YOU MIND GETTING WITH THE TIMES.

I HOPE he´s 12.

Or god help mankind.

EDIT: Nice video, Jeff - great quality!
*** Edited 5/5/2006 8:16:41 AM UTC by Paradroid[DK]***

cedarpointdude021170 said:
My wallet shows it.

Which, everyone knows, is the true measure of a man. Its definitely not stuff like character, integrity or wisdom.

And yes I was able to download that piece of garbage Apple product within 3 minutes and see the video (ha ha).

Yeah, I don't like QT either, but for the content its the intelligent choice, but you wouldn't understand that, apparently.

*** Edited 5/5/2006 10:24:21 AM UTC by djDaemon***

Has anybody seen Apple's PC growth over the past 3 years? They're doing very well.

If someone starts unzipping their pants and sings "Anything you can do I can do better" then I'm getting the heck out of here and am never coming back.

Forget Skyhawk. Has anyone seen the video for Voyager? THAT is a real rollercoaster. If it isn't in the top 10 or even the top 3 of every rollercoaster fan that has ridden it by the end of this year I will EAT someone's IPOD.

Yeah, Voyage most definitely looks like a must-ride.

I could use some help. When I try to run Quicktime it tells me I have an error. Then I try to re install it and it tells me the hdrcore something something wont let me install it.

If anyone can understand the problem I am trying to convey please and thank you for the help.

Thank you, Jeff, for getting with the times.

QuickTime is vastly superior to Windows Media in a whole bunch of ways, most of which are 'under the hood'. QuickTime is a complete multimedia authoring system (full featured for only $30 if you are a content developer, free if you are not!) whereas WiMP is just a media player. There is a reason that ALL of the professional grade multimedia authoring tools use QuickTime as part of their internal architecture, and in fact it's a major pain to export to WiM from Avid or Final Cut...and you get far inferior results even to Apple's MPEG-4 codec (where better = higher quality AND lower bit rate), let alone to H.264...which although it is a standard, is once again...as MPEG-4 once was...a QuickTime exclusive.

Of course, the most obvious difference between QT and WiMP is that QT is cross-platform. Anything I can do with QT on my Mac will play properly on your Windows box. Anything I can do with QT on my Windows box, I can play on my Mac. And I can do things with QuickTime that Media Player never even considered, such as fully skinned movies with custom controllers, multi-lingual audio and text tracks, and live *bi-directional* interaction with web browsers.

Meanwhile, Microsoft has not updated WiMP for OS-X in more than four years, and it never worked right. Lucky for us Apple people, Telestream brought us a WiM component that allows us to play WiM files in (you guessed it...) QuickTime. But even that still isn't 100% compatible with WiMP for Windows. And WiMP is really nothing more than a media browser and player.

(Oh, Jeff: You might consider also downconverting your video into something that can fit on a 1024x768 monitor... :) Oh, and 24 FPS is for pretentious @$$#*!&$ who can't get over the fact that they are NOT WORKING IN FILM!!!)

--Dave Althoff, Jr.
*** Edited 5/5/2006 1:08:25 PM UTC by RideMan***

Somehow I knew you'd have something to say about this, Dave. ;)

What a sad little man if he defines himself by the money he makes. Been there, done that with six figures, and it didn't make me happy, popular or feel more important. Besides, if you have to back up your "I said so" credibility with your salary (a meaningless metric considering the stupid and overpaid people I've worked with), then you clearly aren't an expert. Dave and I, on the other hand, have worked with video for well over 15 years each.

(edit: Check the new video of Katie Bruno, wired with a mic, on the video page. It's 60 fps. ;)) *** Edited 5/5/2006 1:10:30 PM UTC by Jeff***

Hmmm...I'll check that out. 60 seems like overkill, but I guess if you're not interlacing it's kind of the new standard... :)

The more I work with QuickTime, the more I like it. And Jeff, I know you had a head start on me with QuickTime multimedia authoring...I still remember the first Coaster's Choice award show!

(audio and animation with a synchronized web page. Cool!)

--Dave Althoff, Jr.

Oh yeah, I remember that. That was bad. It was an interesting experiment, but the execution was ugly. :)

Fox and ESPN like 720/60p because the motion really is beautiful. I still need to figure out the gamma issues though between the Mac and Windows QT's.

And I am left out in the cold...not because *I* have anything against QT, but because the people I work with do. And, of course, I have a crap machine at home.

Ah well. I'll just have to ride Skyhawk myself.

It would have been nice to watch the interviews, though.

The iPod sized versions will playback no problem. Give them a shot.

Yeah, the iPod vids are very light - they even play back on my crappy work PC.

Thanks guys!

Okay, question time.

Plus, I'm not going to act like a computer genius, because I'm not. ;)

Anyway, did anyone else have the problem of only being able to open it with Real Player? I have Quicktime, and numerous other video players but can't seem to get video to work. Just audio. How did you get past it if you did? I did try both the Ipod and Quicktime files.

Jeff, I tried the iPod version and only get sound. No video.

Do have the latest version (I believe it is 7) of QT? If not, you need to go download it from apple.

Well, this has sure been an interesting topic. Having been an avid Mac user from the begining I have to say that in the old days, say 5 to 6 years ago, using the Mac platform was not so fun. However, as time has gone by OSX and the Mac have grown to a point where it is not only just as easy to use a Mac but it is also better in a lot of ways. I personally own a professional videography company and could not run my business without my Mac. Like Jeff said, Final Cut Pro (or Studio as it is called today) is the benchmark for the semi-professional/professional video production market. With that, and because Final Cut on Apple is one of the few products which supports native HD format, it only makes sense that the video would be in Quicktime. As for Mac's "sucking", I will have you know that when compared to PC's on many different levels, and again as Jeff stated, the benchmark scores are higher on the Mac than on the PC. With the revolution of the new Intel based Mac's and the ability to run Windows (if you so choose, although I never would have the need) the Mac is not only the most stable and easiest computer out there, it is also the first computer to not attempt to create a monopoly and to do what is best for the consumer. Just so you all know BTW, I was able to load that file all you PC users are concerned about while running two other programs and browsing the net last night on my apple without any lag. I guess the point is two fold - 1) Apple is a good product and it is one that you should research before supporting age old myths which have no relevence today. 2) If you dont like what you see on this site (this is to the guy who created this topic) then go somewhere else before you complain about things, insult the creators of this awsome site, and then smutter out sentence fragements about how you make piles of cash and are better than everyone else here.

That's just my two cents. No hard feelings to anyone.

BPMCH02 said:
...it is also the first computer to not attempt to create a monopoly and to do what is best for the consumer.

That's not really accurate. Just because Apple failed at creating a huge market does not mean they haven't practiced monopolistic practices. I go both ways - I like both platforms, though I stick to PC because it makes more sense given that I am not a video editor and such.

Just so you all know BTW, I was able to load that file all you PC users are concerned about while running two other programs and browsing the net last night on my apple without any lag.

I'm guessing your computer is better than the ones having difficulty (mine, for example is a PIII 966MHz w/1024MB ram and VERY abused and old). There is no correlation between similar hardware performing significantly better because it was assembled by Apple. That's just silly. I mean, I'd bet there are plenty of older Macs out there that also would have problems running HD video.

Apple is a good product and it is one that you should research...

I agree, though your comments are as biased as the biased PC users here.

Just some food for thought.

:) *** Edited 5/5/2006 6:04:01 PM UTC by djDaemon***

I aggree with you that I do lean towards Apple more than others, especially in my comments above. I guess I am just sticking up for the system that I believe in. Also I should mention that I have used both PC and Mac platforms for my main computer for years so I have a good idea surrounding both sides of the arena.
*** Edited 5/5/2006 6:33:52 PM UTC by BPMCH02***

Actually Avid still has far more market share than FCP does, but now that I've switched, I like FCP better. Works really well with the tapeless workflow too.

Linda: Sounds like a video driver problem more than anything else. Just in case, make sure it's QT 7, which is distributed with iTunes.

Real Player is the devil. Too much adware. I didn't think anyone used it anymore.