Not to say that the information on this site isn't important to the process of advancing of QT4 out of beta, but I think perhaps some users are being a bit too critical of QT4's streaming abilities.
Here's the thing: It seems that people have forgotten or misunderstand how QT works. Movies are not scalable-- your system will not regulate how much data rate is being put into a movie. You simply choose pointers to different files. Thus there is no reason to expect better performance from the stream unless there is an optimized stream for your access path. Currently there are two streams of live video on the two "channels"-- Bloomburg and BBC are both putting out a max of 56K output (I have seen reports that there was a 128 version available, but the link is dead now, probably because everybody was rushing Apple to get a demo.
This does NOT excuse the skipping and synch troubles that have been reported (and I have witnessed as well)--if the new streaming technology only works well with systems G3 class or better, then why the F*#^ is Apple boasting about low-bandwith quality. (Nobody with a iMac is hooking up their old 14.4 modem that they once used to surf Prodigy and BBSes. Bandwidth is beyond that.) However, those expecting miracles from the broadcast of QT4 in quality must understand that this is the same (more or less) codec that we saw introduced in QT3. If you didn't like it then, you won't like it streaming in now. (I think the biggest killer of QT now is the Quallcom codec, which has never impressed me at all. Sure, it can fit fifteen minutes of audio onto a floppy, but the quality is about that of a Speak-And-Spell. QuickTime Authors--please do not skimp on your audio-- it's the smallest part of your presentation, but perhaps the most key to convincing your audience that you are putting out the best presentation possible.)
Judging the streaming capabilities is still a bit immature-- we should see things grow by leaps and bounds after NAB as more important companies take the reigns. I just don't think Apple put their best foot forwards when they chose clients to show off their newest technology-- my theory is that they accidentally hit the little Direction tab on the right side of their database when they were looking for the most interesting companies to stream content.
My two cents is that the quality of the broadcasts is quite a bit better compared to Real-- it buffered a lot faster than RM, and the video was slightly superior in the color and shading (notice how crisp the text is). Of course, Apple chose talking-head partners for the demonstration, so we may already be seeing limits of the streaming presentation, and it may only get worse from here.
It won't be until somebody interesting like MTV or Broadcast.com gets in on the act that we can really judge the quality. I even suspect that the demo sites are not fully using the technology available to make streaming QT-- why is it that these streaming sites do not have technical specs on the broadcast being output, on the expected frame-rate, the data-rate, the color scheme, the file size, the codec, and especially the hardware used to make the presentation. If this were being fed through a super high-tech encoder box running at peak performance, wouldn't the company who made that hardware want their name put out there so that companies would buy their product (especially with NAB running now). Remeber what happened with the launch of QT3, or better yet, look at the QT3 demos that are still being 'showcased' on Apple's site-- they're horrible, and when I first saw them when I was working on a student film project that I was eager to QT, I was heartbroken. Since then, I have seen vastly superior QT presentations, sometimes in incredibly small packages. I didn't see anything that met my expectations of what QT3 really should have been until the Star Wars preview (Note- strong audio presentation bolsters a great but not breathtaking presentation, much like the movie itself probably will, only here the quality issue was picture versus scripting [just a little early dig]). QT3 didn't live up to my expectations, and I doubt QT4 will either, but I have faith that this current crop is still quite green fruit.
Let's face it: we won't know the real potential of this new format until some pornographer sinks some money into it gets a crack team of young professionals to really push the system and the limits of the technology in order to sell smut subscriptions. (Even legit press aknowledges this-- read the MacWeek article "RFI Report: Debbie does QuickTime" by Robert Morgan [ http://macweek.zdnet.com/1999/04/11/rfifri.html ]). So good luck, porno industry. Our faith in the QuickTime format is riding on your shoulders, so get in there and push hard, fellas.
NixIce
Top
