Quicktime 7 MPEG-4 ASP/AVC encoding?

[Elias]

What do you guys think will be the new features? I hope that at the very least, Apple will add 2pass encoding this time, and higher profiles. On the site, there's a preview for QT 7 and according to that one, AVC will be included. B-Frames wouldn't be too bad either. Do you guys think Apple can compete with Nero when it comes to MPEG-4?

[Blue_MiSfit]

If apple's previous MPEG-4 is any indication of the quality of their AVC codec I would be surprised if it comes remotely close to x264 or NeroDigital.

QuickTime is a great idea, and their whole multimedia framework is definatley cool, but their video codecs have never impressed me AT ALL.

I mean come on, an MPEG-4 codec that doesn't even support B-Frames? And it's supposed to be an official apple codec to possibly be used in a professional environment??? Even DivX is better... geesh...

I'm not expecting anything even remotely impressive :)

[Elias]

Well yeah, it's pretty bad. Not much options at the moment. But I certainly hope that Apple improves it a lot for the next QT release. I seriously won't encode anything if it's 1pass only, I mean, MPEG-1 is even better :)

[Neo Neko]

Originally posted by Blue_MiSfit
If apple's previous MPEG-4 is any indication of the quality of their AVC codec I would be surprised if it comes remotely close to x264 or NeroDigital.

Don't be so sure. I have read several places that Apple's current MPEG4 offerings (pitiful as they may be) are in the situation they are due to licensing issues and conflicts. MPEG4 part 10 though looks as if it will have wider adoption and better licensing terms. Further I remember reading reviews about Apple's early AVC demos. And while terms like stellar and outstanding did not appear in the reviews terms like decent and respectable did. Remember when it comes to non SBR AAC I think Apple AAC is still king.

Originally posted by Blue_MiSfit
QuickTime is a great idea, and their whole multimedia framework is definatley cool, but their video codecs have never impressed me AT ALL.

Small wonder there since untill recently Apple did not really do any codec developent and instead focused on the framework. Most codecs or at least the better codecs used in quicktime were largely developed by Sorrenson.

Originally posted by Blue_MiSfit
I'm not expecting anything even remotely impressive :)

Well then I can say with some confidence that you will be surprised. As far as Apple goes they can really make some impressive stuff. And have always generally been ahead of their time. Most of the good and usable stuff in Windows was developed and pionered by Apple. And then "borrowed" for Windows. Microsoft has been fleshing out directshow for years in an effort to make a monopoly supported Quicktime equivalent.

[LordRPI]

Originally posted by Neo Neko
Don't be so sure. I have read several places that Apple's current MPEG4 offerings (pitiful as they may be) are in the situation they are due to licensing issues and conflicts. MPEG4 part 10 though looks as if it will have wider adoption and better licensing terms. Further I remember reading reviews about Apple's early AVC demos. And while terms like stellar and outstanding did not appear in the reviews terms like decent and respectable did. Remember when it comes to non SBR AAC I think Apple AAC is still king.


Last time I was in a conference (WWDC), they made it seem as that is the case. I don't recall specifics, but for a while all they did was make the MPEG reps there feel like idiots for horrible licensing deals which they said were fixed for AVC.

As far as I know, there were no MPEG-4 modifications to QuickTime 6 since i'ts launch near the middle of 2002. It looks as it has been abandoned as even their trailers use the Sorenson3 codec.

I do have Developer access to certain builds provided by Apple, but I'm under NDA so unfortunately I can't follow up :(



Originally posted by Neo Neko
Well then I can say with some confidence that you will be surprised. As far as Apple goes they can really make some impressive stuff. And have always generally been ahead of their time. Most of the good and usable stuff in Windows was developed and pionered by Apple. And then "borrowed" for Windows. Microsoft has been fleshing out directshow for years in an effort to make a monopoly supported Quicktime equivalent.

The thing that makes me nervous about Apple's track history is... they remain silent on the issues, their competitors release, then their competitors fail, and finally they show how it's done. :devil: :mad: :D

[bond]

Originally posted by Neo Neko
Don't be so sure. I have read several places that Apple's current MPEG4 offerings (pitiful as they may be) are in the situation they are due to licensing issues and conflicts. this make no sense...
- they support mpeg-4 aac (one of the best aac codecs existing)
- they (will) support mpeg-4 avc
- they support .mp4 (license free)
- they support mpeg-4 simple profile: fact is it wouldnt cost more licenses for them when updating to advanced simple profile (eg add b-frames), so licenses are not a valid excuse here!
- they dont support mpeg-4 systems: thats the only thing in mpeg-4 that would cause them additional licensing costs

i think they only added mpeg-4 sp support because
1) they wanted to support .mp4 (based on .mov) and .mp4 files used mpeg-4 part2 video normally
2) they wanted to add mpeg-4 part2 for the completeness of the mov framework sake and to be able to offer it if requested/successful
3) they had to add mpeg-4 part2 because they always talk out loud how nice they are because they support open standards
4) they had to keep mpeg-4 part2 weak to avoid developing a competitor themselves for their proprieatary sorenson based solution, which allowed them to exclude competitors and force people to use qt and mov (and not mpeg-4 asp in .mp4 they could play/create everywhere)

basically they now present b-frames as THE new video coding thing, and it was here already since mpeg-1 :D
that shows how far apple is related to video encoding imho

[SeeMoreDigital]

For more info about QuikTime 7, I guess some of you have already looked here: -

http://www.apple.com/macosx/tiger/quicktime.html

Most of which is detailed below: -

http://img199.exs.cx/img199/1599/qt75xj.gif


Cheers

[Elias]

Originally posted by bond
basically they now present b-frames as THE new video coding thing, and it was here already since mpeg-1 :D
that shows how far apple is related to video encoding imho HAHAHA :) Don't forget 29.99 bucks for full screen ;)

[Elias]

But I like one thing about Apple though: they may be retarded when it comes to providing the best quality/features/options/ etc for codecs, but at the very least they stick to the MPEG-4 standard all the way. I don't like that about DivX/XviD/3ivX/whatever. Using MPEG-4 in avi just isn't the real deal. They all should've gone for mp4 from the beginning, and providing us LC AAC at the very least.

[LordRPI]

Originally posted by Elias
HAHAHA :) Don't forget 29.99 bucks for full screen ;)

Unfortunately, you guys don't realize that QuickTime Player is only the default player that leverages the QuickTime Framework. Free fullscreen players come a dime a dozen on Mac OS X :)

[Neo Neko]

To be quite honest with you Xvid is not AVI specific. There are two versions of Xvid. The original container agnostic non VFW binaries and the AVI crippled VFW binaries. Xvid can be encoded via ffmpeg and written to MP4 or it can be encoded by standalone binaries with the output piped through ffmpeg to an MP4 file. 3ivx I believe is in a similar situation. They have both VFW encoder binaries crippled for AVI and Directshow binaries that are not AVI crippled.

In fact about the only MPEG4 codec which is AVI specific or AVI only is Divx. DXN is trying to focus on image quality which is great but I fear is also pointless. Their competitors not only keep catching up but pulling ahead. What DXN should have been doing IMO is exactly what nero did. Release a tool suite to go MP4 all the way or as close as they could. Ancient versions of Divx had the ability to repackage to MP4. It was not spec compliant but it was a start. And they continued that start by removing it ever since then. Now they have themselves in a bit of a pickle. They have promoted all this "Divx compliantness" which doesn't really support MPEG4 all that well and only supports AVI. Any changes to their codec to remedy things will break their compliance or at least lead to profiles that most of their non-savy users will never use. So it becomes a waste of R&D effort.

[Elias]

Originally posted by Neo Neko
To be quite honest with you Xvid is not AVI specific. There are two versions of Xvid. The original container agnostic non VFW binaries and the AVI crippled VFW binaries. Xvid can be encoded via ffmpeg and written to MP4 or it can be encoded by standalone binaries with the output piped through ffmpeg to an MP4 file. 3ivx I believe is in a similar situation. They have both VFW encoder binaries crippled for AVI and Directshow binaries that are not AVI crippled.

In fact about the only MPEG4 codec which is AVI specific or AVI only is Divx. DXN is trying to focus on image quality which is great but I fear is also pointless. Their competitors not only keep catching up but pulling ahead. What DXN should have been doing IMO is exactly what nero did. Release a tool suite to go MP4 all the way or as close as they could. Ancient versions of Divx had the ability to repackage to MP4. It was not spec compliant but it was a start. And they continued that start by removing it ever since then. Now they have themselves in a bit of a pickle. They have promoted all this "Divx compliantness" which doesn't really support MPEG4 all that well and only supports AVI. Any changes to their codec to remedy things will break their compliance or at least lead to profiles that most of their non-savy users will never use. So it becomes a waste of R&D effort. I see. I used to like DivX5 back in 2002 when they were aiming for the mp4 container and full MPEG-4 compliance, but alas, they got too damn proud and started this stupid Dr. DivX piece of crap. So that's where XviD became a new hero in a way, and the competition has been going on for DivX. Now with Nero Digital, I'd say it's safe to assume that DivX will go bankrupt soon if they don't start aiming for real MPEG-4 compatibility: start using the mp4 container and aac codec. I mean, just take a look at the "New A/V Formats - Codecs" forum, most posts are about Nero Digital. I wouldn't be surprised if Nero Digital got its own forum on Doom9. It's always the best choice to go for the real standard. My codecs of choice now are XviD>AAC=mp4UI or Nero Digital. That's it. No stupid DivX crap (unless they go for real MPEG-4 compliance).

[Elias]

Originally posted by LordRPI
Unfortunately, you guys don't realize that QuickTime Player is only the default player that leverages the QuickTime Framework. Free fullscreen players come a dime a dozen on Mac OS X :) They do on Windows too, they're like super abundant here... which is why Apple is stupid for using fullscreen as one of the reasons why you should buy Pro...

[LordRPI]

Oops, didn't know.

[Mug Funky]

but at the very least they stick to the MPEG-4 standard all the way

ummm... what do you buy at the iTunes Music Store? fully compliant mp4 content, or apple DRM tainted (non compliant) freak streams?

[Elias]

Originally posted by Mug Funky
ummm... what do you buy at the iTunes Music Store? fully compliant mp4 content, or apple DRM tainted (non compliant) freak streams? I don't use iTunes nor do I buy anything from the Apple store. When I buy music, I buy the albums in normal compact discs. When I said that the sticked to the MPEG-4 standard, I ment their MPEG-4 video/audio codec in Quicktime Pro.

[giandrea]

Actually I know someone who has tried the H.264 Apple codec in an early Tiger build. And he told me that there is a two pass option, something like main extended and baseline profiles, and it's slow and not good quality, but this was from a WWDC build... so things might have changed since then,
bye,

giandrea

[LordRPI]

Originally posted by Mug Funky
ummm... what do you buy at the iTunes Music Store? fully compliant mp4 content, or apple DRM tainted (non compliant) freak streams?

For all the Americans here, it's better than getting your butt sued off by the RIAA.



Originally posted by giandrea
Actually I know someone who has tried the H.264 Apple codec in an early Tiger build. And he told me that there is a two pass option, something like main extended and baseline profiles, and it's slow and not good quality, but this was from a WWDC build... so things might have changed since then,
bye,

Your friend tells you too much

[plonk420]

Originally posted by giandrea
Actually I know someone who has tried the H.264 Apple codec in an early Tiger build. And he told me that there is a two pass option, something like main extended and baseline profiles, and it's slow and not good quality, but this was from a WWDC build... so things might have changed since then,

exactly. from what i hear, the WWDC builds of Tiger that were leaked on the net were about as complete and useable as Windows 96 was (in comparison to Win98) when IT was leaked (instability, lockups, very unusable). definitely too early to tell anything.

[Sgt_Strider]

When will Quicktime 7 be released?

[LordRPI]

Originally posted by plonk420
exactly. from what i hear, the WWDC builds of Tiger that were leaked on the net were about as complete and useable as Windows 96 was (in comparison to Win98) when IT was leaked (instability, lockups, very unusable). definitely too early to tell anything.

Jaguar and Panther were even more fun!

[Elias]

One question though, will Quicktime 7 be released for Windows? I've nowhere found any statements supporting this.

[IgorC]

Why development of Quicktime is so closed? Do they try to not leak their technology? Bad or good for them, for us?

[bond]

Originally posted by Elias
One question though, will Quicktime 7 be released for Windows? I've nowhere found any statements supporting this. of course, why shouldnt it?

maybe it will arrive on windows little bit later tough than on mac...

[Elias]

Originally posted by bond
of course, why shouldnt it?

maybe it will arrive on windows little bit later tough than on mac... Everywhere I've checked, it says Mac OS Tiger or whatever that OS is called. I've never found a site or any source confirming the arrival for Windows. Made me a bit worried... since, well, Quicktime is good for MPEG-4 editing, at least with pass through :) I just hope QT7 supports MPEG-4 TTXT :) I mean, that's about the only thing I need from it, I don't care about B-Frames or anything else. TTXT support would rock :) Anyone who knows if QT7 will support TTXT?

[LordRPI]

Originally posted by IgorC
Why development of Quicktime is so closed? Do they try to not leak their technology? Bad or good for them, for us?

I pay for Apple SW seeding...

[Elias]

Does anyone know if QT7 will support MPEG-4/3GPP Timed Text? It's not much left now until release :)

[bond]

qt6 already supports timed text, but only when placed in .3gp

[Elias]

Originally posted by bond
qt6 already supports timed text, but only when placed in .3gp Yeah, but I meant for mp4 of course :D

[Tom Ellard]

QuickTime 7 loads and plays H.264 files made with Nero Digital.

It has a two pass mode and it is bloody slow.

Fact. Seen with my own eyes.

[Elias]

Originally posted by Tom Ellard
QuickTime 7 loads and plays H.264 files made with Nero Digital.

It has a two pass mode and it is bloody slow.

Fact. Seen with my own eyes. Oh yeah? Care to give more information about this? :)

[Tom Ellard]

Not much to say.

Took a mp4 made in Nero, loaded it up on a Mac running QT7. Plays. Made an MP4 in QT7, takes forever. Brought it home, will see if it plays in Nero when I get a chance.

I guess AVC is AVC is AVC.

[Tom Ellard]

Sorry for extra message.

There will be a QuickTime 7 for PC. It's been confirmed on all the Mac news sites. But it will come a little later.

[Elias]

Originally posted by Tom Ellard
Sorry for extra message.

There will be a QuickTime 7 for PC. It's been confirmed on all the Mac news sites. But it will come a little later. Is QT7 already released for the Mac? You perhaps have any information on when it'll come for Windows?

[Latexxx]

QT7 comes with Tiger. The final version of Tiger is available at major file sharing sites.

[LordRPI]

Originally posted by Latexxx
QT7 comes with Tiger. The final version of Tiger is available at major file sharing sites.

:-/ I'm an ADC Select member and they haven't given it to me.

[bond]

Tom Ellard, does qt7's avc/h.264 encoder also encode directly to .mp4?

[Latexxx]

Originally posted by LordRPI
:-/ I'm an ADC Select member and they haven't given it to me.
World isn't fair. Engadget reports. (http://www.engadget.com/entry/1234000780040755/)

[Tom Ellard]

I'm here to answer questions about video. Ask questions about peer file sharing stuff, Tiger etc. to somebody else.

Everything I know I said.
Both files had .mp4 as the suffix.

Because of this I feel that a lot of mac owners will now be able to see my Nero encodes, although I still think that RealVideo lots better. That's another thread.

[bond]

you have a copy of qt7 but cant answer whether it is able to encode itself with avc/h.264 to the .mp4 container and not only to .mov?

[DeepDVD]

· Intelligent multi-pass encoding for the best possible results at the desired bit rate with the optimal number of compression passes.

· Time-saving single-pass encoding for creating draft encodes, meeting impending deadlines and live encoding with QuickTime Broadcaster.

· Peak-constrained VBR options for limited data-rate scenarios such as streaming and CD/DVD playback.

· Advanced frame reordering (B-frame) support to more efficiently represent movie data.

· 4x4 integer transform for reducing traditional blocking and ringing artifacts, especially in areas of fine detail.

· Improved intraframe prediction for more efficient compression of details and gradients in high-motion video.

· Increased precision in motion estimation for crisp reconstruction of objects in motion.

· Flexible block sizes in motion estimation for more efficient encoding of complicated motion in areas of fine detail.

· Adaptively tuned in-loop deblocking filter for eliminating blocking artifacts, resulting in a smooth, clean image.


So there's an improvemnet for that b-frame-feature lack of the previous versions.
But the thing i am most interested in is VBR. I wished that included in a H.264-codec for a long time. :cool: :cool: :cool:


EDIT for bond: As I said before I mean the VBR-feature in H.264. It's new to this standard. I mentioned it before in an other thread with a similar topic and someone said it would take long time of beta phase until they would try to put in such feature... it's less important compared to other issues

[bond]

omg vbr and b-frames, how revolutionary, as if that wouldnt be available already for over 10 years :D

[plonk420]

Originally posted by bond
you have a copy of qt7 but cant answer whether it is able to encode itself with avc/h.264 to the .mp4 container and not only to .mov?

well, without a registered version of QT7, i can't answer any questions reguarding encoding (exporting), but it plays Nero AVC just fine :) ...albeit without AAC-HE support, i think :(

[plonk420]

something pretty weird going on here... while ASP decodes without complaints from QT(7), it's pretty jerky, at least on my machine (G4 1.25), whereas the AVC version (and other AVC files) play perfectly fine.

unfortunately, i only had 1 ASP MP4 file around to test it out on, but i'm thinking it will be the same (QT doesn't seem to COMPLETELY decode it correctly; i see smearing as if it missed a keyframe and the motion vectors are mishing around the incorrect textures when i skip around in the file or copy a file in the background)...


(man i LOVE being able to playback AVC on mac finally ^_^)

ASP sample: http://plonkmedia.temp.powweb.com/tatana-asp.mp4
AVC sample: http://plonkmedia.temp.powweb.com/prydz.mp4
AVC ver of ASP sample http://s18.yousendit.com/d.aspx?id=3W2AA7X77DURS2YSNBWKYKA7OM

[bond]

i think you encoded the avc files with nero, may i ask with what version?

[Sagittaire]

As I said before I mean the VBR-feature in H.264. It's new to this standard.

MPEG2 for your DVD player use VBV (constrained bitrate), VBR (in quant mode for example) and bframe (IBBPBBPBBPBBPBBP for GOP) ... anything new.

But NDAVC vs QTAVC could be a good fight ... lol

[plonk420]

Originally posted by bond
i think you encoded the avc files with nero, may i ask with what version?

hrm, i was QUITE sure it was the latest, 3.x.x.x but the About box is 2.2.6.11. i'll probably load 3.x tonight as i have to run off to work in a few...

[bond]

i asked because it seems that the encoder doesnt signal its name/versionnumber aso in the bitstream anymore!? maybe nero didnt like that it says "ateme" there :D

[plonk420]

Originally posted by bond
i asked because it seems that the encoder doesnt signal its name/versionnumber aso in the bitstream anymore!? maybe nero didnt like that it says "ateme" there :D

shhh! i used mp4toolbox and mp4muxer because i hate typing all that extra crap (and trying to remember it) when dealing with mp4box. i don't even know a program to split/cut mp4 streams... i hope bobololo doesn't mind... :|

edit: you mean "maybe quicktime doesn't like that it says "ateme" (or nero) there" ? :)

[LordRPI]

It certainly doesn't like ASP in .avi