Talk:QuickTime

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 This article is part of WikiProject Macintosh. This means that the WikiProject has identified it as an article pertaining to the Macintosh, but is not currently working to improve it. WikiProject Macintosh itself is an attempt to improve, grow, standardize, and attain featured status for Wikipedia's articles related to Macintosh and Apple Inc. We need all your help, so join in today!
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the assessment scale.
High This article is on a subject of high-importance within Macs for inclusion in Wikipedia 1.0.

Contents

[edit] Quicktime SMIL support

"I know Quicktime's support for SMIL is sparse, but I've gotten it to work reasonably well except when it is played through the web plugin. A smil file that plays file from the Quicktime application stops at 1:12 on any movie I give it. If anyone has had experience with this I would much appreciate any help." Msiverts 18:28, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Quicktime Pro features available even on Windows?

"In Mac OS X, the "Pro-only" features are actually available from within the QuickTime framework, and the limitations in the free version apply only to the QuickTime Player application"

Does this apply to windows aswell? If not, what is missing from the API in windows if you don~'t have PRO? --62.84.192.238 08:59, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

This does apply to Windows as well. There are some codecs missing from the WIindows version (Pixlet, DVCPRO iirc) but no API Kevin Marks 23:22, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
And of course it doesn't support codecs installed in windows, making it rubbish, and this after 7 versions - baa. IceHunter 17:28, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Quicktime to frames

Can anyone recommend software (ideally freeware) that can extract frames from Quicktime MJPEG video? Seabhcán 11:21, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wrapping AVI in MOV

"QuickTime is particularly suited for editing, as it is capable of importing and editing in place (without data copying) other formats such as AIFF, DV, MP3, MPEG-1, and AVI." Is this possible? I know formats such as MPEG can be put in an AVI or MOV container, but I don't know if container files are put in other container files. —Tokek 16:15, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

I would guarantee that that line was written by someone who doesn't know the difference between a codec and a container and thinks that 'AVI' is a specific format - as the rest of them, erm, kind-of are. Rather obviously, the AVI container can't be wrapped in a MOV file. --Kiand 02:49, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
I agree - that line is confusing. It's referring to QuickTime's ability to create a mov consisting of references to audio/video data in separate files, which makes for very quick editing. My suggestion would be appending something like "by creating a reference QuickTime file." to the end of the sentence, since it isn't really clear that it's a separate QuickTime file that is being changed instead of the original avi/whatever. Side note: although not usually the case, there are certain cases of container formats containing another container format. From what I can tell, muxed MPEG-1 and MPEG-2 in mov is one example, and one hack to get Vorbis audio in avi is another. --Dicey 21:34, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
Don't know about the Vorbis case but afaik MPEG-1 and 2 it isn't the case. A MPEG-1 or 2 video stream is not really a container as far as I know. It's just a stream. I guess it depends on your definition of a container but many people would not call it a container. Nil Einne 15:47, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
Your guarantee is worthless, as I wrote it. You are the one confusing codec and container. QT can create an in-memory reference movie from all of those formats. AVI is a specific container format that can contain multiple codecs, as is AIFF. Both are based (as is QT) on the IFF model. The reference movie need not be a file, that is just it's serialisation. MPEG-1 and 2 are indeed bitstreams, Vorbis is a codec, and Ogg is a rather messy hybrid of a format and a stream. In the old days of 2-fork files, you could have a Movie Resource in the resource fork, pointing to the media in the data fork. Kevin Marks 23:40, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Latecomer to streaming?

One thing that ought to be mentioned is that although QT was a groundbreaking technology, it was relatively late in adding support for streaming media, the niche that Real Audio exploited in 1995. Although quite a few early websites supported QuickTime, you had to wait for the whole file to download before it would play, a severe handicap in the era of 9600- and 14400-bps modems. ProhibitOnions 12:07, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

This is exactly right, and it caused a lot of consternation within the QuickTime team as they saw Real take a lead with their streaming product. One of the side effects of Apple trying to catch up with Real was that the QTi project was postponed in order to complete streaming support for QT 4.0. This in turn ended the attempt to revive HyperCard as a QuickTime authoring environment as it relied on the QTi format. I have alluded to this in the QTi section I added recently, but more details about streaming would be welcome. Gwernol 17:51, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
Would you, or someone with a greater knowledge of QT than I have, like to add this to the article? At present it hardly mentions its present or historic competitive situation vis-a-vis Real and other products, or its transformation from novelty for CD-ROMs to useful Internet tool.  ProhibitOnions  (T) 03:34, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
That is false. QuickTime fast-start (placing the movie Table of Contents at the front of the file, so it downloads first) was introduced in QuickTime 2, allowing movies to start playing before they were fully downloaded. This is generally superior to streaming, as it works regardless of bandwidth available. Streaming over 9600 or 14400 is not something I'd advise for video, though audio may work. Kevin Marks 23:45, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
Streaming has its place, and it's true that QT was late to the game. Just two examples where streaming is better than quick-start: 1. If you want to access just the last 10 seconds of a movie, with quick-start, you must wait till practically the whole movie is downloaded. With streaming, access is near instantaneous. 2. Live webcasts are not possible with quick-start.  Tabanger  21:36, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Criticism

I'm a big fan of QT but I think it's important to address the criticisms of the player. By not mentioning them we are shying away from NPOV and actually strengthening the case against it. These should probably be mentioned:

  • Tray icon (Removable in Control Panel>QT settings)
  • No fullscreen (Perfectly legitimate, huge blunder on Apple's part)
  • Prone to crashing in Firefox
  • Non-standard interface in Windows
  • DRM!

Noclip 01:52, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi Noclip. There is some mention of this in the QuickTime Player article, which is where these UI criticisms should be. I agree there are legitimate UI concerns and there is a link to the "UI Hall of Shame" article which has a pretty negative analysis of the QT Player 4.0 UI. I was one of the engineers on the QT Player 4.0 project so I have a lot of familiarity with this particular discussion :-) It would certainly be possible to add a specific section to the QT Player article on this. Best, Gwernol 01:59, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
The problem, Noclip, is that you have made a couple statements of opinion and labeled them as fact. Optional DRM is a disadvantage? An optional tray icon is a disadvantage? Choices are not bad. If you have a choice between DRMed videos and no videos, not everyone is going to view the DRM option as the worst of the two choices.
I'd also like to see a reference for QuickTime crashing in Firefox (presumably, for Windows); I use this combination frequently and I've never seen it crash. I also don't see much point in complaining about the look of the product on Windows; it may be nonstandard, but it is significantly better than many of the skinned products that exist. --Steven Fisher 02:44, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Optional tray icon by itself is not bad since it isn't a problem if you don't use it but the fact that it is on by default is bad IMHO and I expect for the majority of users. I strongly dislike software which thinks it has a right to take over my computer (which sadly is all to common nowadays), even if it is optional. DRM is also a controversial area whether you like it or not. Many people are opposed to it. DRM is not a choice, since it's the content provider that decides whether to use DRM. If DRM is not provided then content providers can't use it. There is also the issue of downloading a file on P2P and or just the web that is not tagged as having DRM but does... Note that criticisms doesn't mean everyone has to agree it's a problem. It just means that enough people feel it's a problem/something they don't like that it needs to be mentioned Nil Einne 15:44, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
Criticisms don't require a consensus, certainly. But I'd argue that they do have to have some validity. Attempting to paint an optional feature as a source of criticism is simply being cranky. Noting that the icon is on by default is probably reasonable, though. Using this article as a platform for an anti-DRM rant isn't, however. That's covered better elsewhere. -- Steven Fisher 07:30, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
I don't think an anti-DRM rant is necessary, but I think it would be a good idea to mention that Quicktime files might be using DRM. I often look at Wikipedia articles for various file formats/protocols/codecs to see whether they are proprietary or use DRM. It is an important piece of information. - James Foster 16:17, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Shouldn't there be a criticism for QT's interfering with every flash video under the sun? CTVampSlayer 2:32, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Criticism the 2nd

Ok, then how about:

  • Tray icon which reactivates itself after each update.
  • Automated update which tries to install iTunes with each update.

Choice isn't bad - but if I made my choice (NO Tray Icon, NO iTunes) it should be respected once and for all. The software should not try to reverse my choice with every update in order to push there company policy or company products.

Consensus? OK! Should the above tow points be added to a "Criticism" sections:

  • Yes, both of them Krischik T 07:13, 12 March 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Criticism the 3rd

  • Support on windows in spring 2008.

Recent Versions of quicktime have had many bugs on all versions of windows. I work in a shop that uses quicktime for streaming video exclusively and for the past month we've logged at least 20 different bugs for quicktime on windows.

The current version of quicktime (7.4.5) does not play trailers from apples site on a clean install of xp, server 2003, server 2008, or multiple versions of vista. Previous versions have been working intermittently on all versions.

Another criticism:

  • Apple's handling of embedded flash tracks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.213.218.9 (talk) 18:06, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] As it stands now

I don't know if anyone can see it, but as it stands now, there is no content that can be called 'criticism' under the Criticism heading in the main article. I was expecting commentary or something, but it just describes a bug that affected only one thing (After Effects) and was fixed pretty quickly. - I eat food! 22:49, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] QuickTime 6.5.2 security

The most recent QuickTime version for Windows 98(SE) seems to be the old 6.5.2.

Since for QuickTime 7 many security updates were released, the question rises how save QuickTime 6.5.2 is. Should one, maybe, refrain from using QuickTime on a Windows 98(SE) computer altogether?

[edit] Framerate issues?

Ever since I went from version 7 to 7.1, I've noticed a 50% drop in framerate on my 720p trailers. Anyone else have this problem?

On the two Macs I've upgraded, one a G4 and the other an Intel, the playback of 720p trailers has improved (from stuttering on my G4 to smooth (VLC and MPlayer can't play them as smoothly as QuickTime can now), and about 10% less CPU on the Intel.) I've only heard of one other person with your problem, from a post on macrumors.com. Was that you? --Dicey 01:37, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Wasn't me, but I know of someone else referring to it on support.mac.com. I'm using XP on a 3200+ Athlon, so maybe it's a Windows and/or Athlon quirk.

[edit] NPOV

What's with all the talk of Quicktime's "versatility"? I think it steps over the line into a non-NPOV. At a quick glance there are several borderline-opinions that need citations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.223.144.194 (talk • contribs) 22:36, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

What's the nature of your non-NPOV concern? QuickTime is certainly "versatile" in the sense of being able to play multiple different formats -- simple audio files; MP3s; images of various kinds from GIFs to TIFFs; MPEG, QuickTime, and AVI movies; 3D panoramas, and so on. That it doesn't play specific, proprietary, formats like RealAudio and Windows Media Video is not really surprising and doesn't really diminish the idea of the QuickTime being versatile in any meaningful sense. Cheers, Neale Neale Monks 22:10, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Overlays?

"QuickTime 7 was released on April 29, 2005 with Mac OS X v10.4 featuring... full-screen overlay..." Is this true? Though my video card supports them, I cannot find an option for overlays in QuickTime's preferences. Is this feature Pro only? jdbartlett 15:54, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

This is probably refering to the on-screen interface QT player 7 presents in full screen mode when moving the mouse. The interface allows most regular playback controls even while in fullscreen mode. And since fullscreen is Pro only, these "overlays" are too. Peter S. 00:41, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Threading

Prior to Mac OS X, QuickTime provided the OS with the threading library. Does anyone know when that feature was introduced? Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 00:29, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, this is from memory, I'd have to check my notes to be sure, but I think it was around QT 2.5. Someone with a better memory will correct me, I'm sure. Gwernol 00:34, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Are you talking about the Thread Manager extension? I don't believe that was a part of QuickTime, per se. I believe it was introduced with System 7 Pro.  Tabanger  19:45, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Current quality of MPEG-4 encoder?

I've read a lot of bad things about the QuickTime MPEG-4 encoder, but most bad press dates back to times of QT-6.x. For my own part, I had some terrible results encoding some digitised old VHS-material until I realised that it really makes a difference if you choose .MP4 or .MOV for MPEG-4 export. For some reason, only .MOV has a 'Deinterlace' button hidden in die 'Size' dialog, and since I switched that on, I haven't had much reason to complain.

I usually export with the 'current' frame-rate, quality set to Max., keyframes to 75, and a bitrate limit of 1920kb/s. This allows for 45 minutes of PAL-video on a CD.

I tried DivX and QuickTime's Sorenson3 too, but I'd soon reached a point where I felt I would only trade in one type of compression artifact for another unless I was willing to spend a good deal more processing time:

  • Apple's MPEG-4 sometimes produces dust or grain in 'busy' areas
  • DivX sometimes produces small horizontal lines there instead
  • Sorenson 3 doesn't treat colour gradients like blue sky too well.

I found the grain to be the least obtrusive, and thus stuck with Apples MPEG-4. Am I missing something quality-wise?

  • Apple's* MPEG-4 codec has been found over and over to be the worst looking MPEG-4 codec by several websites and digital video magazines (DV monthly, et al). Support was rudimentary while Apple preped the far superior h.264 (which I would always recommend using over MPEG-4). If you *have* to have MPEG-4, try other encoders, like VLC. --24.249.108.133 19:33, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] MP4 is limited to stereo?

Why does this article mention that mp4 is limited to stereo, when the AAC (mp4 audio) codec is documented to support up to 48 channels? See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Audio_Coding for more info.

62.134.80.81 16:46, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

As the article mentions, within a QuickTime .mov container, you are able to fully exploit the multi-channel capabilities of AAC. In fact, many HD trailers on Apple's Movie Trailer site have 5.1 channel AAC tracks. However, when using an MP4 container, you can only use a stereo AAC tracks. I believe this is a limitation in Apple's MP4 implementation, and not a limitation of MP4 in general.  Tabanger  19:52, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] alternatives

what are the alternative programs that can play mov files?

See Comparison of media players. Also, I think IrfanView is supposed to have a plugin for .mov. 69.87.193.221 11:06, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] QuickTime 5.x and 6.x sections

I feel this is way, way too much technical esoterica on these sections, especially for obsolete software. I've reverted it to a briefer summary, hitting the technical highlights, and I think that's better suited to the scope of this article.  Tabanger  08:57, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

OK, I agree that my article for QT 5 was too long, so I've shortened it.  :) However, the previous reversion was not as well-documented as the QT 5 article that I prepared. For example, the reversion doesn't even mention MPEG-1, Flash 4, and realtime DV. Wikipedia has flagged this article as needing credible source documentation since December 2005, so I spent a few hours going through the QT 5 developer notes at Apple to update that section. Now the QT5 article's length matches that of QT 3. --Gerritdewitt 19:31, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

First, kudos for the extensive rewrite, research, and notations. Second, I had a couple issues on the 5.x section. First QTVR fast-start was definitely around before 5.x. I remember doing fast-start cylindricals in late 1997, with QTVR 2.0. Secondly, can you check the release info for 5.0? I see what that page says, but I know there was no public release of 5.0. It was released on like some CD, and on some machines or something, but the first public release for download was 5.0.1.  Tabanger  10:16, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] QT 4 & QT 6 sections

As per Tabanger's suggestions, I've shortened the version history for QT 6 and locked down sources for claims in the QT 4 and QT 6 sections. --Gerritdewitt 03:18, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] QT 7 section, Overview, Players

Documented and made these sections more informative and focused. --Gerritdewitt 23:00, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

How is QT 7 completely MPEG4 compliant? Its h.264 decoder covers only baseline and main profile, not to mention other MPEG4 standards are incomplete (no HE-AAC) or entirely missing (TTXT). - ee Template:Susbt:unsigned2

Do you have a source for that? AlistairMcMillan 09:00, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
The article itself states that h.264 decoding only covers baseline and main profiles. Complete support would have to include high profile as well. Lack of HE-AAC support is stated in wikipedia articles about HE-AAC and iTunes. Though unsourced this can be easily verified by encoding an HE-AAC file and playing back in Quicktime. TTXT is supported in Quicktime, though playback seemingly only in 3gp (see point 7). In any case no full compliance with MPEG4, which covers a lot more than what i just pointed to. The article should clarify what "full MPEG4 compliance" actually is, as it is clearly not full support of all MPEG4 standards. - ee —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.149.190.81 (talk) 10:56, 24 April 2007 (UTC).
I agree completely that it's disingenuous to call QT's MPEG-4 implementation complete. It doesn't support pixel aspect ratio, 8x8 macroblocks or multiple B-frames. In fact, I would consider it conspicuously incomplete. Source, as if one is really needed: http://www.mplayerhq.hu/DOCS/HTML/en/menc-feat-quicktime-7.html

[edit] should mov redirect here?

I think that just .mov, not mov, since MOV is a very important x86 architecture instruction. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Windymager (talk • contribs) 18:52, 11 February 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Removal of rant

Removed the 7.1.3 rant about IE 7 and Vista compatibility with QT 7 and iTunes 7. We'd like to keep this article fact-based. Please direct your complaints to Apple; we agree that they are legitimate, but should not be part of the QuickTime article. Thank you. --Gerritdewitt 08:16, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

This is not an article, this is the talk page. And deletions are logged, it seems redundant to repeat it.IceHunter 17:30, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Time for a re-write?

While there's good stuff here, my feeling is this article has become too rambling and very difficult to read. There's rather too much focus on the player and how it compares with other freebie players. I suppose this is because a lot of the editors don't have QT Pro and are basing their comments on the free QuickTime version instead.

As things stand, there's endless lists of codecs and things, and these are very, very difficult to read. There must be a better way to organise these to make them less obtrusive. Perhaps a table or something? With one column listing the different codecs (in alphabetical order!) and another column with the version where it appeared in QuickTime (if at all).

On the other hand, there's very little about the interface (which has been much commented on over the years) and nothing that I can see about its success (or otherwise) as a cross-platform tool. QuickTime is integral to the Mac OS as the article says, but the article doesn't seem to say how or why.

Mentioning stuff like how QuickTime videos can be played by VLC Media Player is irrelevant to the article. By all means, let the VLC Media Player article say that this program plays .mov files, but the other way around is silly. That would rather like the page on Coca Cola listing all the other colas on sale.

The problem is that this article has become a bit schizophrenic. On the one hand there's a lot of technical info about the software, but then there's also a lot of geeky criticisms of the software in favour of Windows Media, open source alternatives, or just generally being cross with Apple for charging $30 for the "real" software instead of the insipid freebie version they give you with OS X.

Cheers, Neale Neale Monks 20:28, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

I feel that it's probably fair to focus on the underlying technologies, perhaps as a list (since this is a platform, after all, which supports all kinds of applications and file types), and that this is maybe best achieved in a chronological fashion since that's the way technologies evolve; they are usually most relevant at the time they got added, and rarely do they get removed later on (even if they drop in relevance). Whophd (talk) 16:28, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Excessive hardware requirements?

It looks like Apple's QuickTime Player consumes much more CPU power and amount of memory to play back smoothly a file, compared to VLC or Media Player classic. I have yet to see an Pentium III computer, not even a damn expensive PIIIS-1400MHz workstation with ATI9800Pro and one GB of RAM that could fluently play back this 108MB official trailer using Quicktime 7.16.200. In contrast MPC will do it on an 1100MHz Tualatin Celeron with 384MB and an ATI9200SE, both running Win XP SP2!

http://www.hardwired.hu/bigdl/2/9/trailer_order_of_the_phoenix_hd_720p.mov

IMHO, that means Apple is bad, it is unusable with anything less than full Pentium4 2GHz+. 82.131.210.162 13:31, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Tried out your movie. On my 1.8 GHz MacBook Pro (with 1.5 GB RAM) QuickTime worked perfectly well. Smooth, no stuttering at all. Like watching a DVD. As for CPU usage, according to top, this varied from 28% to 54% while the movie was running. I tried the same movie out in VLC, and CPU usage was practically identical (24-56%). So I don't see any validity to your assertion that one is better than the other, at least not on a Macintosh. Just to be clear -- I downloaded the movie to my hard drive, and then played it. If it stutters when you view the movie online through a browser, then the problem is more likely network speed than anything else. Cheers, Neale Neale Monks 09:42, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Neale, did you try it in Windows or in Mac OS X? Clearly, the original poster was using a Windows machine.
FWIW, using QuickTime on my Windows XP SP2 laptop (Pentium M 1.40 GHz, purchased new in November 2004) results in 100% CPU usage. --anon. 70.23.158.215 (talk) 16:16, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "See also" link to Windows Media

This is not Fox News, this is an encyclopedic article. There is no journalistic mandate to give fair "screen time" to the competition. There should be an encyclopedic focus as to why that material is in the article. The "See also" section should contain links to articles with information "relevant to the whole page." Windows Media does not specifically relate to QuickTime. If you want to make mention of the "competition" it should be included in a section of the article, not the See also list at the bottom of the page. Though to be honest, that kind of section doesn't really belong in the article either, unless there is some kind of notable commentary for including such information. Otherwise that information belongs in the individual topics' articles or articles like the already-linked Comparison of media players.  Tabanger  09:48, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Terrific history of Quicktime

Somehow this article: http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/07/10/25/road_to_mac_os_x_leopard_quicktime_itunes_and_media_features.html

Needs to get woven into this entry. (Far more interesting to read, ihmo) --24.249.108.133 19:20, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] msconfig

(First of all, I'd like to mention that I'm no quicktime expert and non wikipedia expert - which is why I'm putting this in the discussion. My apologies if it is in the wrong place, and someone will have to remove it). I looked for the wiki entry of quicktime, because I see quicktime as one of the automatic programs (I'm using VISTA) when I run msconfig. I see no way to tell QT not to run automatically from within, and must do that from msconfig. I wanted to see if there's any comment/criticism on this, but only found some hints of this in the discussion. If you think something should be added to the main page please do so. Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.38.218.115 (talk) 03:54, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] QuickTime Release Versions

I have maintained a list of most of the QuickTime and iTunes versions, Mac flavor, their dates, sizes and official Apple changes.

I would like to add that as a simple list or simple table to each of the sections for which I have data - QT 5, 6, 7. It would be similar in concept to the ITunes_version_history, but not as detailed (and without any color coding)

Any objections to this? Beginnersview 00:58, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] cpu 100%

Running the latest stable Safari 3.1 (525.13) QuickTime 7.4.1 bundle under WinXPpro, with plenty of RAM and fast modern PCs, the cpu jumps to around 100% usage, just opening the QuickTime app while online! This is nuts -- is this a bug or a feature? Seems like it would be Notable, and a reason to mention whether alternative players might not load the cpu so much? -69.87.204.26 (talk) 22:22, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use of screenshot at top of article.

It seems to me that the screenshot we've chosen to use at the top of the article is unnecessarily copyright-laden. The use of a screenshot of Quicktime in action is justifiable under fair use - but to have it playing copyrighted content at the time is not. There is absolutely no reason why we couldn't have shown a quicktime window displaying a copyright-free movie instead - which means that we have no valid fair-use claim on the present image because we do not discuss the movie 'Ratatoille' in the context in which the image is used. This needs to get fixed ASAP and the present image put up for speedy-deletion. SteveBaker (talk) 14:55, 4 June 2008 (UTC)