On OXS 10.8.2, difference between Quicktime and Quicktime 7 Pro ?

I just bought Quicktime 7 Pro however having a hardtime activating and getting it to work. Before buying it, I noticed the default install of OSX 10.8.2 had a Quicktime player. However, to get Quciktime 7 Pro, I read somewhere that I needed to install Quicktime 7, then plug in the registration code.
So after purchasing, I downloaded Quicktime 7. I could see the Quicktime Pro items in its menu ( with "HD" prefixes). I then went into the registration window and plugged in my name and code  - exactly as shown on the store receipt - nothing happens. The Registration popup window shows a Quicktime Pro logo, but all the menu items for Quicktime Pro has disappeared. The menu items looks exatly like the old quicktime 7! with no new items.
Did I miss something?
What is the difference between the Quicktime Player installed by default with OSX 10.8.2 and Quicktime 7?

The menu items looks exatly like the old quicktime 7! with no new items.
No new menu options are added by keying QT 7 for "Pro" use. However, some options that were previously unaccessible (grayed out) will now be accessible. For instance, can you now open the "Properties" window (under the "Windows" menu) when a file is loaded in the QT 7 player app? If so, then the app is correctly keyed for "Pro" use.
Did I miss something?
Hard to say without actually seeing your system. Did you follow the instructions listed under the "Additional Information" heading on this web page?
What is the difference between the Quicktime Player installed by default with OSX 10.8.2 and Quicktime 7?
QT X is Apple's attemt to modernize QT by completely rewriting it to make better use of newer and more efficient video tecnologies—unfortunately, at the cost of compatibility with "legacy" video technologies and editing features developed over a two decade period of QT evolution. As such, QT X is still in its infancy and, on the one hand, still lacks many of the features and capabilities now taken for granted in QT 7 Pro (like layer compositing of content at the track level), and, on the other, adding new features (like the playback of "transport stream" files or native support for MPEG-2 GOP and AC3 content) which are not possible in QT 7.

Similar Messages

  • Difference between Satellite and Satellite Pro L100

    what is the difference between satellite and satellite pro? for example - satellite L100-175 and satellite pro L100-176?

    Hi,
    the difference between Satellite and Satellite Pro is the operating system:
    Windows XP Home for Satellite
    Windows XP Professional for Satellite Pro
    The difference between the models L100-xxx is just the equipment.
    For Example the CPU:
    Sat L100-175: Core Duo T2500; 2.0 GHz
    Sat Pro L100-176: Core Duo T2400; 1.83 GHz
    For further details look in the specs of the models.
    Bye

  • Difference between Tekton and Tekton Pro?

    Hi,
    I'm aware that Adobe's "Pro" designation means that the font contains all the necessary glyphs to set European languages. But that's not what I'm asking.
    We have a client for whom we're preparing a book. We've been using Tekton Pro (Bold and Regular). We sent a PDF proof to the client and they say that they meant the old Tekton (not Pro--rather, the postscript version). I've tried to compare the two, but it's very difficult online.
    My question is: is there a difference in the actual form of the letters between the old Tekton and Tekton Pro?
    (In the case of Garamond and Garamond Premier Pro there is a significant difference between the shapes of some letters, for example.)
    Thanks,
    Ariel

    Hi Neil,
    As far as I understood, our firm's client's concern was that the font looked
    different (reflow not being an issue in this case because it's used for a
    main heading only).
    Anyway, I went into the office (a rarity in these days of telecommuting) to
    investigate. The outcome is that somehow or other one of the graphics people
    managed to switch Tekton for some variant of Times. Good grief! No wonder
    the client sounded concerned; I'm impressed that they managed to remain so
    polite about it, actually.
    I think you're right about there generally not being a difference between
    the PS and Pro versions of Adobe fonts. I would be interested to hear more
    insight into this point.
    I seem to have three Adobe Garamond's on the computer. The old Adobe
    Garamond PostScript and Adobe Garamond Pro: these two seem identical, and a
    full alphabet also sets the same width.
    On the other hand, Adobe Garamond Premier Pro seems to be essentially
    different, though very similar, font. It sets differently, and unless I'm
    imagining things, the x-height is slightly shorter, plus all the strokes
    seem slight thicker.
    This adds support to the theory that a regular Adobe PS font is identical to
    its Pro namesake except for some added glyphs. Perhaps that is why Adobe
    Garamond Premier was actually given a different name.
    Regards,
    Ariel

  • Quality differences between iDVD and DVD Pro

    Are there any differences in viewing quality between using iDVD or DVD pro?
    I like using iDVD when I don't need a lot of menues.
    Thanks for answers.
    Robert

    What I need to know if it is a dramatic different in quality that I should use DVD Pro instead of iDVD.
    If you want a DRAMATIC improvement in quality, shoot sharp, high quality content like Hollywood (usually on film) and have it compressed by high quality hardware encoders.
    There is a good reason Hollywood DVDs look better than iDVD/DVD Studio Pro DVDs.
    F Shippey

  • Difference between MacBook and MacBook Pro

    I'm wondering why someone would choose a Pro model over the non-Pro model. Is it worth the extra $.
    The difference I see are:
    Screen size
    Only have firewire port on Pro
    Only have back lit keyboard on Pro
    While the Pro I'm looking at has faster Processor (2.4/2.0), the bus speed is slower on the Pro (800/1066).
    Thanks for any tips/advice.

    I recnetly checked both machines at a local Distributor (scNet), and there's quite the difference apart from what you posted. Despite the fact that I rrrreally like the cute very mobile 13" form factor, I decided for the 15"machine. The display of the larger notebook is amazingly better, the 13" display really is a disgrace, it's washed out and doesn't feel as high end as it should. Coming from an Asus W2J 17" glossy, I'm used to reflections, but the 13" inch would have been a step backwards. Also, the 15" has the better processor options (larger L2, higher speeds and the 7200 rpm harddisks, which you really should spent 50 or 90 bucks for, as they will make a LOT of difference in terms of performance). However much I may like the compactness of the smaller machine, it's pretty clear that the macbook pro is well worth paying 600€ more.

  • What is the difference between iMac and Mac pro?

    I want to buy an iMac but have saw the mac pro.  What is the difference?  Do you need an iMac to get a mac pro or does it come with a monitor?

    Yes, exactly as Kappy has stated.
    The iMac is an "all-in-one" computer similar to an HP Envy, or HP Touchsmart.
    HP Envy Here: http://tinyurl.com/bb-hp-envy
    HP Touchsmart Here: http://tinyurl.com/bb-hp-touchsmart
    These are an "all-in-one" machine, where the CPU (central processing unit), mainboard, and graphics display adapter are all embedded onto one board, and it is built-in to the monitor display case.
    So you just have what looks like a "thicker" monitor on your desk and your keyboard connects to this "all-in-one" computer.  (and actually the newest 2012 iMacs are not really that "thick" at all, and it does look pretty nice/thin/sleek).
    The disadvantage to an "all-in-one" is that it's not easily upgradeable.  You can't change out the graphics cards, or install new PCIe expansion cards (faster network cards, RAID adapter, etc.), can't add extra internal hard drives (i.e. 4 internal hard drives), etc.
    The Mac Pro is a standalone computer.  It requires an additional monitor/display.  The advantage of having a Mac Pro is that it is upgradeable (you can get more powerful graphics cards in the future if you need better 3D rendering power) and it has far more memory slots, so it can be expandeable to I believe 128GB of RAM (whereas I believe the iMac might be 32GB of ram?)
    iMac memory expansion here:  http://www.apple.com/why-mac/compare/
    Mac Pro Memory expansion here:  http://eshop.macsales.com/shop/memory/Mac-Pro-Memory#1333-memory
    Also the iMac is a much thinner device, and you can't separate the display from the CPU (they are an "all-in-one" device) so you can't upgrade or change the primary display, but you can add a second display).
    With the Mac Pro, you can add additional graphics cards, and you can power up to twelve displays (if you wish).  You also have a much more powerful processor on the Mac Pro (one quad-core, or up to two 6-Core Intel Xeon processors).  So the Mac Pro a much more powerful machine.
    The iMac is just a nice cute/thin desktop display (all-in-one), but with a quad-core processor it's still a fairly fast/decent machine.
    If you are doing heavy 3D graphics rendering or gaming, or graphics design (3D CAD, etc.) then I would probably go with something more powerful like a Mac Pro, since you can get better graphics cards, and the Mac Pro will run much cooler (as you're trying to do massive rendering).
    > Do you need an iMac to get a mac pro or does it come with a monitor?
    No, you don't need an iMac for a Mac Pro (they are two separate and different computers), but yes you do need an external monitor display if you buy a Mac Pro.
    Any 1920x1080p monitor/display with an HDMI input will be sufficient for using with a Mac Pro.

  • Why are there print differences between Reader and Acrobat Pro

    I have a PDF file generated by InDesign (CS3). When I print the PDF from Reader (8.1.4) I get lighter text than when the same file is printed by Acrobat Pro (9.1.0). A close examination of the printed letters shows that the text printed from Reader is not solid black, while the text from Pro is solid black.
    Is this typical or is there something I need to do to improve the printing from Reader?

    I am a CADD Coord. (CADD Mgr)designer) I used to do a lot of design. Just recently we have noticed that anything printed from Adobe, the reader or the full version, is printing so lightly in many cases that it looks like it is missing data. whenever we create teh PDF from Autodesk products or Bluebeam Revue, it is the same. Bluebeam prints perfect. Yet the exact same file printed through Adobe is very, very light. Even printing as image it does this. And it appears at random. Some people print ok, but the exact same printer sent by someone else, using the same method, comes out too light in Adobe.
    I have contacted Autodesk and they have punted it back. Anyone have any answers or clues to fix? i send out deliverables for clients all the time and I hate to find out they print and miss something of the design.

  • Color Differences between Lightroom and Premiere Pro

    I have been making color adjustments to movie clips in Photoshop or Lightroom (both of which do a great job), but when I bring the clips into Premiere Pro or Premiere Elements the colors are not the same as what I was seing in the other programs. It is as if the programs are using different color profiles. How do I resolve this problem?

    bryanbrowne1 wrote:
    I have been making color adjustments to movie clips in Photoshop or Lightroom (both of which do a great job), but when I bring the clips into Premiere Pro or Premiere Elements the colors are not the same as what I was seing in the other programs. It is as if the programs are using different color profiles. How do I resolve this problem?
    Photoshop and Lightroom are designed for still photography. Still photographers use a color managed workflow that in general ends in a paper print. Since printers/inks/papers can in general display a wider gamut than computer monitors can display, we use tools manage it, such as soft proofing. The efficient way to control this is through ICC profiles of the printer/ink/paper combinations, of which there are thousands. Thus Photoshop and Lightroom and other still photography tools are esentially required to be color managed.
    PPro and film/video have decidedly different requirements. The video workflow ends in a light source display (projection, HDTV, or web video, all are light sources, where a pigment ink print is a reflective source, which has entirely different characteristics). These end displays are not variable workspace displays. HDTV displays only in REC.709 workspace, its gamut, contrast, etc. are tightly defined. Web video uses the sRGB workspace. Etc.
    I'm just sayin' that still photography and video have very different requirements. Trying to force still photography methods onto a video workflow is bound to be difficult and full of problems, as you have found.
    The answer to your "How do I resolve this problem" question is perhaps to use the still photography tools for still photography, and the video tools for video. A stills workflow for stills, and a video workflow for video.
    A video workflow implies doing color correction and color grading on external monitors that natively support the target work space (Rec.709 in the case of HDTV, Blu-ray, or DVD output [OK, technically DVD uses SDTV's REC.601 work space, but 709 is "close enough" that you can get by in all but the most critical applications]). IOW, use a production monitor, or at least an HDTV (calibrated of course), to judge final output.
    Trying to color correct video on a computer monitor is just asking for trouble. As you well know by now.
    A good place to start learning the video way of things when it comes to color correction and grading is Alexis Van Hurkman's Color Correction Handbook. Highly recommended; it answered questions that I didn't know enough to ask yet. Might for you too, IDK.

  • Internal Differences between MacBook and MacBook Pro?

    I was wondering if anyone has concrete information on whether on not the un-coustomizable, internal workings of the MacBook and MacBook Pro are different, such as the motherboard, logic board, other interfaces, etc.
    I have been talking with Apple reps and none have been able to give me a deffinate answer or written proof. Does anyone have info. supporting or refuting the statement that MacBooks and MacBook Pros are condigured/maunfactured with the same parts, aside from the Video Card?
    Thanks

    They are not the same; the disassembley pictures for both are here so you can compare for yourself
    MacBook - http://www.ifixit.com/Guide/86.1.0.html
    MacBook Pro - http://www.ifixit.com/Guide/85.1.0.html

  • What is the difference between SpeedGrade and Premier Pro

    Mainly, I do Youtube videos, and I want the one that would be better for color correction. And for working with blue (chroma) screens and cut and deleting clips

    [ moved to the Premiere Pro forums ]
    Premiere Pro (PP) and After Effects (AE) are both able to edit footage, pull chroma keys and apply color correction. PPis a non-linear editor and so is primarily used to assemble clips into a timeline, so it has a lot of editing/transition and layering tools. AE is a post-production tool for creating very complex visual effects and applying compositions onto footage but it doesn't have the same real-time playback as PP.
    Speedgrade is a dedicated colorist application - while it can be used to assemble clips into a sequence it doesn't have anything like the features of PP or AE, and it takes a while to learn how to use it. What SG does have is a very powerful color-grading toolset designed for use in a professional workflow.
    If you're doing basic grading of clips from a consumer camera or DSLR (setting white balances, etc) then PP and its Three Way Color Corrector is usually more than adequate. If you're working with pro cameras that record in RAW/log format, Speedgrade is the best choice but you would be using it in combination with PP to assemble the final program.

  • What is the difference between avi and mov

    Hi FCP users,
    I am actually an audio guy, but I would like an answer on something.
    I work with Logic, and usually use quicktime movies when I am working to movies. But I am working with a client who is an Avid user and swears by avi files. Can someone explain to me the difference. My client explained to me that avi's are better than mov files. He claims their file sizes are bigger, so therefore there quality is better. He said there is some form of compression on quicktime movies which lessen the quality to avi, even if the mov is uncompressed apparently the quality is still less than an uncompressed avi. If this is not true, could someone give me the real big difference between the two.
    I thought is was more of a preference, like windows users prefer wav, and apple users like quicktime movies. Like with audio, there isnt a huge difference between aif and wav. Windows users prefer wav and apple users aif.
    Thanks in advance for any information.

    gazo wrote:
    The vid guy has sent me some files to work with. So I am working in Final Cut to edit some of the video, and then sending it back to him. He is working on PC with Avid. What is the best. Should I convert the avi files he has sent to me to mov files. Then pull these into FCP, and then export it out as avi for him. Or should I export out as mov, and then he converts them to avi when he pulls it into Avid on his PC? Very confusing which is the best procedure between Mac and PC.
    Thanks in advance for any help.
    This is a disaster in the making. You can avoid being part of the train wreck by either renting an Avid, going to live at his house, or telling him to get a Macintosh.
    You must find the lowest common denominator video format that will work on both of your systems. That could be conventional DV, dunno, never used Avid and never tried to edit anything on a PC. But I can tell you this with absolute certainty, it will be easier and, in the end, much less expensive for one of you to adopt the other's platform for the duration of this project. The time you waste transcoding, arguing, formatting your drives, buying secondary products, fitting round pegs into square holes, and trying to find a workable solution (that will keep changing as the project gets more complicated) will cost you much more in terms of money out of pocket and creative frustration than simply buying/renting another station.
    bogiesan

  • Difference between .qt and .mov

    Hi all
    Please tell me what is the difference between .qt and .mov formats and when and where they are used. Also if there are any more formats related to Quick Time please brief or any links to any reference sections...
    thanks

    No difference except the file extension. The .mov extension should be used as .qt is very old and may not be understood by Web servers.
    http://www.apple.com/quicktime/player/specs.html

  • Difference between "Web" and "Streaming"

    Can anyone tell me what the difference between Web and Streaming is when exporting a Movie from iMovie? I know they both go on a webpage but why are there two options?
    Thanks

    True streaming media is not cached on the viewing machine. No cache means nothing to save as a new file. You can only save a "reference" to the source file stream.
    Media Links (very cool feature rarely used by most users) make a .qtl file. This is also just a reference movie (very tiny file size) but can include many features found (usually) in the Pro upgrade of QuickTIme and/or AppleScript and Automator Action features.
    Using Media Link files will allow you to add "Presentation" playback features to your QuickTime file (Full Screen, close when done, etc). You can add a "link" inside your QuickTime file so when the image is clicked a Web page would open. One of mine as an example:
    http://homepage.mac.com/kkirkster/GetA_MacText.qtl
    You'll notice the file will download (0.3KB's) then launch QuickTime Player and play full screen. Click on the movie to learn more.

  • Difference between Null and null?

    What is the difference between null and NULL?
    When is each used?
    Thanks,

    veryConfused wrote:
    There is a null in java, but no NULL. null means no value. However, when assigning value, the following is different:Although the empty String has no special role. Null means, the referential type is not assigned (doesn't refer) to a specific object. The empty String is just another object though, so seeing it or pointing it out as something special when it actually isn't at all (no more special than new Integer(0) or new Object[0]) just adds to the confusion.

  • Difference between GUI_UPLOAD and WS_UPLOAD

    Hi,
    Please make me clear about the difference between GUI_UPLOAD and WS_UPLOAD. In which cases we need to use these modules...??
    Thanks,
    Satish

    I would suggest to always use the GUI_UPLOAD.  I say this because this is the function module which is used in the GUI_UPLOAD method of the class CL_GUI_FRONTEND_SERVICES.   Really, you should probably use the class/method instead of the function module.
      data: filename type string.
      filename = p_file.
      call method cl_gui_frontend_services=>gui_upload
             exporting
                  filename                = filename
                  filetype                = 'ASC'
             changing
                  data_tab                = iflatf
             exceptions
                  file_open_error         = 1
                  file_read_error         = 2
                  no_batch                = 3
                  gui_refuse_filetransfer = 4
                  no_authority            = 6
                  unknown_error           = 7
                  bad_data_format         = 8
                  unknown_dp_error        = 12
                  access_denied           = 13
                  others                  = 17.
    Regards,
    Rich Heilman

  • Difference between char and varchar, also the difference between varchar2

    Hi,
    Can anyone explain me the difference between char and varchar, and also the difference between varchar and varchar2...

    Varchar2 is variable width character data type, so if you define column with width 20 and insert only one character to tis column only, one character will be stored in database. Char is not variable width so when you define column with width 20 and insert one character to this column it will be right padded with 19 spaces to desired length, so you will store 20 characters in the dattabase (follow the example 1). Varchar data type from Oracle 9i is automaticlly promoted to varchar2 (follow example 2)
    Example 1:
    SQL> create table tchar(text1 char(10), text2 varchar2(10))
    2 /
    Table created.
    SQL> insert into tchar values('krystian','krystian')
    2 /
    1 row created.
    SQL> select text1, length(text1), text2, length(text2)
    2 from tchar
    3 /
    TEXT1 LENGTH(TEXT1) TEXT2 LENGTH(TEXT2)
    krystian 10 krystian 8
    Example 2:
    create table tvarchar(text varchar(10))
    SQL> select table_name,column_name,data_type
    2 from user_tab_columns
    3 where table_name = 'TVARCHAR'
    4 /
    TABLE_NAME COLUMN_NAME DATA_TYPE
    TVARCHAR TEXT VARCHAR2
    Best Regards
    Krystian Zieja / mob

Maybe you are looking for