Quicktime 7.2 (latest) supports H264 high profile ?

[kothrush]

Apple updated H264 decoder (and encoder too i think) in latest QT update. I read somewhere that it supports H264 high profile decoding now. I don't have any high profile H264 stream, if you do, can one of you please confirm it ?

It would be great to know how many high profile features and profiles are supported in QT now.

With full screen playback (enabled for free in latest update by apple , finally after all these years) and H264 high profile support, it will be easier to deliver cross-platform video to average users.

[PuzZLeR]

It would be great to know how many high profile features and profiles are supported in QT now.Yes, it's got wider compatibility these days, however, the profile and level atom(s)/flag(s) are not enough. It should accept the actual features of High Profile as well (8x8dct, cqm, etc.).

But still - feed it B-pyramids and it will vomit, even today.

With full screen playback (enabled for free in latest update by apple , finally after all these years) and H264 high profile support, it will be easier to deliver cross-platform video to average users.Agreed. I believe Apple made QuickTime limited, not from lack of engineering resources, but to create a "standard within a standard" that they can call their own. It's highly respected nevertheless, and you can always feel safe with QT compatible content as a benchmark and acceptable common denominator.

[Manao]

you can always feel safe with QT compatible contentI don't understand your need to shoot yourself in the foot for such a worthless player. QT compatibility might mean something for content provider, but for users who control the playback environment ?

My advice : don't care about QT, use all the potential of x264/H264, and if you want your video to be playable by your friend, educate them : show them VLC for example, it's easy, it plays anything out of the box.

[SeeMoreDigital]

For all those who are interested.....

Unlike previous versions this new version of QT7(Pro) seems to be able to play x264 (in .MP4) encoded streams with 1B-VOP. And will also allow them to be saved into the .MOV container.

x264 encoded streams with 2 or more B-VOPs, still stutter like hell.... LOL


Cheers

[dukey]

I encoded a video with x264, muxed it in the .mp4 container then played it in quicktime. It gobbled about a gig of ram then died. Plays fine in MPC or on ps3.

[kothrush]

But still - feed it B-pyramids and it will vomit, even today.


Yes, B-Pyramids support is still lacking in QT, thats what I saw in some other forums too.

It's still not clear if all other features except B-Pyramids ( 8x 8 etc..) of high profile are supported or not.

[audyovydeo]

@SeeMoreDigital, off-topic

I've just visited your page http://82.10.220.174/03_Video_Only_Info/PAL_-_Anamorphicly_Encoded_Images.html

Aside from the good explanation on anamorphic images, it's nice to come across another Test Card Maker user ...

@puzzler

by QuickTime vomit, do you mean a "Buffer Overrun" error ?
I get this on *some* SD / High streams, I'm still investigating , using QT7.2

Also, and more intriguingly, QuickTime 7.1.6 seemed to behave better when I disable hardware accel, and use GDI mode. Do you confirm ? I'm on nVidia 7 series.

cheers
audyovydeo


audyovydeo

[PuzZLeR]

Hey A/V,

by QuickTime vomit, do you mean a "Buffer Overrun" error ?
I get this on *some* SD / High streams, I'm still investigating , using QT7.2Maybe something in my x264 settings but, no, not that error this time for B-pyramids, just a good-ol' stutter, stutter, stutter, choke, vomit, crash, freeze, Ctl-Alt-Delete "this program is not responding"

... QuickTime style! Also, and more intriguingly, QuickTime 7.1.6 seemed to behave better when I disable hardware accel, and use GDI mode. Do you confirm ? I'm on nVidia 7 series.I can't report any video card settings. Mine's are at default with a basic ATI card, nothing special. I should tinker with it though and see what I can tweak.:p

[PuzZLeR]

I don't understand your need to shoot yourself in the foot for such a worthless player. QT compatibility might mean something for content provider, but for users who control the playback environment ?Manao, your priorities are quite likely absolutely different, and you have my full respect. This is why QT compatibility may not be compatible with you and several others in this forum. My priority 1 & 2 are future-proofing and wide compatibility, ahead of quality, file size and faster encoding.

Yes, QuickTime has gotta be the crappiest, slowest, whiniest, annoying most bastardized piece of garbage playback app on Windows - I hate it. Sometimes I even feel that QT is not compatible with QT compatible files either. VideoLAN is my reliable baby as well as yours...

But understand, both QT and VLC come from different environments and have different motives.

VLC is the engineer's dream: practical, feature-filled, fast, powerful, lightweight, you name it, it's got it! It serves the motives of the OSS community as well - the ability to handle the traditional and the experimental wares.

QT is the marketer's dream: Not just a pretty face, but implementing a "standard within a standard", brilliant marketing strategy by Apple to create an ownership of H.264 to some capacity. No, not an accident where the Mac code didn't migrate effectively to Windows other than a raw translation, but by design, a calculated restriction set to command and label a format. Apple has leverage to do this, and it's working for them.

Even Apple will probably tell you to play your video on VLC if you don't like it, along with of course reminding you of a format called "QuickTime compatibility".

Yes, they created a "format" and can take that to other objectives in their plans and branding. They are indifferent to what you use for playback. That is not their concern. Their objective is still fulfilled nevetheless.

But, if you need a reference point you could not have found a better one. If the tires you designed work with an automobile on the bumpiest, crappiest, unpaved, most crooked, slipperiest, dirtiest, snowiest, wettest and/or dryest, weather-beaten, most unkept roads, they will work on ANY road, maybe even through swamps or jungles. You can feel safe with these tires.

My advice : don't care about QT, use all the potential of x264/H264, and if you want your video to be playable by your friend, educate them : show them VLC for example, it's easy, it plays anything out of the box.You can educate someone as to which roads and weather conditions to avoid, but essentially, I'd prefer just playing it safe from the get-go by getting the most versatile tires. Video that rolls through the terrain of QuickTime will play virtually anywhere now and/or later. Simple as that.

That's Apple's pitch. And the reason I'm "shooting myself in the foot" is so I WON'T be "shooting myself in the foot".

Apple blew up their roads to block access and claim a territory - a lesson in niche marketing, even for the larger companies. It's not about being sales-centered, but marketing centered.

Very clever. I can't help but be impressed. I'm a marketer by trade, not an engineer.

[kothrush]

so anyone found out what features of high profile are supported and what is not ?

[PuzZLeR]

They are not (as yet) documented. Only experimental usage reveals what is in fact true when Apple mentions "Updates to the H.264 codec" in their support pages, which is all they are revealing (for now at least) along with security and bug fixes.

Still a very weak player IMHO, but at least the domain of QT compatiblity is expanding - but not quite there yet with High Profile.

They are still at least a version or two away...

Key message here: "Updates to the H.264 codec" is written as if Apple owns and controls the codec... very clever...