Slashdot Mirror
Ask Slashdot: What Quicktime Format for X-Platform?
Harry Zink
asks: "Since there is no Linux solution for playing
Apple's QuickTime 4 movies, I'm trying to offer to some of
my clients (which do movie sites) versions of their
trailers in a QuickTime format that *can* be viewed by
Linux users (and, in fact, it should be listed as 'for
Linux) - key query here being: What is the best QuickTime
format and compressor for that purpose? What viewers exist
on the Linux platform to view QuickTime, and what codecs do
they support?" Let's change "Linux" to "cross-platform",
here. There are several OSes that are also in the same boat
as Linux when it comes to QuickTime support. It's sad
how, up to QT4, QuickTime was known as the cross-platform
multimedia format, but now it's gone the same route
as AVI. Can QT compete? Should Apple rethink it's position
and open up QT4? I certainly would like such a move.
Check out this site for info on a quicktime file
k time.html
3 .html / 10/923758620.html
format reader for linux.
http://www.freeyellow.com/members4/heroine/quic
These pages are also related.
http://www.ggi-project.org/mailinglist/apr99/18
http://ca.us.mirrors.freshmeat.net/news/1999/04
Looks like this still hasn't been resolved...
http://xanim.va.pubnix.com/home.html
---
XAnim 2.80.0 is now ready for consumption. In addition to several new video codecs, the new revision also supports dynamically loadable video decompression libraries. This means you no
longer need to recompile xanim each time a new video codec is released or upgraded. There are currently dll's for: Creative CYUV, Radius Cinepak, Intel Indeo 3.2, Intel Indeo 4.1, Intel Indeo
5.0, CCITT H.261 and CCITT H.263.
There is a new Star Wars trailer that has been recently released and it uses the currently unsupported Sorenson Video codec. I have contacted Sorenson about licensing their codec. They
responded that Apple won't allow them to license it to others. You may want to nicely send a single email message to Sorenson and Apple asking about unix and/or xanim support for the
Sorenson video codec.
For the record, I would gladly add support for Sorenson if allowed to. Same goes for all other currently unsupported video/audio codecs.
Also I'd like to thank all of those who sent me coins from around the world for my collection. I appreciate the time and effort you took to send those. It helps keep me going. Thanks again.
---
Heh, main reason I posted this is that I can't watch some of the movies at: http://members.aol.com/moseisleym/sw-main.html
-- Erich
Slashdot reader since 1997
I know mtv is pretty good, but the demo-ware version only plays 30 seconds or something like that before shutting down the audio (IIRC)
Too bad there are a lot of mpeg files that don't play correctly on xanim..
There are more workstation/desktop installations of Linux than there are server installations (Actually, that may also be true for commercial Unices as well..) Linux has been on the desktop for quite a while -- it's just that there really hasn't been a whole lot of software to run on it..
Percentage-wise, Linux is more common as a server than a desktop (which is apparently the reasoning behind releasing the QT server for Linux instead of a client).
However, I'll also admit that for certain software, it's worth paying. For example, I bought Civilization: Call to Power, and I plan on buying Myth 2. There's nothing wrong with paying for software, but I refuse - refuse - to become tied irrevocably to proprietary software.
That being said, I can't see how Sorenson are making a lot of money off of the hordes of people who aren't buying Quicktime 4 for Windows and MacOS. I know that on 100% of the computers I've ever seen with Quicktime 4 installed, it gives you that annoying, evil little "Please buy me" message.
Also, as someone previously pointed out, Apple is, uh, a lot bigger than Real Networks, and Real manages to get a Linux client for RealPlayer out, including their ever-so-proprietary codecs.
I don't particularly know why Apple and Sorenson can't seem to port their client to Linux, and I don't know why Apple won't let the xvideo guy use even a proprietary codec for us. It's a case of a wannabe monopolist, probably.
Linux can handle these, and QT on Mac/Win as well (QT4 comes with support, QT3 needs an seperate extension)
I was paging through a Publisher's Toolbox catalog that I get in the mail and I happened upon a certain product... Sorenson Video 2: "The QuickTime standard for high-quality video." The encoder is selling for $499. I guess this goes with the theory that instead of selling 100 glasses of $1 lemonade, you sell 1 glass of $100 lemonade.
I suppose they think that if they released the specs to their codec, us evil free software folk would write an encoder and they wouldn't sell anymore $100 lemonade. (and they'd be right)
F0 07 C7 C8
Secondly, while the codec was developed by Sorenson, Apple apparently has an exclusive license, and it is *Apple*, not Sorenson, that is keeping it away from Linux/Unix users (see the xanim page). So, it is *Apple* that is, quite rightly, getting flamed.
--
Umm. all those "free software people" innovate all the time. And even if they didn't, what do you think Microsoft does? They buy, lie, beg, cheat and steal for their software. If you don't believe me, I could give examples (programs with non-innovative names and designs such as Windows, Money, Explorer, etc., etc.) but I'd rather give the positive examples, like C, or X-Windows, or frickin' *disk quotas*... (I don't know who 'invented' that one, but I know that Microsoft still hasn't implemented it, but won't until at least NT 5.0, when they start corrupting many innovative open standards made by those bothersome 'free software people'...)
As for audio and video, there isn't a whole lot of community knowledge about this. Actually, with mp3's, there's getting to be more people programming encoders and decoders for that, which is promising. But there has already been much time and money spent by corporations with deep pockets and many software patents in this field, and that makes things difficult.
So, I agree that there hasn't been a whole lot of free software audio/video innovation, per se, but we already have three major formats, with many versions and codecs, and some of them are open. But please don't say that because of this, free software isn't innovative, because that's simply wrong. It has to reimplement proprietary 'standards', but that should not be confused with always copying other people's implementations. Rather, it is providing open support for someone else's brain-dead protocols and formats, when they didn't have the courtesy to do it themselves. Got that?
pb Reply or e-mail; don't vaguely moderate.
Whatever. Some of us will select commercial software when alternatives aren't available. If QuickTime was actually available for Linux, lots of people would probably be using it. Also, like the previous poster said, how is it that RealNetworks can afford to provide a Linux client (at least at some point), while Apple can only support their platform, and Windows (obviously, since they have to support the most proliferant platform)? Seems pretty cheesy to me.
Sam: "That was needlessly cryptic."
Max: "I'd be peeing my pants if I wore any!"
Hell, they switched CPUs without breaking my software.
Yea, and they left a lot of 68k assembly in MacOS too (for a long time - did they ever finally get all the 68k assembly out of it?). I'm all for backward compatibility, but having to emulate parts of the OS is ridiculous.
Sam: "That was needlessly cryptic."
Max: "I'd be peeing my pants if I wore any!"
That's not mp4, that's MS Audio 4.
Sam: "That was needlessly cryptic."
Max: "I'd be peeing my pants if I wore any!"
The problem is in order for an application to "exist" in the Linux community it has to come at no cost to the end user. Linux users, unlike Windows users, just as well pretend something doesn't exist than pay a fee for it. This is a stark contrast to the Windows community where end user payment is so routine that the existance of those programs is openly acknowledged.
Cinepak is the codec of choice for Linux viewing, followed by JPEG Photo. Cinepak only plays on XAnim with no stereo sound. JPEG Photo plays on XAnim and XMovie with stereo sound but requires twice the bandwidth. Whatever the contract, be sure to use 10fps, normalized sound, and at least 240x180. Always encode audio using IMA4 never ever QDesign.
Where's your argument? All you have is a bit of conjecture ("it wouldn't be so 'open' if it was develope today.") that doesn't hold up. After all, didn't they recently give away the source to Darwin, and (of course) QuickTime Streaming Server?
And as I've said elsewhere, no one put a gun to Sorenson's head and made them sign that contract. They chose to go down that road because they worked out it would maximise their profit - which is any company's prime reason for existence.
Previous Windows versions didn't have all the features of QiuckTime for Mac - hence the "more cross platform."
...and when Apple was losing money hand over fist, you *still* would have wanted QuickTime out of them.
Actually, you *can't* download a player for Linux. You can download a player for one specific kind of Linux - Linux/Intel. I use LinuxPPC, and there's no player for me.
Yes, but the thrust of the comment is wrong. The file "format" is open- the Sorensen codec is what is closed, and that's not Apple's code, it's someone elses. Why not petition Apple for a Linux QT rather than complaining when you only know half the facts?
Originally the NeXT API was supposed to replace MacOS ones. There were two Rhapsody betas released with this goal. This was called the Yellow Box.
When Apple saw that it couldn't convince vendors to port their apps to this, they decided to update the MacOS API, creating Carbon. Nobody is ever going to write software for the NeXT API except for the few software companies that did so before Apple bought NeXT. Witness MacOS X Server - don't see much software written for it, just Unix ports.
In any case, MacOS still doesn't have memory protection, pre-emptive multitasking, or normal virtual memory. Hopefully the current version doesn't run anything in 68k emulation by now.
So instead of hoping Apple will give you the features you need, and paying for upgrades that break your software, just install LinuxPPC.
--
http://www.wholepop.com/
Whole Pop Magazine Online - Pop Culture
http://www.wholepop.com/
Whole Pop Magazine Online - Pop Culture
Of course I have an agenda - MacOS crashed on me one time (well, 200 times) too many.
Sheepshaver will let you run MacOS in a window, like Apple's defunct Blue Box. And when MacOS crashes, as you know it will, you can keep on working.
--
http://www.wholepop.com/
Whole Pop Magazine Online - Pop Culture
http://www.wholepop.com/
Whole Pop Magazine Online - Pop Culture
For the past 6 years, maybe more, Apple has been promising pre-emptive multitasking and protected memory "just two years from now". Hasn't happened yet.
If Apple can actually stick to their current path, they'll be a much better company. But I doubt that'll happen.
--
http://www.wholepop.com/
Whole Pop Magazine Online - Pop Culture
http://www.wholepop.com/
Whole Pop Magazine Online - Pop Culture
Sure, new algorithms require research time, money equipment etc, especially in the audio/video field because you have to figure out how the eye/brain/ear handle signal processing.
It's not too surprising that the OS field is a little slow here. What excuse does MS have? Sorry... They've just released a better MP3.
Deleted
A miocrosoft employee once pointed out that all the free software people ever do is copy existing implementations they never innovate.
Unfortunatly this seems to be right in a good deal of cases. What we really should be trying to do is construct an open video compresion codec that has similar quality to sorenson...as we should to with mp3 and all sorts of other formats.
Free software succeded with bzip2 bringing free and superior conresion to linux surely we have people bright enough to do the same thing with video and audio.
Marriage is the "pseudo-ethics" that cloaks the messy truth of sexuality in the raiment of propriety -- it's "Don't Ask,
I guess this is the point where Microsoft announce benchmarks showing that their player is faster on a quad Xeon system with 4Gb of RAM :-)
fish and pipes
# I met the product manager in charge of all of QuickTime. She believes
# that if you make something for Linux it has to be GPL'ed. I tried to
# explain that it didn't, but she didn't believe me. That is why she won't
# let her people do it
Balderdash. Product managers don't make decisions about what products will be created and for what platforms, especially with something as important as QuickTime. People like Steve Jobs do that.
It plays VCDs almost perfectly fine for me (23 to 24 frames/s with good quality, so it drops one or two frames per second on my P200MMX, seldom noticeable)
And there are Quicktime players, not written by Apple, for Linux. Quicktime is a File format that is quite open. The problem is with the *codecs*...some Apple, some not.
As a Quicktme author, I can quite easily generate QT content that can be view from Linux...I just can use any old codec.
-K
One day, you'll learn to watch what you post...
It's too bad they've (Apple) painted themselves into this position. I only use OS/2 and Linux, so if I can't play the QT content, I simply don't worry about it. A loss for QuickTime. On a side note, Practice Corp's QuickMotion for OS/2 is a great product.
* As is generally the case, my opinions do not reflect those of my employer.
Well, actually for several years Apple has owned cinepack (they bought it in the early 1990s), but it isn't as strictly controlled like Sorsen.
You see, we really don't need the full quicktime program, just a binary codec. We have Xamin which seems to support Cinepack movies to a limited degree of success.
Apple Cinepack is still under a binary license, and I don't see the problem with them licensing them to us.
Actually, they told us they would port the full quicktime to Linux *if* we payed them several thousand dollars. Eventually, if they think they can benfit from Quicktime on Linux x86, they will do it.
I wonder who would be responsible when some big civil rights group decides to sue slashdot for encoraging racists.
--
Is that "net worth" or "market valuation" or "profitability?" There's a big difference.
By the way: a lot of the very clever stuff within Quicktime 4 has lead it to become chosen as the basis for the transport system of MPEG-4.
This is from the Overview of the Mpeg-4 standard document:
6.1.3 MPEG-4 File Format
The MP4 file format is designed to contain the media information of an MPEG-4 presentation in a flexible, extensible format that facilitates interchange, management, editing, and presentation of the media. This presentation may be 'local' to the system containing the presentation, or may be via a network or other stream delivery mechanism (a TransMux). The file format is designed to be independent of any particular TransMux while enabling efficient support for TransMuxes in general. The design is based on the QuickTime® format from Apple Computer Inc.
H.263 will do as well as Sorenson Video; Quicktime
supports it, and the format is open. See UBC's SPMG site.
Also, the problem with Sorenson Video is with
Apple's restrictions. Sorenson would gladly make
a xanim library if Apple would let them.
Some might find this interesting... this was the last is a brief series of communications I had with Apple early this past April regarding them waking up, smelling the coffee, and actively pursuing the proliferation of the full QT playback engine. This was spurred by the Sorenson-only Star Wars trailer that had just been released.
What I gleaned from this is that, with Sorenson, they are essentially trying to out-Microsoft Microsoft. They are a generation behind in realizing that Microsoft itself is doomed at the hands of open formats.
Subject: Re: Open QT Plea
Date: Tue, 6 Apr 1999 11:17:39 -0700
From: Steve Bannerman
To: Practice Corporation
The conclusion we have drawn is that what you really want is for Sorenson to work with other multimedia architectures besides QT. This is a sitcky issue. As you know, we have an exclusive arrangement with Sorenson for QT. This arrangement is based more on Marketing and business issues than it is on technological ones.
I am broaching the subject with executive mgmt, but this is going to require a shift in our corporate philosophy that has significant ramifications in outher areas. We need to fully understand all these issues before we leap into action. In other words, we will not have a resolution to this issue overnight...
steve
Why don't you mention QT 3? You don't need
to use QT 4.
QT 4 is still buggy on Windows.
And what make the QT 4 not playable on Linux
system is due to the Sorenson Video codec.
The codec is not opened.
Well, the codec is quite excellent, so Apple may
think it is useful not to open it.
If you use cinepak codec, you can play QT movies
on Linux machines.
This argument is no different than the ones corporations used to give for Open Source Software. "If it's free/cheap, how can it be any good?" Many, if not most shareware authors are professional programmers. My software site has about a dozen free programs, and half a dozen more as shareware. I have been a professional programmer for several years, and I am employed in that line of work.
I really don't want a 16 year old kid or somebody who has remedial coding skills to be writing closed source software, since we really don't know what or how he makes it work. Finally, much of the shareware software I have seen is quite buggy (such as ircle--it doesn't crash often on a good day).
I can say the same thing for some of the commercial software that I've encountered. Some of the brightest coders you'll find are under 21. These are the Linus Torvalds of the future. Just because there are some crappy VB-based hacks out there doesn't mean that all shareware sucks.
If you are going to showcase your coding skills to the world, it forces you to write good code, since everybody in the world will see it. It also makes you more competive to everybody else--you end up making better code.
The purpose of shareware generally is not to show off one's coding skills, but to make some extra side money. I write programs that are useful to me, and if they turn out to be useful to other people, I consider embellishing them and selling them for $5 to $15 via Kagi. The extra cash is not significant, but it is worth doing considering I have already written the programs anyway.
Paying shareware fees can freaking add up quickly. $10 + $25 + more and more adds up to big bucks, trust me.
Sure it can be, but for your money you'll get a lot more shareware than you will commercial software. You can't really compare shareware to open source. One is a source of income, the other is not. I have a full-time job; I don't write software complicated enough to need much support beyond the documentation, and I don't have any interest doing full-time support anyway.
It's a fact that less then 5% of downloads of shareware actually get payed for. People just run shareware unregistered or crack it (trust me, anybody with two months experience on a computer can crack a registration system on several shareware programs).
And your point is? Is it that shareware is not viable? There are tens of thousands of shareware authors, the very existance of which disproves your point. I personally can attest that it's a worthwhile venture if your software is unique and fills a need. As to piracy, sure, software can be cracked. But who's going to waste time cracking my serial number algorithm on a $5 image converter?
Another example: thanks to the internet, I was rcently able to download the full release of Quake II for the Macintosh. However, it was a good port, so I went to CompUSA and bought a copy. I didn't have to, since I already had downloaded it, but I did it to support the company (LogicWare) for creating a good product on the Mac platform. Other people feel as I do, that you should support a good company that supports your OS of choice (be it Linux, Mac, *BSD, or whatever).
- Vincit qui patitur.
It seems to me the issue here is that developers are willing to do the work implementing the standard, but it can't be done without permission from Sorenson/Apple.
If I understand this correctly, this is worse than even the Microsoft Word format. With Word, it's legal to reverse engineer it and attempt to read it, although it's difficult to underestimate the difficulty of such efforts. The Sorenson/Apple codec is protected by a patent, so we can't legally reverse engineer it.
It sounds to me like the developer of xanim would be happy to put the reverse-engineering effort in if it were legal to do so. Since it isn't, he's reduced to begging for access to the spec.
I certainly wouldn't put down xanim's developers for this.
D
----
With the advent of BSD based MacOS X, I wouldn't be surprised to see QT on other *nix's....
RateVegas.com - Vegas Reviews
Why should Apple be forced to give up the Sorenson codec when it paid for it? Why don't you whine about any of the other formats that QuickTime supports and Apple has no control of? A better course of action would be to develop a good codec and persuade Apple to incorpoarate it into QuickTime so it can be used on the "mainstram" OSes.
Lastly, if I was management at Apple I would not port QuickTime to Linux either. Why? The Linux community always seems to bite the hand that feeds them, esp. from commercial companies and even more so from Apple.
remy
http://www.mklinux.org
Currently, to watch a quicktime animation on Linux, one first has to download the entire file. Then it can be viewed with xanim only if it happens to be compressed with a codec that's available for xanim. And even then, it never looks as smooth as an mtvp's mpg playback -- maybe xanim cuts frames both from mpgs and from quicktime or xanim's supported codecs are showing their age?
I wish companies would start making their codecs more freely available. How would it hurt Sorenson's market share if folk were able to expand, on their own, the number of platforms on which certain quicktime files could be viewed?
Unfortunately, the situation for standard high quality video formats isn't all that great. But MPEG1 may be an OK choice. MPEG2 is more encumbered (but mainly added support for interlacing), and MPEG4 is both a technical mess and very much caught up in patent issues.
So, I'd use MPEG1. MPEG2 may be acceptable given that there are open source players, but it's patent situation is iffy. If I had to choose a proprietary format that's owned by an independent company that doesn't have a hardware or software axe to grind.
But, perhaps, even more importantly: are you sure you even want to put videos on your site?
This guy gets kick out of this. It is his second post. Somewhat funny for the first time ...
Yeah, but there is a lot of stuff available either in QT or AVI.
Where do I start.
RealNetworks on Linux.
Ok.. Real can port their RealPlayer to Linux. Big deal. Real player is ONE application. It is not difficult to port such a small app like RealPlayer to Linux. One person could do it easily.
What is QT?
QuickTime is NOT an application. It is an entire Media Architecture in itself. QT handles Video, Audio, Animations, Text, Panoramas. In version 5 It will include Speech and 3D.
This means that with QT, you can have a Panorama with a television in it with a live moving picture on it. Try doing that with RealPlayer.
Quicktime is also available to ANY application that supports it. For example... you can put a live streaming video inside a WORD document.
With new wired sprites... you can create an entire Application in a QuickTime movie.
Quicktime on Linux.
Apple has already ported QT to BSD for the up-comming MacOS X. So after that is released... you might get a surprise.
Long gone in a year or so? Heh...aren't you the same git who said that a year or so ago? And the year before that, and the year preceding that one...
Apple isn't going anywhere. The fact that all models of Macs are selling like wildfire would seem to indicate this...
Well put.
Matt Slot / Bitwise Operator / Ambrosia Software, Inc.
heh, stop dreaming and start downloading: http://www.mainconcept.de
tcboo
Sure I prefer Linux over almost any other OS, but the fact that they provide quicktime for windows 4.x, means it covers most people on the internet. last time I checked, linux (and all the unix operating systems combined) comprises less than 5% of the desktop operating systems (well actually I havn't checked recently, but I do not recall hearing any significantly different figures in the last 6 months or so). I find the incentive to open up QT4 to a wider audience to be quite pointless in itself (no I do not wish to be flamed.) I do support quicktime for other platforms (besides win32 and MacOS) but I find the argument that it would reach more people quite silly. the issue is that it would need to reach *significantly* more people(if you wanted to rely on the "it will reach more people" argument, they might as well make Micro-bee, Solaris, DOS, and NewtonOS versions (yes this is going a bit far, but it was just for emphasis.)) I think that another argument like "good will" or "investment in the future" should be persued. To be as unoriginal as I can be, I shall declare, as many many others have done before, Linux is not yet ready for everyday use by stupid people. The question that might be worth asking is might not be: will (stupid) people not use quicktime because it isn't available for every operating system under the sun? but rather: will (stupid) people not use OSs other than Win4.x or MacOS7.x+ because it does not have quicktime. which is more likely?
As far as the MP3 format goes, I though people use it because it is the best compression algorithm available for music rather than it is an open technology. I have also been under the impression that the Fraunhofer Institute has not always been as free with the MP3 format as it could be.
Anyway, after that rather long rant, I *do* believe that apple should develop Quicktime for linux, and unix operating systems, I just believe that many of the arguments raised were not based on reality, just ideology. In essence, I believe in your cause, just not your reasons.
3 reasons: ;)
1) very few people have heard of vqf (I, personally, only heard of it about 8 months ago)
2) MP3 has had a huge head-start, and there are many more songs, and many more players for MP3 than for VQF (this is partially because of VQF being closed) also, MP3 doesn't sound that unCD qualityesque.
3)MP3 sounds better than vqf. (similar issue to why apple marketed the ppc750 as the G3 rather than its real name
That said and done, I recently argued with a friend that the reason why MP3 will beat VQF is that MP3 is (relatively) open. I had actually forgotten about VQF at the time that I wrote the previous comment.
The version of Quicktime file format, as used by QT 2.5 and 3.0 ( though I believe 4.0 use the same as the Star Wars trailer showed ), is available at Apple. The link that you want is:
Quicktime API
Under the Data Formats section in the left column there is a link to the documentation. Now whether you need a licence to port is another thing.
Jumpstart the tartan drive.
As stated in another post, the format for QT is available at Apple, so this is not really the problem. The problem as stated in the previous post is the codecs, since THEY are often closed and require a licence. What is need here is an open-source codec, either one that is currently closed or one that is created from scratch. Given the circumstances of reality (Unisys never gave their compression technology to the community, for example), I believe the later would be the approach that would have to be taken.
So anyone volounteering to start such a project?
Jumpstart the tartan drive.
For anyone interested, the various codecs are reviewed at Codec Central.
Jumpstart the tartan drive.
Moderator: Funny? About as funny as having your kid's slaughtered in front of you.
If you want to encode linux compatible mov/qt files... select the Cinepak compressor. Xanim supports it and it provides a good picture quality (better than alternatives at least).
mtor
As for being innovative, I would be careful to distinguish between invention, incremental improvement and radically new. Universities are more likely to focus on the radically new, especially exotic languages which tests out specific ideas that eventually get incorporated into mainstream (orthogonal persistance is one example coming through the current pipeline). Application developers focus on the inventions that make like simpler, creating the killer apps of the day (VisiCalc for spreadsheets), followed by later imitators and refinements. It generally takes something about 10 years in moving major technologies from university to mainstream (assuming that anyone is interested
Considering that most people can't live on air for 10 years, Linux hackers usually end up with (hopefully) decent jobs and play around in their spare time. The amazing factor is that the relatively recent arrival of the web which allows many slices of people's spare time to accumulate into solid products, especially when they have the time luxury to reengineer a clean architecture.
Commercial vendors on the other hand have to keep in mind certain things like pleasing the stock-holders whose gracious generosity has lent them some trifling few billion to accelerate development and hype their products. Time is not a luxury and corporate secrecy (due to requirements for patenting) is an absolute. This leads to a rather closed worldview in which old techniques applied to a different setting is interpreted as "innovation". In my book truely innovative companies are those that have creately completely new sectors of the computer industry (Adobe for desktop publishing, SGI for OpenGL, AutoDesk for CAD) that wouldn't have existed otherwise.
The big problem that the Linux crowd has to address is to separate proprietary from open from expensive. Some code by it's very nature is expensive to develop (safety/fault tolerant stuff because of extensive testing). Other stuff like compilers are needed in the intermediate stages before creating the sale goods to consumers and business. Despite what people think, there is no free beer (unless you're prepared to go out and plant the crops and brew it yourself).
LL
Agreed. One of the reasons that MP3 has gone so far is because it is cross-platform. The same holds true with the realplayer. RealNetworks has gained support because they have a player for linux, mac & windows. If Apple wants to get ahead with quicktime, then they need to be sure that their format runs on any platform. Apple can gain an edge by porting to all platforms possible. Microsoft is going to stay behind because they won't write software for other platforms. This is keyt to gaining industry-wide support. Is having your streaming software run only on one platform better because you push and push your OS on everyone you can? Or is it simply better to support it on multiple platforms because you know that its less likely that you'll have 100% OS market domination?
Yes, but most Linux users don't do a whiff of development. Even so, they feel they should "get involved", so they really have no recourse apart from complaining, loudly, to whomever will listen.
Linux used to be a predominantly development-oriented community, but the numbers of pedagogues have grown so quickly that they've dwarfed the real developmers in terms of numbers.
It's hard to blame them. The Net gives them a voice, Linux gives them a cause, and Microsoft gives them a Skeletor/Darth Vader/Whatever to hate. The rest is just socialization.
MJP
Don't try that "protecting the children" shit you people use to keep the tits and bad words off my TV. --Seanbaby
Speaking of MPEG, does anyone know of any *nix software that can actually *compress* MPEG movies? I'm sure there is some, but it doesn't seem to be quite as publicised as it probably should. I do a lot of POV-ray animations, and find myself compiling GIF animations to view them under Linux, which is just about the silliest animation format ever made. When I do a final render, I have to reboot into MacOS and use a shareware program called Moover to compile the frames into Quicktime. This is quite possibly the most annoying operation ever, and would very much like some software that I could use under Linux that could turn a bunch of frame images into an MPEG movie.
...)
Look on Freshmeat today. Somebody just posted something called "MPEG Tools 1.0" which is a collection of various tools from around the internet for encoding MPEG-1 files (with all the cool stuff like stereo sound,
"Software is like sex- the best is for free"
MPEG4 = QuickTime "based"/standard platform or something, I wouldn't talk if I didn't know anything about the company or QT if I were you ;-/
De lyckliga slavarna är frihetens bittraste fiender, legalisera!!!
I think the Linux users in this discussion are trying to be reasonable. All they are asking for is the Sorensen codec, not Quicktime itself (the API, player, whatever). Please explain to me how Apple profits by not allowing Sorensen to release their codec (in binary format), when 90% of the population already has access to the technology via Windows. Linux users wouldn't even get editing capabilities or any of the other nifty stuff available in the Windows version of QT.
Why is that an unreasonable request?
As some MIT guy pointed out during a slashdot discussion on mp3, it is extremely difficult to design audio / video codecs. While there are many people with the knowledge to design operating systems or compilers, very few people can do the same for codecs. Once a codec is designed, implementing it is easy (e.g. writing an mp3 player). Design includes running large numbers of tests with many persons, because no automated comparison of algorithms can be done. This need for PhD-level people and money for the tests makes it hard for free software to get a foot into the door. Also, the free codec had to become an accepted standard, which is a hard thing of its own.
There are a number of MPEG1 players for Linux, but none for MPEG2 or MPEG4. MPEG2 source is available, though.
However comparing MPEG to AVI or QT is an apples-to-oranges comparison. AVI and QT are fileformats and frameworks, whereas MPEG is a fileformat and a CODEC. AVI and QT can be used with the uncompressed RGB/DIB and YUV CODECs, as well as the public domain H.263 implementations, and any other CODEC you care to implement and register a FOURCC for.
Not all CODECs (such as any of the MPEG versions) are cuitsable for all purposes. Different usages require different quality, bitrate, compress-time and decompress-time characteristics. There's no such thing as a one-size-fits-all CODEC.
Basically none of the modern low-bitrate CODECs are available for Linux for any video format. The only exception that I know of is Telenor's H.263 implementation, which is open-source and which xanim supports for AVI.
w are/
http://www.fou.telenor.no/brukere/DVC/h263_soft
The other option is MPEG1, which is really currently the best choice for multi-platform compressed video.
Compose a brief email. Use proper grammar and correct spelling. Make good arguments. Tell Steve that MP3s are successful; he'll know this. Tell Steve that MP3s are successful because the CODEC is pretty open (despite its growing pains). Tell Steve that the more open the CODECs that QT uses, the greater the likelihood that QT will catch on, and that this means there's no way in hell that Microsoft will be able to "knife the baby" (read Avie Tevanian's MS v DOJ testimony). Tell Steve that open standards work (he probably knows this by now, hopefully). Tell Steve that it wouldn't be too hard for Apple's programmers to do, since Linux and MacOS X are quite a bit alike. And tell Steve that you'd very much like to work with QT media (it's movies, sure, but it's so much more) on your platform. Because Steve knows that he sells hardware to the people that create the media and that the more people who use QT means that more content producers will create QT media and that means Apple sells more fully-loaded workstations.
When you've proofread your email, you can then send it to: leadership@apple.com
You may not believe it, but when a lot of people write to that email address, Apple responds appropriately. Just don't expect Apple to get QT working on Linux before January; I hear they're pretty busy these days...
Jon
First of all I think there is some confusion (at least in my mind) around QuickTime and the .mov file format. Installing QuickTime on a Mac or a pc should allow you to play a whole bunch of file formats (you can find a whole list here).
The QuickTime file format is more like a meta file format that can include a whole bunch of codecs even sprites and filters.
So apple has the choice of opening up the format or the Quicktime "driver" (not sure driver is the right word here) each desision would have diferent implications in the short run.
Opening up the file format would be complicated as it would require all the licenced codecs to be opened up also. Sorenson, Cinepac etc... now these are not owned by Apple.
Now Apple might be able to open up the "driver" This would allow a maximum number of platforms to read their format which would encourage multimedia developers to continue developing on the mac translating into better mac sales. Now I am not even sure Apple can open this part up to the public as it might also contain non Apple code.
So for us user it would make all the sense in the world to open the QT format and "driver" but sadly it might not be in the cards. However this does not prevent Apple from porting Quicktime to Linux and co. They will be forced to do it anyway for MacOS X and the jump from there to BSD and Linux should not be that enourmous. And helping Linux hurts Windows a lot more then it hurts Apple.
How is this funny?
-- Ace
Yet, not an Apple-related thread goes by without Linuxers ranting about the company. First the complaints were about Apple being a closed, proprietary company. Then they released Darwin, and many complained that it was not going far enough. Then they made a usable system out of it, and there were complaints that it's inferior to Linux. They open-sourced the QuickTime Streaming Server, something they could have made money from, and now many are complaining that they don't make a Linux client. It does not seem to matter to anyone that the server has already been ported to Linux (and integrated into Apple's source tree), effectively creating competition that Apple did not need to have. All some people care about is what they don't have.
As someone who follows Apple very closely, I believe that QuickTime is the most important technology the company has. It is vital to the company's continued resurgence that QuickTime do better than RealPlayer and Windows Media Player. The company makes tools for creating content and devices for viewing and interacting with it. Therefore as Linux becomes more viable on the desktop, it is essential that they support it. It does not take an insider connection to infer that they will do so for that reason (although it helps... ;-)).
Before they can do this however, they need to give themselves a head start (they ARE a company, after all). Right now they must give QuickTime for MacOS X 100% parity with the traditional MacOS and Win32 versions. Not to mention any other new features they might be working on...
So just for once, I ask you all to give Apple a chance to prove itself. They are not the evil company you think they are. I won't get into why they were a "closed" company in the first place (has a lot to do with history and the way companies used to be organized), but the fact is that they're trying to be open now. So don't discourage them, ok?
-Rafi Remove the Spanish to email me.
I take exception to the pedagogue label. Users do have valid input. Unless one intends to develop userless systems? Summary: The Net gives voice...yes. (a good thing) FSF gives a cause...and linux is sometimes an appropriate cause...yes. (a good thing) (MS i do hate...i admit it...). With a cause, and a means to express oneself...how is this mere socialization? Are you suggesting the cause is less than worthy? Or that a user is somehow incapable of understanding the cause? No one has any intellegence but developers? (But 3 out of 4 isn't bad. :=)
I would suggest that it is the predominance of linux/appache as a server that fostered the release of the QT server. By enabling servers they allow the broadcasting of their format. Which is then viewable within the predominant desktop enviornment...
How open would you like it? The QT movie format haven't changed for years. It's basically just a header that defines a couple of tracks. Than the defines what format they are in. And tracks in QT is usually some standard like MIDI, MPEG or Sorensen (that's not 'standard' but not QT specific eather). Also the QT fileformat is supposed to be used as bases for MPEG-4. The fileformat is at her e btw.
the same can be said for the MS Media player. It is a wrapper around what ever codecs you have installed (including the mp4 format from MS). It seems that Xanim and others could do the same. Wouldn't need Quicktime or MS mediaplayer.
Speaking of MPEG, does anyone know of any *nix software that can actually *compress* MPEG movies? I'm sure there is some, but it doesn't seem to be quite as publicised as it probably should. I do a lot of POV-ray animations, and find myself compiling GIF animations to view them under Linux, which is just about the silliest animation format ever made. When I do a final render, I have to reboot into MacOS and use a shareware program called Moover to compile the frames into Quicktime. This is quite possibly the most annoying operation ever, and would very much like some software that I could use under Linux that could turn a bunch of frame images into an MPEG movie.
I would love to see QuickTime opened up, much like the QuickTime Streamimg Server. Giving other platforms the capability to watch QuickTime movies compressed with Sorenson and other codecs would be great for Apple. Apple has made QuickTime available to Java (see this), allowing Java developers to access QuickTime, but only under Mac OS and Windows. Those who are interested enough in QuickTime for other platforms can send an email to leadership@apple.com.
>As far as the MP3 format goes, I though people >use it because it is the best compression >algorithm available for music rather than it is >an open
.. why ?
> technology. I have also been under the >impression that the Fraunhofer Institute has not >always been as free with the MP3 format as it >could be.
IMHO mp3 is not the best audio compression, Yamaha's VQF is far better! A 128k VQF is CD quality! And still, mp3 is the winner
Well, I don't really care about watching movies.. I want access to the bitstream so that I can do image processing!
I've yet to find a well-documented video API under linux... makes developing certain (cool ) applications very very difficult! I've just been doing "raw" videos... Not very good for displaying due to I/O restrictions, and not very good for your HD, but gimme something better and I'll use it!
That being said, Sorenson compression seems to be the "cleanest" format out there (counting formats that do any decent compression), and I'm deeply saddened that its "protected" under US patent law.
The author of xanim had something about talking to apple about (not)letting him implement it a while back, but no go... apple won't let go.
I cannot see the advantage of using QuickTime or AVI. MPEG can do both video & audio with high quality, and its source code is widely available.
DON'T use proprietary codecs !
AVI, Quicktime or RealAudio will never be completely open source because they rely on proprietary codecs.
Please use only MP3 and MPEG. Don't support proprietary formats.
Hint.
Quicktime itself uses awful CODECs, providing poor video quality. The newer codecs are commercial and not available without a licensing fee (ie, not developed by apple). Quicktime player itself is god-awful. (QT4's user interface makes me want to kill someone at apple.) Why not distribute something in a more platform-friendly format such as mpeg-2? Quicktime player for mac and windows plays it, media player for windows plays it, and there are a bunch for linux/bsd too.
Linux sucks for most things. Apple knows that and that is why they don't waste their time developing Desktop/multimedia tools for Linux. I don't know anyone that does sale desktop multimedia tools for Linux that supports a huge range of Video formats. I put my Linux servers in a closet away from customers that can see it for fear that the ugliness of it will scare my customers away.
Good ideas about the MPEG movie format. That's most likely what I'll end up using - most compatible.
I'll still end up using Sorenson for the Mac/Win side, simply because the quality and size of a Sorenson QT is simply EXTREMELY nice, and it can be streamed using QTSS - which is another thing we want to do with some QTs.
Agreed on the player's interface (and apparently Apple's new GUI direction - blech!), but disagree on QuickTime being horrible. You are confusing codecs and the QuickTime format. QT is actually VERY flexible, and VERY beautiful to use - I do concur with many that I wish Apple would open it up more (at least to the point of making player APIs available for different platforms).
Thanks for the suggestions.
Harry
> Apple (and thus QT) will be long gone
> in a year or so.
Cute.
You'd figure after repeating themselves erroneously for close to 10 years, these folks would get a clue - instead, they just provide entertainment.
QT was just accepted as part of the MPG4 specs, so I doubt very much it will go away.
Bye.
Harry
Thanks for your suggestions, and I will go with the MPEG1 format for the cross-platform movie.
I will provide Sorenson, for the simple fact that it provides excellent size/performance/quality ratios - besides, I happen to think that QuickTime (and my favorite tool, Media Cleaner Pro) simply kick ass.
That doesn't mean that I want to blindly ignore other formats, and other platforms, as most sites are wont to do - hence why I was thrilled to see this question get posted here, and the enthusiastic responses I have received.
Thanks to everyone.
Harry
Claiming that Apple is flakey is simply not fair. They have met their delivery dates on all Mac OS releases so far, and the systems have been rock solid - the upgrades only adding new features, and better technologies every time - and those work pretty well too.
So, you are correct about the 'old' Apple being terrible, clueless flakes. The 'new' Apple under Jobs is quite a different story. Not everything I agree with (the new Quicktime player GUI - blech - for example), but for the most part they are doing just about everything right (releasing an open, now linux compatible, version of QT Streaming Server (runs beautifully), having stable OS' again, for a pleasant change, developing a solid server OS, and migrating to a UNIX kernel based OS - and, of course, building the best damn computers).
Yes, I like Apple, and I like Macintosh - but I also like Linux, and I happen to think the two can coexist.
Harry
> copy existing implementations
> they never innovate.
ext2fs?
bzip2?
Harry
Thanks, everyone for all your ideas and suggestions - as I said several times, MPEG is probably what I'll end up with, in addition to the QT formats.
I'll head off now to run a compression test to see how small and how good I can get one of our project files.
Thanks again,
Harry
well, you did miss something (in a way) - they do have an alpha version of RP G2 - check the FreshMeat for the right address ... I've downloaded it a few days ago and it's working quite well ...
I think apple should make their quicktime format more open for a larger audience. If they stay such a closed format with proprietary technology, they will get left behind. This seems like the same deal with MP3 technology versus that other format with anti-piracy measures. What format do you think you'll use, the one that gives you a hassle, or the open alternative that anyone can use? If apple doesn't allow other platforms to use their technology, i'm sorry to say that they will be gone from the market.
:)
Oh yeah, and first post?
TwistedGreen
Those interested in playing back MPEG 1 videos with sound on Linux might want to check out: http://www.lokigames.com/opensource/opensource.htm l. Source is available under the LGPL.
Scott Draeker
President
Loki Entertainment Software
Is wine stable enough to run Apples s/w?
:)
You could 'emulate' windows and use it's software to run in X - but I spose that might be dangerous