H.264 HD is AMAZING ( 56K Warning Includes pics)

Phat_Pat

macrumors 68000
Original poster
May 8, 2004
1,955
0
I Live Where I Live
H.264 is amazing.
I have never seen anything so beutiful ever. (in video quality that is ;) )
To give you an idea how it can be scaled here are some examples from the same frame in the serenity trailer. (Keep in mind that this is on a 23 inch screen and when its big.... well its HUGE)

Sorry about the size of the pics.

Super Small.


Lil Bigger


Still getting bigger


Still....


Actual Size (ie the size it opens in. Notice how i can reach the resize tab. I have to use the menus :eek: )


Double Size (Fom menu)


I'm still in shock from the amzing quality of this.

Also remember the req. are pretty high for this type of qualty. Here are the req from Apple's Quicktime Site

QuickTime 7 System Requirements for Mac OS X

* 400 MHz Power PC G3 or faster Macintosh computer
* At least 128MB of RAM
* Mac OS X v10.3.9 or later

Recommended Hardware Configurations for H.264 High Definition (HD) Playback

To play high definition video, a large amount of data must be processed by your computer. A powerful system will deliver the best playback experience.
For 1280x720 (720p) video at 24-30 frames per second:

* 1.8 GHz PowerMac G5 or faster Macintosh computer
* At least 256 MB of RAM
* 64 MB or greater video card

For 1920x1080 (1080p) video at 24-30 frames per second:

* Dual 2.0 GHz PowerMac G5 or faster Macintosh computer
* At least 512 MB of RAM
* 128 MB or greater video card
 

Mechcozmo

macrumors 603
Jul 17, 2004
5,215
2
Try:
command+shift+3 (entire screen)
command+shift+4 (cross-hair selected capture)
command+shift+4 then spacebar (window/icon/menu capture)

Very cool though!
 

dvdiva

macrumors member
Mar 17, 2005
66
0
So I guess Powerbooks are out? that sucks. Wondering if I can play it on my 1.33 powerbook especially since it has only 64mb vram
 

nagromme

macrumors G5
May 2, 2002
12,551
1,186
I'm really impressed too.

I downloaded the big 1920x816 Serenity trailer (which will fit on a 23" or 30" display) and am running it on my 15" PowerBook :eek:

It stutters a lot, but I wanted to see the full detail. I'm using QT Pro now to change to a different codec that my G4 can run faster... and I may as well crop it to 1280x816 too, since my screen is too small for the full thing anyway!

The Serenity Trailer also has a 1280x544 version you can view. I hear that stutters a bit too on a slower G4 (I have 1.25). But re-saving as Sorenson should help I'm hoping. Quality should be about the same--but I'll pay the price of a bigger file size. (The beauty of .H264 is the quality it gives you in files small enough to download quickly.)
 

Bear

macrumors G3
Jul 23, 2002
8,089
4
Sol III - Terra
runninmac said:
That is just amazing...

will that even fit onto a 30inch display?
Al the HD Samples Apple has will fit onto the 23" Display, so fitting them on the 30" display is no problem.

The 23" display can handle any of the HD resoultions. The 20" Would have to scale some of the higher resolutions down to fit on the 20" display.
 

Platform

macrumors 68030
Dec 30, 2004
2,881
0
What you NEED a Dual G5 to play 1920X1080 :eek: :eek:

Then what to be able to run OS X 10.5 and all other software you will need Quad G6 or what :eek: :mad:
 

meathane

macrumors member
Apr 30, 2005
71
0
im not impressed at all. u need a G5 to properly run it? thats bollocks. the batman trailer is good quality on my eMac, but it is jumpy. if iSight gives jumpy on iChat, then thats PROPER bollocks, and i def wont buy an iSight
 

asif786

macrumors 65816
Jun 17, 2004
1,027
0
London, UK.
meathane said:
im not impressed at all. u need a G5 to properly run it? thats bollocks. the batman trailer is good quality on my eMac, but it is jumpy. if iSight gives jumpy on iChat, then thats PROPER bollocks, and i def wont buy an iSight
Theres a BIG difference between a little iChat window, and a full HD Trailer.
 

Darwin

macrumors 65816
Jun 2, 2003
1,082
0
round the corner
asif786 said:
Theres a BIG difference between a little iChat window, and a full HD Trailer.
So with iChat 1 to 1 Video is no problem, especially on my system (what I'm trying to say is will I be using H.264?)

I'm just checking because Apple does say a G5 for HD Video so I'm guessing lower rezs will work
 

killmoms

macrumors 68040
Jun 23, 2003
3,722
13
Washington, DC
Too bad the compression on the "1080" Serenity trailer blows chunks compared to the "720" version... if you still frame it and go through individually it looks terrible. I'd much rather have the 720 version and have it look really good scaled up than the 1080 version which doesn't look very impressive at all. I mean, yeah, it's big, but its hardly higher bitrate than the 720 one and it has 68% more pixels. MAYBE if the 1080 trailer was 300MB instead of 150 it'd look good.

On a different note, any way I can find out where the 720 version gets cached locally? I'd like to be able to hijack that file and export it to Pixlet or Sorenson or something that'd play smoothly on my 1.25GHz PowerBook G4... any ideas?
 

ksz

macrumors 68000
Oct 28, 2003
1,670
60
San Jose, CA
Phat_Pat said:
H.264 is amazing.
...Also remember the req. are pretty high for this type of qualty. Here are the req from Apple's Quicktime Site

Recommended Hardware Configurations for H.264 High Definition (HD) Playback

To play high definition video, a large amount of data must be processed by your computer. A powerful system will deliver the best playback experience.
For 1280x720 (720p) video at 24-30 frames per second:

* 1.8 GHz PowerMac G5 or faster Macintosh computer
* At least 256 MB of RAM
* 64 MB or greater video card

For 1920x1080 (1080p) video at 24-30 frames per second:

* Dual 2.0 GHz PowerMac G5 or faster Macintosh computer
* At least 512 MB of RAM
* 128 MB or greater video card
Suddenly that Dual 2.7GHz PowerMac doesn't seem indefatigable (i.e., "I will never need anything faster than this..."). Bring on the dual duals.
 

HGW

macrumors member
Apr 25, 2005
86
0
H.264

2 mins footage took 15mins to encode in H.264 on default setting using iMac 1.8ghz, dont know how important that is but i hope my computer is broken
 

Mechcozmo

macrumors 603
Jul 17, 2004
5,215
2
Cless said:
On a different note, any way I can find out where the 720 version gets cached locally? I'd like to be able to hijack that file and export it to Pixlet or Sorenson or something that'd play smoothly on my 1.25GHz PowerBook G4... any ideas?
Look at the site's source, find the URL of the movie, then insert into SiteSucker. Linkety
 

EasyB

macrumors member
Jan 29, 2005
96
0
I hope Mr. Jobs is as disappointed as I am that a top of the line new powerbook will not play a stinking video! :mad:
 

Phat_Pat

macrumors 68000
Original poster
May 8, 2004
1,955
0
I Live Where I Live
EasyB said:
I hope Mr. Jobs is as disappointed as I am that a top of the line new powerbook will not play a stinking video! :mad:
Yeah i agree with the fact that the Powerbook is long overdue. Although with this long of wait its either a real bad hardware problem, or its something hella good. Jobs wouldn't purposly hold back the updates for no reason......

You must also realize that you trade off power for portability, and that you cannot expect a laptop to be as powerful as a brand new G5 tower.

Although tommorow is Tuesday...... :rolleyes:
 

friarbayliff

macrumors regular
Jul 20, 2004
227
0
MN / IN
EasyB said:
I hope Mr. Jobs is as disappointed as I am that a top of the line new powerbook will not play a stinking video! :mad:[/QUOTE

I think he might be more concerned with parading the capabilities of cutting-edge apple technology. For one, there's the visionary futuristic effect that comes with such an advanced video technology. This is not about satisfying everybody - it's about apple staying one step ahead.
 

GFLPraxis

macrumors 604
Mar 17, 2004
7,091
404
Phat_Pat said:
Recommended Hardware Configurations for H.264 High Definition (HD) Playback

To play high definition video, a large amount of data must be processed by your computer. A powerful system will deliver the best playback experience.
For 1280x720 (720p) video at 24-30 frames per second:

* 1.8 GHz PowerMac G5 or faster Macintosh computer
* At least 256 MB of RAM
* 64 MB or greater video card

For 1920x1080 (1080p) video at 24-30 frames per second:

* Dual 2.0 GHz PowerMac G5 or faster Macintosh computer
* At least 512 MB of RAM
* 128 MB or greater video card
There seems to be a contradiction.

1920x1080 at 24-30 frames per second is 1080i, NOT p.
1280x720 at 24-30 frames per second is 720i, NOT p (720i is not even high def. 720p, 1080i, and 1080p are considered high definition).


The i stands for interlaced- it shows 60 half-frames per second, or 30 full pictures per second.

The p is progressive, meaning it shows 60 full frames per second.
 

LethalWolfe

macrumors G3
Jan 11, 2002
9,366
119
Los Angeles
EasyB said:
I hope Mr. Jobs is as disappointed as I am that a top of the line new powerbook will not play a stinking video! :mad:
:rolleyes:

Hey, remember when playing MP3's maxed out your CPU? Or how about when you needed an MPEG decoder card to get good DVD play back?

The HD h.264 files Apple is offering up aren't freakin' 320x240, 15fps QT movies. These are complicated files that need a lot of number crunching to encode and decode. Laptops are made to be portable, not powerhouses. Want to do stuff that requires heavy lifting? Buy a desktop. Expecting a laptop to perform toe-to-toe w/a desktop is completely unrealistic.


Lethal
 

Darwin

macrumors 65816
Jun 2, 2003
1,082
0
round the corner
HGW said:
2 mins footage took 15mins to encode in H.264 on default setting using iMac 1.8ghz, dont know how important that is but i hope my computer is broken
Compared to you a 2 min video took a lot longer

At least two Family Guy episodes :D
 

killmoms

macrumors 68040
Jun 23, 2003
3,722
13
Washington, DC
GFLPraxis said:
There seems to be a contradiction.

1920x1080 at 24-30 frames per second is 1080i, NOT p.
1280x720 at 24-30 frames per second is 720i, NOT p (720i is not even high def. 720p, 1080i, and 1080p are considered high definition).


The i stands for interlaced- it shows 60 half-frames per second, or 30 full pictures per second.

The p is progressive, meaning it shows 60 full frames per second.
No, 1920x1080 at 24 - 30 frames per second is 1080p, because it's progressive. 1280 x 720 at 24 - 30 frames per second is also 720p because it ALSO is progressive. Progressive/interlaced have no direct relation to their frame-rate numbers. All the p or i means is how the frame is scanned, and if you LOOK at the files provided, you can quite clearly see that they are:

1) Not interlaced, and
2) 24 frames per second

The ATSC HD standard supplies the following resolutions:

720p at 24, 30, or 60 frames per second, and
1080i at 60 fields per second, AND
1080p at 24 or 30 frames per second

Something doesn't have to be 60 frames per second to be considered progressive, it just has to scan progressively, i.e. one complete line after another, not interlaced fields scanned odd/even (or even/odd, depending).