Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

macintologist · Feb 5, 2006, 09:23 PM

The Apple recommendation for playing full HD (1080p) h.264 is either a dual 2 ghz G5 or dual 2Ghz intel mac.

Can anyone here with a 17" iMac test playing one of the 1080p HD videos at the Apple site, to see if it plays them smoothly?

http://www.apple.com/quicktime/guide/hd/

mduell · Feb 5, 2006, 09:40 PM

People have reported playing 2 or 3 1080p streams on an Intel iMac, which tells me that either should be able to play one.
Of course, neither screen has enough pixels to display a 1080p video in full resolution.

macintologist · Feb 5, 2006, 10:37 PM

Full HD is 1920x1080

The 20" iMac is 1680x1050

The 17" iMac is 1440x900

They are close enough to experience HD.

chabig · Feb 5, 2006, 10:51 PM

The MacBook Pro can play HD video full screen perfectly. I witnessed it in San Francisco last month.

Chris

macintologist · Feb 5, 2006, 10:59 PM

Originally Posted by chabig

The MacBook Pro can play HD video full screen perfectly. I witnessed it in San Francisco last month.

Chris

Was it 1080p or 720p?

DoctorGonzo · Feb 6, 2006, 01:37 AM

I've played 1080p videos on my 20" Core Duo without a single stutter or skip.

macintologist · Feb 6, 2006, 02:24 AM

Originally Posted by DoctorGonzo

I've played 1080p videos on my 20" Core Duo without a single stutter or skip.

Yep and Apple listed the 2 ghz core duo as recommended/required for 1080p which is why I'm curious to see if the 1.83ghz iMac can do 1080p even though Apple doesn't list it as capable.

eddiecatflap · Feb 6, 2006, 03:25 AM

and this is without the ati radeon x1600's help

imagine when they get the drivers for that up to spec !! woo hoo !!

macintologist · Feb 6, 2006, 04:25 AM

Originally Posted by eddiecatflap

and this is without the ati radeon x1600's help

imagine when they get the drivers for that up to spec !! woo hoo !!

Apple dropped the ball on that one. They could have had the drivers ready and Steve JObs could have been touting yet another amazing feature about the iMacs. Oh well, he dropped the ball.

Simon · Feb 6, 2006, 04:56 AM

IMHO the question is, when will they introduce the hardware decoding? Will it be pat of a 10.4.x update or will we actually have to wait all the way till 10.5? Maybe they'll have it ready in time for the Mac Pro. Here's hoping.

chabig · Feb 6, 2006, 07:31 AM

Originally Posted by macintologist

Was it 1080p or 720p?

I don't know that. It was one of Apple's HD movie trailers.

Chris

Eug Wanker · 08:35 AM

Originally Posted by macintologist

Yep and Apple listed the 2 ghz core duo as recommended/required for 1080p which is why I'm curious to see if the 1.83ghz iMac can do 1080p even though Apple doesn't list it as capable.

A 1.83 GHz Core Duo should be fine, but it'd be nice if someone could test a 1920x1080 30 fps clip just to be sure.

Most "1080p" isn't 1920x1080, nor is it usually 30 fps. For example, the Batman Begins trailer is 1920x816 (2:35:1) at 24 fps.

In other words, full 1080p has 65% more data than the so-called 1080p Batman Begins trailer.

AT tested the 1.83 GHz iMac Core Duo and said 1080p played fine with up to 60 percent usage. (That's 60% of both CPUs, ie. ~120%/200%.). However, they don't actually say what the 1080p clip was. If it was something like Batman Begins, then full 1920x1080 30 fps might just be borderline for the 1.83 Core Duo. I don't know if CPU usage scales linearly for H.264 playback, but if it does, one would guestimate that full 1920x1080 30 fps would use up to 100% of the CPU, if Batman Begins were using up to 60% of the CPU.

Horsepoo!!! · Feb 6, 2006, 11:23 AM

Originally Posted by Eug Wanker

A 1.83 GHz Core Duo should be fine, but it'd be nice if someone could test a 1920x1080 30 fps clip just to be sure.

Most "1080p" isn't 1920x1080, nor is it usually 30 fps. For example, the Batman Begins trailer is 1920x816 (2:35:1) at 24 fps.

I don't think there are many, if any, trailers that run at more than 24fps. Someone will have to look beyond movies and trailers to find a clip that is 30fps or even 60fps (but I know there are some on game sites that have preview clips of games)...but I don't there are 1920x1080 clips at that framerate.

Eug Wanker · Feb 6, 2006, 11:33 AM

Originally Posted by Horsepoo!!!

I don't think there are many, if any, trailers that run at more than 24fps. Someone will have to look beyond movies and trailers to find a clip that is 30fps or even 60fps (but I know there are some on game sites that have preview clips of games)...but I don't there are 1920x1080 clips at that framerate.

Here's a 1920x1080 30 fps clip from Apple's HD website.

I just learned though that Apple's HD H.264 playback system requirements are actually for 1920x1080 24 fps:

For 1920x1080 (1080p) video at 24 frames per second:

QuickTime 7 for Mac OS X:
Dual 2.0 GHz PowerMac G5 or faster Macintosh computer; 2.0 GHz Intel Core Duo or faster
At least 512MB of RAM
128MB or greater video card

QuickTime 7 for Windows:
3.0 Ghz Intel Pentium D (dual-core) or faster processor
At least 1GB of RAM
64MB or greater video card
Windows 2000 or XP

It looks like they're just being conservative.

harrisjamieh · Feb 6, 2006, 11:52 AM

Well I just tried it on my 17" 1.83 core duo / 512 RAM / 128 MB graphics, and the linked trailor from Eug_Wanker played perfectly - at full screen, at half size, and at actual size, all with processor usage hovering between 50% and 60%

Eug Wanker · Feb 6, 2006, 11:56 AM

Originally Posted by harrisjamieh

Well I just tried it on my 17" 1.83 core duo / 512 RAM / 128 MB graphics, and the linked trailor from Eug_Wanker played perfectly - at full screen, at half size, and at actual size, all with processor usage hovering between 50% and 60%

Which one? I linked two:

1920x816 24 fps
1920x1080 30 fps

Note however, the bitrates they used for the encodes of these two clips are actually quite similar. The first one is 8.62 Mbps, while the second one is 8.75 Mbps, despite being a much larger image with a much higher framerate.

harrisjamieh · Feb 6, 2006, 12:26 PM

Opps, the second one, 1920x1080, 30 fps

Eug Wanker · Feb 6, 2006, 01:38 PM

Originally Posted by harrisjamieh

Well I just tried it on my 17" 1.83 core duo / 512 RAM / 128 MB graphics, and the linked trailor from Eug_Wanker played perfectly - at full screen, at half size, and at actual size, all with processor usage hovering between 50% and 60%

Originally Posted by harrisjamieh

Opps, the second one, 1920x1080, 30 fps

Sweet.

I don't expect too many H.264 movies to have an average bitrate too far over 10 Mbps either. (The one you played was just under 9 Mbps.) It looks like the all Core Duo Macs or better are gonna fly with H.264.

It does seem that Core Solo (or possible Celeron) Macs may be problematic however with some 1080p HD.

macintologist · Feb 6, 2006, 02:01 PM

Ok I'm totally excited now about my 17" iMac being shipped soon.

Does this mean I can buy an external blu-ray drive sometime in the future and watch HD movies since I Have the right hardware to do so?

Eug Wanker · Feb 6, 2006, 02:04 PM

Originally Posted by macintologist

Ok I'm totally excited now about my 17" iMac being shipped soon.

Does this mean I can buy an external blu-ray drive sometime in the future and watch HD movies since I Have the right hardware to do so?

The Radeon X1600 in the iMac doesn't implement HDCP. I don't know if that matters or not for playback on the iMac's screen. Anyone know? I'm not optimistic though, since the iMac does have a DVI out.

mduell · Feb 6, 2006, 02:05 PM

Originally Posted by Eug Wanker

It does seem that Core Solo (or possible Celeron) Macs may be problematic however with some 1080p HD.

FWIW, my 1.86Ghz Dothan can play 720p at 60-80% CPU usage and the clockrate varying between 1Ghz and 1.86Ghz. 1080p is just slightly too much for playback without dropping a frame.

macintologist · Feb 6, 2006, 02:12 PM

Originally Posted by Eug Wanker

HDCP.

And you wonder why people are so pissed at the entertainment industry. No wonder people pirate movies so much. Someone is gonna find a workaround for that stupid limitation I'll bet you anything.

Eug Wanker · Feb 6, 2006, 02:15 PM

Originally Posted by macintologist

And you wonder why people are so pissed at the entertainment industry. No wonder people pirate movies so much. Someone is gonna find a workaround for that stupid limitation I'll bet you anything.

Well, the good news is that if your display device doesn't support HDCP, Blu-ray will still allow 540p quality. That's no comparison to 1080p, but better than DVD quality.

My HDTV doesn't have HDCP either.

macintologist · Feb 6, 2006, 02:56 PM

What idiots, seriously. I hope DVD Jon comes up with something.

eddiecatflap · Feb 7, 2006, 02:13 AM

personally , i'd use a ps-3 to watch blu ray on , if they're even worth buying , that is

a good dvd is so fab picture wise , i don't see the point

plus , let's hope they've sorted out this weird display problem soon

HattoriHanzo · Feb 7, 2006, 11:20 PM

with these specs

It says 45% user down the bottom but im not really sure which figure is definitive

SpaceMonkey · Feb 7, 2006, 11:35 PM

Cornell! Woot!

(sorry)

Simon · Feb 8, 2006, 04:01 AM

What are the specs of that Cornell movie? 1080p? 24fps?

Chuckit · Feb 8, 2006, 04:25 AM

I just wanted to pipe in. I was testing a 17" iMac to see if it would make a good stationary addition to my AlBook. The first thing I did, of course, was play a full-quality HD trailer (1904x1080, 24 FPS) from Apple.com. It played fine. The system still felt really responsive while it played too, so I decided to do a little test and see how much it bogged the system down. I ran Xbench with the movie playing in the background. The movie didn't skip a beat, and it still ran every single benchmark better than my PowerBook. I'm still debating whether to make such an unnecessary purchase (it would be very nice, but it's not the necessity that the PowerBook was), but I no longer have any doubts whether it's good enough.

Simon · Feb 8, 2006, 04:47 AM

Chuckit, I hear you.

Right now I'm perfectly fine with 1.67GHz PowerBook for work and when the apps are ready I'll switch to a MBP. But I sure am tempted to buy a 20" iMac Core Duo. After all these great reports about its power and yet how quiet it's supposed to remain, I feel the strong urge to get one just to play around with it a bit.

I'm just trying to come up with a half way decent excuse to go out and pick one up.

HattoriHanzo · Feb 8, 2006, 08:27 AM

it was 1080p 30fps (the one eug posted)

goofticket · Feb 8, 2006, 12:03 PM

The 1080 HD plays just fine. What I see as a perceived problem is the full screen playback. The actual image fits on the screen, but the QT player extends beyond the viewing area of the 17" intel screen.
So there is no cropping of the actual 1080 image or any noticable flaws in playback rates.
The HD images are very finely detailed.

snodman · Feb 9, 2006, 12:44 PM

The new ATI graphics chipset certainly IS doing much of the heavy lifting in the improved H.264 playback. That is what the x1xxx series was all about, and why even on PCs you must have a PCIe motherboard to use one.

Pierre B. · Feb 9, 2006, 01:25 PM

Originally Posted by snodman

The new ATI graphics chipset certainly IS doing much of the heavy lifting in the improved H.264 playback.

I am not so sure about that. In another thread here, someone had a confirmation that the decoding is still CPU bound. I would say that we don't really know what actually happens.

Originally Posted by snodman

That is what the x1xxx series was all about, and why even on PCs you must have a PCIe motherboard to use one.

Yes, but you need the appropriate drivers for that. Does Apple indeed provide now with the new systems such drivers?

mduell · Feb 9, 2006, 03:01 PM

Originally Posted by snodman

The new ATI graphics chipset certainly IS doing much of the heavy lifting in the improved H.264 playback. That is what the x1xxx series was all about, and why even on PCs you must have a PCIe motherboard to use one.

The X1xxx series supports H.264 decoding acceleration, but it relies on the driver to take advantage of it (the first drivers for Windows did not, the current ones do). As I understand, the OS X driver does not support H.264 decoding acceleration.

Eug Wanker · 09:59 PM

So I tried it today on an Intel iMac.

It does NOT play back the Cornell HD 1920x1080 30 fps (8.75 Mbps) H.264 clip 100% smoothly. There are a couple of spots (between 1:03 and 1:15) where it drops to as low as 16 fps. I tried it about 5 times, and it happened every time. However, in almost all of the rest of the clip it played back cleanly at the full 30 fps. The strange part is that the CPU usage never went above 145% with the stuttering part actually mostly lower.

Specs:

20" iMac Core Duo 2.0 GHz
Radeon X1600 128 MB
1 GB RAM

I also tried it on a Quad Power Mac with GeForce 6600 256 MB and 4.5 GB RAM. It played 100% perfectly in full screen mode, but a couple of times I noticed a very slight stutter in the same areas if I played it in windowed mode, but it was inconsistent, and the fps always said it was 30ish fps.

On the iMac, the BBC clip (1920x??? @ 24 fps) played 100% smoothly, with up to 151% CPU usage. The Fantastic Four clip (1920x816 @ 24 fps) also played 100% smoothly, with lower CPU usage.

Pierre B. · Feb 17, 2006, 01:59 AM

Originally Posted by Eug Wanker

I also tried it on a Quad Power Mac with GeForce 6600 256 MB and 4.5 GB RAM. It played 100% perfectly in full screen mode, but a couple of times I noticed a very slight stutter in the same areas if I played it in windowed mode, but it was inconsistent, and the fps always said it was 30ish fps.

It is something in the file then. I remember a similar situation in Apple's forums, where someone claimed that even the dual 2.7 GHz G5 could not play 100% smoothly a certain clip, even at 720p. It was not a CPU power issue, as it never reached 200%. If I am not mistaken, the trailer was the Da Vinci code.

Eug Wanker · Feb 17, 2006, 11:01 PM

Originally Posted by Pierre B.

It is something in the file then. I remember a similar situation in Apple's forums, where someone claimed that even the dual 2.7 GHz G5 could not play 100% smoothly a certain clip, even at 720p. It was not a CPU power issue, as it never reached 200%. If I am not mistaken, the trailer was the Da Vinci code.

The Da Vinci Code 720p trailer plays just fine on my iMac G5 2.0.

HattoriHanzo · Feb 18, 2006, 02:36 AM

Eug - how do you get the frame rate to display whilst watching it?

Horsepoo!!! · Feb 18, 2006, 08:21 AM

Originally Posted by HattoriHanzo

Eug - how do you get the frame rate to display whilst watching it?

Window -> Show Movie Info
or
cmd-I

...while a clip is playing.

toddtmw · Feb 18, 2006, 10:31 AM

Originally Posted by Eug Wanker

Sweet.

I don't expect too many H.264 movies to have an average bitrate too far over 10 Mbps either. (The one you played was just under 9 Mbps.) It looks like the all Core Duo Macs or better are gonna fly with H.264.

It does seem that Core Solo (or possible Celeron) Macs may be problematic however with some 1080p HD.

The movie from the nature site used between 108% - 120% of CPU when playing full size (which meant it was actually off the screen a ittle) on my 20" iMac Core duo. I think that pretty much rules out the Core Solo...unless they come in at a higher clock speed.

-Todd

HattoriHanzo · Feb 18, 2006, 12:34 PM

Originally Posted by Horsepoo!!!

Window -> Show Movie Info
or
cmd-I

...while a clip is playing.

THANKS!!!!

OK, So I tried with the cornell video and it was EXACTLY the same points that it dropped - fairly conclusive that its the file to be honest

Eug Wanker · Feb 18, 2006, 04:04 PM

Originally Posted by HattoriHanzo

THANKS!!!!

OK, So I tried with the cornell video and it was EXACTLY the same points that it dropped - fairly conclusive that its the file to be honest

Yeah, it's the file, but what about the file that makes it drop there?

I suspect that part of it is because those spots of the file are especially hard to decode. eg. The river flowing scene, and the panning leaves scene seem like they would be very problematic.

HattoriHanzo · Feb 19, 2006, 01:29 AM

Originally Posted by Eug Wanker

Yeah, it's the file, but what about the file that makes it drop there?

I suspect that part of it is because those spots of the file are especially hard to decode. eg. The river flowing scene, and the panning leaves scene seem like they would be very problematic.

Maybe but there are other parts of the file like that when it plays them fine. - im no file expert though

I would say its more to do with the file being bad rather than the machine not being able to cope.