HD AVC Encoding... does Quicktime Suck?

[easy2Bcheesy]

Hi guys,

I'm currently looking to encode a 720p/60fps high definition demo I've created into a final, compressed form.

I must say that I've been VERY impressed with the Windows Media high definition codec. My demo is 2:49, and even though it's 60fps, and even though it's PC games footage (ie intricate textures, tons of detail etc), an 8mbps encode looks fine - and a 15mbps encode looks breathtaking. Just like the game running, in fact.

However, the plain and simple fact of the matter is that just through the sheer power of their brand, Quicktime is making massive inroads into the format in which consumers will want to playback HD and I feel duty-bound to support it.

And the QT 7 Pro encoder is giving me grief. Whilst my two-pass WMV at 260mb looks brilliant, my multipass QT AVC encode at 340mb (quality level 55) looks awful in comparison. It takes almost twice as long to encode too!

Any recommendations? If seeing the files will help, please PM me and I'll pass on links. I can't make the files publically available as just 20-odd people downloading the files will annihilate my bandwidth allowance :)

[Doom9]

I'm pretty sure you'll get considerably better results if you use either ateme's codec or x264.

[easy2Bcheesy]

I'd be inclined to agree. Can those files then be put into a Quicktime wrapper, or saved in a format that Quicktime will run with a simple double-click on the file? MP4, perhaps?

One thing I will say, however, is that with all settings at maximum, QT AVC looks pretty lossless to me and turns a 26GB uncompressed file into a 1.8GB one. Not that it'll actually playback without frame-dropping mind you :D

[Doom9]

Recode only spits out MP4 (well, DVD stuff as well but in the MPEG-4 area it's MP4 only), and x264 can do MP4 as well (try MeGUI). Be careful with the settings though, QT isn't exactly known for being problem free so you have to cut back on features or it won't be able to handle the files you're trying to feed it with.

[Sharktooth]

I've made a custom video profile for megui that should produce quicktime 7.03 compatible encodes. it's included in my x264 builds (sticky thread).

[kothrush]

Hi guys,

I'm currently looking to encode a 720p/60fps high definition demo I've created into a final, compressed form.

I must say that I've been VERY impressed with the Windows Media high definition codec. My demo is 2:49, and even though it's 60fps, and even though it's PC games footage (ie intricate textures, tons of detail etc), an 8mbps encode looks fine - and a 15mbps encode looks breathtaking. Just like the game running, in fact.

However, the plain and simple fact of the matter is that just through the sheer power of their brand, Quicktime is making massive inroads into the format in which consumers will want to playback HD and I feel duty-bound to support it.

And the QT 7 Pro encoder is giving me grief. Whilst my two-pass WMV at 260mb looks brilliant, my multipass QT AVC encode at 340mb (quality level 55) looks awful in comparison. It takes almost twice as long to encode too!

Any recommendations? If seeing the files will help, please PM me and I'll pass on links. I can't make the files publically available as just 20-odd people downloading the files will annihilate my bandwidth allowance :)

H.264 is very impressive codec. It can definitely give you same or better results than WMV HD. but, QT is not the best known encoder/decoder for PC. If you really want to know how H.264 compares to WMV HD then use x264 to encode on PC and something other than QT to play it.

QT supports encoding/decoding of H.264 upto Main profile ( to know more about profiles, read information about MPEG4/AVC sticky). Although QT does encode to main profile too , options are very limited compare to what you could get with x264.

WMV (being MS native) is probably well optimized on PC. I use QT on my mac and HD trailer from Apple look better than HD trialer of WMV from MS on PC. So H.264 codec is pretty amazing and has same or more potential than AMV HD. Just use a proper software which can help you to take advantage of that codec and unfortunately, QT won't is not the one on PC. Seach around here nd you will find lots of threads about what people use to get best out of H.264 on PC.

Once you create standard based H.264 (upto main profile/MP4 container) you can playback them on any platform mac/pc/linux.

[Randall]

I've made a custom video profile for megui that should produce quicktime 7.03 compatible encodes. it's included in my x264 builds (sticky thread).
Sharktooth's QT profile works perfectly, I can vouch for it. If you end up with a white box with no video and just sound, chances are it's your x264 settings that are wrong (not supported by QT). If you get just a QT control panel (No white box for video) then it's something wrong with the way you ran MP4Box or however you muxed the audio and video streams.

Bottom line is QT support for H.264 is far from complete. It supports most of Main Profile, but not all of it. There are other threads that discuss QT compatibility ad-nauseum.

[easy2Bcheesy]

I'll check out Sharktooth's work and see how I get on - many thanks for the help here.

I have no doubt that H264 can easily equal or surpass WMV, but I suspect that for most people, their entry into the world of high definition AVC will be through the Quicktime player, and it has to be said that performance even on a semi-decent PC is somewhat lacking. My 3.2GHz 840 dual core machine is having problems playing back the HD file, most likely because it's 60fps.

To be frank, I was astonished that you have to pay for QT Pro just to get a full-screen picture!

[Sharktooth]

i think i'm well known in this board for being an Anti-QT activist... now you know why :devil:

[Randall]

I'll check out Sharktooth's work and see how I get on - many thanks for the help here.

I have no doubt that H264 can easily equal or surpass WMV, but I suspect that for most people, their entry into the world of high definition AVC will be through the Quicktime player, and it has to be said that performance even on a semi-decent PC is somewhat lacking. My 3.2GHz 840 dual core machine is having problems playing back the HD file, most likely because it's 60fps.

To be frank, I was astonished that you have to pay for QT Pro just to get a full-screen picture!

You hit the nail on the head here. There is no doubt that QT is currently the most established media player that supports (somewhat) H.264 decoding, and therefor one of my encoding goals is to have QT compatibility. That said, I am also outraged that you must pay for Pro just to have fullscreen mode enabled. What kind of bs is that anyway? Makes me lose some respect for Apple.

The performance issue on even robost PC's is another major issue for QT, and a major reason why everybody on the doom9 forums hate QuickTime, the other reason being lack of support for some basic H.264 encoding options. The reason why QT runs like sh1t on Windows is that Apple had to port a good chunk of their native OS underlieing code to the Windows world just to get QuickTime to run on Windows. The heavy emulation takes a toll on CPU, and as a result you usually see 60-85% CPU being eaten away with QT for windows, while other great players like mplayer and VLC are much more CPU friendly. Basically, Apple did a half-assed job bringing QT to windows. I'd imagine the benchmarks for QT on Mac OS X to be much better, since Apple knows it's own hardware optimizations.

[kothrush]

QT supports decoding of anything in H.264 Main profile. It strictly follows main profile, so even a little bit high profile stuff and it wont play it. I hope Apple adds high profile decoding, if not encoding in future. As previous post mentioned, on mac QT is very optimized, at least for decoding.
Even on mac side, I would not call QT encoding as optimized. Its better than PC, but still needs to be improved.
I would like to try 720p/60fps decoding on my mac. can you provide me with sample (H264 /main profile) ? lt would be good to know how QT fares with that many fps on mac.

[Manao]

QT supports decoding of anything in H.264 Main profileAFAIK, it doesn't support interlaced stuff ( neither encoding nor decoding ), but neither does x264/libavcodec. Their MP4 support is broken too. Oh, and doubling the resolution of a video clip while playing takes ~7 seconds on a 2800+ ( no video refreshing meanwhile, so it's 7 seconds lost... ).

QT7 is pretty much a shame, as WMP10, but the later actually has the advantage to be able to use third party filters. Too bad QT7 is the reference out there, because it's a bad reference... There is no doubt that QT is currently the most established media player that supports (somewhat) H.264 decoding, and therefor one of my encoding goals is to have QT compatibilityIt is true, but - except if you work in the industry and your client set you the standard you must follow - you can educate your users.

[Randall]

Yes, QT7 isn't the best reference, but it's about as good as you can expect a propritariy player to be these days. My experiences are that unless the media player is open source, it tends to have trouble conforming to the standards.

P.S. QT7 has plenty of third party filters... unfortunately most of them are for Mac OS only. One I would particularly love to have would be the AC3 audio plugin http://www.insaneness.com/ac3.html. I installed 3ivx to play DivX/XviD files, but any of them encoded with AC3 audio are mute. (The have no audio stream as far as QuickTime is concerned). So, I use mplayer for divx/xvid etc.

Also QT doesn't support mp3 audio inside MPEG4 video (I think)

[kothrush]

Yes, QT7 isn't the best reference, but it's about as good as you can expect a propritariy player to be these days. My experiences are that unless the media player is open source, it tends to have trouble conforming to the standards.

P.S. QT7 has plenty of third party filters... unfortunately most of them are for Mac OS only. One I would particularly love to have would be the AC3 audio plugin http://www.insaneness.com/ac3.html. I installed 3ivx to play DivX/XviD files, but any of them encoded with AC3 audio are mute. (The have no audio stream as far as QuickTime is concerned). So, I use mplayer for divx/xvid etc.

Also QT doesn't support mp3 audio inside MPEG4 video (I think)

QT supports mp3 audio in avi. I can play pretty much all avi's with mp3 audio (with DivX fusion codec). AC3 is a problem though.

[Chainmax]

Sorry for the slight hijack, but what kind of a mechanical monster does one need to be able to playback a 1280x720 AVC stream?

[Randall]

An act of God.

[Revgen]

@Randall

VLC Player supports AVC content better than QT. It also can be used to stream video just like QT can.

It's also free to download for anybody who needs to view your videos.

I'd suggest using it instead if possible.

[Randall]

I agree with you Revgen, but %.1 of people I know use VLC, and more then half of them use QT.

[DryFire]

Sorry for the slight hijack, but what kind of a mechanical monster does one need to be able to playback a 1280x720 AVC stream?

Does resolution and cpu power required scale linearly (assuming all other options are held constant)?

I'll try making a test encode (I"ll have to upsize something unless someone has a smaple).

I'll also make a new thread at that time.

[keel]

To be frank, I was astonished that you have to pay for QT Pro just to get a full-screen picture!I don't agree with that policy either. But you can play QT full-screen in iTunes without paying anything. When the video starts playing in the little corner window in the left, a new button pops up, fifth from the left, for full-screen playback. Not the most intuitive system, but it works.
Some people, of course, might not want to use iTunes to play their videos.

[Sharktooth]

Still iTunes decoder sux (feature wise)... it's damn slow and unoptimized (on windows).
VLC is MUCH better and damn faster even on macs and it even supports almost all h.264 features (some are still missing but yuo dont have to go mad searching why the hell your h.264 video doesnt play or why you're getting a white screen...). I dont see any reason to keep using QT, let it burn in hell.

[Randall]

I don't agree with that policy either. But you can play QT full-screen in iTunes without paying anything. When the video starts playing in the little corner window in the left, a new button pops up, fifth from the left, for full-screen playback. Not the most intuitive system, but it works.
Some people, of course, might not want to use iTunes to play their videos.
Ah yes pipe your video through one piece of bloated slow software into another piece of bloated slow software. I can't imagine breaking the 2 FPS threshold with that move :D . For me, I use mplayer or Nero for fullscreen playback. I don't care much for VLC. It's got a few bugs I find annoying, namely audio support seems to be lacking.

[kothrush]

Still iTunes decoder sux (feature wise)... it's damn slow and unoptimized (on windows).
VLC is MUCH better and damn faster even on macs and it even supports almost all h.264 features (some are still missing but yuo dont have to go mad searching why the hell your h.264 video doesnt play or why you're getting a white screen...). I dont see any reason to keep using QT, let it burn in hell.

VLC IS NOT FASTER ON MAC FOR H264 CONTENT. As a matter of fact I think vlc uses QT engine for lots of stuff on mac (read vlc requirements for mac, it needs QT), so how it be faster then QT ?? Unless you are speculating something, I would like to see some report which supports that claim. VLC is very good all in one media player. But for the content which be played both in QT and VLC, QT beats VLC hands down at least on mac. No questions there.

[Sharktooth]

VLC, even on MACs, does not depend on QT for h.264 decoding ... the CrapTime requirement is for other stuff... oh and yes, it's still faster, supports more features and more h.264 compliant than QT!

[Randall]

VLC IS NOT FASTER ON MAC FOR H264 CONTENT. As a matter of fact I think vlc uses QT engine for lots of stuff on mac (read vlc requirements for mac, it needs QT), so how it be faster then QT ?? Unless you are speculating something, I would like to see some report which supports that claim. VLC is very good all in one media player. But for the content which be played both in QT and VLC, QT beats VLC hands down at least on mac. No questions there.

I don't have a Mac, so I wouldn't know which is faster. But given that WMP10 is slower then any libavcodec open source player, including VLC and mplayer, and given that QT for windows is infinately slower then WMP10, I would bet that VLC is faster then QT on the Mac. I almost guarantee it. If you want great FPS and good results, go with an open source player. There is almost no way propritary players like WMP and QT can compete as far as performance and compatibility with available formats.

[easy2Bcheesy]

I gave the VFW x264 codec a bash with my HD demo on basic settings with VirtualDub. Playback is extremely slow, but picture quality is massively superior to a QT7 file that's 120mb larger.

I also encoded a rip of GoldenEye (at 1024x400ish) and was astonished at the 1.2GB filesize and the corresponding quality level. Took about four hours to encode on my 3.2GHz Pentium D, which is also not to be sniffed at.

Hats off to the x264 developers and tweakers - I'm going to have to take a much better look at this codec. I'm amazed that it hasn't replaced XviD completely.

[Randall]

>> I'm amazed that it hasn't replaced XviD completely. <<

As far as I'm concerend, it has. AVC is the way to go. No looking back now.

[Sharktooth]

Well, no... it hasn't properly "replaced" xvid.
Xvid has 3 major advantages over x264 (and h.264 in general):
- Faster encoding speed
- Standalones compatibility (until h.264 players appear)
- Lower decoding complexity

If you dont care of those advantages, then switch to x264 immediately (dont use VFW though! the interface is outdated...) and enjoy the superb quality at ultralow bitrates.

[Hyper Shinchan]

Still iTunes decoder sux (feature wise)... it's damn slow and unoptimized (on windows).
VLC is MUCH better and damn faster even on macs and it even supports almost all h.264 features (some are still missing but yuo dont have to go mad searching why the hell your h.264 video doesnt play or why you're getting a white screen...). I dont see any reason to keep using QT, let it burn in hell.
That's right! I'm using FFDShow actually (with SSE optimisation) and it works very good on my PIII 1GHZ (of course I have to change my PC as soon as I can....).
QT maybe is good only for Mac users... it takes soooooo long time to encoding....

[SeeMoreDigital]

Hats off to the x264 developers and tweakers - I'm going to have to take a much better look at this codec. I'm amazed that it hasn't replaced XviD completely.Once high-def MPEG-4/AVC capable stand-alone players/devices start hiting the streets, there's no doubt in my mind, interest in the MPEG-4/AVC codec will soar!

x264 is an outstanding codec (and I dare say is quicker than Micro$oft's WMV9 encoder). And should people decide to encode MPEG-4/AVC to AVI, this can be easily muxed into MP4 with tools such as YAMB.


Cheers

[kothrush]

I don't have a Mac, so I wouldn't know which is faster. But given that WMP10 is slower then any libavcodec open source player, including VLC and mplayer, and given that QT for windows is infinately slower then WMP10, I would bet that VLC is faster then QT on the Mac. I almost guarantee it. If you want great FPS and good results, go with an open source player. There is almost no way propritary players like WMP and QT can compete as far as performance and compatibility with available formats.

Well, mostly you are right. You can throw anything at VLC and it will play i nicely. It supports maximum codec on any platform. It mydefault player on my mac and PC. But your claim about it playing it better than QT on mac is wrong. You are right about PC and that is because there is no better implementation of HD decoder on PCs. but you can not extend your claim to mac. QT is at least same or even better than VLC on mac when is comes to decoding H264. Encoding wise it sucks , use handbrake(x264) or ffmpeg. Get your facts right ( and since you dont have mac, stop speading FUD untill u get one and test it yourself).

[Randall]

LOL spreading FUD is good. Alright so QT rox0rs on mac. It sux0rs on Windows, so I just assumed that it sucked hard on the Mac too. The only reason I try to make my encodes QT compatible is that it is the pickiest media player I've ever seen in my life. If you can get it to play on QT, chances are it will play on anything. And you would think that Apple developers would know how to optimize encoding on the freaking harware that they built. I am not impressed with that at all. It's actually quite pathetic.

[Sharktooth]

Still QT has the same limits on MACs. It can decode the same streams as on PCs. The MAC version is faster than the PC one, but the other issues are still there, including the limited endoding/decoding capabilities, the crippled features and the non-compliant stuff.
VLC and MPlayer can handle anything (almost) including quicktime stuff. So i still cant see the reason for using QuickTime even on mac.

[kothrush]

Still QT has the same limits on MACs. It can decode the same streams as on PCs. The MAC version is faster than the PC one, but the other issues are still there, including the limited endoding/decoding capabilities, the crippled features and the non-compliant stuff.
VLC and MPlayer can handle anything (almost) including quicktime stuff. So i still cant see the reason for using QuickTime even on mac.

For decoding you are right. My default player is also VLC. I have lots of old divx/xvid files which I still have problems playing in QT . Although divx fusion codec can play divx which does not have ac3's in it. Still limited capability. So when it comes to all in one player VLC rocks.

But, QT is not just player. Its an editor too. you can do that command line or what not in other player, but its very easy in QT. adding-substracting streams, cropping etc. are breeze when you want to do that on multiple video files. Hell, VLC can't even open multiple streams at the same time, so editting in VLC/mplayer is out of questions. In that sense, QT is very good all in one editor/player. yes, but like others said, I would not use QT as my media "player". VLC does that job very nicely on any platform.

[keel]

Not to be an apologist or defender of Apple's implementation of H.264/AVC. But as everyone knows this is a new codec, and it will be years before it is really optimized by anyone. Look at how long it took to make MPEG2 efficient.

Apple had a choice to release an immature implementation of AVC, or not to release it until it was more mature, which is not yet. I think they made the right choice. Yes, it's a bit rough around the edges, but it's way better than any other popular free codec that has been available for QuickTime so far. If you don't like QuickTime, no-one is forcing you to use it. And there may be good reasons not to in certain circumstances.

Apple is working to improve the efficiency and interoperability of its AVC, on both the PC and the Mac, and will be on this task for a LONG time. Possibly, Apple could be criticized for not prioritizing tasks the way the savvy members of doom9 might, but these are not the typical users of QuickTime technology.

Apple also had to shift some of its resources to moving OSX to the Intel architecture, no mean feat, which might impact the speed of QT/AVC development. I think Apple wants interoperability and standardization for H.264, or it would not be sponsoring an ISMA interoperability plugfest in a few days, and an ISMA Forum
http://www.isma.tv/news_events/meetings-events.html
In the spring, it is sponsoring a major Blue-Ray Disc Association meeting, the BDA is pretty much the technical heart of HD AVC encoding. Everything in the AVC/H.264 world is real new, rough and imperfect right now, things will get better with time....
Note-I do not work for Apple, I just think they have some good products. But they can all use improvement, and are not targeted at specialized audiences like this.

[Randall]

Apple makes excellent products. But their encoder, on their platform, is not optimized for their hardware. I don't understand that at all. Yes H.264/AVC is fairly new, but x264 managed to come up with an excellent encoder in a very short amount of time, so I don't see how you could say it's too new of a technology to expect any decent results. Which is basically what you're saying here.

[bond]

apple's homebuilt video codecs are crap. it was that way with mpeg-4 sp and it is that way with mpeg-4 avc

cant be some students produce x264 with mindblowing quality in one year and a few months, and apple doesnt manages this too

i guess apple should invest less in guis but in what stands behind them (but well on the other hand people buy stuff because the guis look nice...)

if apple would be really behind interoperability they shouldnt sponsor some "ISMA interoperability plugfest" but simply search for "quicktime" in this forum, that would give them work for some months fixing all the bugs in their player causing non-interoperability

[keel]

apple's homebuilt video codecs are crap. it was that way with mpeg-4 sp and it is that way with mpeg-4 avc I don't doubt there are better encoders than Apple's. However, without their imperfect introduction of MPEG4 Simple Profile support in QuickTime 6, H.264 in QuickTime 7, and AAC in iPod/iTunes/iTunes Music Store, and now H.264 in the iPod, these open standards would be relegated to the codec backwaters of hobbyists and enthusiasts, possibly ending up on the scrap-heap of Betamax technologies. If you can't get lots of people to use your codecs, no matter how good they are, they are not going to have much of a future beyond a small circle of devotees. Apple has popularized the MPEG4 family of codecs and made them a viable choice for world-wide media distribution. Is this so bad?

if apple would be really behind interoperability they shouldnt sponsor some "ISMA interoperability plugfest" but simply search for "quicktime" in this forum, that would give them work for some months fixing all the bugs in their player causing non-interoperabilityWell, why not do both? They may not be scouring these forums, but they are working on fixing bugs. Possibly not the ones you want at this time, and probably never fixing others they don't feel are important to fix with a limited amount of resources.
The many other implementations of H.264 are not perfect either, an interoperability plugfest allows different vendors to help each other work towards meeting a very complex open standard, and work towards getting their imperfect products to work together in the meantime. Is this also so bad?

[bond]

I don't doubt there are better encoders than Apple's. However, without their imperfect introduction of MPEG4 Simple Profile support in QuickTime 6, H.264 in QuickTime 7, and AAC in iPod/iTunes/iTunes Music Store, and now H.264 in the iPod, these open standards would be relegated to the codec backwaters of hobbyists and enthusiasts, possibly ending up on the scrap-heap of Betamax technologies. If you can't get lots of people to use your codecs, no matter how good they are, they are not going to have much of a future beyond a small circle of devotees. Apple has popularized the MPEG4 family of codecs and made them a viable choice for world-wide media distribution. Is this so bad?obviously not true
1) mpeg-4 part2 video was mainly used for dvd backups with xvid and divx. and definitely noone used qt6 for playing such files (as qt6 doesnt handle them), so qt6 supporting mpeg-4 part2 (crappily) supported the standard nowhere (even apple itself didnt use it in their files...)
2) you are correct on aac being mainly used by apple.
3) qt7 definitely doesnt push h.264, as the format pushes itself. support for h.264 on hd-dvd and bluray wasnt added because of qt7 or apple standing behind it, but because such a sepriour video format was simply needed
4) apple doesnt support mpeg-4 systems. it doesnt support mpeg-4 timed text. it doesnt support multichannel aac in .mp4

summing this up saying that apple is pushing open standards is not more than a marketing strategy

also never forget that the purpose of companies is making money, and not "helping spreading a format"

Well, why not do both? They may not be scouring these forums, but they are working on fixing bugs. Possibly not the ones you want at this time, and probably never fixing others they don't feel are important to fix with a limited amount of resources.
The many other implementations of H.264 are not perfect either, an interoperability plugfest allows different vendors to help each other work towards meeting a very complex open standard, and work towards getting their imperfect products to work together in the meantime. Is this also so bad? well apple's avc codec is not "some student-made x264".
if students with resources of zero, or small companies like ateme, can write ass kicking codecs, than i can only wonder how apple isnt able to do this too
propably they are spending their money for wrong things, eg marketing ;)

[keel]

obviously not trueWell, you did not answer my two questions, as they were obviously lost when wrapped in a bunch of pro-apple propaganda hype, I've been in Steve Job's reality distortion field too long. So, let me rephrase them:
1. Was it bad for the MPEG4 industry that Apple included MPEG 4 Simple Profile decoders and encoders in QuickTime 6 a few years ago, and H.264 now in QuickTime 7?
2. Is it bad for the H.264 industry that Apple is sponsoring an ISMA interoperability session?

1) mpeg-4 part2 video was mainly used for dvd backups with xvid and divx. and definitely noone used qt6 for playing such files (as qt6 doesnt handle them)Here again, this forum is a small and very specialized group of hobbyists/experts. It is not Apple's target market. So, some people here will be disappointed with its video codec implementations and players. The percentage of overall DVD watchers that have ripped their own DVDs is minuscule. (But, not unimportant.)


qt6 supporting mpeg-4 part2 (crappily) supported the standard nowhereNot true, if you have a Mac, until recently, QuickTime was the only way to play MPEG4 SP reliably, as VLC was not mature enough...that has recently changed. And many compressionists have used 3ivx's implementation of MPEG4 SP, which has good quality, and can be decoded natively by QuickTime.

(even apple itself didnt use it in their files...)Not true, most of Apple's offical webcasts and archived webcasts have used its implementation of MPEG4 since it was first released. Even Apple has publicly stated this implementation was not very good. The choice was an imperfect implementation vs. no implementation.

qt7 definitely doesnt push h.264, as the format pushes itselfGee that's funny, I just saw an h.264 file play itself without a wrapper or player! Goodness, the iPods are playing VC-1 files! Look at all the great HD-DVD and blue-ray discs we can now buy!

apple doesnt support mpeg-4 systemsI never said that, I said Apple popularized the MPEG4 family of codecs, which includes H.264 and AAC.

summing this up saying that apple is pushing open standards is not more than a marketing strategyWould you rather see them push closed proprietary standards as a marketing strategy?

also never forget that the purpose of companies is making money, and not "helping spreading a format"There is no reason why the consumer cannot also benefit from a company's making money. Unfortunately some of us live in a capitalistic society, and have to put food on the table. Not to denigrade x264, but if it is a "student-made" codec, I trust that the students' "zero resources" educational and living expenses were fully funded by self-employment and donations, and not by anyone's working for a company, whose future employment was dependent on that business making a profit. And that any donations did not come from such sources.

Incidentally, not everyone working for a company is thinking about corporate profits and marketing, all the time. I've met dedicated Apple engineers whose primary goal is to improve their video products. This is true at any company. Do you also think karl_lillevold from Real, and zambelli from Microsoft only care about making money, and don't care about their their products and their future development?

[bond]

Well, you did not answer my two questions, as they were obviously lost when wrapped in a bunch of pro-apple propaganda hype, I've been in Steve Job's reality distortion field too long. So, let me rephrase them:
1. Was it bad for the MPEG4 industry that Apple included MPEG 4 Simple Profile decoders and encoders in QuickTime 6 a few years ago, and H.264 now in QuickTime 7?in the case of simple profile yes. only supporting simple profile made the format pretty unuseable for content providers, as the formats quality is simply not good enough. if apple would have supported advanced simple profile mpeg-4 would have been a more competable format and might have been used more

in the case of h.264, we will see how things will develop. one thing is for sure: the profile of h.264 to use is high profile and not main profile. we will see if apples totally slow and not high profile supporting decoder will ever be updated or if the case of sp will be repeated, cause atm qt is a not useable player for h.264 (on windows) and content providers might therefore turn to m$' wmv9

2. Is it bad for the H.264 industry that Apple is sponsoring an ISMA interoperability session?no, but i claim it also doesnt help anything, as isma was pretty useless already in the mpeg-4 part2 field

Here again, this forum is a small and very specialized group of hobbyists/experts. It is not Apple's target market. So, some people here will be disappointed with its video codec implementations and players. The percentage of overall DVD watchers that have ripped their own DVDs is minuscule. (But, not unimportant.)well there are not so many fields were new codecs are useable, imho
1) streaming
2) hardware formats, like dvd
3) all kinds of personal encodes

mpeg-4 part2 was never used for 1) also because none of the big three players supported it well (and that includes apple)

Not true, if you have a Mac, until recently, QuickTime was the only way to play MPEG4 SP reliably, as VLC was not mature enough...that has recently changed. And many compressionists have used 3ivx's implementation of MPEG4 SP, which has good quality, and can be decoded natively by QuickTime.well this only shows how "good" apples support for open formats is ;)

Not true, most of Apple's offical webcasts and archived webcasts have used its implementation of MPEG4 since it was first released. Even Apple has publicly stated this implementation was not very good. The choice was an imperfect implementation vs. no implementation.all the files i saw, eg trailers, used sorenson3 in the last years

Gee that's funny, I just saw an h.264 file play itself without a wrapper or player! Goodness, the iPods are playing VC-1 files! Look at all the great HD-DVD and blue-ray discs we can now buy!wtf?
as if qt is the only avc player existing... i count 62 different avc implementations and apple is only one of them.
and what does it proove that there are no hddvd or bluray discs sold till now...

I never said that, I said Apple popularized the MPEG4 family of codecs, which includes H.264 and AAC.than why is multichannel aac not supported in .mp4 but only in .mov?
and why does apple spread defacto incompliant .m4a and .m4v files instead of following the mpeg-4 standard and using .mp4?
they do it because they want to confuse 99% of the itunes/ipod users and make them think they need to use apple tools for generating files playable on the ipod (.m4a and .m4v), as all the other tools output "a different format called .mp4"

its simply an evil tactic

Would you rather see them push closed proprietary standards as a marketing strategy?if qt7 wouldnt have included h.264 but a proprieatary format of the same quality as their h.264 codec now, noone would care about it
the only reason people care about it is that its h.264. so h.264 helps apple and not the other way round ;)

There is no reason why the consumer cannot also benefit from a company's making money. Unfortunately some of us live in a capitalistic society, and have to put food on the table. Not to denigrade x264, but if it is a "student-made" codec, I trust that the students' "zero resources" educational and living expenses were fully funded by self-employment and donations, and not by anyone's working for a company, whose future employment was dependent on that business making a profit. And that any donations did not come from such sources.

Incidentally, not everyone working for a company is thinking about corporate profits and marketing, all the time. I've met dedicated Apple engineers whose primary goal is to improve their video products. This is true at any company. Do you also think karl_lillevold from Real, and zambelli from Microsoft only care about making money, and don't care about their their products and their future development? propably their video department is simply too weak to develop an own video format, which caused them to either
1) release crappy video codecs (mpeg-4 sp, h.264) or
2) use proprieatary video codecs from other companies (eg sorenson)

[keel]

in the case of simple profile yes. only supporting simple profile made the format pretty unuseable for content providers, as the formats quality is simply not good enough.Well, tell that to hardware companies like VBrick, who still use QuickTime to play their MPEG4 simple profile, http://www.vbrick.com/mpeg4/ QT is the only popular media player that works here as a standard install. And in software MPEG4 SP encoding, 3ivx is plenty good enough for many purposes.

well this only shows how "good" apples support for open formats is ;)Your answer does not make any sense. I said that until recently, QT was the only way to reliably play MPEG4 SP on the Mac. What does your response mean? Apple's support for SP is as good as any.
The QT code is open if anyone wanted to create another player, but there was no motivation or reason to do so. Things are different now, with H.264 support, there is more mature development on at least one other player that works on the Mac, VLC.

all the files i saw, eg trailers, used sorenson3 in the last yearsSorenson was and is still used for http "fast-start" movie trailers, MPEG4 SP for live streaming events and speeches, and archives of these. Some of the trailers are going to AVC.

as if qt is the only avc player existingQT/iTunes is the only avc player that is popular, free and easily installed by inexperienced computer users. The two other popular players, WM and RM, don't support H.264 without additional components, which you will not find most people and corporate/educational/institutional organizations installing. I'm talking the rest of the world here, not the experienced users on this forum.

i count 62 different avc implementations and apple is only one of them.Well, isn't that the beauty of an open standard codec? The more the better. I'm sure Apple is looking forward to the day when QT/iTunes/iPod can play video encoded by many other vendors. I doubt they want to provide the only AVC codec, they are not in the codec business. They do it when they have to.

and what does it prove that there are no hddvd or bluray discs sold till now...It proves Apple is the largest current distributor of H.264 encoded content. It sold one million videos by Oct. 31, sales have more than doubled since then.

than why is multichannel aac not supported in .mp4 but only in .mov?I never said apple is popularizing the MPEG4 container, nor has apple ever claimed to. I only said that it was popularizing MPEG4 codecs: AVC and AAC.

and why does apple spread defacto incompliant .m4a and .m4v files instead of following the mpeg-4 standard and using .mp4?
they do it because they want to confuse 99% of the itunes/ipod users and make them think they need to use apple tools for generating files playable on the ipod (.m4a and .m4v), as all the other tools output "a different format called .mp4"Most end users could care less what the extension is, they just want things to work. QT, iTunes and iPod take all of them: m4a, m4v, mp4, mov, if encoded correctly. Authoring and encoding people know what the different extensions mean. The most popular tool on the Mac for compressing your DVDs to H.264 to play on the iPod, HandBrake, is free.

h.264 helps apple and not the other way round ;)Seems to me it's a two-way street, they help each other. If Apple's products require H.264, then more individuals will be employed to develop this codec and improve it. More tools will be developed to encode with it, and more people will be paid to do it. The whole codec ecosystem will grow.

By the way, I am not encouraging anyone to use QuickTime, or it's current h.264, for the purpose of what many people do in this forum: back up their DVDs to play full-screen in highest quality on their computers. QT/H.264 may work, but it has been pointed out many times there are better solutions right now. No argument there.

However, this forum is also used to discuss other uses of digital video, and smaller-than-full-screen sizes. Here I think QuickTime architecture, which includes iTunes, AVC and the video iPod, can hold its own in many areas. And you may have noticed that Apple is not standing still, with major announcements expected in January.

[Doom9]

keel: just how many Apple shares do you have? You are the most blind apple loving invidual I've seen on this board.. anybody without blind brand loyalty would realize Apple's major flaws in the video area. All the folks actually working from a video company and working are are not spreading as much FUD together as you do on your own. This isn't an apple fanboy forum.. I suggest you find yourself one as around here, many prefer free software over commercial one if the featureset is equal or tends towards the free variety. QT was the only way to reliably play MPEG4 SP on the Mac.What about 3ivX, DivX5? Does ffplay or mplayer not work on the Mac? And what the heck is it with that Mac fixation? Apple's market share in the computer biz is insignificant, it is easily toppled by Linux, and this reflects upon the the population of this forum as well, as well as open source projects, that are rather brought from Linux to Windows as to another OS because the potential userbase is so much larger.

QT/iTunes is the only avc player that is popular, free and easily installed by inexperienced computer users.Hmm, let's see. Do I install a 30 MB package of a software that keeps running in my task bar unwanted, and requires content to be created according to its likings, or do I install the 3 MB package called ffdshow, that not only plays AVC, but does so without annoying limitations, and plays that many other codecs that QT turns red in shame. Or you could throw in another 3 MB and get MPC along with that so you get the free DVD player as well. It's no harder to install ffdshow than it is QT, but the size is one tenth and the gains are tenfold. It's largely a nobrainer, nobody I know installs unless the want to watch movie trailers, and that only because they don't know of QT Alternative - which would allow them to keep on using their favorite media player.

The two other popular players, WM and RM, don't support H.264 without additional components, which you will not find most people and corporate/educational/institutional organizations installing.And they're going to install QT? Hell no, any serious entity will stay away from any multimedia software, it's about working, studying, not leisure. On any PC you cannot install ffdshow, you sure as hell can't install QT either, and you're probably going to be better off with ffdshow that you can install quietly (okay, you need to know what you're doing, but it's harder to catch an ax and a few dlls than if you install a large app that shows up everywhere).

I could go on and on ripping your argumentation apart but I'm too sick and tired of the whole QT here QT there crap. QT is the most annoying thing that happend to this forum in quite a while an I wish we could leave it and its limitations behind already. And for christ's sake, QT != Apple so stop being offended already. There are great Apple video products, QT is not one of them, period.