From: west@ponder.csci.unt.edu (Bruce West)
Subject: Re: Amiga and Quicktime
Organization: University of North Texas, Denton
Date: Thu, 15 Oct 1992 06:17:11 GMT

In article <amuser.719124421@marsh> amuser@cs.curtin.edu.au (Bill Sharp-Smith) writes:
>west@ponder.csci.unt.edu (Bruce West) writes:
>
>>In article <35763@cbmvax.commodore.com> kcd@cbmvax.commodore.com (Ken Dyke - Amiga Networking) writes:
[stuff deleted]>
>>   As far as completely in memory - My A3000 has no problem doing 60fps anims
>>straight off the hard drive with a little buffering.  So having the entire
>
>That still doesn't account for QuickTime's superior compression ratio,
>or its synchronised continous sound track.

    A 91-92 standard has a better compression than an 85 standard? No Way!?!
Are you serious?  All kiding aside, compression should be worked on, but one
can also compress the Anim file and then uncompress that anim file to gain
speed and save space -- giving a virtual effect.  As far as soundtrack, just
sync your sound to the video clock and build it into you anim player - no
great feat.

[stuff gone]>
>>   You can play a 24-bit anim in any amount of bits you want -- why you would
>>chose to lose detail is beyond me - but it is possible.
>
>How is it possible ? More importantly, you can't assume everyone has a
>real 24 bit display. QT means one file can be used on any MacII or
>above.

   How is it possible?  You save your Anim in 24 bit format.  If you want to
downgrade the resolution you simple convert the Anim.  If you say, its not
a standard?  You just build this feature into you Anim player -- you are
simple talking about a "super" anim player so far.  But nobody finds a need
for such a robust player since everyone has all the little things they need
to run anybody's anim on their system.

>>>One could argue, however, that playing postage stamp sized animations in a
>>>window is not very useful, and I might agree. But, it looks slick as hell.
>>>
>It is useful for interactive presentations. eg. a medical tutorial. You
>can bring in video of a real doctor operating on a real patient without
>affecting the rest of the screen. Of course, for video work though, it
>is useless.

    WITHOUT AFFECTING THE REST OF THE SCREEN?!?  If you don't consider the
doctor pausing every time you display some text an "effect" then i don't
know what is.  This is a nice concept but not attainable on a practical 
level with the current dismal performance of QuickTime [gets my vote for
biggest misnomer of a program].
>
>>    Slick?  SLICK?  Let me tell you the story of a guy (me) who went into
>>see the new Mac Quadra (some time ago) and LAUGHED SOO hard he couldn't
>>control himself.  The speed of an 040, and some nifty new program called
>>Quicktime?  Hmmm.  And virtual memory no less -- super System 7.  So,
>>I open up a anim that makes has some dog walking.  Everyone tells me how
>>this is MULTITASKING. So, I say hmmm.  I click on somthing -- "bark bark
>>bark *PASUSE* bark...".  The animation just STOPS as long as I hold the 
>>mouse pressed on an icon.  So I gigle.  Well, how about 2 anims?  So I try
>>to open up some big "cool anim".  NOT ENOUGH MEMORY.  I guess 4 megs and
>>VM can't handle it.  So I say, ok.  How about a simple little earth spinning.
>>Now this is when I fell down laughing!  Dog walk, earth spin, dog walk, earth
>>spin, etc etc.  Press button both stop, then start.  This is an 040!?!?!
>>And this is NOT 256 color mode guys, just so you know.  On my old old old
>>A2000 I could have a program graphing a spreadhsheet, run an anim, and use
>>the workbench (with the screen layered so you could see em all) with 1
>>damn MEG.  This Quadra/Quicktime system is sick.  I'm POSITIVE the A4000 
>>with its double A chips could put it to shame.
>
>It's what QT does that is exciting, not how well it does it. Today I was

    [a very hard belly laugh to the above line].  I'm sorry -- but if a
program doesn't do what it is supposed to *WELL* then it simply doesn't do
what it's supposed to.  "Look at my new ibm software emulator -- it can run
ANY ibm application, unfortunately it operates at .001 mhz."  Is this something
you would use?  Programs get half a grade for *concept* and half a grade for
the *application* of that concept.  Therefore, QuickTime gets a 40% (concept
wasn't all that original).

>playing 3 QT movies on a IIfx. They each ran at around 5 fps. not as bad
>as your description suggests, and it wasn't a Quadra. Sure, the Amiga
>with a QuickTime equivalent would probably thrash it, but we DON'T HAVE
>IT, so stop laughing !

   I can't, it's just too damn funny.  Is there really ANYBODY out there who
wants QuickTime (at it's mac performance level) for any other reason than to
say "we have it too."  What possible use oculd you have for this?  If you
are in to "multimedia" (buzz buzz) then why not just go pick up a 24 bit
card, anyone of the *great* presentation programs available for Amiga,
and go out and show off your awesome presentation at  light speed, with
stereo sound, and fully utilizing the multitasking abilities of the Amiga to
avoid QuickTime like slowdowns.  Or, would you like QuickTime, where you can
display an anim in a window as a part of your presentation, with the brain
dead task switching between your anims and presentation readily apparent?
You can even stretch the window to reveal outrageously horrid pixilization!
What more could you ask for?  Perhaps a product that works? 
>>Ciao...
Ciao again.....



                                               - Jason


Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.graphics