Nathan Letwory explains the drop of QuickTime support in Windows Builds of 2.58 on BD

General Forums Latest News
81

I’m not sure if i understand well, in the end quicktime and psd (working through some quicktime code) are dropped from Blender because it would only work on 32 bits version of Blender ?

Sounds rather strange to drop those, why just not having the QT/PSD code simply disabled when using the 64bit version of blender in a similar way to the GLSL that is simply disabled on cards that drivers does not support or emulate it ?

This way people that has an use for quicktime and psd in their work could just continue using it with future Blender versions.
I don’t have a 64 bit OS so maybe i am missing a point : is there something preventing an user to have both Blender 64 bits and Blender 32bits if they’re using a 64bit OS ?

82

The other (and biggest reason) it was dropped is because the license of the Quicktime library is incompatible with Blender’s GPL license.

So the only way it could be kept would be to have Blender’s license changed to something more liberal (which in turn would be almost impossible to do and open the risk of Blender code being copied into commercial software or modified versions of Blender being available only for a price), so in the idea of keeping Blender as free as possible, it doesn’t seem there was much of a choice, this also means that the majority of other open source projects cannot use it either.

83

FunkyWyrm,

fact is that there is a lot of elitist thinking on each side to find reasons to bash the other side.
As SilenceBe pointed out the AppStore and price Apple charges also means the developer do
not have to deal with billing, hosting, keeping customers information secure, etc.

Their closed system is the reason all works they way they intend or envision and fact is also
that Apple gets a lot of design awards for innovation.

I simply got an Android because I want to be able to simply copy and past images music etc.
to and from my phone. In that respect I prefer Googles open architecture - I actually do not care
where it is from, or who makes it, as long as it works as it should.

This freedom from or to is a mentality we should put behind us - time moved forward.

Apple wants things to go a specific way and pushes HTML5. Adobe of course wants Flash to be used more.
Not because Flash is better, but because it is profit for them. It might look Apple is arrogant at times but
often the directions they used worked for the better. And to be honest the Flash player is slow and a battery
eater. So are the new LTE chips which apple will not use yet because they want a phone with a low battery
consumption.

Under this light of performance it makes sense to look for something different than Flash and HTML5 CSS3
WebGL etc are seriously making websites more and more interactive. Do you really need flash just to play
a video stream?

I at least find the competition between both companies pretty good because they both innovate
and change the way how we deal with information.

For me the most interesting area right now besides HTML5 is also the video codecs they are developing
because they are more important than the containers such as Mov or AVI.

I really would love to see a professional grade high end codec which is great for compression with
good detail as color stability for streaming as well as lossless compression with alpha channels for all
three platforms and that without any license issues attached to it - as it currently is I think.

Both companies seem to be very interested in mobile video streaming as Apple released FCP more for the youtube generation and Google also pushing their Youtube platform.

Specifically a codec which also can run on an OS level and does not need extra codecs and software installed would be really nice.

I hope they will do it right.

84

Ace Dragon

I spend few days looking into different approaches for a lossless format with alpha channel
and as it looks only PNG or Tiff / Targa seems to be the best cross platform approach because
each OS (Win-Mac-Linux) can open them just fine.

There is a lot of development done for internet based formats - well Youtube etc is a very large
market, which explains Apples recent FCP X decision.

And for large formats DVD production you have quite great DV codecs, which sometimes however
are linked to the editing software for internal work.

Apples Animation Codec is just so useful :wink:

I tried using FFmpeg in Blender to render into QT and also use HuffYuv but the material is unreadable by any software I have from Blender to VLC. Ogg and HuffYuv crashes Blender non-stop.

HuffYuv is 32bit but so is Animation I think.

85

To be frank with you , i think all this is a big illusion, my experience with open source developers is that they love apple, I know that apple loves open source developers because it has proven this with hard facts, and I know for a fact that apple users love open source software.

You probably talk about people that fight because they love to fight. I cant see an apple elitst or an open source elitist having a problem with each other.

People have expressed complaints about the closeness that Apple promotes with its app store. Some people that dont know how real apple users think may assume that we are not concerned , but this could not be further from the truth. Even apple elitists who have a brain , are worried about this and may be slightly annoyed.

But then GPL is also an extemely annoying dictatorship. "If you use open source, open source your code " .

As SilenceBe pointed out the AppStore and price Apple charges also means the developer do
not have to deal with billing, hosting, keeping customers information secure, etc.

Yeah but the biggest reason why most of them are fixated with AppStore even if Apple would be asking for 50% , is popularity.

Their closed system is the reason all works they way they intend or envision and fact is also
that Apple gets a lot of design awards for innovation.

to be frank , I dont think an open source OS would make me feel secure ever !

I simply got an Android because I want to be able to simply copy and past images music etc.
to and from my phone. In that respect I prefer Googles open architecture - I actually do not care
where it is from, or who makes it, as long as it works as it should.

Nobody denies the fact that in the end there is no perfect product out there or that choosing an apple product you wont be making some compromises. But google has been notorious for unreliability , anyone remember google desktop, open documents , go progamming language , google video and many many others ? Google has this annoying strategy of “hit and run” , just to make some buzz and when everyone is interested abandon the product and go to the next product. Apple at least when they make a commitment they stick with it.

This freedom from or to is a mentality we should put behind us - time moved forward.

true freedom should be real freedom , not something that some people try to pass as freedom.

Apple wants things to go a specific way and pushes HTML5. Adobe of course wants Flash to be used more.

I dont think that Apple want to kill flash, Apple is forced to kill flash. Because if Apple does not kill flash , flash may kill apple. Unreliability is something we apple users dont tolerate easily, not as much a windows or a linux user will tolerate. Apple has every right to fear that for every app flash crashes and for every fan it burns , apple loses a customer.

I am sure it was not an easy decision for Apple to go against flash. Some said that flash did pose a thread for the appstore, really ? imagine a ipad overheating on you lap trying to run a flash game, that will certainly would not be fun.

Not because Flash is better, but because it is profit for them.

Well flash is still better, to be sincere here, I have yet to see all the sophisticated HTML5 games, and several demos I have seen run too slow. HTML5 is not there yet to be considered a serious flash replacement.

It might look Apple is arrogant at times but
often the directions they used worked for the better.

Apple can be very greedy, but then they can be very generous as well. Anyone seen how much their new OS Lion will cost, 30 freaking dolllars. If that is not generous I dont know what it is and its is a very serious upgrade too.

I at least find the competition between both companies pretty good because they both innovate
and change the way how we deal with information.
Adobe does not innovate at least not anymore, they dont have any real competition and like any big fat monopoly company its evolution stop on its crawl and this another reason why apple does not trust adobe to solve those known issues with flash.

back to the OT , I don care about quicktime, because contrary to what other people may thing Apple gives me the freedom to not care about it. My top video player and I suspect for most mac users too, is VLC, it plays almost everything.

I have not disputed the fact that blender may not support quicktime , thats not a problem for mac users , I disputed the fact that a support is dropped and then leave a big fat gap.

86

Kilon,

my point was that each philosophy has advantages and disadvantages.
However if a person bashes Apple then very often it is a generalized argument
which is more based on subjective taste and declared as what others think as well.
I think jealousy and not really fully understanding the product philosophies is also a key factor.

Apple keeps their system close which means it is quite save and stable plus they
do not have the problem of OS fragmentation. Well this also means you need to use
the phone and iOS the way it is made. No extra launcher systems as with Android,
or USB accessing your phone SD card. I replaced Googles stock launcher because it seriously lacks many features.

However the fact is that this is more a question of taste and personal preference.
I think both approaches are correct, but as stated has ups and downs.
One just needs to pick what fits best to them.

You just have to keep in mind, Apple a PC maker, changed the way how we define
smart phone. They were the first to understand that a cell phone is a platform and not
a device. Nokia jumped onto that train and provided an equally good product philosophy.
Google - the search engine maker.

It is to be honest embarrassing for Nokia and Blackberry to have fail that badly and being
so ignorant to changes and innovation.

Concerning Flash - I am not sure if you are right. Flash is a battery eater and also it is not super fast.
Apple puts first priority to the user experience. As with Flash iPhone 5 will also not have the LTE chips.
They will only use them when they are smaller and consume less battery power.

I am not against Flash but do you really need that much Flash for viewing movies, and having your news
page plastered with advertisements?

I think Google pushes the same direction with open standards for video presentation and HTML5 provides
more and more the ability to simply replace Flash and stream a movie with less strain on the CPU and thus battery.

I think this is a question of efficiency. I noticed how much Google and Apple push towards the cloud since
market wise that is where most of the money is. This also somewhat explains the increased work on video
formats and codecs for such tasks.

You are right that Google tries a lot and also ditches a lot. I think they are more coders than app designers.
Google wave was great in the start. Google Docs hardly matures. Or it is when all you want is analyze data.
After all Google is a data dealer.

Maybe because of YouTube which now also has a rent function are they interested in pushing to Flash alternatives
for videos. To bad that those codecs are not really useable for desktop work.

“I disputed the fact that a support is dropped and then leave a big fat gap.”

Well for cross platform it seems to be the best option to work via image sequences.
Ogg is interesting, I researched it a little, as well as FFmpeg but they seem to be more like an open source
Swiss cheese than a mature cross platform alternative when lossless codes with alpha channels is concerned.

Maybe the Mac build is incomplete or I miss something. The FFmpeg and Ogg crashes left and right or produces
movies even VLC cannot open.

So my view can be somewhat subjective.

87

What you are saying makes perfect sense to me. Your view is certainly not subjective .

88

It is really annoying that for web standards and DV we have cross platform
but not for lossless codecs with alpha channels and 64-bit.

89

I wish that was the only thing missing from open source. Lets not be unrealistic here, when someone works from free you dont expect him to make a full implementation of everything he would do if he was paid. I think open source is pretty neat if you consider the fact that all this happens in someones free time, and in today world free time is a big luxury. I am sure its a matter of time till oss find a solution to that problem too.

90

yep this pretty true.

observing the patent and license issues with codecs Google is facing I can understand
why this is quite a difficult area to manage - specifically with the advent off all those patent trolls.

after all those pieces I imagine are much more difficult and technical to write then a simple
python modeling add-on for Blender.

91

64 bit? Or did you mean 16/32 bits per channel? You mentiontioned TGA, PNG and TIFF image sequences earlier. Tiff supports 16 bit per channel and alpha, OpenEXR supports both 16bit and 32bits per channel and alpha channels.

On a side note, I personally prefer image sequences as an intermediate lossles workflow over any codec/container format, so I dont really mis it.

I am biased, I rarely work with live action footage only Blender rendered animations. On top of that I use After Effects a lot. If you use Blender’s compositor and VSE for effects and editing the loss of Quicktime support can be annoying.

92

It’s funny but true. I know that image seq.s are better for lots of reasons. But coming from the video editing side I lazily fall into using the codec that I use all the time. In many editing packages it is preferable to stick with a common format so there is no transcoding each time you change shots. I guess it’s just a bad habit, but I constantly default to the project codec for expediency.

93

Render into sequences
generate movie from sequences
compose
render into delivery format

this workflow of course works well.
not having QT is not a big loss for those who do not use it.
for some it is - for others like me, I can life with image sequences
but feel this is an additional extra step to take

but it is also not really a deal breaker.

94

Sadly I have other apps that only like quick time :frowning: so I am stuck having to convert stuff after Blendering. In that case Streamclip gets a workout, I could do Frame Server as output?

95

Maybe somekind of “bridge” can be scripted between Blender and VirtualDub, AviSynth or AviDemux. That way you dump the whole codec issue to other aplications, and you only need to code some Addon for Blender to get it working.

I think writing up scripts to use external tools to do conversion and other data manipulation is currently the best thing to look at. With the recent addition of pre/post Render event callbacks it should be possible to automate already many things with that - convert, transcode, encode, auto-upload.
A solution like this is suggested as a possebillity in the interview with Nathan Letwory.

96

Virtaldub is a VfW app and can’t open formats like h264 without a tool like Avisynth. The ‘bridge’ between Blender already exists at least for Windows users and Linux + Wine and that is ffmpeg which if compiled with Avisynth support could open up a lot of possibilities but Sergy who handles the precompiled ffmpeg libraires bundled with Blender source hasn’t enabled it.

AVS2Pipe is another useful approach to bridging the gap.

But imho the most suitable approach would be like Avisynth which is oss works using plugins like QTSource built with the QT SDK keeping io seperate.

Seems the devs are trying to remove / ignore OS specific stuff to rationalise a bit across platforms.