Seconded. Yes, it appears sometimes necessary to watch how the small scene detail evolves from frame to frame. It isn't that this task is frequent, yet it's reoccurring to someone who analyses evidence including videos. QTX clips that piece with its controls, and that's that.
Yeah to me this is a job for a more professional player. Unfortunately it seems Apple won't be offering one beyond version 7.
I don't like the UI so much, but I'll wait to see what they decide to include in the final product. It seems like Apple is trying to make this their VLC player.
And let's cross our fingers for a great PC version. You know, that actually works.
Yeah to me this is a job for a more professional player. Unfortunately it seems Apple won't be offering one beyond version 7.
Wasn't it always the source of Apple's particular pride to say: "Only one single version for everybody! You're always sure you get everything we promised!"?
Quote:
Originally Posted by akhomerun
I don't like the UI so much, but I'll wait to see what they decide to include in the final product. It seems like Apple is trying to make this their VLC player.
Time will tell. I will in all probability survive too. Mockups can't tell me right out of here how I would feel that UI and what would be my way to accomplish what I would need to with this UI.
Quote:
Originally Posted by akhomerun
And let's cross our fingers for a great PC version. You know, that actually works.
Hopeless, in my opinion. Never saw anything which worked flawlessly on PC.
No, I can't be bothered to do any of that because you're being an ass. I don't go out of my way to be friendly to people like that.
I guess it's easier to make personal attacks than to actually explain what you're talking about. If you can't take some prodding, you're going to have a hard time in these forums (and in life).
Quote:
Originally Posted by kim kap sol
And I did. It's up to you to find them.
Keep telling yourself that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kim kap sol
I gotta admire your obtuseness.
Who's being an ass now? I ask for clarification, you insult me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by kim kap sol
I know you know what I'm talking about but you're simply arguing for the sake of arguing.
Of course. I love nothing more than arguing with people I don't know for no reason. (That was sarcasm).
Quote:
Originally Posted by kim kap sol
But for shits and giggles I will explain what I mean by windowless/frameless (considering it wasn't explained in any other thread):
Whoa, stop. Are you sure you want to back up your own statements!?
Quote:
Originally Posted by kim kap sol
There is no titlebar (the only part of the window frame that can be considered visible) when the cursor isn't within the displayed video. Why can't the titlebar be displayed all the time? Not having that information up all the time can be detrimental to productivity. The titlebar provides important information when the content of the window itself isn't informative enough.
Thank you for this. It means a lot to me when people explain their thoughts.
But unless you're one of the few testing out Snow Leopard, you're going off assumptions and even if they happened to be right at the moment, you could be wrong when Snow Leopard ships. I'm sure you're aware of this, just wanted to remind you (and that goes for me too).
Quote:
Originally Posted by kim kap sol
We're all using a GUI OS for a reason. Imagine if all windows had titlebars that would fade away when the cursor isn't on it. Content without a title -- a bad idea in some cases.
That would be horrible if all window title bars in all applications faded away. But that's unlikely to be the case because it would make no sense. Having the title bar of QuickTime videos disappear makes sense because it's a distracting element. I'd guess you might bring up that that's what full-screen mode is for, but many videos are low resolution and look like crap in full-screen. I'm still on Tiger, but in Leopard (and presumably, Snow Leopard) using QuickLook is far more appealing than opening QuickTime.
I don't know how you wouldn't know what was playing; perhaps you'd forget the name, but you would know what it was. I could understand if the video was paused and the title bar disappeared, but we don't know if that happens or if it only fades away when video is playing. Right now in Safari 4, when .MOVs are paused, the playback controls are visible; they only disappear when the video is playing.
Is this new Quicktime 64 bit? Seems like it would have to be at some level. I know a lot of 3D artists who work on 64 bit systems ho would really like to have a fully 64bit QT.
Since Quicktime X is a playback only tool it's not competing with legacy Quicktime 7.x for anything involving encoding, transcoding or anything else. This makes sure it's lightweight and should perform well. QTX came from the Quicktime stack on the iPhone.
How it relates to legacy QT is this.
Developers will write to QTkit which is like a cocoa based front end for dealing with media elemenst. QTkit will then parcel out the request to the appropriate tool. So if the request is for playing back a media element I suppose QTX will get the nod and if the if more robust features are being requested then legacy QT will be engaged.
I don't know how you wouldn't know what was playing; perhaps you'd forget the name, but you would know what it was. I could understand if the video was paused and the title bar disappeared, but we don't know if that happens or if it only fades away when video is playing. Right now in Safari 4, when .MOVs are paused, the playback controls are visible; they only disappear when the video is playing.
Actually, this part was probably the only portion of your post worth replying to...
The argument you're using -- "I don't know how you wouldn't know what was playing" -- could be used in any context.
I'd be very surprised if people shared your opinion that the titlebar is distracting enough to warrant removing. If the titlebar is distracting, then the rest of the shit on your screen must be driving you up the walls.
You seem like you're having a bad day so I'll let you cool off.
I try to reason out your vague statements, you call me an obtuse ass. Who's really having the bad day?
Quote:
Originally Posted by kim kap sol
Actually, this part was probably the only portion of your post worth replying to...
The argument you're using -- "I don't know how you wouldn't know what was playing" -- could be used in any context.
I'd be very surprised if people shared your opinion that the titlebar is distracting enough to warrant removing.
The. Titlebar. Has. Not. Been. Removed.
It simply fades into the video, likely only when the video is playing. There's a big difference. If the titlebar was removed, that most certainly would be a big mistake. You wouldn't be able to move windows around!
Quote:
Originally Posted by kim kap sol
If the titlebar is distracting, then the rest of the shit on your screen must be driving you up the walls.
I was not making a big point about it, sheesh. It's a minor change you've made a mountain out of.
When watching a video, I don't need to be reminded of its name while I'm watching it. I opened the video, I know what it's name is and more importantly, what it is.
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
They could have the controls on the bottem, except when it goes fullscreen. It's not a big deal to program that in.
But that full screen problem is one that really bothers me, as I mentioned already. The covering of the video isn't a big deal. It's only there when you need them, and then, you're not looking at the video when you're making most changes anyway, except for color, etc. It's actually easier to make those adjustments when the controls are on the video, as you don't have to look back and forth as you make the adjustments.
Everything is going to heads up displays these days. This is no different.
Apple hasn't been very good about keeping their user interfaces consistent. But this brings it to be more consistent with the iTunes video playback window. In the recent past, the look, feel, controls and usability between QuickTime app, DVD Player and iTunes video playback differed a lot more from each other than I thought was justified. It's almost as if different companies developed each app. It looks like Snow Leopard finally unifies them a lot better than they did in the past.
I don't know if this really changes that much. Different media often means different means of accessing and controlling it.
Apple, like every other company, experiments with the UI. They have to. Nothing is static.
I don't want them to change every program and the OS over all at once. What if it's a bomb? Try one program at a time. If people really don't like it, or it doesn't work, then they can go to something else.
It's a lot of work researching, and re-programming UI's.
No, it's not. What if you're trying to look at something in the video but the controls get in the way? Say for example, something catches your eye and you pause the video to take a closer look. And all you end up with is a control bar in your way. Floating controls make the most sense in Full Screen.
As chabig has already said, drag them away. I would leave then at the bottom of the video, there's rarely anything of interest at the bottom.
Actually I did provide alternatives in the appropriate thread. Go read it. It's not my fault if you're too lazy. I'm not going to cut and paste the same alternative solutions over and over again every time some clown tells me to provide another solution.
Cut the name calling.
Quote:
And thus the window becomes frameless.
Again, in the appropriate thread, I talk about how the low-end Mac Pro is poor value considering you could get an dual quad-core for the same price before the new line up.
I've explained myself before. All you have to do is use the search function.
I'm glad you at least admit to being an apologist. It's the first step to recovery.
Kim, you can't expect people to read every single thread to find statements that as far as they know, you MAY have made, or you may NOT have made. If you have an argument in any thread, you have to present it to people you're talking to.
Seconded. Yes, it appears sometimes necessary to watch how the small scene detail evolves from frame to frame. It isn't that this task is frequent, yet it's reoccurring to someone who analyses evidence including videos. QTX clips that piece with its controls, and that's that.
If you're analyzing evidence, I hope you would be using a professional program that's designed expressly for that purpose, rather that a basic free consumer app.
If you're analyzing evidence, I hope you would be using a professional program that's designed expressly for that purpose, rather that a basic free consumer app.
Indeed, I do. iMovie was always enough to get that done. So was QT Player oftenly. I'm not paid for that analysis, you know, so I would look for some professional s/w, only if that offered by Apple (Ok, QT Player is free, is iMovie? ) failed irreparably.
Ok, Ok, I know the probability of those QTX's controls would prevent me from achieving my analysis is negligible...
Indeed, I do. iMovie was always enough to get that done. So was QT Player oftenly. I'm not paid for that analysis, you know, so I would look for some professional s/w, only if that offered by Apple (Ok, QT Player is free, is iMovie? ) failed irreparably.
Ok, Ok, I know the probability of those QTX's controls would prevent me from achieving my analysis is negligible...
Here in NYC, the police department uses software that logs the individual in when opening the program. It also logs all frames looked at, and for how long. It automatically saves every move made while using the program. For forensic purposes, notes can be typed in any any time, and tied to any area of video, or audio, which can be kept together, or stripped out. any changes made to any frame for diagnostic purposes, using filters is kept permanently. Even voice commenting can be made and linked to anything needed. There are many more features besides those.
When you mean "examining evidence" therefor, what do you actually mean? Just looking at some bits here and there? Here at least, legally, there must be a tightly tied trail. The original must be unimpaired, while work is done on portions used for evidence, used with the unaltered portions.
Here in NYC, the police department uses software that logs the individual in when opening the program. It also logs all frames looked at, and for how long. It automatically saves every move made while using the program. For forensic purposes, notes can be typed in any any time, and tied to any area of video, or audio, which can be kept together, or stripped out. any changes made to any frame for diagnostic purposes, using filters is kept permanently. Even voice commenting can be made and linked to anything needed. There are many more features besides those.
Khm... What can I say? Ok, I tried to compete with dedicated authorities in the field of investigation. Not unsuccessfully, I dare say. Never did with NYPD! But I'm not used to lose before game, you know
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross
When you mean "examining evidence" therefor, what do you actually mean? Just looking at some bits here and there? Here at least, legally, there must be a tightly tied trail. The original must be unimpaired, while work is done on portions used for evidence, used with the unaltered portions.
Yes, looking at some bits here and there. I'm not even a humble precinct, you know I'm just interested a bit in digging some pieces of history, plane crashes, for instance. No, I have no access to accurate and exhausting evidence. My evidence is oftenly noisy cctv footage being available publicly. You actually have to find the plane ghost there first and only then drag controls.
Khm... What can I say? Ok, I tried to compete with dedicated authorities in the field of investigation. Not unsuccessfully, I dare say. Never did with NYPD! But I'm not used to lose before game, you know
Yes, looking at some bits here and there. I'm not even a humble precinct, you know I'm just interested a bit in digging some pieces of history, plane crashes, for instance. No, I have no access to accurate and exhausting evidence. My evidence is oftenly noisy cctv footage being available publicly. You actually have to find the plane ghost there first and only then drag controls.
I get it.
You know, that noisy cctv footage is a large part of what they work with as well.
It's too bad that we can't have happen in reality, what happens on these mystery Tv shows. Magnifying a noisy SD, or sometimes a 1/2SD cctv video to supersharp footage, with well beyond 1080p's detail is humorous, but not when the show depends on that for the resolution (sic) of the story.
Actually, this part was probably the only portion of your post worth replying to...
The argument you're using -- "I don't know how you wouldn't know what was playing" -- could be used in any context.
I'd be very surprised if people shared your opinion that the titlebar is distracting enough to warrant removing. If the titlebar is distracting, then the rest of the shit on your screen must be driving you up the walls.
Begone, webegon.
I don't mean to get involved in this hilarious nerd-fight. It has been a humorous read.
I do have to interject an opinion: I watch a lot of video on my Macs?particularly the Mini attached to my TV. I am constantly doing whatever I can to remove distracting UI elements while watching videos. Usually this entails using fullscreen mode, but a video window that transformed into a clean video box upon mouse-out or mouse-stop sounds awesome!
And, to be fair, a lot of the time the rest of the 'shit on my screen' is driving me up the walls. Maybe I'm just a neat freak. My bad.
You know, that noisy cctv footage is a large part of what they work with as well.
It's too bad that we can't have happen in reality, what happens on these mystery Tv shows. Magnifying a noisy SD, or sometimes a 1/2SD cctv video to supersharp footage, with well beyond 1080p's detail is humorous, but not when the show depends on that for the resolution (sic) of the story.
Khm... Will those guys at NYPD agree?? Doesn't better resolution sound like job cuts??? Alas.
Yet I loved Apple exactly for providing me with a minimal toolkit allowing to do what I like right out of the box. It was indeed astonishing that I modeled the plane path in Quartz Composer, selected "Export as QT movie", and... there was no progress bar shown at all! I thought it didn't work
Comments
Seconded. Yes, it appears sometimes necessary to watch how the small scene detail evolves from frame to frame. It isn't that this task is frequent, yet it's reoccurring to someone who analyses evidence including videos. QTX clips that piece with its controls, and that's that.
Yeah to me this is a job for a more professional player. Unfortunately it seems Apple won't be offering one beyond version 7.
I don't like the UI so much, but I'll wait to see what they decide to include in the final product. It seems like Apple is trying to make this their VLC player.
And let's cross our fingers for a great PC version. You know, that actually works.
Yeah to me this is a job for a more professional player. Unfortunately it seems Apple won't be offering one beyond version 7.
Wasn't it always the source of Apple's particular pride to say: "Only one single version for everybody! You're always sure you get everything we promised!"?
I don't like the UI so much, but I'll wait to see what they decide to include in the final product. It seems like Apple is trying to make this their VLC player.
Time will tell. I will in all probability survive too. Mockups can't tell me right out of here how I would feel that UI and what would be my way to accomplish what I would need to with this UI.
And let's cross our fingers for a great PC version. You know, that actually works.
Hopeless, in my opinion.
No, I can't be bothered to do any of that because you're being an ass. I don't go out of my way to be friendly to people like that.
I guess it's easier to make personal attacks than to actually explain what you're talking about. If you can't take some prodding, you're going to have a hard time in these forums (and in life).
And I did. It's up to you to find them.
Keep telling yourself that.
I gotta admire your obtuseness.
Who's being an ass now? I ask for clarification, you insult me.
I know you know what I'm talking about but you're simply arguing for the sake of arguing.
Of course. I love nothing more than arguing with people I don't know for no reason. (That was sarcasm).
But for shits and giggles I will explain what I mean by windowless/frameless (considering it wasn't explained in any other thread):
Whoa, stop. Are you sure you want to back up your own statements!?
There is no titlebar (the only part of the window frame that can be considered visible) when the cursor isn't within the displayed video. Why can't the titlebar be displayed all the time? Not having that information up all the time can be detrimental to productivity. The titlebar provides important information when the content of the window itself isn't informative enough.
Thank you for this. It means a lot to me when people explain their thoughts.
But unless you're one of the few testing out Snow Leopard, you're going off assumptions and even if they happened to be right at the moment, you could be wrong when Snow Leopard ships. I'm sure you're aware of this, just wanted to remind you (and that goes for me too).
We're all using a GUI OS for a reason. Imagine if all windows had titlebars that would fade away when the cursor isn't on it. Content without a title -- a bad idea in some cases.
That would be horrible if all window title bars in all applications faded away. But that's unlikely to be the case because it would make no sense. Having the title bar of QuickTime videos disappear makes sense because it's a distracting element. I'd guess you might bring up that that's what full-screen mode is for, but many videos are low resolution and look like crap in full-screen. I'm still on Tiger, but in Leopard (and presumably, Snow Leopard) using QuickLook is far more appealing than opening QuickTime.
I don't know how you wouldn't know what was playing; perhaps you'd forget the name, but you would know what it was. I could understand if the video was paused and the title bar disappeared, but we don't know if that happens or if it only fades away when video is playing. Right now in Safari 4, when .MOVs are paused, the playback controls are visible; they only disappear when the video is playing.
Since Quicktime X is a playback only tool it's not competing with legacy Quicktime 7.x for anything involving encoding, transcoding or anything else. This makes sure it's lightweight and should perform well. QTX came from the Quicktime stack on the iPhone.
How it relates to legacy QT is this.
Developers will write to QTkit which is like a cocoa based front end for dealing with media elemenst. QTkit will then parcel out the request to the appropriate tool. So if the request is for playing back a media element I suppose QTX will get the nod and if the if more robust features are being requested then legacy QT will be engaged.
It should all be transparent to the end user.
is a cocoa
http://developer.apple.com/documenta...Reference.html
http://developer.apple.com/documenta...uid/TP40001164
Who's being an ass now? I ask for clarification, you insult me.
I said I admired your obtuseness.
You seem like you're having a bad day so I'll let you cool off.
I don't know how you wouldn't know what was playing; perhaps you'd forget the name, but you would know what it was. I could understand if the video was paused and the title bar disappeared, but we don't know if that happens or if it only fades away when video is playing. Right now in Safari 4, when .MOVs are paused, the playback controls are visible; they only disappear when the video is playing.
Actually, this part was probably the only portion of your post worth replying to...
The argument you're using -- "I don't know how you wouldn't know what was playing" -- could be used in any context.
I'd be very surprised if people shared your opinion that the titlebar is distracting enough to warrant removing. If the titlebar is distracting, then the rest of the shit on your screen must be driving you up the walls.
Begone, webegon.
I said I admired your obtuseness.
You seem like you're having a bad day so I'll let you cool off.
I try to reason out your vague statements, you call me an obtuse ass. Who's really having the bad day?
Actually, this part was probably the only portion of your post worth replying to...
The argument you're using -- "I don't know how you wouldn't know what was playing" -- could be used in any context.
I'd be very surprised if people shared your opinion that the titlebar is distracting enough to warrant removing.
The. Titlebar. Has. Not. Been. Removed.
It simply fades into the video, likely only when the video is playing. There's a big difference. If the titlebar was removed, that most certainly would be a big mistake. You wouldn't be able to move windows around!
If the titlebar is distracting, then the rest of the shit on your screen must be driving you up the walls.
I was not making a big point about it, sheesh. It's a minor change you've made a mountain out of.
When watching a video, I don't need to be reminded of its name while I'm watching it. I opened the video, I know what it's name is and more importantly, what it is.
Begone, webegon.
Grow up.
I
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
They could have the controls on the bottem, except when it goes fullscreen. It's not a big deal to program that in.
But that full screen problem is one that really bothers me, as I mentioned already. The covering of the video isn't a big deal. It's only there when you need them, and then, you're not looking at the video when you're making most changes anyway, except for color, etc. It's actually easier to make those adjustments when the controls are on the video, as you don't have to look back and forth as you make the adjustments.
Everything is going to heads up displays these days. This is no different.
Apple hasn't been very good about keeping their user interfaces consistent. But this brings it to be more consistent with the iTunes video playback window. In the recent past, the look, feel, controls and usability between QuickTime app, DVD Player and iTunes video playback differed a lot more from each other than I thought was justified. It's almost as if different companies developed each app. It looks like Snow Leopard finally unifies them a lot better than they did in the past.
I don't know if this really changes that much. Different media often means different means of accessing and controlling it.
Apple, like every other company, experiments with the UI. They have to. Nothing is static.
I don't want them to change every program and the OS over all at once. What if it's a bomb? Try one program at a time. If people really don't like it, or it doesn't work, then they can go to something else.
It's a lot of work researching, and re-programming UI's.
No, it's not. What if you're trying to look at something in the video but the controls get in the way? Say for example, something catches your eye and you pause the video to take a closer look. And all you end up with is a control bar in your way. Floating controls make the most sense in Full Screen.
As chabig has already said, drag them away. I would leave then at the bottom of the video, there's rarely anything of interest at the bottom.
Actually I did provide alternatives in the appropriate thread. Go read it. It's not my fault if you're too lazy. I'm not going to cut and paste the same alternative solutions over and over again every time some clown tells me to provide another solution.
Cut the name calling.
And thus the window becomes frameless.
Again, in the appropriate thread, I talk about how the low-end Mac Pro is poor value considering you could get an dual quad-core for the same price before the new line up.
I've explained myself before. All you have to do is use the search function.
I'm glad you at least admit to being an apologist. It's the first step to recovery.
Kim, you can't expect people to read every single thread to find statements that as far as they know, you MAY have made, or you may NOT have made. If you have an argument in any thread, you have to present it to people you're talking to.
Seconded. Yes, it appears sometimes necessary to watch how the small scene detail evolves from frame to frame. It isn't that this task is frequent, yet it's reoccurring to someone who analyses evidence including videos. QTX clips that piece with its controls, and that's that.
If you're analyzing evidence, I hope you would be using a professional program that's designed expressly for that purpose, rather that a basic free consumer app.
No, I can't be bothered to do any of that because you're being an ass. I don't go out of my way to be friendly to people like that.
That's not helping.
If you're analyzing evidence, I hope you would be using a professional program that's designed expressly for that purpose, rather that a basic free consumer app.
Indeed, I do.
Ok, Ok, I know the probability of those QTX's controls would prevent me from achieving my analysis is negligible...
Indeed, I do.
Ok, Ok, I know the probability of those QTX's controls would prevent me from achieving my analysis is negligible...
Here in NYC, the police department uses software that logs the individual in when opening the program. It also logs all frames looked at, and for how long. It automatically saves every move made while using the program. For forensic purposes, notes can be typed in any any time, and tied to any area of video, or audio, which can be kept together, or stripped out. any changes made to any frame for diagnostic purposes, using filters is kept permanently. Even voice commenting can be made and linked to anything needed. There are many more features besides those.
When you mean "examining evidence" therefor, what do you actually mean? Just looking at some bits here and there? Here at least, legally, there must be a tightly tied trail. The original must be unimpaired, while work is done on portions used for evidence, used with the unaltered portions.
Here in NYC, the police department uses software that logs the individual in when opening the program. It also logs all frames looked at, and for how long. It automatically saves every move made while using the program. For forensic purposes, notes can be typed in any any time, and tied to any area of video, or audio, which can be kept together, or stripped out. any changes made to any frame for diagnostic purposes, using filters is kept permanently. Even voice commenting can be made and linked to anything needed. There are many more features besides those.
Khm... What can I say? Ok, I tried to compete with dedicated authorities in the field of investigation. Not unsuccessfully, I dare say. Never did with NYPD! But I'm not used to lose before game, you know
When you mean "examining evidence" therefor, what do you actually mean? Just looking at some bits here and there? Here at least, legally, there must be a tightly tied trail. The original must be unimpaired, while work is done on portions used for evidence, used with the unaltered portions.
Yes, looking at some bits here and there. I'm not even a humble precinct, you know
Khm... What can I say? Ok, I tried to compete with dedicated authorities in the field of investigation. Not unsuccessfully, I dare say. Never did with NYPD! But I'm not used to lose before game, you know
Yes, looking at some bits here and there. I'm not even a humble precinct, you know
I get it.
You know, that noisy cctv footage is a large part of what they work with as well.
It's too bad that we can't have happen in reality, what happens on these mystery Tv shows. Magnifying a noisy SD, or sometimes a 1/2SD cctv video to supersharp footage, with well beyond 1080p's detail is humorous, but not when the show depends on that for the resolution (sic) of the story.
Actually, this part was probably the only portion of your post worth replying to...
The argument you're using -- "I don't know how you wouldn't know what was playing" -- could be used in any context.
I'd be very surprised if people shared your opinion that the titlebar is distracting enough to warrant removing. If the titlebar is distracting, then the rest of the shit on your screen must be driving you up the walls.
Begone, webegon.
I don't mean to get involved in this hilarious nerd-fight. It has been a humorous read.
I do have to interject an opinion: I watch a lot of video on my Macs?particularly the Mini attached to my TV. I am constantly doing whatever I can to remove distracting UI elements while watching videos. Usually this entails using fullscreen mode, but a video window that transformed into a clean video box upon mouse-out or mouse-stop sounds awesome!
And, to be fair, a lot of the time the rest of the 'shit on my screen' is driving me up the walls. Maybe I'm just a neat freak. My bad.
I get it.
You know, that noisy cctv footage is a large part of what they work with as well.
It's too bad that we can't have happen in reality, what happens on these mystery Tv shows. Magnifying a noisy SD, or sometimes a 1/2SD cctv video to supersharp footage, with well beyond 1080p's detail is humorous, but not when the show depends on that for the resolution (sic) of the story.
Khm... Will those guys at NYPD agree?? Doesn't better resolution sound like job cuts???
Yet I loved Apple exactly for providing me with a minimal toolkit allowing to do what I like right out of the box. It was indeed astonishing that I modeled the plane path in Quartz Composer, selected "Export as QT movie", and... there was no progress bar shown at all! I thought it didn't work
It did.