Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: Could someone upload a h.264 clip?

Expand Messages
  • Steve Watkins
    Groovy yes that works on my PC (due to nero cd writing software coming with a H.264 player&encoder) but it does not work on quicktime 6 on the PC, as I
    Message 1 of 6 , Apr 29, 2005
      Groovy yes that works on my PC (due to nero cd writing software
      coming with a H.264 player&encoder) but it does not work on
      quicktime 6 on the PC, as I expected.

      Id still love a .mp4 H.264 video from someone done with quicktime 7
      though, so I can make sure it should play the same (as it should).

      Yes sorry to those who were expecting lots of backwards
      compatibility, H.264 is too much of a change, its a different kind
      of mpeg4.

      Thats why the quicktime pro upgrade cost is annoying. People using
      mac quicktime 6 free version have no reason not to upgrade to 7 (as
      far as I know) but there will be pro 6 users who wont spend $30
      straight away and may resent ever spending it, so will stay with 6.

      Its nice to know there are other ways to play .mp4 on the mac.

      Anyway please nobody write of H.264 straight away just because it
      isnt the ultimate solution for today.

      One day, if all goes according to plan, it will kill much of the
      horrible stuff we have to deal with. Mac users wont have some PC
      users moaning at them because the PC users wont need to use
      quicktime to play .mp4 files. PC users will use .mp4 more and .avi
      and .wmv less and that will be good for mac users. All sorts of
      devices will use the same format also (though there will still be
      issues of different resolutions & bitrates working better on smaller
      devices comapred to general computer viewing)

      Cheers

      Steve of Elbows

      --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Joash Chee <joashpbook@y...>
      wrote:
      > Hi all,
      >
      > I'm not sure if this is the same thing, but I've just made a quick
      > H.264 video using free tools (for the Mac) and showcased it in a 4-
      step
      > .mp4 video. You can find it at http://uijunkie.blogspot.com
      >
      > I'm also wondering about the 3ivx thing.
    • Michael Verdi
      I planned on uploading an H.264 / 3ivx comparison video shot at the Apple store tonight. Forget it. Hardly seems worth it now after experimenting with it for
      Message 2 of 6 , Apr 29, 2005
        I planned on uploading an H.264 / 3ivx comparison video shot at the
        Apple store tonight. Forget it. Hardly seems worth it now after
        experimenting with it for about 10 hours. I spend most of this
        afternoon and this evening comparing it to 3ivx. Guess what? It
        seems to be no better and maybe even slightly worse!!! What makes
        this really disappointing is this bit of text from Apple's QuickTime
        7 website:

        "Thanks to its incredible efficiency, H.264 provides up to four times
        the frame size of video encoded with today's MPEG-4 video codec at
        the same data rate."

        That's not what I'm seeing. My H.264 and my 3ivx encoded videos look
        about the same quality at any given frame and file size. Actually
        the H.264 files have slightly less contrast and are not quite as
        sharp. What's more is it takes anywhere from 3 - 8 times longer to
        encode your video in H.264.

        On top of that, H.264 seems to be much more CPU intensive. Apple has
        some HD video samples available for download but they play like crap
        (1 - 7 fps) on my 1 year old, top of the line PowerBook. The website
        lists these hardware requirements for the 1280 X 720 (720p) video:
        1.8GHz G5, 256MB RAM, 64MB video card. For the 1920 X 1080 (1080p)
        clips it jumps to: DUAL 2.0GHz G5, 512MB RAM, 128MB video card.
        Those are some steep requirements! I found that even the low bit-
        rate videos I compressed for the web have a slight delay in there
        response to scrubbing the playhead. I don't have this problem at all
        with my 3ivx encoded videos.

        What a disappointment.

        -Verdi
        http://michaelverdi.com
        http://freevlog.blogspot.com
      • Joshua Leo
        Suck!...Here I was all excited...oh well...at least we still have 3ivx.
        Message 3 of 6 , Apr 29, 2005
          Suck!...Here I was all excited...oh well...at least we still have 3ivx.
        • Steve Watkins
          Sorry to hear that. Id still love someone to upload a test clip. Oh well I am off to the mac store in Birmingham to try once again to get a mac mini so
          Message 4 of 6 , Apr 30, 2005
            Sorry to hear that.

            Id still love someone to upload a test clip. Oh well I am off to the
            mac store in Birmingham to try once again to get a mac mini so
            hopefully I shall see for myself.

            Im not surprised at the longer encoding times, but I am very
            surprised by the worse quality & no lower filesizes. It doesnt match
            my experience of encoding H.264 on a PC so far, but its early days.

            Regarding the CPU etc requirements for playing High Definition
            H.264, it is to be expected that video at such high resolutions will
            be a lot more power-hungry. What other formats currently exist that
            can handle HD, and what are the playback hardware requirements for
            them?

            Cheers

            Steve of Elbows

            --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Michael Verdi <michael@m...>
            wrote:
            > I planned on uploading an H.264 / 3ivx comparison video shot at
            the
            > Apple store tonight. Forget it. Hardly seems worth it now after
            > experimenting with it for about 10 hours. I spend most of this
            > afternoon and this evening comparing it to 3ivx. Guess what? It
            > seems to be no better and maybe even slightly worse!!! What
            makes
            > this really disappointing is this bit of text from Apple's
            QuickTime
            > 7 website:
            >
            > "Thanks to its incredible efficiency, H.264 provides up to four
            times
            > the frame size of video encoded with today's MPEG-4 video codec
            at
            > the same data rate."
            >
            > That's not what I'm seeing. My H.264 and my 3ivx encoded videos
            look
            > about the same quality at any given frame and file size.
            Actually
            > the H.264 files have slightly less contrast and are not quite as
            > sharp. What's more is it takes anywhere from 3 - 8 times longer
            to
            > encode your video in H.264.
            >
            > On top of that, H.264 seems to be much more CPU intensive. Apple
            has
            > some HD video samples available for download but they play like
            crap
            > (1 - 7 fps) on my 1 year old, top of the line PowerBook. The
            website
            > lists these hardware requirements for the 1280 X 720 (720p)
            video:
            > 1.8GHz G5, 256MB RAM, 64MB video card. For the 1920 X 1080
            (1080p)
            > clips it jumps to: DUAL 2.0GHz G5, 512MB RAM, 128MB video card.
            > Those are some steep requirements! I found that even the low bit-
            > rate videos I compressed for the web have a slight delay in there
            > response to scrubbing the playhead. I don't have this problem at
            all
            > with my 3ivx encoded videos.
            >
            > What a disappointment.
            >
            > -Verdi
            > http://michaelverdi.com
            > http://freevlog.blogspot.com
          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.