Well it seems like I was cut short on that end of the stick. I'm not mad or upset but I do wonder if i am not able to use the updated verison of DVD player can I still keep and use mine from Tiger? I doubt that I will be able to use my older verison since I do watch movies on my laptop.
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.
There goes the DVD Player for me
- Thread starter 10th Wonder
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
He pretty much said it all and if you look at my specs in my signature im 0.01 ghz short
I have been running previous developer seeds on a Powerbook just like yours, and I can say that it does run.
While I can't speak for the GM release, I can say that in the past, it has worked perfectly fine.
I doubt that Apple will pull a Microsoft and all the sudden break compatibility with their core services by an artificial limitation. (Think Vista and the whole WDDM fiasco!)
While I can't speak for the GM release, I can say that in the past, it has worked perfectly fine.
I doubt that Apple will pull a Microsoft and all the sudden break compatibility with their core services by an artificial limitation. (Think Vista and the whole WDDM fiasco!)
There are some G4s above 1.6GHz (some of the last generation Powerbooks, for instance). I'm kind of surprised they can't get the video card to do this through CoreImage, though.
And I would be almost certain that the rest of DVD Player works just fine below 1.6GHz. Apple would receive a lot of negative press if Leopard refused to play DVDs on computers that were sold as recently as a year ago.
i just hope this isnt any indication that leopard will perform worse on my macbook cd2ghz 2gig ram by having higher spec req. if so i may stick with tiger...
If you say it worked then I wonder about how it will work when I update my OSX to Leopard. I guess really it's no big deal but in the end of tunnel is the only way to find out.
Note I said the G5 came in at exactly 1.6 GHz.
Yeah, so the minimum system requirement is 1.6GHz. Not *the* system requirement is 1.6GHz, unless there's a typo somewhere y'all are looking at? Were *the* system requirement 1.6GHz, it would also rule out all currently shipping Apple products; AFAIK none of them have a clock speed of 1.6GHz.
As mentioned previously, DVD Player works perfectly fine on machines with less than a 1.6 GHz processor.
What the 1.6 GHz processor gets you is Apple's new improved de-interlacing filter.
This allows for the video to be upconverted in real-time so that you get a better looking image than what is stored on the discs.
If you don't have the processing power, than it works just as it always used to for Tiger and Panther before it.
What the 1.6 GHz processor gets you is Apple's new improved de-interlacing filter.
This allows for the video to be upconverted in real-time so that you get a better looking image than what is stored on the discs.
If you don't have the processing power, than it works just as it always used to for Tiger and Panther before it.
*sigh* I'm lost, my friend.
I would say, though, if this improved de-interlacing can improve the picture quality of a DVD when played at 720p or 1080p, I would be very intrigued about replacing my iMac and my DVD player with a Mac Mini that lives under my TV....
You've captured my interest as well.*sigh* I'm lost, my friend.
*sigh* I'm lost, my friend.
It would be nice, but I seriously doubt it will upconvert any better than some of the best upconverting dvd players from oppo for example.
Better is a toss-up.
Equal is pretty much guaranteed as upconversion is memory and processor dependent.
So, you create a larger window-size to store your frames. In turn, you process all frames as a whole to fill in missing detail that you would normally see. This is because slight camera movement causes different regions of the frame to line up in different places. In turn, you can fill in details that were not present in one of the frames.
The more memory and processing power to interpret the data in memory, the larger window-size you can have, which in turn will mean a higher possible upconversion ratio.
In theory, it should be possible to upconvert higher with an actual computer than a stand-alone set-top device. Most upconversion DVD players have 800MHz processors and 256MB of memory.
It all depends on how much resources Apple wants to throw at upconversion on YOUR computer as to which will do a better job.
Well, that and their algorithm.
Equal is pretty much guaranteed as upconversion is memory and processor dependent.
So, you create a larger window-size to store your frames. In turn, you process all frames as a whole to fill in missing detail that you would normally see. This is because slight camera movement causes different regions of the frame to line up in different places. In turn, you can fill in details that were not present in one of the frames.
The more memory and processing power to interpret the data in memory, the larger window-size you can have, which in turn will mean a higher possible upconversion ratio.
In theory, it should be possible to upconvert higher with an actual computer than a stand-alone set-top device. Most upconversion DVD players have 800MHz processors and 256MB of memory.
It all depends on how much resources Apple wants to throw at upconversion on YOUR computer as to which will do a better job.
Well, that and their algorithm.
IF it requires 1.6Ghz to perform de-interlacing, it better be pretty damn good. Im talking SDTV quality. (no denying the point that SDTV looks worse on a HDTV and computer monitor). Cause VLC does a lot better than apples dvd player. and that runs only on software alone and works great on my 867mhz g4. It actually will play all 60 fields per second and display them as a 60FPS progressive movie. Still, im interested to see what apple can with with all this horsepower behind de-interlacing alone. my assumption its bobing, weaving while using adaptive de-interlacing all rolled into one. Adaptive being the most processor intensive.
BTW, Apples dvd player does not use de-interlacing for most movie DVDs since they are progressive. And I'm sure the standard original deinterlacer will be there. The thing is it's just piss poor. It uses adaptive de-interlacing, but only displays 30FPS from the fields. It uses the other field only to get higher resolution for static images. But half of the motion is missing.
More info at www.100fps.com
BTW, Apples dvd player does not use de-interlacing for most movie DVDs since they are progressive. And I'm sure the standard original deinterlacer will be there. The thing is it's just piss poor. It uses adaptive de-interlacing, but only displays 30FPS from the fields. It uses the other field only to get higher resolution for static images. But half of the motion is missing.
More info at www.100fps.com