Apple H.264, any body using that crap?

Discussion in 'Digital Video' started by mymemory, Sep 14, 2005.

  1. macrumors 68020

    mymemory

    Joined:
    May 9, 2001
    Location:
    Miami
    #1
    I am here in Final Cut Pro. I wouldn't care about the codec in question but everytime I am exporting something FCP use it as a default what actually suck because the render time in insanely slow what makes the work useless. I rather use DV Pro of course and Sorenson for internet if that is the case.
     
  2. macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2005
    Location:
    Austria
    #2
    I use H.264 with handbrake, it is VERY slow, but I find the compression and quality to be worth it.
     
  3. macrumors 68040

    Sdashiki

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2005
    Location:
    Behind the lens
    #3
    But you cant simply send h.264 to everyone like you could, say, divx.

    h.264 is a hardy codec, worth the time to encode, but truly hard on your CPU.
     
  4. macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2004
    #4
    ATI's next-gen cards, coming out soon, will have hardware acceleration of h.264. Now let's hope for an AGP Mac version....

    --Eric
     
  5. thread starter macrumors 68020

    mymemory

    Joined:
    May 9, 2001
    Location:
    Miami
    #5
    What piss me off is that FCP use it as a default basically when I always use DV for my projects.

    I mean, what the codec does is good but is a joke the rendering time.
     
  6. macrumors 6502a

    Erendiox

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2004
    Location:
    Brooklyn NY
    #6
    Well think of it as a new-age codec that needs amazing processing power. All apple did was improve your range of render options by introducing H.264. If you are in need of the quality, then use it. If you want speed, then dont use it. I wouldn't rag on it just because the rendering time is huge. It really is an amazing codec IMO. ;)
     
  7. macrumors Core

    Dagless

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2005
    Location:
    Darkplace Hospital
    #7
    phew! i was expecting a "H.264 suxxors! use WMV!!".

    it is very slow using it. but the quality makes up for that. plus i can just sit here trying to get another medal on Kirby Canvas Curse so its all cool

    of interest, if your interested. i made a vid some weeks back exported as plain old uncompressed DV AVI, there i exported the vid to H.264, DivX and WMV respectably. compared (at the same bitrate) DivX is terrible. i cant believe how terrible the quality is. WMV did a better job! H.264 though was untouchable. all the vid sizes were 8mb.
     
  8. macrumors 68040

    Sdashiki

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2005
    Location:
    Behind the lens
    #8
    The horrible AWFUL truth about video encoding, is it is never fast.

    I dont know of any "full frame" video that you can encode at less than 1x the actual length of the file. ANd in most cases, like MPG2, it takes 2-6x the length.

    Video is a hard nut to crack, I recall years ago when in OS 7 or 8 i think that Quicktime could play (along with the hardware at the time) full frame video without jumpiness. I was floored back then. And today its only gotten better, but IMO only in quality for size aspects. When it comes down to it, every step forward in quality and size compression we take half a step back because it requires faster and faster hardware to run it.

    Nature of the beast.
     
  9. macrumors member

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2005
    #9
    What settings do you use in Handbrake?

    I would like to use H.264 . . . But everytime I try encoding w/ H.264, the video looks like dog poo . . .

    I have had better luck with other codecs (sorenson, etc).
     
  10. macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2004
    #10
    Only accelerated decoding, as far as I can tell.
     
  11. macrumors 68020

    Rod Rod

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2003
    Location:
    Las Vegas, NV
    #11
    I remember back when you complained about the dual-processor G5 (the one you bought and then returned). Well, now you know why a dual G5 is a good thing.

    Here's a short sequence I threw together very quickly, shot and edited in 720p30 HDV and FCP 5, and "shared" from QT 7 using the "medium" email setting:

    http://homepage.mac.com/tvwriter/.Movies/Streets2005.mov
     
  12. macrumors 68020

    Rod Rod

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2003
    Location:
    Las Vegas, NV
    #12
    Every GPU in today's Macs has hardware-accelerated MPEG2 decoding. However, the OS does not take advantage of it, so MPEG2 decoding is done entirely in software. I hope MPEG2 and H.264 decoding in the GPU will be supported soon.
     
  13. macrumors G4

    Mord

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2003
    Location:
    Old York
    #13
    mpeg2 decodeing is done very efficently with altivec, it's why dvd's play so much nicer in g4's than in g3's.
     
  14. macrumors 65816

    bankshot

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2003
    Location:
    Southern California
    #14
    Indeed. If I could buy a new video card to allow my 733 MHz G4 to actually watch H.264 (instead of the slideshow I get now), maybe I can squeeze a few more years of life out of this machine. Of course, Apple wants me to buy a shiny new G5, so why would they help me hang on to my current machine by supporting that function? :eek: :rolleyes:
     
  15. macrumors G4

    Mord

    Joined:
    Aug 24, 2003
    Location:
    Old York
    #15
    remember plenty of WMV files wont play on anything short of a 3GHz P4/3000+ athlon.
     
  16. macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2004
    #16
    I seem to remember a discussion about how an EyeTV 500 could take advantage of hardware accelerated MPEG2 decoding, but the OS won't let them do it. I don't understand why this isn't allowed, but maybe now that we're losing Altivec, things will change.
     
  17. macrumors 603

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2001
    Location:
    The Cool Part of CA, USA
    #17
    I've got to say, h.264 is an amazing codec; I've experimented with a wide variety of settings in XviD, DivX, Sorenson, and h.263 over the past couple years, and h.264 is so much better it's amazing. Sure, the encode times are monstrous, but name a distribution codec for which they're not (and nearline codecs like DV don't count--they're for an entirely different purpose).

    On the positive side, I can encode at speeds roughly a quarter realtime on my DP2.0 G5, which isn't all that bad, particularly for 2-pass encoding (which is a must unless you're doing CBR streaming). I don't think it's much slower than a good-quality XviD encode using ffmpeg, for example.

    One quality note: QT Pro, if that's what you're using, is terrible about properly deinterlacing video before recompressing, which may account for poor quality. If it's from a DVD Handbrake does AAC/h.264 .mp4 with little hassle, otherwise make sure to set the proper flags in the movie's properties flag, then set it to the correct size there (not in the export section), and finally to manually set the framerate in the h.264 properties; if you do all that, it should deinterlace the export.

    [Edit: I totally forgot to mention this, but QT7 is available for both Windows and Mac now, and VLC (Win, Mac, Linux) plays .mov or .mp4 files with AAC sound and h.264 video just fine, so cross-platform support isn't that much of an issue at this point, so long as someone is up to date with their software and has a reasonably fast computer, both requisites of playing most video anyway--keep in mind that neither Windows nor the MacOS will play XviD video out of the box, either.]
     
  18. macrumors 68000

    illegalprelude

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2005
    Location:
    Los Angeles, California
    #18
    on the topic of things then, whats a good setting to choose if I want to export a video out and just post it on my .Mac account or online so people can view it. I cant seem to figure out the right setting to put it on thats its both good quality and small.

    All the video's i make are like 5min here and there and I export and they turn into 250mb, 100mb. I havent figured out the right setting yet :(
     
  19. macrumors 68020

    Rod Rod

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2003
    Location:
    Las Vegas, NV
    #19
    Use one of the "share" presets. Take a look at the example in my previous post in this thread.
     
  20. macrumors 68000

    illegalprelude

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2005
    Location:
    Los Angeles, California
    #20
    holy dear lord, that quality for 7mb. INSANITY! FCP4.5 dosent have that shared one? atleast I havent seen.

    do you go to File, export, Quicktime Conversion, then?
     
  21. macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2005
    Location:
    Austria
    #21
    I just use the default settings, seems to work fine every time (several times better and smaller than divx), just takes about a day to encode a film on my powerbook. Playback is crisp and smooth.
     
  22. macrumors 601

    generik

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2005
    Location:
    Minitrue
    #22
    Come on, H.264 is great... I love it for being the standard that'd stop Microsoft's goal of world domination(tm) dead in its tracks.

    Will probably never happen. With MacIntels coming soon, what incentive does ATI have to do that?

    Besides they are slowly phasing out AGP cards too.
     
  23. macrumors 68020

    Rod Rod

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2003
    Location:
    Las Vegas, NV
    #23
    From FCP, either render your whole sequence and export a reference movie or export a self-contained movie. Open that file in QT 7. In QT 7, use the Share command under the File menu. You'll see the presets there.
     
  24. macrumors 68000

    illegalprelude

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2005
    Location:
    Los Angeles, California
    #24
    thank you very much bro :) :) :)
     
  25. macrumors 68020

    Rod Rod

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2003
    Location:
    Las Vegas, NV
    #25
    You're welcome!
     

Share This Page