What would it cost?

Mitch_Ives said:
You might want to do some more research, as yes they did. The original MPEG 4 filing for what became labelled as h264 by the committee was done by Apple.
Click to expand...
Citation please? I can't find the support for your claim anywhere. Interesting little factoid: Sorenson Video 3, that old QuickTime standby, is actually a tweaked early implementation of H.264. How do you explain that? I'm interested in learning more about your knowledge of the history of codecs, because you make a number of confident claims without going into detail or providing citations.

And just to clarify things: When we're talking about H.264, we're talking about "MPEG-4 Part 10." What is true, at least, is that the container for MPEG-4 was based on QuickTime.

Here's a history of MPEG-4, H.264, and Apple: http://www.drunkenblog.com/drunkenblog-archives/000312.html

The following press releases from the Joint Video Team (which was created specifically to develop H.264) mention nothing about Apple:
http://www.itu.int/ITU-T/news/jvtpro.html
http://www.itu.int/newsarchive/press_releases/2002/37.html

So there's my research. I'd like to know what you've read.
 
Last edited:
Mitch_Ives said:
I've known Adam Wilt for many years, and even he isn't always right. He'd be the first to admit that.
Click to expand...
And yet, you did not provide any evidence that contradicted his findings. Your statement is only an intimation, nothing more.

Resolving power is a factor, but the amount of compression and the type is also a factor. Often, it's degradation is worse than lower pixel count, which was my point.
Click to expand...
You've missed my point. I'm talking about the end result. If you point a camcorder at a test chart, shoot a clip with its native codec, and analyze some frame grabs, you'll find what the actual, effective resolving power of the whole system is. At that point, codec is irrelevant. Your whole point about codecs and compression seems to be a shoddy ontological argument (i.e. "I think that the codec is crappy, therefore the resolution must be worse!"), nothing more.

Quoting Wikpedia isn't the last word. They make mistakes too. As they reported, it's public release was 1996, it was developed long before that. I'm guessing you're younger and perhaps weren't around in those days?
Click to expand...
Citation please. At least I provided one. The Moving Picture Experts Group was established in 1988 (http://www.chiariglione.org/mpeg/). That means that even if they had started working on MPEG-2 from day one, the technology would be only 21 years-old, not 25. But they developed MPEG-1 first, then MPEG-2. According to their achievements page, they only began talking about MPEG-2 in 1990 (http://www.chiariglione.org/mpeg/achievements.htm).

Besides, why should the age of the codec matter? Shouldn't the results be the most important factor? Do you know why MPEG-3 was scrapped? MPEG-3 was originally developed for DTV/HDTV broadcast, but they realized that MPEG-2 was good enough for the job, so they decided not to move forward with developing a whole new codec.

I'm sure that you don't see that rolling shutter and CMOS affect final quality, though everyone else seems to.
Click to expand...
I never said that rolling shutter and other CMOS artifacts don't affect "final image quality." I said that they have nothing to do with resolution, which was the original point of contention. And what negative effect does CMOS, in and of itself, have on image quality?

You strike me as someone who seizes on one part of the total equation and then builds a world around it.
Click to expand...
That sounds more like you than me.

Video quality is like a race car... it isn't the most powerful engine that wins... it isn't the best driver... it isn't the best handling chassis... it's the car the delivers the best total combination that wins. You're stuck on the engine... you need to expand your horizons.
Click to expand...
Thanks for talking down to me. And for presuming to know what or how I think. See, I agree with you. I sold my XH-A1 for a 5D, and then I sold that for a 7D and a GH1. I even put my cameras in my signature. I have never owned or used an EX1. I don't intend on going back to a traditional camcorder; my next camera will be another DSLR or the RED Scarlet. So see? I'm not stuck on one aspect at all.
 
Last edited:
Mitch_Ives said:
I'd tend to agree, but to be honest, I haven't tried comparing a 7D to an HVX
Click to expand...
I did. The 7D can resolve a little more than the HVX does. Well, to be fair, it was an HPX170, not an HVX, but that shouldn't change anything. They are very close, with the 7D having a very slight edge.
 
Barry_Green said:
7D is 48mbps. In Vegas I get about 2fps playback speed. Premiere CS4 can handle it in realtime (with its graphics card acceleration) for a few seconds, then it pukes too.

I think we're a generation away from having workable realtime; we need updates to the NLEs to support the graphics cards properly.
Click to expand...

Or just faster cpus. I can do a 95% stutter free edit in FCP on a Core2quad 2.66ghz processor, and completely stutter free edit on my Core i7 2.66ghz.
 
ydgmdlu said:
So there's my research. I'd like to know what you've read.
Click to expand...

Since I've grown weary of this, I'll just use your sources instead:

The last two are from 2002, and are in the early formation and speculative phase, before h264 actually went anywhere. Your first source provides the eventual outcome.

Here's a quote from your source: "...which brings us to MPEG-4. Weirdly the file format of MPEG-4 is based upon Quicktime technology". So, it's based on QuickTime, an Apple patented technology and code base, but it has nothing to do with Apple? Only a lawyer would try to argue that point.

I do appreciate the source. Even though his anti-Apple bias is obvious, I can use it to confirm that Apple was the one who arranged to get the licensing fees eliminated for h264 (most MPEG-4 in fact). Paying a $25 licensing fee for each and every program we use that had MPEG-2 was getting onerous. We have Apple to thank for that.

BTW, since you seem to think I have nothing positive to say about you, let me say that I do need to thank you. I'll be having free beers at the pub this afternoon, courtesy of you. I bet two guys that you would come back with some citations that supported my original contention...

Regardless of the exchange, I do admire your passion, and I'm glad to see that your such a big fan of the DSLR's. I see them as a game changer in our industry. Best of luck to you in that arena... and I'll be thinking of you when I'm drinking my Guinness... cheers to you mate.
 
Mitch_Ives said:
The last two are from 2002, and are in the early formation and speculative phase, before h264 actually went anywhere. Your first source provides the eventual outcome.
Click to expand...
How so? (BTW, now you're talking about "eventual outcome" being more relevant than the "early formation and speculative phase." Previously, you made the assertion about MPEG-2 being a 25-year-old technology and maintained it even after I showed that the spec was actually published in 1996. Contradiction?)

Here's a quote from your source: "...which brings us to MPEG-4. Weirdly the file format of MPEG-4 is based upon Quicktime technology". So, it's based on QuickTime, an Apple patented technology and code base, but it has nothing to do with Apple? Only a lawyer would try to argue that point.
Click to expand...
What the heck? I'm beginning to think that you have very little understanding of codecs and compression, which totally undermines your original arguments about codecs and compression.

First of all, I previously acknowledged that the container for MPEG-4 was based on QuickTime. You should read more carefully. You also seem to have a habit of taking my words out of context. Second of all, QuickTime is not a codec. QuickTime is a wrapper, a container. It specifies how video, audio, and other streams are multiplexed together into one package. It's like Microsoft's AVI. Or Matroska. A MOV, AVI, or MKV file tells you nothing about what sort of compression is being used. (BTW, the open-source Matroska container, which also has nothing to do with Apple, is commonly used for H.264-encoded videos. And MPEG-4 videos in the form of DivX and XviD files are typically stored as AVIs. Does that mean that Microsoft also developed H.264? The evidence is stronger still: One of my sources did say that a Microsoft employee was a member of the Joint Video Team.) Finally, we're talking specifically about H.264, AKA MPEG-4 Part 10. We're NOT talking about the entire MPEG-4 spec in general. Apple had nothing to do with the invention and development of the H.264 codec.

You have failed to show how my sources supported your claims. You have failed to demonstrate that "Apple developed H.264." That claim is like saying that Henry Ford developed the Big Mac hamburger. (Ford's most notable innovation was large-scale assembly line manufacturing. The assembly line principles directly inspired the McDonald brothers to create their "Speedee Service System," which gave rise to the modern fast food restaurant. McDonalds' most enduring and iconic fast food product is the Big Mac. Hence, the Big Mac would not exist without the mass-production assembly line process developed by Ford. Similarly, the QuickTime framework was the basis for the MPEG-4 architecture. H.264 is almost a standalone product that was created to fulfill some of the promises of the MPEG-4 spec. Thus, H.264 owes its existence as much to Apple as the Big Mac does to Henry Ford.) Reductio ad absurdum. QuickTime is not a compression scheme, just like assembly line manufacturing is not a fast food product. How do you get from A to B?

Curiously, you have also failed to respond to my other points. Shall I declare a win for myself? :)

I just don't appreciate people spreading blatant misinformation.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top