H.264 a POS or Awesome

Discussion in 'Digital Video' started by srdashiki, May 4, 2005.

  1. macrumors newbie

    Joined:
    May 8, 2004
    #1
    I found this interesting...

    The processor power required by the new MPEG4-10 algorithm is an order of magnitude greater than the older MPEG4-2 algorithm. Using a 2Ghz Pentium 4 with 768MB RAM, encoding an 8 second sequence using the Microsoft MPEG4-2 encoder took under 60 seconds. Encoding the same sequence using the reference MPEG4-10 encoder took two hours. Note that the reference MPEG4-10 encoder is a proof of concept and is not yet optimized.

    NOT on a G5 and certainly obviously a tiny bit flawed, but cmon now even with a Dual 2.7Ghz G5 i think this new codec will take WAAAAY to long compared to my MPEG2 encoding times.

    why is it people are so happy when we move forward in technology but backwards in workflow...
     
  2. macrumors 6502a

    snkTab

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2004
    Location:
    Cincinnati, OH
    #2
    Well there are a lot of codecs out there that sacrafice either size or quality, I for one am happy this one that sacrafices something else.
     
  3. macrumors 603

    jeremy.king

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2002
    Location:
    Fuquay Varina, NC
    #3
    Have you seen the end result? Stunning quality even on my DP 867 with a CRT.
     
  4. macrumors 68020

    daveL

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2003
    Location:
    Montana
    #4
    There are a few other threads already on this topic. You might want to read them. They address your question quite thoroughly.
     
  5. macrumors 68030

    ReanimationLP

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2005
    Location:
    On the moon.
    #5
    Trust me, this is FAR from a POS. I went to the Apple Store and actually saw them take it and fill the 30" display up with it, and I did not see a single bit of pixelation.
     
  6. macrumors 6502a

    snkTab

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2004
    Location:
    Cincinnati, OH
    #6
    I think going back to the original question. 99.9% of the population doesn't care about the encoding time. Also, encoding is a one time deal, while streaming/transmitting is a multiple time deal.

    And sure we are going forward in technology, but are we really going backwards in workflow (assuming this means time it takes to finish this task.) Say it took 2 days to do a 320x240 video that 5 years ago that now takes a few hours. Is it bad that in 2 days when can encode a very excellent HD video. And soon, HD video will be encoded in hours, while SUHD-3D(Super Ultra High Definition, 3D) will take 2 days to encode. Mearly, workflow is adjusting to the amount of resources that are availible to it to create better and better quality
     
  7. macrumors 68000

    Phat_Pat

    Joined:
    May 8, 2004
    Location:
    I Live Where I Live
    #7
    The end result is always what your looking for. If its gunna take 8 hours start it before you go to bed and get it when u wake up...... its wroth it.
     
  8. macrumors 6502a

    sorryiwasdreami

    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2004
    Location:
    way out in the sticks
    #8
    I just viewed the NASA space shuttle HD sample full screen on my G5 and I could swear it looks like I'm watching a DVD.

    It is very, very good. The color is awesome as well as the smoothness, clarity, and depth.

    I am blown away.
     
  9. macrumors 604

    Lacero

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2005
    #9
    Normally, Apple releases POS encoders for any of their codecs. They refine and improve it over time, so I think the same will happen with H.264.

    History can be our guide.

    QT 4 DV codec = terrible. QT 5 introduced a vastly superior DV codec.

    MPEG-4 @2 = terrible. Still terrible today, just abandoned for MPEG4-10.

    MPEG2 = terrible. MPEG2 from Compressor vastly improved, with new VBR options.

    Pixlet = terrible. Have no idea what's up with that format.

    PhotoJPEG 2000 = terribly slow. Still waiting for an update for speed optimizations.

    Apple Intermediate Codec = terrible. No suitable at all for production work.

    HDV = unknown at this time. Prediction? Terrible also.

    H.264 = terribly slow. Should improve with next .1 release of QT.
     
  10. macrumors regular

    Hunts121

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2005
    Location:
    Massachusetts
    #10

    See that clip worked perfectly on my PowerBook, yet some of the movie trailers were awful (encoded at the sem resoultion too). What gives?
     
  11. macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2003
    #11
    I don't see how history is our guide in the examples you state. According to you they are all terrible, except the MPEG2, which is basic DVD encoding, so not very spectacular.
     
  12. macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2003
    Location:
    Long Beach, California
    #12
    Lacero, Pixlet was done incredibly well by Apple, and the only thing about Pixlet is that it is many times the file size of a comparable-in-quality h.264 file. I think that the only problem with Pixlet is that it uses way too much space, even with the quality.

    H.264 is an awesome codec. I think that Apple got h.264 right, although it's too bad that it takes so friggin' long to encode, even on the world's fastest computers. Price of progress though, eh?
    -Chase
     
  13. macrumors 68040

    killmoms

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2003
    Location:
    Washington, DC
    #13
    That's because Pixlet isn't a distribution format, it's a format designed to get HD video previews to play on lower-end hardware. Space isn't a concern.
     
  14. macrumors 65816

    stcanard

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2003
    Location:
    Vancouver
    #14
    Actually, I think that too many people are concentrating on the HD aspects of this codec (rightly so, because that's what Apple is pushing in their press).

    I think the true revolution is shown in their streaming example:

    http://apple.com/macosx/cnbc

    Non-blocky, 640x480 video streamed down my internet connection faster than I'm playing it, and no dropped frames on my powerbook.

    There's the (short-term) revolution.
     

Share This Page