Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

Eug · Jun 23, 2003, 03:18 PM

New QuickTime "Pixlet" codec coming, to fulfill a request from Pixar.

960x540 x 48 bit (I think) x 24 fps is playable full screen on a GHz TiBook. 12" PowerBooks and 867 MHz TiBooks are out of luck.

juanpacolopez · Jun 23, 2003, 04:21 PM

Originally posted by Eug:
New QuickTime "Pixlet" codec coming, to fulfill a request from Pixar.

960x540 x 48 bit (I think) x 24 fps is playable full screen on a GHz TiBook. 12" PowerBooks and 867 MHz TiBooks are out of luck.

Forgive my ignorance... but what exactly is the "pixlet" codec... and what makes it so special as to require such high system specs?

Just curious... because I've viewed video at 1000x600 or so rez on a friend's 12" PB (remember that really hi rez matrix reloaded trailer from a while back) encoded in regular quicktime.

Got some links with info on what this thing is all about?

King Bob On The Cob · Jun 23, 2003, 06:23 PM

Apple developed a Pixlet for Pixar. It's High Definition and Artifact-less.

wanderlust · Jun 23, 2003, 07:08 PM

Jobs explains Pixlet in his WWDC Keynote (6/23/03). He takes a little time to get to it, but can be found here.

icruise · Jun 23, 2003, 07:41 PM

I think I can live without it...

Eug · Jun 23, 2003, 10:12 PM

Originally posted by Icruise:
I think I can live without it...

Yeah, not a deal breaker for the average user, but it will be nice viewing those movie trailers in high def on my laptop.

arkhem · Jun 23, 2003, 10:26 PM

Pixlet is awesome!!!! 48bits per Pixel! that is crazy, if only they will release video encoded with it now!

Eug Wanker · Jun 23, 2003, 10:55 PM

Originally posted by arkhem:
Pixlet is awesome!!!! 48bits per Pixel! that is crazy, if only they will release video encoded with it now!

I wonder if they'll release the Finding Nemo trailer in full Pixlet.

That would be an awesome demo for the technology if we could see it ourselves on our own PowerBooks.

mousehouse · Jun 24, 2003, 08:30 AM

"Eug Wanker" with a banana logo... man this forum is getting too funny.... LOL

juanpacolopez · Jun 24, 2003, 12:10 PM

Originally posted by Icruise:
I think I can live without it...

Hehe, me too.

Sounds like a good idea for movie trailers and such... But would it honestly look that much better than really high rez MPEG2?

Since I spend a fair amount of time w/ DV and MPEG2 I have to ask... would this even look a whole lot different on anything less than a 21" cinema display?

Eug Wanker · Jun 24, 2003, 12:27 PM

Originally posted by juanpacolopez:
Hehe, me too.

Sounds like a good idea for movie trailers and such... But would it honestly look that much better than really high rez MPEG2?

Since I spend a fair amount of time w/ DV and MPEG2 I have to ask... would this even look a whole lot different on anything less than a 21" cinema display?

No it seems like it is more aimed at movie editing, not playback.

If I understand this correctly, there is no interframe compression with Pixlet, unlike MPEG2.

To be honest, I doubt they'll be releasing too many trailers in this format. The files would likely be HUGE.

juanpacolopez · Jun 24, 2003, 12:35 PM

Originally posted by Eug Wanker:
No it seems like it is more aimed at movie editing, not playback.

If I understand this correctly, there is no interframe compression with Pixlet, unlike MPEG2.

To be honest, I doubt they'll be releasing too many trailers in this format. The files would likely be HUGE.

Are we talking movie (as in studio) editing, or other pro editing?

As far as I knew most professional folks did their actual EDITING in either DV or RAW (uncompressed 32 or 48-bit) format?

I could see how the lack of interframe compression might make for smoother motion w/ no artifacts in PLAYBACK though; but I do see your point about filesize.

Anyone got any info on about what bitrate Pixlet is so we might get a better picture of file size?

tooki · Jun 24, 2003, 12:48 PM

Most editing is done in either DV, uncompressed, or MJPEG formats.

Inter- vs intraframe compression:

Using interframe compression allows for far lower bitrates for a given quality level. The tradeoff is that you lose easy editability, since each frame except for the occasional keyframe is dependent on the previous frame. (e.g. Sorenson, MPEG of all flavors, Cinepak, etc)

Not using interframe compression (i.e. using only intraframe compression) allows for easy editing, since every frame is independent, and can be separated from its neighbors without any issue. But the bitrates can be high, especially if the image quality of each frame is to be maintained. (e.g. uncompressed, MJPEG, DV, Pixlet)

tooki

Graymalkin · Jun 24, 2003, 12:59 PM

For final output a 48-bit (12 bits per channel) video stream would be overkill. The video would contain far more color information than could be seen by the human eye. The codec also lacks interframe compression which allows for video to be more heavily compressed. Sending a bunch of useless color information in a format far too fat to be efficiently sent over internet connections would make a really bad format for encoding movie trailers.

If you're editing or compositing video on the other hand you want as much color information as you can get. The more space you have available for color the less likely you're going to have some pixel operation generating an out of bound color. When the final output is generated in a smaller color space the encoder can more easily interpolate a smaller color space from a larger one than the other way around. Without interframe compression Pixlet is able to be an online editing format unlike compression schemes like MPEG2.

Delivering video over the internet in the Pixlet format would be like delivering video in the DV format. That is actually a decent comparison, Pixlet is sort of like a higher quality version of the DV format. It is designed for online editing, not end user delivery.

k2director · Jun 24, 2003, 02:30 PM

I found some info about this codec on Apple's site, but was in a hurry. Recall the text saying Pixlet compression rate is 20-25 to 1. That's MUCH better compression than DV, which is closer to 5 to 1 (not to mention the fact that DV compression is certainly not lossless).

This is interesting to me as an editor. If you wanted to work with essentially uncompressed video, you'd need a good card that was oriented for that. BUt if I can get a third party post production house to xfer raw video to Pixlet, and work on it on a G5 with no extra hardware, that's pretty cool.

Don't know how realistic this is--ie, how easy it would be to render effects with Pixlet video in Final Cut, etc. And also, I'm very curious about how much time it takes to compress HD to Pixlet. We'll see over time...