AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPod + iTunes + AppleTV › Comparison finds iTunes 1080p video nears Blu-ray disc quality
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Comparison finds iTunes 1080p video nears Blu-ray disc quality - Page 4

post #121 of 208
3/15/12 at 6:43am
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

But in terms of watching a movie and enjoying it, the differences you're talking about are very minor.

Perhaps to you, but not me. If there's banding (it becomes even more obvious when video is actually playing as the bands will move around) that can be very distracting and suddenly remind you you're watching a series of moving pictures and this pulls you out of the story.

High picture quality enhances the immersion of the viewer in the film. It's poor picture quality that is distracting and can lead to your brain focussing on the picture quality instead of the story.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

subtle pixel differences.

We're not talking about subtle pixel differences. We're talking about massive, glaring differences. If you can't see the banding in that last comparison shot, then lucky you.

Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

Some people are willing to trade off minor quality differences for convenience. It's really none of your business.

Perhaps you should go back and re-read the post you were responding to? The guy wasn't complaining about that. Yes, some people are willing to trade quality for convenience and that's great if they want to do that.

The problem comes when people claim that the quality of iTunes 1080p comes close to matching blu-ray when clearly, it does not.
it's = it is / it has, its = belonging to it.
Reply
it's = it is / it has, its = belonging to it.
Reply
post #122 of 208
3/15/12 at 6:59am
Without quoting all the posts:

Solip- I usually like all you post- but you're way wrong here and supreme is dead on. You cannot measure the difference on a 23"- who watches movies on a 23"? 15 year olds?

On my 50" plasma, the different between a DVD or HD (720p) programming and Blu Ray isn't completely night and day. But on my 100" hd projector in my pitch black media room, I notice every artifact out there- banding, aliasing, halos, edge enhancement, etc.
If people can't notice it- you either haven't watched a calibrated (which you can do yourself- Disney has a great disc called world of wonder) high end television, OR, you just don't notice things like that. If its the former- you're missing out. If your the latter- I'm jealous of you. . One of those "ignorance is bliss" kind of things (and I don't mean that negatively).

I love movies. Love them. It's one of my biggest passions- movie watching. For guys like me- digital media has a long way to go.

And for jrag- great picture quality doesnt make a bad movie good. But it absolutely makes a good movie better, and a great movie jaw dropping. That's like comparing the same movie in SD on an iPad, and then watching it in my media room (or a theater). Same movie- totally different experience. Complete immersion is something to be desired- and convenience really hurts the art of cinema in some cases. I only watch "popcorn flicks" on my iPad.

(2) 2010 27" iMac i7, 2012 15" Retina MacBook Pro i7, 2011 Mac Mini i5
iPad 4, iPad Mini, (2) iPhone 5, iPod Touch 5, iPod Nano 7
Time Capsule 4, Airport Extreme 5, (3) Apple TV 3

Reply

(2) 2010 27" iMac i7, 2012 15" Retina MacBook Pro i7, 2011 Mac Mini i5
iPad 4, iPad Mini, (2) iPhone 5, iPod Touch 5, iPod Nano 7
Time Capsule 4, Airport Extreme 5, (3) Apple TV 3

Reply
post #123 of 208
3/15/12 at 7:10am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andysol View Post

Without quoting all the posts:

Solip- I usually like all you post- but you're way wrong here and supreme is dead on. You cannot measure the difference on a 23"- who watches movies on a 23"? 15 year olds?

On my 50" plasma, the different between a DVD or HD (720p) programming and Blu Ray isn't completely night and day. But on my 100" hd projector in my pitch black media room, I notice every artifact out there- banding, aliasing, halos, edge enhancement, etc.
If people can't notice it- you either haven't watched a calibrated (which you can do yourself- Disney has a great disc called world of wonder) high end television, OR, you just don't notice things like that. If its the former- you're missing out. If your the latter- I'm jealous of you. . One of those "ignorance is bliss" kind of things (and I don't mean that negatively).

I love movies. Love them. It's one of my biggest passions- movie watching. For guys like me- digital media has a long way to go.

And for jrag- great picture quality doesnt make a bad movie good. But it absolutely makes a good movie better, and a great movie jaw dropping. That's like comparing the same movie in SD on an iPad, and then watching it in my media room (or a theater). Same movie- totally different experience. Complete immersion is something to be desired- and convenience really hurts the art of cinema in some cases. I only watch "popcorn flicks" on my iPad.

You most certainly can. Here is one example from a 23" display.

Surely I don't need to mention which is the iTS and which is the Blu-ray disc.

What you and Supreme are talking about is a larger display with larger pixels... but you sit farther away than from a PC monitor. What you guys are doing is comparing the monitor itself to a better display, but that's not what is in question here. The question is how iTS 1080p compares to 1080p found on a 50 GB Blu-ray disc. All this talk of it being calibrated by trained koalas eating free range eucalyptus is irrelevant to what is better or worse (i.e.: a comparison).

"Blank! BLANK! You're not looking at the big picture!"

Reply

"Blank! BLANK! You're not looking at the big picture!"

Reply
post #124 of 208
3/15/12 at 7:19am
Exactly why I only bought 2 BR discs.. after owning over 500 DVDs.

Optical media is dying. Everyday there becomes less and less reasons to continue using optical media or storage. Combine the instant gratification of movie purchases/rentals thru iTunes, the convenience of watching that movie with iCloud from anywhere with a decent internet connection and the 95% quality of BR.. and its a no brainer decision for me.
Reply
Reply
post #125 of 208
3/15/12 at 7:39am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Daekwan View Post

Exactly why I only bought 2 BR discs.. after owning over 500 DVDs.

Optical media is dying. Everyday there becomes less and less reasons to continue using optical media or storage. Combine the instant gratification of movie purchases/rentals thru iTunes, the convenience of watching that movie with iCloud from anywhere with a decent internet connection and the 95% quality of BR.. and its a no brainer decision for me.

This is exactly my story as well. I've got a collection of hundreds of DVDs and a blu-ray collection just 1/100 of that size.

I prefer the quality of blu-ray but convenience has trumped quality. Apparently for me, "good enough" has been achieved.
Reply
Reply
post #126 of 208
3/15/12 at 8:13am
Quote:
Originally Posted by yensid98 View Post

The one last hurdle to me is price. An iTunes download really needs to be cheaper than the Blu-ray.

In many cases those cheaper blu-rays are done at cost or even below as a loss leader to get you to go and buy other stuff from said place. That isn't the case with iTunes

Quote:
That's not to mention all the movies studios haven't released to iTunes for sale in HD.

There are current contracts for cable etc that must be honored as well as just needing to do the appropriate prep work. Some of the movies you listed are so old that they probably need to digitize the original film to do a 1080p
Reply
Reply
post #127 of 208
3/15/12 at 8:19am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Supreme View Post

I want the highest possible picture and sound quality with no compromise and at this moment in time it's Blu-ray (and for the near future as well).

You are not the world. Not everyone expects perfection (as you define it). So this will be fine for them.
Reply
Reply
post #128 of 208
3/15/12 at 8:22am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Firefly7475 View Post



How the hell can you say that the iTunes 1080p video "nears" Blu-ray after looking at that?

How often do movies have giant screens of black for you to look at. They don't. They are all colors and change and movement. So who cares what a screen you are going to see for perhaps 1/10th of a second looks. unless you have the ultimate case of OCD perhaps

This is my issue with this whole comparison. They are looking at still shots out of a moving medium. These images are going to fly by the eye in a fraction of a second so people won't be noticing the appearance of one screen. Show us the comparisons as they are meant to be seen, moving.

Also, remember that not everyone wants absolutely perfect. They were fine with the 720p so all they are going to care about it getting a better version for free. And if Apple does it that way now as they improve the files, we are likely to get another free 'upgrade'. That's impressive right there since they could have tagged a couple of extra bucks on the files and made us pay that to upgrade our purchases like they did with music.
Reply
Reply
post #129 of 208
3/15/12 at 9:00am
Quote:
Originally Posted by charlituna View Post

How often do movies have giant screens of black for you to look at. They don't. They are all colors and change and movement. So who cares what a screen you are going to see for perhaps 1/10th of a second looks. unless you have the ultimate case of OCD perhaps

Some of Up's beauty is certainly lost when you see LINES IN THE SKY where the file jumps directly from one color to another, I'll tell you that.
PhilBoogie
That's Google alright. For a stupid company they sure do dumb things.
Reply
PhilBoogie
That's Google alright. For a stupid company they sure do dumb things.
Reply
post #130 of 208
3/15/12 at 9:14am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Apple ][ View Post

That Philips one looks pretty nice. It's kind of pricey and I read that it's not even being sold in the US.

Hopefully in the future, more manufacturers will start releasing more TV's and monitors with an ultrawide format specifically for movies and that the prices also come down. 16:9 is not for movies, it's basically for tv series.

It is already happening...
http://www.vizio.com/ces/cinemawide/overview
Reply
Reply
post #131 of 208
3/15/12 at 9:18am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

You honestly think that cinemas show "Blu-ray disc quality" content? Not, you know, 4k because they're a CINEMA?

The vast majority of Digital Cinemas are still 2K which is only 2048x1080, not exactly a substantial difference compared to BD with a resolution of 1920x1080. Yes, I will grant you 4K, but until there is a home format that actually delivers that type of quality, be it download or physical media, it is still a pipe dream. BTW: 4K is available for home already, and there are processors and receivers with 4K scaling, but without true 4K software, there will be limited benefits for home use.
Reply
Reply
post #132 of 208
3/15/12 at 9:31am
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell View Post

They are showing the exact same still. So the comparison is fair.

The comparison is fair for that particular clip of video, but you still cannot extrapolate that in any meaningful way. Even MPEG II will get you great video quality at modest bitrates if all you watch is slow moving anime or something similar. Throw a fast moving action movie with high dynamic range and lots of video frames with small details at it though, and it absolutely falls apart.

Generally speaking, with current state of the art encoders and codecs, the quality difference between a 20 Mbps or higher video stream or a stream with 1/10th the bitrate will be huge, to the point even my grandma would be able to tell the difference. There's simply no argument possible here.
Reply
Reply
post #133 of 208
3/15/12 at 9:33am
i'm curious about the size of the Blu-ray STREAM directory for '30 Days of Night'. the article, from what i understood, stated the capacity of the physical disk and not the size of the AV stream(s) of the film itself.
Reply
Reply
post #134 of 208
3/15/12 at 9:41am
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

What you and Supreme are talking about is a larger display with larger pixels... but you sit farther away than from a PC monitor. What you guys are doing is comparing the monitor itself to a better display, but that's not what is in question here. The question is how iTS 1080p compares to 1080p found on a 50 GB Blu-ray disc. All this talk of it being calibrated by trained koalas eating free range eucalyptus is irrelevant to what is better or worse (i.e.: a comparison).


Stills actually will show less quality different. A smaller Bit rate during movement will show even more disparities and make it more obvious. Yes- you sit further away than a computer monitor, but in several cases (most I would say)- people are either too far away to notice a difference, or too close and notice too much. But if you are at the ideal distance on a 23" and on a 100"- what would be easier to see with the naked eye- a 1" halo, or a 5" halo? (and I'm being conservative making it a direct size difference- it would actually be bigger on a larger screen)

(2) 2010 27" iMac i7, 2012 15" Retina MacBook Pro i7, 2011 Mac Mini i5
iPad 4, iPad Mini, (2) iPhone 5, iPod Touch 5, iPod Nano 7
Time Capsule 4, Airport Extreme 5, (3) Apple TV 3

Reply

(2) 2010 27" iMac i7, 2012 15" Retina MacBook Pro i7, 2011 Mac Mini i5
iPad 4, iPad Mini, (2) iPhone 5, iPod Touch 5, iPod Nano 7
Time Capsule 4, Airport Extreme 5, (3) Apple TV 3

Reply
post #135 of 208
3/15/12 at 9:43am
Quote:
Originally Posted by emacs72 View Post

i'm curious about the size of the Blu-ray STREAM directory for '30 Days of Night'. the article, from what i understood, stated the capacity of the physical disk and not the size of the AV stream(s) of the film itself.

Likely around 30 gb on a dual layer disc. Some movies, like Avatar- take up all 50gb and have no special features. Approx. 49gb are the movie itself. Other movies can take up less- but on average around 30 for a dual layer.

(2) 2010 27" iMac i7, 2012 15" Retina MacBook Pro i7, 2011 Mac Mini i5
iPad 4, iPad Mini, (2) iPhone 5, iPod Touch 5, iPod Nano 7
Time Capsule 4, Airport Extreme 5, (3) Apple TV 3

Reply

(2) 2010 27" iMac i7, 2012 15" Retina MacBook Pro i7, 2011 Mac Mini i5
iPad 4, iPad Mini, (2) iPhone 5, iPod Touch 5, iPod Nano 7
Time Capsule 4, Airport Extreme 5, (3) Apple TV 3

Reply
post #136 of 208
3/15/12 at 9:44am
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. Hence my comment about it being useful to be compared because a perceptible comparison is what people know, not a technical one.

That's a strawman argument. We're not comparing analog audio cables here, but video encoding quality, and the quality difference between content encoded with the same encoder and codec, but significantly lower bitrate is enormous, and easily quantifiable. I gave a very concrete example that supports this statement, which is that even with my relatively modest AV setup (only 42" with a midrange AV receiver and speakers), I can tell the difference between a Blu-Ray disc and a downloaded version of the same movie at half the bitrate within seconds. Since I don't have superhuman senses, I think you can safely assume most people will be able to do the same. iTunes 1080p content is even (a lot) lower bitrate.

Personally, If I were to stream stuff from iTunes, judging from the file sizes mentioned in the article, I would probably pick the 720p version, because chances are it will look better than the 1080p version at these bitrates.

Quote:
Then even if one is perceptibly better the consumer has to factor in cost and convenience to see if it's worth their trouble. The greater the difference in quality the easier it is to warrant a greater difference in cost and lowered convenience.

Sure, but that's not the point here. The point was that iTunes content does not come close to Blu-Ray content, nothing more, nothing less.
Reply
Reply
post #137 of 208
3/15/12 at 9:58am
Quote:
Originally Posted by d-range View Post

That's a strawman argument.

unfortunately, strawmen arguments do litter the forums, here and elsewhere (most likely)

Blu-ray has several years left in its ife cycle providing, to the general consumer in first world nations, the best video and audio experience. for those who don't care, iTunes is a great alternative.
Reply
Reply
post #138 of 208
3/15/12 at 9:59am
Motion picture film does not have infinite resolution. At a certain point it will degrade into grain particles.

Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post

Sure there is, motion picture is. Infinite resolution because there's no pixels.
Reply
Reply
post #139 of 208
3/15/12 at 10:04am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andysol View Post

Likely around 30 gb on a dual layer disc.


thanks for the information because it helped me, in part, to find this http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showp...postcount=2145

Quote:
DISC INFO:
Disc Title: 30_DAYS_OF_NIGHT
Disc Size: 32,538,062,347 bytes
Protection: AACS
BD-Java: Yes
BDInfo: 0.5.6

PLAYLIST REPORT:
Name: 00001.MPLS
Length: 1:32:26 (h:m:s)
Size: 26,455,007,232 bytes
Total Bitrate: 38.16 Mbps

VIDEO:
Codec Bitrate Description
----- ------- -----------
MPEG-4 AVC Video 24926 kbps 1080p / 23.976 fps / 16:9 / High Profile 4.1


AUDIO:
Codec Language Bitrate Description
----- -------- ------- -----------
DTS-HD Master Audio English 2792 kbps 5.1 / 48 kHz / 2792 kbps / 24-bit (DTS Core: 5.1 / 48 kHz / 1509 kbps / 24-bit)
Reply
Reply
post #140 of 208
3/15/12 at 10:20am
You saying Arstechnica is an unknown webpage with no credibility? This is completely wrong. You may not be familiar with it but it is an excellent technology site.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Andysol View Post

Umm yes. It's Understandable that a pro-apple site would quote an unknown webpage with no credibility (kind of like digitimes). When cnet or a real place reviews it, then we'll talk. The fact they did it on a 23" monitor, and said Dolby digital 5.1 is comparable to dts-hd is really the biggest joke I've ever heard. Insanity.
Reply
Reply
post #141 of 208
3/15/12 at 10:21am
Quote:
Originally Posted by emacs72 View Post

thanks for the information because it helped me, in part, to find this http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showp...postcount=2145

That's the sequel- but it'll be pretty close (with the exception the original was with Dolby True HD not DTS-HD. But pretty comparable regardless).

(2) 2010 27" iMac i7, 2012 15" Retina MacBook Pro i7, 2011 Mac Mini i5
iPad 4, iPad Mini, (2) iPhone 5, iPod Touch 5, iPod Nano 7
Time Capsule 4, Airport Extreme 5, (3) Apple TV 3

Reply

(2) 2010 27" iMac i7, 2012 15" Retina MacBook Pro i7, 2011 Mac Mini i5
iPad 4, iPad Mini, (2) iPhone 5, iPod Touch 5, iPod Nano 7
Time Capsule 4, Airport Extreme 5, (3) Apple TV 3

Reply
post #142 of 208
3/15/12 at 10:22am
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell View Post

You saying Arstechnica is an unknown webpage with no credibility? This is completely wrong. You may not be familiar with it but it is an excellent technology site.

About as much as Apple Insider.

(2) 2010 27" iMac i7, 2012 15" Retina MacBook Pro i7, 2011 Mac Mini i5
iPad 4, iPad Mini, (2) iPhone 5, iPod Touch 5, iPod Nano 7
Time Capsule 4, Airport Extreme 5, (3) Apple TV 3

Reply

(2) 2010 27" iMac i7, 2012 15" Retina MacBook Pro i7, 2011 Mac Mini i5
iPad 4, iPad Mini, (2) iPhone 5, iPod Touch 5, iPod Nano 7
Time Capsule 4, Airport Extreme 5, (3) Apple TV 3

Reply
post #143 of 208
3/15/12 at 10:30am
To add to this. Its interesting how I can sit with friends watching a Netflix streaming movie on a 40" screen TV. I can see banding, aliasing, and artifacting. Most noticeably in areas with a mass of black, because that is difficult to encode. They seem to be completely unfazed by it and stay largely engrossed in the movie.

It is the trade off for being able to instantly watch a movie.


Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

What you and Supreme are talking about is a larger display with larger pixels... but you sit farther away than from a PC monitor. What you guys are doing is comparing the monitor itself to a better display, but that's not what is in question here. The question is how iTS 1080p compares to 1080p found on a 50 GB Blu-ray disc. All this talk of it being calibrated by trained koalas eating free range eucalyptus is irrelevant to what is better or worse (i.e.: a comparison).
Reply
Reply
post #144 of 208
3/15/12 at 10:32am
Blu-ray and streaming/downloading do not use the same encoder and are not really using the same exact codec. They both use a variant of H.264, but are using different profiles of it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by d-range View Post

That's a strawman argument. We're not comparing analog audio cables here, but video encoding quality, and the quality difference between content encoded with the same encoder and codec, but significantly lower bitrate is enormous, and easily quantifiable.
Reply
Reply
post #145 of 208
3/15/12 at 10:32am
Arstechnica and Apple Insider are not the same at all.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Andysol View Post

About as much as Apple Insider.
Reply
Reply
post #146 of 208
3/15/12 at 10:41am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. H View Post

Perhaps you should go back and re-read the post you were responding to? The guy wasn't complaining about that. Yes, some people are willing to trade quality for convenience and that's great if they want to do that.

The problem comes when people claim that the quality of iTunes 1080p comes close to matching blu-ray when clearly, it does not.

Yes it is great that some people love downloads. I just don't understand why they just can enjoy it without hating on physical media. I have an AppleTv and Blu-ray player. They can co-exist.
Reply
Reply
post #147 of 208
3/15/12 at 10:43am
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell View Post

Blu-ray and streaming/downloading do not use the same encoder and are not really using the same exact codec. They both use a variant of H.264, but are using different profiles of it.

I don't know about other download services, but with iTunes this was true before the upgrade to 1080p. 720p and below use H.264 Main Profile but the 1080p downloads use the High Profile; this is the same profile as Blu-Ray.
it's = it is / it has, its = belonging to it.
Reply
it's = it is / it has, its = belonging to it.
Reply
post #148 of 208
3/15/12 at 11:03am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andysol View Post

That's the sequel- but it'll be pretty close ...

yes, my mistake.

the original has these specs http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showp...postcount=1031 the video stream is 20GB in size, encoded via VC-1. the VC-1 codec was developed by Microsoft and was made a standard in 2006. so, it appears the technical discussion is less about iTunes 2012 and Blu-ray and a bit more more about h.264 versus VC-1.
Reply
Reply
post #149 of 208
3/15/12 at 11:05am
You know there are multiple profiles that Blu-ray can support, they don't have to use H.264 Main Profile.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. H View Post

I don't know about other download services, but with iTunes this was true before the upgrade to 1080p. 720p and below use H.264 Main Profile but the 1080p downloads use the High Profile; this is the same profile as Blu-Ray.
Reply
Reply
post #150 of 208
3/15/12 at 11:14am
Quote:
Originally Posted by charlituna View Post

How often do movies have giant screens of black for you to look at. They don't. They are all colors and change and movement. So who cares what a screen you are going to see for perhaps 1/10th of a second looks. unless you have the ultimate case of OCD perhaps

This is my issue with this whole comparison. They are looking at still shots out of a moving medium. These images are going to fly by the eye in a fraction of a second so people won't be noticing the appearance of one screen. Show us the comparisons as they are meant to be seen, moving.

Also, remember that not everyone wants absolutely perfect. They were fine with the 720p so all they are going to care about it getting a better version for free. And if Apple does it that way now as they improve the files, we are likely to get another free 'upgrade'. That's impressive right there since they could have tagged a couple of extra bucks on the files and made us pay that to upgrade our purchases like they did with music.

You understate the case. Millions of people are just fine with DVD - which is even worse than 720p.

Personally, if I never had anything better than DVD, I'd be OK with it unless I get a screen larger than my 60" screen (and maybe even then). I watch a movie for the content, not straining every second to see if I can defect an artifact on the screen.

It would be different if it was being suggested that BR be taken off the market, but that's not the case. If you want BR, you can still buy it - no one's stopping you. But for the millions of people who value convenience over a minor (to their eyes) difference in quality, it's a tempest in a teapot.
Reply
Reply
post #151 of 208
3/15/12 at 11:16am
Quote:
Originally Posted by pt123 View Post

Yes it is great that some people love downloads. I just don't understand why they just can enjoy it without hating on physical media.

perhaps those who vehemently oppose physical media have been, since 2007, trying to justify their support for Apple TV and/or digital downloads
Reply
Reply
post #152 of 208
3/15/12 at 11:18am
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell View Post

Blu-ray and streaming/downloading do not use the same encoder and are not really using the same exact codec. They both use a variant of H.264, but are using different profiles of it.

I'm aware of that, but the profiles typically used for streaming actually make tradeoffs that result in lower image quality, not improve it. If I remember correctly they use less efficient entropy coding to allow better error correction on lost packets, and there are more constraints on encoder features, bitrates and image sizes etc. All of this to set a reasonable baseline that streaming decoders can adhere to so they don't have to implement every bit of the complete H264 spec (which is huge).
Reply
Reply
post #153 of 208
3/15/12 at 11:25am
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell View Post

You know there are multiple profiles that Blu-ray can support, they don't have to use H.264 Main Profile.

Again this is technically true, but I'm pretty sure Main Profile is the minimum/least advanced profile that Blu-Ray uses. You won't find baseline or streaming profile on a Blu-Ray disc, since it would be pointless with all the storage and decoding hardware a Blu-Ray player has.
Reply
Reply
post #154 of 208
3/15/12 at 11:40am
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

You understate the case. Millions of people are just fine with DVD - which is even worse than 720p.

Personally, if I never had anything better than DVD, I'd be OK with it unless I get a screen larger than my 60" screen (and maybe even then). I watch a movie for the content, not straining every second to see if I can defect an artifact on the screen.

It would be different if it was being suggested that BR be taken off the market, but that's not the case. If you want BR, you can still buy it - no one's stopping you. But for the millions of people who value convenience over a minor (to their eyes) difference in quality, it's a tempest in a teapot.

You're exactly right- as long as Blu Ray is still there, the option remains. But as far as not noticing- I use my wife (who is just your typical girl) as my barometer. When I changed from my calibrated Onkyo 607 to Calibrated 1009, I noticed big time. I asked my wife- she had no idea. But 100% (I mean- every time) that I put on a DVD in the player because its a movie thats not available on Blu-Ray, or whatever, she says "This is a DVD isn't it?". Keep in mind, my calibrated projector will make DVDs look better, and the Onkyo receiver has a 4k Upconverter, and one of the best up upconvertors on the market.

Moral of the story- if she notices- almost anyone notices or they never have seen a good, calibrated setup before (or at the very least- they aren't conditioned to a good setup).

(2) 2010 27" iMac i7, 2012 15" Retina MacBook Pro i7, 2011 Mac Mini i5
iPad 4, iPad Mini, (2) iPhone 5, iPod Touch 5, iPod Nano 7
Time Capsule 4, Airport Extreme 5, (3) Apple TV 3

Reply

(2) 2010 27" iMac i7, 2012 15" Retina MacBook Pro i7, 2011 Mac Mini i5
iPad 4, iPad Mini, (2) iPhone 5, iPod Touch 5, iPod Nano 7
Time Capsule 4, Airport Extreme 5, (3) Apple TV 3

Reply
post #155 of 208
3/15/12 at 12:37pm
What I want to know is the minimum bit rate required, for someone with 20/20 vision rate for viewing on a 1080p HDTV or HD monitor, to allow for the content to be indistinguishable from the best Blu-ray encode available today under all conditions.

So what are all the conditions to check for?
What Blu-ray film(s) could be used to cover all aspects of the test?
Is the x264 encoder good enough to make a blanket assesment for all H.264 encoders?

"Blank! BLANK! You're not looking at the big picture!"

Reply

"Blank! BLANK! You're not looking at the big picture!"

Reply
post #156 of 208
3/15/12 at 12:58pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

What I want to know is the minimum bit rate required, for someone with 20/20 vision rate for viewing on a 1080p HDTV or HD monitor, to allow for the content to be indistinguishable from the best Blu-ray encode available today under all conditions.

So what are all the conditions to check for?
What Blu-ray film(s) could be used to cover all aspects of the test?
Is the x264 encoder good enough to make a blanket assesment for all H.264 encoders?

That's an unanswerable question. It depends on the particular movie and scene as well as the observer. It also depends on the observer's condition (when tired, they will be less likely to pick up differences).

Quote:
Originally Posted by Andysol View Post

You're exactly right- as long as Blu Ray is still there, the option remains. But as far as not noticing- I use my wife (who is just your typical girl) as my barometer. When I changed from my calibrated Onkyo 607 to Calibrated 1009, I noticed big time. I asked my wife- she had no idea. But 100% (I mean- every time) that I put on a DVD in the player because its a movie thats not available on Blu-Ray, or whatever, she says "This is a DVD isn't it?". Keep in mind, my calibrated projector will make DVDs look better, and the Onkyo receiver has a 4k Upconverter, and one of the best up upconvertors on the market.

Moral of the story- if she notices- almost anyone notices or they never have seen a good, calibrated setup before (or at the very least- they aren't conditioned to a good setup).

You're making a big deal out of calibration and it's irrelevant. That suggests strongly that you're playing the "I'm better than you" game based on snobbery rather than facts.

The reason that calibration doesn't matter is that if you have pixelation in the streamed video, it will be pixelated regardless of whether the monitor is calibrated or not. If you have banding, it will have banding regardless of whether the monitor is calibrated or not.

It's nice that your wife can tell the difference (or at least wants you to think she can tell the difference - which is understandable given your snobbery). It's also irrelevant. Millions of people are happy with DVD quality, so it's good enough for a large fraction of the population. If Apple wants to offer 1080p, it's up to the individual consumer whether to buy it or not - you don't get to decide for anyone else.
Reply
Reply
post #157 of 208
3/15/12 at 1:01pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

That's an unanswerable question. It depends on the particular movie and scene as well as the observer. It also depends on the observer's condition (when tired, they will be less likely to pick up differences).

You can get a good approximation with a margin of error for which you take the lowest value to get a result. The maths certainly allow it.

"Blank! BLANK! You're not looking at the big picture!"

Reply

"Blank! BLANK! You're not looking at the big picture!"

Reply
post #158 of 208
3/15/12 at 1:48pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

You can get a good approximation with a margin of error for which you take the lowest value to get a result. The maths certainly allow it.

But the difference between observers is much larger than the error - so it's still a meaningless question.

For me, even a DVD is close enough that I wouldn't complain if no one ever released another BR disk. For others (some of them posting on this forum), DVD is a zillion miles away from BR quality and shouldn't even be compared.

It's too dependent on the individual for the answer to mean anything.
Reply
Reply
post #159 of 208
3/15/12 at 2:04pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

You can get a good approximation with a margin of error for which you take the lowest value to get a result. The maths certainly allow it.

unfortunately, it's not that simple because 'minimum bitrate required' depends on encoding methods, the source material, your desired output quality and delivery mechanism (i.e., real-time streaming or batch downloads from a server farm). the desired output quality is a qualitative metric that varies from person to person. in other words, you won't get a definitive answer to your question.

the results of the comparison are clear:

- films delivered via iTunes 2012 look impressive and will satisfy many people
- thus far, Blu-ray provides the best video and audio fidelity to the general consumer market
Reply
Reply
post #160 of 208
3/15/12 at 2:35pm
I don't believe any of us here are vehemently anti-physical media. We are just being realistic about where the larger market is headed in regard to enjoying media.

Quote:
Originally Posted by emacs72 View Post

perhaps those who vehemently oppose physical media have been, since 2007, trying to justify their support for Apple TV and/or digital downloads
Reply
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPod + iTunes + AppleTV
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPod + iTunes + AppleTV › Comparison finds iTunes 1080p video nears Blu-ray disc quality