Is it normal to have the getfps message which gives 0.000 ?????

I confirm that files encoded with others codecs give me right fps.

Moreover I can't record in h264 with jit.qt.record, max tells me

I confirm h264 is available in jitter 1.6 (message "getcodeclist"), not in jitter 1.5

I work with an h264 encoded file.
Is it normal to have the getfps message which gives 0.000 ?????

Moreover I can't record in h264 with jit.qt.record, max tells me
"bad codec specified"

getfps-h264

H264 uses features of QuickTime 7 which we haven't implemented. 

Although one can read movies encoded with the codec, editing and 

recording are not supported. The getfps message probably doesn't know 

how to handle the kind of media samples used by the codec.

We're planning to add support for additional QuickTime 7-specific 

features with the next major version of Jitter.

Am 26.03.2007 um 16:16 schrieb derrickgiscloux:

> Is it normal to have the getfps message which gives 0.000 ?????

> I confirm that files encoded with others codecs give me right fps.

> Moreover I can't record in h264 with jit.qt.record, max tells me

> I confirm h264 is available in jitter 1.6 (message "getcodeclist"), 

H264 uses features of QuickTime 7 which we haven't implemented.  
Although one can read movies encoded with the codec, editing and  
recording are not supported. The getfps message probably doesn't know  
how to handle the kind of media samples used by the codec.

We're planning to add support for additional QuickTime 7-specific  
features with the next major version of Jitter.

> I work with an h264 encoded file.
> Is it normal to have the getfps message which gives 0.000 ?????
>
> I confirm that files encoded with others codecs give me right fps.
>
> -
>
> Moreover I can't record in h264 with jit.qt.record, max tells me
> "bad codec specified"
>
> I confirm h264 is available in jitter 1.6 (message "getcodeclist"),  
> not in jitter 1.5


FWIW, these days I like to record in apple_intermediate_codec @ 

lossless quality (which all the fashionable kids say is the new jpeg) 

and the use quicktime to re-encode to whatever compressed format I 

On Mar 26, 2007, at 3:25 PM, Jeremy Bernstein wrote:

> H264 uses features of QuickTime 7 which we haven't implemented. 

> Although one can read movies encoded with the codec, editing and 

> recording are not supported. The getfps message probably doesn't 

> know how to handle the kind of media samples used by the codec.

> We're planning to add support for additional QuickTime 7-specific 

> features with the next major version of Jitter.

> Am 26.03.2007 um 16:16 schrieb derrickgiscloux:

>> Is it normal to have the getfps message which gives 0.000 ?????

>> I confirm that files encoded with others codecs give me right fps.

>> Moreover I can't record in h264 with jit.qt.record, max tells me

>> I confirm h264 is available in jitter 1.6 (message 

FWIW, these days I like to record in apple_intermediate_codec @  
lossless quality (which all the fashionable kids say is the new jpeg)  
and the use quicktime to re-encode to whatever compressed format I  
need, from there.

> H264 uses features of QuickTime 7 which we haven't implemented.  
> Although one can read movies encoded with the codec, editing and  
> recording are not supported. The getfps message probably doesn't  
> know how to handle the kind of media samples used by the codec.
>
> We're planning to add support for additional QuickTime 7-specific  
> features with the next major version of Jitter.
>
> jb
>
> Am 26.03.2007 um 16:16 schrieb derrickgiscloux:
>
>> I work with an h264 encoded file.
>> Is it normal to have the getfps message which gives 0.000 ?????
>>
>> I confirm that files encoded with others codecs give me right fps.
>>
>> -
>>
>> Moreover I can't record in h264 with jit.qt.record, max tells me
>> "bad codec specified"
>>
>> I confirm h264 is available in jitter 1.6 (message  
>> "getcodeclist"), not in jitter 1.5
>


On Mar 26, 2007, at 8:30 AM, evan.raskob [lists] wrote:

> FWIW, these days I like to record in apple_intermediate_codec @ 

> lossless quality (which all the fashionable kids say is the new jpeg)

Not sure about vertical chroma resolution though (4:2:0). Sounds like 

it'll be worse than Photo JPEG, but I haven't done any tests 

specifically, and of course it won't matter if your source footage is 

4:2:0 or worse. Also not sure about performance w/r/t JPEG, but it 

should be much faster than H.264 and HDV, when it is not disk limited.

> FWIW, these days I like to record in apple_intermediate_codec @  
> lossless quality (which all the fashionable kids say is the new jpeg)

Not sure about vertical chroma resolution though (4:2:0). Sounds like  
it'll be worse than Photo JPEG, but I haven't done any tests  
specifically, and of course it won't matter if your source footage is  
4:2:0 or worse. Also not sure about performance w/r/t JPEG, but it  
should be much faster than H.264 and HDV, when it is not disk limited.

I just did a comparison test with AIC vs PhotoJPEG in Jitter with 

both performed roughly equally as well in terms of playback 

performance (i was able to play 2 streams, one per disk without 

dropping frames) - the quality is only ~slightly better with 

photojpeg, of course will also depend on the source material. 

photojpeg felt maybe slightly faster as well. this is a very 

subjective test, i have no metrics available. note photojpeg was at 

75% quality. The decompression speed of photojpeg is logarithmic with 

the quality slider (higher = much slower)

filesizes are still much lower with jpeg, so imho its still the 

>> FWIW, these days I like to record in apple_intermediate_codec @ 

>> lossless quality (which all the fashionable kids say is the new jpeg)

> Not sure about vertical chroma resolution though (4:2:0). Sounds 

> like it'll be worse than Photo JPEG, but I haven't done any tests 

> specifically, and of course it won't matter if your source footage 

> is 4:2:0 or worse. Also not sure about performance w/r/t JPEG, but 

> it should be much faster than H.264 and HDV, when it is not disk 

I just did a comparison test with AIC vs PhotoJPEG in Jitter with  
1400x1050 source files
both performed roughly equally as well in terms of playback  
performance (i was able to play 2 streams, one per disk without  
dropping frames) - the quality is only ~slightly better with  
photojpeg, of course will also depend on the source material.  
photojpeg felt maybe slightly faster as well.  this is a very  
subjective test, i have no metrics available.  note photojpeg was at  
75% quality. The decompression speed of photojpeg is logarithmic with  
the quality slider (higher = much slower)

filesizes are still much lower with jpeg, so imho its still the  
reigning queen of RT codecs.

>> FWIW, these days I like to record in apple_intermediate_codec @  
>> lossless quality (which all the fashionable kids say is the new jpeg)
>
> Not sure about vertical chroma resolution though (4:2:0). Sounds  
> like it'll be worse than Photo JPEG, but I haven't done any tests  
> specifically, and of course it won't matter if your source footage  
> is 4:2:0 or worse. Also not sure about performance w/r/t JPEG, but  
> it should be much faster than H.264 and HDV, when it is not disk  
> limited.


my tests were all completely non-scientific.

i should actually attempt something scientific in the near future.

on a side note, just when you think you've finally heard all the 

technical terms possible for video, someone throws "4:2:0 vertical 

chroma resolution" at you. i swear, i think you're making that up, 

On Mar 26, 2007, at 6:36 PM, dekam wrote:

> I just did a comparison test with AIC vs PhotoJPEG in Jitter with 

> both performed roughly equally as well in terms of playback 

> performance (i was able to play 2 streams, one per disk without 

> dropping frames) - the quality is only ~slightly better with 

> photojpeg, of course will also depend on the source material. 

> photojpeg felt maybe slightly faster as well. this is a very 

> subjective test, i have no metrics available. note photojpeg was 

> at 75% quality. The decompression speed of photojpeg is logarithmic 

> with the quality slider (higher = much slower)

> filesizes are still much lower with jpeg, so imho its still the 

>>> FWIW, these days I like to record in apple_intermediate_codec @ 

>>> lossless quality (which all the fashionable kids say is the new 

>> Not sure about vertical chroma resolution though (4:2:0). Sounds 

>> like it'll be worse than Photo JPEG, but I haven't done any tests 

>> specifically, and of course it won't matter if your source footage 

>> is 4:2:0 or worse. Also not sure about performance w/r/t JPEG, but 

>> it should be much faster than H.264 and HDV, when it is not disk 

hmmm...
my tests were all completely non-scientific.
that's what i get for being fashionable.
i should actually attempt something scientific in the near future.

on a side note, just when you think you've finally heard all the  
technical terms possible for video, someone throws "4:2:0 vertical  
chroma resolution" at you.  i swear, i think you're making that up,  
josh, just to bust my balls...

> I just did a comparison test with AIC vs PhotoJPEG in Jitter with  
> 1400x1050 source files
> both performed roughly equally as well in terms of playback  
> performance (i was able to play 2 streams, one per disk without  
> dropping frames) - the quality is only ~slightly better with  
> photojpeg, of course will also depend on the source material.  
> photojpeg felt maybe slightly faster as well.  this is a very  
> subjective test, i have no metrics available.  note photojpeg was  
> at 75% quality. The decompression speed of photojpeg is logarithmic  
> with the quality slider (higher = much slower)
>
> filesizes are still much lower with jpeg, so imho its still the  
> reigning queen of RT codecs.
>
> --deKam
>
>
>
>>> FWIW, these days I like to record in apple_intermediate_codec @  
>>> lossless quality (which all the fashionable kids say is the new  
>>> jpeg)
>>
>> Not sure about vertical chroma resolution though (4:2:0). Sounds  
>> like it'll be worse than Photo JPEG, but I haven't done any tests  
>> specifically, and of course it won't matter if your source footage  
>> is 4:2:0 or worse. Also not sure about performance w/r/t JPEG, but  
>> it should be much faster than H.264 and HDV, when it is not disk  
>> limited.
>


On Mar 27, 2007, at 6:44 AM, evan.raskob [lists] wrote:

> on a side note, just when you think you've finally heard all the 

> technical terms possible for video, someone throws "4:2:0 vertical 

> chroma resolution" at you. i swear, i think you're making that up, 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chroma_subsampling#4:2:0

http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=301599

> on a side note, just when you think you've finally heard all the  
> technical terms possible for video, someone throws "4:2:0 vertical  
> chroma resolution" at you.  i swear, i think you're making that up,  
> josh, just to bust my balls...

Here is a great page that I used today to explain the sampling 

nomenclature in video, really good stuff:

On Mar 27, 2007, at 5:41 PM, Joshua Kit Clayton wrote:

> On Mar 27, 2007, at 6:44 AM, evan.raskob [lists] wrote:

>> on a side note, just when you think you've finally heard all the 

>> technical terms possible for video, someone throws "4:2:0 vertical 

>> chroma resolution" at you. i swear, i think you're making that 

Here is a great page that I used today to explain the sampling  
nomenclature in video, really good stuff:

>
> On Mar 27, 2007, at 6:44 AM, evan.raskob [lists] wrote:
>
>> on a side note, just when you think you've finally heard all the  
>> technical terms possible for video, someone throws "4:2:0 vertical  
>> chroma resolution" at you.  i swear, i think you're making that  
>> up, josh, just to bust my balls...
>
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chroma_subsampling#4:2:0
>
> http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=301599
>
> -Joshua
>
>

thanks for the links (thanks to vade, too)

On Mar 27, 2007, at 4:41 PM, Joshua Kit Clayton wrote:

>
> On Mar 27, 2007, at 6:44 AM, evan.raskob [lists] wrote:
>
>> on a side note, just when you think you've finally heard all the  
>> technical terms possible for video, someone throws "4:2:0 vertical  
>> chroma resolution" at you.  i swear, i think you're making that  
>> up, josh, just to bust my balls...
>
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chroma_subsampling#4:2:0
>
> http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=301599
>
> -Joshua
>
>


getfps - h264