Comments on: Regarding Apple’s iFrame Spec

By: Rabid

Rabid — Sat, 17 Oct 2009 19:31:35 +0000

[Comment removed, since you're a jackass and an Apple apologist]

By: Eugenia

Eugenia — Sat, 17 Oct 2009 18:27:57 +0000

Ray, Atilla, you are both wrong. This format has nothing to do with mobile stuff, or in-camera editing. It’s just a POOR attempt from Apple to fix the inability of iMovie (like any other video editor) to edit 1080p h.264 in real time from digirecorders (AVCHD is faster to edit because it has b-frames). As I explained in the article, Apple should have worked either with proxies, or with GPU accel., not this crippled format.

By: Atilla

Atilla — Sat, 17 Oct 2009 17:58:35 +0000

Even in the context of higher resolutions available on desktop systems, your condemnation is premature. So, as long as we’re considering what amounts to today as vaporware on the cusp, Long Live iFrame!

Mobile GPU-friendly power & display requirements, and flash/SSD-friendlier file sizes tell the story. iFrame’s about fleshing out an ecosystem (think open standards, TuneKit-assembled multimedia), not obviating other formats.

By: William Eggington

William Eggington — Sat, 17 Oct 2009 17:45:48 +0000

540p scales up to 1080p? I really don’t think so Ray.

By: Ray Cote

Ray Cote — Sat, 17 Oct 2009 16:59:44 +0000

You are so wrong. Here is why!

This is all about instant editing on mobile devices. Which will account for the vast majority of non professional video moving forward. It will also scale up to 1080 and down to iPhone resolutions in a quick and clean way.

By: JrezIN

JrezIN — Sat, 17 Oct 2009 11:36:48 +0000

I do suspect that this iFrame format has more to do with the web, HTML5 and iPhone than Apple thinking about HD res or something else… wait and see.

By: William Eggington

William Eggington — Fri, 16 Oct 2009 23:32:25 +0000

Apple has received a lot of fingers from me over the years. LOL