Quicktime playback staggers on large HD files

What kind of video file are you making? Or, what Codec are you using?

Codecs such as ProRes and DVCPRO-HD require faster hard drives that H.264 video for smooth playback. Think of a 7,200RPM desktop hard drive (not USB2.0), or a RAID hard drive. Make sure your hard drive has 20% free space or more.

Codecs like AVCHD and H.264 require more processor (CPU, GPU) power than the 2 Coedecs above for smooth playback.

Either way, your MacPro should handle it.

-Andrew

The 11 second clip 1920x1080 = 1.5GB

Are you kidding? By my account, you are trying to play/render more than 136.36 MB/s (or 1.09 Gbps) through the QT Player. Little wonder it is dropping frames. Don't expect smooth playback at this point. The player was not intended to handle such data rates. Playback should settle down after final compression to BD content at BD compatible data rates.

Thanks Jon, that's well explained the 136.36MB/s does sound pretty hefty

But what about the slight playback judder in QT with the 5.1MB file?

- and getting a smoother playback in Quicklook?

First off, don't look at just the size of the file. It is the data rate that matters (i.e., amount of data per unit of time). Then next thing is to remember that the frame rate of a file is usually referred to as its "average" frame rate. This is because the different frames usually contain different amounts of data and acutually take varying amounts of time to process. For instance, If your H.264 file contains all I-frames, its distribution of data would be very different from an H.264 files containing a mixture of frame types. This means that some frames take longer to decode/render than others and the QT Player is programmed to drop frames if this happens unless you force it to play every frame which, of course, will likely affect the smoothness of playback. So don't become overly concerned about fluctuations in the reported playback frame rate and judge the playback by its smoothness (especially in terms of rendering object motion vectors and/or fades correctly) instead since the real question is whether or not your final BD dedicated player can keep up. (I.e., many current BD players are rated at 12x reads and I assume should be able to buffer data as needed to properly play your final distribution files at the correct data and frame rate.)

What kit is used to play really large files - like 4K?

I'm currently looking into the AE render settings, and want to learn more about which codec to use.

Not exactly sure what you are asking here. My normal workflow is just the opposite of yours. I amd taking BD sourced material and turning it into TV and iPad2 compatible files for storage on a Thunderbolt RAID. For this I prefer the x264 codec because of the user setting options available. Going in the opposite direction, I would likely be more concerned with an ability to designate Intra-frames and such to better control data distribution at the frame level based on the current complexity of content at any given point and so would probably use Compressor. Unfortunately, am not an AE user and cannot make valid comparisons here without knowing more about its capabilities.

Curious what the best solution to this was determined to be -- not a pro so some of the language in the responses confused me, but I also am trying to get a best quality render out of AE to plug back into Final Cut for a short film I directed and am curious what the original poster came up with

This is an old thread, but depends on what your working w/ in FCP - ie. alpha channel or not, codec of sequence, etc. ProRes 4444 or Animation are standard compression codecs for Graphics out of AE --> to FCP. Also PNG.

In answer to the 4k playback question above -- usually it's a dedicated video server to playback 2k / 4k.

Jon:

I see you know what your saying can you help with this one same sort of thing.

Apple make a program "Aperture" and that program can make slide shows of your photos. I made a 5min slideshow and previewed it in Aperture it worked fine. So I clicked export and exported it to 1080p .MOV file (a quicktime movie file), Aperture dose not have any setting for this just click and go. The final file plays fine on VLC but is choppy on Quicktime. WHY?

I am about the ask the same question of Apple.

Can any one help? can I put the file though some other program to make it more compatible(I know it already compatible I mean, it will not run smooth on QT) with Quicktime to give smother playback?

Thanks

Apple make a program "Aperture" and that program can make slide shows of your photos.

Thanks for pointing that out. Although I am an Aperture user, I use it exclusively for photo file management and adjustments and did not even realize I could make slideshows with it.

Jon:

I see you know what your saying can you help with this one same sort of thing.

Sorry for taking so long to respond. Once I read your post, I had to go back and run some tests in Aperture before making an answer.

I made a 5min slideshow and previewed it in Aperture it worked fine. So I clicked export and exported it to 1080p .MOV file (a quicktime movie file), Aperture dose not have any setting for this just click and go. The final file plays fine on VLC but is choppy on Quicktime. WHY?

1) The "slideshow" played in Aperture is, for the most part, a live "'tween" simulation of the file that will be created and saved as a QT video slideshow. The "'tween" is basically a set of instructions telling the computer how to morph two or more images and render the results to the screen.

2) "'Tween" videos can be stored as comparatively small files and were originally used to create/view slideshows but these videos had/have compatibility issues with some of the evolving apps based on the "modernized" version of QT. The process of "exporting" your Aperture slideshow tells QT to create "snapshots" of the "morphed" images at fixed intervals in time and store them as physical video frames in a real QT "movie" file (i.e., not a QT file containing photo tracks with a "'tween" track telling the media player "how" to render/display morphing data). This "real" QT file is much larger than the "'tween" file and is the basic source of playback problems on older and/or slower platforms that cannot process (render and display) the data as fast as the platform can read it and the media application is told to play it.

3) VLC and the various QT-based media players are written to function differently with different goals in mind. In some cases the algorithms included in VLC are much more efficient than those in QT and vice versa. As I am not involved in the VLC project I have no specific input regarding the actual differences that allow it to process and render your slideshows faster/better than QT. You might remember, however, that one of the goals of VLC playback compatibility is the playback of Blu-ray disc content while Apple has yet to release any BD player app based on the QT structure embedded in any version of OS X.

4) Most Aperture export options are "presets" with fixed settings pre-programmed into them—e.g., the "1080p" option created a non-anamorphic 1080p30 file using the H.264 "best" quality auto-data rate Main Profile@Level 5 encode settings. On my system, this meant my sample file had a data rate on the order of 40 Mbps. To put this in perspective, a Microsoft 1080i60 VC-1 Blu-ray disc has a typical data rate of 30 Mbps, and a typical MPEG-4/AVC 1080p60 Blu-ray disc has an average data rate on the order of 20 Mbps. Thus, if your 5 minute file encoded in a manner similar to my test, your file is trying to play the equivalent of two Blu-ray discs simultaneously in terms data throughput. And, while my system's hardware configuration did not seem to have any playback problems, my initial guess would be that your video card(s), CPU(s), system clocking, or other issue may be preventing smoothest playback through the QT media player but is being much more efficiently handled by the VLC software.

can I put the file though some other program to make it more compatible(I know it already compatible I mean, it will not run smooth on QT) with Quicktime to give smother playback?

Yes, but my best recommendation at this point would be to make your slideshows more QT player compatible by reducing the file's overall video data rate in your Aperture export. While there may not be any user options using the "1080p" selection, you can switch your workflow to the "Custom" Aperture export option and run some tests on your own system to see it it improves matters and to what extent. In case you are interested, here are the results of my tests. Recommend you download the files for testing and comparison on your system rather than playing them via the default browser plug-in.

The following sample slideshow test files were created from unretouched photos taken by my daughter-in-law using her Sony compact digital camera and can be downloaded to your system for playback test comparisons:

http://downloads.walker4.me/downloads/Temporary_files/Jul%209,%202013.mov

The above file was created using the Aperture "1080p" preset. It is a 1080p30 H.264/PCM (38.9 Mbps/1.41 Mbps) Main@L5.0 CAVLC encoded file. The file plays fine on my system in both QT player apps. (File provided as a baseline sample comparison with your "1080p" file export.)

http://downloads.walker4.me/downloads/Temporary_files/Jul%209,%202013-Custom-B.m ov

This is a "Custom" encoding for the same sample slideshow project as depicted above. It is basically the same encoding as the file above but with frame rate reduced to 24fps but keeping the "Best" quality level setting making it a 1080p24 H.264/PCM (31.7 Mbps/1.41 Mbps) Main@L5.0 CAVLC encoded file. (File provided to see if the data rate reduction that resulted from decreasing the number frame "snapshots" taken each second while keeping each snapshot's quality level constant plays any smoother on your system. I.e., this is a way to minimally reduce the target data rate in Aperture slideshow export work flow.)

http://downloads.walker4.me/downloads/Temporary_files/Jul%209,%202013%20Custom-M .mov

This is another "Custom" encoded file. In this case, the frame rate and the quality settings were changed. Most people seem to think exporting at the hightest possible "Quality" setting will produce the best playback results. Unfortunately this is not always the case if the final result then includes or creates new problems. Most files can be encoded using a "Medium" quality setting with little or no reduction in visual playback. Here the exported file is a 1080p24 H.264/PCM (5.72 Mbps/1.41 Mbps) Main@L4.0 CAVLC medium quality file. (This file was included here so you could compare playback smoothness on your system when the encoded data rate is more aggressively reduced using the built-in Aperture user settings.)

http://downloads.walker4.me/downloads/Temporary_files/Jul%209,%202013%202.mov

It is, of course, also possible to use the iPhoto app to export your slideshows. This work flow also has a "Custom" export option but it allows me to access an "Eport Movie to QT Movie" option which has many additional user options. This file is such an export. In this case the file is a 1080p24 Multi-pass H.264/AAC (16.6 Mbps/0.128 Mbps) Main@L5.0 CAVLC file with Quality level set to "High." key frame frequency of 24, frame reordering is on, and with the data rate set automatically (but could have just as easily be set to a manual limit and optimized for CD/DVD or streaming use and/or included any of the available system filters/special effects).

In any case, you can download and compare my files or create and compare a number of your own files using any of the work flows mentioned. Good luck, and let us know if this fixed your problem.

Jon: WOLL......

Grate!!!!! I wish I could give you more than one thumbs up,😎😉🙂 I was not expecting such deataled and informative responce. I have just finshed uploading my slide show to youtube:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n3Bm4jSBb0o

I just dont use QuickTime player.

"......through the QT media player but is being much more efficiently handled by the VLC software."

I keep seeing addes by Apple: saying there systems are the most efficient and best. mmmmm I wonder