7 is an amazing codec. you can take already encoded file, compress it further, and the result is still aesthetically pleasing.
rips from DVD to a 2000bps (somewhat less than 1/2 of dvd bitrate) file, say 640x272 h.264 qt7 .mov, hold up very very well in quality when you do multipass bitrate-limited encoding.
takes very very very long to encode though
Originally posted by ipodandimac
i think i might be the only person thoroughly unimpressed by h.264. i think it is very inefficient in quality/size. anyone else with me?
i think it is one of the best codecs ever invented. seriously. have you tried multipass encoding in qt7? ichat AV between two Tiger computers? high-definition trailers coming in at 4000bps? that's all major achievements.
maybe your unhappy because it takes a dual g5 to playback smoothly and takes quite a while to encode?? i think that was all the gripe when mpeg2 first came out compared to mpeg(1)... edit: hardware based decoding and encoding solutions sorted all those mpeg2 concerns out.
Originally posted by ipodandimac
i think i might be the only person thoroughly unimpressed by h.264. i think it is very inefficient in quality/size. anyone else with me?
I don't think you've spent enough time with it. Name another codec that is more efficient in size of final output vs quality.
People seem to be down on the fact that h.264 takes some serious grunt to encode in HD rez but that's been known for a while. I have yet to see any bakeoffs where h.264 hasn't looked visibly better and been one of the smallest files.
Judging from what I've seen so far h.264 is one of the brightest stars of this year. Come on would you rather look at
This
or this
I know what I'm choosing
Originally posted by mattyj
Update:
Ok this is sweet. I checked the software update, and found the
"Apple Intermediate Codec" (1.0.1)
So I thought ok, just install it, only 700k. Then I decided to see if there was the slightest chance it could play H.264 any better. I ran the latest HD Batman trailer from Apple's website (720p res) from my external HD (check sig for specs).
Usually I only manage 12 fps on my humble little Powerbook, now it plays this trailer at it's full fps!
Need a G5?? Perhaps not.
arghhhghghh bugger bugger bugger.... where is my os 10.4 ???!!!??
i can't install apple intermediate codec on my 10.3.9 coz i don't have any of the pro video apps you're sh1tt1ng me right? that drastic an fps improvement
Originally posted by sunilraman
maybe your unhappy because it takes a dual g5 to playback smoothly and takes quite a while to encode??
well i certainly dont need to worry about having a dual g5.
in all seriouness, you guys have a point that i probably haven't spent enough time with it. i guess i was jsut frustrated because i couple of encodes i did with all the best settings turned out to be less than impressive (artifacts all over the place that shouldn't be there). as i try different types of footage, perhaps my views will change.
Let us know what you find. You're not the only person I've heard that said they weren't getting good encodes. I heard another guy that couldn't get encodes better than MPEG4. There's gotta be something awry that can be fixed. I'm seeing some good quality stuff on the internet so we'll see.
The slow encode times are a bummer. Reminds me of back in the day when I wanted a Wired Inc card to encode MPEG2.
i wish i had your machine to encode though, probably gonna run some overnights on my iBook g4 933mhz 256mb ram... i got a cold at the moment so its actually a good excuse to geek out in front of the mac with a huge ass box of tissues
hmm i'm gonna slam my g4 with another matrix revolutions clip (a bit from the rain finale) and see how the quantisation g(rain) holds... hope my poor little iBook doesn't explode under the encoding load
...peace 8)
some of you that have complained about slow encodes, try leaving quicktime app in the foreground while it encodes, i think that improves performance quite a bit
there's no manually setting the task-weighting on qt7 pro as far as i know...
but just wondering aloud here...
I've been nothing but impressed. Some friends who work in the film industry as editors are also impressed.
My only complaint about the new HD trailers on the QT site is that they are somewhat grainy! Look fab though...
Originally posted by Xool
.....
My only complaint about the new HD trailers on the QT site is that they are somewhat grainy! Look fab though...
we've gotten so used to watching DVDs that essentially smooth out film grain when compressed
case in point: here is a clip that would challenge any encoder. no film grain, just "rain grain" and pixels
check it out y'all:
matrix revolutions "rain fight" clip
19.3mb h.264 QT7 required.
for testing and evaluation purposes only
multipass-encoded from QT7 from DVD-region3-rip
~2600kbps limited on video, 128kbps AAC sound
640x272
http://homepage.mac.com/sunilraman/m..._rain.h264.mov
(view in browser or
right-click and save as...)
(viewing in browser just gives you a big Q for a while so i suggest saving as...)
..........
Originally posted by k_munic
reading lots of regrets concerning the encoding into the new H.264 codec (even BigMacs needs hours for a few minutes of video), I "feel" that maybe this is a sign?- you grab the territory for a new standard? and deliver the hardware later.-
in the "year of HD", H.264 is important - but useless, if even the pros cannot encode within lifespan
what are you're experiences??
//not to mention playback, the demos at apple.com are nice, but?//
Playing HD at full fps is hard enough - only PowerMacs above dual 2.0 GHz will do it!
Originally posted by MacCrazy
Playing HD at full fps is hard enough - only PowerMacs above dual 2.0 GHz will do it!
I beg to differ. I have a dual 2.0 G5 and it plays the HD content from the Apple site just fine at the full fps.
Originally posted by kwsanders
I beg to differ. I have a dual 2.0 G5 and it plays the HD content from the Apple site just fine at the full fps.
I meant 2.0 GHz and above! What I mean is old iMac G5s and PowerBooks struggle
Originally posted by MacCrazy
I meant 2.0 GHz and above! What I mean is old iMac G5s and PowerBooks struggle
my 1.8 imac g5 plays the HD trailiers from apples website fine. (1 gig ram)
Originally posted by The General
my 1.8 imac g5 plays the HD trailiers from apples website fine. (1 gig ram)
720 or 1080? I'm referring to the 1080p HD - sorry I should have clarified. My point is HD is too CPU intensive.
Originally posted by MacCrazy
I meant 2.0 GHz and above! What I mean is old iMac G5s and PowerBooks struggle
Yep... I was like what?
I am anxious to see what QuickTime 7 does on my Dell Inspiron 8500 laptop (2.4 GHz) when QT7 finally comes out for Windows.
Originally posted by MacCrazy
720 or 1080? I'm referring to the 1080p HD - sorry I should have clarified. My point is HD is too CPU intensive.
I do not have the proper display for the 1080p. I have the 20", so it does the 720p native, but the 1080p, I am not sure about. I don't know if it would scale it down or if it would be outside the boundaries of the display.