You can make a difference in the Apple Support Community!

When you sign up with your Apple Account, you can provide valuable feedback to other community members by upvoting helpful replies and User Tips.

Looks like no one’s replied in a while. To start the conversation again, simply ask a new question.

QuickTime will not play AVI files after updating to Mavericks

Since I have updated to OS X Mavericks, QuickTime 10 will no longer play AVI files. Instead, it takes HOURS to convert them into MOV files. Obviously, this is annoying and not going to work.


I downloaded QuickTime 7, but I hate the look of it and would much prefer to watch video files in QuickTime 10, if it's still possible.


Is there a way to tell QuickTime to not convert AVI files to MOVs? Or was this removed with Mavericks?

OS X Mavericks (10.9), 15" early 2011 2.2GHz Intel Core i7

Posted on Oct 24, 2013 9:32 AM

Reply
Question marked as Top-ranking reply

Posted on Oct 24, 2013 1:03 PM

Since I have updated to OS X Mavericks, QuickTime 10 will no longer play AVI files. Instead, it takes HOURS to convert them into MOV files. Obviously, this is annoying and not going to work.


I downloaded QuickTime 7, but I hate the look of it and would much prefer to watch video files in QuickTime 10, if it's still possible.


Is there a way to tell QuickTime to not convert AVI files to MOVs? Or was this removed with Mavericks?

Your statements and question represent quite a conundrum. On the one hand you want a thoroughly modern-looking, streamlined media player that is capable of handling the latest forms of high definition compression but on the other, wish to retain compatibility with decades old legacy formats which are no longer officially supported by their originators while distancing yourself from the classic QT version which was designed to support these same formats. Thus, for years the handwriting has been on the wall and video experts have recommended that AVI users update their content to more modern file container types supporting more efficient and more highly scalable compression formats. Unfortunately, for the most part, users have ignored this advice complaining that this required too much time and effort and, as a result, simply continued to expand their video library collections dispite the fact it only increased the amount of time and effort required to convert their content when eventially forced to do so. To me, this is tantamount to continuing to build a VHS or Beta-max library and then complaing that the tapes won't play on your DVD or BD video player. While it is impossible to say that this is Apple's first shot at deliberately attempting to close the door on legacy content in preparation for an eventual release of even more modern, higher definition future media players (i.e., 4K could be just around the corner), it does seem to imply that users continuing to employ file types and compression format combinations that are not already fully compatible with QT X are now being pushed in the direction of converting at least some of their content to "native" compatibility under Mavericks.


In any case, I have yet to find any way of, as you say, "telling QT to not convert AVI files to MOVs." At this point I am still in the process of mapping how QT X v10.3's conversion routines work. My only real complaint at this point is that this feature starts automatically and does not allow me to customize any of the target parameters (such as encode matrix/display dimensions). In fact, I found it quite interesting that a compression combination like Motion JPEG/DVI ADPCM in an AVI file container is not converted at all and still plays fine the original container. Also of interest was the fact that H.263/MP3 FLV files convert directly to H.264/AAC MOV files but the same data in an MOV file container only converts the video to .264 while passing the original MP3 data through to the target MOV file container. Also while BD H.264/DTS conversion from MKV or MOV file containers is not supported by QT X v10.3, but it will pass through the video and convert the DTS audio when contained in independent MOV files but the AAC 5.1 audio is not playable since the QT X v10.3/Perian conversion routine only allocates about 7 Kbps of bandwith to the target audio. As you can see, there is still a lot to be learned and I estimate it will be quite a while yet before your question can be properly answerend. In the meantime, you can convert or not convert, use an alternative player or not, or simply sit back and wait as you may choose.


User uploaded file

70 replies
Sort By: 

Apr 16, 2015 11:15 AM in response to Jon Walker

It took me a while to find your email, but I sent it to you, and I got no "message rejected" letter. Maybe it's in your spam.


No matter, though.


You know, I read all of the threads, and I saw at least 20 "Just use VLC" or "Did you try VLC", but I never saw a definitive "Yes...Thank you...VLC is the solution", so I kept pressing onward.


Are you saying that the same VLC player can be installed into Windows and Apple, and can play my WMV files? And it's free?


Then that would be the solution, I guess.


I'm going to install one now and let you know what happens.

Reply

Apr 16, 2015 12:18 PM in response to JohnathanSasson123

Okay...I installed VLC and it worked as well as my WMP. I could only use 32 bit, but it was fine.


Now...if my grandfather installs VLC, he will be able to view my files (they all have the same format.)


And, should he install 32 bit even if his computer can accept 64 bit?

Reply

Apr 16, 2015 1:44 PM in response to JohnathanSasson123

Sorry. Was re-encoding files for my video library and did not want to interrupt the work earlier.


It took me a while to find your email, but I sent it to you, and I got no "message rejected" letter. Maybe it's in your spam.

Did receive a file entitled "Steve McQueen.wmv," earlier. Not sure why you would receive a "rejection" message unless you also emailed an oversized attachment. While the file played fine, it was received with an incorrect aspect ratio setting. Wasn't sure if you had originally used an anamorphic encode strategy and the file "lost" the setting during transmission or if you simply encoded it as a non-anamorphic 4:3 aspect file for some reason of your own. In any case, I simply used the VLC aspect override to watch it in the corrected 16:9 aspect.


You know, I read all of the threads, and I saw at least 20 "Just use VLC" or "Did you try VLC", but I never saw a definitive "Yes...Thank you...VLC is the solution", so I kept pressing onward.

In many cases, the original posters were looking for ways to play files that are incompatible with the "new" AVFoundation structure embedded in Mavericks and Yosemite without transcoding the files but still playing them in the QT X player or the QuickLook system media previewer. Lets just sat many of these individuals were less than appreciative about using an alternative player—even if it allowed them to watch and/or preview their files as they are.


Are you saying that the same VLC player can be installed into Windows and Apple, and can play my WMV files? And it's free?

Free—yes. The same VLC player—yes in the sense that the same program can be compiled to run on different platforms and systems and yes—they do essentially support the same input formats whether running under Windows, Mac OS X, Linux, BeOS, etc. but acquisition capabilities do vary a bit. See charts below:


User uploaded file


User uploaded file


User uploaded file


User uploaded file

Reply

Apr 16, 2015 2:05 PM in response to JohnathanSasson123

Now...if my grandfather installs VLC, he will be able to view my files (they all have the same format.)

Correct. And if you have any doubts or decide to use different file types and codecs, you can always pre-test them in your copy of VLC before distributing them to him.


And, should he install 32 bit even if his computer can accept 64 bit?

Installation should match the Mac OS X operating system. Unless he is using an older platform under Mac OS X v10.5 (Leopard), all of the "current" Mac OS X v10.6 (Snow Leopard) thru v10.10 (Yosemite) use the same 64 bit version of VLC—currently (as of today) v2.2.1 (which I now need to download and install). I.e., the VideoLan people are pretty good about keeping the player "up-to-date," so you may want to keep your eye out for updates and let your grandfather know when they become available if you want to ensure you both have the same version installed at any given time—not that I think there will be any drastic changes even if you allow for a little "slippage" in updating the players.


User uploaded file

Reply

Apr 17, 2015 3:11 AM in response to Jon Walker

I said that I received no "message rejected", meaning that it should have gone through, which it did.


I'm getting more "Yes" and "That is correct" statements from you, so that's good.


Just a couple of loose ends on my side...


I mentioned the "32 bit/ 64 bit" issue because my Windows XP only handles 32 bits. When I find out exactly what my grandfather uses, I'll check whether or not his system handles 64 bits, but according to you, it probably does. He also told me that he is upgrading to Yosemite, but I'm not getting into that. As long as his system can install a VLC (which it can), then everything is fine


You jogged my memory about those VLC threads...Almost all of them were talking about AVI stuff, so there's no need to rehash all of those debates.


The only other question that I have, regards the aspect ratio. Does the aspect ratio only apply to viewing, because I think that I can save my files in 16:9. I've been choosing 4:3 because I didn't know which to choose. So, unless you say otherwise, if given the choice, I will choose 16:9 from now on.


-Jack

Reply

Apr 17, 2015 7:42 AM in response to JohnathanSasson123

I said that I received no "message rejected", meaning that it should have gone through, which it did.


User uploaded file

Sorry! Overactive mind at work, I guess. Saw the "no" but interpreted it as a typo error for "an" as it did not occur to me that you would bother to mention the non-receipt of a "Rejection" message any more than you would mention non-reseipt of a "Mailbox Full", "Np Such Recipient", "Failed Delivery", or similar messages.


The only other question that I have, regards the aspect ratio. Does the aspect ratio only apply to viewing, because I think that I can save my files in 16:9. I've been choosing 4:3 because I didn't know which to choose. So, unless you say otherwise, if given the choice, I will choose 16:9 from now on.

The setting should always match the aspect ratio of the original media content. (If a glutton for punishment, read the following. If not, skip to last paragraph.)


Basically, media content can be encoded using non-anamorphic or anamorphic strategies. Non-anamorphic encodings are stored to a data matrix equal to the final display. For example, a 4:3 aspect ratio 640x480 source file would be encoded to a 640x480 data matrix which then plays back as a 640x480 display video. In a similar manner, a 16:9 aspect ratio 853x480 file would be encoded to an 853x480 data matrix which displays in its original 853x480 16:9 aspect. On the other hand, anamorphic encoding stores media content to a data matrix that is not equal to its final display but embeds a setting that tells the final player to display the encoded data at the correct aspect ratio based normally on the height of the encode data matrix. Standard DV and DVD files are good examples anamorphic encodings. In this case, the source content, whether 640x480 or 853x480 is encoded to a 720x480 data matrix along with a setting that tells the player to play the 720x480 file in its original form.


Some workflows can "lose" this setting which was why I mentioned the matter in the first place. It appears that your encoder automatically encodes your files using the anamorphic strategy but requires you to tell the application whether to set the final file to display in its "full screen" (4:3) or "widescreen" (16:9) aspect. Using an incorrect setting may or may not adversely effect the encode process (will address this later)—but definitely affects the way files play in the media player. Thus, any 16:9 files encoded with the "4:3" setting would normally display incorrectly when opened in any media player that looks for this setting. Most modern players do this automatically. However, since VLC includes the option to override the embedded setting, your files can still be viewed in their correct aspect.


With regard to the possibility of having an adverse affect on your encodings, I recommend you run a simple comparison test. Encode a test 16:9 source file using both the "16:9" and "4:3" settings. Then check the size of the output files and the quality of their playback in the "16:9" playback mode. If the 4:3 file is smaller and playback has lower quality, then my guess would be that the encode setting changes the size of the target encode matrix, as well as, the default playback aspect. If the files are the same size and there is no difference in the playback quality (or the 16:9 display looks slightly "softer"), then the target encoded matrix is probably of fixed dimensions and the setting only affects the default display dimensions. The DV and DVD encoding standard previously indicated use a fixed target matrix strategy. I prefer to use a fixed scaling ratio when encoding my files—normally a 5:4/4:5 compression/expansion strategy. For example, I encode my 4:3 BD content to a 768x720 data matrix for 960x720 playback and my 16:9 BD content to a 1024x720 data matrix for 1280x720 playback.

While I assume these comments contain more information than you really want to deal with, am including them to provide some background information as to why you should determine how your WMV encoder works and why you should use the correct setting for each file. Otherwise, you will have to explain to your grandfather how to adjust file playback manually—and he may have an even greater problem dealing with the issue.


User uploaded file

Reply

Apr 17, 2015 4:13 PM in response to Jon Walker

You're not going to believe this, but I actually understood most of that.


I have a bad habit of asking questions before I look into them myself.


I apologize for that. After I sent my prior message, I re-copied one of my videos from 4:3 to 16:9.


After that, I played one of my still shot 4:3 videos on the VLC.


I paused on one photo, and the went to a tab on the player, which included aspect ratio settings.


There at least 6 or 7 different ratios in there, but I believe that the default was 16:9.


In any event, I toggled from one ratio to the next, and I was amazed at what I was seeing.


WMP, to my knowledge, doesn't have those settings.


So, to make a long story short, I'm in the midst of changing all of my videos to 16:9.


As you said, if one of them would have been better off, by staying at 4:3, then the viewer can simply adjust the ratio on the VLC.


One more thing.. When I recently viewed some of my videos on my WMP, I noticed that the title frames (e.g. Three-quarter Time), we're noticeably sharper on my slides how videos than those of my movie videos.

It peaked my curiosity, so I checked compared the properties of each one.

It seems that the "recommended" settings for the slide shows were saved as 4:3 640×480, whereas the movie videos were saved at 4:3 320×240.

So, I checked "other options", rather than "recommended", and a drop down menu of a dozen settings appeared, all of which I had knew nothing about.


I went through them one by one, without actually re-saving the videos, but to see what setting resulted from each option.


I found one that saved the files in 640x480 ( it was something like "high quality large"


Well...it made my movie videos sharper. It also increased the file size a great deal, but I don't care. As you can see, we're talking about 2-12 minute videos.


Now...by changing the aspect to 16:9, the pixels changed to 856x480, which makes sense. I haven't compared the file sizes yet, but I'm assuming that they have increase a little as well.


I'm only telling you this in case another Windows XP user who's facing the same issues, happens to pose a question to the forum.


Oh...I almost forgot...This VLC player (which to me, is like a catharsis in viewing videos. In fact, I put the VLC app on my phone!), had a cropping function under one of the tabs. This function, to me, does the same as the aspect ratio.


The only reason, that I can think of, as to why it's there, would have to be in the realm of saving the file rather than just viewing it. Because adjusting the aspect more or less gives the appearance of a better cropped video.


I was just about to ask you if I could use that possible cropping function, and save the finished product, but then I thought...Who cares how the file is saved. If they're only being watched privately, then the VLC would accomplish most of one's viewing needs.


Am I at least thinking in the right direction?

Reply

Apr 18, 2015 1:24 PM in response to JohnathanSasson123

Another busy day for me. Will siff if I can respond to your last message before heading out the door again.


You're not going to believe this, but I actually understood most of that.

I have a bad habit of asking questions before I look into them myself.

I apologize for that. After I sent my prior message, I re-copied one of my videos from 4:3 to 16:9.

After that, I played one of my still shot 4:3 videos on the VLC.

I paused on one photo, and the went to a tab on the player, which included aspect ratio settings.

There at least 6 or 7 different ratios in there, but I believe that the default was 16:9.

In any event, I toggled from one ratio to the next, and I was amazed at what I was seeing.

WMP, to my knowledge, doesn't have those settings.

Most modern players don't need these aspect overrides because the players expect the files to be encoded for playback at the original aspect ratio in the "Default" aspect mode in which the file opens. VLC is a legacy player and includes the aspect overrides because some legacy files may not store this information properly, some workflows may lose the aspect setting, or in the event files were simply encoded improperly to begin with.


So, to make a long story short, I'm in the midst of changing all of my videos to 16:9.

As you said, if one of them would have been better off, by staying at 4:3, then the viewer can simply adjust the ratio on the VLC.

Basically, the video you sent men was edited as a widescreen 16:9 (1.78:1) editing project which included clips in various aspect ratios. The first clip appeared to be an underscanned 1.78:1 file. The second clip looks to be a 1:35:1 aspect file. The third is probably a 1.55:1 DVD sourced file rather than the 2.40:1 BD file release. The fourth clip is a full scree 4:3 (1.33:1) file and the last two both appear to be in a 1.85:1 aspect ratio. The letterboxing or pillaring of is normal and was done to ensure that all content would play back in its original individual aspect as long as the player is playing the file at the original project aspect ratio of 16:9 (1.78:1).


The problem is, you exported the file in the 4:3 aspect ratio which changed the relative aspect ratios of all of the clips comprising the video project. Here is a more graphic illustration:


User uploaded file

This represents a 16:9 video project in its original form and how it should look when played back by others.


User uploaded file

But this is how the same content looks when encoded as a 4:3 aspect video and played back as such in a video player in the default or 4:3 aspect mode. Conversely, here is what happens when you encode a 4:3 aspect project as a 4:3 full screen file for distribution:


User uploaded file

This is how the original project file looks and how it should be encoded and played back as a 4:3 video.


User uploaded file

But this is what you end up with when you encode a 4:3 aspect file as a 16:9 aspect file. As you can see, play the original content back at an incorrect aspect ratio introduces a distortion to the displayed objects. In the first case, people and objects look taller and skinnier than they should and in the second case, they become shorter and fatter than they would appear in real life.


One more thing.. When I recently viewed some of my videos on my WMP, I noticed that the title frames (e.g. Three-quarter Time), we're noticeably sharper on my slides how videos than those of my movie videos.



It peaked my curiosity, so I checked compared the properties of each one.



It seems that the "recommended" settings for the slide shows were saved as 4:3 640×480, whereas the movie videos were saved at 4:3 320×240.



So, I checked "other options", rather than "recommended", and a drop down menu of a dozen settings appeared, all of which I had knew nothing about.

I went through them one by one, without actually re-saving the videos, but to see what setting resulted from each option.

I found one that saved the files in 640x480 ( it was something like "high quality large"

Well...it made my movie videos sharper. It also increased the file size a great deal, but I don't care. As you can see, we're talking about 2-12 minute videos.

This is normal. Actually, it is an older trick for sending larger display video files without increasing file size but, as you noted, it does decrease the quality. Sort of a compromise—trading video quality for file bandwidth/storage space. Here is another example:


User uploaded file

Original 200x300 pixel file


User uploaded file

2x version at 400x600 pixels


User uploaded file

3x version at 600x900 pixels


As the dimension of the original image are increased so increases the area of the display. Am sure your remember this relationship between the dimensions of a rectangle and its area. Thus, in the original image one pixel in the image can represent one pixel in the display. When the image is doubled in dimensions, each pixel in the original image is represented by 4 pixels in the magnified display. And, in a similar manner, if the dimensions are tripled, then each pixel in the original image is then represented by 9 pixels in the display. This, of course, assumes both image and display have the same resolution reference.


Now...by changing the aspect to 16:9, the pixels changed to 856x480, which makes sense. I haven't compared the file sizes yet, but I'm assuming that they have increase a little as well.

I'm only telling you this in case another Windows XP user who's facing the same issues, happens to pose a question to the forum.

That probably a good approximation. The exact width fora a 480 video height would be 853.33 pixels. But, we don't deal in fractional pixels and WMV normally requires both the be even values. Depending on the original project dimensions and your specific workflow, the 856 value could simple represent two separate round-offs to the next upper even number or a greater modulus arithmetic algorithm than expected. I use a modulus 2 app that allows odd number widths but different apps may encode to widths generally anywhere from 848 (modulus 16) to 856 (modulus 8) or use 852 (modulus 4) as its best choice. (Just a bit of added explanation.)


Oh...I almost forgot...This VLC player (which to me, is like a catharsis in viewing videos. In fact, I put the VLC app on my phone!), had a cropping function under one of the tabs. This function, to me, does the same as the aspect ratio.

The only reason, that I can think of, as to why it's there, would have to be in the realm of saving the file rather than just viewing it. Because adjusting the aspect more or less gives the appearance of a better cropped video.

I was just about to ask you if I could use that possible cropping function, and save the finished product, but then I thought...Who cares how the file is saved. If they're only being watched privately, then the VLC would accomplish most of one's viewing needs.

Had never used the IOS version of VLC because my files are already natively compatible with all Apple devices. However, based on some of your remarks, I decided to download the app and give it a try. Still in the testing mode and looking around, but the reference to "Crop" that I've found was the "Crop to fill screen" option. To me, this is a misnomer as I think of cropping as an editing or encoding action to change the dimensions and/or aspect ratio of my file output. In this case, the option appears to be only a "Scale to fit screen" option since all it does is scale the video to fill your available screen area. That is, when the video aspect ratio is greater than the aspect ratio of you device display, the display will be scaled so that the height fills the available landscape orientation display height. Since the video's default aspect ratio does not change, the width of the content "over fills" the display width—in effect, cropping the landscape width of the display.


If this is the function to which you were referring, then no, there is no capability to "save" the cropped display of the video. That is why I refer to this merely a way to "scale" the display. All of the other aspect features are "scale to fit" options while this is a "scale to fill" option. So I am inclined to think that VLC used the change in terminology to underline the differences between "fitting content to the screen" and "filling the screen." As to the effect of the different aspect options, it really depends on the aspect of the display you are using and the aspect ratio of the file your are viewing. My phone has a 16: 9 display. Therefore, when I watch a 16:9 video on it, the "Default", "Crop to fill screen", and "Aspect 16:9" options all display the file the same and only the "4:3" and "16:10" options change how I view the content.


You can view the content any way you want. Most people prefer to watch videos at their original aspect ratio which make them appear most natural. However, if you prefer to distort the playback, as you say, you are watching privately so it is doubtful anyone else will complain. However, the story may be different if you opt to stream the content to your TV in front of family and/or guests.


Am I at least thinking in the right direction?

There is no right or wrong direction here. There is only the way you chose to do things. Most people would normally encode their files so that they play back in the same aspect ratio as the original content without having to use any of the aspect correction or "cropping" features. Frankly, I am more interested in other features like air playing the video on my iPhone or iPad on my HDTV via my TV devices. I also like the fact that the IOS version of VLC can access content on any UPnP device on my local network (e..g., WDMyCloudEX4) or access a video on my personal server. In fact, I posted an MP4 video containing 2.40:1 aspect scenes from Wild Card mixed with 1.78:1 aspect commentary so you test it with the various aspect display options, as well as, test the ability of VLC to access the file across the internet if you have a Wi-Fi network connected to your ISP. If so and your VLC app works like mine, simply open the "Open Network Stream" option, enter the following URL on the address line, and press the "Open Network Stream" text button. http://downloads.walker4.me/Temporary_files/Test.mp4


User uploaded file

Reply

Apr 18, 2015 2:13 PM in response to Jon Walker

"The problem is, you exported the file in the 4:3 aspect ratio which changed the relative aspect ratios of all of the clips comprising the video project. Here is a more graphic illustration:"


I had unwittingly saved all my files in 4:3, and only sent you one of them as it was.


I re-read your last two posts, and agree that keeping some of my files in 4:3 plays better than 16:9.


I also saw that some my compilation videos had both 16:9 and 4:3 snippets within the same video. So when you watch them, you suddenly see a clip that is stretched out, which looks really bad.


So I had to change the original snippet to 4:3 and replace the stretched out snippet, in order to make the video uniform.


The VLC changes it's default aspect ratio automatically, on a file by file basis. That is a great player.

Reply

Jun 8, 2015 12:25 PM in response to trevo123

Exactly my view !!! I did not update my operating system because I did not need to, till certain other softwares like Dragon necessitated me to. Noe those old movie files won't play, once embarrassingly, in front of a large audience, where I was presenting a talk I had done many times before. Apple has screwed all my old presentations with .avi movies, some of which have travelled with me for years and are priceless. I do not want any fancy compression or superb HD resolution or whatever, just want to play my movie files as I used to !!!!


Seriously, maybe I should buy a cheaper notebook next time

Reply

QuickTime will not play AVI files after updating to Mavericks

Welcome to Apple Support Community
A forum where Apple customers help each other with their products. Get started with your Apple Account.