Jump to content


Windows HAP without QuickTime?

  • Please log in to reply
4 replies to this topic

#1 JohnHuntington

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 13 posts

Posted 09 February 2018 - 12:10 AM

We have a projection designer coming in who wants to use the HAP codec but digging through this forum and searching around both my technician and I keep finding things online that apparently require QuickTime, which we got rid of when Apple stopped supporting it.


Does anyone know a HAP codec that doesn't need Quicktime?



#2 mindopera

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 74 posts
  • LocationSeattle, WA USA

Posted 09 February 2018 - 12:33 AM

As far as I know QT is the only wrapper for the HAP family of codecs. 

I'm surprised you're not using QT with WO.  I always thought QT was an important install for WO. 

The WO install software always asks you to download and install the latest version of QT.   I have done this for years without any issue. 

What type of support are you looking for that you don't get?

#3 Dean Stevenson

Dean Stevenson

  • Dataton Partner
  • Pip
  • 4 posts
  • LocationSydney , Australia

Posted 09 February 2018 - 07:28 AM

Hi John,


Watchout V6 Doesn't require QuickTime to play back HAP as it has its own Decoder to do this.


Kind Regards 


#4 Erik Rönnqvist

Erik Rönnqvist


  • Moderator
  • 93 posts

Posted 09 February 2018 - 09:58 AM

Watchout only uses Quicktime when exporting a movie, so it would make little sense to install Quicktime on a display computer. If you want to use the export function in Watchout, Quicktime is required on the production computer. 

That said, if you want to encode to Hap using a Quicktime-enabled application, you might need to install Quicktime and the Hap codec for Quicktime. Another option would be to encode Hap files using ffmpeg, using the following command line: 


ffmpeg -i inputfile.mov -vcodec hap -format hap_q -chunks 4 outputfile.mov


Change hap_q to hap or hap_alpha if you want standard hap or hap with alpha. The chunks argument enables multithreaded decoding, but higher numbers give slightly more overhead, both in space and decoding time, so this number should be kept as low as possible. For a 1920x1080 video, one chunk is sufficient on most hardware. Higher resolutions and/or slower hardware might require a larger number. It never makes sense to use a larger number than the number of cores in the CPU. 



#5 Vollmers

  • Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 118 posts
  • LocationCopenhagen, Denmark

Posted 13 February 2018 - 06:40 PM

Even though Apple stopped developing QT, it didn't mean that others stopped developing codecs for QT. I don't see QT disappearing anytime soon. It's so extremely well integrated in all sorts of workflows, apps etc. In my opinion the only really big issue is that some software requires 64bit only drivers. That's a big showstopper since it wasn't properly developed for 64bit, and the few beta versions I've come across have been removed. So all in all I will continue to use QT.