Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

Laurence · Mar 24, 2005, 10:59 AM

Can anyone who has been testing QT 7 give us any idea of the quality of Apple's implementation of H.264. I ask solely because of Apple's very poor implementation of the original MPEG-4 standard. Apple's MPEG-4 is no where near the quality produced by Sorenson Squeeze, DivX, Xvid, etc. Will H.264 be different?

Right now I'm using FFMpegX to encode DVDs to H.264, but it places the data in an AVI wrapper and I would really like to be able to encode everything into ISO .mp4 files using QT for better compatibility once QT7 is released.

Angus_D · Mar 24, 2005, 01:24 PM

Why don't you ask again when QuickTime 7 is out, rather than trying to get people to break their NDAs.

SS3 GokouX · Mar 24, 2005, 01:37 PM

I don't know about the quality, but Handbrake exports to h.264 as mp4 files.

hmurchison2001 · Mar 24, 2005, 02:46 PM

Originally posted by Angus_D:
Why don't you ask again when QuickTime 7 is out, rather than trying to get people to break their NDAs.

Relax chief. He's asking for a qualitative opinion about QT7 AVC encode performace. That's not giving any information out that would violate an NDA. You NDA Cops gotta relax.

We wouldn't have to worry about the AVC performance if Apple hadn't stunk up the joint with their MPEG4 implementation from hell.

bmedina · Mar 24, 2005, 03:54 PM

The newer builds of Tiger require a new key for Quicktime Pro, so testing isn't possible at this point. Besides, we have no way of knowing when the encoder is at its final state until QT7 actually ships.

Nexus5 · Mar 25, 2005, 02:45 AM

Lets say it this way: It is worth waiting until it is released.

nexus.

Detrius · Mar 25, 2005, 05:53 PM

Originally posted by hmurchison2001:
Relax chief. He's asking for a qualitative opinion about QT7 AVC encode performace. That's not giving any information out that would violate an NDA. You NDA Cops gotta relax.

Any information at all that hasn't already been made publicly available by Apple involves breaking an NDA. So, despite the fact that the person was asking for an opinion, an answer would involve breaking an NDA.

If you've never signed an NDA, you probably wouldn't fully understand this.

hmurchison2001 · Mar 25, 2005, 06:39 PM

If you've never signed an NDA,

I have and recently. I agree that specific information is a no no but a statement like "I like the improvements made to the Quicktime 7AVC encoder" wouldn't violate the NDA as long as Apple had made the release of Quicktime 7 public.

I don't wish to see any harm come to Macnn at all so if you guys feel uncomfy with that then that's fine by my. All the best.

- - e r i k - - · Mar 25, 2005, 09:59 PM

Why full screen is still a pro-feature in QT7 is beyond me. On the other hand I do like that they have removed the "buy quicktime" window and instead show all pro-features as grayed out in the menus (with a PRO-icon preceding them). Selecting one gives you a window explaining why and gives you a buy-now button.

bmedina · Mar 25, 2005, 10:50 PM

Yeah, I really like that, too. The nag screen is one of the most frequent complaints I hear about Quicktime Player for Windows. This method simultaneously makes people aware that Quicktime Pro exists and gives nearly a feature for feature rundown without getting in the way.

Detrius · Mar 26, 2005, 11:26 PM

Originally posted by hmurchison2001:
I have and recently. I agree that specific information is a no no but a statement like "I like the improvements made to the Quicktime 7AVC encoder" wouldn't violate the NDA as long as Apple had made the release of Quicktime 7 public.

I don't wish to see any harm come to Macnn at all so if you guys feel uncomfy with that then that's fine by my. All the best.

I don't make these rules. Personally, I don't like the idea of people admitting that they are even running the stuff. However, that's just me, and I know it's a VERY conservative approach to the matter. Also, I'm not going to do anything about it unless it's pretty blatant. (e.g. http://forums.macnn.com/showthread.p...hreadid=250015 )

OreoCookie · Mar 27, 2005, 09:20 AM

Originally posted by Detrius:
Any information at all that hasn't already been made publicly available by Apple involves breaking an NDA. So, despite the fact that the person was asking for an opinion, an answer would involve breaking an NDA.

If you've never signed an NDA, you probably wouldn't fully understand this.

I second that. Especially Apple is extremely paranoid.

f1000 · Mar 27, 2005, 09:41 AM

Originally posted by bmedina:
The newer builds of Tiger require a new key for Quicktime Pro, so testing isn't possible at this point.

Does this mean we have to buy QT Pro again?

Detrius · Mar 27, 2005, 09:55 AM

Originally posted by f1000:
Does this mean we have to buy QT Pro again?

Did you think you wouldn't?

Nexus5 · Mar 27, 2005, 11:34 AM

Originally posted by f1000:
Does this mean we have to buy QT Pro again?

Just get the latest RealPlayer, it plays ALL QT-files fullscreen for free.

nexus5.

f1000 · Mar 27, 2005, 06:21 PM

Originally posted by Detrius:
Did you think you wouldn't?

A man can dream, can't he?

Originally posted by Nexus5:
Just get the latest RealPlayer, it plays ALL QT-files fullscreen for free.

I hope that'll be true with QT7.

Sydney Tsai · Mar 27, 2005, 07:01 PM

I don't think let the QT full screen for free in version 7....
But it's funny that real player read QT file and allow you to make it full screen...

Amorya · Mar 28, 2005, 05:23 AM

Originally posted by Sydney Tsai:
But it's funny that real player read QT file and allow you to make it full screen...

Not really. Quicktime (the framework) is totally free. Apple provide it to every Mac user. Apps that link into that framework can use whatever features of it they like. Apple have put a limit on their own app that links into the Quicktime framework. They should really call it "Quicktime Player Pro", since it's only the app that has features limited.

Amorya