Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

willed · Apr 22, 2004, 05:06 AM

The only thing I use RealPlayer for is to watch/listen to the BBC. The video quality is appalling, but is this just because the Beeb uses low quality streams, or just because RealPlayer is crap? I find myself thinking 'I wish they used QT' but maybe QT would be similarly crap at those bitrates?

Just wondering

philzilla · Apr 22, 2004, 05:24 AM

you're nearer than me, go and kick Auntie's ass. turn her into a QT (eh? see what i did there?)

Altix · Apr 22, 2004, 07:55 AM

It's the BBC's fault, they somehow let the secretaries do the encoding.

(no offence meant to compression savvy secretaries)

Mediaman_12 · Apr 22, 2004, 07:59 AM

What I dont get is that the BBC have decided to use QT and Final Cut Pro HD in there production system (announcemt at NAB way down at the bottom of the article) but have done a deal with Real for web access to there video archive. With QT streming Server being FREE I dont know what happened there.

Altix · Apr 22, 2004, 08:06 AM

Originally posted by Mediaman_12:
What I dont get is that the BBC have decided to use QT and Final Cut Pro HD in there production system (announcemt at NAB way down at the bottom of the article) but have done a deal with Real for web access to there video archive. With QT streming Server being FREE I dont know what happened there.

The BBC won't be usng just FCP, most offline/online editing is on Avid, and others. Where FCP comes in, is for productions which won't require the power, or speed of Avid, and time isn't of the essence, ie, you have't got to create motion graphics for the weeks slot.

BBC is a huge corporation, they've always used varying technologies to suit the task, FCP being one.

Forgot to say, but a lot of those press releases are marketing hype, it doesn't prevent them from using Real, or signing deals with many other makers, real being a highly popular format to use.

Horsepoo!!! · 09:56 AM

It's simple...people don't *really* care about computer product quality.

Here's a list of facts to back up my assertion:

People use Windows XP.
People still use Windows 98!!!

Some people buy MP3 players that isn't an iPod.
People listen to 128k MP3s.

The list could go on.

There's really no logic involved in people's choice of hardware or software. Human misinformation and/or tech-incompetence will remain for at least 2 generations until everyone is born and grows up using technology.

philzilla · Apr 22, 2004, 10:10 AM

Originally posted by Horsepoo!!!:
It's simple...people don't *really* care about computer product quality.

incorrect. some people care about computer product quality. if you're going to try and throw spanners into arguments, at least use the right spanner, fool.

i've never liked Real, and i can't see it happening any time soon. the OS on my machines comes with QuickTime loaded already, which is just as capable for this kind of thing. why should i have to install something else which does the job in an inferior manner?

Horsepoo!!! · Apr 22, 2004, 10:20 AM

Originally posted by philzilla:
incorrect. some people care about computer product quality.

But most don't. Those that do care about quality probably get Macs or build their own PCs using high quality parts.

Most others don't have the ability to gauge computer hardware or software quality. A lot of people can't really tell the difference quality between a low bitrate MP3 and the source. A lot of people probably couldn't tell the difference between an Apple LCD over a crappier 3rd party LCD.

TC · Apr 22, 2004, 02:32 PM

I think it's probably cos Real Player for macs sucks.
I've listened to Radio streams from the BBC for a while and they sound much better on a slower PC than they do on my mac.
They are also ahead in time, due to the buffering being used.
That is a real pain in the arse when you're trying to get English commentary for a football match on Italian TV.

Mike S. · Apr 22, 2004, 04:38 PM

I don't know why everybody bags on Real.

My own observations are that QT's streaming is on par with Real at any given bit rate (I can't speak for WMV since the Mac player is unusable crap). The only issues I have with HQ Real is that I don't think my hardware is fast enough to keep up but it looks nice. Try C/NET, I think they've got some broadband Real content in their media section. They also have WMV if you want to try and compare.

I once saw a really HQ Quicktime stream (1 Mbit) back during the QT 4 or 5 days and it looked fantastic but I've never seen anything like that again since. I think it was some Brittany Spears video, I just wanted to see what QT could do. The music was so bad I just muted it... the eye candy was nice though :-P

The thing I respect about Real is that they're the only guys supporting the whole gamut of platforms from Windows to Solaris. This used to be the case anyways, I don't know about their latest stuff.

Their Mac player is not bad, unlike Microsoft's. It performs well, looks decent and doesn't stop playing if you drop menus or move it around. Heck, they've got a Real export plug-in for QT now and on the Windows side they plug into QT so they can play FairPlay encoded iTunes songs. They support MPEG4 and AAC.

Their biggest "crime" was that they'd take over defaults and splatter icons and URLs all over Windows but virtually every app you download for Windows does that, even Quicktime does it if you accept the default options.

I don't know what people have against Real, I think they're OK and I think Apple is shooting themselves in the foot by not partnering with them with FairPlay. I don't see any downs for Apple but then that's a different conversation.

Altix · Apr 22, 2004, 05:00 PM

Real's great when you want to listen to the betlounge.

Mike Pither · Apr 23, 2004, 06:42 PM

Originally posted by TC:
I think it's probably cos Real Player for macs sucks.
I've listened to Radio streams from the BBC for a while and they sound much better on a slower PC than they do on my mac.
They are also ahead in time, due to the buffering being used.
That is a real pain in the arse when you're trying to get English commentary for a football match on Italian TV.

Maybe you should just listen to the commentary in Italian. Half the time now they even say offside for fuori gioco and corner for angolo.

Person Man · Apr 23, 2004, 10:21 PM

Originally posted by Horsepoo!!!:
Here's a list of facts to back up my assertion:

People use Windows XP.
People still use Windows 98!!!
Some people buy MP3 players that isn't an iPod.
People listen to 128k MP3s.

You forgot a couple...

Some people still use Windows 95!!!

Some still use Windows 3.1!!!!

My brother rents a room from a guy who up until three months ago used an old 8088-based machine running some ancient version of DOS to use some ancient version of WordStar. This year he finally upgraded to a new machine, and entered the GUI age (albeit 20 years late)... he bought an eMac 1 GHz with SuperDrive!

Needless to say, my brother has been spending long hours with the man, teaching him how to use his new machine. (Think: "This is a mouse. This is an icon...") He has also been spending long hours converting old WordStar files (on 360K 5 1/4" floppies) to Microsoft Word v.X format... Take slightly newer 486 machine with both types of floppy drives and Windows 95 (bought on eBay for $25), copy files to hard drive, convert to ASCII text, connect to his B&W G3 (via cheap ethernet card), copy ASCII files over, import into Word v.X, and finally burn to CD to take to the eMac.

Macola · Apr 24, 2004, 11:22 AM

Originally posted by Person Man:

My brother rents a room from a guy who up until three months ago used an old 8088-based machine running some ancient version of DOS to use some ancient version of WordStar. This year he finally upgraded to a new machine, and entered the GUI age (albeit 20 years late)... he bought an eMac 1 GHz with SuperDrive!

You know, in many respects DOS 3.1 would be considered superior to XP...and I'm one of the weirdos who actually likes XP (after you turn off all the ugly GUI elements, that is).