Quicktime 7 for Windows to be released today

WM9 is a variant of H.264.

That being said, I had no problems watching the 1080p with QT7. I will be curious as to the filesize/quality ratio and how it stacks up.
 
GenJerDan said:
That doesn't seem possible.

Are you sure it didn't just create a "hint" file, with pointers to the original?

Dan
Click to expand...

No, I'm not sure what the hell I'm doing but I will real soon :engel017:
 
Hey Disjecta, you did not do any test with the H.264 since I told you are good it was last fall. :angry:

I still don't have QT7 however and we have to pay for the pro key again. :(
 
And all the windows users have finally seen the light...


H.264 is pretty god damn amazing..

I would like to know what kind of bitrates WMV9 runs at for HD... and SD content.. cause h.264 is using MPEG2 bitrates for HD and yielding far better images...

and WMV9 is also a variant of the MEPG4 Part 10 Standard(I do believe.. correct me if I am wrong)
 
Loki said:
And all the windows users have finally seen the light...


H.264 is pretty god damn amazing..

I would like to know what kind of bitrates WMV9 runs at for HD... and SD content.. cause h.264 is using MPEG2 bitrates for HD and yielding far better images...

and WMV9 is also a variant of the MEPG4 Part 10 Standard(I do believe.. correct me if I am wrong)
Click to expand...

? WM9 is a variant of H.264. QT7 doesn't do anything WM9 hasn't been able to do for years. Remains to be seen if the quality/filesize ratio for QT7 is better; I'll let ya know. But even if it is, it seems strange to be saying "take THAT, PC users!" when you're bragging about a new product which does what WM9 has been doing for years. HD, 5.1 surround, small filesizes . . .
 
Jubal28 said:
? WM9 is a variant of H.264. QT7 doesn't do anything WM9 hasn't been able to do for years. Remains to be seen if the quality/filesize ratio for QT7 is better; I'll let ya know. But even if it is, it seems strange to be saying "take THAT, PC users!" when you're bragging about a new product which does what WM9 has been doing for years. HD, 5.1 surround, small filesizes . . .
Click to expand...

It's funny you should mention that...I've done a few QT vs WM9 comparison tests lately, and the WM9 renders always come out half the file size of QT and slightly better compression. I always figured it was me doing something wrong again!
 
No, I found the same thing. WM9 left QT in the dust as far as size and quality of compression. It should be interesting to compare it with the QT implementation of the H.264 codec.
 
That’s my main question. I’ve found that I can get 320x240 clips of two-to-three minutes of length down to under 3 MB (a workable e-mail attachment size) with excellent quality in WM9 (enough so that blowing it up to 200%, or apparent full size, in the player still gives a sharp picture), but I could never get QT6 using Sorensen 3 or MPEG-4 to do the same for under 20MB, which obviously is NOT a workable e-mail size.

If QT7 can beat WM9, then I may have a new standard. If not, then I won’t.
 
Jubal, from what I've heard/read, h264 is slightly more advanced than Windows Media 9 because it's been developed a little further from the same basic codec.

However, from the demos I've downloaded of both....well, neither seems to be much better than the other. Both produce beautiful quality video at low bitrates. I think h264 may be more scalable, but at HD resolutions the difference seems to be quite minor, which makes sense since they're based on the same technology.

However, 24fps 1080p wmv9 runs flawlessly on my computer (Athlon 64 3200+, Radeon X800 XL) and h264 can't hack it at 720p. That last little bit of optimization seems to have killed processor speed.

Still, I prefer the quicktime interface and h264 runs at realtime in SD resolutions, so I'll go with it for now.

And while disjecta's example is impressive, it's not exactly a great example. Slow motion and no camera movement is an ideal way to show off an interframe compressor, since DV compresses each frame seperately and mpeg based codecs don't. If the camera were moving around a lot, there was grain, and fire or explosions or dust or something, the file size would be MUCH larger and the compression would artifacts would be noticeable.
 
Policar said:
Jubal, from what I've heard/read, h264 is slightly more advanced than Windows Media 9 because it's been developed a little further from the same basic codec.
Click to expand...

Yes. I actually meant to include that point earlier -- that after all this time, it would need to be actually better in order to truly score a win. Being only on par means they're showing up late to the party with stale beer.

But I'm going to experiment with it this weekend and see how the cookie crumbles.
 
I'm not seeing why all the drool here..

I've been encoding and testing for several hours now and I don't see why QT7 is so great ON MY OWN STUFF.. I don't see the huge file size difference..in fact, they are bigger and not much better, if at all than, say with the Sorenson 3 codec? maybe I'm doing something wrong..will keep testing.

btw- does anyone know how to CROP in COMPRESSOR? I have 4x3 images that I want to crop off the top and bottom, for a rectangular shape. The "crop inset" feature crops off the image and then blows it up. I've played around with different settings and my images come out distorted. all I want to do is take a 4x3 image and chop off the image. i've been experimenting with a 320x240 image.

also..am I right that using h. 264 in Compressor, it is one-pass CBR?
 
Despite any codec shortcomings vs WM9, Quicktime has the fact that it's a standard professional production codec in it's court. IE: It's used in the actual production pipeline, vs WM9 which is primarily a web distribution model.
 
Compressor 1 won't work very well. It doesn't let you into the core video that QT7 brings to the fight.

Stay either in Pro Player or FCP.

Good luck,

CaptM

EDIT -- BTW -- my QT7 examples have lots of motion... as they were all shot hand-held.

Check out the point reyes film or the street football for some good camera movements.

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