Quicktime 7 for Windows to be released today

OK, first test, here's what I find:

It was on a 10-second clip, rendered from Vegas at best possible quality settings, including keyframes every frame in all cases, 320x240, square pixels, unconstrained data rates. I viewed them all at 100% and then 200% size. Screen shots included. Smoothness of motion was identical between all three. Render speeds were similar.

1: WM9: 2.15MB. At 200%, quality was good; a little bit blurry.

http://img203.echo.cx/img203/3126/wm97sq.jpg

2: QT7, Sorensen 3: 8.49MB. At 200%, quality was good, but blocky in fine detail.

http://img203.echo.cx/img203/6747/sorensen30hp.jpg

3: QT7, H.264: 6.66MB. Quality identical to Sorensen 3, but for some reason, was brighter.

http://img203.echo.cx/img203/7514/h2649wi.jpg

Using H.264 settings as identical as I could make them, I used QT Pro to do the same thing (after exporting the clip in best-quality, full-size QT settings and using that clip).

Result: 7.07MB; a bit sharper than the Vegas QTs, but a little blockier:

http://img203.echo.cx/img203/8048/qtpro7mg.jpg

The render time was about twice that of Vegas's.

Now, this is only one test. I will conduct further study over the weekend. If anyone has any suggestions for possible comparison tests/parameters, let me know.
 
Jubal28 said:
Now, this is only one test. I will conduct further study over the weekend. If anyone has any suggestions for possible comparison tests/parameters, let me know.
Click to expand...

How about a test where you compress to the same file sizes and compare the video quality?

And I realize this doesn't have anything to do with QT7, but how does the Sorenson codec perform with a wmv output?
 
Sumfun said:
And I realize this doesn't have anything to do with QT7, but how does the Sorenson codec perform with a wmv output?
Click to expand...

Hey Sumfum...I'm not to clear on what your asking here, I'm not aware of the Sorenson codec being able to output a wmv....Am I missing something?
 
I was kind of hoping that, but I thought maybe I'd missed an option somewhere in my compression run you know like Options, advanced options, bigger options than mino's brain can fathom.... Sorenson outputs wmv so well I sometimes render them just to admire their beauty! I'm hoping that qt7 will finnish this h264 render before I retire. It's a 2 minute clip and so far has taken 20 minutes and only at 57%......Sloooooow!
 
Mino said:
Hey Sumfum...I'm not to clear on what your asking here, I'm not aware of the Sorenson codec being able to output a wmv....Am I missing something?
Click to expand...

Yes, I meant Sorenson Squeeze. I'm considering buying Squeeze, and assumed that's what Jubal was talking about when he mentioned the Sorenson codec. But now I realize that maybe he's just talking about the basic codec.
 
Jubal28 said:
Using H.264 settings as identical as I could make them, I used QT Pro to do the same thing (after exporting the clip in best-quality, full-size QT settings and using that clip).

Result: 7.07MB; a bit sharper than the Vegas QTs, but a little blockier:

http://img203.echo.cx/img203/8048/qtpro7mg.jpg
.
Click to expand...

Something doesn't look right. Do you have "high quality" enabled in QT Pro? It should be in "Get Movie Properties>Video Track"

At least that's how it is in QT Pro 6.5

-CJ
 
ArkhamFilms said:
Something doesn't look right. Do you have "high quality" enabled in QT Pro? It should be in "Get Movie Properties>Video Track"

At least that's how it is in QT Pro 6.5

-CJ
Click to expand...

It was encoded to "Best" quality, as I said.
 
kai said:
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.
Click to expand...

Is this not like saying...Despite the fact that you all come to work in aircontioned limo's, the scooter still has the advantage of being the industry standard ride?
 
No. Rather, it means you didn't get what Kai was saying and thought you'd try to be funny, instead. ;)

Basically, QT is more than just an end file type. It is the underlying architecture that allows FCP to handle/edit video files on the Mac, etc. - not just the final compressed-for-web version.
 
Jubal28 said:
It was encoded to "Best" quality, as I said.
Click to expand...

Right. What I was asking is if your QT player was displaying it properly. By default, the QT player may not display the .mov at full resolution, dependent on your system, to ensure full frame playback.

If you have QT Pro, check its movie properties. (Command + J on Macs). Select the video track, then go to quality. Check the "High Quality Enabled" feature.

Again, I'm not sure if it's there on QT Pro for windows, but it was there in 6.5 for Macs.

-CJ
 
Jubal28 said:
Now, this is only one test. I will conduct further study over the weekend. If anyone has any suggestions for possible comparison tests/parameters, let me know.
Click to expand...

Hey David,

Any more results to share?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top