Apple Releases New QuickTime Player Version

[Filip Norrgard]

<div class='os_post_top_link'><a href='http://www.betanews.com/article/Apple_Releases_New_QuickTime_Player/1114781873' target='_blank'>http://www.betanews.com/article/Apple_Releases_New_QuickTime_Player/1114781873</a><br /><br /></div><i>"As Mac fans worldwide line up to be the first to receive the new release of OS X known as Tiger, Apple hasn't forgotten those not yet ready to don the stripes. The company has made available a release of QuickTime 7 for Panther users, which brings to the table a new video codec, live resizing and surround sound support. Apple's H.264 video compression technology, which plays an integral role in Tiger, is an industry standard MPEG-4 codec that will be supported in HD-DVD and Blu-ray next-generation DVD formats. Whether creating video for mobile devices or high-definition playback, Apple claims its new codec provides "astonishing quality." "</i><br /><br /><img src="http://www.digitalmediathoughts.com/images/quicktimecars.jpg" /><br /><br />With QuickTime 7 now come another number combination to remember along with IEEE 1394 and 802.11 and it is H.264. <a href="http://www.apple.com/quicktime/technologies/h264/">H.264</a> is the new codec that should bring better video compression with "stunning" video quality. Hopefully, the distribution of H.264 will not be hampered by the patent problems surrounding MPEG-2, which didn't prove as popular as was initially hoped.<br /><br />QuickTime 7 is now available on Mac OS X Tiger and for Panther (via download) with a Windows version coming soon.

[RenesisX]

Do you mean the problems surrounding MPEG-4, not MPEG-2? :)

[Jason Dunn]

Someone with a Mac tell me if this is any good.... ;-)

[klinux]

I say we need to start a "Buy a Mac for Jason" fund. Not that he cannot afford one himself or that he has to be converted to a Apple fan per se but just so that can get we can get his Mac-related digital media thoughts quicker! :)

Ok, back to topic. I find H.264 to be very good. Apple's Quicktime website with high definition (720p and 1080p) demo trailers is a top-notch showcase. Without loking it at it critically, I find the contents' visual quality to be equivalent to Windows HDWMV and HD-DivX. Also need a hefty CPU/GPu too. That being said, Apple is definitely behind as Microsoft and DivX both have had HD content for at least a year. Apple still continues to have the backing from Hollywood, however.

Apple's decision to continue to have a free and a Pro version with Pro features like "play full screen" and "save as" shown but disabled is getting heckles from all areas. And if even there's an Apple decision that even the Apple fanboys don't like, you know how much rest of the world will hate it! :)

Also see John Siracusa's comment here: http://arstechnica.com/reviews/os/macosx-10.4.ars/16. The whole article is an excellent read, by the way, much better than 99% of so-called OS reviews that on the web.

[Jason Dunn]

I say we need to start a "Buy a Mac for Jason" fund. Not that he cannot afford one himself or that he has to be converted to a Apple fan per se but just so that can get we can get his Mac-related digital media thoughts quicker! :)

Truth be told, I've been seriously thinking about getting a Mini for a while now, but I wanted to wait for it to come with Tiger and perhaps get updated with fresh hardware. Still thinking about it. ;-)

Also need a hefty CPU/GPu too. That being said, Apple is definitely behind as Microsoft and DivX both have had HD content for at least a year. Apple still continues to have the backing from Hollywood, however.

How "hefty" is hefty? I remember us having some disagreements about HD content on the Mac Mini - is it safe to say that the Mini can't cope with HD?

[klinux]

How "hefty" is hefty? I remember us having some disagreements about HD content on the Mac Mini - is it safe to say that the Mini can't cope with HD?

Actually, on that point (HD on Mac Mini) we very much agreed. In
that thread (http://www.digitalmediathoughts.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=7562&amp;highlight=) I too stated HD on Mini does not make sense.

In any case, system requirement as listed by Apple for Macintosh system is as follows:

For 1280x720 (720p) video at 24-30 frames per second:

* 1.8 GHz PowerMac G5 or faster Macintosh computer
* At least 256 MB of RAM
* 64 MB or greater video card

For 1920x1080 (1080p) video at 24-30 frames per second:

* Dual 2.0 GHz PowerMac G5 or faster Macintosh computer
* At least 512 MB of RAM
* 128 MB or greater video card

This requirement I feel is a very realistic (as oppose to XP on 128MB of RAM).

Rigt now the best value in the Apple inventory is the iMac which can be had for $1300. For that amount one gets a 64bit CPU, fast FSB, gigabit ethernet, 802.11g, BT 2.0, large SATA drive, 512MB RAM and a decent 128 MB RAM video card (in the Mac world). This compares very favorably with Mini which is cheap but lacks all those features or with the PowerMac which cost more but offers less.

[jizmo]

The 720p Fantastic Four trailer completely humiliated my Powerbook G4 :?

/jizmo

[Jason Eaton]

Rigt now the best value in the Apple inventory is the iMac which can be had for $1300.

Agreed. The Apple Mac mini does get kudo points for its size and price but with its current intergrated video card it wouldn't be something you want HD on. My opinion is it is best thought of as an entry vehicle that does the basics well.

The iMac G5 has been a wonderful machine in terms of website design and such and I would recommend it. I don't have any specific feedback on the performance of this Quicktime/Tiger upgrade just yet as I am waiting for the Amp package to come into the University. (Don't know if it is regional or what not but the Amp package is a student/teacher offer that costs 89 bucks but you get what ever OS upgrades happen over three years. Great when Apple was rolling out a new OS about every year... might drop it as the word is they are scaling back roll outs to longer periods.)

[klinux]

Agreed. The Apple Mac mini &lt;snip> with its current intergrated video card wouldn't be something you want HD on.

True, but that is not the whole picture. Even equipped with the fastest video card the Mini would still not be up to handling HD. Reasons: 1) slow 4200rpm HD, 2) narrow bus (167Mhz), and 3) slow CPU (1.42ghz G4).

For what it's worth, my iMac (1.6ghz G5, 1.25 GB RAM, and 64MB video card) can playback 720p QT content satisfactorily but not always at 30fps.

As a comparison, my PC (2.6ghz P4, 1 GB RAM, and 128MB video card) can playback 1080 WMV but also not always at full fps.

[Jason Eaton]

True enough. I just have a thing against that video card. :D