H.264 = a "sign" for bigger machines??
reading lots of regrets concerning the encoding into the new H.264 codec (even BigMacs needs hours for a few minutes of video), I "feel" that maybe this is a sign?- you grab the territory for a new standard? and deliver the hardware later.-
in the "year of HD", H.264 is important - but useless, if even the pros cannot encode within lifespan
what are you're experiences??
//not to mention playback, the demos at apple.com are nice, but?//
in the "year of HD", H.264 is important - but useless, if even the pros cannot encode within lifespan
what are you're experiences??
//not to mention playback, the demos at apple.com are nice, but?//
Comments
The results are worth it. In every shootout I've seen AVC takes the checkered flag. I expect encoding to improve slightly but I'm not expecting any miracles here.
My $0.02
Originally posted by neutrino23
Why would Apple trumpet this if they knew most users could use it?
Originally posted by neutrino23
It is a little odd. It was widely reported some time back that H.264 required a lot more horsepower. Why would Apple trumpet this if they knew most users could use it?
You are assuming that all H.264 should be displayed at the highest resolution. To the contrary, H.264 is highly scalable. A 320 x 240 clip will be a much smaller file as the expense of acceptable increases in processor requirements compared to older formats like MPEG-1. There comes a time when we must all leave the past behind and walk courageously into the future.
Originally posted by KingOfSomewhereHot
... those folks don't particularly care how long it took to render the clip ...?
especially these folks care for every second how long they have to wait! to get rendering times short is the only reason for socalled render-parks
but, I forgot - as Ebby mentioned - the designated Hardware "accelerators"/hardeware encoders doing that job? so, maybe Apple offers a production bundle with a mac, the software and some third party "black box" doing the encoding?
Originally posted by Mr. Me
You are assuming that all H.264 should be displayed at the highest resolution. To the contrary, H.264 is highly scalable. A 320 x 240 clip will be a much smaller file as the expense of acceptable increases in processor requirements compared to older formats like MPEG-1. There comes a time when we must all leave the past behind and walk courageously into the future.
That makes a lot of sense. I can see where full blown HD would be difficult whereas more reasonable sizes (like the MWSF keynote) would run on most Macs.
Originally posted by k_munic
//not to mention playback, the demos at apple.com are nice, but?//
But what? If they play on the almost two-year-old Power Mac 2.0, I think they're doing pretty well. And this will most likely get more and more efficient.
Originally posted by Placebo
But what? If they play on the almost two-year-old Power Mac 2.0, I think they're doing pretty well. And this will most likely get more and more efficient.
the small resolutions doing pretty well (the scaleabilty of H264 is beyond doubt great!)? have you "dared" to use a high-def resolution? some "real" HD?? 1080p?? say farewell to your PowerMac
Interestingly enough, on current hardware, it perhaps isn't the best standard for HD playback today, given that most computers can't play it at full frame rate. Not that this is a flaw in the standard. Apple is smart to be endoursing a standard which trades playback efficiency for better file size. Our hardware should grow into the requirements quite nicely.
I see h.264 as immediately more useful for standard-def content or web-casting. However, with apple's HD sample clips being some of the only h.264 available, it seems to be confusing the public.
h.264 does not equal high-def!
One quick question, does Quicktime use the velocity engine to help play H.264?
We are confusing HD and H264, (or maybe you all are talking about the same thing, and I missed the day we agreed on what HD means) HD is not a codec!
My understanding is:
H264 = AVC = Mpeg 4 part 10 = hot new codec
HD = hot new series of large resolution display standards, either 1280 by 720 pixels OR 1920 by 1080 pixels across. Also either interlaced (720i for example) or progressive (720p for example.) Progressive means you are redrawing the whole picture in each frame. Interlaced means you are redrawing just every other line.
However, in the USA HD does not = H264. Instead HD = Mpeg2
In the USA, HD (Hi-definition) either 720i/720p or 1080i/1080p will likely be broadcast using the older Mpeg2 codec used on DVDs. This will require more bandwidth, but less processing power (still a bunch tho' cause of the large resolution).
In Europe they are going with the hot new codec H264/AVC/Mpeg4 part 10 for their HD broadcasts. This means they will use less bandwith (still a bunch tho'), but you will need a brawnier decoder hardware box at the endpoints.
What is muddling the distinction between the terms is that the new DVD formats HD-DVD or BlueRay will probably be using AVC (H264) video rather than Mpeg2 like older DVDs. People see HD and think "New codec!" which it might be in some cases, or it might just be a larger resolution picture.
Internet sources for HD use various codecs. If they are paying a bandwidth bill, they probably will want to use AVC as it becomes available to the end users. Apple falls into this category with their quicktime 7 trailers showcase.
I assume you all are talking about AVC when you say HD, but I really have no way of judging. If you start ranting about HD being hard to decode on a G5, at least announce what continent you're on!
However I'm waiting for Ultra HiDef 4k :P
concerning If you start ranting about HD being hard to decode on a G5, at least announce what continent you're on! ? have a look to left, under my nick: Germany is in Europe.
Your location is? empty
It is seen as the brand spanking new codec that kicks every other one to the kerb... HD is the future and H.264 is seen as the future as well. The two will probably go hand in hand in a few years.
Ok this is sweet. I checked the software update, and found the
"Apple Intermediate Codec" (1.0.1)
So I thought ok, just install it, only 700k. Then I decided to see if there was the slightest chance it could play H.264 any better. I ran the latest HD Batman trailer from Apple's website (720p res) from my external HD (check sig for specs).
Usually I only manage 12 fps on my humble little Powerbook, now it plays this trailer at it's full fps! Even with Limewire and MSN Messenger running it managed 20 constant fps. A very nice update.
Need a G5?? Perhaps not.
but the OP concerns about the en-coding, not the decoding.
so, only solution still I do see for pros is hardware accelaration/black box H264 decoding?
Originally posted by k_munic
especially these folks care for every second how long they have to wait! to get rendering times short is the only reason for socalled render-parks
but, I forgot - as Ebby mentioned - the designated Hardware "accelerators"/hardeware encoders doing that job? so, maybe Apple offers a production bundle with a mac, the software and some third party "black box" doing the encoding?
yup a number of third party 'black box's have been announced
eg. for broadcasters that are now going to deliver HDTV through h.264 instead of mpeg2 as they do now. on the decoding side, this would be more for people with the set-top-box-type hardware decoder.....
so yeah apple is getting it's foot in the door, people can decide if they can let it render farm / render park (dvd studio pro latest allows distributed encoding) or if they want to get a hardware based solution.
see in some cases getting a bunch of powermacs is more future-proof and affordable than getting some big racks of "hardware based solutions" encoding cards, if that makes sense...
this is what apple is betting on to keep it's pro line going, for the video market.... the graphic and web design market is slowly eaten away by PCs or by iMac g5s