Since you are talking about Apple I think that should be either 'Video Compression eXtreme' or 'iVideoCompression'.

Will different H.264 offerings have big differences in quality, or is all H.264 pretty much the same? Any reason to think Apple's implementation would be good or bad? You haven't had a chance to see it have you? (Won't reach us regular people until next year.)
- jim 6-29-2004 9:53 pm [add a comment]

I haven't had a chance to look at it. My big question is whether they did baseline profile (less computation) or main profile (better compression). It's really hard to find a main profile decoder, especially for HD. I'm going to try to get data on it. I may just call one of the engineers rather than trying to wade through the marketing.

In general, Apple takes video seriously, they have some of the best guys in the world in their compression group, and with the WM9/10 jaugernaught, I assume they would make sure their stuff kicks ass.

But, like I say, I haven't seen it.

- mark 6-29-2004 9:57 pm [add a comment]

From a long thread on Ars about Apple's new CoreImage / CoreVideo libraries:

They also seem to have taken alot of feedback on quicktime, completely re-written the API, so now you can make a video player in interface builder with no code whatsoever, and you can do cool stuff like map H.264 onto a surface as a texture, and do anything else with that surface that you chould normally do in OpenGL, I'm assuming you can also map CoreImage filters ontop of this either as a texture filter or for the whole scene.

Hmmm... might be some of the much maligned features of MPEG-4 finding some use. I'll take a gander at that link.
- mark 6-30-2004 7:31 pm [add a comment]

I linked to the second page of the thread. Not that you can't figure it out, but it starts here.
- jim 6-30-2004 7:42 pm [add a comment]