When will Quicktime be ready for prime time?

Discussion in 'Amateur Video Production' started by Pigeon Hohl, Apr 13, 2004.

  1. Pigeon Hohl

    Pigeon Hohl Guest

    It is annoying and frustrating that a great number of systems out
    there are unable to view Quicktime movies on the web without
    having to download the free QT player. Seriously, what percentage of
    folks are going to go to the Apple site, fill out the form, uncheck
    the "send spam" box, and wait to download the 10 MB player? Seriously.

    The quality for the file size of QT .mov over MPEG 1 is astounding;
    and MPEG 4 seems even more so. But it seems you have to have QT
    in order to view MPEG 4. Too bad...
    I put a short movie up on my web host, and it wouldn't play from
    a machine AT THE APPLE STORE. If that's not incompatibilty, I don't
    know what is. (!)

    So the question is: When will MPEG 4 or even QT .mov be far-reaching
    enough to choose it over the clearly inferior MPEG 1, which seems
    to be useable on just about every GUI machine out there?

    Pigeon
     
    Pigeon Hohl, Apr 13, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. Pigeon Hohl

    Rick Guest

    Whenever I come across a website that uses QT .mov
    (and the far more insidious Real Media) clips, I write the
    web designer(s) a polite note asking them to please join
    the 21st century. There's no excuse for it anymore.
    Properly encoded MPEG-1 with decent source matches
    or beats QT in almost all cases.

    BTW one does not need QT to view MPEG4.

    Rick
     
    Rick, Apr 13, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. I dunno, there is for example no quicktime 6 plugin for netscape in Linux
    last time I looked.
    Really really weard.
    I just put DivX on my site, that people who have Linux can play with
    mplayer -cache 512 url
    (and that in .avi format).

    So, and even mediaplayer plays that after downloading, if DivX codec
    installed.
    The windows .wmv is also very good, especially with low bitrates, but
    all sorts of license stuff you have to think aboy IIRC.
    There will probably likely never be just ONE format.
    JP
     
    Jan Panteltje, Apr 13, 2004
    #3
  4. Pigeon Hohl

    Keith Clark Guest

    That's one of the stupidest questions I've ever seen.
     
    Keith Clark, Apr 13, 2004
    #4
  5. Pigeon Hohl

    Pigeon Hohl Guest


    New to usenet?

    Pigeon
     
    Pigeon Hohl, Apr 13, 2004
    #5
  6. Pigeon Hohl

    Pigeon Hohl Guest


    From the samples I've seen, the file sizes have been much larger
    with MPEG 1 to get quality comparable to Quicktime.
    I'm trying to get the best quality at the smallest possible size.


    Can you point me to some on-line samples I can check next time I'm on a
    Windows machine--without downloading any special plug in?

    Are you saying that Windows and Linux media players can view Mp4 video
    right now--as is?

    This would be great--if it's true.

    Pigeon
     
    Pigeon Hohl, Apr 13, 2004
    #6
  7. Yes and no, because there is no quicktime 6 plugin for netscape in Linux,
    any site who does that prevenst Linux users from seeing whatever it is
    they have.
    Apple should fix this.
    Or we should really use a different format.
    mpeg4 is just fine.
     
    Jan Panteltje, Apr 13, 2004
    #7
  8. Pigeon Hohl

    Keith Clark Guest

    My point was that for ANY multimedia type, regardless of whether it's mpeg-4
    or some new format from the ET hackers on Setus Prime 7, you're going to have
    to have a codec installed in order to view it!

    Perhaps the "solution" is to file a lawsuit forcing Microsoft to include
    Quicktime player, and for Linux to include Mplayer and Mplayer-plugin (and
    the codec pack). No scratch that, that's no solution.

    The solution is freakin' obvious : quit freakin' whining and download the
    plug-in and get on with your life instead of wasting bandwidth crying in your
    beer because OMG, you had to sped 30 seconds installing a plugin! Good
    grief. That's just SO lame.

    It's as lame as arguing that "SuSE is better than Windows because SuSE
    includes a DVD player and Windows doesn't" (that was an actual topic a few
    weeks ago in another group).

    Like I said, it was a stupid statement/question.
     
    Keith Clark, Apr 13, 2004
    #8
  9. Pigeon Hohl

    Rick Guest

    For web use? People either have broadband or they don't.
    And 85% of the world still doesn't. A few MB (or even
    more than a few) won't make much difference.
    No. But the point is, it's faster/easier/better to simply install
    a codec, rather than install an entirely separate viewer.

    Rick
     
    Rick, Apr 13, 2004
    #9
  10. Pigeon Hohl

    Steve King Guest

    Rick, it may be faster/easier/better for you to simply install a codec or a
    QT player. However, let's say you want to deliver video to a diverse group
    of net users that are for the most part in large companies with large IT
    departments. Your target audience consists of a few people in one or two
    small departments of those companies. What choices make sense for you now?
    How will you handle all the customer service calls asking, "How do I play
    your video?" It is one thing to provide a solution appropriate for your
    girlfriend who is off to college. It is quite another to deal with
    compatibility issues in a business environment. It is why so many of us
    struggle along with MPEG 1 rather than formats capable of higher quality vs.
    file size.

    Steve King
     
    Steve King, Apr 14, 2004
    #10
  11. Pigeon Hohl

    Pigeon Hohl Guest


    Clearly I'm just not as smart as you;
    thanks for taking the time to enlighten me.

    Now, when people tell me that they can't view my Mp4 movies
    from their windows machines, we can safely suspect they are even dumber
    than me; since it's such a simple matter of just downloading a
    "freakin" plug-in, you would think they would just "freakin" do it.

    I mean, how could they be so stupid?

    What a bunch of morons, eh?

    Sorry to waste your time.

    You may now continue wading through the less-dumb
    "What Digicam Under $600 should I Buy?" threads...

    Pigeon
     
    Pigeon Hohl, Apr 14, 2004
    #11
  12. Pigeon Hohl

    Pigeon Hohl Guest


    Thanks for pointing that out. There are many, many instances where
    downloading a player or a plug-in is simply not an option.

    Pigeon
     
    Pigeon Hohl, Apr 14, 2004
    #12
  13. Still one small thing, now I have a fast ADSL link, but indeed just a month
    ago I would not have liked to download say 3 MB or more just to watch some
    site.
    Especially, as was the case with real-player, if you then needed it 3 month
    later you found it was expired...
    So I sort of feel what the guy experiences, we really do not yet all have a
    fast link.
    JP
     
    Jan Panteltje, Apr 14, 2004
    #13
  14. Pigeon Hohl

    Keith Clark Guest

    This is a "video" group.

    Quicktime is a video player.

    I like seeing video in whatever format it's in. If I don't have the plugin, I
    download it. Not a big deal.

    I've used a modem too - I've downloaded 200 MB of Linux updates over a modem
    (right before I decided that if I was going to use Linux I needed broadband. ;->

    But I've never griped about having to download a Quicktime player.

    It's just stupid to be griping about something so trivial.

    Gripe about the fact that Windows update has been brought to a halt by millions of
    people frantically trying to download the latest 5 critical security fixes... ;->
     
    Keith Clark, Apr 14, 2004
    #14
  15. Pigeon Hohl

    Steve King Guest

    fixes... ;->

    Keith, you don't seem to get it. You are (probably from you use of the
    language) one freakin' teenager with nothing but time on your hands. The
    rest of us are talking about solutions for video delivery to people in
    corporate environments, who can barely find their keyboards, who cannot
    install anything on their computers for fear of their jobs, but who need to
    see our stuff. When you grow up, you'll have a wider view of the world.

    Steve King
     
    Steve King, Apr 14, 2004
    #15
  16. Pigeon Hohl

    Steve King Guest

    And, to add to my other points earlier posted... in the past decade I have
    not run across a single client using Linux. So, I don't spend a lot of time
    worrying about that.

    Steve King
     
    Steve King, Apr 14, 2004
    #16
  17. Pigeon Hohl

    Morrmar Guest

    My point was that for ANY multimedia type, regardless of whether it's
    mpeg-4
    For wmv files, all flavors of Windows already have the necessary codecs
    installed.
    We agree there.
    A _lot_ of people will just not do that due to the overblown fear of
    viri, trojans, etc. I guess you don't work with corporate types very
    much?
    I wholeheartedly disagree on that one.

    Personally, I think Quicktime is already ready for primetime.
    Unfortunately, only for people who have Apple boxes. I've made a
    decision on my site to only offer wmv files. Like I said before, Windows
    users don't have to do _anything_ to be able to view them, which takes
    care of 90% of computer users. The other 10% that run Apple or Unix
    variants will already know what they have to do to view them. They're
    already used to operating in a Windows centric world.
     
    Morrmar, Apr 14, 2004
    #17
  18. If you can't download the player (ie dialup), than you have no business
    downloading a movie over the internet anyway.

    -Richard
     
    Richard Ragon, Apr 14, 2004
    #18
  19. I wrote this in response to another topic, but I think it fits here too..

    There is however a 4th solution. Are you familiar with
    Dreamweaver/Flash MX 2004? If you have the Pro versions, you can create
    using sorenson squeeze, a new format called Flash Video or .FLV file.
    This is something new that allows you to embed a .flv video into a flash
    application. You then place your flash embedded file into your web
    page. Why??.. because if you used Flash as your player, you would solve
    a huge amount of compatibility problems and not force anyone to install
    another application on their computer. Flash players have a near 98%
    saturation on browsers right now over every OS. This option is a little
    bit more complex as you'll have to do your homework on this new format,
    but it might be worth it to you.

    Hope this helps.
    -Richard
     
    Richard Ragon, Apr 14, 2004
    #19
  20. Pigeon Hohl

    Morrmar Guest

    There is however a 4th solution. Are you familiar with
    I realize I'm in the vast _minority_ here but I won't allow that
    bandwidth hogging piece of s/w on my computer, even though I'm no longer
    on dialup. For people on dialup, Flash does nothing but increase the
    time it takes for a site to load. A with Flash enabled sites, it's hard
    to read with all that blinking and moving going on. IMO, it's the most
    abused "feature" anyone can put on their website. A perfect example is
    here:

    http://www.stevengotz.com/premiere.htm

    This guy knows a _lot_ about Premier but try to navigate his site
    _without_ Flash enabled. I lose count after _nine_ separate instances
    asking me if I want to install Flash. Why do people insist on wanting
    people to install s/w just to enable them to navigate a site?

    Sorry, but putting video on a site with Flash is not a good idea for
    most people... imo of course.
     
    Morrmar, Apr 14, 2004
    #20
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.