I read your article on QuickTime, pretty good. My problem is the file size with QuickTime 4 versus QuickTime 3 Pro. Edited clips from movie files used to have a smaller size file with QuickTime 3. With QuickTime 4, the new cut clippings are the same size as the original! Any suggestions on how to export correctly?
QuickTime does have two options for exporting, according to whether or not you click the “self-contained” checkbox. Basically, in “self-contained” mode, the movie is self-sufficient so it is full size, where as an unchecked box results in a much smaller movie size. The latter option, however, depends on the original movie for playback, kind of like linking. We hope this is what you were referring to.
The second thing that comes to mind is the fact that you are using QuickTime 3 “Pro” in relation to QuickTime 4. Starting after QuickTime 2.5, Apple disabled the exporting features of movies except in the “Pro” version. This means although you can save in QuickTime 4, you cannot really control the exporting options (as in the compression algorithms: M-JPEG, Animation etc.). Now if you compare the native default QuickTime 4 against some other algorithms, the difference could be very substantial (we’re talking even 1:8 ratios here) so basically what we would suggest here is to upgrade to the Pro version of QuickTime 4. Hey, it’s only 30 bucks, which is pretty good considering what you can do with it.
You should note that the QuickTime 4 native format, compared to QuickTime 3, does tend to produce larger files but with minimal difference and certainly not what you are experiencing. Which means that teaser trailer of Star Wars: Episode I—The Phantom Menace is going to be slightly larger if it were rendered natively in QuickTime 4, rather than the QuickTime 3 it was originally rolled out in. Gee, I knew I could work a Star Wars reference in here somehow. :-) —CT
• • •
Though your review is from 1997 I thought I’d ask you if PopupFolder is still suppose to work on a G3 running system 8.6. The demo of version 2 I downloaded will not load. Petty because I loved it. Any alternatives?
Thanks a lot.
• • •
Michael Tsai, in his column, wrote that Apple still doesn’t know what it had with HyperCard.
In 1989 I worked with both Macs and PC’s, and it was HyperCard that convinced me of the superiority of the Mac for me.
We needed to write a number of small utilities for some specialised tasks. Some had previously been written for the PC, and they just looked so rough. Sure enough, they did the job, but boy did they look home made!
I stumbled across HyperCard, and realised that it had all the elements needed to solve these problems. Not only solve them, but solve them with outrageous style. My employers simply couldn’t believe that I had written the first ones until I showed them how easy it was.
We were running a TV editing facility, and style and elegance are fundamental to the business. These new utilities looked cool, and had a sense of humour. The interactive graphics and use of sound all added to the experience. Clients would often tell their friends about these utilities!
Personally, I was so impressed that I bought my first Mac simply due to the ease with which I could use HyperCard to write useful stacks. There was a little more development to come, leading up to HyperCard 2.0, and then it was left to whither and die.
I can’t remember the last time I wrote anything in HyperCard. That seems such a shame.
Today, I can do some of those things using FileMaker Pro, or AppleScript, but neither comes close.
Apple had provided me with a tool that made it possible to justify buying a Mac, rather than a PC. I was able to make the Mac truly work for me in a way that no mere PC could do.
It’s a shame that Apple never fully appreciated what Bill Atkinson had created, but it is complete folly to just let it fade away. We all need to do custom jobs from time to time. HyperCard should be brought up to date and be available as the means to allow programming “for the rest of us.”
I encourage all HyperCard fans to check out Serf. —MT
• • •
I have yet to try Serf. Your article was the first mention that I have seen. I am not an accomplished programmer, but have had quite a lot of success with scripting applications. Serf sounds very promising indeed, and I look forward to having an opportunity to try it. Particularly as you say that it is elegant.
Elegance is always a welcome attribute. It’s what distinguishes much of what we like about Macs, from what others encounter in the PC world.
I am slightly concerned that Apple might be overlooking elegance as being at the heart of the Mac, confusing it with just being fashionable.
Elegance is a process that starts at the very core, and continues through to the surface. Fashion is just a pretty outer surface. The new looks for QuickTime, and Sherlock 2, are fashionable - not elegant. But the technologies themselves are elegant.
Elegance is always attractive. Fashion is transient.
I couldn’t agree more. —MT
• • •
Can you run Painter 3D on an IBM Pentium?
Yes, you can (provided that you have the Windows version of the program). MetaCreation’s Web site states that Painter 3D runs on everything from a 486 up:
System Requirements: Windows 95 or Windows NT 4.0, 486, Pentium, or Pentium Pro, minimum of 16 MB of system RAM (32+ MB recommended), Hard Drive with 30 MB free space, CD-ROM drive. —DC
• • •
We’d love to hear your thoughts about our publication. We always welcome your comments, criticisms, suggestions, and praise at firstname.lastname@example.org. Or, if you have an opinion or announcement about the Macintosh platform in general, that’s ok too.