Quicktime For Linux

[mediasaurus]

Why hasn't Apple released Quicktime for Linux?

I was searching the web and the info seems sparse. I've got all sorts of theories, but I figured this would be a good place to centralize our knowledge.

[joojaa]

Because they probably dont want to thread into the swamp of not working on every release/every kernelcompile of linux. wich would emak ethem seem bad. They cant winn on this front.*

Anywya you can view qt files with hacked dlls on pc machines.

• people just want to use thir stuff on whatever release of linux ever like we se on this forum not heeding to the fact that this will never work, the change in architecture is not possible to cope with without a open source community tinkering all day long on it, and even it cant support everything. So bottom line is some of the users would get into theese huge filosofical battles about this like we on most posts.

Whan pople accept this for a fact and are prepared to do something/ meka concessions then were geoing to se select linux platforms getting a huge amount of commersial progsdropping to them over time. This is the deal, so untill we have one or 2 main linux distros that account for 75% of the maret and tey can ensure compatibility to some stability then maybe.

[deke-kincaid]

Just use Mplayer, Xine, or VLC. They have all the newest Quicktime codecs running on linux, along with Real Player and Media Player.

The simple answer is that the linux audience is really small and doesn't justify doing the port. Same reason why M$ and Adobe products don't run on linux. Our market of 3d and 2d compositing apps is a really tiny niche market. They only sell a couple hundred thousand copies if they are lucky. Compositors like Shake or Fusion are lucky to have 10-20k users. So porting to something like Linux is a guarantee of more sales.

When you sell millions of copies of software like Apple, M$, Adobe, etc... then the cost of entry is much higher, so if your only going to sell a few thousand copies, it's not worth the cost.

[sadisticmachine]

QUOTE(beaker @ 12/22/05, 05:29 PM)
Just use Mplayer, Xine, or VLC.  They have all the newest Quicktime codecs running on linux, along with Real Player and Media Player.

The simple answer is that the linux audience is really small and doesn't justify doing the port.  Same reason why M$ and Adobe products don't run on linux.  Our market of 3d and 2d compositing apps is a really tiny niche market.  They only sell a couple hundred thousand copies if they are lucky.  Compositors like Shake or Fusion are lucky to have 10-20k users.  So porting to something like Linux is a guarantee of more sales. 

When you sell millions of copies of software like Apple, M$, Adobe, etc... then the cost of entry is much higher, so if your only going to sell a few thousand copies, it's not worth the cost.
[snapback]223119[/snapback]

I think that M$ and Apple are boycotting a little. MS is afraid that linux will kill them, and Apple's afraid we'll do it before they do.

Legitimate concern. Nix has pulverized M$ for servers, high end computing, and many workstation applications. Desktops are next.

It puzzles me why so many products in the 3d field aren't available for Mac (3d Studio for one). Clearly Apple has earned the graphic artist field. You'd think there'd be an interest in that. Perhaps now that Alias is under the Autodesk umbrella, some of their linux sensibilities will "trickle upward."

[joojaa]

3d has sapwned form a backroud in computational science, not desktop publishing like most mac graphics apps. And science guys have allways been big on nix and pc, thats the reason. 3d is a totaly differenbn ballgame form most other ARTS stuff... its only now that we are starting to experience a art firewndly 3d envuronment.

Its not realy just about the whole size of the linux community, but by the fragmentted nature, wich makes the potenttial customers harder to get to han neccesery. So ita a combinmation of teh fact thet theres less customers amd thet they are 10 tiems as hard to carter for as the windows community. So your poying 2-10 times the devcost for a plublicity stunt that may blow in your face.

[deke-kincaid]

QUOTE(sadisticmachine @ 12/23/05, 02:13 PM)
It puzzles me why so many products in the 3d field aren't available for Mac (3d Studio for one).
Over half the 3d apps out there run on Mac: Maya, LW, Cinema4d, Motion Builder, Modo, etc...

3dsmax will never run on mac or linux because when it was created it was made as a 100% win32 app. They wrote it when Windows NT was brand new(3.51). Porting to other operating systems was not in their minds. It would have to be completely rewritten from scratch to be ported.

[marlio]

There is Quicktime4Linux, although it's not what you might expect:
http://www.heroinewarrior.com/quicktime.php3

As mentioned by others, there are all the codecs available to play any Quicktime-compatible codec out there, and many more, through many different media players. This is both a beautiful and initially confusing situation for those migrating from a Windows/Mac background.

Linux ignores what appears to be important to other OSes. The extension doesn't make a difference in whether it's recognizable by an application. Most Linux media players simply decode with the appropriate codec (if supported and available) when the media file is commanded to play.

My favorite player is xine-ui; it's super-fast and with all the codecs, will play anything and everything. Flash player works just great on Linux. MPlayer I use for streaming video.

The nice thing to have would be a Quicktime Pro-like application, or Media Cleaner, a basic gui for basic media file translation tasks. However there is transcode, a command line utility which is more powerful than either, is scriptable, and can convert just about anything into any other media format you can imagine.

These comparisions might lead you to believe that Linux has a steeper learning curve, and it does, but it's easy to get started and slowly add to the knowledge you'll need to be creative with the OS.

[joojaa]

fyi qtpro is scriptable, programmable and has a gui.

[marlio]

It would be helpful to make note of the qualitiative differences. As I mentioned, Transcode has no GUI by default. However it is possible to write one in Perl. If you look at something like DVD:RIP or MythTV, it's pretty clear that Quicktime Pro has also-ran features with its Applescript by comparison to Transcode, which is essentially intended to be scripted or programmed for from the start.

Example: rip a dvd, convert it to MPEG4 while selecting, rasterizing and anti-aliasing Subtitles, selecting the correct audio track, merging fields, and correctly cropping a letterboxed movie.

These features might not serve the interest of content creation, but you could just as easily use it to capture HD and convert it to an image sequence at 24fps, or downsample to an NTSC AVI. All of this stuff is out of Qtpro's feature set, I believe.

Ultimately, Quicktime Pro does get work done easily at a basic level for its users and that's why it'd be great if someone would write such a frontend on top of Transcode, or Mplayer/Mencoder.

Also important to note is that this type of power in image processing doesn't require a great meeting of the minds of Linux distributions. Transcode and Perl work equally well on all Linux distributions and possibly are being made to work just as well on OS X, Irix, or Solaris.

For more info:
http://www.transcoding.org/cgi-bin/transcode

Mplayer/Mencoder:
http://www.mplayerhq.hu/DOCS/HTML/en/

QUOTE(Joojaa @ 12/29/05, 04:13 PM)
fyi qtpro is scriptable, programmable and has a gui.
[snapback]223567[/snapback]

[joojaa]

QUOTE
These features might not serve the interest of content creation, but you could just as easily use it to capture HD and convert it to an image sequence at 24fps, or downsample to an NTSC AVI. All of this stuff is out of Qtpro's feature set, I believe.

qt is just a api to work on the palyer is just the graphical outside of qt but its mostly aboutthe api. But incidenttaly qtpro can do this with the exception of ripping, without the scripting interface (and no its not just limitted to applescript you can pretty much do it in any language). Just thatthere are better tools around for this yes, but it can do it nonetheless.

Thing is tough qt iteslf s more of a api so saying it cant do so a so is a bit of stupid sicne you can eaily write a c, python... java warpper for this and do it without even buying qtpro, but that slaps you down to the level you are at now. BUt thing is qt content is easy to slap on in any prog, thing is the qt api is good. And that api is mission on linux side. NOT the compressors.

like you said qtpro is just a handy little tool that costs a negligble amount of cash

And no i dont see any reason why linux should need qt... If a graphiics worker for that matter. Its just a handy tool for small quick tasks. But i believe the original autohor was after such things as watching qt content in their webbrowser.

[marlio]

Qualitative differences. Pardon me if I am having a hard time making out some claims from your post, but by comparison between Quicktime and open source compression/decompression utilties, can and having done it shouldn't have equal weight. I recognize the scriptability of Quicktime in other languages, but it doesn't seem to be useful.

The biggest drawback is that the Quicktime delivery method is closed source and relatively difficult to install for the average user (on a scale of 1-10 with Realplayer being the most disruptive 10 and Flash player the easiest, Quicktime is probably a 6). Yes, Quicktime supports Flash, but ever notice how its performance is much slower?

In terms of a scriptable, programmable, cross-platform API created by a commercial software company, in my opinion Flash (video) has really excelled. I was excited about Quicktime's future many years ago. Better yet, people are actually using Flash all over, for many different things.

So, I'm not sure whether that's being fair to the Quicktime API or not to say that its potential will never be reached because of how its frontends are designed and marketed.

I kept waiting for Quicktime to be a catch-all, and to see wonderful video apps based on top of it, but then I moved to Linux. Invoking the Quicktime API invariably results in slow performance, slower on Windows, yes, but this doesn't bode well for cross platform support. Listen to Mac users complain about compression times in exporting to their video iPods (a mere 320x240) and you'll see what I mean.

I don't think it's stupid that few outside of Apple have decided to base their software application development efforts on the Quicktime API. Cinelerra has attempted to do this under Linux, but Cinelerra has the dubious position of being marginally more useful than anything else that's available for less than $2K. Many of us hope Jahshaka will be useful some time soon.

I disagree, codecs are important. I prefer the MPEG standards. I understand that the MPEG4 standard was primarily sponsored by Apple. Historically, Apple's API has been good at working with Quicktime movies and hasn't been good at working with formats outside what it was designed for. Add-on codecs and file formats edit and play more slowly in Quicktime, and it appears to be getting slower with each new version.

I would like to see more work done with H.264 at HD resolutions. If you've ever worked with H.264 in Quicktime, it becomes obivous that HD is going to be unbearably slow in playback and compression performance under this API.

I disagree, a Quicktime Pro-like application under Linux would be very useful, just like Fcheck is useful.

QUOTE(Joojaa @ 12/30/05, 04:58 AM)
qt is just a api to work on the palyer is just the graphical outside of qt but its mostly aboutthe api. But incidenttaly qtpro can do this with the exception of ripping, without the scripting interface (and no its not just limitted to applescript you can pretty much do it in any language). Just thatthere are better tools around for this yes, but it can do it nonetheless.

Thing is tough qt iteslf s more of a api so saying it cant do so a so is a bit of stupid sicne you can eaily write a  c, python... java warpper for this and do it without even buying qtpro, but that slaps you down to the level you are at now. BUt thing is qt content is easy to slap on in any prog, thing is the qt api is good. And that api is mission on linux side. NOT the compressors.

like you said qtpro is just a handy little tool that costs a negligble amount of cash

And no i dont see any reason why linux should need qt... If a graphiics worker for that matter. Its just a handy tool for small quick tasks. But i believe the original autohor was after such things as watching qt content in their webbrowser.
[snapback]223604[/snapback]

[joojaa]

yes but your missing the point codecs arent what quictime is about. the codecs themsnelves you have on linux as hacked versions jsut not the qt api!

The codecs paly only part in the compression/ play they have no real bearing in the api discussion here per se. They are just that and can be foud as hacked versions on linux.

Im not s

[joojaa]

QUOTE
Qualitative differences. Pardon me if I am having a hard time making out some claims from your post, but by comparison between Quicktime and open source compression/decompression utilties, can and having done it shouldn't have equal weight. I recognize the scriptability of Quicktime in other languages, but it doesn't seem to be useful.

On comprssor levels none, beacuse the codecs are the same, because they are essentialy stolen form apple (alltough since they dont get any maoney from it thats ok), microsoft and only soem like divix are actualy done for the linux. Tahts what the hacked means. And thats also why tehy are deployed as thay are.

But i dont se my abbility to embed quicktime in my python scripts under windows anything not usefull. BUt theres realy no point as long as it just works.

I have no illusions of the opensource bilss some of you people seem to be on, opensource is ok, but also has many downsides.

[marlio]

No problem. The tone could be more friendly, but the presumption of correcting my statements is incorrect. For instance, Xvid is an open source interpretation of H.264, inspired, but not copied from Divx's entreprenurial hack of the MPEG4 emerging standard (which was actually a hack of Microsoft's MPEG4 variant). So I believe you've got it backwards on that point.

The codecs aren't what matters to me about Quicktime either. Obviously, the ability to write into old inefficient codecs like Cinepak using the Quicktime API is not highly neccessary. Reading Quickimes and importing them is useful, and it's possible under Linux.

The problem with the Quicktime API as a continuing, viable platform for pro apps is the slow, unreliable performance, that doesn't embrace other formats besides Apple's as it purports to do. Quicktime can contain Flash, Divx, and so on, it just doesn't do it well. I have been waiting for 10 years for Quicktime to feel fast, and it never has. With the high bandwidth of video, that's unforgivable.

In fact a great many open source applications are absolutely riddled with bugs, to an embarrassing degree. 0.1 releases I think are the biggest problem. Some apps are incredibly stable though, better finished that commercial software. There's probably a lesson in that but I wouldn't quash independant developer's interesting ideas coming up.

I just don't think Quicktime's API is the solution to improving things on the video front under Linux. I am frustrated that only now are we seeing HDV capture solutions on Linux, but it's rather ingenious how they're pulling it off, so I do admit to enjoying the (bumpy) ride. The H.264 MPEG4 standard is open and shouldn't require encoder licenses like MPEG2 does.

QUOTE(Joojaa @ 12/30/05, 10:01 AM)
yes but your missing the point codecs arent what quictime is about. the codecs themsnelves you have on linux as hacked versions jsut not the qt api!

The codecs paly only part in the compression/ play they have no real bearing in the api discussion here per se. They are just that and can be foud as hacked versions on linux.

Im not s

[joojaa]

QUOTE(chomxxo @ 12/30/05, 09:57 PM)
No problem. The tone could be more friendly, but the presumption of correcting my statements is incorrect.  For instance, Xvid is an open source interpretation of H.264, inspired, but not copied from Divx's entreprenurial hack of the MPEG4 emerging standard (which was actually a hack of Microsoft's MPEG4 variant).  So I believe you've got it backwards on that point.

no prblem indeed,

No im not actualy talking of how they are derived, im fully aware what xvid and divx are in theese terms. Its just that most codecs used today are not ones that are opensource so they need to ba hacked form other sources.

Xvid is fine sine its like you say openly developped form scratch, but most other codecs arent. I allready mentined that such codecs do exsist jsut didnt enumerate them. The fact that the old codecs are still there is that somone still uses them. Mostly im allways completely slumpped by the fact that some people still use some of the age old codecs at all anymore.

What codec should be reinforced as the standard is another thing, its clear to me form past experiences that best does not necceserily win unfortunately. Also the codec race as it is now is a bit ridiclous anyway. BUt seems to me apple has won the server streaming contest. But maybe well se something new now that adobe stepped into the game.

Personaly speaking im not realy impressed by qt7 wich atleast on widows side is a little bit unstable, so seems like apple has missed some quality controll on the point.

The underlying problem tough is NOT whats available on linux versus whats not, but rather how all of theese efforts are cordinated and deployed. Some of them have been done quite well on linux side so there clearly is a way to do so. This fragmentation is part of the major benefit of linux tough, so how would you overcome it? The fact thet everyone and their mother has a different platform does tend make the playground very messy.

There should be a way to turn this into a win win situation atkeast for 90% of the people. Otherwise theres no succes story behind this.

[user_deleted]

I've pinned my tutorial on installing video codecs for SUSE Linux but the guide should be useful for anyone using a Linux distribution.

Cheers