Man QuickTime 6 (the preview) sucks. It just plain doesn't work, with QT at that! All the trailers from Apple's movie trailer page have really bizarre audio problems. IE 5.1, 9.1, iMac 500mhz with almost everything turned off, at Dartmouth.
Also, after watching only two trailers, I had to restart IE because of a 'dangerously low memory' alert. Memory leak?
And, uh. WOW. the quality of MPEG 4 is undisputed. Holy crap that gallery looks so good at original size, it's hard to find artifacts, and someone could have fooled me into thinking they were watching TV. The streaming demos on their gallery didn't work for me (500mhz iMac with T3++, so I don't know why they don't work) however, the "fast start downloads" are absolute honey. QT 6 just knocks AVI in quality and performance, it resized nicely. I don't want to see anyone knocking Apple for picking MPEG-4 I hope they get those issues resolved. MP4 is beautiful! I haven't even heard AAC yet, iWant more space on my iPod!
Ahh, the following post reminds me of me a few years back
I hope not. DIVX is supposed to be great. It's GARBAGE. Why, do movies take up more than a whole CD, and have maybe 30-50% the quality of a QuickTime movie that's 10 (!) times smaller?
Well I dont know about you (especially with the current mac handling of the DivX codec) but on my PC most 400 meg DivXs play at awsome quallity (especially with the new ffdshow codec which wipes the floor with standard DivX and can play and divX movie). Considerably better than most mpeg versions of movies, and as for quick time... well I cant comment as Ive never downlaoded a 1.5h qt movie
Haha, you cannot resize DivX. At least, all the ones I've gotten, from, er, Lines from places that are Hot.
Thats not a divX problem. DivXs are known for having incredibly good resizing (when done well at least, sh!t encoding will still give you sh!t decoding), hell I can take 480x320 movies and take them to full screen with minimal loss.
DivX is unplayable on my G3 300, it needs a 500mhz G3 in my experience, and even then audio comes out of sync.
This is true, DivX takes a LOT of processing power.
With better quality than this, I can play QuickTime 2 movies on my IIsi.
Do I really need to comment on this? DivX does play slowly, but you acheive good picture/size from it.
QuickTime mops the floor with ANY other media I've seen (WiMP, Real, fooey.)
Sorry. I'm just SO angry that more people don't use QuickTime I guess.
I agree, qt is a GREAT program (well its not to hot for PC, but I still like it more than wimp, and real can kiss my ass). Qt streaming is some of the best there is (soooooo stable, easy to control, and its in browser!), and its fairly good for smaller/shorter movies. However I would like to see how big a full length qt movie that looks crystal clear when blown to full screen would be.
Now MPG4.... ooh ya...
edit: I just checked some of the videos on the apple gallery... ummm... ya...
Ok, I might be spoilt, but even my shitty recorded-from-a-VCR evangelion episodes look better (at full screen) than those movies at double size. What apple needs is something like the forementioned ffdshow (which even made my ultra low quallity requiem for a dream footage look like a blurry DVD). However I qill admit that the size/quallity ratio of those movies was pretty good (9 megs, wow), but still not good enough to blast divX like you guys did.
[ 06-08-2002: Message edited by: The Toolboi ]</p>
Apple doesn't have to do anything about divx. After all Divx has very little comercial value. Everything should be 3rd party in the contribution sense. That isn't to say they shouldn't support it, espcially with the mp3 bug.
Divx IS crap. To this day, Encoders still debate on which version is the best. And proportionally give headaches to everyone else that downloads the file.
Quality is a debatable issue. It depends on what you watch. The trend for size/time divx movies has gotten bigger. Where once it was 340x480 is not 640x480.
And if you use it for Anime which has somehow gotten to be the herald of Divx distribution, you get 800x600 and up. When 22minutes gives you 230megs, that's something...
A 333imac in this case is of course not adequate. Heck a 666pen3 isn't adequate.
As for green screen, that's a problem with FFmpeg playing divx5. user another encoder.
There is NOTHING I have seen with qt6 that doesn't appear in QT5. Though this could be seen as good and bad. So downgrading won't get you much.
Finally, the Divx.com codec for Divx has a post-process cpu slider. See if that helps with your aging mac.
Finally, there is always the re-coding of Divx to other format, in this case mp4. It may take you up to 6 hours, but at least OSX won't crash.
Divx IS crap. To this day, Encoders still debate on which version is the best.
I agree on the point that DivX.com has really ****ed up with their various versions. They have continually released codecs which change things around, and often screw with the quallity of the codec (to this day a DivX3 movie I got from a friend a few years back plays at the highest quallity [just under DVD] and lowest size of any DivX Ive found])
And proportionally give headaches to everyone else that downloads the file.
Well theres two solutions to this. Have all three codecs installed (DivX 3,4,5), or just 3 and ffdshow (thich is the best of them). In truth only having v5 plays almost anything, but there are a few animes and other things which require divX3 due to the audio codec. 3 and 5 will play everything that Ive found...
Quality is a debatable issue. It depends on what you watch. The trend for size/time divx movies has gotten bigger. Where once it was 340x480 is not [now? -TB] 640x480.
Then lets debate. I would like to see a movie that matches the size/quallity ratio of a standard DivX.
Also, Im rather confused about just what you mean, the trend for size/time has gotten bigger. What exactly do you mean?
And if you use it for Anime which has somehow gotten to be the herald of Divx distribution,
Damn straight
you get 800x600 and up. When 22minutes gives you 230megs, that's something...
Ummm, are we now complaining about the file size of a 800x600 movie? How does this show a fault in the codec? I dont remember too many 800x600 mpegs or MooVs which were of a nice small size, especially ones which could be scaled up exponentially.
Besides, even a 640x480 mpeg can be scaled to 1024x768 with minimal quallity loss.
A 333imac in this case is of course not adequate. Heck a 666pen3 isn't adequate.
Your right, DivX is VERY processer heavy. THough I will once again pimp ffdshow for its amazingly efficient decoding.
There is NOTHING I have seen with qt6 that doesn't appear in QT5. Though this could be seen as good and bad. So downgrading won't get you much.
Well, there is mpeg 4 support... or at least better mpeg 4 support...
<strong>[i]Then lets debate. I would like to see a movie that matches the size/quallity ratio of a standard DivX.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Well, I'm not very well versed on the supposed "quality" of DivX, but I just finished compressing a QuickTime movie for an upcoming project that I think looks quite nice for its size. Based on the following quote:
[quote]Originally posted by Kuku:
<strong>When 22minutes gives you 230megs, that's something...</strong><hr></blockquote>
I'm guessing that the "good looking" DivX files you guys are talking about run about 175 KB/sec ((230 * 1024) / (22 * 60) = ~175). Since my video runs at 168.3 KB/s, I think it compares well for relative file size.
Here's my video, <a href="http://commons.ucalgary.ca/king/CalIncProgram1002.mov"; target="_blank">Calgary: A Moving Postcard</a>. It has lots of fast motion, lots of cuts, and good detail. Let me know what you guys think of it, and how it compares to DivX. Although I have no intention of ever using DivX, I am curious what all the fuss over quality is about.
(BTW: If you think the audio sounds "flangy", it's not QDesign's fault. The original's like that.)
Here's a second movie that I compressed at the same time, <a href="http://commons.ucalgary.ca/king/RaisingSights9.mov"; target="_blank">Raising Our Sights</a>. Its datarate is slightly lower, at 163.4 KB/s. Again, let me know what you think of the quality, and how it compares to DivX.
I'm also curious to know how the perceived quality differs between setting your monitor to 800x600, and double sizing the movie to fill that, or expanding the movie to fill your screen at whatever your current resolution is.
Another thing to try, is to set your display's gamma curve to something that more closely matches television (use the 'Displays' System Preference). Does that affect how "good" you think the video looks?
(edit: fixed URL)
[ 06-09-2002: Message edited by: King Chung Huang ]</p>
Simple arugement. Bigger the size, the more work the CPU has to do.
The biggest I've seen(or remember) of quality is tenchi GXP, which comes around 240megs on a 22minutes or so...you can do the math. My G4 had a angonizing time playing it. My 1.2ghz Althon did a pretty decent job but search/skip wasn't the lighting speed it should be for that much power.
To rehash, the trend with divx video, especially in the anime realm, has had increasing demand for higher quality divx. Where once low quality 120~ish downloads were common it's now 170ish~
Proportionally the aging computers more and more becomes disfunction in terms to watching divx. It's next to impossible to change it software wise no matter how much is complained.
Resolution sizes is simple, quality. It doesn't matter if you do 80fps if you can't see their faces. Divx doesn't scale well I think also. But then nothing scales well, after all it's pixels were talking about here. That's where 800x600+ comes in...though I fail to see why you would need to watch anything higher then that...maybe on a great LCD or something. Sine I watch massive amounts of it, I can say, there is definitelly a difference between 640x480 and 800x600,
Oh on math, you are excuding color's and audio. Divx videos are usually millions and Mp3s are usually a good 128bit.
{edit} now did I think on that, does anyone know how much cpu power is needed to render mpeg1 and mepg2? Before the age of Video cards that do on board rending of those two, it used to be very harsh on the cpu..but it was back in those days.
King Chung Huang, on the video "Calgary: A Moving Postcard"... since the video is 2:28 minutes, and the file is about 25megs so I'll just put 6 seconds per meg. And by measuring from my memory of divx video's I've watch over the years, your video I'll guess(unfounded on techincal merits) would be somewhere in the lower quality 90-110megs divx area(22minutes) which is about 13.4 seconds(per meg) on divx.
[If you want to know why 22minutes, TV anime broadcasted are nearily idential in terms of time. SO I have a good couple of thosaunds to compare]
So on first guess I would just say that divx is better by that math, on "that" scaling.
Please note, that 1st and foremost I'm recalling from memory(though clear,memory).
2nd, The video, different formats have different scales. Some formats are great for streaming, others are great for view, and some are great because of standards and avialible hardware(mpeg).
3th, Video qualities. It's somewhat opinionated, on what looks better or works to their eyes. This video scales pretty decently, but it's 400x300 after all. High end might scale differently.
4th Other stuff. Things like error correction, color colaboration, post processing(with divix), cpu usage,etc. Important or not depends on the user.
and Finally, DivX, is not really "divX" it's has more types of codecs then I can remember. Some swear by "sbc" version of Divx 3, but error correction is a pain. Divx3 is notorious for it's "streaks" found on black and other frames(even then it depends on which decoder people use). Divx4/5 has little/no problems, with most people stating "perfectness" and "ease of use" but it's complained to be also bloated.
And as a side note, we have there odd ends of other divx encoders(nearly unknowns), and the started-all mp4v62 M$ style.
Comments
Also, after watching only two trailers, I had to restart IE because of a 'dangerously low memory' alert. Memory leak?
And, uh. WOW. the quality of MPEG 4 is undisputed. Holy crap that gallery looks so good at original size, it's hard to find artifacts, and someone could have fooled me into thinking they were watching TV. The streaming demos on their gallery didn't work for me (500mhz iMac with T3++, so I don't know why they don't work) however, the "fast start downloads" are absolute honey. QT 6 just knocks AVI in quality and performance, it resized nicely. I don't want to see anyone knocking Apple for picking MPEG-4
Anyone running it on OS 10.1.5?
Singen
A Mac with QT5 player plays continuously. No problems.
PC with QT6 player plays for a minute or two, then freezeframes. Eventually "-3285 disconnected" appears in the player status window.
PC with QT5 player plays for a minute or two, freezes video image, but elapsed time counter keeps going.
Any suggestions for keeping a constant connection on the PCs? Is there some funky setting I need to change?
Apple seems content to release dogshit colored brushed metal to the Windows world and wonder why QT isn't catching on as fast as they hope it would.
[ 06-05-2002: Message edited by: groverat ]</p>
I hope not. DIVX is supposed to be great. It's GARBAGE. Why, do movies take up more than a whole CD, and have maybe 30-50% the quality of a QuickTime movie that's 10 (!) times smaller?
Well I dont know about you (especially with the current mac handling of the DivX codec) but on my PC most 400 meg DivXs play at awsome quallity (especially with the new ffdshow codec which wipes the floor with standard DivX and can play and divX movie). Considerably better than most mpeg versions of movies, and as for quick time... well I cant comment as Ive never downlaoded a 1.5h qt movie
Haha, you cannot resize DivX. At least, all the ones I've gotten, from, er, Lines from places that are Hot.
Thats not a divX problem. DivXs are known for having incredibly good resizing (when done well at least, sh!t encoding will still give you sh!t decoding), hell I can take 480x320 movies and take them to full screen with minimal loss.
DivX is unplayable on my G3 300, it needs a 500mhz G3 in my experience, and even then audio comes out of sync.
This is true, DivX takes a LOT of processing power.
With better quality than this, I can play QuickTime 2 movies on my IIsi.
Do I really need to comment on this? DivX does play slowly, but you acheive good picture/size from it.
QuickTime mops the floor with ANY other media I've seen (WiMP, Real, fooey.)
Sorry. I'm just SO angry that more people don't use QuickTime I guess.
I agree, qt is a GREAT program (well its not to hot for PC, but I still like it more than wimp, and real can kiss my ass). Qt streaming is some of the best there is (soooooo stable, easy to control, and its in browser!), and its fairly good for smaller/shorter movies. However I would like to see how big a full length qt movie that looks crystal clear when blown to full screen would be.
Now MPG4.... ooh ya...
edit: I just checked some of the videos on the apple gallery... ummm... ya...
Ok, I might be spoilt, but even my shitty recorded-from-a-VCR evangelion episodes look better (at full screen) than those movies at double size. What apple needs is something like the forementioned ffdshow (which even made my ultra low quallity requiem for a dream footage look like a blurry DVD). However I qill admit that the size/quallity ratio of those movies was pretty good (9 megs, wow), but still not good enough to blast divX like you guys did.
[ 06-08-2002: Message edited by: The Toolboi ]</p>
Divx IS crap. To this day, Encoders still debate on which version is the best. And proportionally give headaches to everyone else that downloads the file.
Quality is a debatable issue. It depends on what you watch. The trend for size/time divx movies has gotten bigger. Where once it was 340x480 is not 640x480.
And if you use it for Anime which has somehow gotten to be the herald of Divx distribution, you get 800x600 and up. When 22minutes gives you 230megs, that's something...
A 333imac in this case is of course not adequate. Heck a 666pen3 isn't adequate.
As for green screen, that's a problem with FFmpeg playing divx5. user another encoder.
There is NOTHING I have seen with qt6 that doesn't appear in QT5. Though this could be seen as good and bad. So downgrading won't get you much.
Finally, the Divx.com codec for Divx has a post-process cpu slider. See if that helps with your aging mac.
Finally, there is always the re-coding of Divx to other format, in this case mp4. It may take you up to 6 hours, but at least OSX won't crash.
~Kuku
He is completely wrong.
avi to mov is basically to fix the mp3 bug. I don't need to say anymore since anyone who watched more then 3 divx movies on a mac would know this.
Deleting the orginal .avi will be like deleting the video file. and who want's to listen to a movie.
Any newbies to divx should get this straight.
~Kuku
I agree on the point that DivX.com has really ****ed up with their various versions. They have continually released codecs which change things around, and often screw with the quallity of the codec (to this day a DivX3 movie I got from a friend a few years back plays at the highest quallity [just under DVD] and lowest size of any DivX Ive found])
And proportionally give headaches to everyone else that downloads the file.
Well theres two solutions to this. Have all three codecs installed (DivX 3,4,5), or just 3 and ffdshow (thich is the best of them). In truth only having v5 plays almost anything, but there are a few animes and other things which require divX3 due to the audio codec. 3 and 5 will play everything that Ive found...
Quality is a debatable issue. It depends on what you watch. The trend for size/time divx movies has gotten bigger. Where once it was 340x480 is not [now? -TB] 640x480.
Then lets debate. I would like to see a movie that matches the size/quallity ratio of a standard DivX.
Also, Im rather confused about just what you mean, the trend for size/time has gotten bigger. What exactly do you mean?
And if you use it for Anime which has somehow gotten to be the herald of Divx distribution,
Damn straight
you get 800x600 and up. When 22minutes gives you 230megs, that's something...
Ummm, are we now complaining about the file size of a 800x600 movie? How does this show a fault in the codec? I dont remember too many 800x600 mpegs or MooVs which were of a nice small size, especially ones which could be scaled up exponentially.
Besides, even a 640x480 mpeg can be scaled to 1024x768 with minimal quallity loss.
A 333imac in this case is of course not adequate. Heck a 666pen3 isn't adequate.
Your right, DivX is VERY processer heavy. THough I will once again pimp ffdshow for its amazingly efficient decoding.
There is NOTHING I have seen with qt6 that doesn't appear in QT5. Though this could be seen as good and bad. So downgrading won't get you much.
Well, there is mpeg 4 support... or at least better mpeg 4 support...
<strong>[i]Then lets debate. I would like to see a movie that matches the size/quallity ratio of a standard DivX.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Well, I'm not very well versed on the supposed "quality" of DivX, but I just finished compressing a QuickTime movie for an upcoming project that I think looks quite nice for its size. Based on the following quote:
[quote]Originally posted by Kuku:
<strong>When 22minutes gives you 230megs, that's something...</strong><hr></blockquote>
I'm guessing that the "good looking" DivX files you guys are talking about run about 175 KB/sec ((230 * 1024) / (22 * 60) = ~175). Since my video runs at 168.3 KB/s, I think it compares well for relative file size.
Here's my video, <a href="http://commons.ucalgary.ca/king/CalIncProgram1002.mov"; target="_blank">Calgary: A Moving Postcard</a>. It has lots of fast motion, lots of cuts, and good detail. Let me know what you guys think of it, and how it compares to DivX. Although I have no intention of ever using DivX, I am curious what all the fuss over quality is about.
(BTW: If you think the audio sounds "flangy", it's not QDesign's fault. The original's like that.)
I'm also curious to know how the perceived quality differs between setting your monitor to 800x600, and double sizing the movie to fill that, or expanding the movie to fill your screen at whatever your current resolution is.
Another thing to try, is to set your display's gamma curve to something that more closely matches television (use the 'Displays' System Preference). Does that affect how "good" you think the video looks?
(edit: fixed URL)
[ 06-09-2002: Message edited by: King Chung Huang ]</p>
The biggest I've seen(or remember) of quality is tenchi GXP, which comes around 240megs on a 22minutes or so...you can do the math. My G4 had a angonizing time playing it. My 1.2ghz Althon did a pretty decent job but search/skip wasn't the lighting speed it should be for that much power.
To rehash, the trend with divx video, especially in the anime realm, has had increasing demand for higher quality divx. Where once low quality 120~ish downloads were common it's now 170ish~
Proportionally the aging computers more and more becomes disfunction in terms to watching divx. It's next to impossible to change it software wise no matter how much is complained.
Resolution sizes is simple, quality. It doesn't matter if you do 80fps if you can't see their faces. Divx doesn't scale well I think also. But then nothing scales well, after all it's pixels were talking about here. That's where 800x600+ comes in...though I fail to see why you would need to watch anything higher then that...maybe on a great LCD or something. Sine I watch massive amounts of it, I can say, there is definitelly a difference between 640x480 and 800x600,
Oh on math, you are excuding color's and audio. Divx videos are usually millions and Mp3s are usually a good 128bit.
{edit} now did I think on that, does anyone know how much cpu power is needed to render mpeg1 and mepg2? Before the age of Video cards that do on board rending of those two, it used to be very harsh on the cpu..but it was back in those days.
~Kuku
[ 06-09-2002: Message edited by: Kuku ]</p>
[If you want to know why 22minutes, TV anime broadcasted are nearily idential in terms of time. SO I have a good couple of thosaunds to compare]
So on first guess I would just say that divx is better by that math, on "that" scaling.
Please note, that 1st and foremost I'm recalling from memory(though clear,memory).
2nd, The video, different formats have different scales. Some formats are great for streaming, others are great for view, and some are great because of standards and avialible hardware(mpeg).
3th, Video qualities. It's somewhat opinionated, on what looks better or works to their eyes. This video scales pretty decently, but it's 400x300 after all. High end might scale differently.
4th Other stuff. Things like error correction, color colaboration, post processing(with divix), cpu usage,etc. Important or not depends on the user.
and Finally, DivX, is not really "divX" it's has more types of codecs then I can remember. Some swear by "sbc" version of Divx 3, but error correction is a pain. Divx3 is notorious for it's "streaks" found on black and other frames(even then it depends on which decoder people use). Divx4/5 has little/no problems, with most people stating "perfectness" and "ease of use" but it's complained to be also bloated.
And as a side note, we have there odd ends of other divx encoders(nearly unknowns), and the started-all mp4v62 M$ style.
take your pick on where your encode stands...
I should try some mp4s when I get the chance.
~Kuku
Ever since I installed the QT Preview from Apple, hitting the spacebar no longer pauses/replays a movie. Is this another QT6 Bug?