Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
h264 slowness
- Thread starter CubaTBird
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Me too - Noooo!!!
I'm getting the same thing. None of the H.264 clips I've tried work. I get a frame change every 5 seconds or so and audio plays, but I wouldn't call it vidoe. I'm using an iBook G4 800Mhz, 668MB Ram, etc. What is the minimum system requirements for H.264/QT7???
I'm getting the same thing. None of the H.264 clips I've tried work. I get a frame change every 5 seconds or so and audio plays, but I wouldn't call it vidoe. I'm using an iBook G4 800Mhz, 668MB Ram, etc. What is the minimum system requirements for H.264/QT7???
HD Clips
I wonder if you are browsing the HD Gallery. I believe (I could be wrong on this...) they are .h264 AND Hi-Def... meaning they require MASSIVE amounts of power to play. I believe the site states a G5 is required to play them.
These are very high quality (huge!!) files that are not meant for normal consumption (not yet anyway).
Again I could be wrong, but I bet I'm not.
I wonder if you are browsing the HD Gallery. I believe (I could be wrong on this...) they are .h264 AND Hi-Def... meaning they require MASSIVE amounts of power to play. I believe the site states a G5 is required to play them.
These are very high quality (huge!!) files that are not meant for normal consumption (not yet anyway).
Again I could be wrong, but I bet I'm not.
mox358 said:I wonder if you are browsing the HD Gallery. I believe (I could be wrong on this...) they are .h264 AND Hi-Def... meaning they require MASSIVE amounts of power to play. I believe the site states a G5 is required to play them.
These are very high quality (huge!!) files that are not meant for normal consumption (not yet anyway).
Again I could be wrong, but I bet I'm not.
Ah, yes, you're probably right about that. Oh well, guess I can't do HD on my iBook
And IBM doesn't seem to be able to speed up the G5 lately so... whatever :/
agreed. AWESOME quality, but it's like playin freakin halo. sometimes it's silky smooth, but sometimes it's just sad...mox358 said:I wonder if you are browsing the HD Gallery. I believe (I could be wrong on this...) they are .h264 AND Hi-Def... meaning they require MASSIVE amounts of power to play. I believe the site states a G5 is required to play them.
These are very high quality (huge!!) files that are not meant for normal consumption (not yet anyway).
Again I could be wrong, but I bet I'm not.
imo qt7 sucks because it won't play divx files and freezes when you try, h264 is for all intents and purposes g5 only it seems...ugh...
MacVault said:Ah, yes, you're probably right about that. Oh well, guess I can't do HD on my iBook
If I am reading your statement right you don't think the G5 is much faster then your iBook? The HD clips work great on my iMac G5, granted you have to view the smaller res. but it is so clear it looks like you are standing at your window. (You need a Dual to go to the bigger res. files) Too bad so many people knock the G5 processor when they haven't even gave it a try on things like decoding HD video. Even the single in this iMac does pretty well at very intensive tasks.
It may be CPU requirements.
It appeared to play fine on my G5, and when I was at the apple store, they also played fine on the Emac I was playing with at the Tiger release.
It appeared to play fine on my G5, and when I was at the apple store, they also played fine on the Emac I was playing with at the Tiger release.
Yep, choppy on my Mac mini too... But oh my god, the clarity... Power Ma -- NO! *struggles in straitjacket*
<====
<====
Abercrombieboy said:
I know the G5 PowerMacs/iMacs are WAY faster than my iBook, and I'm not knocking the G5, but when stuff like HD require so much power what are we going to do in the new future when a higher quality codec comes out but requires 10 times the CPU as the current G5? What I'm saying is that the requirements are jumping up way faster than the hardware that's being offered - or so it seems to me.
You guys are almost correct...
Here are the system requirements to play HD movies:
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
These are the requirements for HD MOVIES not H.264 in general. They'll also start releasing movies in normal resolutions that will load much much faster due to H.264, though, I can play 720p movies rather well on my PowerBook (1.5 GHz, 768 MB of RAM)
Here are the system requirements to play HD movies:
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
These are the requirements for HD MOVIES not H.264 in general. They'll also start releasing movies in normal resolutions that will load much much faster due to H.264, though, I can play 720p movies rather well on my PowerBook (1.5 GHz, 768 MB of RAM)
Yea right - no additional hardware needed - MY A$$!
Just gotta buy a freekin $2000 - $3000 G5 (additional hardware)
WTH!?!?????
nightdweller25 said:
I know they say PowerMac G5, but honestly how much difference is there between the 1.8Ghz PM Single and the iMac 1.8Ghz? I think it is the same system, ie: FSB Speed, Graphics Card, etc. Sounds like Apple is just trying to sell a PowerMac. LOL
MacVault said:
I know what you are saying and I do agree, but at the same time any G5 will play these (again depending on speed for higher res.) and the G5 has been out for 3 years. So that means the hardware to make this possible came way before the software technology did. Where I see your point is the fact that there is still a lot of hardware being offered that will not be able to play these very well.
Abercrombieboy said:
Yea, that's true - AND THIS ALSO IS BAD! Why pay for the hardware if by the time you have software to use it there's new hardware on the horizon, and the cycle continues.
very interesting to see it's not based on screen resolution. they're leaving their freakin pro laptops out in the cold because they have g4 processors...im in general really pissed at apple tonightnightdweller25 said:
MacVault said:
I should have said 2 years, I am making the G5 older then it is! Yeah that is the evil cycle of technology and keeping up with it can get expensive. 5 years ago I bought an iMac DV 400. Nice computer at the time and the G3 could run anything Apple had out at the time with ease, but today, it won't do much. It will run Tiger, but it is slow and without any of the frills.
So, if I'm understanding this correctly, Apple released a codec that ABSOLUTELY NO Apple portable computer can decode? That sounds really bad. Either Apple's entire line of portable hardware products seriously suck, or Apple is putting out a software product that is entirely out of line with what should be released. Or maybe I'm missing something.
motulist said:
umm... not for me. H.264 works great on me on my PB. The Batman Begins trailer looks wonderful in HD
JeDiBoYTJ said:umm... not for me. H.264 works great on me on my PB. The Batman Begins trailer looks wonderful in HD
Really? Thats good to hear then, because the listed system requirements list a G5 processor. Just to be sure, when you are playing an hd movie, open up the info window and see if you are actually playing at the full frame rate. If you are, then h.264 really is a great codec that's worth all the hype and all is well.
I watched two trailers last night, Fantastic Four and Serenity. I was a little apprehensive 'cause I'm running a Dual 800 QS and Panther. The picture was HUGE and looked great, but I can only get 15-18 FPS most of the time. Still, I don't mind the choppy-ness that much, I think it's a fair trade off for the picture quality until I get a G5.
Anyone know if it will run better with Tiger?
Anyone know if it will run better with Tiger?