A Mac Mini doesn't have the CPU or GPU to adequately use HD optical media.
[...]
not to mention the CPU and GPU that will be maxed trying to decode H.264 for 1080 resolution.
[...]
In the meantime, you can always buy one of the several external models being sold.
Well, which is it? First you say it can't do it, then you say it'll be maxed doing it, and then you say, just go ahead and get the external drive and everything will be fine.
Back in the real world, people play 1080p content on their minis, though it comes close to maxing things out (like it would on most Macs), so I assume it'll work but be close to maxed out (as a lot of other Macs with similar specs will also be).
It would really help your case if you could keep your story straight.
Good point...I keep forgetting about Front Row...probably 'cuz I don't have Front Row on my Mac Pro but I also keep forgetting Front Row is coming to all computers when Leopard ships.
Or is white the new black, making black the new white and the new black at the same time, in which case how can the new black and old black coexist, or are they really just the same black in two separate temporal states juxtaposed in our current continuum viewpoint?
So you can see QuickTime and DVD Player being separate apps but not Safari and RSS?
RSS could benefit from a better UI. The one in Safari is decent but not nearly powerful enough.
The problem with RSS getting its own app would probably be third-party devs feeling betrayed.
I think it should stay in Safari. That's a natural combination. Very few people need a separate app.
As you mention, there are third party apps for that. I doubt Apple could do as well for such a highly specialized app that only a few would want. Apple is into making apps for the masses. Not the Pro apps, of course, but they charge appropriately for them. This would be for free. Apple can better spend its resources elsewhere, like debugging.
A Mac Mini doesn't have the CPU or GPU to adequately use HD optical media.
The PS3 is being sold at a loss. Sony expects to recoup its HW losses from game sales and, potentially, gaining royalities by using the PS3 to help make Blu-ray the next standard.
You'll be paying a lot mor,e than $200 for a Blu-ray drive. Also, HD optical drives use a lot more power than your standard optical drive; not to mention the CPU and GPU that will be maxed trying to decode H.264 for 1080 resolution.
You'll see it in the Mac Pro first as an option. Then, many months later, when the media starts to become more mainstream, you'll see it as an option for the iMac and maybe the MacBook Pro.
In the meantime, you can always buy one of the several external models being sold.
I have this art teacher (she's not very bright) I she was eavesdropping (par for the course) on me talking to a couple other people about how expensive next gen video game system are. I mentioned that they sell them at a loss and she said I was wrong. I explained the reasoning and making money from game sales but she told me I shouldn't believe everything I read. Then she said that she knows what she is talking about (used to work for The Wall Street Journal) She said companies make up stuff and push fake stories all the time. It made me so mad. I can't stand when people are deliberately obtuse. If she worked for WSJ then she should understand the logic behind it.
I have this art teacher (she's not very bright) I she was eavesdropping (par for the course) on me talking to a couple other people about how expensive next gen video game system are. I mentioned that they sell them at a loss and she said I was wrong. I explained the reasoning and making money from game sales but she told me I shouldn't believe everything I read. Then she said that she knows what she is talking about (used to work for The Wall Street Journal) She said companies make up stuff and push fake stories all the time. It made me so mad. I can't stand when people are deliberately obtuse. If she worked for WSJ then she should understand the logic behind it.
You shouldn't believe everything you hear, she probably didn't work at WSJ
On the other hand, they have absolutely no reason to lie about saying they are selling them at a loss. Perhaps you should believe everything you Read
Well, which is it? First you say it can't do it, then you say it'll be maxed doing it, and then you say, just go ahead and get the external drive and everything will be fine.
Back in the real world, people play 1080p content on their minis, though it comes close to maxing things out (like it would on most Macs), so I assume it'll work but be close to maxed out (as a lot of other Macs with similar specs will also be).
It would really help your case if you could keep your story straight.
It can't do it, hence the comment of the CPU and GPU being maxed out TRYING to decode the large files.
A Mac Mini doesn't have the CPU or GPU to adequately use HD optical media.
Says who? From what I've read an Intel Mac Mini can play even 1080p content, although it does give the CPU a workout.
The Macbook is very similar to a Mini and I'm able to play 1080p content with no problems at all. If I scale it down, it requires more CPU power but can still handle it.
I'm also planning to get a Mini to use as a media center. I'm counting on being able to play 1080p. I don't have an HD TV yet (so I can't use Apple TV... no composite or s-video output), but I plan to buy a 1080p capable TV sometime in the future.
I'm waiting to buy the Mini until Leopard comes out. Hopefully they'll also upgrade the Minis to use Core 2 Duo. I figure it will give it an extra performance cushion for playing 1080p.
Choke it up to the pragmatist in me but I tend to go wish detailed lab results over unlearned opinions:
"We've been hearing for quite some time now that Blu-ray and HDDVD movies could prove to be too much for today's desktop microprocessors; today we finally have the proof. X-Men: The Last Stand encoded using the H.264/MPEG-4 AVC High Profile at 1080p requires more processing power to decode than affordable dual core CPUs can handle. We are at a point where GPU decode acceleration is essentially required with all but the highest end processors in order to achieve an acceptable level of quality while watching HD content on the PC."
"Right now the format with the highest potential for pushing hardware beyond its limits is Blu-ray. With 50GB disks possible today, we could see 2+ hour movies with sustained bitrates of 45 Mbps under H.264 which would really push even an X6800 system with an 8800 GTX running the display."
How much of a processor do you think a standalone HD player has?
Stand alone players are dedicated appliances made for doing one job. A PC is made to do multiple jobs at once. Apple will not release a Blu-ray drive that will have choppy playback during data heavy scenes and requires you to disable and turn off memory and CPU intensive features in order to play a movie. It's just not viable at this time, and certainly not the Apple way.
If you can show me some results where lower-end machines without dedicated GPUs are playing 1080p60 from H.264 Blu-ray discs, please post it here. BTW, I'm asking for H.264 discs, not VC-1, which is a much simpler codec and tremendously easier on the processors.
PS: Is anyone else NOT getting email notifications of new AppleInsider posts?
I think that's only because iTunes is now the multi headed hydra of the Mac software world. It slices, it dices, it chops and makes smoothies. Apple's desire to cram everything into iTunes is highly annoying. Quicktime WAS WMP's competitor back in the day of WMP6, but it's been lying there, mostly forgotten for so long that it looks sort of basic now.
Quicktime PRO also does a pretty good job of converting from one codec to another, splitting out audio or video, splitting out frames, joining movies. Sometimes it's much quicker to edit things in Quicktime PRO than one of the heavier editing packages.
I think Quicktime should stick around but lose some of the crap like the movie trailers so it's lighter and of course it should have all the PRO features built in or at least fullscreen.
I quite like Classic Windows WMP6 too though.
I've never quite seen why we need QT Player AND DVD Player either, except for the stupid full screen limitation in Quicktime. Merge the two.
Ding ding ding ding ding.
Current QT player given some lovin' and most of the PRO shit. I would be pissed if Apple dropped a lightweight stand-alone media player. I do not want to wade around in iTunes everytime I want to look or listen to an video or audio clip.
When I'm working on something I often generate great piles of test clips. The easiest way to double check what I'm doing or make comparisons is to open up a bunch o' QT players and hit play. Ditto bits of audio that I might download or generate.
Audio and video is more than songs and movies. Getting rid of a lightweight player in favor of iTunes is like making you open Word everytime you want to read an email.
Chock it up to the pragmatist in me but I tend to go with my eyes.
My MacBook (Core Duo 1.8 ) plays 1080p at native resolution on an external monitor beautifully.
I'll look up the codec later as I'm at work.
I think you'll find that it's "Main Profile" H.264, rather than "High Profile". High Profile will be used on high-quality HD-DVD and Blu-Ray releases, and requires higher CPU power. QuickTime can neither play nor create High-Profile H.264.
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism
Stand alone players are dedicated appliances made for doing one job.
Indeed. Most stand-alone players will use chips that are hard-wired to decode H.264, or programmable devices specifically aimed at H.264-level video decoding.
Don't forget the PS3 uses Cell and XBOX 360 uses a specialised 3-core PPC derivative, not to mention the GPUs in either of those machines.
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism
If you can show me some results where lower-end machines without dedicated GPUs are playing 1080p60 from H.264 Blu-ray discs
For film, Blu-Ray and HD-DVD will use 1080/24p, not 1080/60p. There'd be no point (in fact, it would be a bad idea for a number of reasons) using the higher frame rate, as the films are shot at 24 fps.
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism
I'm asking for H.264 discs, not VC-1, which is a much simpler codec and tremendously easier on the processors.
I'm not entirely sure that's accurate. Could you provide more info?
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism
PS: Is anyone else NOT getting email notifications of new AppleInsider posts?
Mine seemed to have stopped arriving. Hope it's fixed soon. Perhaps a trip to the feedback forum is in order.
Current QT player given some lovin' and most of the PRO shit. I would be pissed if Apple dropped a lightweight stand-alone media player. I do not want to wade around in iTunes everytime I want to look or listen to an video or audio clip.
When I'm working on something I often generate great piles of test clips. The easiest way to double check what I'm doing or make comparisons is to open up a bunch o' QT players and hit play. Ditto bits of audio that I might download or generate.
Audio and video is more than songs and movies. Getting rid of a lightweight player in favor of iTunes is like making you open Word everytime you want to read an email.
Well said.
The full-screen thing has always struck me as absolutely ridiculous. I pay for QTpro anyway, for the features that are actually "pro". No wonder QuickTime has such a bad reputation in Windows-land. I also reckon new Macs should come with QuickTime Pro for free.
For film, Blu-Ray and HD-DVD will use 1080/24p, not 1080/60p. There'd be no point (in fact, it would be a bad idea for a number of reasons) using the higher frame rate, as the films are shot at 24 fps.
I did mean 24fps, not 60fps. Thanks.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. H
I'm not entirely sure that's accurate. Could you provide more info?
That doesn't really tell us much about the relative complexity/sophistication of VC-1 and H.264 though; for a number of reasons:
1.) No information regarding the relative bit-rates of the movies is provided.
2.) No information regarding the H.264 or VC-1 profiles used on the test discs is provided. (The H.264 title could be using High Profile H.264 with the VC-1 title using Main Profile VC-1, for example).
3.) The test is being used to show the effect of GPU type on CPU utilisation. The results therefore include driver/codec implementation performance. Perhaps the VC-1-on-GPU-decoder driver is better implemented than the H.264 one. Perhaps the GPU features are better-suited to VC-1 decoding.
That doesn't really tell us much about the relative complexity/sophistication of VC-1 and H.264 though; for a number of reasons:
1.) No information regarding the relative bit-rates of the movies is provided.
2.) No information regarding the H.264 or VC-1 profiles used on the test discs is provided. (The H.264 title could be using High Profile H.264 with the VC-1 title using Main Profile VC-1, for example).
3.) The test is being used to show the effect of GPU type on CPU utilisation. The results therefore include driver/codec implementation performance. Perhaps the VC-1-on-GPU-decoder driver is better implemented than the H.264 one. Perhaps the GPU features are better-suited to VC-1 decoding.
Good points. I've been looking for teh article I read that described VC-1 in detatil, and even compared it to H.264. I post it as soon as I locate it.
I think you'll find that it's "Main Profile" H.264, rather than "High Profile". High Profile will be used on high-quality HD-DVD and Blu-Ray releases, and requires higher CPU power. QuickTime can neither play nor create High-Profile H.264.
Turns out it's Motion jpeg B @ 62691.55 kbps. I've never heard of high-profice vs main profile h.264 before. *Dashes off to Wikipedia*
Comments
A Mac Mini doesn't have the CPU or GPU to adequately use HD optical media.
[...]
not to mention the CPU and GPU that will be maxed trying to decode H.264 for 1080 resolution.
[...]
In the meantime, you can always buy one of the several external models being sold.
Well, which is it? First you say it can't do it, then you say it'll be maxed doing it, and then you say, just go ahead and get the external drive and everything will be fine.
Back in the real world, people play 1080p content on their minis, though it comes close to maxing things out (like it would on most Macs), so I assume it'll work but be close to maxed out (as a lot of other Macs with similar specs will also be).
It would really help your case if you could keep your story straight.
Well first, they already did this. It's called Front Row. Second iTheater already exists, and it does pretty much what Front Row does.
http://www.itheaterproject.com/*
Good point...I keep forgetting about Front Row...probably 'cuz I don't have Front Row on my Mac Pro but I also keep forgetting Front Row is coming to all computers when Leopard ships.
Wait, I thought black was the new white?
Or is white the new black, making black the new white and the new black at the same time, in which case how can the new black and old black coexist, or are they really just the same black in two separate temporal states juxtaposed in our current continuum viewpoint?
I'm so confused.
They get mixed. I think it's called?Platinum.
So you can see QuickTime and DVD Player being separate apps but not Safari and RSS?
RSS could benefit from a better UI. The one in Safari is decent but not nearly powerful enough.
The problem with RSS getting its own app would probably be third-party devs feeling betrayed.
I think it should stay in Safari. That's a natural combination. Very few people need a separate app.
As you mention, there are third party apps for that. I doubt Apple could do as well for such a highly specialized app that only a few would want. Apple is into making apps for the masses. Not the Pro apps, of course, but they charge appropriately for them. This would be for free. Apple can better spend its resources elsewhere, like debugging.
.....
Good edit. Concise!
A Mac Mini doesn't have the CPU or GPU to adequately use HD optical media.
Sure it can.
A Mini can decode H.264 1080p. We know that from months back already. The original dual 1.67 GHz model was more than adequate for that.
How much of a processor do you think a standalone HD player has?
A Mac Mini doesn't have the CPU or GPU to adequately use HD optical media.
The PS3 is being sold at a loss. Sony expects to recoup its HW losses from game sales and, potentially, gaining royalities by using the PS3 to help make Blu-ray the next standard.
You'll be paying a lot mor,e than $200 for a Blu-ray drive. Also, HD optical drives use a lot more power than your standard optical drive; not to mention the CPU and GPU that will be maxed trying to decode H.264 for 1080 resolution.
You'll see it in the Mac Pro first as an option. Then, many months later, when the media starts to become more mainstream, you'll see it as an option for the iMac and maybe the MacBook Pro.
In the meantime, you can always buy one of the several external models being sold.
I have this art teacher (she's not very bright) I she was eavesdropping (par for the course) on me talking to a couple other people about how expensive next gen video game system are. I mentioned that they sell them at a loss and she said I was wrong. I explained the reasoning and making money from game sales but she told me I shouldn't believe everything I read. Then she said that she knows what she is talking about (used to work for The Wall Street Journal) She said companies make up stuff and push fake stories all the time. It made me so mad. I can't stand when people are deliberately obtuse. If she worked for WSJ then she should understand the logic behind it.
I have this art teacher (she's not very bright) I she was eavesdropping (par for the course) on me talking to a couple other people about how expensive next gen video game system are. I mentioned that they sell them at a loss and she said I was wrong. I explained the reasoning and making money from game sales but she told me I shouldn't believe everything I read. Then she said that she knows what she is talking about (used to work for The Wall Street Journal) She said companies make up stuff and push fake stories all the time. It made me so mad. I can't stand when people are deliberately obtuse. If she worked for WSJ then she should understand the logic behind it.
You shouldn't believe everything you hear, she probably didn't work at WSJ
On the other hand, they have absolutely no reason to lie about saying they are selling them at a loss. Perhaps you should believe everything you Read
Sebastian
Well, which is it? First you say it can't do it, then you say it'll be maxed doing it, and then you say, just go ahead and get the external drive and everything will be fine.
Back in the real world, people play 1080p content on their minis, though it comes close to maxing things out (like it would on most Macs), so I assume it'll work but be close to maxed out (as a lot of other Macs with similar specs will also be).
It would really help your case if you could keep your story straight.
It can't do it, hence the comment of the CPU and GPU being maxed out TRYING to decode the large files.
A Mac Mini doesn't have the CPU or GPU to adequately use HD optical media.
Says who? From what I've read an Intel Mac Mini can play even 1080p content, although it does give the CPU a workout.
The Macbook is very similar to a Mini and I'm able to play 1080p content with no problems at all. If I scale it down, it requires more CPU power but can still handle it.
I'm also planning to get a Mini to use as a media center. I'm counting on being able to play 1080p. I don't have an HD TV yet (so I can't use Apple TV... no composite or s-video output), but I plan to buy a 1080p capable TV sometime in the future.
I'm waiting to buy the Mini until Leopard comes out. Hopefully they'll also upgrade the Minis to use Core 2 Duo. I figure it will give it an extra performance cushion for playing 1080p.
My MacBook (Core Duo 1.8 ) plays 1080p at native resolution on an external monitor beautifully.
I'll look up the codec later as I'm at work.
How much of a processor do you think a standalone HD player has?
Stand alone players are dedicated appliances made for doing one job. A PC is made to do multiple jobs at once. Apple will not release a Blu-ray drive that will have choppy playback during data heavy scenes and requires you to disable and turn off memory and CPU intensive features in order to play a movie. It's just not viable at this time, and certainly not the Apple way.
If you can show me some results where lower-end machines without dedicated GPUs are playing 1080p60 from H.264 Blu-ray discs, please post it here. BTW, I'm asking for H.264 discs, not VC-1, which is a much simpler codec and tremendously easier on the processors.
PS: Is anyone else NOT getting email notifications of new AppleInsider posts?
I think that's only because iTunes is now the multi headed hydra of the Mac software world. It slices, it dices, it chops and makes smoothies. Apple's desire to cram everything into iTunes is highly annoying. Quicktime WAS WMP's competitor back in the day of WMP6, but it's been lying there, mostly forgotten for so long that it looks sort of basic now.
Quicktime PRO also does a pretty good job of converting from one codec to another, splitting out audio or video, splitting out frames, joining movies. Sometimes it's much quicker to edit things in Quicktime PRO than one of the heavier editing packages.
I think Quicktime should stick around but lose some of the crap like the movie trailers so it's lighter and of course it should have all the PRO features built in or at least fullscreen.
I quite like Classic Windows WMP6 too though.
I've never quite seen why we need QT Player AND DVD Player either, except for the stupid full screen limitation in Quicktime. Merge the two.
Ding ding ding ding ding.
Current QT player given some lovin' and most of the PRO shit. I would be pissed if Apple dropped a lightweight stand-alone media player. I do not want to wade around in iTunes everytime I want to look or listen to an video or audio clip.
When I'm working on something I often generate great piles of test clips. The easiest way to double check what I'm doing or make comparisons is to open up a bunch o' QT players and hit play. Ditto bits of audio that I might download or generate.
Audio and video is more than songs and movies. Getting rid of a lightweight player in favor of iTunes is like making you open Word everytime you want to read an email.
Chock it up to the pragmatist in me but I tend to go with my eyes.
My MacBook (Core Duo 1.8 ) plays 1080p at native resolution on an external monitor beautifully.
I'll look up the codec later as I'm at work.
I think you'll find that it's "Main Profile" H.264, rather than "High Profile". High Profile will be used on high-quality HD-DVD and Blu-Ray releases, and requires higher CPU power. QuickTime can neither play nor create High-Profile H.264.
Stand alone players are dedicated appliances made for doing one job.
Indeed. Most stand-alone players will use chips that are hard-wired to decode H.264, or programmable devices specifically aimed at H.264-level video decoding.
Don't forget the PS3 uses Cell and XBOX 360 uses a specialised 3-core PPC derivative, not to mention the GPUs in either of those machines.
If you can show me some results where lower-end machines without dedicated GPUs are playing 1080p60 from H.264 Blu-ray discs
For film, Blu-Ray and HD-DVD will use 1080/24p, not 1080/60p. There'd be no point (in fact, it would be a bad idea for a number of reasons) using the higher frame rate, as the films are shot at 24 fps.
I'm asking for H.264 discs, not VC-1, which is a much simpler codec and tremendously easier on the processors.
I'm not entirely sure that's accurate. Could you provide more info?
PS: Is anyone else NOT getting email notifications of new AppleInsider posts?
Mine seemed to have stopped arriving. Hope it's fixed soon. Perhaps a trip to the feedback forum is in order.
Current QT player given some lovin' and most of the PRO shit. I would be pissed if Apple dropped a lightweight stand-alone media player. I do not want to wade around in iTunes everytime I want to look or listen to an video or audio clip.
When I'm working on something I often generate great piles of test clips. The easiest way to double check what I'm doing or make comparisons is to open up a bunch o' QT players and hit play. Ditto bits of audio that I might download or generate.
Audio and video is more than songs and movies. Getting rid of a lightweight player in favor of iTunes is like making you open Word everytime you want to read an email.
Well said.
The full-screen thing has always struck me as absolutely ridiculous. I pay for QTpro anyway, for the features that are actually "pro". No wonder QuickTime has such a bad reputation in Windows-land. I also reckon new Macs should come with QuickTime Pro for free.
For film, Blu-Ray and HD-DVD will use 1080/24p, not 1080/60p. There'd be no point (in fact, it would be a bad idea for a number of reasons) using the higher frame rate, as the films are shot at 24 fps.
I did mean 24fps, not 60fps. Thanks.
I'm not entirely sure that's accurate. Could you provide more info?
Another Anandtech link: http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=2890&p=4
Another Anandtech link: http://www.anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=2890&p=4
That doesn't really tell us much about the relative complexity/sophistication of VC-1 and H.264 though; for a number of reasons:
1.) No information regarding the relative bit-rates of the movies is provided.
2.) No information regarding the H.264 or VC-1 profiles used on the test discs is provided. (The H.264 title could be using High Profile H.264 with the VC-1 title using Main Profile VC-1, for example).
3.) The test is being used to show the effect of GPU type on CPU utilisation. The results therefore include driver/codec implementation performance. Perhaps the VC-1-on-GPU-decoder driver is better implemented than the H.264 one. Perhaps the GPU features are better-suited to VC-1 decoding.
That doesn't really tell us much about the relative complexity/sophistication of VC-1 and H.264 though; for a number of reasons:
1.) No information regarding the relative bit-rates of the movies is provided.
2.) No information regarding the H.264 or VC-1 profiles used on the test discs is provided. (The H.264 title could be using High Profile H.264 with the VC-1 title using Main Profile VC-1, for example).
3.) The test is being used to show the effect of GPU type on CPU utilisation. The results therefore include driver/codec implementation performance. Perhaps the VC-1-on-GPU-decoder driver is better implemented than the H.264 one. Perhaps the GPU features are better-suited to VC-1 decoding.
Good points. I've been looking for teh article I read that described VC-1 in detatil, and even compared it to H.264. I post it as soon as I locate it.
I think you'll find that it's "Main Profile" H.264, rather than "High Profile". High Profile will be used on high-quality HD-DVD and Blu-Ray releases, and requires higher CPU power. QuickTime can neither play nor create High-Profile H.264.
Turns out it's Motion jpeg B @ 62691.55 kbps. I've never heard of high-profice vs main profile h.264 before. *Dashes off to Wikipedia*