quicktime codec up to bar with reals? definition, actually, standard, nothing

andy

curious

Movies site. Apple's H.264 has a while before release, so keep open to the possibility that it may get better.

thanx for the reply but I looking into non hd .

Being a Mac guy where the quicktime file is commonplace, I'd say there's nothing special with standard definition quicktime, eg Sorenson 3 or Apple MPEG-4

the proprieatary sorenson codec, which is used for most .mov files, is said to be using h.264 technologies as real does, so it might actually play in the same league (i am not talking about apples mpeg-4 asp codec here of course)

but no quality statement is valid until closer comparisons are done

Sorenson3 is actually an old codec, and I don't know of any continued development that's widespread. QuickTime Player updates (frequent in the Mac community) have yet to announce a new version of Sorenson. To see some examples for yourself, check out the QuickTime trailers here: trailers/

Unfortunately, you'd have to use Apple's QuickTime player Edit: As far as I know, Apple MPEG-4 is SP, not ASP. There may be some support for some ASP features, but B-Frames are completely lacking in both encoding and decoding. It seems like they have focused attention on H.264

Originally posted by gavo
Re: quicktime codec up to bar with reals?

curious
It guess it all depends what you want to do with it!

From a multi O/S platform compatibility point of view, QuickTime scores well over Real. And there's no annoying setup/spy-ware issues!

If you want to create streaming media, then in my opinion QuickTime is very good, as the .mov container is able to support Mpeg4 as well as Sorenson video. Plus you only need to add a few lines of code into your web page to make it happen.Cheers

Originally posted by SeeMoreDigital
It guess it all depends what you want to do with it!

From a multi O/S platform compatibility point of view, QuickTime scores well over Real. And there's no annoying setup/spy-ware issues!

If you want to create streaming media, then in my opinion QuickTime is very good, as the .mov container is able to support Mpeg4 as well as Sorenson video. Plus you only need to add a few lines of code into your web page to make it happen.Cheers

Good points not to be forgotten!

It's just that this is in the Codecs section that got me thinking on the track of the actual video compression mechanisms. Perhaps when dealing with quicktime, we need to realize that it is a solution rather than one specific product. In this case, QT is head and shoulders above Real. With QT, you can write plug-ins for different containers like .ogg and use an array of widely supported codecs. Heck, (Being a Mac guy, again), we have at points been able to encode DivX to a .mov (although wasn't officially supported), XviD to a .mov, and even XviD to an .mp4 container. If you can think of a container, codec or metadata scheme, you can write a plugin for it and have it work with any application that supports QT.

Cheers

It's just a shame that QuickTime player isn't all that great ie paying 30 dollars to have full screen video.. I think that's a big reason for people not using it more.

I think there's quot;QuickTime Alternativequot; now though?

Fortunately MPC seems to be able to decode .mov/S3 files nicely, so theres no need to use QT player, at least as far as playing downloading movs is concerned.

There is a quicktime alternative, but you'd raither not using it. Install free quicktime and use MPC. That's so far the best quot;legalquot; deal.

Originally posted by LordRPI
...I think there's quot;QuickTime Alternativequot; now though?
Personally I would not recommend using this application.

The only thing worth-while in the quot;Alternativequot; pack is the included  DSdec filter (created by Cyberlink). Which can be installed separately.

There's not a lot wrong with QuickTime quot;stdquot; player. And it's nowhere near as invasive as RealPlayer.

Word to the wise though... Don't install, QuickTime Alternative and an official version of QuickTime Std/Pro together... they don't like each other very much!Cheers

of course this are all valid points, qt client is definately nicer, but how would one prepare/stream multibitrate stream?

some questions:

a. can darwin do that?   
b. if yes, how to prepare such qt stream? tools?
c. is that even teoretically possible to do via from (or should i say client side only)?

d. unrelated: how to encode best looking stream in about 100 kB (kilobyte) max limit?

Originally posted by bond
the proprieatary sorenson codec, which is used for most .mov files, is said to be using h.264 technologies as real does, so it might actually play in the same league (i am not talking about apples mpeg-4 asp codec here of course)

but no quality statement is valid until closer comparisons are done i HATE quicktime... just about the only tool there is to work with Cleaner (and even that is, what, a $200 piece of shit my workplace shelled out money for) Sorenson 3 is single pass unless you shell out another $200 for IT, and even then, i'm not sure it's much better. Quicktime MPEG-4 has no 2-pass either (which could have made it respectable).

i'm half tempted to go with Windows Media 9 and force everyone to use WMP (which exists for OS X now)take a look at and click on the plane for WMV9 vs Sorenson 3 at approx. the same bitrate. note: the WMV9 is 2pass VBR, and Sorenson is 1pass (not sure if it's VBR or not), both sourced from raw video pretty much straight out of an Avid Adrenaline.Originally posted by SeeMoreDigital
It guess it all depends what you want to do with it!

From a multi O/S platform compatibility point of view, QuickTime scores well over Real. And there's no annoying setup/spy-ware issues!

If you want to create streaming media, then in my opinion QuickTime is very good, as the .mov container is able to support Mpeg4 as well as Sorenson video. Plus you only need to add a few lines of code into your web page to make it happen.Cheers if i could get WMV9 working with pre-WinXP (or at least to load the stinkin' codec) i'd be the happiest compressionist alive with my experience with how good WMV9 is... (it's multiplatform, it's just that i'm having the dickens getting it to work with older versions of *windows*!) it's the best solution requiring no intervention (if things are quot;just rightquot; which they aren't) and is free.

i'd love to use Xvid, but there's licensing issues. and some (well, most) of the things that make it shine at low bitrates aren't compatible with Quicktime/MPEG-4 (which i'd be muxing to)

real's quot;goodquot; (to the unwashed masses) but for commercial use, they want $200. and many people either have a bad taste in their mouth from past experiences with it taking over their system or can't bother to use a spamtrap email account to quot;activatequot; the player.

and then there's quicktime. i only use it because i have to. i dream of a day when it won't suck (maybe when h264 finally comes out).edit: don't get me wrong, i love my mac, but i hate what i'm stuck working with when the pc sitting beside it has all the cutting edge video compression technology

Originally posted by smok3
of course this are all valid points, qt client is definately nicer, but how would one prepare/stream multibitrate stream?

some questions:

a. can darwin do that?   
b. if yes, how to prepare such qt stream? tools?
c. is that even teoretically possible to do via from (or should i say client side only)?

d. unrelated: how to encode best looking stream in about 100 kB (kilobyte) max limit?

quicktime/products/qtss/

Originally posted by plonk420
quicktime/products/qtss/

yes, there is a lot of nice screenshots..., or what?

Originally posted by plonk420 ...take a look at and click on the plane for WMV9 vs Sorenson 3 at approx. the same bitrate. note: the WMV9 is 2pass VBR, and Sorenson is 1pass (not sure if it's VBR or not), both sourced from raw video pretty much straight out of an Avid Adrenaline.
Urgh.... this is not a very good comparison!

For a start, the QuickTime file is approx 1.5MB (10%) smaller than the WMV file. And they've been encoded using different pixel frame sizes. Plus whoever encoded the QuickTime file, did not look like they tried very hard to get the best out of it...

I don't know about you guys but the WMV file did not quot;streamquot; for me in the web page. Well, not until the entire file had been downloaded (and buffered) via the main player..... This is where QuickTime scores quot;bigquot; over WMV.... After a few seconds of waiting, it started to play.

Given the bitrate, I reckon I could have done a much better job with the QuickTime file. Using 2pass Mpeg4 video and AAC audio of course  Cheers

web_mo...velin_15mb.wmv - NO STREAMING
mms--- STREAMING

It all depends on that quot;mms--quot;...
WMV doesnt stream thru from... it needs the MMS protocol.

Originally posted by Sharktooth
It all depends on that quot;mms--quot;...
WMV doesnt stream thru from... it needs the MMS protocol.

Well that explains that.... Another reason then, why WMV is not as user friendly as QuickTime (and Real)!

Is this the same for WMA files. Or can they stream okay via from?Cheers