[analogika]

Dashboard does not use *any* processing power in the background.

Shoddily written individual widgets might, but they shouldn't. All Dashboard-related activities on my machine are at 0.0% CPU unless I hit F12.

FWIW.

[jstein]

Wow! This thread has broken off into many sub threads are here anarchy anyone?
One of the main reasons that this has happened is, I do not know how many of us realize this but there is really a battle emerging among laptop users. You have your traditional laptop users �Road Warriors� you know the type basically their computer usage revolves around their work mostly spreadsheets, word processing, e-mailing all the wonderful nuances that go with the job. For them a small and light but powerful laptop is just what they need.

Now we get to the new breed people like whose laptop is an integral piece of a mobile studio. For me it is nothing to be on the road with my pb, a Panasonic DVX-100a, or a Canon GL-2, a Mbox and a gang of other accessories. So the size of the laptop is not an issue with me as it for some. Give me a desktop replacement any day. So computer manufactures are somewhat in a bind when it comes to mobile computing. Do you make small, light and portable machines for the road warriors or do you make large powerful portable machines for mobile power users. Apple somehow to their credit has found a middle ground with their machines but at times that can cause a problem.

[jstein]

Originally Posted by hakstooy

It is apparent that Apple's portable hardware is not sufficient for the demands of the market. The PowerBook has been the choice of the video industry for a multitude of reasons, but that is all irrelevant now because they can't even playback the freakin media, let alone modify it. Final Cut is a great program, but if producers and editors can't showcase their goods via a portable platform, the industry will move to hardware that can. There are affordable mobile x86 options that can playback 1080p flawlessly while Apple doesn't even have anything that can manage 720p without issue.

So where are the pros gonna turn? No matter how great Final Cut is, the industry is going HD and Apple's hardware simply can't cut it. The benefits of the best software in the world doesn't beat the almighty dollar and real world logistics.

Haktooy I do not feel that you are trying to post �flame bait.� To me you are a true Apple user someone who stands behind the brand but at the same time is demanding that the brand provide them with the best possible product.
For the main topic I was hoping more videographers, cinematographers and or film editors would chime in.

While HD is growing it still will be awhile before it fully catch on with mass consumers. The simple fact that Apple has a HD gallery separate from the regular trailers shows that HD has some catching up to do. Also we are dealing with two different issues here. There is a difference between editing HD or any other content and viewing. Hopefully Apple portables in the near future will be able to play HD trailers but let�s be honest there is not a big market to create machines to play trailers HD or not. We are dealing with a small percentage of the people. Again why I was hoping for more cinematographers and film ahem video editors would chime in is because there is a big difference in between watching a trailer and editing� Here are the specs of what PB can do with using Final Cut of course when it comes to editing and viewing HD content.



12" - if 1GHz or faster G4, DV, HDV, DVCPRO HD - but can't see ANY HD pixel for pixel, screen too small. NO P2 card usage built in for upcoming Panasonic camera. no high def H.264 playback. No HDCAM unless working with compressed (DVCPRO HD) or downconverted compressed material.
If less than 1 GHz, DV only.

15" - if 1GHz or faster G4, DV, HDV, DVCPRO HD - CAN see 720p pixel for pixel (screen's big enough), CAN'T for 1080 res. Will be able to read P2 cards in the field (for new Panasonic HD $6000 camera). No high def H.264 playback. No HDCAM unless working with compressed (DVCPRO HD) or downconverted compressed material.
If less than 1 GHz, DV only.


17" - if 1GHz or faster (think they all have been) - DV, HDV, DVCPRO HD - same screen limits as 15" - NOT enough res for 1920x1080 footage (only 1650 pixel wide screen). Will be able to read P2 card, has slot. No high def H.264 playback. No HDCAM unless working with compressed (DVCPRO HD) or downconverted compressed material.
If less than 1 GHz, DV only.


Hakstooy there is no need to worry about the pros some of them were editing down HD content using Final Cut before there was even a Final Cut HD and they were editing on Titanium PB's....

[analogika]

Originally Posted by jstein

Do you make small, light and portable machines for the road warriors or do you make large powerful portable machines for mobile power users. Apple somehow to their credit has found a middle ground with their machines but at times that can cause a problem.

Reason? What sort of attitude is that!

Wimp.

[jstein]

Originally Posted by analogika

Reason? What sort of attitude is that!

Wimp.

Reason for what?

[josejrp]

Although it stinks that PowerBooks cannot play 1080p H.264 clips perfectly, it seems even fairly high end PCs can't either... I tried playing the 1080p clips using the Elecard player on my HTPC (a 2.8GHz PC with WinXP, a Radeon 9800 Pro, and 1GB Ram), and the video is choppy throughout. 720p H.264 clips and WMV clips of any resolution have no problem on the same PC. Sure, I don't have the latest 3.2GHz PC, but mine is no slouch. I still think Apple's hardware compares favorably with anything out there (except possibly on price on the desktop space).

[continuo]

I'm using a PowerBook Pismo ... don't laugh - atleast my computer lasted me 4.5 years ...

I tried viewing H.264 video from Apple's Tiger Seminar ... and I was getting maybe 5fps ... but the thing is - the video wasn't lining up with the audio: it was in slow motion.

It could have atleast displayd 1fps in sync with the audio, and I would have been happier, but instead I get to see it all in slow-mo.

[blidd]

I Couldn�t said it better. A lot of people fails to realise that the mainreason for the improvement in encoding tecnology is based on the fact that a more effecient encoder needs more processing power.
H.264 encoding need a heck of a lot of processing power. Codec improvements in the future will need even more. But you really hit the hammer on the head with this on.

[analogika]

Originally Posted by jstein

Reason for what?

here you go:

reason |?r?z?n| noun

2 the power of the mind to think, understand, and form judgments by a process of logic : there is a close connection between reason and emotion.
� what is right, practical, or possible; common sense : people are willing, within reason, to pay for schooling.

[klinux]

Originally Posted by silencedge

Working perfectly fine on my 15" 1.33GHz. Smooth and of excellent quality.

There are plenty of idiots here whose faith in Apple is so strong that they will claim *anything* is possible on <insert favorite Mac here, no matter how old it is>.

Here is my example: the downloaded 720p 30fps trailer played fine on my iMac G5 1.6ghz (fresh reboot, no additional programs running) but I know the iMac has dropped frames. Forget the 1080 trailer performance. And if my iMac G5 had trouble playing, you think your even more underpowered PB can play it? BS.

Ditto on the PC side as well. My PC (2.6 Ghz, 9700 Pro, 1GB RAM) can playback 1080 OTA HD (MPEG-2) fine and also 720p WMVHD content. But it will choke at 1080 WMVHD because as a next generation codec, WMVHD requires high CPU utilization to decode that content (MS recommends 3+ghz). To say one can get the full effect e.g "my Pentium M 1.6 Ghz notebook can play 1080 WMVHD perfectly" would be BS as well.

It's amazing what blind faith can do to otherwise sane people.

[klinux]

Originally Posted by Cadaver

But please don't forget that there are virtually no televisions that will play back 1080p material, either.
720p, yes. 1080i, yes. 1080p (displayed as an actual 1080p picture), no.

Yes and no. At least half a dozen commercially available televisions are capable of 1080p. I have already preordered a Benq DV3750 for cheap $2000 for delivery in a month or two that is natively 1080p. Many people on avsforum are also using the Dell 1920x1080 24" 2405FPW (street price ~$1K) as their television as well.

The problem with 1080p is mostly due to the lack of content (trailer does not count) which is right now limited handful 1080p DVHS and WMV HD DVDs - which look superb, BTW - and on this board - the CPU power needed to decode contents from computers.

[itguy05]

Originally Posted by klinux

Here is my example: the downloaded 720p 30fps trailer played fine on my iMac G5 1.6ghz (fresh reboot, no additional programs running) but I know the iMac has dropped frames. Forget the 1080 trailer performance. And if my iMac G5 had trouble playing, you think your even more underpowered PB can play it? BS.

You do realize that the G4 1.67Ghz PB and your G5 1.6Ghz are pretty much equal performance-wise, don't you? There are some things that the G5 does faster, but in many areas they are pretty much the same.

As for me, I tried the 720p on my 15" 1.67 on battery power and it was somewhat choppy with a normal load of apps in the background. I would imagine it would be OK plugged in and no other apps running.

[hakstooy]

Can people please stop posting "My PowerBook runs it perfectly." commentary, especially when you are running something that can't possibly run it "perfectly" (like the guy w/ the 800 MHz TiBook).

Hit Command-I and tell us your fps, otherwise your contributions are basically useless.

[osxisfun]

My powerbook runs it perfectly*


*if i had the time to run the movie on an external monitor....

or not. or maybe. this thread is a mess.

[PookJP]

I just thought I'd add my experience with HD video from Apple.com to the fray. I'm on a Powerbook G4 867 with 768 in RAM. I watched the Serenity trailer (which looks awful, by the way) and kept Activity Monitor open for the duration. I also had Safari open.

The movie ran, but it was definitely choppy. It lagged at one point for up to 2 seconds until the video caught up with the audio. At other points, it was relatively smooth, but still nothing even close to the non-HD version. QuickTime took up anywhere from 75% to 95% of the processor power, with it usually sitting right around 93%.

[continuo]

In my case, here is what Apple says what the requirements are to view the Tiger Seminar, which is encoded in H.264

What are the system requirements for the online seminar?
You will need the following to view the seminar:

1) Tiger must be installed before viewing the seminar
2) A web browser that accepts cookies, such as Safari 1.0, Netscape 7, Internet Explorer 5.0, or AOL (or later versions)
3) QuickTime 7.0
4) A fast Internet connection is recommended for video stream viewing (DSL, cable, or faster).

I have all of those things. Where does it say you need a G5?



The video should run perfectly fine on my Pismo according to these requirements, but it falls far short of perfection.

[mytdave]

H.264 and HD content are new animals. They are slightly ahead of their time. This has happened several times before in the computer industry - software/content exceed hardware capability. This is true of both Macs & PCs.

I think it's pretty clear that older PowerBooks will have some trouble playing any HD content encoded in H.264. The currently shipping PowerBooks should be able to play 720p content in H.264 reasonably well. No portables currently can play 1080p in H.264. So, the question becomes, what about the next generation?

Apple clearly publishes the requried specs for 1080p in H.264. Can Apple deliver a G5 PowerBook before the end of the year? Who knows? If they can, will they? Who knows? But I hope so. If they can't deliver a G5 PowerBook, I hope they will choose their other option:

Dual-core G4's from Freescale exist today. It is completely within Apple's ability to release PowerBooks with a MPC8641D dual-core CPU, a X700 GPU, a 500MHz + FSB, DDR2 RAM, and a PCIe interface, a high-res 1920x1080 screen (at least on the 17" PB), higher watt/hour batteries, 802.11n WiFi, and keep all the other cool features of current PowerBooks. This configuration would undoubtedly play back 1080p in H.264 reasonably well, if not perfectly fine. Apple could actually make this laptop today - all the parts are commercially available now. Will they? We can only hope...

FYI - from Freescale's web site --

MPC8641D Dual Core Processor:
Freescale has leveraged its expertise in building high-performance PowerPC� processors and highly integrated communications processors to design the MPC8641D Dual Core Processor. This processor integrates two e600 PowerPC cores, two memory controllers, Ethernet controllers, a RapidIO� fabric interface, a PCI Express I/O interface, and a high performance MPX bus that scales to 667 MHz. It's one powerful processor, but it doesn't break the power budget starting at 15 Watts.

[Simon]

Originally Posted by hakstooy

Hit Command-I and tell us your fps, otherwise your contributions are basically useless.

I can't help finding this comment rather hypocritical.

In the past I posted not just fps numbers, but even multiple screen shots of scenes people asked me to test, but when you and other bashers here saw results you didn't like, you felt the urge to insult and suggest I was flat out lying to everybody here. In my experience the bashers don't want to hear how many fps people are getting, they just want to have everyone else chime in with their FUD about how PowerBook performance sucks and is completely inferior to anything else that has been produced in the past five years by anybody but Apple.

If you are genuinely interested in performance, you do not accuse decent people of lying just because their results don't support your POV.

[osxisfun]

If you are genuinely interested in performance, you do not accuse decent people of lying just because their results don't support you

[klinux]

Originally Posted by Simon

I can't help finding this comment rather hypocritical.

In the past I posted not just fps numbers, but even multiple screen shots of scenes people asked me to test, but when you and other bashers here saw results you didn't like, you felt the urge to insult and suggest I was flat out lying to everybody here.<snip>

If you are genuinely interested in performance, you do not accuse decent people of lying just because their results don't support your POV.

I was not aware of your posting in the past but would appreciate you providing a link to it.

But in any case, I can see posting screenshot of fps numbers and screenshots is not a convincing enough argument because a number of people here are willing to claim anything because of their faith. I too can probably post a screenshot of my iMac G5 1.6 ghz playing a 1080 trailer for 30 fps but that would not tell you that it was the intro black screen and it played at 2 fps the rest of the trailer.

Us so-called bashers have some evidence on our side: we know that HD H.264 needs a lot of CPU power and Apple backs that up with very specific requirements (note that Apple do not say any processors 1.6 ghz or higher which would have included G4 systems but specifically said G5). What PB owners can only offer are anectodal evidences.

If you are genuinely interesting in performance and proving us "bashers" wrong, it's not that hard to provide incontrovertible evidence. Load up a 1080p trailer, show FPS info, get a digital camera, play movie, and hit record. This would show that 1080 trailer plays perfectly on your PB and you would have proved Apple and all of us wrong. Barefeats did it when it tested iMac G5's gaming performance claim. You could too if you were to put some thoughts into it.

I would not go so far in calling you a liar but if you worked in the sciences you would have 1) known there is such a thing as observer bias and automatically puts into question your claims until verified and 2) know how to produce quantifiable and reproduceable results that one cannot refute. The fact that this thread has gone on for 6 pages tell me you know neither.

[osxisfun]

>I was not aware of your posting in the past but would appreciate you providing a link to it.


So you are saying that you did not read all the other pages in this thread? Because a simple read thru all the pages before commenting would have shown you his posts. If I were simon, I would not even bother responding....

the simple fact has been stated time and time again in this thread.

FPS is irrelevant. The HD tech is new. If you spend the majority of time watching HD trailers then the powerbook is not for you. If you get real work done with your powerbook then it, combined with the OS, is the best mobile computing platform on the market.

[klinux]

Originally Posted by osxisfun

If I were simon, I would not even bother responding....

the simple fact has been stated time and time again in this thread.

FPS is irrelevant.

Good, who one asked you to respond?

And thanks for the FPS is irrelevant remark - that pretty much sums up the argument of the "believers". What's next - gravity is irrelevant?

Lastly, I thought Simon had some real contribution elsewhere that I am not aware of. I would love to be proven wrong; learning is good and I do not take it personally. Beside the technical fact that the material played is not 720p i.e 1280x720 despite Apple naming the file so, I have argued that a screenshot is only that - a screenshot - and hardly evidence that it played perfectly throughout.

Let me be clear, I want Simon to be right and Apple to be wrong. I would love for anyone to post a movie showing that their PB plays 720p or 1080p without dropping frames (I recommend the NASA trailer, true 720p, 30 fps). This would prove that 1.67 ghz PB configured like Simons is "HD H.264 ready" - if you will. Put this thread to bed and post something irrefutable. Heck, I will go to the Apple store today and do this myself.

[osxisfun]

>Good, who one asked you to respond?


The fact that you all but called him a liar caused me to jump in. I say all but because thankfully you added "I would not go so far in calling you a liar" Of course I have read all the pages so I know what simon has posted.

>gravity is irrelevant?

No. If you had followed the thread from the beginning, you would have seen it took a real turn for the worse IMO when the attitude changed from FPS to if "my' powerbook is "worthless' if it can't play this _just released_ tech from apple that reccomends a G5.

[Eug Wanker]

Originally Posted by klinux

There are plenty of idiots here whose faith in Apple is so strong that they will claim *anything* is possible on <insert favorite Mac here, no matter how old it is>.

Here is my example: the downloaded 720p 30fps trailer played fine on my iMac G5 1.6ghz (fresh reboot, no additional programs running) but I know the iMac has dropped frames. Forget the 1080 trailer performance. And if my iMac G5 had trouble playing, you think your even more underpowered PB can play it? BS.

It's amazing what blind faith can do to otherwise sane people.

Well, most people have been testing the 24 fps 1280x544 trailers, not the 30 fps 1280x720 NASA trailer. Your iMac should play the 1280x544 24 fps trailers just fine.

No PowerBook in existence can play back the NASA 720p30 trailer without dropped frames. The G4 1.67 PowerBook sometimes may be able to play back the 1280x544 24 fps trailers though with few/zero dropped frames, but it's inconsistent.

Originally Posted by itguy05

You do realize that the G4 1.67Ghz PB and your G5 1.6Ghz are pretty much equal performance-wise, don't you? There are some things that the G5 does faster, but in many areas they are pretty much the same.

As for me, I tried the 720p on my 15" 1.67 on battery power and it was somewhat choppy with a normal load of apps in the background. I would imagine it would be OK plugged in and no other apps running.

The G4 1.67 and G5 1.6 are similar in some performance areas, but in others, the G5 1.6 simply blows the G4 1.67 out of the water.

Originally Posted by continuo

In my case, here is what Apple says what the requirements are to view the Tiger Seminar, which is encoded in H.264

I have all of those things. Where does it say you need a G5?



The video should run perfectly fine on my Pismo according to these requirements, but it falls far short of perfection.

Apple says on their QuickTime 7 requirements page that a G5 is needed for 720p30. Single G5 1.8 for 720p30, and dual G5 2.0 for 1080p30.

I don't see a spec listed for standard definition stuff, but the basic fact is that G3s are not up to the task. Even a G3 900 slideshows on SD H.264 content unfortunately. BTW, before someone says the page I linked works fine on their G3, it DOES work fine if you have QT6 installed, because the page then just defaults to an MPEG4 stream.

It's kinda stupid they don't provide an MPEG4 stream for the Tiger seminar, cuz I can't watch the Tiger seminar on my PC (with QT6), and you can't watch it on your G3.

I don't know what the rez is of that seminar, but it seems even for smaller-than-SD stuff, a G3 ain't gonna cut it. I'll check the size of the seminar when i get home to my 1+ GHz G4 Macs.

[itguy05]

Originally Posted by Eug Wanker

The G4 1.67 and G5 1.6 are similar in some performance areas, but in others, the G5 1.6 simply blows the G4 1.67 out of the water.

Some or Most? From benchmarks I remember it being most tasks are similar between the 2 boxes.

[continuo]

Originally Posted by Eug Wanker

I don't see a spec listed for standard definition stuff, but the basic fact is that G3s are not up to the task. Even a G3 900 slideshows on SD H.264 content unfortunately. BTW, before someone says the page I linked works fine on their G3, it DOES work fine if you have QT6 installed, because the page then just defaults to an MPEG4 stream.

It's kinda stupid they don't provide an MPEG4 stream for the Tiger seminar, cuz I can't watch the Tiger seminar on my PC (with QT6), and you can't watch it on your G3.

I don't know what the rez is of that seminar, but it seems even for smaller-than-SD stuff, a G3 ain't gonna cut it. I'll check the size of the seminar when i get home to my 1+ GHz G4 Macs.

http://www.apple.com/support/store/i...minar_faq.html

Second column, second paragraph ...

So dumb ...

[f1000]

I�d like to see Apple start posting videos in several sizes. In addition to offering videos in their full native resolution (1080p for example), Apple could also provide 12", 15", 17", 20", 23", and 30" versions for download. If I'm going to use my 12" PB as a portable movie player on a business trip, for example, and I know that I won't be hooking my computer up to a larger external monitor, then I could simply download the 12" version onto my hard drive. My computer wouldn't have to decode as large a file nor scale the output to the 12" screen on the fly, and download times would be greatly reduced.

The alternative is that Apple could offer just the original 1080p file, which I�d then have to download and scale for a 12� screen using an application such as MPEGStreamclip. Not only would such a conversion take an interminably long time, but it would probably result in a slightly lower quality picture than if I had downloaded a file encoded for a 12� screen directly from the original data.

A 1 GHz 12� PowerBook should be able to play back a 1080p program pre-scaled to 1024x576 without dropping too many frames. Scaled 1080p (1024x576) is noticeably superior to full-screen standard definition DVD (720 x 480).

[Simon]

Originally Posted by osxisfun

If I were simon, I would not even bother responding...

Don't worry, I won't.

Instead I have discovered a very efficient way of dealing with the arrogant impertinence of those who seek only support of their beliefs regardless of how wrong facts prove them to be.

I think we have reached the point where lockage is about the best that could happen to this thread.

[osxisfun]

Originally Posted by Simon

Don't worry, I won't.

Instead I have discovered a very efficient way of dealing with the arrogant impertinence of those who seek only support of their beliefs regardless of how wrong facts prove them to be.

I think we have reached the point where lockage is about the best that could happen to this thread.

OOOOHHH cool feature. thanks!!

[klinux]

Originally Posted by Eug Wanker

Well, most people have been testing the 24 fps 1280x544 trailers, not the 30 fps 1280x720 NASA trailer. Your iMac should play the 1280x544 24 fps trailers just fine.

Indeed and agreed. I am not at my iMac right now but I think the non-720p 24fps trailers played fine.

Nevertheless, going back to the producing quantitative and reproduceable results that can past peer review. One needs to standarize the input parameters.

For example, I can see one get into the arguments that 1280x720p playback were unacceptable but 1280x544 files were OK, but 1280x4xx or 3xx files were perfect! Heck, what about the 960x540 wildlife HD reel? The argument goes on for another 6 pages.

Therefore, the litmus test IMO has to be true 720p. In addition, we all know that the film is 24fps but NTSC standard is 30 fps. It would be shame to say that "yeah, my Mac is HD ready" but having to underscore that with an asterisk saying that the above statement is true when playing back 24fps and lower than 720P, no?

The gold standard is thus 720p 30fps playback - if one can play that perfectly, you should play any thing whose spec is lower than that. No argument there. To say playback of 1280x544 24fps is OK and one's Mac is HD ready would not be telling the whole story.

[ValkRaider]

I figured I would chime in with my results.

I have a previous revision PB 1.5Ghz 15inch, with the 128MB VRAM and 5400RPM hard disk. I am using QT7 on 10.3.9 (Tiger is in the mail as I type this).

The 1080 Serinity trailer (which took all morning to download) never went above 13FPS for me. (I have closed everything else running on my machine with top showing zero CPU use at idle, processor set to "Highest" performance). Mostly it hovered around 6 or 7FPS. Sometimes dropping to 1FPS. My CPU usage was pegged at 100% for the whole playing.

The Batman 720 trailer ran at 24FPS almost entirely, only dropping to 23 or 22 once or twice. However I had one strange occasion, where they switch from a dark cave like setting to the bright green outdoors - where it drops to 13FPS for an instant, but you don't notice any difference in the playback. Additionally strange, was in the Batman trailer whenever the framerates dropped, my CPU usage was ALSO down (maybe to 60%) when the rest of the time it was at 100%.

But I have had this Powerbook a year now, and I love it... I have no complaints. Anyway, at home I have dial-up and downloading 130MB trailers is out of the question anyway. (grin)

I highly recommend the 10.4 review at Ars, as it is highly detailed. But this page in general, which is about Quartz 2D Extreme, shows some details of how the SOFTWARE of Quartz2D was greatly optimized from 10.3 to 10.4. (Not even counting when the hardware Quartz2DExtreme is enabled...)

http://arstechnica.com/reviews/os/macosx-10.4.ars/14

I am sure that some of this optimization will also impact performance or QT in Panther vs. Tiger, but I could be wrong...

[klinux]

Originally Posted by osxisfun

OOOOHHH cool feature. thanks!!

Hey, what can I say, ignorance is bliss!

And there is really no help for Simon who writes "arrogant impertinence of those who seek only support of their beliefs regardless of how wrong facts prove them to be". It is clear that his "facts" and only partial and convincing only to a selected few.

I have even outline a way that he can provide irrefutable evidence (play a true 720p 30fps, heck, if he'd countered with 24fps I might even have agreed, and record a movie clip of that). That would have been a fact that would shut everyone up. But no, he chooses the easy way out.

Simon: try your logic in the real world like a science community or law office and see how long you will last. In my department you cannot just choose to cover your ears or walk out of the room.

[Eug Wanker]

This just in: iTunes 4.8 catalogues and plays H.264 video.

[roadracr]

[QUOTE=klinux]Therefore, the litmus test IMO has to be true 720p. In addition, we all know that the film is 24fps but NTSC standard is 30 fps. It would be shame to say that "yeah, my Mac is HD ready" but having to underscore that with an asterisk saying that the above statement is true when playing back 24fps and lower than 720P, no?

Actually, the NTSC standard is 30 fps interlaced, which means that it refreshes an entire screen of data in two frames. The original claim of Simon was that he was able to play the KoH trailer at 24 fps. On Apple's Quicktime site, the Large KoH trailer is compressed with their h.264 codec at 1280 X 544 pixels at 24 fps. It is not truly 1280 X 720 and that has been stated several times throughout this thread.

It would appear that you have not read this whole thread, and I could understand why you might not want to. However, you have missed a lot of what Simon and others have been claiming throughout. Go back a few pages and you will see where I ran an experiment using Panther 10.3.9 on this same trailer and achieved results that suggest 1280 X 544 24 fps playback is achievable with the latest powerbooks. I'm not going to video my results for you. Others have stated that they can get similar performance and I don't expect them to video their screens either. You can say we're all liars and fudging our results, but that's just getting annoying.

[Pierre B.]

Originally Posted by mytdave

So, the question becomes, what about the next generation?

Apple clearly publishes the requried specs for 1080p in H.264. Can Apple deliver a G5 PowerBook before the end of the year? Who knows? If they can, will they? Who knows?

Personally I am not expecting a G5 Powerbook at all. If the Powerbook is going to get a 64-bit CPU this would be something different, not the 970FX (and perhaps not the 970GX, but I am not sure). For the time being, the only candidate for such a CPU is the PPE from the CELL architecture. Either way, for me the answer to decoding h264 at HD resolutions in a Powerbook should be looked for in the SPEs, again from the CELL architecture. These specialised and highly efficient processing units can take almost completely the load, and help the main CPU in other parallel tasks as well, like the Altivec unit does today. I guess two of them in a Powerbook would make an impressively powerful portable machine for advanced multimedia. No wonder why h264 and CELL have as common feature tremendous scalability, as well requiring (h264) and offering (CELL) humongous processing power. Note that using one or two SPEs would not mean those to replace the GPU. They would just work as co-processors for special cases, like h264 decoding.

Originally Posted by mytdave

But I hope so. If they can't deliver a G5 PowerBook, I hope they will choose their other option:

Dual-core G4's from Freescale exist today. It is completely within Apple's ability to release PowerBooks with a MPC8641D dual-core CPU, a X700 GPU, a 500MHz + FSB, DDR2 RAM, and a PCIe interface, a high-res 1920x1080 screen (at least on the 17" PB), higher watt/hour batteries, 802.11n WiFi, and keep all the other cool features of current PowerBooks. This configuration would undoubtedly play back 1080p in H.264 reasonably well, if not perfectly fine. Apple could actually make this laptop today - all the parts are commercially available now. Will they? We can only hope...

No, they coundn't. The specifications are available today, but the parts are not. The MPC8641D is expected to enter production in the first half of next year. It seems to me that a 8641D running at 2 GHz will be more than sufficient to decode smoothly 1080p content. And I don't see why this chip could not go at least in the 17" Powerbook by next year (oh, unless of course Apple/IBM surprise us with a PPE-like 64-bit portable CPU, assisted by a couple of SPEs).

What will be soon ready though is the MPC7448, a substantial improvement over today's G4. This is the more likely candidate for the next Powerbook update. Its large L2 cashe together with the faster FSB (and perhaps other improvements I am missing now), will translate to a significant performance boost that would make 720p h264 playback quite smooth, leaving room to the CPU to handle accidental processing spikes without dropping frames.

[kentuckyfried]

ahh...that explains everything.

I was at a packed Apple Store last Thursday. I've never tried playing a 1080p trailer before, and I tried out the "Batman Begins" trailer that was on the desktop of a 15" aluminum powerbook.

Needless to say, I was shocked at the poor performance. I don't know why they decided to put that kind of trailer on the powerbook if playback was going to be that horrible...it gives non-mac people the impression that powerbooks are complete POS.

I'm assuming the 15" on display was a stock model...

[hakstooy]

Originally Posted by Simon

If you are genuinely interested in performance, you do not accuse decent people of lying just because their results don't support your POV.

Simon, I have never discounted your reports. In fact I have always paid them very close attention and given them complete attention. I am honestly offended at your attitude regarding my posts given my history in this thread.

Posts that give no information regarding performance other than "It runs it perfectly." provide nothing that I can use to put into the spreadsheet I am trying to generate regarding performance. My grandmother saw the 720p H.264 trailer on my 12" and thought it was wonderful despite it peaking at 14 fps, so to be honest, I take no credibility of any positive qualititative analysis especially given that this is a pro-Mac forum. That may be my realist science brain infecting my analysis, I dunno.

Your system is borderline when it comes to the 720p trailers, but I believe your reports, but when people post that they have flawless playback with a system that has no chance of playing it back (1 GHz 12" or 800 MHz TiBook) it makes it hard for me to take peoples reports seriously.

I have reports, like yours, that show that playback is possible, but I want to see how many people can do so. Such obviously jaded interpretations by people with impossible claims make me think that such a poll are impossible, and my efforts thus far are useless.

[Eug Wanker]

Originally Posted by hakstooy

Your system is borderline when it comes to the 720p trailers, but I believe your reports, but when people post that they have flawless playback with a system that has no chance of playing it back (1 GHz 12" or 800 MHz TiBook) it makes it hard for me to take peoples reports seriously.

I agree.

[hakstooy]

Wow, I was so hammered when I posted that. I am amazed it came out even somewhat understandable.

They have really good wine in Italy. But the stuff sneaks up on ya like a ninja.

[f1000]

Originally Posted by f1000

I believe that Apple's strong support of H.264 is a prelude to an iFlicks service of some sort akin to iTunes.

iTunes 4.8

Originally Posted by f1000

Now that H.264 seems to be the standard, though, maybe Apple will change its stance.

DVD Player 4.6


Nostradamus

[scottiB]

Originally Posted by hakstooy

Wow, I was so hammered when I posted that. I am amazed it came out even somewhat understandable.

They have really good wine in Italy. But the stuff sneaks up on ya like a ninja.