Well, it crashed the first time I quit out of it, but otherwise, it seems to be less buggy than the previous version ... so far anyhow.
What always bothered me with the previous versions was that the Flip4Mac WMA/WMV plug-in actually worked better than Apple's built-in support for other types. If you did an "Open URL", Flip4Mac would apparently start the download in a separate thread and QuickTime was fine to go from there. If you do an "Open URL" with a built-in type, QuickTime would hang (apparently waiting for the download to start), and then would also occasionally hang during the download (I keep assuming it was caused by a brief dropout in the network connection). Then you'd have to kill QuickTime and restart. I hope this is improved in the latest version.
Didn't I explain that? You don't need to tell me all that stuff about MPEG-4 and AAC, I know it. (BTW, QuickTime does support CABAC, the problem preventing high-profile H.264 is mainly lack of support for pyramidal B-frames). Edit: are we talking encoding or decoding? According to wikipedia, Apple's encoder doesn't do CABAC. But I know that QuickTime will decode content that uses CABAC. But either way, Apple should be embarrassed that their H.264 encoder and decoder both absolutely suck in comparison to open-source alternatives.
I was mostly thinking encoding, decoding is somewhat decently handled by installing av1decoder, although it'd be really nice if there was a codec that could match Windows counterparts in performance. I still prefer VLC though.
Quote:
The reason AAC should have been called mp4 is a purely marketing thing. People would see "mp4" and immediately recognise that this is a successor to mp3 (with a thought process along the lines of: "hey 'mp4' is like 'mp3' but the number's bigger! mp4 must be the successor to mp3 and it must be better because the number's bigger!" sorry, but that's how most people (as opposed to geeks like us) think about technology).
Maybe they should have emphasized the "Advanced" part more, I know I certainly thought AAC was short for Apple Audio Codec before I did my research. I doubt people would have cared in either case. MP3, or more accurately, the LAME presets V2 and V0 are deeply ingrained in the file-sharing community. It also didn't help that iTunes didn't have real VBR encoding until just recently.
although it'd be really nice if there was a codec that could match Windows counterparts in performance. I still prefer VLC though.
Are you familiar with Perian (for decode) and x264 Encoder (for encode)?
VLC is decent and more CPU efficient, but what many people don't realise is that QuickTime is actually a rather good lightweight editor (obviously only interesting if you've got QT pro), with frame-by-frame advance and retreat (using the keyboard left/right arrows); FF and REW also work a lot better in QuickTime than in VLC.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zandros
Maybe they should have emphasized the "Advanced" part more, I know I certainly thought AAC was short for Apple Audio Codec before I did my research.
You see. Even a geek had to do research before he realised it wasn't a proprietary Apple thing. Very, very poor branding by the MPEG group which would have been avoided had they called it .mp4 instead.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zandros
MP3, or more accurately, the LAME presets V2 and V0 are deeply ingrained in the file-sharing community.
You're still not quite getting my point: what % of the population over the age of 10 have heard the "word" MP3? And what % of the population have heard the word "lame"?
I'm going to go with well over 90% in both cases.
Now, of those, what percentage of people associate the word "MP3" with music? I'm going to go with over 90% again - there will be some who've heard of mp3 but don't know/can't remember it's related to music.
What percentage would associate the word "lame" with an mp3 encoder, and how many would associate it only with its dictionary definition?
To a first approximation, everyone has heard of mp3 and knows it's got something to with music. LAME being associated with an mp3 encoder is very much the reserve of geeks.
Are you familiar with Perian (for decode) and x264 Encoder (for encode)?
Perian, yes. I'm not familiar with x264 encoder, but Handbrake works decently.
Quote:
VLC is decent and more CPU efficient, but what many people don't realise is that QuickTime is actually a rather good lightweight editor (obviously only interesting if you've got QT pro), with frame-by-frame advance and retreat (using the keyboard left/right arrows); FF and REW also work a lot better in QuickTime than in VLC.
Fast forward and rewind works very well in VLC now. Framestepping is a huge advantage when making comparison screenshots, but is hurt by QuickTime's lack of format support, even with Perian. I still want video accelerated decode.
Quote:
You see. Even a geek had to do research before he realised it wasn't a proprietary Apple thing. Very, very poor branding by the MPEG group which would have been avoided had they called it .mp4 instead.
IIRC, I didn't believe it was proprietary. And I knew it was better. Also, I certainly likes Apple's implementation better, with .m4a for audio, and .m4v for video, akin to Matroskas .mka and .mkv.
Quote:
You're still not quite getting my point: what % of the population over the age of 10 have heard the "word" MP3? And what % of the population have heard the word "lame"?
I'm going to go with well over 90% in both cases.
Now, of those, what percentage of people associate the word "MP3" with music? I'm going to go with over 90% again - there will be some who've heard of mp3 but don't know/can't remember it's related to music.
I get it alright. My points were these: Much of the music on the internet is encoded by the Scene, who have some odd penchant for never substituting ancient formats. They certainly knew AAC is an MPEG standard, and they didn't change. Much of the rest of the music is music from people who don't know anything about encoding. They pop in the CD, and press "rip" in Windows Media Player or iTunes. One case gives us WMA files, the other AAC files. None of these people would change their codec/encoder if more attractively named.
That leaves us with the people who are knowledgeable, and they are probably aware of that AAC is a better codec than MP3. I'd put that number at about 1 million people, if we discount those who would be using AAC in any case (Apple users). And they still have compatibility reasons to not use AAC. Some have ideological reasons.
Comments
What always bothered me with the previous versions was that the Flip4Mac WMA/WMV plug-in actually worked better than Apple's built-in support for other types. If you did an "Open URL", Flip4Mac would apparently start the download in a separate thread and QuickTime was fine to go from there. If you do an "Open URL" with a built-in type, QuickTime would hang (apparently waiting for the download to start), and then would also occasionally hang during the download (I keep assuming it was caused by a brief dropout in the network connection). Then you'd have to kill QuickTime and restart. I hope this is improved in the latest version.
Didn't I explain that? You don't need to tell me all that stuff about MPEG-4 and AAC, I know it. (BTW, QuickTime does support CABAC, the problem preventing high-profile H.264 is mainly lack of support for pyramidal B-frames). Edit: are we talking encoding or decoding? According to wikipedia, Apple's encoder doesn't do CABAC. But I know that QuickTime will decode content that uses CABAC. But either way, Apple should be embarrassed that their H.264 encoder and decoder both absolutely suck in comparison to open-source alternatives.
I was mostly thinking encoding, decoding is somewhat decently handled by installing av1decoder, although it'd be really nice if there was a codec that could match Windows counterparts in performance. I still prefer VLC though.
The reason AAC should have been called mp4 is a purely marketing thing. People would see "mp4" and immediately recognise that this is a successor to mp3 (with a thought process along the lines of: "hey 'mp4' is like 'mp3' but the number's bigger! mp4 must be the successor to mp3 and it must be better because the number's bigger!" sorry, but that's how most people (as opposed to geeks like us) think about technology).
Maybe they should have emphasized the "Advanced" part more, I know I certainly thought AAC was short for Apple Audio Codec before I did my research. I doubt people would have cared in either case. MP3, or more accurately, the LAME presets V2 and V0 are deeply ingrained in the file-sharing community. It also didn't help that iTunes didn't have real VBR encoding until just recently.
although it'd be really nice if there was a codec that could match Windows counterparts in performance. I still prefer VLC though.
Are you familiar with Perian (for decode) and x264 Encoder (for encode)?
VLC is decent and more CPU efficient, but what many people don't realise is that QuickTime is actually a rather good lightweight editor (obviously only interesting if you've got QT pro), with frame-by-frame advance and retreat (using the keyboard left/right arrows); FF and REW also work a lot better in QuickTime than in VLC.
Maybe they should have emphasized the "Advanced" part more, I know I certainly thought AAC was short for Apple Audio Codec before I did my research.
You see. Even a geek had to do research before he realised it wasn't a proprietary Apple thing. Very, very poor branding by the MPEG group which would have been avoided had they called it .mp4 instead.
MP3, or more accurately, the LAME presets V2 and V0 are deeply ingrained in the file-sharing community.
You're still not quite getting my point: what % of the population over the age of 10 have heard the "word" MP3? And what % of the population have heard the word "lame"?
I'm going to go with well over 90% in both cases.
Now, of those, what percentage of people associate the word "MP3" with music? I'm going to go with over 90% again - there will be some who've heard of mp3 but don't know/can't remember it's related to music.
What percentage would associate the word "lame" with an mp3 encoder, and how many would associate it only with its dictionary definition?
To a first approximation, everyone has heard of mp3 and knows it's got something to with music. LAME being associated with an mp3 encoder is very much the reserve of geeks.
Are you familiar with Perian (for decode) and x264 Encoder (for encode)?
Perian, yes. I'm not familiar with x264 encoder, but Handbrake works decently.
VLC is decent and more CPU efficient, but what many people don't realise is that QuickTime is actually a rather good lightweight editor (obviously only interesting if you've got QT pro), with frame-by-frame advance and retreat (using the keyboard left/right arrows); FF and REW also work a lot better in QuickTime than in VLC.
Fast forward and rewind works very well in VLC now. Framestepping is a huge advantage when making comparison screenshots, but is hurt by QuickTime's lack of format support, even with Perian. I still want video accelerated decode.
You see. Even a geek had to do research before he realised it wasn't a proprietary Apple thing. Very, very poor branding by the MPEG group which would have been avoided had they called it .mp4 instead.
IIRC, I didn't believe it was proprietary. And I knew it was better. Also, I certainly likes Apple's implementation better, with .m4a for audio, and .m4v for video, akin to Matroskas .mka and .mkv.
You're still not quite getting my point: what % of the population over the age of 10 have heard the "word" MP3? And what % of the population have heard the word "lame"?
I'm going to go with well over 90% in both cases.
Now, of those, what percentage of people associate the word "MP3" with music? I'm going to go with over 90% again - there will be some who've heard of mp3 but don't know/can't remember it's related to music.
I get it alright. My points were these: Much of the music on the internet is encoded by the Scene, who have some odd penchant for never substituting ancient formats. They certainly knew AAC is an MPEG standard, and they didn't change. Much of the rest of the music is music from people who don't know anything about encoding. They pop in the CD, and press "rip" in Windows Media Player or iTunes. One case gives us WMA files, the other AAC files. None of these people would change their codec/encoder if more attractively named.
That leaves us with the people who are knowledgeable, and they are probably aware of that AAC is a better codec than MP3. I'd put that number at about 1 million people, if we discount those who would be using AAC in any case (Apple users). And they still have compatibility reasons to not use AAC. Some have ideological reasons.