or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPod + iTunes + AppleTV › New Apple TV runs same custom A4 processor as iPhone 4, iPad
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

New Apple TV runs same custom A4 processor as iPhone 4, iPad - Page 2

post #41 of 156
Quote:
Originally Posted by Newtron View Post

Service and Support.

What does that mean? What does the USB port do? What sortr of service? What sort of support? What plugs into it?

Apple would use it for diagnostic testing.
post #42 of 156
Assuming it is running iOS, it will be really interesting to see if it can/will be jailbroken and then more features added to it, like ATVFlash does now for the old AppleTV. might be a lot of possibilities here, if it has the basic amount of RAM that would need.
post #43 of 156
Quote:
Originally Posted by cgmpowers View Post

I think that since the iPad can stream movies to the AppleTV then why not video games? Use the iPod Touch, iPhone or iPad as the controller and stream directly--and wirelessly to the AppleTV?

It'd take a ton of wireless bandwidth but since you're already streaming movies that are HD (granted lower end HD for now) then games could theoretically be possible..

At least that's my opinion... Imagine this replacing the XBOX or PS3 eventually... The iPhone and iPad and iPod Touch supposedly are making the PSP and Nintendo DSi obsolete....

Chris Powers
chris@powersbydesign.com
www.powersbydesign.com

This is already possible for limited use.
post #44 of 156
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

Apple would use it for diagnostic testing.

Apple gotta load the firmware/OS and test it all somehow ...
post #45 of 156
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

I rather doubt that.



Just because you can't see the difference. The ellipses are implied.



Also implied is that I don't find it worth anything. It's perfectly fine for people with no 1080 content.



I can't believe how many people can't seem to see a difference between 720 and 1080. It boggles the mind.



Ah, the implication here is that I'm merely twirling my metaphorical digital wang, yes? Try again. I've never understood any of this nonsense about viewing distances, screen sizes, and 720 vs. 1080.

There is a visible difference. I can see it. This truth makes the difference in this product for me. Therefore the Apple TV serves me no purpose.


It's a matter of what resolution is needed for one to comfortably view programming and not have it be an impediment to enjoying said programming. Watching a 32-inch 720p monitor at a fairly close distance, I'm satisfied with the results. When I'm unhappy with the picture I'm getting it's not because I lack 1080p resolution but rather that a seriously compressed cable signal falls apart at the first hint of movement.

Sorry to say that if you are seeing a difference between 720p and 1080p regardless of viewing distance, that difference is strictly a product of your imagination. Viewing distance is absolutely critical to this discussion, not just nonsense. The further away you are from a screen, the less able you are to discern the individual elements that make up the picture. It doesn't take a Phd in physics to figure out why that is. If you find 720p video unwatchable, you're in an exceedingly small minority. Apple may have a reputation of being a premium brand but it hardly worries about catering to an exceedingly tiny segment of the population. No offence, but the number of folks like yourself who can't stomach 720p is so small as to be not worth giving a second thought to.

I think that if the Apple TV never offers 1080p, it will be no great loss. Most of us just don't care. For that matter, most consumers haven't got a clue what those numbers mean. They just know that more is more so 1080p has to be better than 720p. Don't get me wrong. It is better, certainly, but not so that it has an impact on one's enjoyment of video content. Go from standard definition to 720p and the difference is spectacular. Go from 720p to 1080p and the difference isn't worth bothering over. This is how it is for the vast majority of consumers and Apple is not building a custom product for a select few. They're building a TV device for mass consumption.
post #46 of 156
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

Absolutely worthless.

No 1080p hardware support.

Guess I'll be waiting another four years for Apple to make a product worth buying.

Guess it sucks to be you then
post #47 of 156
Not an upgrade for me. All that I enacted was external storage. I hate this.
post #48 of 156
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

Absolutely worthless.

No 1080p hardware support.

Guess I'll be waiting another four years for Apple to make a product worth buying.

And where are you streaming full 1080p video from now?
post #49 of 156
Quote:
Originally Posted by Newtron View Post

When is that last time you had an eye exam? Do you need glasses? Are you sure?

He's right, because the level of compression often applied wipes out the difference. In theory, 1080i has the same resolution as 1080p, it just doesn't handle quick movement as well. But when I watch a Blu-Ray movie, it looks much better than a 1080i Tv show. That's assuming I want to get close enough to tell the difference.

In practice, I don't see much difference between 720p and 1080i broadcasts. There's a lot of debate as to whether one is better than the other. It's not a cut and dry thing. 720p actually takes more bandwidth if the amount of compression is the same, and has a denser image. It deals better with sports. 1080p would be best, if they didn't overcompress it, but we won't see that for some time because of the bandwidth.
post #50 of 156
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

This is already possible for limited use.

basically you would want to mirror the iThing's display simultaneously on your TV via ATV2. simple idea but probably takes more processing power than the A4 chip now has. but the next generation ...
post #51 of 156
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

Think about it. If you're renting, and streaming from your computer, why would you NEED storage?

If you live in an apartment or condo where you can regularly see 15+ networks , you might not want to stream, but want local storage. Streaming does not work in all situations.
post #52 of 156
Quote:
Originally Posted by jglavin View Post

There may not be any commercial 1080p streaming content, but you are ignoring the fact that you can easily stream 1080p h.264 content over 802.11n from your own file server.

If someone is looking for an all-in-one head-end device to connect to their TV for internet and local streaming content, not having an option for 1080p could lead many to other solutions.

Oh good grief. This is just a $99 device. Its not high end audio video. Those folks SHOULD look for other solutions.
post #53 of 156
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alfiejr View Post

Apple gotta load the firmware/OS and test it all somehow ...

That's what diagnostic means. They likely add the firmware and software before the device is assembled. When they add the OS and software to a computer, they put it directly on the Hdd in a bay with a lot of other HDDs. Then the loaded HDD is added to the machine. It's likely done that way here too with the Flash, or eproms.
post #54 of 156
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

There are few 1080p streams available, and if you go to the forums you will see that there are problems with downloading and playing them for many people. It's not ready for primetime yet.

If people are trying to stream 1080p over their crappy connection then ask why it looks jerky I am not. Netflix among others should start to rent 1080p video next year and this -again arbitrary- hardware limitation will soon looks plain retarded.
post #55 of 156


Sums up my opinion on HDTV pretty well.

As posted by others above, there are many variables such as seating distance, etc. that factor in. It reminds me of the argument over the difference between 128kb and 256kb audio; there is a technical difference, but in blind tests a majority can't tell the difference in most common setups. If those that can prefer one over the other, that's great for them. Somebody has to keep Monster in business.
You need skeptics, especially when the science gets very big and monolithic. -James Lovelock
The Story of Stuff
Reply
You need skeptics, especially when the science gets very big and monolithic. -James Lovelock
The Story of Stuff
Reply
post #56 of 156
You probably can tell a 720p signal from a 1080p one if you look hard enough. I would bet the compression of the signal matters more, but then again, I've enjoyed my Apple TV since the first model came out. On my 52" Sharp Aquos, everything looks pretty darn nice.

I will say this..I've seen a blue-ray disc movie and it did show really well. The interface was horrible, however, and waiting 25 minutes to wade through ads and previews before my movie would ruin the experience more than a 'drop' in quality from 1080p to 720p.

No thanks. I'll suffer with 720p and my instantly available movie (with zero ads) and TV shows (with zero commercials).

Getting into a resolution battle is great for people who love technology, but there are other factors for content viewers that are at least as important.

I'm buying the new Apple TV so I can put one in my workout room.
post #57 of 156
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trajectory View Post

It's the same piece-of-shit software and interface that is on the current (old) Apple TV. This is not an improvement. Did Apple buy a bunch of these little boxes from some liquidator in China and slap the Apple logo on it? It sure seems like it.

I was all ready to go buy one of these things. Not anymore. I'll stick with the crappy older model, which is still better than this new one.

Gotta agree. Do not like the new model at all.
post #58 of 156
Gotta love the whole "you can't see a difference with 1080p" argument. I'll bet these are the same people who rave about the retina display and how crystal clear it is. Fact is 1080p is larger, therefore one can assume that if you view the same movie, on the same screen, 1080p will look sharper, and clearer, than it would in 720p. Exactly the same as how the retina display looks much nicer. Just because one person has poor eyesight doesn't mean the rest of us do. There is a completely valid reason for wanting 1080p.

Having said all that. It's pretty clear why Apple didn't include it. iTunes and most streaming services do not offer 1080p. This new AppleTV is gearing towards online content, they don't care if you have a library with hundreds of movies in 1080p. Pretty obvious considering they buried all user content under several sub menus. Before it was right up front, not anymore. I suppose it's funny when you think about it. When they first introduced the AppleTV, it's sole purpose was to bring your iTunes content from your mac/pc to your tv. Now they've made it even harder to do it's original purpose. At least they still consider it a hobby, and it will remain that way until they get their heads out of their asses.

The new one is great for new customers who have no content, but those of us who have spend hundreds if not thousands of dollars on content, it's a slap in the face.
post #59 of 156
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

Absolutely worthless.

No 1080p hardware support.

Guess I'll be waiting another four years for Apple to make a product worth buying.

HDTV broadcast = 1080i (not as good as 720P) or 720P. No 1080P.

HDTV over CableTV or Satellite 1080i or 720P... no 1080P.

Netflix streaming HD = "HD" most certainly 720P with fast connection.

The ONLY source you'll see 1080P is Bluray.

So if you're avoiding products that don't do 1080P, you don't watch anything but SD or Bluray discs.
2011 13" 2.3 MBP, 2006 15" 2.16 MBP, iPhone 4, iPod Shuffle, AEBS, AppleTV2 with XBMC.
Reply
2011 13" 2.3 MBP, 2006 15" 2.16 MBP, iPhone 4, iPod Shuffle, AEBS, AppleTV2 with XBMC.
Reply
post #60 of 156
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dorotea View Post

If you live in an apartment or condo where you can regularly see 15+ networks , you might not want to stream, but want local storage. Streaming does not work in all situations.

I still don't see why. You aren't being limited to seeing something the moment it's being broadcast. You can see it any time you want. You don't need to have all the channels available to you at once, as you're just looking at one Tv show or movie at once. Is there something I'm missing in what you're saying?

I've got cable now, with 900+ channels. Sometimes I want to record three things at once. But that's only because there's no rebroadcast for much of it. But if all the shows are available all the time, I just have to select what I want at any moment. I could watch those three shows that Re broadcast at once, one after the other, or on different days. Or I could wait fir the month to end and watch four, one after the other.
post #61 of 156
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trajectory View Post

It's the same piece-of-shit software and interface that is on the current (old) Apple TV. This is not an improvement. Did Apple buy a bunch of these little boxes from some liquidator in China and slap the Apple logo on it? It sure seems like it.

I was all ready to go buy one of these things. Not anymore. I'll stick with the crappy older model, which is still better than this new one.

Good! Then I won't have to worry about them being sold out as long as there is that ONE left...honestly, you sound like a little baby who didn't get what she wanted for Christmas...
post #62 of 156
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

He's right, because the level of compression often applied wipes out the difference. In theory, 1080i has the same resolution as 1080p, it just doesn't handle quick movement as well. But when I watch a Blu-Ray movie, it looks much better than a 1080i Tv show. That's assuming I want to get close enough to tell the difference.

In practice, I don't see much difference between 720p and 1080i broadcasts. There's a lot of debate as to whether one is better than the other. It's not a cut and dry thing. 720p actually takes more bandwidth if the amount of compression is the same, and has a denser image. It deals better with sports. 1080p would be best, if they didn't overcompress it, but we won't see that for some time because of the bandwidth.

correct, most people see very little apparent difference between 1080i and 720p. including me. except 720p is better for action sports where interlacing might be noticed just a little. but 1080p does provide twice as much data per frame in theory as 1080i, depending on the actual compression method used.

but while broadcast HDTV is still running at 30 frames per second (not exactly), BluRay is running at 60 fps (not exactly). which is another reason why, in addition to its 1080p resolution, it looks noticeably better than 1080i HDTV. it can send twice as much data in theory per second to the TV compared to even broadcast 1080p (most HDTV's now can display @ 60 fps too). i don't know if all movies take advantage of this. but some do. the most impressive i've seen was Speed Racer, whose blazingly fast and vivid graphics were a real "wow" to see.
post #63 of 156
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sensi View Post

If people are trying to stream 1080p over their crappy connection then ask why it looks jerky I am not. Netflix among others should start to rent 1080p video next year and this -again arbitrary- hardware limitation will soon looks plain retarded.

You're missing the point. Most people don't have connections that will stream 1080p well. I have one, and I suppose you do too. But Apple isn't selling a device to a select few, as has been mentioned earlier.

I feel pretty sure that at some point, Apple will raise it.

But we also have to think if the studios are interfering here. Perhaps this was part of the deal.

There's no reason why the hardware couldn't stream 1080p.
post #64 of 156
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dorotea View Post

If you live in an apartment or condo where you can regularly see 15+ networks , you might not want to stream, but want local storage. Streaming does not work in all situations.

yeah. you can store your iTunes media on an inexpensive big drive attached to your computer anyplace on your LAN of course. but to access it that computer has to be turned on and logged in. i wish the ATV2 could "see" a drive attached just to a router, like Airport Extreme, and play any file direct from it.
post #65 of 156
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xero910 View Post

Gotta love the whole "you can't see a difference with 1080p" argument. I'll bet these are the same people who rave about the retina display and how crystal clear it is. Fact is 1080p is larger, therefore one can assume that if you view the same movie, on the same screen, 1080p will look sharper, and clearer, than it would in 720p. Exactly the same as how the retina display looks much nicer. Just because one person has poor eyesight doesn't mean the rest of us do. There is a completely valid reason for wanting 1080p.

Have you read why we've been saying that you may not see the difference? It's perfectly valid.
post #66 of 156
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hudson1 View Post

Do you not watch ABC, Fox, ESPN, Disney, and others because they are in 720P? Or are they worthless, too?

I don't watch modern television at all.

Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

I doubt very much that you can either from any normal seating position. You really have to sit CLOSE.

Think what you will.

Quote:
If you think you [can see a difference], then you have to rethink your understanding of what you're seeing.

It's funny that you think you can tell me what my eyes can and cannot see.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Carmissimo View Post

Sorry to say that if you are seeing a difference between 720p and 1080p regardless of viewing distance, that difference is strictly a product of your imagination.

Think what you will.

Quote:
If you find 720p video unwatchable, you're in an exceedingly small minority.

Certainly not unwatchable, but as there is a visible difference in 720 and 1080 and most of my content is now 1080 up from 480, it matters.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 8CoreWhore View Post

So if you're avoiding products that don't do 1080P, you don't watch anything but SD or Bluray discs.

Yep. That'd be it. Your point? I'm hard driving my VHS/DVD library. If there is a 1080p alternative, I move to it. Pretty simple. I want a device that can play my library. If I can get one from Apple, all the better. If not, I'll keep using my computer.
post #67 of 156
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

Very few people sit close enough to get 1080 out of their sets.

Your use of the term "sets" would seem to imply what most people think of when they think of a "TV set". In that case, you're correct. However, there are many more factors to consider even in a fairly modest home theater, if that's what the application is.

(I almost wrote "high end home theater" but you no longer have to spend $50,000+ for a very impressive HT system any more.).

Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross View Post

I keep making this point to people. It's a manly spec thing. They think that the higher the spec, the better it is. While that may be the case in theory, it rarely is in practice. ...

"Higher is better" is generally true, but with a home theater there are many variables to consider that go well beyond mere screen resolution. I spent over two years designing and building mine. The implications of all the various specifications were mind-boggling. I eventually decided I needed 1080p, with its additional cost, since the seating arrangement and display size were such that 720p would have been inadequate. If your seating arrangement were different than mine, spending more money for 1080p would be a waste, since the difference simply can't be perceived from any seat location.

There are several good references available to help decide if 720p is adequate, or if you need something more.

The following is a cursory introduction: TV Viewing Distance and Screen Size: A Guide to Correct TV Placement

The following Excel spreadsheet uses industry accepted standards to help calculate the interrelationships between resolution, screen dimensions, throw distance...: Home Theater Calculator: Viewing Distance, Screen Size

As I said it was mind-boggling, since I like to do everything right the first time, it took me years and required a major learning curve. The result is very impressive. So much that I have no desire to ever set foot in a traditional sticky-floor theater again. Most home theater owners would say the same.

Then there's the audio system... that's even more mind-boggling.
A is A
Reply
A is A
Reply
post #68 of 156
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xero910 View Post

Gotta love the whole "you can't see a difference with 1080p" argument. I'll bet these are the same people who rave about the retina display and how crystal clear it is. Fact is 1080p is larger, therefore one can assume that if you view the same movie, on the same screen, 1080p will look sharper, and clearer, than it would in 720p. Exactly the same as how the retina display looks much nicer. Just because one person has poor eyesight doesn't mean the rest of us do. There is a completely valid reason for wanting 1080p.

Having said all that. It's pretty clear why Apple didn't include it. iTunes and most streaming services do not offer 1080p. This new AppleTV is gearing towards online content, they don't care if you have a library with hundreds of movies in 1080p. Pretty obvious considering they buried all user content under several sub menus. Before it was right up front, not anymore. I suppose it's funny when you think about it. When they first introduced the AppleTV, it's sole purpose was to bring your iTunes content from your mac/pc to your tv. Now they've made it even harder to do it's original purpose. At least they still consider it a hobby, and it will remain that way until they get their heads out of their asses.

The new one is great for new customers who have no content, but those of us who have spend hundreds if not thousands of dollars on content, it's a slap in the face.


What you hear or see is limited by your physical capabilities. No one is saying that there is no difference between 1080p and 720p. What is debatable, however, is that the difference is anywhere close to making any real difference when viewing video content. Don't forget that there is a difference between carefully examining a photograph and taking in video content. The brain is too busy processing constantly changing video input, processing story elements and audio data, to be that concerned with slight (very slight) variations in the picture being delivered.

Don't confuse the trick you're playing on your brain when you instruct it to find a difference in order to think you are more observant than the average person with any legitimate difference that you are picking up on. It's about the power of suggestion, nothing more.
post #69 of 156
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alfiejr View Post

correct, most people see very little apparent difference between 1080i and 720p. including me. except 720p is better for action sports where interlacing might be noticed just a little. but 1080p does provide twice as much data per frame in theory as 1080i, depending on the actual compression method used.

but while broadcast HDTV is still running at 30 frames per second (not exactly), BluRay is running at 60 fps (not exactly). which is another reason why, in addition to its 1080p resolution, it looks noticeably better than 1080i HDTV. it can send twice as much data in theory per second to the TV compared to even broadcast 1080p (most HDTV's now can display @ 60 fps too). i don't know if all movies take advantage of this. but some do. the most impressive i've seen was Speed Racer, whose blazingly fast and vivid graphics were a real "wow" to see.

1080p needs to send twice as much data per frame. But we need a minimum number of frames per sec for it to look smooth because of our visual retention.

This is why movie film does a double frame. While you're getting 24 new frames a second, there are two of them shown at a 48th of a second apart. So, in a sense, it's 48 fps.

I've watched European Tv, and it flickers slightly because of the lower frame rate. The fact that they broadcast higher rez didn't make the experience any better. In fact, the lower rez NTSC broadcasts more imformation, and often looks better, esp. with sports.

So what's happening here is that 1080i is broadcasting one field every 1/59.97th of a second, while 1080p is doing one frame at the same rate. Twice the data in the same time.
post #70 of 156
I agreed it's disappointing the lack of 1080p.
Maybe I will end up buying a MacMini and use it as HTPC without the hassle of transcoding all my home videos and blu-ray to a format AppleTV accepts.
Maybe at the end of the day is the best way around, too bad I have to fork the cash for it but I am sure Apple will be happy about that.
My only gripe is that front row UI is lame and I wished AppleTV UI could be applied to MacMini. Plex is nice but I am afraid my kids and wife will be too overwhelmed by it.
MacPro 12 core
30" & 23" Apple Cinema HD Displays
PowerBook G4 550, MacBook Pro 2.2
Ipod 1G and 5G, Shuffle 2G, iPhone 3G
Reply
MacPro 12 core
30" & 23" Apple Cinema HD Displays
PowerBook G4 550, MacBook Pro 2.2
Ipod 1G and 5G, Shuffle 2G, iPhone 3G
Reply
post #71 of 156
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sensi View Post

Hmmm.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zune_Ma...ne_Marketplace

p.s. I don't have Fiber To The Home and full HD screens to have -arbitrary- limits put in upstream by an hardware manufacturer, just because Apple has chosen not to even try streaming 1080p...
The price is interesting but this limitation alone will make me stick with my current XBMC media center.

I have an XBOX360 and love it --- for gaming. It makes a lot of noise and the more you run it, the closer you get to a red ring of death. Also nothing save Blu-Ray is in 1080P, not even our XBOX. It's upconverted.
post #72 of 156
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

I don't watch modern television at all.



Think what you will.



It's funny that you think you can tell me what my eyes can and cannot see.

Well then, you can end the argument by giving us the numbers. What size is your screen, and how far away are you? Simple enough.
post #73 of 156
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alfiejr View Post

i wish the ATV2 could "see" a drive attached just to a router, like Airport Extreme, and play any file direct from it.

That would be a great feature that would make lots of sense. So a 99% chance it will never happen.
You need skeptics, especially when the science gets very big and monolithic. -James Lovelock
The Story of Stuff
Reply
You need skeptics, especially when the science gets very big and monolithic. -James Lovelock
The Story of Stuff
Reply
post #74 of 156
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

I rather doubt that.



Just because you can't see the difference. The ellipses are implied.



Also implied is that I don't find it worth anything. It's perfectly fine for people with no 1080 content.



I can't believe how many people can't seem to see a difference between 720 and 1080. It boggles the mind.



Ah, the implication here is that I'm merely twirling my metaphorical digital wang, yes? Try again. I've never understood any of this nonsense about viewing distances, screen sizes, and 720 vs. 1080.

There is a visible difference. I can see it. This truth makes the difference in this product for me. Therefore the Apple TV serves me no purpose.

Then you don't understand Optics and Light.

When Apple can release a 326ppi 42" diagonal backlit LED that is Resolution Independent so that the Motion Picture industry can work in layers of the Z-plane and really leverage vector scaling with real-time bitmap rastering w/o any noticeable delay then you probably will be happy.
post #75 of 156
I have ordered and paid for the new Apple TV. We have watched a few movies on my Imac, I can't wait to watch iTune movies on my HD 50" Sony LCD TV. I earlier had purchased an Airport Extreme router to connect with our iMacs and iPhones, anticipating that I would be able to connect with this new Apple TV. This is exactly what I had hoped for, and I expect that this Apple TV will be extremely popular with the average consumer like me.
post #76 of 156
Quote:
Originally Posted by gugy View Post

My only gripe is that front row UI is lame and I wished AppleTV UI could be applied to MacMini. Plex is nice but I am afraid my kids and wife will be too overwhelmed by it.

Try xbmc if you haven't yet.
post #77 of 156
Quote:
Originally Posted by john galt View Post

Your use of the term "sets" would seem to imply what most people think of when they think of a "TV set". In that case, you're correct. However, there are many more factors to consider even in a fairly modest home theater, if that's what the application is.

(I almost wrote "high end home theater" but you no longer have to spend $50,000+ for a very impressive HT system any more.).



"Higher is better" is generally true, but with a home theater there are many variables to consider that go well beyond mere screen resolution. I spent over two years designing and building mine. The implications of all the various specifications were mind-boggling. I eventually decided I needed 1080p, with its additional cost, since the seating arrangement and display size were such that 720p would have been inadequate. If your seating arrangement were different than mine, spending more money for 1080p would be a waste, since the difference simply can't be perceived from any seat location.

There are several good references available to help decide if 720p is adequate, or if you need something more.

The following is a cursory introduction: TV Viewing Distance and Screen Size: A Guide to Correct TV Placement

The following Excel spreadsheet uses industry accepted standards to help calculate the interrelationships between resolution, screen dimensions, throw distance...: Home Theater Calculator: Viewing Distance, Screen Size

As I said it was mind-boggling, since I like to do everything right the first time, it took me years and required a major learning curve. The result is very impressive. So much that I have no desire to ever set foot in a traditional sticky-floor theater again. Most home theater owners would say the same.

Then there's the audio system... that's even more mind-boggling.

I've been in the business of broadcast/video/commercial photography a very long time, and I've seen standards come and go. I'm very particular about what I buy, and how I set it up.

There are some very simple numbers to plug into a system to come up with a realistic understanding of what you can and can't see. It's not a matter of someone guessing that they see something. I know, for example, that I can't see 1080 from my seating distance of 13 to 14 feet with my 61" inch monitor. I accept that. In order to do so, I would need a 103" diag. screen, and I'm not spending the $100 grand a plasma or LCD costs, or going to bother with a front projector at this time (a good one is at least $7,000 right now, and a good screen that size is a good $2,000. $5,000 for a good motorized model). I'm also not interested in screwing up my audio system by moving five feet closer.

These are choices we all have to make. But they have to be made with the understanding that nothing is perfect. I see a lot of people deceiving themselves about this.

My audio/video system costs a pretty penny, and you bet I spent time over it during a several year period. That includes working on the room by buying different rugs, removing the blinds and buying curtains- several times, etc. It's all very complex and expensive, and it's still a compromise. I have friends who built their homes around the home theater, and they still aren't happy, even though some of those theaters cost as much as a nice house around much of the country.
post #78 of 156
Can someone answer this question for me? The article's writer reports:

"MPEG-4 video, up to 2.5 Mbps, 640 by 480 pixels, 30 frames per second, Simple Profile with AAC-LC audio up to 160 Kbps, 48kHz, stereo audio in .m4v, .mp4, and .mov file formats."

Now for several years I've been HandBraking movies and TV shows as "legacy" .mp4 files not because I think it's the "best" format, but simply because I figured it was almost certain to be readable by a wide range of present and future machines. As my technology has improved, however, I've found that my mp4s often save at well over 640 x 480. So does the statement above mean that the forthcoming Apple TV won't be able to play this large and ever-increasing part of my collection?

Thanks for your help.


iedsri
post #79 of 156
1080p or 720p ? Which is better...

Neither, they would both give you almost identical picture quality at the bit-rates Apple would be putting out. Your getting the same amount of picture data either way. Anything you have on your PC that isn't a 50gb blu-ray rip will not require 1080p.

We are talking about heavily compressed video here. This is why Apple didn't put 1080p. No reason to. Nothing they stream is high enough quality anyways. Your iTunes purchases are not high enough quality either.
post #80 of 156
Quote:
Originally Posted by iedsri View Post

Can someone answer this question for me? The article's writer reports:

"MPEG-4 video, up to 2.5 Mbps, 640 by 480 pixels, 30 frames per second, Simple Profile with AAC-LC audio up to 160 Kbps, 48kHz, stereo audio in .m4v, .mp4, and .mov file formats."

Now for several years I've been HandBraking movies and TV shows as "legacy" .mp4 files not because I think it's the "best" format, but simply because I figured it was almost certain to be readable by a wide range of present and future machines. As my technology has improved, however, I've found that my mp4s often save at well over 640 x 480. So does the statement above mean that the forthcoming Apple TV won't be able to play this large and ever-increasing part of my collection?

Thanks for your help.


iedsri

I don't use Handbreak, but don't they offer you options as to how you would want the files to be saved? If so, check out their info, and see how you saved them.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPod + iTunes + AppleTV
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPod + iTunes + AppleTV › New Apple TV runs same custom A4 processor as iPhone 4, iPad