Here's an analogy: open a movie in QT Player, then play it:
1 - either by press right arrow key repetitively, or dragging the
playhead, etc...
2 - either by pressing play
QC does #1 for reasons explained before and for some codecs, some
movie sizes and a whole bunch of factors, this may not be as efficient
as #2
On Jul 13, 2007, at 4:40 PM, Roger Bolton wrote:
On 14 Jul 2007, at 00:31, Pierre-Olivier Latour wrote:
There's no doc that I know of or anything: it's just common sense:
if the movie is stepped frame-by-frame like QC does because it
tracks the patch time, it's just less efficient as playing it
straight in a "continuous" way which allows pre-fetching of the
data, async decompression and whatnot.
I'm not really understanding you here. Quicktime also tracks
timecode and plays frame by frame, otherwise it would play faster
than realtime and lose sync. The whole point of quicktime is that a
25 fps clip will never play faster than 25fps. Quicktime also needs
to keep multiple tracks in sync, eg quicktime can have more than one
audio track, so it has to have its own internal counter which is
telling it when to play each frame. How is this different to the
way that QC handles it?
From my own experience QC can play back HD in realtime and
efficiently, I don't really see a performance difference between QC
and QT player.
