quicktime codec up to bar with reals?

[gavo]

curious

[LordRPI]

From reading the last few comparisons of RV9, VP6, DivX and XviD, the QuickTime codecs would not be there. Apple MPEG-4 has an absurdly low PSNR and the showcased H.264 HD trailers at their World Wide Developers Conference (WWDC) were encoded at twice the bitrate of HD DivX on DivX.com Movies (http://www.divx.com/movies) site. Apple's H.264 has a while before release, so keep open to the possibility that it may get better.

[gavo]

thanx for the reply but I looking into non hd .

[LordRPI]

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

[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

[LordRPI]

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: http://www.apple.com/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

[SeeMoreDigital]

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

[LordRPI]

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.

[SeeMoreDigital]

Originally posted by LordRPI
...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. I've been testing QuickTime's streaming capabilities myself and I've been pleased with how easy it is to do!

I generated a few 2pass XviD/AAC in .mov test files (using PAL VCD pixel heights ie: 288), which should stream if you have an broadband connection at 512K or more

Check out the link on www.SeeMoreDigital.net


Cheers

[LordRPI]

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 "QuickTime Alternative" now though?

[saratoga]

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.

[Sirber]

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

[SeeMoreDigital]

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

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

There's not a lot wrong with QuickTime "std" 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

[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 http (or should i say client side only)?

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

[plonk420]

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

:devil:

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)

:p

take a look at www.imsproductions.com 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 "just right" 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 "good" (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 "activate" 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

[plonk420]

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 http (or should i say client side only)?

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

http://www.apple.com/quicktime/products/qtss/

[smok3]

Originally posted by plonk420
http://www.apple.com/quicktime/products/qtss/
yes, there is a lot of nice screenshots..., or what? :D

[SeeMoreDigital]

Originally posted by plonk420
...take a look at www.imsproductions.com 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 "stream" 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 "big" 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

[Sharktooth]

http://www.imsproductions.com/web_movies/ATG_Javelin_15mb.wmv - NO STREAMING
mms://www.imsproductions.com/web_movies/ATG_Javelin_15mb.wmv - STREAMING

It all depends on that "mms://"...
WMV doesnt stream thru HTTP... it needs the MMS protocol.

[SeeMoreDigital]

Originally posted by Sharktooth
It all depends on that "mms://"...
WMV doesnt stream thru HTTP... 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 HTTP?


Cheers

[Sharktooth]

WMA streams the same way (MMS) with no problems.
BTW MMS doesnt need a special support on the web server. It's only "client side".
Obviously the file (both WMV and WMA) should be encoded with a streaming profile for better results.

[plonk420]

Originally posted by SeeMoreDigital
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 "stream" 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 "big" 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

trust me, i've tried to get the best out of quicktime. it won't do 2 pass mpeg-4 unless what i have is seriously borked. i could have SWORN at least Compressor had it. but it doesn't. and as is, QT MPEG-4 is maybe the smallest percentage of an improvement over Sorenson 3 (while breaking compatibility (IIRC) unless the client had QT6.5 or something)

i haven't even gotten to getting WM to be "stream-like" because i can't even get it to play on, say Win2K (having it automatically download the right codecs) which is the last thing i was working on.

also, i'd use Xvid in a heartbeat if someone can convince me i'm legally allowed to use it without spending any *more* money... (we own QT Pro, FCP HD/Compressor, which have MPEG-4 codecs packed in with them).

as for video dimensions being off, i only had like 20 mins on the Avid Adrenaline to export the raw QT file and the Sorenson 3. i'm having troubles getting the 2+GB quicktime from the network drive to OS X. panther seems to only see a 300mb file or so, even tho it's quite OBVIOUSLY a 2+ GB on the server and the Dell workstation i did the WMV on.

so i guess the question in regards to this is: Can i justify using Xvid to encode to MPEG-4?

[plonk420]

Originally posted by SeeMoreDigital
Urgh.... this is not a very good comparison!

free encoder, vs free encoder? (codec)

was going to say "not my fault Sor3 has poor bitrate control" but now that i remember, i think the audio codecs vary in bitrate. i couldn't force a higher bitrate for audio exporting out of Avid which i can in Cleaner (by using MP3)

Originally posted by Sharktooth
http://www.imsproductions.com/web_movies/ATG_Javelin_15mb.wmv - NO STREAMING
mms://www.imsproductions.com/web_movies/ATG_Javelin_15mb.wmv - STREAMING

It all depends on that "mms://"...
WMV doesnt stream thru HTTP... it needs the MMS protocol.

i'll look into that a little bit, but may go back to figuring out why it doesn't play in Win2K if that's still the case.

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

more user friendly, yes, but i'd tear my eyes out (well, maybe not) if i had to watch the QT over the WMV, even if i had to wait (i gave the option to download the WMV instead). i'm happiest if i can watch the content while not immediately being able to put my finger on what's wrong with the video. i download .. uh .. "content" all the time so waiting to watch something doesn't faze me at all, altho i really am TRYING to get a) WMV to play in a user-friendly way and b) stream (in that order).

edit: content being .. freely availible HD material.. yeah :D

[SeeMoreDigital]

Originally posted by plonk420
...more user friendly, yes, but i'd tear my eyes out (well, maybe not) if i had to watch the QT over the WMV, even if i had to wait (i gave the option to download the WMV instead). i'm happiest if i can watch the content while not immediately being able to put my finger on what's wrong with the video. i download .. uh .. "content" all the time so waiting to watch something doesn't faze me at all, altho i really am TRYING to get a) WMV to play in a user-friendly way and b) stream (in that order). I agree with you that 1pass Sorenson video can and does look pretty bad... And QD audio is nothing special either!

But there's nothing stopping you, or anybody else, generating low bitrate 2pass SP Mpeg4 streams with AAC audio and muxing them into the MOV container.

When you break down the 728Kbps Windows Media file, you have 600Kbps for the video and 128Kbps for the audio. Which can look great in Mpeg4 too!

If I was encoding the same source to Mpeg4+AAC in MOV, I would encode the audio at a max of 80Kbps or even 64Kbps, which leaves you with more bits for the video.

I guarantee, the resulting encode would be far more watchable than the Sorenson file. And hardly distinguishable from the WMV9 file!

However good WMV9 can look (and don't get me wrong it can look very good) I'm yet to find a web site that can stream better than MOV.


Cheers

[bond]

afaik you can encode in quicktime 2pass mpeg-4 when you install the free 3ivx codec
also the lc-aac codec in quicktime is one of the best available (at least at 128kbps)

[plonk420]

Originally posted by bond
afaik you can encode in quicktime 2pass mpeg-4 when you install the free 3ivx codec
also the lc-aac codec in quicktime is one of the best available (at least at 128kbps)

free for 30 days (for personal use, i'm assuming). unless i'm mistaken you need Pro version for professional use. http://store.3ivx.com/3ivxStore/index.php?id=3

here (http://www.3ivx.com/support/mac/encoding/qt_pro_encoding.html) it looks like 3ivx is the encoder, so if it's for personal use only, that's a no-go.

being that they own Quicktime Pro (which has an MPEG-4 encoder) does anyone think i can justifiably use Xvid (in just the options that make it QT compatible enabled) and then just mux the streams into an MP4?

[bond]

Originally posted by plonk420
free for 30 days (for personal use, i'm assuming). unless i'm mistaken you need Pro version for professional use. http://store.3ivx.com/3ivxStore/index.php?id=3right, for personal use the video encoder is unlimited (only audio is limited to 30days)

does anyone think i can justifiably use Xvid (in just the options that make it QT compatible enabled) and then just mux the streams into an MP4?afaik there is a limit under which you dont have to pay licenses to the mpeg-4 patent holders (eg if you spread 10.000 copies you dont have to pay anything). you will have to look up the mpeg-4 license policies to be sure what this number is
note that the licenses have to be paid by the one who provides the product to the end user (eg "xvid" wouldnt have to pay for licenses if it sells you the right to use xvid to produce a product for the end user, as you are the one who sells to the end user)

i hope its understandable :D

[plonk420]

Originally posted by bond
right, for personal use the video encoder is unlimited (only audio is limited to 30days)

well, we need it for professional use


Originally posted by bond
afaik there is a limit under ...... as you are the one who sells to the end user)

i hope its understandable :D

heh, not one bit :D

well, it's not like we're SELLING the video, now that i think about it. we're using the video to attract prospective clients who want a film made... so we almost fall into the fresh-out-of-college student with a portfolio full of material that falls under legal-only-under-fair-use-laws who's trying to get a job from a company... but not quite ;)

[bond]

what i wanted to say was:
- if you give 5 copies of the video you made to your customers you will definitely fall under the limit and will not have to pay mpeg-4 licenses
- if you spread 100.000 copies you will have to pay them

:D

note that i am no lawyer, you will have to read up the "limit-policies" yourself

[plonk420]

Originally posted by bond
what i wanted to say was:
- if you give 5 copies of the video you made to your customers you will definitely fall under the limit and will not have to pay mpeg-4 licenses
- if you spread 100.000 copies you will have to pay them

:D

note that i am no lawyer, you will have to read up the "limit-policies" yourself

oh, ok, that sounds better. now i just can't wait for QT to support H264 :)

[LordRPI]

Originally posted by plonk420
oh, ok, that sounds better. now i just can't wait for QT to support H264 :)

Seen it. It's good stuff but slow as hell for encoding :)

[LordRPI]

oops, ignore the double post

[bond]

Originally posted by LordRPI
Seen it. It's good stuff but slow as hell for encoding :)do you know if they have already added b-frames and 2pass to it? last time i saw a sample and screenshots the codec was more than really basic :(