QT vs VLC?

Homersapien

Homersapien

Well-known member
Reading the thread on the bubblegum video I noticed someone said the video looked better in VLC, I hadn't used VLC for a long while and decided to download it to take a look. And low and behold the thing was completely different, alot smoother and richer looking. I tried loading the watch one too, and what had previously appeared to be quite jerky on QT was now completely smooth and completely different in VLC.

The copy of QT i have was only downloaded recently. My question is, is there something up with my copy of QT? Or is VLC a much better player? Or is QT just alot more demanding on the computer when playing large file sizes? I was shocked by the difference on this machine.

(To dl VLC http://www.videolan.org/vlc/)
 
Quicktime uses a 1.8 gamma where Windows uses a 2.2. That could be one difference. Also the other can be VLC's handling of MJPEG codec or it has a built in decoder. Personally I use Media Player Classic and the video looks fine, probably the same as VLC would.


EDIT: Sorry I got the gamma values mixed up between platforms.
 
Last edited:
So which is player is best for viewing the Red footage on? The difference seems quite drastic between each as far as I can tell.

Media Player Classic (download here I think this is what you mean yeah?) seems to be a little bit rough around the edges on my machine still. But probably a little better than QT but nowhere near as good as VLC. The only problem I have is that the color in VLC is so different to the QT version that it's probably way off even with the color profile set to Adobe 1998 (Or woteva it was).
 
Quicktime uses your Mac's native gamma [2.2 or whatever you've set it to]. If you're using a standard color profile [I'm set to Adobe 1998 for viewing] then it'll look right. If you have a modified colorsync profile [which I do for the rest of my life], it'll look funky.

I believe VLC uses its own gamma settings, probably in the 1.8 range [ignoring your colorsync profile].

Basically it looks "better" because blacks are blacker and the contrast is higher. If you set up your monitor and colorsync profile properly, QT will display the "true" image.

As for your blockiness/framerate issues, I don't know.
 
Well this machine is a PC not a mac so that's prolly half the problem but even still the playback on QT is pants. The fade in and fade out is clunky and the framerate is very noticable. I would've thought that QT was made to be compatible Mac to PC though. I don't know if anyone else has thought the footage doesn't look great on a PC using QT, but if you have then try downloading VLC even if the colour isn't write it runs smoother for me.

Perhaps VLC is probably better for viewing on a pc because it is made for sharing video across different OS's???
 
VLC is a great player. That 2.2 gamma is very misleading. It lifts the blacks and you end up seeing noise that isn't there.
 
Has anybody noticed that if you are running dual monitors on the pc and you drag the quicktime to the 2nd monitor (non-primary), the gamma lift goes away? I think it somehow tricks the QT player. By force of habit, I always view quicktimes on the secondary monitor. The difference is like an order of magnitude. Especially when viewing the 8sec clip, the contrast and black levels is very misleading when not viewed correctly.
 
Opcode said:
;...the contrast and black levels is very misleading when not viewed correctly.
Click to expand...

This is my point though, if QT and VLC and many others display the footage with different color profiles how do we know which one looks correct when the color profile of the screen is correct? I would imagine that QT was the best to use BUT as far as my version is concerned the entire footage comes across as substandard compared to when it is played on VLC - why should the color be any better?
 
Same for me....
after trying VLC, it was clearly better than QT also, and I test it on two differents PCs, both with the Adobe1998 icc profile.

The only thing is that I couldn't move the time slider in VLC as well as in QT and I couldn't find the way to play frame per frame.
And of course QT is not only a player, but can export in many codecs.
 
Isaac_Brody said:
VLC is a great player. That 2.2 gamma is very misleading. It lifts the blacks and you end up seeing noise that isn't there.
Click to expand...

Well the noise is actually there - and I'm afraid that it's not due to the compression but more likely due to the fact that the footage hasn't been run through any kind of lowpass filter(s) and no dead-pixel correction. When I turn the gamma all the way up I get a lot of "nice" little red, green and blue dots like the one below and a lot of vertical and horizontal noise. Turning the gamma up also reveals that the backdrop is a piece of cloth - which in the end just goes to show just how much information there is to work with in the first place :-)


redBubbleLeveled.jpg


But agreed - the footage looks nicer in VLC in my humble opinion.

Would I buy the RED if I had that kind of cash? Definately :)
 
i tried playing with the footage on ae7pro... color corrected and played with the levels.. man. it ROCKS. and im like.. if this is the compressed version.. what would RED RAW be like.. without any cc in the first place.. sooo freggin' excited.
 
right tlorenzo.. that's why i can't understand where's the problem.. you can't leave us alone, jim.. just because overland or arthurs are thinking on that way.. and they have their viewpoint but it's not even a serious disapprove of the footage..
 
tlorenzo said:
Well the noise is actually there - and I'm afraid that it's not due to the compression...
Click to expand...

I'm not entirely sure some of it isn't due to the compression/resizing of the footage... afterall the 4k framegrab of the same footage doesn't seem to suffer nearly as badly as the frame you have shown - Unless the frame has had pixel correction done on it. There is still some noise on the 4k frame but you've got to really tear it to bits to see it. Plenty of scope for color correction before it'd be a problem and no doubt the final images will be better anyway.
 
Keep in mind that images are from different stages of development. As indicated no corrections to the sensor output have been done yet.
 
filmmaker1977 said:
you can't leave us alone, jim.. just because overland or arthurs are thinking on that way.. and they have their viewpoint but it's not even a serious disapprove of the footage..
Click to expand...

With respect, you're putting more value and weight to my viewpoint than it deserves. I imagine that Jim J. had very good reasons beyond the simple arguments of two voices out of many to make that decision, however if my point of view did influence, then what I was saying was most likely echoing a growing train of thought with the RED team.

Regards,
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top