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.
New High Quality Video Codec (h.264)
- Thread starter MacBytes
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Here are some pictures from NAB. Mostly from the Apple booth.
http://www.rickfriele.com/gallery/NAB2004
http://www.rickfriele.com/gallery/NAB2004
h.264 was less than 1MB/Sec for HD
Saw the new Harry Potter trailer at NAB (being displayed on a plasma screen to boot), and the data rate was 764K/sec for that file -- unbelievable. Couldn't tell it was compressed (maybe with a split screen, but certainly no artifacting, even when whisps of candle smoke floated across the screen). No banding. No pixelization. Not even 1 MB/sec.
Saw a (little) 320x240 quicktime compressed with this codec, and it's streaming rate was 20 K/sec and was easily better than anything I've been able to get WM9 to accomplish at 100 K/sec. Picture perfect. Unbelievable. And I'm an editor.
Saw the new Harry Potter trailer at NAB (being displayed on a plasma screen to boot), and the data rate was 764K/sec for that file -- unbelievable. Couldn't tell it was compressed (maybe with a split screen, but certainly no artifacting, even when whisps of candle smoke floated across the screen). No banding. No pixelization. Not even 1 MB/sec.
Saw a (little) 320x240 quicktime compressed with this codec, and it's streaming rate was 20 K/sec and was easily better than anything I've been able to get WM9 to accomplish at 100 K/sec. Picture perfect. Unbelievable. And I'm an editor.
nuckinfutz said:
One does not offer proof of information that is available to direct perception, except to say "open your eyes."
broken_keyboard said:
Let's try to make this debate a bit more constructive.
Name the codecs (audio and video) that you believe outperform MPEG4/AAC in quality, file size, etc.
broken_keyboard said:
Duly noted. Been to an ear specialist lately? I don't dispute your claims about Apple's implementation of MPEG4(which isn't too hot neither is their MPEG2) but to catagorically denigrate the codec is folly. There are excellent and horrible encoder/decoder for all codecs.
As for AAC my ears tell me it's fine. However no two ears hear things in exactly the same way.
my point exactly
Not sure you caught my earlier post but thanks for driving home my point. The bottom line is that there will always be some new codec or a person who thinks one is better then another...Thus QT needs to support them all. QT is not a codec or a collection of codecs...its a tool to get the end user video and sound and in doing so needs to support the widest range of possible codecs. The end user should not be penalized for the encoders subjective decison that one codec is better then another.
Quicktime currently penalizes the end user ..broader codec support will help reduce that penalty and have the added benifit of increasing QT market penetration as it gains the reputation of " the frequently updated,fits all player "
Me and users I support only WANT ONE player...QT forces us to have more than one.
later
stimpy
nuckinfutz said:
Not sure you caught my earlier post but thanks for driving home my point. The bottom line is that there will always be some new codec or a person who thinks one is better then another...Thus QT needs to support them all. QT is not a codec or a collection of codecs...its a tool to get the end user video and sound and in doing so needs to support the widest range of possible codecs. The end user should not be penalized for the encoders subjective decison that one codec is better then another.
Quicktime currently penalizes the end user ..broader codec support will help reduce that penalty and have the added benifit of increasing QT market penetration as it gains the reputation of " the frequently updated,fits all player "
Me and users I support only WANT ONE player...QT forces us to have more than one.
later
stimpy