"BTW, they also removed the "save movie file" option and made it QTPro, for no apparent reason except as a money grab for those who wanted this feature."
It's this cool new operating system that Microsoft will be trying to copy... ahem, is relying on for their OS R&D.
Expect to see it on your PC in 2009.
.
You might see a picture of a feline in an MS OS in 2009, but you won't see anything like OSX in an OS that comes from MS. They've been using the same company's OS for their R&D for years and they still came up with Vista as their lastest and (lump in throat) ... greatest ... need I say more?
The people that wanted full screen don't necessarily need to record, edit or encode video in the ways QTPro offers, it was a distraction that blinded people to the actual good things offered by QTPro. I understand that encoding licences cost money, but full screen does not.
Even when it comes to licensing codecs though, I don't understand it because access to that is free for developers. You can write your own app to encode to all the Quicktime codecs for free - some people have already done it but they aren't very good. Given that imovie is bundled, Quicktime Pro should be too. It makes sense for Apple because they clearly prefer it to Flash so surely if the edit tools were free then more people would be content to choose it over Flash.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Louzer
BTW, they also removed the "save movie file" option and made it QTPro, for no apparent reason except as a money grab for those who wanted this feature.
I didn't notice that, I don't like that move at all. This means people won't be able to take image sequences and save them as a Quicktime movie.
Even when it comes to licensing codecs though, I don't understand it because access to that is free for developers. You can write your own app to encode to all the Quicktime codecs for free - some people have already done it but they aren't very good. Given that imovie is bundled, Quicktime Pro should be too.
Are these the developers that pay for a subscription? I think they are technically supposed to pay for encoder rights on their own if their programs use those capabilities. I remember people saying that QTPro is given free with Final Cut Studio, but I think those fees are already paid for as part of the price.
Quote:
It makes sense for Apple because they clearly prefer it to Flash so surely if the edit tools were free then more people would be content to choose it over Flash.
I don't get this, aren't Flash encoding tools considerably more expensive than Apple's?
Of course, it's been possible for quite some time to "force" the free Quick Time to display a video in Full Screen mode, even if there's no easily accessible button to do it. It involves writing an AppleScript program that you run after you've started the video. Google will tell you more, since I'm not in front of my Mac right now so I can't quote it directly.
Regarding patent royalties required for MPEG-2 codecs, and the open source/free implementations that exist... Apple, as an original distributor of physical media, would would still be liable for incorporating the patent royalties if it incorporated such software (even if it's open source) as part of its OS. If I recall correctly, the patent holders' stated opinion is that, if the software license allows for unregulated redistribution, then each and every end-user who obtains a copy of that software from a 3rd party, individually inherits the responsibility to pay those royalties (on request by the patent holders). The impracticality of mailing out $0.50 invoices to each and every computer owner in the world has encumbered that idea in practise.
Of course, it's been possible for quite some time to "force" the free Quick Time to display a video in Full Screen mode, even if there's no easily accessible button to do it. It involves writing an AppleScript program that you run after you've started the video. Google will tell you more, since I'm not in front of my Mac right now so I can't quote it directly.
I've used it. Fullscreen Movie Player does it too, I think it's a better way, easier to set up and use than the Applescript workaround. Best yet is not to pull such a stunt in the first place.
I think they are technically supposed to pay for encoder rights on their own if their programs use those capabilities.
I haven't seen that declared explicitly. I don't suppose they'd chase up freeware developers though.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM
I don't get this, aren't Flash encoding tools considerably more expensive than Apple's?
The flv encoder comes as part of the Flash bundle so yeah it probably is but I imagine that designers would have Flash already and therefore the encoder so they won't want to pay extra for Quicktime. Final Cut owners who possibly get it free (I'm not actually sure they do because I don't think my work did - you don't need to because you export directly in Final Cut) likely wouldn't be making Flash movies.
3rd party software includes flv encoding like Visual Hub.
Comments
Yep, got my bucks for this one....
It's this cool new operating system that Microsoft will be trying to copy... ahem, is relying on for their OS R&D.
Expect to see it on your PC in 2009.
.
You might see a picture of a feline in an MS OS in 2009, but you won't see anything like OSX in an OS that comes from MS. They've been using the same company's OS for their R&D for years and they still came up with Vista as their lastest and (lump in throat) ... greatest ... need I say more?
The people that wanted full screen don't necessarily need to record, edit or encode video in the ways QTPro offers, it was a distraction that blinded people to the actual good things offered by QTPro. I understand that encoding licences cost money, but full screen does not.
Even when it comes to licensing codecs though, I don't understand it because access to that is free for developers. You can write your own app to encode to all the Quicktime codecs for free - some people have already done it but they aren't very good. Given that imovie is bundled, Quicktime Pro should be too. It makes sense for Apple because they clearly prefer it to Flash so surely if the edit tools were free then more people would be content to choose it over Flash.
BTW, they also removed the "save movie file" option and made it QTPro, for no apparent reason except as a money grab for those who wanted this feature.
I didn't notice that, I don't like that move at all. This means people won't be able to take image sequences and save them as a Quicktime movie.
Even when it comes to licensing codecs though, I don't understand it because access to that is free for developers. You can write your own app to encode to all the Quicktime codecs for free - some people have already done it but they aren't very good. Given that imovie is bundled, Quicktime Pro should be too.
Are these the developers that pay for a subscription? I think they are technically supposed to pay for encoder rights on their own if their programs use those capabilities. I remember people saying that QTPro is given free with Final Cut Studio, but I think those fees are already paid for as part of the price.
It makes sense for Apple because they clearly prefer it to Flash so surely if the edit tools were free then more people would be content to choose it over Flash.
I don't get this, aren't Flash encoding tools considerably more expensive than Apple's?
Regarding patent royalties required for MPEG-2 codecs, and the open source/free implementations that exist... Apple, as an original distributor of physical media, would would still be liable for incorporating the patent royalties if it incorporated such software (even if it's open source) as part of its OS. If I recall correctly, the patent holders' stated opinion is that, if the software license allows for unregulated redistribution, then each and every end-user who obtains a copy of that software from a 3rd party, individually inherits the responsibility to pay those royalties (on request by the patent holders). The impracticality of mailing out $0.50 invoices to each and every computer owner in the world has encumbered that idea in practise.
Of course, it's been possible for quite some time to "force" the free Quick Time to display a video in Full Screen mode, even if there's no easily accessible button to do it. It involves writing an AppleScript program that you run after you've started the video. Google will tell you more, since I'm not in front of my Mac right now so I can't quote it directly.
I've used it. Fullscreen Movie Player does it too, I think it's a better way, easier to set up and use than the Applescript workaround. Best yet is not to pull such a stunt in the first place.
Are these the developers that pay for a subscription?
Nope, any developer can do this. The entire Quicktime API is open for anyone. Here's a free app that uses it, there are a few others:
http://www.versiontracker.com/dyn/moreinfo/macosx/13062
I think they are technically supposed to pay for encoder rights on their own if their programs use those capabilities.
I haven't seen that declared explicitly. I don't suppose they'd chase up freeware developers though.
I don't get this, aren't Flash encoding tools considerably more expensive than Apple's?
The flv encoder comes as part of the Flash bundle so yeah it probably is but I imagine that designers would have Flash already and therefore the encoder so they won't want to pay extra for Quicktime. Final Cut owners who possibly get it free (I'm not actually sure they do because I don't think my work did - you don't need to because you export directly in Final Cut) likely wouldn't be making Flash movies.
3rd party software includes flv encoding like Visual Hub.