FORUMS: list search recent posts

The death of QuickTime as we know it

COW Forums : Apple Final Cut Pro X Debates

<< PREVIOUS   •   VIEW ALL   •   PRINT   •   NEXT >>
Oliver Peters
The death of QuickTime as we know it
on Nov 16, 2013 at 10:10:53 pm

With Mavericks, QTX player only supports H264 and ProRes. Other codecs in MOV containers are converted to these two codecs. Presumably this also includes uncompressed media, which FCP X can still export. Manufacturers are currently getting around this by recommending the continued use of QT7. What happens when Apple no longer supports or distributes QT7? Or when it quits working completely in another OS version or two?

- Oliver

Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com


Return to posts index

David Lawrence
Re: The death of QuickTime as we know it
on Nov 16, 2013 at 11:50:24 pm

[Oliver Peters] "With Mavericks, QTX player only supports H264 and ProRes. Other codecs in MOV containers are converted to these two codecs. Presumably this also includes uncompressed media, which FCP X can still export. Manufacturers are currently getting around this by recommending the continued use of QT7. What happens when Apple no longer supports or distributes QT7? Or when it quits working completely in another OS version or two?"

I just got a new Retina MacBook Pro and noticed this too. One of the first things I had to do was download the QT7 player to open files without them converting. QT& player is also an essential tool for file conversion since QTX's file export options are severely limited.

I've never liked QTX to be honest. Just too limited for my needs. If QT7 player gets phased out, I'm not sure what I'd do but I'd be in trouble. I guess this is an opportunity for a third party...

_______________________
David Lawrence
art~media~design~research
propaganda.com
publicmattersgroup.com
facebook.com/dlawrence
twitter.com/dhl
vimeo.com/dlawrence/albums


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: The death of QuickTime as we know it
on Nov 17, 2013 at 12:03:54 am
Last Edited By Oliver Peters on Nov 17, 2013 at 2:00:42 am

As I understand it, if your have FCP X installed, then additional codecs (AVC-Intra, uncompressed, XDCAM, DVCPRO HD) are supported. At least for now. Others, like Avid DNxHD are not. Therefore, you have to install QT7. I presume Apple is migrating some of this support to AVF, so it's only a matter of time before QT32-based formats simply won't work.

Pretty scary, since a lot of companies are migrating to ProRes deliverables as a de facto standard. Master to uncompressed MOV or DNxHD or JPEG2000 and you just might be in trouble later. The trouble is the QT container format, since it adheres to no actual open standard. DNxHD or JPEG2000 in an MXF wrapper might be safer, but that's also unknown.

- Oliver

Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com


Return to posts index


John Davidson
Re: The death of QuickTime as we know it
on Nov 17, 2013 at 1:47:15 am

Here's a list of every code thats out.

http://forums.creativecow.net/thread/335/61363#61363

We had a pretty good thread about it in the aftereffects forum as well I think l.

John Davidson | President / Creative Director | Magic Feather Inc.


Return to posts index

Chris Harlan
Re: The death of QuickTime as we know it
on Nov 17, 2013 at 3:06:04 am

John, I'd very much like to see that, but your link links back to this thread instead of wherever you intended taking us.


Return to posts index

John Davidson
Re: The death of QuickTime as we know it
on Nov 17, 2013 at 9:45:21 am

Derp. That's what I get for posting w/ an iPad.

Here's the After Effects forum:

http://forums.creativecow.net/thread/2/1043821#1043821

And the OS X forum post:

http://forums.creativecow.net/readpost/71/863688

Jpeg codec still works, as does AVCHD. You can tell just by what plays back when you hit spacebar. Otherwise QTX will creat a converted copy to either an H264 codec or ProRes. Currently there's a little quirk with converting 720p PNG/Alpha channel based QT's. Instead of converting to ProRes 4444 it converts to H264, thus losing the alpha channel.

For heavily used qt's, you might want to consider doing a batch convert via Compressor to ProRes4444. We did/are doing that now. In fact, we're doing an entire media overhaul and rebuilding our folder organization, so this kind of fits into that overarching plan.


Return to posts index


Jeremy Garchow
Re: The death of QuickTime as we know it
on Nov 17, 2013 at 1:30:08 pm

My guess is that third party players will take this over.

VLC can already handle a lot of things simply unavailable to the OS.

MXF Player is another. http://www.hamburgpromedia.com/products/mxf4mac/applications/mxf-for-mac-pl...

My guess is that there'll be others, hopefully they'll be able to assist Quicklook but I'm not holding out hope for that.

Apple is not one to drag legacy tech very far.


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: The death of QuickTime as we know it
on Nov 17, 2013 at 1:59:55 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "My guess is that third party players will take this over. "

These only work when the specific codec wrapped in MOV is supported by QT itself. These players use QT under-the-hood to do their thing. They do not do this on their own. For example, MPEG Streamclip only works with QT MPEG2 if you've bought and installed that component from Apple. My concern is whether this support will continue to exist. There is no way for third party developers to do this outside of Apple, since QT is proprietary and not open source. This will become more of an issue with clients who often have the bare minimum installed.

- Oliver

Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: The death of QuickTime as we know it
on Nov 17, 2013 at 4:54:08 pm

[Oliver Peters] "These only work when the specific codec wrapped in MOV is supported by QT itself. "

Not in the case of VLC, but of course, VLC doesn't not allow transcoding. For instance, you can play wmv movies on iOS devices with the VLC player.

Also, it is possible for third parties to create compatable codecs. You can buy AS-11 and JPEG2000 playback for MXF Player, for example.

I'm not saying this is easier or cheaper or better. Clearly, it's a pain.


Return to posts index


Andrew Richards
Re: The death of QuickTime as we know it
on Nov 17, 2013 at 2:19:40 pm

[Oliver Peters] "I presume Apple is migrating some of this support to AVF, so it's only a matter of time before QT32-based formats simply won't work."

Mavericks is the first release of OS X where Apple has a complete media handling stack to replace QuickTime, albeit with a much more limited scope of format support compared to what QuickTime had. The best technical overview you can get for this is session 606 from WWDC13 called "Moving to AVKit and AVFoundation" (you'll need to find the video listing on the linked page and login with a free Apple Developer account, as there is no apparent way to directly link to it).

The presentation gives a nice technical history of QuickTime before getting into what they are replacing it with and how they are handling that.

[Oliver Peters] "Pretty scary, since a lot of companies are migrating to ProRes deliverables as a de facto standard. Master to uncompressed MOV or DNxHD or JPEG2000 and you just might be in trouble later. The trouble is the QT container format, since it adheres to no actual open standard. DNxHD or JPEG2000 in an MXF wrapper might be safer, but that's also unknown."

I think the only truly future-poof method of holding masters to assume the format you are holding is not future-proof and maintaining an infrastructure capable of converting it to whatever comes next.

Best,
Andy


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: The death of QuickTime as we know it
on Nov 17, 2013 at 5:01:17 pm

[Andrew Richards] "I think the only truly future-poof method of holding masters to assume the format you are holding is not future-proof and maintaining an infrastructure capable of converting it to whatever comes next.

Best,
Andy"


This is what we used to call "damn good advice."

; )

Know someone who teaches video editing in elementary school, high school or college? Tell them to check out http://www.StartEditingNow.com - video editing curriculum complete with licensed practice content.


Return to posts index

Gary Huff
Re: The death of QuickTime as we know it
on Nov 18, 2013 at 2:29:29 pm

[Bill Davis] "This is what we used to call "damn good advice.""

Used to? Still! :-D

My advice is always keep the footage in the format it came off of on the camera. Master it in that format if possible, if not, ProRes/DNxHD.

I am keeping my fingers crossed that Apple does to ProRes what it did with ALAC. I don't see how making it open-source would hurt them in any way.


Return to posts index


Andrew Richards
Re: The death of QuickTime as we know it
on Nov 17, 2013 at 2:25:31 pm

[David Lawrence] "I've never liked QTX to be honest. Just too limited for my needs. If QT7 player gets phased out, I'm not sure what I'd do but I'd be in trouble. I guess this is an opportunity for a third party..."

Have you tried Digital Heaven's Pro Player? I haven't, but it claims to pick up the flag for the old QuickTime Pro, and for the same stand-alone price that Apple used to charge back in the day. Oliver endorsed it!

Best,
Andy


Return to posts index

Michael Phillips
Re: The death of QuickTime as we know it
on Nov 17, 2013 at 2:47:48 pm

I do like Pro Player a lot, but there is something to be said in workflow with the Quicklook feature. I was also on another thread where the customer did not want to install anything other than their beloved OSX player because it's what they had. Stupid I know, but causes issues all the same. Both QuickTime and ProRes codec are not open formats. That is why DNxHD (DPX, etc.) was ratified by SMPTE as VC3 ensuring archives of material could still be decoded by anyone using the specification. One could say the same for R3D which is only available through the company or by licensing. I think Cineform was going through some SMPTE ratification before being acquired by GoPro but I need to check into that again.

Bringing the "goodness and ease"of iOS7 to OS X is a consumer play, not necessarily a good one for the content creators themselves. On one hand, I'm all for getting out of QuickTime's quirky gamma of the day issues regardless of codec, and hope that "quickly" over time, that the new AV Foundation allows for other codecs to be accessed. And if they want to play really nicely with broadcasters and studio archives, publish AV Foundation as an open format.


Michael


Return to posts index

Andrew Richards
Re: The death of QuickTime as we know it
on Nov 17, 2013 at 2:56:21 pm

[Michael Phillips] "I do like Pro Player a lot, but there is something to be said in workflow with the Quicklook feature."

Good point.

[Michael Phillips] "And if they want to play really nicely with broadcasters and studio archives, publish AV Foundation as an open format."

AVFoundation is a framework within OS X that developers can use to handle media in their apps. It isn't a format or a container. What Apple needs to open up and publish is ProRes. They are unlikely to do so, but they still should.

Best,
Andy


Return to posts index

Michael Phillips
Re: The death of QuickTime as we know it
on Nov 17, 2013 at 3:11:35 pm

I agree that BOTH the wrapper and the codec need to be ratified as open standards. Much like MXF and DNxHD, DPX, etc.

Michael


Return to posts index

John Davidson
Re: The death of QuickTime as we know it
on Nov 17, 2013 at 6:47:03 pm

[Andrew Richards] "What Apple needs to open up and publish is ProRes. They are unlikely to do so, but they still should."

I've been thinking about this a lot because we still get lots of random codecs. If you work in FCPX and are 100% committed to the platform, you're already working natively in ProRes because you're most likely optimizing your media upon import. In a way, Apple has just taken that FCPX love of ProRes and applied it to the whole dang OS. As frustrating as it is to have to batch convert everything under the sun (especially for graphic elements because as I've mentioned in our AE thread, something is going on with non-ProRes codecs in Mavericks that affects After Effects renders), I don't consider it to be the end of the world because I want that ProRes only future.

Animation is my Grandpa's codec - I feel like we've been using it since the 90's. If clients delivered everything in ProRes that would be fantastic. Until then, we'll just convert as needed to the most appropriate flavor of ProRes.

In terms of Apple handing out the codec, I immediately thought that they should do that because it will not become an industry standard until PC users can render to ProRes. If everyone can render to ProRes, there's no debate on whether ProRes can become the default codec. But then....what if your goal is to sell Macs too? Giving the codec away makes your Mac Pros less special, because why buy a mac if your $300 pc can render to ProRes when you need to deliver to a client like abc, who requires ProResHQ for all final series deliveries?

And that, I think, is the point. You sell more macs when they're the only ones that can perform certain tasks required to complete a project. Apple isn't trying to change the industry standard for codecs as much as they're trying to change the entire industry to mac only. Personally, I like this because I am not a fan of PC's, however this might be terrifying to some people.


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: The death of QuickTime as we know it
on Nov 17, 2013 at 7:14:48 pm

[John Davidson] "because I want that ProRes only future."

That's how it appears now. Wait another 10 years when Apple decides ProRes is "Grandpa's codec".

[John Davidson] "because it will not become an industry standard until PC users can render to ProRes"

You pretty much answered that, of course. Apple does not care about that. By keeping it Mac-only, it drives Mac sales. If they allowed PC-based ProRes encoding, then it's one less incentive to by Mac hardware.

- Oliver

Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com


Return to posts index

Craig Seeman
Re: The death of QuickTime as we know it
on Nov 17, 2013 at 7:56:29 pm

It doesn't seem all that expensive to encode to ProRes on Windows.
99 € to start.
http://www.cinemartin.com/cinec/



Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: The death of QuickTime as we know it
on Nov 17, 2013 at 8:06:21 pm

[Craig Seeman] "It doesn't seem all that expensive to encode to ProRes on Windows."

But is it legal and will it be broken as a result by something Apple does later? Plus do levels and gamma match?

- Oliver

Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com


Return to posts index

Craig Seeman
Re: The death of QuickTime as we know it
on Nov 17, 2013 at 8:30:42 pm

They've been at it for a while and their product line has grown considerably since it was simply a public beta and litigious Apple has made no move. They may well have paid the licensing fee but one might assume a much higher price if that were the case. I doubt that Apple is unaware of them.



Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: The death of QuickTime as we know it
on Nov 17, 2013 at 8:46:48 pm

[Oliver Peters] "That's how it appears now. Wait another 10 years when Apple decides ProRes is "Grandpa's codec"."

In that case, what's Panasonic going to do? Sony? Arri? Intel?

Really, all of this is flashpan technology as we are the midst of so much fundamental development change.

It won't bother many people that Sorenson 3, cinepak, and 1bit Indexed Color RGB has been phased out.


Return to posts index

Michael Phillips
Re: The death of QuickTime as we know it
on Nov 17, 2013 at 9:01:34 pm

That's why the need for the codecs and wrappers to be a published standard so that camera originals from an archive don't become a useless waste of disk space and doesn't require constant conversion and maintenance. But consumers and professionals have different needs, and clearly this is more of a consumer play for Apple than a professional one. Apple will leave pro solutions to third parties which is fine if the hooks in the operating system remain in place while being enhanced over time with new methods.


Michael


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: The death of QuickTime as we know it
on Nov 17, 2013 at 10:22:17 pm

[Michael Phillips] "That's why the need for the codecs and wrappers to be a published standard so that camera originals from an archive don't become a useless waste of disk space and doesn't require constant conversion and maintenance. "

I wish.

But codecs differentiate and allow competition, same with tape. Codec developing companies hold on to them as a form of intellectual property.

Apple, typically, hasn't cared about any of it. You need to flip everything to .mov, and now that might mean flipping to ProRes or h264.

But, these newer players give macs more capability for pros as you don't even need a component to play certain wrappers back. In some cases you don't even need a codec.

I'm sure we will be fine. Overall it will help performance.

It could be much worse. At least the OS tries to convert to a high quality codec if things aren't working out in legacy codec land. Obviously, there'll be some growing pains.

Animation + Alpha should turn into ProRes 4x4. Duh, Apple. :)

Jeremy


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: The death of QuickTime as we know it
on Nov 17, 2013 at 9:59:05 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "In that case, what's Panasonic going to do? Sony? Arri? Intel?"

I don't understand the question. Each of these companies have other options that are not dependent on ProRes, QuickTime or Apple. What's your point?

- Oliver

Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: The death of QuickTime as we know it
on Nov 17, 2013 at 10:35:12 pm

[Oliver Peters] "What's your point?"

That time and technology marches forth. Are we really mad that the "Cloud generator" has been deprecated?

Arri is very dependent on Apple, not solely, but the dependence is there, and the success of the Alexa was in no small part due to ProRes.

DVCPro HD and then P2 wouldn't have gained as wide of support without Apple.

The same is happening with the Sony F55.

10 years from now if Apple declares ProRes grandpas codec, I'm sure we will be OK. That's all.


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: The death of QuickTime as we know it
on Nov 17, 2013 at 10:46:29 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "Arri is very dependent on Apple, not solely, but the dependence is there, and the success of the Alexa was in no small part due to ProRes.
DVCPro HD and then P2 wouldn't have gained as wide of support without Apple.
The same is happening with the Sony F55. "


While that may have been true then, it isn't necessarily true now. Of course, most high-end DPs never selected Alexa for ProRes, nor an F55 or F65 because of some tie-in with Apple. You are talking about mass marketing, nothing else. I'm talking about technology and each of these companies had, has and will have other media format options that are completely independent of Apple. Remember that each of these companies has or is developing native hooks with all of the leading NLEs manufacturers, so ProRes might not even be much of a factor in the future at the higher end.

- Oliver

Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com


Return to posts index

Michael Phillips
Re: The death of QuickTime as we know it
on Nov 17, 2013 at 10:53:38 pm

And I am referring to the availability of the archive that is dependent on ProRes as a camera original. I expect codecs to continue changing as we go, but archives are a different matter.

Michael


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: The death of QuickTime as we know it
on Nov 17, 2013 at 11:01:05 pm

Ironically, Canon is using Grandpa's M-JPEG codec in MOV wrappers to record 4K video in the 1DC. I guess Apple didn't give them the memo ;-)

- Oliver

Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com


Return to posts index

John Davidson
Re: The death of QuickTime as we know it
on Nov 17, 2013 at 11:49:08 pm

[Oliver Peters] "Ironically, Canon is using Grandpa's M-JPEG codec in MOV wrappers to record 4K video in the 1DC. I guess Apple didn't give them the memo ;-) "

Have you checked to see if those QT's work in Mavs? So far photo jpeg codec QT's work and preview fine in all our Maverick systems. No conversion needed.

Oh. Canon's CEO is 78 years old. He must be somebody's grandpa!

John Davidson | President / Creative Director | Magic Feather Inc.


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: The death of QuickTime as we know it
on Nov 18, 2013 at 12:52:59 am

[John Davidson] "Have you checked to see if those QT's work in Mavs? So far photo jpeg codec QT's work and preview fine in all our Maverick systems. No conversion needed."

I haven't tested this. When you checked, was this on a machine that DID NOT have QT7 or any version of FCP installed?

- Oliver

Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com


Return to posts index

John Davidson
Re: The death of QuickTime as we know it
on Nov 18, 2013 at 1:57:31 am

[Oliver Peters] "When you checked, was this on a machine that DID NOT have QT7 or any version of FCP installed?"

We haven't installed FCP7 or QT7 on anything in a long long time. I feel like it's been at least two years since we even thought about QT7.

This was a recently clean-installed macbook pro with Mavericks. It does have FCPX installed, but I would guess that if anyone has a photo-jpeg QT to playback, they probably have QT7, FCPX, or even FCP7 installed already.

John Davidson | President / Creative Director | Magic Feather Inc.


Return to posts index

Dave Gage
Re: The death of QuickTime as we know it
on Nov 18, 2013 at 2:54:32 am

[Oliver Peters] "Canon is using Grandpa's M-JPEG codec in MOV wrappers to record 4K video in the 1DC."

I apologize if this is a naive question, but I've been using ClipWrap from day one with AVCHD Canon files. Would it possible to put virtually any file format in a .mov wrapper?

Not positive, but I believe the underlying .mts Canon files are actually a form of H.264. Does the wrapping work because the H.264 is a kind of .mov file or would a .mov wrapper work on a "non-native" Apple format like .avi or .wmv file (or something more complex) without the need to transcode?

Thanks,
Dave


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: The death of QuickTime as we know it
on Nov 18, 2013 at 12:58:32 pm

Yes, you can wrap nearly anything in an MOV wrapper, just like an AVI or MXF wrapper. The codec component must also be installed in order to encode or play that file. These are two independent items. So when Avid creates ProRes files, they are wrapped as MXF.

Oliver

Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com


Return to posts index

Dave Gage
Re: The death of QuickTime as we know it
on Nov 18, 2013 at 6:53:57 pm

[Oliver Peters] "The codec component must also be installed in order to encode or play that file."

Makes sense. I don't leave it on all the time any more because of conflicts, but I still use Perian from time to time, mostly so I can play/convert .flv and .avi files which come from an older Canon camera that my family still uses. Although Perian is EOL'd, would we need a future Perian-type AVF component to allow backwards compatibility with older file types (assuming some company bothers to make it)?

Thanks,
Dave


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: The death of QuickTime as we know it
on Nov 17, 2013 at 11:12:23 pm

Archive is a different matter. It is also a moving target.

ProRes is here to stay, at least for now. So for now, we have to use it until something else comes along.


Return to posts index

Michael Phillips
Re: The death of QuickTime as we know it
on Nov 17, 2013 at 11:25:50 pm

How you archive is a moving target - but one less worry is not having your camera originals tied up in a proprietary format that may or may not exist in a decade's time. If it were an openly documented wrapper and codec, one can always get those images back. That's the whole point of SMPTE despite the time it takes to make anything a standard.

Michael


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: The death of QuickTime as we know it
on Nov 17, 2013 at 11:31:14 pm

MXF by it's very nature, is open source.

But companies can do what they'd like with it and add proprietary components.

I hear you. I'd love to be able to know what will happen in the next 30 years.

But if the last 30 is any prediction, then there's no way to tell.

The fragmentation will continue.


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: The death of QuickTime as we know it
on Nov 18, 2013 at 1:04:34 am

I'm going to go even farther to annoy the group of which I am a firm member.

For 30 years people have been shooting stuff. And my bet is that about 1/10th of 1 percent of all the stuff shot has maintained any actual value a year past it's creation.

The problem was that for so many years, it was so costly and took so much energy to CREATE video - that the standard was that you HAD to archive it. It had the perception of value.

Now I'm wondering if most video footage has much value past the type found in an aluminum can.

I'm not happy about this - but I think it's increasingly true. I'm packing up for disposition my 300 DVCAM field tapes that have been sitting in my cabinet for more than a decade. And honestly, who cares what's on them? It's a sorta historical record of the companies that I've shot for - but so what? What are pictures of employees in old uniforms actually worth to the on-going enterprise today?

Squat. Pretty much.

We work our asses off to make good footage - but nobody really cares about it much but us.

Which is the real issue here.

Created today - consumed tomorrow - largely worthless next year (if not next month!)

Welcome to the digital era.

Know someone who teaches video editing in elementary school, high school or college? Tell them to check out http://www.StartEditingNow.com - video editing curriculum complete with licensed practice content.


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: The death of QuickTime as we know it
on Nov 18, 2013 at 1:37:32 am

[Bill Davis] "Created today - consumed tomorrow - largely worthless next year (if not next month!)"

Do you feel the same about archiving your own family history?

- Oliver

Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com


Return to posts index

Bill Davis
Re: The death of QuickTime as we know it
on Nov 18, 2013 at 4:35:47 pm

Absolutely.

As the youngest of three siblings myself, I lived through the standard arc. First born: obsessive pictorial documentation. Second: less. Third: Christmas morning and birthday only.

It's pleasant to see my sons Disneyland visit when he was 5, and as a pro, I made a darn watchable "labor of love" video of it. But nobody's watched it in 10 years. And there are exactly two people on the planet (my wife and I) who have any desire to watch it.

I mean, Oliver, do you want to take 8 minutes of your life to watch my son enjoy Disneyland?

I suspect not.

It's the same for most business video, I increasingly suspect.

Know someone who teaches video editing in elementary school, high school or college? Tell them to check out http://www.StartEditingNow.com - video editing curriculum complete with licensed practice content.


Return to posts index

Shawn Miller
Re: The death of QuickTime as we know it
on Nov 17, 2013 at 11:24:32 pm

[John Davidson] "Apple isn't trying to change the industry standard for codecs as much as they're trying to change the entire industry to mac only. Personally, I like this because I am not a fan of PC's, however this might be terrifying to some people."

If you really like Apple and it's products, the last thing you should want is an industry dominated by Apple. Unless you honestly believe that competition doesn't make for better and more innovative products...

You may not like PCs, but you should at least be mindful of the fact that some very good software exists on the Mac solely because it was successful on other platforms first... see Cinema 4D, 3D Studio Max and Smoke for Mac as examples.

Shawn



Return to posts index

John Davidson
Re: The death of QuickTime as we know it
on Nov 17, 2013 at 11:30:49 pm

Oh gosh, I'm not saying PC's aren't useful by any means. I keep my old Toshiba laptop around for when we need to shoot pickup shots where a computer gets coffee spilled on it, dropped, or just generally damaged in some way. I find them very useful for that purpose.

John Davidson | President / Creative Director | Magic Feather Inc.


Return to posts index

Shawn Miller
Re: The death of QuickTime as we know it
on Nov 18, 2013 at 12:02:06 am

[John Davidson] "Oh gosh, I'm not saying PC's aren't useful by any means. I keep my old Toshiba laptop around for when we need to shoot pickup shots where a computer gets coffee spilled on it, dropped, or just generally damaged in some way. I find them very useful for that purpose."

<!--recognizing true genius-->

Well done John, well done.


Shawn



Return to posts index

Walter Soyka
Re: The death of QuickTime as we know it
on Nov 18, 2013 at 4:26:24 pm

[John Davidson] "Animation is my Grandpa's codec - I feel like we've been using it since the 90's."

We have been using it since the 90s. It's old, but that doesn't make it bad.

The only real problem with QuickTime/Animation in 2013 is that it's limited to 8-bit. Otherwise, it's a super-simple, cross-application, cross-platform, lossless RGBA mezzanine codec.

QuickTime/PNG (another boring, reliable, 8-bit RGBA losslessly-compressed format) is also on the hit list. Does that mean that ProRes 4444 is the only native option for video with transparency?

I understand that AV Kit is an important step forward for a number of reasons (more developer-friendly, better multithreading, 64-bit), but the limited choice of format options seem like a big step backwards, and pushing ProRes this way looks like 1990s Microsoft behavior.


[John Davidson] "I want that ProRes only future."

I find that idea terrifying. No one developer should have that degree of control over the industry.

ProRes is a great codec from a technical perspective, but the fact that it's a closed, proprietary format should give anyone standardizing on it pause.

Thank goodness some open source developers have reverse-engineered it -- now we can all be confident we'll at least be able to read our ProRes archives in a decade whether Apple continues to support it or not.

Walter Soyka
Principal & Designer at Keen Live
Motion Graphics, Widescreen Events, Presentation Design, and Consulting
RenderBreak Blog - What I'm thinking when my workstation's thinking
Creative Cow Forum Host: Live & Stage Events


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: The death of QuickTime as we know it
on Nov 18, 2013 at 5:19:41 pm

[Walter Soyka] "The only real problem with QuickTime/Animation in 2013 is that it's limited to 8-bit. Otherwise, it's a super-simple, cross-application, cross-platform, lossless RGBA mezzanine codec. "

Actually, animation can do 16bit if the program can handle it. After Effects is the prime example of this.

The other problem with Animation is that it's huge, a la uncompressed. Fine for internal work, terrible for sharing work.

[Walter Soyka] "I find that idea terrifying. No one developer should have that degree of control over the industry. "

If it isn't Apple, then it would be someone else. As a matter of fact, I'd rather have it be a funded source than some open source apple bob.

There was that third party Sheervideo bitjazz codec. It was very promising but it never went anywhere. It was not open source, but for pay.

http://www.bitjazz.com/en/products/sheervideo/

Cineform looked like it might be contender, then someone bought it outright.

I just don't see the codec world becoming open source, as idyllic as that would be. No entity wants to shoulder the burden of creating a codec that will be around for the next 100 years. Who has the time, money, and effort? Who is going to answer the support calls when it doesn't work?

Camera codecs are great for acquisition and transmission, but not so great for multigenerational renders, so we can rule those out.

I think digital media has the fallacy of being "permanent". It is not. As companies shed older technology more quickly to keep pace the rapid development, digital media becomes much more temporary.


Return to posts index

Michael Phillips
Re: The death of QuickTime as we know it
on Nov 18, 2013 at 5:33:12 pm

There's a difference between open source and documentation of a codec available to all. I am fine with a manufacturer making codecs for whatever benefits it can provide as well as keep up with changes in new cameras and deliverables. For example, DNxHD is an Avid developed codec, but the code can be downloaded, or available as VC-3 from SMPTE. The optimized (speed) and name "DNxHD" is what is licensed. But speed aside, assets stored in DNxHD can always be decoded by someone, somewhere per the defined spec. That gives broadcasters and such a little more relief as to accessing their content whether Avid is around or not.

As far as what archives have value or not. That is the $64K question. You never know when it might have value. The classic example is Monica Lewinski wearing the blue dress. trust me, all those broadcasters were going through their archives for that one.


Michael


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: The death of QuickTime as we know it
on Nov 18, 2013 at 5:45:43 pm

[Michael Phillips] "There's a difference between open source and documentation of a codec available to all. I am fine with a manufacturer making codecs for whatever benefits it can provide as well as keep up with changes in new cameras and deliverables. For example, DNxHD is an Avid developed codec, but the code can be downloaded, or available as VC-3 from SMPTE."

Correct. And Avid wanted this certification/ratification. What other company is going to go through, what I am sure, is a long testing process? Apple?

Will VC-3 be relevant in 10 years? 30 years? 50?

[Michael Phillips] "As far as what archives have value or not. That is the $64K question. You never know when it might have value. The classic example is Monica Lewinski wearing the blue dress. trust me, all those broadcasters were going through their archives for that one. "

I agree. I archive everything as I can't afford not to.


Return to posts index

Michael Phillips
Re: The death of QuickTime as we know it
on Nov 18, 2013 at 5:56:12 pm

[[[Jermey Garchow
Correct. And Avid wanted this certification/ratification. What other company is going to go through, what I am sure, is a long testing process? Apple?

Will VC-3 be relevant in 10 years? 30 years? 50?]]]

It does not matter whether the codec is currently relevant 20-50 years down the road. What is relevant is whether the content owner can go back to the orignal sources if and when needed. Ratification is a lengthy process, but that what companies who serve the industry are requested to do by their customers in those markets.


Michael


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: The death of QuickTime as we know it
on Nov 18, 2013 at 6:16:16 pm

[Michael Phillips] "It does not matter whether the codec is currently relevant 20-50 years down the road. What is relevant is whether the content owner can go back to the orignal sources if and when needed."

I think this is the point I have been trying to make all along. If the tools aren't around to access that material, then why worry about the codec we use today.


Return to posts index

John Davidson
Re: The death of QuickTime as we know it
on Nov 18, 2013 at 6:50:47 pm

Apparently H265 is 99% the quality of ProRes with 1% the file size. Perhaps that will be the codec of choice in a few years.

John Davidson | President / Creative Director | Magic Feather Inc.


Return to posts index

Dave Gage
Re: The death of QuickTime as we know it
on Nov 18, 2013 at 7:50:16 pm

[John Davidson] "
Apparently H265 is 99% the quality of ProRes with 1% the file size."


John,

Do you or anyone else know how close we are to actually using H.265? Isn't it still in testing/rollout stage or are there any apps using it now?

At least for me, this seems like the ideal format to go back and archive all my old lower quality files in (.dv, .avi, .flv, etc.).

Thanks,
Dave


Return to posts index

Dave Gage
Re: The death of QuickTime as we know it
on Nov 18, 2013 at 8:02:49 pm

[Dave Gage] "Do you or anyone else know how close we are to actually using H.265? Isn't it still in testing/rollout stage or are there any apps using it now?"

I just answered a portion of my questions via Wikipedia. Evidently, H.265 is available in:
FFmpeg- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FFmpeg

...and I just read that although x264 is on it's way out, x265 is on it's way in-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X265


Return to posts index

Pat Horridge
Re: The death of QuickTime as we know it
on Nov 18, 2013 at 8:05:39 pm

Last I heard H265 was expevted 2014.
The same quality as H264 but half tge fike size.
But 3 times tge encoding/ decoding effort.
Si that 2 hour H264 encide will now take 6 hours!
And its in an aging QT wrapper.

Pat Horridge
Technical Director, Trainer, Avid Certified Instructor
VET
Production Editing Digital Media Design DVD
T +44 (0)20 7505 4701 | F +44 (0)20 7505 4800 | E pat@vet.co.uk |
http://www.vet.co.uk | Lux Building 2-4 Hoxton Square London N1 6US


Return to posts index

Walter Soyka
Re: The death of QuickTime as we know it
on Nov 18, 2013 at 5:42:56 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "Actually, animation can do 16bit if the program can handle it. After Effects is the prime example of this."

Ae cannot output 16b Animation. Only a handful of QuickTime formats allow >8b output (ProRes being one of them):

[image]


[Jeremy Garchow] "The other problem with Animation is that it's huge, a la uncompressed. Fine for internal work, terrible for sharing work."

Depends on the source material. Animation's RLE compression is more efficient than ProRes 4444 for areas of large, flat color.

But yes, any mathematically lossless compression should be generally less efficient than lossy compression. It's one of the trade-offs.


[Jeremy Garchow] "If it isn't Apple, then it would be someone else. As a matter of fact, I'd rather have it be a funded source than some open source apple bob."

I rely on all kinds of closed tools for my work. I have no problem with proprietary tools. I don't need open source, but I do like open standards.


[Jeremy Garchow] "I just don't see the codec world becoming open source, as idyllic as that would be. No entity wants to shoulder the burden of creating a codec that will be around for the next 100 years. Who has the time, money, and effort? Who is going to answer the support calls when it doesn't work?"

Companies will develop codecs because their other products need them, but it doesn't mean that they have to keep these codecs totally closed. Microsoft's Windows Media 9 and Avid's DNxHD are SMPTE standards (VC-1 and VC-3, respectively). Apple has history here; they submitted QuickTime as the container format for MPEG-4 and won. Apple could submit ProRes to SMPTE for standardization, or they could submit it to a pool like the Moving Pictures Experts Group.

The industry has rallied around open acquisition formats like MPEG4/H.264 (in various profiles), and we're maybe seeing the beginning of CinemaDNG.

If we as an industry can do this for acquisition, why not for post?


[Jeremy Garchow] "I think digital media has the fallacy of being "permanent". It is not. As companies shed older technology more quickly to keep pace the rapid development, digital media becomes much more temporary."

And this is a huge problem that real standards can help to alleviate.

Walter Soyka
Principal & Designer at Keen Live
Motion Graphics, Widescreen Events, Presentation Design, and Consulting
RenderBreak Blog - What I'm thinking when my workstation's thinking
Creative Cow Forum Host: Live & Stage Events


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: The death of QuickTime as we know it
on Nov 18, 2013 at 6:15:23 pm

[Walter Soyka] "Ae cannot output 16b Animation. Only a handful of QuickTime formats allow >8b output (ProRes being one of them):"

I would encourage you to render out an 8b gradient and then a 16b gradient out of Ae in the Animation codec.

[Walter Soyka] "I rely on all kinds of closed tools for my work. I have no problem with proprietary tools. I don't need open source, but I do like open standards."

But if you need proprietary tools to access open standards, isn't it really six of one, and half dozen of the other?

[Walter Soyka] "If we as an industry can do this for acquisition, why not for post?"

I don't know. I just don't see Apple doing it as they don't have to. If they had to, they would.

[Walter Soyka] "And this is a huge problem that real standards can help to alleviate."

I think we can all feel better about it, but I'm not sure how alleviated it will be.

Everything I need to send video to a Beta tape is based on standards, but this doesn't mean I will be able to play that beta tape forever because it was based on open standards.

This is really my only point. At some point, ProRes will be grandpa's codec (probably when I'm a grandpa).


Return to posts index

Walter Soyka
Re: The death of QuickTime as we know it
on Nov 18, 2013 at 7:17:25 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "I would encourage you to render out an 8b gradient and then a 16b gradient out of Ae in the Animation codec."

When rendering a 16bpc project to an 8bpc format, Ae automatically applies dithering -- that's why the 16bpc project's gradient looks better, not because it contains deeper color data.

I would encourage you to carefully evaluate that 16b gradient that you've rendered to 8b animation; you'll see the quanitzation -- that is, there will be no RGB values anywhere that cannot be expressed with only 8 bits of precision. It's visually smoother (due to the dithering), but it's not mathematically 16b.


[Jeremy Garchow] "But if you need proprietary tools to access open standards, isn't it really six of one, and half dozen of the other?"

I don't think so. The data is more important than the tool. Open standards increase choice, because they allow multiple proprietary tools to use the same data.


[Jeremy Garchow] "Everything I need to send video to a Beta tape is based on standards, but this doesn't mean I will be able to play that beta tape forever because it was based on open standards."

This shows a critical difference between hardware and software. There are a lot more people who could write a video decoder in 2013 from the spec and nothing else than could manufacture a new Beta deck.

The existence of open-source projects like ffmpeg/ffmbc and vlc is awesome and means that we don't need to relying on Apple, Microsoft, or Adobe for access to old video.


[Jeremy Garchow] "This is really my only point. At some point, ProRes will be grandpa's codec (probably when I'm a grandpa)."

I think there's a lot more nuance to this than we're discussing here. Animation may be old, but it's lossless; I'd say that means it's significantly more enduring, and thus qualifies less as Grandpa's codec than Cinepak or Sorenson.

I think it'll be like that with ProRes, too. You can get more efficient compression, but there are seriously diminishing returns on quality.

Walter Soyka
Principal & Designer at Keen Live
Motion Graphics, Widescreen Events, Presentation Design, and Consulting
RenderBreak Blog - What I'm thinking when my workstation's thinking
Creative Cow Forum Host: Live & Stage Events


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: The death of QuickTime as we know it
on Nov 18, 2013 at 7:36:19 pm

I hear what you're saying, Walter.

Increasing the chances of being able to read media in the future is a valid point.

At least Apple automatically converts these "dead" codecs to either h264 or ProRes.


Return to posts index

Walter Soyka
Re: The death of QuickTime as we know it
on Nov 18, 2013 at 7:44:30 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "At least Apple automatically converts these "dead" codecs to either h264 or ProRes."

For now -- how long can we expect this to happen? Doesn't this transcode ultimately rely on the old and deprecated QuickTime stuff that is being phased out?

Walter Soyka
Principal & Designer at Keen Live
Motion Graphics, Widescreen Events, Presentation Design, and Consulting
RenderBreak Blog - What I'm thinking when my workstation's thinking
Creative Cow Forum Host: Live & Stage Events


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: The death of QuickTime as we know it
on Nov 17, 2013 at 6:11:29 pm

[Michael Phillips] "I do like Pro Player a lot,"

DH's Pro Player and Assimilate's Scratch Play are both good professional players. The latter will also play MXF media, like from a Canon C300.

[Michael Phillips] "but there is something to be said in workflow with the Quicklook feature"

I've had clients who had no idea how to run media files. Their method, when they got dailies on a thumb drive, was to simply play the file in Quicklook by hitting the space bar. If your dailies are DNxHD36, then you are screwed.

- Oliver

Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com


Return to posts index

David Lawrence
Re: The death of QuickTime as we know it
on Nov 17, 2013 at 5:21:25 pm

[Andrew Richards] "Have you tried Digital Heaven's Pro Player? I haven't, but it claims to pick up the flag for the old QuickTime Pro, and for the same stand-alone price that Apple used to charge back in the day. Oliver endorsed it!"

Thanks for the link. I've also seen it but never tried it. Looks interesting but from the feature list it seems like it's playback only? One of the things I do a lot in QT7 Pro is quick and dirty export/transcoding. I really like Digital Heaven plug-ins -- they're one of the things I miss the most in Premiere Pro.

_______________________
David Lawrence
art~media~design~research
propaganda.com
publicmattersgroup.com
facebook.com/dlawrence
twitter.com/dhl
vimeo.com/dlawrence/albums


Return to posts index

Charlie Austin
Re: The death of QuickTime as we know it
on Nov 17, 2013 at 5:27:31 pm

[David Lawrence] "QT& player is also an essential tool for file conversion since QTX's file export options are severely limited."

QT7 is fairly useless in this regard as well without unlocking the "Pro" features. As to Player X, for better or worse, this is probably by design, as the majority of OS X users don't need these options. I guess Apple figures that if you do, you get Compressor for around what you used to pay for QT Pro. AFIK, AVFoundation will still let Apps play most "modern" Codecs if they are installed. Some are just dead though. This has been posted before, and sorry for the length, but here's the list cribbed from an ADC post I saw somewhere or other:

Oh... first bit is about what's going on with QT Player X...

QTMovieModernizer
•Automatically run by QuickTime Player upon discovery of legacy codecs
•Works with third-party QuickTime codec components
•New API in OS X 10.9 so that you can do the same in your apps
• Produces a new copy in an AV Foundation-supported format


so that's what it's doing every time you see that converting message. And... the (Video/Audio/QT Effects) dead pool:


Not Supported by AV Foundation

Cinepak (“Compact Video”)
Animation (“RLE” )
Video (“Road Pizza”)
Graphics (“SMC”)
Sorenson Video
Sorenson Video 3
Motion JPEG A
Motion JPEG B
H.261
Windows RAW
Microsoft Video 1
Pixlet
MACE 3:1
MACE 6:1
QDesign Audio QDesign Audio 2
1-bit Indexed-Color RGB 2-bit Indexed-Color RGB
4-bit Indexed-Color RGB 8-bit Indexed-Color RGB 16-bit Direct-Color RGB 1-bit Grayscale
2-bit Grayscale 4-bit Grayscale SGI
MacPaint
BMP
FLC FlashPix JPEG 2000 PDF Photo CD PNG
TGA
TIFF
Blit Codec
Curve Rasterizer Quickdraw Codec Blend Effect
Blur Filter
Brightness and Contrast Channel Compositor Chroma Key Effect Cloud Generator
Cross Fade Effect Edge Detection Filter Emboss Filter
Fire Generator
Film Noise Filter Alpha Gain Filter General Convolution Glass Distortion Filter HSL Balance Filter Lens Flare Filter
Gradient Wipe Effect Implode Effect
Push Effect
RGB Balance Filter Ripple Filter Sharpen Filter
Slide Effect
SMPTE Iris Effect
SMTPE Radial Effect SMTPE Matrix Wipe Effect Wipe Effect Color Style Filter ColorSync Filter Travelling Matte Effect Explode Effect Zoom Effect



Also, and sorry if this is kind of a thread hijack, but for any finder folder that contains movies, whatever it's name is, if you change the folder's name to "Movies" you can add a "Codecs" column (right click the column name header. to see which movies use which codecs and need to be converted/updated. Once you've added the new column you can change the folder name back without losing the newly added column.

-------------------------------------------------------------


~"It is a poor craftsman who blames his tools."~
~"The function you just attempted is not yet implemented"~


Return to posts index

David Lawrence
Re: The death of QuickTime as we know it
on Nov 17, 2013 at 5:52:15 pm

[Charlie Austin] "QT7 is fairly useless in this regard as well without unlocking the "Pro." features. "

Yes. Good thing it happens automatically when you serialize Final Cut Pro Studio. ;)

_______________________
David Lawrence
art~media~design~research
propaganda.com
publicmattersgroup.com
facebook.com/dlawrence
twitter.com/dhl
vimeo.com/dlawrence/albums


Return to posts index

kevin louden
Re: The death of QuickTime as we know it
on Nov 17, 2013 at 8:01:29 pm

At Testream we have been dealing with many of these issues ourselves from the software development side and are working on a new macosx multi format media player and inspection tool for professionals called Switch. It combines the functionality of a lot of the tools we all have on our macs today.

You can find out a little more about Switch and sign up to be notified about the beta when it's available here:

http://www.telestream.net/switch

I will be at streaming media west in Huntington Beach this week showing it off if anyone is in the area.



Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: The death of QuickTime as we know it
on Nov 17, 2013 at 8:36:32 pm

See?

There's already others in development.

Thanks, Kevin.


Return to posts index

Charlie Austin
Re: The death of QuickTime as we know it
on Nov 17, 2013 at 9:43:01 pm

[kevin louden] "a new macosx multi format media player and inspection tool for professionals called Switch."

So you're adding video capabilities to the current audio version? (which is great BTW...) That would be nice...

-------------------------------------------------------------


~"It is a poor craftsman who blames his tools."~
~"The function you just attempted is not yet implemented"~


Return to posts index

David Lawrence
Re: The death of QuickTime as we know it
on Nov 17, 2013 at 10:41:37 pm

[kevin louden] "At Testream we have been dealing with many of these issues ourselves from the software development side and are working on a new macosx multi format media player and inspection tool for professionals called Switch. "

Sounds great Kevin. Will it also have the ability to transcode and export like QT7 Player Pro?

_______________________
David Lawrence
art~media~design~research
propaganda.com
publicmattersgroup.com
facebook.com/dlawrence
twitter.com/dhl
vimeo.com/dlawrence/albums


Return to posts index

Rich Rubasch
Re: The death of QuickTime as we know it
on Nov 18, 2013 at 12:18:25 am

MPEG Streamclip have a place in this quandry? Or since it relies on the QT foundation it will become useless....that would be a shame.

Rich Rubasch
Tilt Media Inc.
Video Production, Post, Studio Sound Stage
Founder/President/Editor/Designer/Animator
http://www.tiltmedia.com


Return to posts index

kevin louden
Re: The death of QuickTime as we know it
on Nov 18, 2013 at 1:20:44 am

Yes it will have video and audio correction tools as well as reformat and export functions.



Return to posts index

Pat Horridge
Re: The death of QuickTime as we know it
on Nov 18, 2013 at 11:50:46 am

Been saying for over a year now that the days of Quick Time are numbered. Apple had no interest in moving it to 64bit and it has clearly become Frankenstein's monster over the years.
Apples solution to that has always been to ditch it and move to something new and they now have AV foundation.
The new QTX players are scaled back and I 've expected to see support for QT to diminish as time goes by.
Anyone who built their post model on needing QT (or any Apple proprietary product) was only looking at short term needs.

Pat Horridge
Technical Director, Trainer, Avid Certified Instructor
VET
Production Editing Digital Media Design DVD
T +44 (0)20 7505 4701 | F +44 (0)20 7505 4800 | E pat@vet.co.uk |
http://www.vet.co.uk | Lux Building 2-4 Hoxton Square London N1 6US


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: The death of QuickTime as we know it
on Nov 18, 2013 at 7:55:03 pm

This all brings us to a very interesting (in a bad way) state of affairs on the Mac. You have 4 viable current post container formats. These would be:

1) FCP X's AVF implementation (opaque outside of FCP X)
2) QT MOV - in the process of being deprecated outside of H264 and ProRes codecs
3) Avid's implementation of MXF
3a) Various camera manufacturers' MXF implementations
4) Adobe's internal implementation of I-frame MPEG2 (opaque outside of Premiere Pro)


- Oliver

Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com


Return to posts index

Walter Soyka
Re: The death of QuickTime as we know it
on Nov 18, 2013 at 8:10:30 pm

[Oliver Peters] "This all brings us to a very interesting (in a bad way) state of affairs on the Mac. You have 4 viable current post container formats. These would be ... 4) Adobe's internal implementation of I-frame MPEG2 (opaque outside of Premiere Pro)"

I thought Adobe's I-frame MPEG2 stuff was intended for preview files only. Is anyone really using it in production? Especially now, with Premiere Pro CC's nice MXF/DNxHD support?

I'd love to see MXF/DNxHD do well, since it's all based on open standards, but I think that at least a couple things have to happen:

1) MXF needs to be better accepted on the desktop. I love SCRATCH Player, and I love VLC, but they're not very user-friendly.

2) Avid needs to upgrade DNxHD, post-haste. Resolution independence is necessary today. The world is bigger than 1920x1080.

I don't see Apple doing anything to make this process easier, and that's too bad. I fear Apple doing exactly the opposite: drawing back into their own standards, maybe even taking us back to the bad old days when Macs and PCs didn't play together so nicely.

Putting on my pundit hat, will this Balkanization of video formats could heat up the platform wars again? What will it mean for the Mac platform (or editors who like to work with it) when they can't play nicely with PC or Linux tools and vice versa?

Image sequences forever!

Walter Soyka
Principal & Designer at Keen Live
Motion Graphics, Widescreen Events, Presentation Design, and Consulting
RenderBreak Blog - What I'm thinking when my workstation's thinking
Creative Cow Forum Host: Live & Stage Events


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: The death of QuickTime as we know it
on Nov 18, 2013 at 9:08:02 pm

[Walter Soyka] "I don't see Apple doing anything to make this process easier, and that's too bad. I fear Apple doing exactly the opposite: drawing back into their own standards, maybe even taking us back to the bad old days when Macs and PCs didn't play together so nicely. "

It's always the end of the world around here.


Return to posts index

Walter Soyka
Re: The death of QuickTime as we know it
on Nov 18, 2013 at 9:19:24 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "It's always the end of the world around here."

Pardon my dramatic tones. You're right that it's not the end of the world -- but narrowing support and encouraging a closed, single-vendor, proprietary format at the OS level sure feels like a step backwards.

Having a lingua franca was nice.

Walter Soyka
Principal & Designer at Keen Live
Motion Graphics, Widescreen Events, Presentation Design, and Consulting
RenderBreak Blog - What I'm thinking when my workstation's thinking
Creative Cow Forum Host: Live & Stage Events


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: The death of QuickTime as we know it
on Nov 18, 2013 at 9:55:58 pm

[Walter Soyka] "Pardon my dramatic tones. You're right that it's not the end of the world -- but narrowing support and encouraging a closed, single-vendor, proprietary format at the OS level sure feels like a step backwards."

They also said that FCPX was a step backwards. Despite a few holes, there are also many steps forward and all of this on a brand new foundation.

So far, the entire workflow, is better. At least for me and my needs.

Despite the QT deprecation, MXF readers still seem to work in Mavericks. I can't imagine that this next step will be anymore proprietary than QT was (or is).


Return to posts index

Walter Soyka
Re: The death of QuickTime as we know it
on Nov 19, 2013 at 2:54:21 pm

[Walter Soyka] "I don't see Apple doing anything to make this process easier, and that's too bad. I fear Apple doing exactly the opposite: drawing back into their own standards, maybe even taking us back to the bad old days when Macs and PCs didn't play together so nicely. "

[Jeremy Garchow] " It's always the end of the world around here."

Today's true story: a buddy of mine calls, asking about why Premiere won't read some QuickTime files from his client on his PC. He had been delivered 4.5 hours of footage from iMovie, all Apple Intermediate Codec.

Two possible solutions: do it on a Mac instead, or transcode all that source footage with ffmpeg (AIC or "icod" was reverse-engineered six months ago).

It's 2013, not 1993. This stuff should just work.

Walter Soyka
Principal & Designer at Keen Live
Motion Graphics, Widescreen Events, Presentation Design, and Consulting
RenderBreak Blog - What I'm thinking when my workstation's thinking
Creative Cow Forum Host: Live & Stage Events


Return to posts index

Steve Connor
Re: The death of QuickTime as we know it
on Nov 19, 2013 at 3:42:20 pm

[Walter Soyka] "It's 2013, not 1993. This stuff should just work"

I guarantee you in 3013 this stuff still won't work

Steve Connor

There's nothing we can't argue about on the FCPX COW Forum


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: The death of QuickTime as we know it
on Nov 19, 2013 at 4:06:00 pm

[Steve Connor] "I guarantee you in 3013 this stuff still won't work"

Time to start encoding our digital lives on to cave walls.


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: The death of QuickTime as we know it
on Nov 19, 2013 at 4:09:22 pm

[Walter Soyka] "It's 2013, not 1993. This stuff should just work."

AIC was a horrible codec to begin with.

It worked on some weird version of iMovie and caused problems everywhere else. Fortunately, I never had to deal with HDV.

There's a reason Apple dumped that mess quickly.

They should open it on a Mavericks Mac, and it will convert for them. Problem solved.

:P :)

Jeremy


Return to posts index

Walter Soyka
Re: The death of QuickTime as we know it
on Nov 19, 2013 at 4:39:28 pm

[Jeremy Garchow] "AIC was a horrible codec to begin with. It worked on some weird version of iMovie and caused problems everywhere else. Fortunately, I never had to deal with HDV. There's a reason Apple dumped that mess quickly."

I had to look this up. They didn't dump that mess quickly. AIC wasn't just for some weird version of iMovie. It was apparently for all versions of iMovie from iMovie HD 5 (2005) to iMovie '11. And it's not just HDV -- AVCHD and other H.264 formats are also apparently optimized to AIC with these versions.

AIC was gross because it was 4:2:0, thin-raster, and relatively high data rate, but it was also nice at the time because you could use it for HD on pitifully slow computers.

Presumably the new iMovie 10.0 (released in 2013, somewhat confusingly newer than iMovie '11) now optimizes to ProRes, Mavericks-style.


[Jeremy Garchow] "They should open it on a Mavericks Mac, and it will convert for them. Problem solved. :P :)"

Now why did I think of that? :)

Walter Soyka
Principal & Designer at Keen Live
Motion Graphics, Widescreen Events, Presentation Design, and Consulting
RenderBreak Blog - What I'm thinking when my workstation's thinking
Creative Cow Forum Host: Live & Stage Events


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: The death of QuickTime as we know it
on Nov 20, 2013 at 4:35:16 am

[Walter Soyka] "AIC wasn't just for some weird version of iMovie. It was apparently for all versions of iMovie from iMovie HD 5 (2005) to iMovie '11. And it's not just HDV -- AVCHD and other H.264 formats are also apparently optimized to AIC with these versions."

I guess I haven't been tracking iMovie releases.

Glad to hear the new iMovie Pro is using ProRes which seems to make sense.

Full snark:

Soon, ProRes will be the codec of choice for iOS, once the technology (ARM or whatever chips) are fast enough to handle it. And then, the Internet will deem it 'Semi-ProRes' because the mystique will be tarnished as it will be used to everyone with an iPad Air Mini Pro.

Then Apple will release TrueWorkingProRes with the "Copacabana" OS. It will be 16:16:16:32 and support 28.284901k resolution. Internet faith will be restored.

Meanwhile, everyone and I, will still complain about the loss of Quicktime as we know it, and no one else out there in video land will do anything about it but continue to complain. Except for Adobe. Maybe.

Just kidding. Sorta.

6 years is a short lifespan for a codec. I guess 'quickly' is a relative term.


Return to posts index

Charlie Austin
Re: The death of QuickTime as we know it
on Nov 18, 2013 at 8:13:05 pm

[Oliver Peters] "2) QT MOV - in the process of being deprecated outside of H264 and ProRes codecs"

Actually, this isn't entirely accurate. From the horses mouth:

• AV Foundation and QuickTime Player still use the QuickTime Movie file format
• Apple is deprecating the QuickTime 7 APIs, not the file format

SUPPORTED CODECS
• Delivery codecs
■ H.264, AAC, JPEG
• Mezzanine codecs
■ Apple ProRes, LPCM
• Camera device codecs
■ MPEG-1, MPEG-2, MPEG-4, H.263, DV...

the ellipsis is from the document this came from, so possibly more codecs are supported.

While QT 7 being deprecated is a big deal, I don't think it's the end of the world...

Full Disclosure: Regarding codecs, I really have no idea what I'm talking about, I'm just reading stuff. So maybe it is the end of the world... :-)

-------------------------------------------------------------


~"It is a poor craftsman who blames his tools."~
~"The function you just attempted is not yet implemented"~


Return to posts index

Oliver Peters
Re: The death of QuickTime as we know it
on Nov 18, 2013 at 8:23:15 pm

[Charlie Austin] "• AV Foundation and QuickTime Player still use the QuickTime Movie file format
• Apple is deprecating the QuickTime 7 APIs, not the file format
….
• Mezzanine codecs"


Well, Avid DNxHD is a Mezzanine codec and as yet is not supported directly in AVF, from what I understand. So presumably, Apple has to supply an SDK for AVF and then Avid (or other manufacturers) have to rewrite to work inside the AVF framework. It won't come from Apple directly.

- Oliver

Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com


Return to posts index

Charlie Austin
Re: The death of QuickTime as we know it
on Nov 18, 2013 at 8:36:17 pm

[Oliver Peters] "Well, Avid DNxHD is a Mezzanine codec and as yet is not supported directly in AVF, from what I understand. So presumably, Apple has to supply an SDK for AVF and then Avid (or other manufacturers) have to rewrite to work inside the AVF framework. It won't come from Apple directly.
"


Makes sense... Again, i'm outta my element here. Lemme go see if there's an SDK... :-)

-------------------------------------------------------------


~"It is a poor craftsman who blames his tools."~
~"The function you just attempted is not yet implemented"~


Return to posts index

Jeremy Garchow
Re: The death of QuickTime as we know it
on Nov 18, 2013 at 8:35:14 pm

[Oliver Peters] "This all brings us to a very interesting (in a bad way) state of affairs on the Mac. You have 4 viable current post container formats. These would be:"

The slow death of QT hasn't seemed to change much here. These issues have been going on for quite a long time (the closed AVF issues aside). AVF isn't really a container, tough, it's just a media access platform similar to Adobe's MediaCore, but much more strict.


Return to posts index

John Heagy
Re: The death of QuickTime as we know it
on Nov 18, 2013 at 10:10:51 pm

My top wishes for AVFoundation are reference movie and third party codec support.

I'm more concerned about the end of QT APIs on Windows than OS X.

John


Return to posts index

Walter Soyka
Re: The death of QuickTime as we know it
on Nov 19, 2013 at 2:46:00 pm

[John Heagy] "My top wishes for AVFoundation are reference movie and third party codec support."

I'm not currently optimistic on either one:

http://www.subfurther.com/blog/2013/06/15/av-foundation-and-the-void/

I'd love to be able to change my mind.



[John Heagy] "I'm more concerned about the end of QT APIs on Windows than OS X."

The silver lining is that fewer and fewer developers are relying on QuickTime APIs on Windows -- ProRes decode support being a notable exception.

Walter Soyka
Principal & Designer at Keen Live
Motion Graphics, Widescreen Events, Presentation Design, and Consulting
RenderBreak Blog - What I'm thinking when my workstation's thinking
Creative Cow Forum Host: Live & Stage Events


Return to posts index

Craig Seeman
Re: The death of QuickTime as we know it
on Nov 20, 2013 at 4:27:51 pm

Adding Philip Hodgetts' blog post although much has already been stated here.

http://www.philiphodgetts.com/2013/11/quicktime-is-deprecated-what-does-tha...



Return to posts index

<< PREVIOUS   •   VIEW ALL   •   PRINT   •   NEXT >>
© 2017 CreativeCOW.net All Rights Reserved
[TOP]