[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Simon 

I hope they don't do it that way this time. I would hate having to install Leopard first just to get SL. What's the benefit of having 45% less install time in SL when you need to install Leopard first?

In general, you don't.

[Simon]

I'm not sure I understand. Are you assuming in general I don't install SL on an empty disk?

[P]

Originally Posted by TheoCryst 

Apple - Mac OS X Snow Leopard - Technical specifications -- Under OpenCL:

* NVIDIA Geforce 8600M GT, GeForce 8800 GT, GeForce 8800 GTS, Geforce 9400M, GeForce 9600M GT, GeForce GT 120, GeForce GT 130.
* ATI Radeon 4850, Radeon 4870

They're not including the 2400/2600 XT? That's surprising - and disappointing. Those chips are certainly as capable as the 8600M GT. Any bets on how long it takes for someone to hack in 2600 support (pun not intended)?

Originally Posted by AppleGirl1990 

i can't believe there is no blu-ray support.
i'm going to rip my hair out!

Pix or it didn't happen.

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by Simon 

I'm not sure I understand. Are you assuming in general I don't install SL on an empty disk?

He meant, in general you won't need to install Leopard prior to install SL. I know that 10.1 technically required 10.0 to be installed but people quickly and easily found a way to circumvent the check. It will be interesting to see how Apple implements those details this time around.

[ajprice]

So my Intel GMA950 white Macbook won't run the Open CL or Quicktime H264 acceleration. I'm in no hurry to upgrade right now, but a Dell 24" screen is a struggle for it on things like WoW. A christmas present from me to me might be in order this year...

[Eriamjh]

Originally Posted by Simon 

I hope they don't do it that way this time. I would hate having to install Leopard first just to get SL. What's the benefit of having 45% less install time in SL when you need to install Leopard first?

Maybe the SL DVD just removes all the PPC code from Leopard?

Does SL mean no more rosetta for running PPC apps? Or does it just mean that all of the SL files are Intel-Only (as opposed to universal)?

I wonder if Leopard will see any more updates after September for those PPC users.

[Simon]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

He meant, in general you won't need to install Leopard prior to install SL. I know that 10.1 technically required 10.0 to be installed but people quickly and easily found a way to circumvent the check. It will be interesting to see how Apple implements those details this time around.

OK, I see now.

I still hope there will be some kind of other upgrade check (serial no., Apple Store history, etc.). I would really like to get a full SL boot/install DVD with no strings attached for $29/$49.

[kylef]

Yeah - can anyone explain exactly what this $29 upgrade entails?

I'm a bit surprised at the lack of support for Snow Leopard. Glad my 9400M works, but there are recent macs out there that have no listed support - which really sucks.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by kylef 

Yeah - can anyone explain exactly what this $29 upgrade entails?

I'm a bit surprised at the lack of support for Snow Leopard. Glad my 9400M works, but there are recent macs out there that have no listed support - which really sucks.

You seem to be misunderstanding. Any Mac with an Intel processor is supported. It's just that not all of them have access to every hardware-specific feature. In particular, OpenCL is limited mainly to Nvidia GPUs and Grand Central requires a multicore processor.

[JKT]

Originally Posted by Eriamjh 

Maybe the SL DVD just removes all the PPC code from Leopard?

It would be very surprising if it didn't - how else are they going to get it to be 6GB less of and 45% faster an install. I don't think file compression can be entirely responsible for that.

[Eriamjh]

Install time is irrelvant to me. I only install once.

I want to know if it is snappier.

[osiris]

Originally Posted by turtle777 

Same here. That's truly disappointing.

-t

Ditto. My 8 core from last year needs another pile of money dumped into it for OpenCL to work. If I can even find the card.

[Art Vandelay]

Originally Posted by JKT 

It would be very surprising if it didn't - how else are they going to get it to be 6GB less of and 45% faster an install. I don't think file compression can be entirely responsible for that.

Probably the biggest reduction is from no longer installing all printer drivers by default. Intel only binaries are not going to account for much savings. Most of the OS is not executable code.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by JKT 

It would be very surprising if it didn't - how else are they going to get it to be 6GB less of and 45% faster an install. I don't think file compression can be entirely responsible for that.

It does remove the PPC code from most system binaries, but it doesn't just do that.

[kylef]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

You seem to be misunderstanding. Any Mac with an Intel processor is supported. It's just that not all of them have access to every hardware-specific feature. In particular, OpenCL is limited mainly to Nvidia GPUs and Grand Central requires a multicore processor.

Ah.

And with regards to the upgrade - how exactly does it work? Do you walk in and they'll give you some sort of unique once-only serial key? Or..

[AppleGirl1990]

E R I K - go to the back of the Hotline bus and take a seat.

Blu-Ray is the IN technology.

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by AppleGirl1990 

Blu-Ray is the IN technology.

As compared to DVDs, maybe.

Compared to digital downloads or streaming ? Not really...

-t

[olePigeon]

Originally Posted by Simon 

I hope they don't do it that way this time. I would hate having to install Leopard first just to get SL. What's the benefit of having 45% less install time in SL when you need to install Leopard first?

If it's like the Leopard Dropin Upgrade DVD, you can still select "Erase & Install" even though you're upgrading. It just checks to see if Leopard is installed first before you can continue with a normal install.

[AppleGirl1990]

Oh my little Turtle friend, you still aren't acknowledging the need to burn HD Video to a blu-ray disc for safekeeping home videos.

Watching professional theatrical movies....easy to download from your cable provider, Apple TV or online.......and i agree, blu-ray disc may not be the future in that realm when it's so easy to download.

Sharing a homemade HD Movie with my cousin who lives in Seattle is a different story. I'm suppose to Upload an hour long HD movie? do you know how long that will take? The only real option is to burn to a blu-ray disc. And by the way, putting my crystal clear HD video footage on a .me gallery of sorts for him to view on the web....is hardly an HD experience worth having. It's too small to watch and enjoy.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by kylef 

Ah.

And with regards to the upgrade - how exactly does it work? Do you walk in and they'll give you some sort of unique once-only serial key? Or..

Nobody knows for certain, but I am pretty sure it won't involve serials, since no version of Mac OS X has ever required the user to enter a serial number in any form.

[Simon]

It's not about entering the no. to software. It's about proving to Apple you bought Leopard.

[Simon]

Originally Posted by olePigeon 

If it's like the Leopard Dropin Upgrade DVD, you can still select "Erase & Install" even though you're upgrading. It just checks to see if Leopard is installed first before you can continue with a normal install.

IOW if I install a brand new HDD I will need to install Leopard first (or clone from an older Leopard install) to be able to install SL. Goodbye 45% time savings. Hello extra 45 min wait.

[Chuckit]

IIRC, you just need to have some hard drive with Leopard on it attached to the computer. It doesn't have to be the target drive. I could be remembering wrong, but that's how I recall it working last time I ran into the issue.

[Demonhood]

i'm fairly certain that my Leopard upgrade disc (as opposed to my full install Leopard disc) actually requires 10.4 on the target disc. i imagine 10.6 will follow the same pattern.

[Simon]

If that's the way Apple will do this SL update I feel really tempted to buy the $49 family upgrade license and then pirate the full SL DVD.

[kylef]

Originally Posted by Chuckit 

Nobody knows for certain, but I am pretty sure it won't involve serials, since no version of Mac OS X has ever required the user to enter a serial number in any form.

Highlights my new-ness to OSX! Well, I guess my Leopard restore disc from the MacBook will do fine.

[- - e r i k - -]

Originally Posted by AppleGirl1990 

E R I K - go to the back of the Hotline bus and take a seat.

Blu-Ray is the IN technology.

If you believe that I have a shiny bridge to sell you. Blu-Ray will die out much quicker than any other optical medium.

[- - e r i k - -]

Originally Posted by AppleGirl1990 

Oh my little Turtle friend, you still aren't acknowledging the need to burn HD Video to a blu-ray disc for safekeeping home videos.

Burning anything to optical media is NOT safekeeping! You might want to check those DVDs you burnt in 2001 and see how they are holding up.

Ever heard of backups?

[wr11]

A pretty simple solution would be for the SL disc to either detect that you have leopard installed and allow you to do a clean install etc. Or allow you to swap discs for a second to prove that you have a leopard/ish install disc and then swap back to install.

[AppleGirl1990]

The tag team duo of Turtle and Erik, you guys keep dancing around the question. Please answer!

If you had a HD home movie that is 1 hour long and you wanted to show people (who don't live in your home), how would you get it to them to view? What's the best method?

[Chuckit]

Burn to a normal DVD?

[turtle777]

Originally Posted by AppleGirl1990 

The tag team duo of Turtle and Erik

WTF ?

Originally Posted by AppleGirl1990 

If you had a HD home movie that is 1 hour long and you wanted to show people (who don't live in your home), how would you get it to them to view? What's the best method?

Torrent, DVD or other online sharing.

-t

[- - e r i k - -]

Originally Posted by AppleGirl1990 

The tag team duo of Turtle and Erik, you guys keep dancing around the question. Please answer!

If you had a HD home movie that is 1 hour long and you wanted to show people (who don't live in your home), how would you get it to them to view? What's the best method?

You have one hour HD home movies? Methinks you need to take up editing.

The best method is to bring it on a USB stick, iPod, iPhone etc. Heck, put it on a Zune HD. All depends on what their setup is. Myself I'd put it up on YouTube, that way they can choose whatever quality they want to watch it in depending on their connection.

For the record, I don't know anyone who has a Blu-Ray player, and I have a lot of gadget loving friends.

[CharlesS]

If a movie is large enough to warrant putting it on a 50 GB Blu-Ray disk, it seems unlikely that a USB flash drive or any of the flash-based iPods would have enough storage space to hold it, and uploading it to Youtube would be definitely out of the question.

[Eug]

Sweet. Snow Leopard will be $10 for those of us who buy a new Mac now.

[- - e r i k - -]

Originally Posted by CharlesS 

If a movie is large enough to warrant putting it on a 50 GB Blu-Ray disk, it seems unlikely that a USB flash drive or any of the flash-based iPods would have enough storage space to hold it, and uploading it to Youtube would be definitely out of the question.

A 2 hour movie at 1920x1080 with an acceptable bitrate H.264 can easily fit under 5GB.

[CharlesS]

Well, then it would be distributed on a regular DVD, not a Blu-Ray disc, now, wouldn't it? Notice the first part of my sentence.

[Eug]

Originally Posted by CharlesS 

Well, then it would be distributed on a regular DVD, not a Blu-Ray disc, now, wouldn't it?

Indeed. BTW, it's really pushing it to have bitrates under 12 Mbps on average for the (H.264) video alone, if top-notch quality is desired. The bitrate erik posted is less than half that.

That's with top notch encoders. With crappier encoders, or if encoding speed is an issue, one might want higher bitrates.

P.S. I have two Blu-ray players (and I don't even own a PS3). I would like to have one in my Macs as well, although BD blanks cost too much at the moment.

[- - e r i k - -]

I deliver commercials for broadcast at 3000 KBps, 5000Kbs+ is more than acceptable. Especially for home videos.

Still, even at 12 Mbps the one hour home movie in question is only 5.4GB.

For bitrate comparison most consumer HD cameras record in bitrates at around 5-7 Mbps. You can't magically make your homevideos better by transcoding into a higher bitrate. So you can stop talking out your behind now Eug

[Simon]

Erik and turtle are right one the money.

A few people are trying to come up with inane reasons why everybody absolutely needs BR while hinting we'll eventually all be screwed without it. Fact is BR is indeed a PITA. It's got all the limitations of optical media, it's slow, it's expensive, it's the licensing "bag of hurt", it's got the ugliest DRM scheme we've seen so far, and on top of all of that it can be easily replaced with fast and inexpensive storage.

It's destined to be disdained by the public. And if Apple can assist in killing it off ASAP I'm all for it.

[Big Mac]

On the other hand, Blu-ray discs offer a lot of nice extra features that iTunes and other digital download distribution channels can't match. People are used to dealing with optical media after 10 years of DVD use. You can't get HD movies on iTunes, just on AppleTV, right? Plus, that annoying kid and his mother really like "BLU-RAY" (Laptop Hunters), so that means it's important. (Maybe M$ pointing out that a PC featured Firewire in one of those spots got Apple to reassess the value of the port. ) Regarding DRM, that's a given for studio releases no matter which legal distribution channel you choose. Perhaps you'll want to stay with DVDs forever because its DRM is weak, but it doesn't sound like you want to do that, either.

I think Blu-ray is here to stay, although maybe I'm biased because I have a PS3. But that doesn't mean I need it on my Mac.

[- - e r i k - -]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

You can't get HD movies on iTunes, just on AppleTV, right?

Wrong.

[- - e r i k - -]

Let's face it, the only people defending Blu-Ray today are people who are already invested in it. People need to validate their choices, even in the face of biting reality.

[CIA]

Not to feed the fire, but I'll give up Blu-Ray when I can download HD video that doesn't look like crap. Blu-Ray on a properly set up large TV looks amazing. I haven't seen anything downloaded HD that comes close. You just can't beat the bitrate it offers. Downloaded 1920x1080 may be HD, but at the low bitrates you get from it makes it look blocky to me. Blu-Ray is (usually) razor sharp with clean gradients.


Also this thread is getting off topic.

[CharlesS]

Originally Posted by - - e r i k - - 

I deliver commercials for broadcast at 3000 KBps, 5000Kbs+ is more than acceptable. Especially for home videos.

Still, even at 12 Mbps the one hour home movie in question is only 5.4GB.

Then why was Blu-Ray invented, if a movie can fit decently in the size of a dual-layer DVD? And why did Blu-Ray win over HD-DVD on the basis of HD-DVD's 30 GB apparently not being big enough?

[- - e r i k - -]

Well, aside from being too small for both H.264 and high quality audio AND extras, DVD players mostly only support MPEG-2 as specified in the original specifications.

The problem has really been one of timing. Blu-Ray and HD-DVD has been in development for a long time, and was seen as a natural progression in Optical media at a time where it was a lot more cheap and practical than the alternatives. Uptake of these next-gen optical formats have been slow, thanks to a long drawn out "format war" and a poor public perception (the jump from DVD to HD is not nearly as dramatic as the perceived quality jump from VHS to DVD was). Meanwhile the price of hard drives and flash storage has gone down drastically (heck, I can buy 1GB sticks the price of a packet of gum these days!) and digital distribution is becoming (and already is for many) a real viable alternative*. Not to mention a small revolution in personal video sharing via YouTube.

The home-editor, meticulously building DVDs for family and friends have become a dying breed in all this. It is time to move on.

* Note that you are also going to see this in software in the future, the App Store is just the beginning. Look at the PSP Go, the DSi, Wii Ware and XBOX 360 marketplace.

[JKT]

Originally Posted by AppleGirl1990 

The tag team duo of Turtle and Erik, you guys keep dancing around the question. Please answer!

If you had a HD home movie that is 1 hour long and you wanted to show people (who don't live in your home), how would you get it to them to view? What's the best method?

If I absolutely needed this I would (i) buy an external or internal BR drive and (ii) Toast. Then burn my disks and get on with my life because no one else cares if I have BR or not.

[angelmb]

tries to get the thread back to where it belongs

hey people, I found the Snow Leopard desktop picture, it is really nice.



You welcome.

[AppleGirl1990]

CIA - you nailed it. HD online looks bogus. Often small sized too.

Erik & Turtle, let me see if i understand your argument. You are saying i should copy my HD movie to a USB stick and send it to my friends to see? If i had a USB stick, it's because i want it! I'm not mailing it to anyone. and if i was to mail it to a friend, now they have to figure out how to get the movie off the USB and onto a computer to then transfer it to their den tv. what a process. who would want to do that?

Regarding your comment about burning the HD video to a regular DVD. What good will that do? and wouldn't you have the same problem as stated above. Look, if you are saying that for someone to watch a movie i made them, each time they will have to import to their computer and then figure out the best way to transfer it to their main tv....that's no solution in my playbook.

And despite what anyone in this forum says, not many people WANT to watch a full length movie at their computer. 99% want to get on the couch and watch on the big screen.

Please explain to me the process that must occur once i burn the HD video to a regular DVD. what happens next to be able to watch in HD? you make it sound simple, so please explain. I have a feeling your answer will be more complicated than "insert blu-ray disk into player".

P.S. : I don't even own a blu-ray player. I have no investment in it. What i do have is HD video footage sitting on my computer and i want to be able to share it with people (so they can watch on a full screen tv in their den). hence the problem we've been discussing.

[Eug]

Originally Posted by Simon 

Erik and turtle are right one the money.

A few people are trying to come up with inane reasons why everybody absolutely needs BR while hinting we'll eventually all be screwed without it.

Errr.... no. Nobody is saying everyone needs it. In fact, I think most Mac people at this point don't need it. However, it's definitely a plus for those with a few extra bux to spend. I want to buy a new iMac this year or next. If it had Blu-ray for not too much money, I'd pay for it.

I for one am disappointed by the lack of BR support in Snow Leopard.

Originally Posted by - - e r i k - - 

I deliver commercials for broadcast at 3000 KBps, 5000Kbs+ is more than acceptable. Especially for home videos.

Still, even at 12 Mbps the one hour home movie in question is only 5.4GB.

For bitrate comparison most consumer HD cameras record in bitrates at around 5-7 Mbps. You can't magically make your homevideos better by transcoding into a higher bitrate. So you can stop talking out your behind now Eug

Back in the HD DVD vs. Blu-ray days, the Blu-ray people used to take MS to task for HD DVD's "low" capacity.

In response, MS's VP and one of their compressionists (who used to freelance at Apple before working for MS BTW), would brag that they could get their 1920x1080p24 video encodes as low as 12 Mbps, with hand-tweaked latest-version encoders. However, they also said that once they dropped below 10 Mbps, the quality really started to drop. Basically, anything under 10 Mbps was second tier quality no matter how hard they tried.

Of course, if you think the only possible utility of Blu-ray on a Mac would be for home videos, then you have a point, but thankfully it isn't.

As for much broadcast HD, I hoping you're not trying say it is anywhere near the quality of what Blu-ray has to offer. I personally have not been particularly enamoured with most broadcast HD. Unfortunately, iTunes HD is often much worse.

Originally Posted by CharlesS 

Then why was Blu-Ray invented, if a movie can fit decently in the size of a dual-layer DVD? And why did Blu-Ray win over HD-DVD on the basis of HD-DVD's 30 GB apparently not being big enough?

Lots of money being thrown around, by both camps. In fact, rumour had it that HD DVD had just about managed to convince Fox (with lots of $$$) to switch to HD DVD after HD DVD landed Paramount. But, at the last minute, Warner ended the war and went Blu-ray. In fact, there was supposed to be a public joint conference meeting for HD DVD in January of which Warner was a part, and just days before that is when Warner announced going Blu-ray.

30 GB for HD DVD is sufficient. However 8 GB for dual-layer DVD is definitely not, even for hand-tweaked H.264, unless you're willing to settle for 2nd tier quality.

Interestingly, originally, one HD DVD plan was to use dual-layer DVD. However, it was to use 1280x720 H.264, not 1920x1080p. Once they started getting the feel of the competition and when they decided to use 1920x1080p, dual-layer DVD was no longer considered a viable option, because the space was far too limiting.

Originally Posted by AppleGirl1990 

Please explain to me the process that must occur once i burn the HD video to a regular DVD. what happens next to be able to watch in HD?

You can burn HD quality material to DVD media, and depending on the authoring, you can play it back on certain HD players (but not DVD players).

In fact, Apple already had HD DVD support built into DVD Studio Pro which could then be burnt to DVD media and played back on any standalone HD DVD player or any Mac with a fast enough CPU, since HD DVD support has been built-into DVD Player.app for years. However, the market went Blu-ray, so this HD DVD support became meaningless.