or Connect
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 3

post #81 of 208
This is a rather mute argument given that there is little or no 1080p content available in the iTunes store to buy anyway. There isnt even much 720p content either despite the fact that weve had HD content for a while now. I assume its the studios not wanting to release HD content in iTunes rather than Apple holding it back.

Once there is more content I might consider stopping buying BluRay disks. Until then if you want BluRay quality you have to buy BluRay disks and I cant see that changing anytime soon. Every week I check the iTunes store to see what new HD films have been added to buy and every week Im disappointed.
post #82 of 208
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell View Post

There is no such thing as "True HD". The truest its ever going to be is from its camera of origin. After that its compressed to hell no matter which format its played on.

Sure there is, motion picture is. Infinite resolution because there's no pixels.
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #83 of 208
Quote:
Originally Posted by dasanman69 View Post

Sure there is, motion picture is. Infinite resolution because there's no pixels.

You neglect to take film grain into account.

If I understand properly, IMAX is SOTA, due in large part to the size of the film. If you were correct, Super 8 would be infinite resolution - there are no pixels there either.
post #84 of 208
Quote:
Originally Posted by I am a Zither Zather Zuzz View Post

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.

Ditto on the analog since better shield and quality will reduce degradation, but I wouldn't waste my money there either. I think the Monster cables serve more as a status item rather than any sort of technical achievement in the analog realm, which in any case is pretty much irrelevant these days. My opinion of course.

As to Monster themselves, even more astounding is the fact that Monster offers various level of 'speeds' to their Monster HDMI cables when there are only two types of cables in the standard (Category 1/2), yet Monster offers various 'speed' cables for 60Hz, 120Hz, 240Hz. It's blatant false advertising. Of course they charge you more for each 'bump' in speed for the same damn cable, competing with the same cable for 4 bucks that would deliver exactly the same signal and they dupe people into buying them.

Disgusting.
3.4GHz Quad-Core Intel Core i7 / iMac 27" 2.8 Quad i7 / 17" Macbook Pro Unibody / Mac Mini HTPC / iPhone 6 Plus 64GB /iPad with Retina Display 64 GB
Reply
3.4GHz Quad-Core Intel Core i7 / iMac 27" 2.8 Quad i7 / 17" Macbook Pro Unibody / Mac Mini HTPC / iPhone 6 Plus 64GB /iPad with Retina Display 64 GB
Reply
post #85 of 208
Quote:
Originally Posted by I am a Zither Zather Zuzz View Post

You neglect to take film grain into account.

If I understand properly, IMAX is SOTA, due in large part to the size of the film. If you were correct, Super 8 would be infinite resolution - there are no pixels there either.

I never said it would look good.
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
"Few things are harder to put up with than the annoyance of a good example" Mark Twain
"Just because something is deemed the law doesn't make it just" - SolipsismX
Reply
post #86 of 208
Quote:
Originally Posted by DJRumpy View Post

Ditto on the analog since better shield and quality will reduce degradation, but I wouldn't waste my money there either. I think the Monster cables serve more as a status item rather than any sort of technical achievement in the analog realm, which in any case is pretty much irrelevant these days. My opinion of course.

As to Monster themselves, even more astounding is the fact that Monster offers various level of 'speeds' to their Monster HDMI cables when there are only two types of cables in the standard (Category 1/2), yet Monster offers various 'speed' cables for 60Hz, 120Hz, 240Hz. It's blatant false advertising. Of course they charge you more for each 'bump' in speed for the same damn cable, competing with the same cable for 4 bucks that would deliver exactly the same signal and they dupe people into buying them.

Disgusting.


I agree that Monster is overpriced and mediocre, relying on hype more than any intrinsic quality.

Kind of like Apple products?
post #87 of 208
Quote:
Originally Posted by GadgetCanada View Post

I completely agree. I hate the banding in Netflix and iTunes movies. It is very noticeable and annoying. It's a great step forward but Blu-Ray is still the best movie experience.

I completely agree. I've seen this headline on multiple sites and it really has my hair on edge.

"Aside from the banding, loss of grain, loss of significant detail, and slight smudging...it looks EXACTLY the same!!" Please. All those reasons where the iTunes compression fails is precisely why Blu-Ray is far superior.

Granted, the iTunes compression does look very good, but anyone with a critical eye can spot the difference immediately. Try doing an A/B comparison of a snow fall or fast-action scene and you will see where the greatly compressed iTunes video really falls apart.
post #88 of 208
Quote:
Originally Posted by yensid98 View Post

VERY encouraging to hear that an iTunes 1080p download is pretty darn close to the visual quality of a Blu-ray. For movies where I'm not super concerned about bonus features and the best possible presentation, an iTunes download is looking extremely attractive. Especially when you add in the ability to stream the movie and not have to bother with backing up the digital file.

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

Especially since we have to pay for the storage where the Blu-ray movie price includes the storage (the disc). Then there is running out of storage space and juggling those external hard drive for downloads.
post #89 of 208
Quote:
Originally Posted by I am a Zither Zather Zuzz View Post

I agree that Monster is overpriced and mediocre, relying on hype more than any intrinsic quality.

Kind of like Apple products?

Considering every laptop I owned from two Sony's, an HP, a Compaq, and a thinkpad, and only the Thinkpad lasted for more than 2 years without something breaking. Contrast that with 3 Macbook pro's (all in perfect condition with my first now approaching 5 years). I don't think the prices is unusual. The same offerings from the same vendors above cost the same amount. The difference being my Apple gear is still working. Of the other vendors laptops, 2 failed due to a bad screen, one bad power port (cracked motherboard due to lack of support around the plug). The last one became somewhat useless when all of the USB ports stopped working. All of my Apple gear is in perfect condition with no issues.

I can't speak for others, but when I pay the same price from HP, or Sony, or Apple, but the Apple is obviously better quality, then I'll stick with my choice. Considering their quality of service reputation in the industry and the fact that they have been the top vendor for years, I would say I'm not the only one who's experienced this.
3.4GHz Quad-Core Intel Core i7 / iMac 27" 2.8 Quad i7 / 17" Macbook Pro Unibody / Mac Mini HTPC / iPhone 6 Plus 64GB /iPad with Retina Display 64 GB
Reply
3.4GHz Quad-Core Intel Core i7 / iMac 27" 2.8 Quad i7 / 17" Macbook Pro Unibody / Mac Mini HTPC / iPhone 6 Plus 64GB /iPad with Retina Display 64 GB
Reply
post #90 of 208
Quote:
Originally Posted by TenoBell View Post

Uh oh. People who've wanted Apple to support Blu-ray are not going to like this at all.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

I except a lot of pedagoguing on why on true videophiles use Blu-ray to ensue shortly.


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.

2014 27" Retina iMac i5, 2012 27" iMac i7, 2011 Mac Mini i5
iPad Air 2, iPad Mini 2, iPhone 6 Plus, iPhone 6, iPod Touch 5
Time Capsule 5, (3) AirPort Express 2, (2) Apple TV 3

Reply

2014 27" Retina iMac i5, 2012 27" iMac i7, 2011 Mac Mini i5
iPad Air 2, iPad Mini 2, iPhone 6 Plus, iPhone 6, iPod Touch 5
Time Capsule 5, (3) AirPort Express 2, (2) Apple TV 3

Reply
post #91 of 208
Quote:
Originally Posted by Denkigrve View Post

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.

That Blu ray is pretty good quality, although in 2012 standards is more like 4 stars I would assume.

Since you linked Blu-ray.com. Quick plug for them- awesome forum and amazing reviewers. They are the best reviewers of movies on the net at least as it relates to me. If they give it 1.5 stars- it sucks to me. If they give it 5- I love it. Great guys over there.
Plug over.


Let the arguments/debates persist.

Blu ray is way better

2014 27" Retina iMac i5, 2012 27" iMac i7, 2011 Mac Mini i5
iPad Air 2, iPad Mini 2, iPhone 6 Plus, iPhone 6, iPod Touch 5
Time Capsule 5, (3) AirPort Express 2, (2) Apple TV 3

Reply

2014 27" Retina iMac i5, 2012 27" iMac i7, 2011 Mac Mini i5
iPad Air 2, iPad Mini 2, iPhone 6 Plus, iPhone 6, iPod Touch 5
Time Capsule 5, (3) AirPort Express 2, (2) Apple TV 3

Reply
post #92 of 208
Quote:
Originally Posted by Apple ][ View Post

That's pretty damn close to Blu-Ray. Those comparison shots look pretty impressive, and an iTunes file is of course much smaller than a Blu-Ray file.

Whiny people who whine about Blu-Ray not coming to Macs should just put a big fat sock in their mouths, 'cause it aint gonna happen. Who wants or needs physical media anymore? Step out of your caves you clueless prehistoric people, and join the 21st century.

And those whiny people who whine about the movie not being on iTunes should put a sock on it too. You don't want physical media, watch something else. It is the 21st century, other things are available.
post #93 of 208
Quote:
Originally Posted by pt123 View Post

It is the 21st century, other things are available.

It is the 21st century. Everything should be available digitally, legally. You're making our argument for us.
post #94 of 208
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.

But it goes to show, again, that convenience trumps quality. Pretty much everywhere, pretty much every time.

Didn't MP3's take off when they were free? Ala, Napster? Yes, that is pretty convenient.
post #95 of 208
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

It is the 21st century. Everything should be available digitally, legally. You're making our argument for us.

Yes I agree. Blu-ray is digital and legal.
post #96 of 208
Quote:
Originally Posted by pt123 View Post

Yes I agree. Blu-ray is digital and legal.

You know exactly what I'm talking about. I can touch Blu-ray, and I don't want that.
post #97 of 208
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

You know exactly what I'm talking about. I can touch Blu-ray, and I don't want that.

But you are ok with touching your TV and AppleTV and iPad? Hmm, interesting perspective.
post #98 of 208
Quote:
Originally Posted by pt123 View Post

But you are ok with touching your TV and AppleTV and iPad? Hmm, interesting perspective.

post #99 of 208
Correction...

Quote:
Originally Posted by christopher126 View Post

I'm all for not owning any physical media...but I think, at this point in time, if you want the best movie watching experience, it's still a 1080P PLASMA large flat screen TV with a Blu-Ray player.

Anybody who thinks a 3.xx GB file can compare to a 50GB Blu-ray needs to get their eyes checked. Not to mention the test used is a joke.

1. Who watches a movie on a Dell monitor?

2. If they truly want to do a comparison they need to choose a reference quality movie. Think Avatar, The Dark Knight, just about any Pixar movie, etc.

3. Do the comparison on two identical ISF calibrated plasmas (Panasonic VT30) in a light controlled room.

Until then, these "comparisons" are ridiculous... and BTW, screw convenience. 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).
post #100 of 208
Quote:
Originally Posted by Supreme View Post

3. Do the comparison on two identical ISF calibrated plasmas (Panasonic VT30) in a light controlled room.

And this setup is common or relevant to those that want the convenience of an internet download, how?


Quote:
Until then, these "comparisons" are ridiculous... and BTW, screw convenience. 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).

It's good thing the world doesn't think like you or we would have never gotten optical media because CD was more convenient and less quality than vinyl.

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

Reply

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

Reply
post #101 of 208
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

And this setup is common or relevant to those that want the convenience of an internet download, how?



It's good thing the world doesn't think like you or we would have never gotten optical media because CD was more convenient and less quality than vinyl.

You want convenience? That's perfectly fine, I'm all for it for the people that prefer it. Just don't come up with these lame "comparisons" to try and fool people into thinking it actually approaches the quality of a good quality transfer Blu-ray... it does not. I have Netflix and some of the movies/TV shows are actually quite decent. Doesn't mean I'm gonna compare it to a Blu-ray transfer. That's idiotic.
post #102 of 208
Quote:
Originally Posted by Supreme View Post

You want convenience? That's perfectly fine, I'm all for it for the people that prefer it. Just don't come up with these lame "comparisons" to try and fool people into thinking it actually approaches the quality of a good quality transfer Blu-ray... it does not. I have Netflix and some of the movies/TV shows are actually quite decent. Doesn't mean I'm gonna compare it to a Blu-ray transfer. That's idiotic.

So you don't care about online video so that makes all comparisons lame? Not a very objective viewpoint.

What you should consider is whether the comparison was fair. Note this has no barring on the conclusion the author makes so long as the comparison was done in a scientific and honest way.

From what I've seen it most certainly was as the banding one of the most important things to me when I consider if I want higher or lower quality clearly shows that Blu-ray is noticeably superior.

Since Blu-ray is 1080p and iTunes Store is 1080p it makes sense to compare them to each other. You're getting caught up on the marketing term. You go back to the beginning of Blu-ray and you'll plenty of 25GB discs that have pushed older movies from the 80s and 90s without any remastering. By saying that Blu-ray, a physical medium, is superior to the average bit rate used by iTS means you aren't even being a little objective in your determination.

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

Reply

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

Reply
post #103 of 208
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eriamjh View Post

So in another 2 years, download quality might exceed blu-ray. That would be nice.

Bring on 4K displays.

That's pretty much my impression. After DVDs came out, nobody cared whether BETA had a few lines of resolution more than VHS: both were shitty compared to DVD. I'm so ready for 4K to do the same for today's HD, hopefully with a minimum of compression loss.

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply
post #104 of 208
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

So you don't care about online video so that makes all comparisons lame? Not a very objective viewpoint.

What you should consider is whether the comparison was fair. Note this has no barring on the conclusion the author makes so long as the comparison was done in a scientific and honest way.

From what I've seen it most certainly was as the banding one of the most important things to me when I consider if I want higher or lower quality clearly shows that Blu-ray is noticeably superior.

Since Blu-ray is 1080p and iTunes Store is 1080p it makes sense to compare them to each other. You're getting caught up on the marketing term. You go back to the beginning of Blu-ray and you'll plenty of 25GB discs that have pushed older movies from the 80s and 90s without any remastering. By saying that Blu-ray, a physical medium, is superior to the average bit rate used by iTS means you aren't even being a little objective in your determination.

Fair? How are you gonna do a fair comparison with a Dell monitor? Do the comparison on 50" or higher display with surround sound. I get it, people want convenience over quality and that's acceptable. But comparing a digital file with a Blu-ray on a small monitor with a sub-par transfer is not a fair comparison. Will Joe Blow tell the difference or even care? Probably not, but these "comparison" are flat out ridiculous and not at all fair. People that actually think the quality is comparible are either blind or kidding themselves.
post #105 of 208
Quote:
Originally Posted by Supreme View Post

Fair? How are you gonna do a fair comparison with a Dell monitor? Do the comparison on 50" or higher display with surround sound. I get it, people want convenience over quality and that's acceptable. But comparing a digital file with a Blu-ray on a small monitor with a sub-par transfer is not a fair comparison. Will Joe Blow tell the difference or even care? Probably not, but these "comparison" are flat out ridiculous and not at all fair. People that actually think the quality is comparible are either blind or kidding themselves.

1) I don't know why Dell monitor with 1080p 16:9 resolution is inferior at showing 1080p.

2) I don't know why you think larger pixels will make Blu-ray look better.

3) Blu-ray is digital.

4) You don't understand what a comparison is. The point is to see differences. Take the iPad 2 and iPad 3 as examples. If you compare the two side-by-side you get a real feel for how much better the new iPad display is over the old model. It doesn't mean that comparing them is a statement that they are the same.

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

Reply

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

Reply
post #106 of 208
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

1) I don't know why Dell monitor with 1080p 16:9 resolution is inferior at showing 1080p.

Then you have no idea what you're talking about. You want to know why it's inferior to a reference plasma that's ISF calibrated? Color accuracy, contrast, black levels, near perfect grayscale, motion resolution, etc. Visit AVS Forum and educate yourself. Until then, your stance on what's a fair comparison is irrelevant.
post #107 of 208
Quote:
Originally Posted by Supreme View Post

Then you have no idea what you're talking about. You want to know why it's inferior to a reference plasma that's ISF calibrated? Color accuracy, contrast, black levels, near perfect grayscale, motion resolution, etc. Visit AVS Forum and educate yourself. Until then, your stance on what's a fair comparison is irrelevant.

Perfectly reasonable, perfectly sane response¡

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

Reply

This bot has been removed from circulation due to a malfunctioning morality chip.

Reply
post #108 of 208
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

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



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

You could say that it is "far better than expected" (true) or that it's "good enough that most people won't care" (true) or "who the fuck wants disks anyway" (true for me at least) but let's not pretend the iTunes 1080p video quality is anywhere near Blu-ray.
post #109 of 208
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

1)4) You don't understand what a comparison is. The point is to see differences. Take the iPad 2 and iPad 3 as examples. If you compare the two side-by-side you get a real feel for how much better the new iPad display is over the old model. It doesn't mean that comparing them is a statement that they are the same.

You don't seem to understand. You're not going to see a difference on a crappy monitor. You might as well compare them on an old tube TV. Blu-ray's aren't meant to be seen on a small monitor. You can if you want to, of course. But the whole point of the high quality transfer and the large sized optical disc is to get the best quality to watch on a big screen. Otherwise, what's the point of having a high bit rate if you're only gonna watch it at your desk. Blu-ray's are meant for the home theater not your monitor/desk.

Your iPad comparison would make sense if the iPad 2 was replacing the new iPad since the better quality is obviously the new iPad/Blu-ray. I don't know about you but I don't want something inferior (iPad 2/digital download) to replace something superior (the new iPad/Blu-ray). Yet some people think digital downloads or streaming is approaching the quality Blu-ray's when it's not. Is it getting better? Sure. But when people use the words "nearing" it's just not true.
post #110 of 208
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

You know exactly what I'm talking about. I can touch Blu-ray, and I don't want that.

Your digital downloads are stored on physical media, how is this any different to Blu-ray/DVD/CD etc?
post #111 of 208
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

Perfectly reasonable, perfectly sane response¡

Yeah, because nothing that I mentioned has anything to do with picture quality. You obviously have no idea what you're talking about or what determines picture quality. Stick to your iTunes "1080p" files on your 23" monitor if you want. I'll enjoy my Blu-ray's on a plasma with surround sound.
post #112 of 208
Quote:
Originally Posted by I am a Zither Zather Zuzz View Post

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?

Sure, from the Apple dictionary on my Mac

"the state of being able to proceed with something with little effort or difficulty"

Apple downloads cost more than renting, that easily falls into those two

From dictionary.com

anything that saves or simplifies work, adds to one's ease or comfort, etc., as an appliance, utensil, or the like.

If I pay more for something I have to work more to make up that money.

Maybe I should use the british english definition of a water closet? Because the quality of iTunes downloads to a Blu-ray is crap
post #113 of 208
"Bottom line: Apple's 1080p is better than their 720p and costs the same price. Apple's 1080p is the best of the major online video services".



Well, if y'all would start concentrating on your wallets, you'd see a big fat Steve Jobs appearing instead of Washington on your dollars. Why is no one commenting on the weenie size of HD material on the Apple store website? I can't tell how many studios are giving anything to Sony/Blu-Ray conglomerates v.s the Stevie "I solved it...I solved the problem about tv" no-BluerayS DRM issues with Apple Store. The point is..twenty dollars for a HD download v.s $10 for std., (v.s $1 from Redbox for most of the utterly crappy D movie material available)-why bother with iTunes movies, unless you like a boring film about ____?
Apparently you guys are too well heeled to consider the amount of hoopla the article generates, and hopes to convince the 1%'ers and on down to pay through the nose for an intangible copy of a format that, like the Emperor's clothing, is bound to disappear...in favor of what, I don't know..but let's ask the question...if you were from the Far East and involved in, err, reproduction of dopyright material, which format would you choose?
Methinks the virtual world of ITunes is a hacker's paradise, except for the fact that 90% of the material is dweeb fodder...and then, note the absence of blu-ray recorders in the US. One big fat solar flare or nuclear bomb could ruin your entire download collection...but hey..."Have a nice day"!!
post #114 of 208
So for me the fact that apple have released an apple TV that does 1080p is generally a good thing, but it does fall short in a couple of areas.

1. No ability to add apps. ( a BBC Iplayer app would make it a very attractive item in the UK) I suspect this capability is in the pipeline, but it's not here yet.

2. support for High Def Audio formats (Namely DTS-MA, Dolby HD).

If HD audio formats were supported then this would be a very attractive option to replace blu-ray (for me), but as it is, its a half baked attempt. Sure 1080p is a step in the right direction, but its just not a big enough step for me to consider it as a viable alternative to blu-ray.

If they sort the audio problems out then it could be a real contender. And bear in mind there are Media players out there that do support these formats so it can't be beyond the ability of apple to include these features..
post #115 of 208
Quote:
Originally Posted by markcu View Post

So for me the fact that apple have released an apple TV that does 1080p is generally a good thing, but it does fall short in a couple of areas.

1. No ability to add apps. ( a BBC Iplayer app would make it a very attractive item in the UK) I suspect this capability is in the pipeline, but it's not here yet.

2. support for High Def Audio formats (Namely DTS-MA, Dolby HD).

3. No 24p support.
JLL

95% percent of the boat is owned by Microsoft, but the 5% Apple controls happens to be the rudder!
Reply
JLL

95% percent of the boat is owned by Microsoft, but the 5% Apple controls happens to be the rudder!
Reply
post #116 of 208
I'd be more interested to see a comparison between iTunes 720p and 1080p to be honest, and to know the equivalent file sizes (as I am bandwidth challenged).

I think I'll be sticking to bluray when I can, and 720p apple tv for convenience and when I can't get a bluray.
post #117 of 208
They gave everyone a free upgrade from 720p to 1080p. That's not something you get with discs.
post #118 of 208
Quote:
Originally Posted by Supreme View Post

You want convenience? That's perfectly fine, I'm all for it for the people that prefer it. Just don't come up with these lame "comparisons" to try and fool people into thinking it actually approaches the quality of a good quality transfer Blu-ray... it does not. I have Netflix and some of the movies/TV shows are actually quite decent. Doesn't mean I'm gonna compare it to a Blu-ray transfer. That's idiotic.

No, it's idiotic to lose track of how subtle the differences are.

Sure, you can see the differences in a still photo. You can even see them on a TV in your living room if you look carefully. But in terms of watching a movie and enjoying it, the differences you're talking about are very minor. If I'm not actually looking for the differences, I don't see them at all-at least if the movie's any good.

Maybe the problem is that you're watching movies that are so bad that you have nothing better to occupy your mind than individual pixels?

No one is taking your Blu-Ray away. You're free to watch everything on BR if you prefer. But don't act like this isn't a big improvement for people who are more concerned about the movie and the convenience than subtle pixel differences.

Again, it's back to geeky spec games. "Let's measure the heck out of everything and see if we can prove that my favorite is better than someone else's favorite and we'll focus only on one measure of the product so I can feel superior." Some people are willing to trade off minor quality differences for convenience. It's really none of your business.
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #119 of 208
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.

These people are Apple's prime customers. Most people don't care about being able to do EVERYTHING with their cellphones, for example, and iOS is very convenient. Most people don't care about being able to get software from their choice of vendors, and the iStore is very convenient. Most people don't care about playing all available codecs, and Apple products are very convenient.

If you want choice and quality, you are a geek, and Apple doesn't cater to geeks. They sell to the masses.
post #120 of 208
Quote:
Originally Posted by Apple ][ View Post

Most people at home don't watch their movies on a huge theatre screen. And I'm not so sure about your discs still spinning in the 22nd century. I have some DVD's that haven't even lasted 10 years before they crapped out. Of course, that far into the future doesn't really matter, as both you and I will be dead by then.

You obviously are a Blu-Ray user, since you took the time to sign up and respond to my post. All I really said is that those iTunes images look pretty impressive compared to Blu-Ray. I have never claimed that it was better than Blu-Ray in any way, except for the file size.

And to be honest, I'm not that impressed by Blu-Ray that I would actually bother to go out and buy myself a Blu-Ray player. I'm waiting for something better to come along. 1920x1080 is simply not good enough. I also find most TV's and monitors to be a joke at 16:9. For a true cinema experience, a far greater ratio is required. Maybe in 5 years when such TV's and monitors exist and a better format than Blu-Ray exists, that's when I would bother to buy such a player. For now, decent quality downloads are good enough for me.

will you be buying the new iPad?... if so then your argument that blu-ray is not worth-while is hog-wash. blu-ray is better. period. the new iPad is better. period.
if you are going to get in to a value argument then state it as so.

BTW any time sometime says "And to be honest," they are NOT. also because you are disclaiming that your paragraph is "honest" then it follows that any post that you do not say that you are honest, you are not-honest... thus the question why are you being dis-honest in all of your posts?...
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