I've a curiosity and some questions about QuickTime Alternative and QuickTime codecs --
both about some spec details as well as history and current relevance.

Before I launch it, is it permitted/possible to discuss that here?
Reason I ask is that 2 weeks ago there was a reference on the QT Alt Wikipedia page,
where it mentioned that further discussions on Codec Guide's forum were [effectively/essentially] prohibited.

Interestingly, that reference on Wikipedia is not there today,
but a link to the eternal storage of that forum reference is, of course, still alive
on that great-repository-in-the-sky, The Wayback Machine :

Thank You ~

-- merged --

< bump >

I'd greatly appreciate it if either KP or lordsmurf would have a look at this post & respond,
with either or yay or nay to proceed ahead or not. Thank You

You can discuss this. :)

That said, I've not used the Quicktime Alternative codecs in years. Last I knew, the codec stopped development at a certain now-ancient version of QT. For quite a few years now, the internal libraries of MPC and VLC (ffmpeg?) has handled playback just fine.

And if we need to create a .mov, we have Mac OS X systems.

Remember that Wikipedia is not a reliable source of information. Any idiot can write whatever he wants there. And sometimes it turns into a pissing content. Very often, it's about what the majority thinks, as opposed to absolute truths and facts.

codecguide.com is a 100% useless site, as it still revolves around codec "packs" -- mostly Kazaa Lite aka "K-Lite", a bygone piece of junk from the early P2P days of 10+ years ago. Remember that "codec pack" garbage almost always ruins a computer. Their forum is equally pathetic -- an untrafficked phpBB board on a "free forum" site that tries to load dubious JS (ads injections?). That whole mess needs to be avoided.

Thanks very much for your response K.

I agree about Wiki - I do 'consider the source' whilst reading/exploring,
and as for K-Lite and similar 'packs', that will be my next question to better understand your statements.

But for now I'll post the essence I've been working on:

-------------------------------

A quick bottom line -- is QuickTime or QT Alternative even necessary these days (Dec.2014)
as a codec source to play media files that once seemed more 'proprietary'? (MPEG-4, .mov, etc) --

-- IF -- a modern/capable media player such as MPC-HC, VLC, etc. is used?

in other words, once upon a time these filetypes would NOT play in media players such as MPC-HC,
or maybe VLC, unless QT or QT Alt were installed?
-------------------------------
I'm just a beginner working hard to understand containers - codecs - filters, etc.

A quick look into my MPC-HC 1.7.7.x86 folder (run as a portable) shows LAV filters being used,
I <think>.

Reimaging my system to delete any installs of QT or QT Alt -
in order to determine what applications & codecs are necessary or not -

then gathering together to test one of every kind of audio & video file --
(.avi, .flv,.mkv,.mov, .mp4, .mpg, .mpeg, .swf, .wma, .wmv, .... etc.)

going back to 2008 or so with the .mov files --

Using MediaInfo, it says the codecs used on these older .mov files were Sorenson 1 & 3,
as well as MPEG-4 - qt_Main - L2.0, L3.1, L3.2, L4.0.

They ALL play, and play fine (to my uneducated perception anyway), w/ my MPC-HC.

So, if QT or QT Alt. are no longer necessary to playback .mov &/or various .mp4 files
using MPC-HC -- why not?

What has changed, and how has < it > changed, to allow this?

I'd like to understand the mechanics of this - and also, is this "legal" ?

-- are the newer - Open Source codecs simply able to handle decoding the data
that once only their 'proprietary' creators could handle?

I sure like having my context menus & system tray free of the cluttered entries that QT installs --
it did seem like QT Alt doesn't install or force its way in like QT does.

Even when NO file associations are permitted for QT, it still makes a couple dozen registry entries
that took me several hours to track down and eliminate so that the context menus weren't so ****.

Looking forward to some education here --

Yep. :congrats:

I'm guessing you were not around 5+ years ago? The big change that happened in the late 00s was the creation of self-contained players that did not need codecs. Codec playback (not encoding!) was an issue with a/v on computers in the "old days" of digital video. The first answer was codec "packs" -- most of which entirely screwed up computers. Understand that a computer is not meant to have that many codecs installed, and the codecs would often conflict and cause all sorts of system errors. The damage was sometimes so severe that you had to reformat the whole computer and reinstall the OS. Simply uninstalling was not an option. So that "solution" (packs) was not a solution at all.

Enter VLC, with its internal ffmpeg based library. After VLC, most players adopted internal libraries. I think even WMP now uses an internal library, not a system-wide codec.

well, i've been at it since '01 --
i might have run into trouble w/ K-Lite way back then

probly didn't come onto MPC until 03-04,
and i did read something way back then about the dangers of conflicting codecs,
-- especially K-Lite -- so I never went w/ K-Lite.

It's troubled me recently that one vendor of sports replay/slow motion software -- V1 --
has apparently hard-coded into their software,
the need specifically for K-Lite installed in order to play some .flv and .mp4 files through their software --
because my MPC-HC just wouldn't cut it (because its filter-codec libraries are Internal ?),
and i don't YET understand how to track down exactly what's needed, and why.

Their software won't even recognize K-Lite already installed!
Their installer has to call it, and install it, on its own!! :-(

... combine that w/ the need for V1 to phone home EVERY SINGLE STARTUP !! ... and that makes for a **** day !

so ... i simply installed V1 + K-Lite on a clean test system, made it into a portable w/ Thinstall ,
reset their phone-home "banner.htm" to good old 127.0.0.1 in <hosts>, and now I'm a happy camper.

Back to the thread -- do these 'newer' internal libraries simply understand & de-code
what was once 'proprietary' ? and legally, too?

the less i have to install on any machine config, the better ...

That sounds like garbage software if it requires a cheap third-party (known problem!) codec solution, phone-home, and HTML ad injections. The project was probably cheaply outsourced to Chinese programmers. It's very common with 'chinaware'.

ffmpeg/x264/etc is legal, yes.