I tried to ask him about many of these issues, he told me they were still deciding what to take out and what to leave in as far as editing/encoding. He said some of these tools will be left in, but he could not tell me which. This was back in December, so I'm sure this is all much further along at this point.
An interesting aside. He told me that a friend of his was working on Quicktime for the iPhone and he had no idea that the project was even going on until the iPhone was announced.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Amorya
I can't believe Apple will stop all development on editing/encoding with Quicktime. It's too engrained in their pro app workflow.
When windowed, I don't want overlay controls. I want to see the video! Controls should be at the bottom edge. (But if other controls overlay on rollover, that's OK.)
When windowed, I don't want overlay controls. I want to see the video! Controls should be at the bottom edge. (But if other controls overlay on rollover, that's OK.)
Furthermore, having the title bar fade away makes sense. It's distracting.
I disagree. When watching videos in window mode, there's plenty of other 'distractions', so it makes no sense to remove the very useful title bar. Having a borderless video overlay would look very odd.
Naturally, the title bar shouldn't be visible in full screen mode, where all other distractions are gone, but it already isn't.
I can't believe Apple will stop all development on editing/encoding with Quicktime. It's too engrained in their pro app workflow.
I could see them implementing playback first in Quicktime X, and then encoding later (no sense trying to do too much at once, and rewriting a media framework is a huge job).
Amorya
There is Quicktime (the Framework) and QuickTime Player (the app).
Here is Apple's description of QuickTime X
"Using media technology pioneered in OS X iPhone, Snow Leopard introduces QuickTime X, a streamlined, next-generation platform that advances modern media and Internet standards. QuickTime X features optimized support for modern codecs and more efficient media playback, making it ideal for any application that needs to play media content."
QuickTime X (the FrameWork) will continue to do encoding, transcoding, etc.
QuickTime Player (the app) will focus on playback and will most likely not have a Pro version.
There is Quicktime (the Framework) and QuickTime Player (the app).
Here is Apple's description of QuickTime X
"Using media technology pioneered in OS X iPhone, Snow Leopard introduces QuickTime X, a streamlined, next-generation platform that advances modern media and Internet standards. QuickTime X features optimized support for modern codecs and more efficient media playback, making it ideal for any application that needs to play media content."
QuickTime X (the FrameWork) will continue to do encoding, transcoding, etc.
QuickTime Player (the app) will focus on playback and will most likely not have a Pro version.
It is curious though that Apple nowhere in that, mentions encoding, just playback.
Folks who like consistent UI across programs won't like this! Personally I see no reason why each program can't be unique, it certainly makes Expose work better. The learning curve argument doesn't hold much water because even Apple's non-standard interfaces are very intuitive.
QuickTime X (the FrameWork) will continue to do encoding, transcoding, etc.
QuickTime Player (the app) will focus on playback and will most likely not have a Pro version.
Actually, I know the difference between the framework and the app. However, everything I've read about Quicktime X suggests that it will be a separate framework (not a separate app), for playback only. I was responding to the quote "there will be no further development of the old Quicktime": If that is the case, I reckon they'll have to add encoding to Quicktime X, but it'll probably be later than Snow Leopard.
Where did I get that Quicktime X will be playback only (at least in Snow Leopard)? Well, articles like this one speculate that Quicktime X originated on the iPhone, where it was written from scratch to have efficient playback of modern codecs, and then back-ported to Snow Leopard.
Sorry, I'm not drinking the "floating controls over the video" kool-aid. The controls are harder to see. I'm sure it's "cool" but it's not ergonomic.
- Jasen.
I agree with you. I want the old Movie Player interface back!
Quote:
Originally Posted by ascii
Folks who like consistent UI across programs won't like this! Personally I see no reason why each program can't be unique, it certainly makes Expose work better. The learning curve argument doesn't hold much water because even Apple's non-standard interfaces are very intuitive.
Well, I'm not a visual consistency nazi (although I am a vehement supporter of consistency of behaviour), but I don't like this new interface. Why would I want the controls covering the video when there is space below? In full screen, that's another matter, as there's nowhere else for them to go...
Why would I want the controls covering the video when there is space below?
I think the idea of no controls (most of the time) is to emphasize the OS X idea that the menu bar represents a loaded program and the windows represent loaded document. If there are controls on a window you start to view it more as program than document.
Sorry, I'm not drinking the "floating controls over the video" kool-aid. The controls are harder to see. I'm sure it's "cool" but it's not ergonomic.
- Jasen.
First off, it bears repeating that AppleInsider's pictures are mockups.
Second, do you have trouble seeing this?
Or this?
Because those are likely what QuickTime X's interface will resemble (especially considering the bottom picture is of the iPhone's video interface, which QuickTime X is derived from).
Because those are likely what QuickTime X's interface will resemble (especially considering the bottom picture is of the iPhone's video interface, which QuickTime X is derived from).
Its code I presume, not simply it's UI. A touch UI will look different to a regular UI. Though it could be why we're heading in this direction; cause Apple's trying to help blur those lines so it can ease people in the tablet when they make it, and try to make a singular UI that makes sense in both environments.
Comments
An interesting aside. He told me that a friend of his was working on Quicktime for the iPhone and he had no idea that the project was even going on until the iPhone was announced.
I can't believe Apple will stop all development on editing/encoding with Quicktime. It's too engrained in their pro app workflow.
Amorya
When windowed, I don't want overlay controls. I want to see the video! Controls should be at the bottom edge. (But if other controls overlay on rollover, that's OK.)
Nah, this is better.
Furthermore, having the title bar fade away makes sense. It's distracting.
I disagree. When watching videos in window mode, there's plenty of other 'distractions', so it makes no sense to remove the very useful title bar. Having a borderless video overlay would look very odd.
Naturally, the title bar shouldn't be visible in full screen mode, where all other distractions are gone, but it already isn't.
I can't believe Apple will stop all development on editing/encoding with Quicktime. It's too engrained in their pro app workflow.
I could see them implementing playback first in Quicktime X, and then encoding later (no sense trying to do too much at once, and rewriting a media framework is a huge job).
Amorya
There is Quicktime (the Framework) and QuickTime Player (the app).
Here is Apple's description of QuickTime X
"Using media technology pioneered in OS X iPhone, Snow Leopard introduces QuickTime X, a streamlined, next-generation platform that advances modern media and Internet standards. QuickTime X features optimized support for modern codecs and more efficient media playback, making it ideal for any application that needs to play media content."
QuickTime X (the FrameWork) will continue to do encoding, transcoding, etc.
QuickTime Player (the app) will focus on playback and will most likely not have a Pro version.
What would be interesting is if they deprecated iMovie in favor of Quicktime.
don't see it happening. quicktime is playback, quick and dirty editing and conversion. far different from what is possible with iMovie.
if they are going to depreciate anything it will be Final Cut Express in favor of iMovie
There is Quicktime (the Framework) and QuickTime Player (the app).
Here is Apple's description of QuickTime X
"Using media technology pioneered in OS X iPhone, Snow Leopard introduces QuickTime X, a streamlined, next-generation platform that advances modern media and Internet standards. QuickTime X features optimized support for modern codecs and more efficient media playback, making it ideal for any application that needs to play media content."
QuickTime X (the FrameWork) will continue to do encoding, transcoding, etc.
QuickTime Player (the app) will focus on playback and will most likely not have a Pro version.
It is curious though that Apple nowhere in that, mentions encoding, just playback.
- Jasen.
QuickTime X (the FrameWork) will continue to do encoding, transcoding, etc.
QuickTime Player (the app) will focus on playback and will most likely not have a Pro version.
Actually, I know the difference between the framework and the app. However, everything I've read about Quicktime X suggests that it will be a separate framework (not a separate app), for playback only. I was responding to the quote "there will be no further development of the old Quicktime": If that is the case, I reckon they'll have to add encoding to Quicktime X, but it'll probably be later than Snow Leopard.
Where did I get that Quicktime X will be playback only (at least in Snow Leopard)? Well, articles like this one speculate that Quicktime X originated on the iPhone, where it was written from scratch to have efficient playback of modern codecs, and then back-ported to Snow Leopard.
Amorya
Sorry, I'm not drinking the "floating controls over the video" kool-aid. The controls are harder to see. I'm sure it's "cool" but it's not ergonomic.
- Jasen.
I agree with you. I want the old Movie Player interface back!
Folks who like consistent UI across programs won't like this! Personally I see no reason why each program can't be unique, it certainly makes Expose work better. The learning curve argument doesn't hold much water because even Apple's non-standard interfaces are very intuitive.
Well, I'm not a visual consistency nazi (although I am a vehement supporter of consistency of behaviour), but I don't like this new interface. Why would I want the controls covering the video when there is space below? In full screen, that's another matter, as there's nowhere else for them to go...
Amorya
Sorry, I'm not drinking the "floating controls over the video" kool-aid. The controls are harder to see. I'm sure it's "cool" but it's not ergonomic.
- Jasen.
Agreed. In this case.
Why would I want the controls covering the video when there is space below?
I think the idea of no controls (most of the time) is to emphasize the OS X idea that the menu bar represents a loaded program and the windows represent loaded document. If there are controls on a window you start to view it more as program than document.
But is it me or does the new bar look more than a little Vista-ish?
Sorry, I'm not drinking the "floating controls over the video" kool-aid. The controls are harder to see. I'm sure it's "cool" but it's not ergonomic.
- Jasen.
It will be, once the new touchscreen tablet gets released.
I like it, always hated that metal look.
But is it me or does the new bar look more than a little Vista-ish?
The difference here is the transparency isn't showing what's behind the window, but what's in the window. I do get what you're saying though.
http://code.google.com/p/niceplayer/
Sorry, I'm not drinking the "floating controls over the video" kool-aid. The controls are harder to see. I'm sure it's "cool" but it's not ergonomic.
- Jasen.
First off, it bears repeating that AppleInsider's pictures are mockups.
Second, do you have trouble seeing this?
Or this?
Because those are likely what QuickTime X's interface will resemble (especially considering the bottom picture is of the iPhone's video interface, which QuickTime X is derived from).
Or this?
Because those are likely what QuickTime X's interface will resemble (especially considering the bottom picture is of the iPhone's video interface, which QuickTime X is derived from).
Its code I presume, not simply it's UI. A touch UI will look different to a regular UI. Though it could be why we're heading in this direction; cause Apple's trying to help blur those lines so it can ease people in the tablet when they make it, and try to make a singular UI that makes sense in both environments.