Comparison finds iTunes 1080p video nears Blu-ray disc quality

1246711

Comments

  • pendergastpendergast Posts: 1,358member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by iSheldon View Post


    Yes if you're a film aficionado - ask Neil Young.

    Enough w the Apple iTunes' drek trying to pass for a full experience. Sadly no one cares and everyone prefers to be dumbed down for convenience sake. The masses have no taste. Great products playing crap quality.

    I feel sorry for those who've never experienced a true HD experience in their living room.



    Oh get off your high horse, Mr. "Afficianado". People have different priorities. Not everyone "cares" about something as trivial as a movie; there are more important things, and when some choose to watch a movie, convenience may well hold the trump card. Doesn't mean people are dumbed down. I appreciate the quality of BDD but also appreciate the convenience of digital streaming. I tend to favor the latter, as I'm not really "in" to building an elite home theater. My money is better spent elsewhere.



    You act like convenience is bad. What snobbery.
  • tenobelltenobell Posts: 7,014member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Mr. H View Post


    Banding is easily noticeable and has a highly adverse affect on perceived video quality so iTunes 1080p video does not near Blu-Ray quality.



    Because banding NEVER - EVER happens in Blu-ray.







    Quote:

    Note that I'm not making an argument about the worth of iTunes downloads. I'm just saying that it's a joke to pretend that the quality could possibly come close to blu-ray.



    Do you believe you are an unbiased voice of reason?
  • djrumpydjrumpy Posts: 1,116member
    Not surprised at the results. I currently rip all of my blu-ray movies on my iMac to my HTPC mini, using approx 3500 Kbps for the encoding. Mine are all downsized to 720P though since my remote TV's are using Apple TV's. The bump up to 1080P is probably not something I'll do yet simply because the hardware I have on the remote TV's doesn't support 1080P (they are older 720P TV's as well). It's common knowledge you can squeeze a 1080P video into a relatively small file size like 4GB (or less) and still get 'decent' quality. I have a 65" LED TV and regularly look at the quality of my encodes at extreme close range to judge the quality. I find that 3500 bitrate is my magic spot to an acceptable encode on my TV and my viewing distance, and therein lies the value of the article. Plenty of folks chiming in on the value (or lack thereof) of the article fail to realize that this isn't going to please everyone, but it gives them a decent idea of what sort of minimum quality to expect (obvious from the pics that the quality is indeed approved). It's up to the individual to determine if it's worth the price.



    Why tear down the article when it was never meant to be some yard stick, but rather a general indicator as to what to expect? It could never be those things as each person will always use their own subjective experience to determine if the quality meets their needs. As with all topics on quality, people will just have to try it and judge for themselves.
  • jfanningjfanning Posts: 3,318member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by TenoBell View Post


    Because banding NEVER - EVER happens in Blu-ray.



    I know what you are trying to say, but are you really going to compare the top quality of one thing (iTunes video) to the bottom quality of another (banding on a poor blu-ray release)?
  • Quote:
    Originally Posted by iSheldon View Post


    Right- Like my blow up doll gives me a "near" real girl orgasmic experience.



    Remember when people used to claim that MP3s were "near" CD quality?



    What a friggin joke.



    But it goes to show, again, that convenience trumps quality. Pretty much everywhere, pretty much every time.
  • jfanningjfanning Posts: 3,318member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Pendergast View Post


    Oh get off your high horse, Mr. "Afficianado". People have different priorities. Not everyone "cares" about something as trivial as a movie; there are more important things, and when some choose to watch a movie, convenience may well hold the trump card. Doesn't mean people are dumbed down. I appreciate the quality of BDD but also appreciate the convenience of digital streaming. I tend to favor the latter, as I'm not really "in" to building an elite home theater. My money is better spent elsewhere.



    You act like convenience is bad. What snobbery.



    convenience covers a lot of things, some would define it as something that saves a resource (time, petrol, or even money). To me a Blu-ray movie is cheaper to purchase, and cheaper to rent. Plus with blu-ray I get the advantage of better audio
  • Quote:
    Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post


    You can make a technical comparison to Monster cables over other cables to find Monster are technically superior but that doesn't mean you'll get a perceptible difference in quality over generic cables... which is what matters.



    Cables are but one step in the chain. And Monster is hardly the poster boy for quality cables.



    It is kind of like comparing a BMW to a Ferrari - especially if both of them are running bald retreaded tires and low octane gasoline.



    Monster cables are OK, but on many or most systems, regular cables are fine. On a high end system, Monster Cables are like putting mediocre tires on your Ferrari. On most systems, using monster cables would be like putting ZR rated tires on a Ford Escort.



    IOW, they are wasted on most systems, and not good enough for high end systems.
  • tenobelltenobell Posts: 7,014member
    I'd imagining Neil Young would wish to be left out of comparing media quality with a real woman vs a plastic toy.



    The rest is simply your opinion that you wish to project onto other people.





    Quote:
    Originally Posted by iSheldon View Post


    Yes if you're a film aficionado - ask Neil Young.

    Enough w the Apple iTunes' drek trying to pass for a full experience. Sadly no one cares and everyone prefers to be dumbed down for convenience sake. The masses have no taste. Great products playing crap quality.

    I feel sorry for those who've never experienced a true HD experience in their living room.



  • tenobelltenobell Posts: 7,014member
    Yes because quality is not the only variable. Convenience and ease of use are also important. You guys wish to highlight quality and ignore everything else.



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by jfanning View Post


    I know what you are trying to say, but are you really going to compare the top quality of one thing (iTunes video) to the bottom quality of another (banding on a poor blu-ray release)?



  • tenobelltenobell Posts: 7,014member
    People said the same thing about CD's. They complained that CD's did not sound as good as vinyl. People were giving up sound quality for the convenience of the CD.



    Why should the same thing not happen to the CD?







    Quote:
    Originally Posted by I am a Zither Zather Zuzz View Post


    Remember when people used to claim that MP3s were "near" CD quality?



    What a friggin joke.



  • Quote:
    Originally Posted by TenoBell View Post


    Yes because quality is not the only variable. Convenience and ease of use are also important.



    And That is why Apple is a very very good choice for most people. Apple "gets it".
  • jfanningjfanning Posts: 3,318member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by TenoBell View Post


    Yes because quality is not the only variable. Convenience and ease of use are also important. You guys wish to highlight quality and ignore everything else.



    Convenience differs between people, what you think is convenient might not be convenient to me. Saving money is a convenience I like, so renting or purchasing Blu-rays is much more convenient.
  • Quote:
    Originally Posted by jfanning View Post


    Saving money is a convenience



    Only if one write his own dictionary.
  • denkigrvedenkigrve Posts: 19member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by kpluck View Post


    Please, for everyone's sake, don't drive until you get your eyes checked and get the appropriate corrective lenses.



    Instead of using crappy screen images (which, in some cases do show noticeable differences) from a mediocre 23" LCD, do the same test on a good quality 50" or bigger plasma then get back to me.



    I expect this type of garbage analysis from AI, but from Ars??



    UPDATE: Turns out, "30 Days of Night" wasn't even the best BD transfer. From http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/30-Day...Blu-ray/13310/





    -kpluck



    Except that's NOT the movie they used. That's some straight to DVD movie. The movie they used was the Theatrical release of 30 days of Night:

    http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/30-Day...t-Blu-ray/646/



    Here's a quote from that review of the BRD as well:

    "This is a first-rate effort from Sony (again) and even though the final score comes just shy of perfection, this one comes close. Well done."



    I think you need to get YOUR eyes checked. Learn to do some proper research next time if you're going to try to use it to blast someone else's (very valid) opinion.
  • thataveragejoethataveragejoe Posts: 830member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post


    HEVC. Game, set, match, and it's not even finalized yet.




    Yes...Let's compare something that's available today to something that's going to be voted on as a standard in 2013.
  • jfanningjfanning Posts: 3,318member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by I am a Zither Zather Zuzz View Post


    Only if one write his own dictionary.



    And use many of existing dictionaries that state the exact same thing
  • thataveragejoethataveragejoe Posts: 830member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Mr. H View Post


    The title of the article is "Comparison finds iTunes 1080p video nears Blu-Ray Disc quality". I reject this conclusion as the banding in the iTunes version is obvious whilst there isn't any in the blu-ray version. Banding is easily noticeable and has a highly adverse affect on perceived video quality so iTunes 1080p video does not near Blu-Ray quality.



    Further, as others have pointed out this is a shoddy comparison and one made using a larger, higher-quality screen would likely reveal further issues. And, no-one has mentioned that this comparison used just one single movie file and made no mention of one aspect of video that is particularly adversely affected by low bit-rates: high-speed motion.



    It is inevitable that scenes with high-contrast and high-motion will look vastly better on Blu-Ray rather than iTunes.



    Note that I'm not making an argument about the worth of iTunes downloads. I'm just saying that it's a joke to pretend that the quality could possibly come close to blu-ray.



    100% Spot on. I'm very excited about the convenience and quality of the 1080p iTunes downloads through my new AppleTV coming Friday. It's certainly 'good enough' as they say, but to call it near Blu-Ray quality, certainly not.
  • djrumpydjrumpy Posts: 1,116member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by I am a Zither Zather Zuzz View Post


    Cables are but one step in the chain. And Monster is hardly the poster boy for quality cables.



    It is kind of like comparing a BMW to a Ferrari - especially if both of them are running bald retreaded tires and low octane gasoline.



    Monster cables are OK, but on many or most systems, regular cables are fine. On a high end system, Monster Cables are like putting mediocre tires on your Ferrari. On most systems, using monster cables would be like putting ZR rated tires on a Ford Escort.



    IOW, they are wasted on most systems, and not good enough for high end systems.



    Monster cables are a waste of money and an easy scam for the gullible when in the digital realm. This isn't some analog signal facing signal degradation at every turn. A $3.99 cable from Amazon will perform just as well as a Monster "high speed" cable. The very idea that a cable is somehow high speed with a digital signal is laughable. I'm surprised they haven't cracked down on these folks for misleading advertising.
  • Quote:
    Originally Posted by jfanning View Post


    And use many of existing dictionaries that state the exact same thing



    Really? I'd love to see some of the many dictionaries which define convenience in a manner which could include saving money.



    Want to cite a few?
  • Quote:
    Originally Posted by DJRumpy View Post


    Monster cables are a waste of money and an easy scam for the gullible when in the digital realm. This isn't some analog signal facing signal degradation at every turn. A $3.99 cable from Amazon will perform just as well as a Monster "high speed" cable. The very idea that a cable is somehow high speed with a digital signal is laughable. I'm surprised they haven't cracked down on these folks for misleading advertising.



    I agree WRT digital signals, but WRT analog signals, the cabling can be a factor if the resolution of the rest of the chain is sufficient.
Sign In or Register to comment.