or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPod + iTunes + AppleTV › Apple & NBC deal expands iTunes video service
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple & NBC deal expands iTunes video service

post #1 of 47
Thread Starter 
Check out the iTMS TV Shows category. Theyve added NBC, Sci Fi and USA selections.
post #2 of 47
Great news.
post #3 of 47
NIght Rider!! Just what I wanted for Christmas!!
post #4 of 47
Things are about the get very, very interesting.
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #5 of 47
yeah, this is pretty cool and they do look pretty good on a TV with video out from the iPod.
:-D * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Reply
:-D * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Reply
post #6 of 47
NBC Universal and Apple today announced a lineup of new primetime, cable, late-night and classic TV shows, including primetime hits such as "Law & Order" and late-night favorites such as sketches from "The Tonight Show with Jay Leno" on the iTunes Music Store.

Apple also announced that customers have purchased and downloaded more than three million videos since their debut on October 12, making the iTunes Music Store the world's most popular video download store.

With the additions today, iTunes now offers more than 300 episodes of 16 popular TV shows. NBC Universal programming now available on the iTunes Music Store spans from the 1950s to the present, including NBC's "Law & Order," "The Office," "Surface," "The Tonight Show with Jay Leno," "Late Night with Conan O'Brien," the USA Network's Emmy Award-winning "Monk" and Sci-Fi Channel's "Battlestar Galactica" as well as classic TV shows including "Alfred Hitchcock Presents," "Dragnet," "Adam-12" and "Knight Rider," on the iTunes Music Store beginning today.

Customers can purchase and download their favorite shows, including current shows the day after they air on TV, and watch them on their computer or iPod. The NBC Universal programs will be available in newly designated areas of the iTunes Music Store featuring the NBC Universal brands, including the NBC network, Sci-Fi Channel and the USA Network, Apple said.

"We're thrilled to expand the iTunes video catalog with 11 popular TV shows from NBC, USA Network and the Sci-Fi Channel," said Apple CEO Steve Jobs. "In our first two months we've sold more than three million videos, and have expanded our TV catalog from five shows to 16 shows."

"We are committed to helping viewers enjoy the wide breadth of our programs across an equally wide range of devices and distribution models," said Bob Wright, vice chairman of GE and chairman and CEO of NBC Universal. "Apple has developed a distribution platform that is attractive to consumers while at the same time providing the safeguards against theft that are so important to us and to every content provider. We are pleased to partner with them in this new venture."

Television shows are available in the US only, and video availability varies by country. Television shows are $1.99 per episode, and music videos and short films are $1.99 each.
post #7 of 47
frankly their pricing is getting silly.

for $1.99 you can get one of the following

4 minute music video
6 minutes of the Tonight Show
8 minute Pixar short
23 minutes of the Suite Life
43 minutes of Lost
57 of Battlestar Galactica

It doesn't make any sense. I for one wouldn't buy a clip from the tonight show for 1.99 when I know that i can get almost an hour of another show for the same price.

There should also be a subscription model when serialised tv shows are involved - subscribe to Lost Season 2 for $25 - 1 dollar an episode.

i hope that apple sort this out in MWSF06
post #8 of 47
I think this is fantastic in the way that finally this content is available online, but it is far too expensive.
In the same way that Music is in my opinion still too expensive.
But they are 2 arguments and my argument for TV being free is: It actually can be on a economical basis that is proven.
You know how you always have these small icons of the Channel your watching somewhere on the screen and your looking at it all the time?
Or sometimes you even have animated commercials of the shows coming up at the bottom of the screen or even all over the screen during the show?
So instead: The shows distributed on iTunes for example or some other service build on BitTorrent could make all these shows available free for download with commercials of the kind I mentioned. E.g. CocaCola everybody would be looking at the sign all the time and it would burn itself into our minds for the companies its the best commercial ever. Kinda sucks still for the viewer because now we are all drinking coke instead of Orange Juice but at least we got our TV content free on your iPods, PSPs, Macs, computers and othe rconsumer devices. Oh and NO DRM!!! Because why would you want it? The more people watch it the better for the advertiser CocaCola in this case
post #9 of 47
I agree with the above poster about how the same price model doesn't make sense, but I generally only see myself buying the full length TV shows anyway.

But, I am thrilled that they have added BattleStar Galactica to their lineup. I was basically keeping my standard cable ($42 per month) around solely to watch it. Now, I can downgrade to basic ($8 per moth) and buy the 4 shows they show a month ($7.96 per month). There are a couple other shows I will miss, but the other shows aren't worth the extra $24 it would cost.
post #10 of 47
Quote:
Originally posted by ndmccormack
frankly their pricing is getting silly.

for $1.99 you can get one of the following

4 minute music video
6 minutes of the Tonight Show
8 minute Pixar short
23 minutes of the Suite Life
43 minutes of Lost
57 of Battlestar Galactica

It doesn't make any sense. I for one wouldn't buy a clip from the tonight show for 1.99 when I know that i can get almost an hour of another show for the same price.

There should also be a subscription model when serialised tv shows are involved - subscribe to Lost Season 2 for $25 - 1 dollar an episode.

i hope that apple sort this out in MWSF06

Why would you assume that a per minute pricing model makes sense. At iTMS you pay $0.99 for a song whether it is 2:30 or 5:30.

The price doesn't have to have anything to do with the length of the content.

Such a pricing approach assumes two equally interchangeable commodities. Entertainment content isn't like that at all.
post #11 of 47
Quote:
Originally posted by ndmccormack
frankly their pricing is getting silly.

for $1.99 you can get one of the following

4 minute music video
6 minutes of the Tonight Show
8 minute Pixar short
23 minutes of the Suite Life
43 minutes of Lost
57 of Battlestar Galactica

It doesn't make any sense. I for one wouldn't buy a clip from the tonight show for 1.99 when I know that i can get almost an hour of another show for the same price.

There should also be a subscription model when serialised tv shows are involved - subscribe to Lost Season 2 for $25 - 1 dollar an episode.

i hope that apple sort this out in MWSF06

well, apple wants absolutely no overhead of trying to manage and maintain a tiered pricing plan. simply put, when everything is the same price, it makes managing sales IMMENSELY easier, which translates into less time managing the sales transactions which equals more profit. it's up to the media provider to decide what is feasibly WORTH the $2 it will be priced at.

so, in general, the music video pricing still makes sense to me, because you are likely to watch it much more often than the same episode of a tv show. plus, as was said before, music companies are ecstatic that they will actually get some sort of profit off of these expensive ads that were produced, essentially, to sell songs. imagine if super bowl commercials could be sold AS AN ENTITY UNTO THEMSELVES, in addition to pushing sales for somethign else. hell, companies would be falling over themselves to recoup some of those costs. ANY of those costs.

but i think nbc isn't going to sell many 6-minute tonight show segments... which means they will either increase the length of time for the segment for sale, or pull it altogether and try something else.
When you're lovers in a dangerous time,
You're made to feel as if your love's a crime.
Nothing worth having comes without some kind of fight.
Gotta kick at the darkness 'til it bleeds daylight.

-...
Reply
When you're lovers in a dangerous time,
You're made to feel as if your love's a crime.
Nothing worth having comes without some kind of fight.
Gotta kick at the darkness 'til it bleeds daylight.

-...
Reply
post #12 of 47
Quote:
Originally posted by rok
well, apple wants absolutely no overhead of trying to manage and maintain a tiered pricing plan. simply put, when everything is the same price, it makes managing sales IMMENSELY easier, which translates into less time managing the sales transactions which equals more profit. it's up to the media provider to decide what is feasibly WORTH the $2 it will be priced at.

Exactly.
Unfortunately, NBC thinks it needs to position Leno as a premium product, hence the high cost per minute.

Personally, I'd rather have Letterman anyways.
post #13 of 47
I'm surprised at the lack of SNL. That's the one show I would buy since I'm hardly ever home on saturday nights.

As far as pricing, I have to say that $2 for 5 minutes of Leno headlines is hardly worth it. Either make the full episode available for $2 or sell the segments for $.99. I also find it interesting that they have Conan's 10th anniversary special for $9.99. Is this setting the standard for full movies?
"Education is what remains after one has forgotten what one has learned in school." -- Albert Einstein
Reply
"Education is what remains after one has forgotten what one has learned in school." -- Albert Einstein
Reply
post #14 of 47
Quote:
Originally posted by ndmccormack
frankly their pricing is getting silly.

There should also be a subscription model when serialised tv shows are involved - subscribe to Lost Season 2 for $25 - 1 dollar an episode.


They do. It is not exactly what you want, but you can get the whole first season of Lost (25 episodes) for $34.99. It is not a dollar per episode, but it is less than $1.99.

But then, you can buy it on DVD from Amazon for $38. I don't know if it is really worth paying this much for the iTMS videos, given its lower quality and more restricted access when compared to DVDs
post #15 of 47
Quote:
Originally posted by rok
i think nbc isn't going to sell many 6-minute tonight show segments...

yeah ok, I get what you mean, but I think it was the comment above that was the reason I got a bit tee'd off.

The Tonight Show is a popular 30 minute TV show based around small news sketches - in a similar way that The Day Today (excuse me if I'm wrong - its only just started broadcasting in the UK, and I haven't really watched it)

So why would anyone pay 1.99 for a small segment of this programme when you can get another programme at full length. it just seems wrong, and frankly a bit cheeky by the media company

Quote:
it's up to the media provider to decide what is feasibly WORTH the $2 it will be priced at.

Agreed, and this does bring an interesting factor into this new media on ITMS - its hardly as if record companies ask musicians to write shorter songs so that they can gain more profit form the recording time/costs.

Hopefully there will be no more TV Shows on ITMS in 'The Tonight Show' manner...

Interestingly I just looked up Lost on amazon.com to get some US price comparisons with iTunes - I had always thought that ITMS seemed rather expensive - 1.99 a show seems a lot of cash, but considering that the full series 1 DVD normally retails at 60 dollars, it seems slightly better - and hell I found Lost PSP Disc with 2 episodes on it for 17.99, which frankly seems absurd. Maybe ITMS isn';t that bad after all...


slightly of topic now

I suspect that I still have problems with the whole DRM'd media. I've only bought a handleful of cd's on iTunes and prefer actually owning a piece of plastic with a nicely designed booklet than buying a song that's all 1's and 0's and no physical dimensions.

I also find it strange that people are willing to pay for a video that is only 320x240 in size, a quarter of NTSC and less that of PAL. If 2005 is the year of HD, then surely Apple have to start shipping at least NTSC/PAL sized broadcasts soon, with smaller options for iPods. I do realise that network infrastructure does have a lot to do with this - NTSC/PAL downloads would be very large - it just seems silly to do this when the ONLY place you can really watch these if you care about image quality is your iPod - Why bother creating an iPod that has TV-Out when there's no real point in playing any of the videos on a TV?

excuse the rant....
post #16 of 47
Now if they would only offer Comedy Central's Daily Show and NBC's West Wing as well. Those are the only two shows I watch, and I am more than willing to pay 1.99 for each episode and avoid commercial breaks every 10 minutes. Not to mention being able to watch it when I want, not when the TV stations think it's a good time for me...

This is doomed to be big. Hopefully they will be able to offer HD version later on as bandwith becomes cheaper and more readily available. I don't really care about the iPod Video, but I'm so ripe to buy that iMac mini intel DVR thing next year!

Seems like Microsoft, Sony, TiVo and all the others are loosing out big time here. Apple has now the perfect infrastructure to roll out whatever home entertainment products they want to, be it a iMac mini with Front Row or any box you can connect to your TV...
post #17 of 47
Quote:
Originally posted by podendo
But then, you can buy it on DVD from Amazon for $38. I don't know if it is really worth paying this much for the iTMS videos, given its lower quality and more restricted access when compared to DVDs

I heartily agree - but that is discounted, so its hard to compare - the SRP is $60 after all. I personally wouldn't purchase an episode for 1.99 when its 320x240 in resolution. I would purchase it for 1.99 if I could watch it on tv at SD quality, and have the option to downsize it for my iPod, this would make much more sense - freedom for the user.
post #18 of 47
Quote:
Originally posted by ndmccormack
So why would anyone pay 1.99 for a small segment of this programme when you can get another programme at full length. it just seems wrong, and frankly a bit cheeky by the media company

But two programs are rarely directly interchangeable. That is the issue. For example...I wouldn't pay a dime for 30 (22 actually) minutes of "Bosom Buddies" but I might pay the $1.99 for 30 (22 actually) minutes of "Seinfeld".

You are trying to apply quantitative measurements to what is largely a qualitative comparison.

If we are talking about something like oil, sugar, wheat, etc. (and even these have different grades) then a "per unit" pricing makes sense.

The only comparison that really makes sense here is the following...what options do I have to get the program:

1. Broadcast TV (includes commercials, only runs once, must be there or record it myself)...free (no direct out of pocket expense)

2. DVD (no commercials, must get whole season, must go to store...well maybe Amazon...must wait for it...higher quality...fewer usage limitations)...$30 for 20 episodes.

3. Apple (no commercials, lower resolution, limited usage, can buy "singles", don't have to leave my house, can get them nearly immediately)...$1.99/each.
post #19 of 47
Let's get a few things straightned out.

Jobs has said that this whole thing is an experiment. So far, sales have gone way past expectations. That means that many people don't agree with what's being said here. At least so far.

Secondly, being that this whole thing is so new, they don't know what will work. So the content providers themselves are experimenting.

Don't forget that the whole iPod and iTunes thing became a much bigger business than Jobs and the music industry ever thought it would be.

As more providers come on board, and now it's obvious that they will, it will sort itself out like any other product line.

Some things will sell real well, and some won't sell much at all.

I expect that it will take a year for this to find its way. That would include a second generation player better suited to video, and hopefully, higher rez content.

I also expect to see providers of classic films that sell on DVD for $10 or less, the ones that have trouble getting shelf space in the stores, to appear. The good thing about iTunes is that everyone is about equal.

But, it's a start.
post #20 of 47
Surface?!

Sweet - Lake Bell on my iPod!





You don't need to know why.
post #21 of 47
Quote:
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
But two programs are rarely directly interchangeable. That is the issue. For example...I wouldn't pay a dime for 30 (22 actually) minutes of "Bosom Buddies" but I might pay the $1.99 for 30 (22 actually) minutes of "Seinfeld".

You are trying to apply quantitative measurements to what is largely a qualitative comparison.

If we are talking about something like oil, sugar, wheat, etc. (and even these have different grades) then a "per unit" pricing makes sense.

The only comparison that really makes sense here is the following...what options do I have to get the program:

1. Broadcast TV (includes commercials, only runs once, must be there or record it myself)...free (no direct out of pocket expense)

2. DVD (no commercials, must get whole season, must go to store...well maybe Amazon...must wait for it...higher quality...fewer usage limitations)...$30 for 20 episodes.

3. Apple (no commercials, lower resolution, limited usage, can buy "singles", don't have to leave my house, can get them nearly immediately)...$1.99/each.

Also, most people who complain about the 320 x 240 have never seen this on a tv. Tv resolution is not 720 x 480, it's 330 x 480 - if you have a good tuner. That's because tuners don't pass more that 330 lines horiz rez. Most barely get 300.

You MIGHT get better through cable, but probably not. Satellite can be even worse, with all the compression they often add.

I suggest that people actually see this content viewed on a tv, at normal seating distance before they knock it.

Most people don't have a tv that's capable of higher resolution even when bypassing the tuner.

85% of all tv's sold in the US this year, and about that abroad, are medium or smaller size crt models. All the back and front projection, LCD, and plasma sets compromised the other 15%.
post #22 of 47
Quote:
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
But two programs are rarely directly interchangeable. That is the issue. For example...I wouldn't pay a dime for 30 (22 actually) minutes of Bosom Buddies but I might pay the $1.99 for 30 (22 actually) minutes of "Seinfeld".

I think what you are saying is more a matter of taste - I too am a great fan of Seinfeld and I'm really hoping my girlfriend will buy me series 5+6 on DVD this xmas! If she doesn't then maybe I would also buy an episode for 1.99 on iTunes. However if Brasseye - another show I really like - was sold at 1.99 for a 4 minute clip I'd be rather disappointed in the media company. They both are amazing shows with intelligent scripts and loyal fans, both weigh in at 30 (22 ) minutes long. So why not just charge 1.99 for the whole show - its Greed from the media company and things like this will put people off buying into the new medium.


Quote:
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
If we are talking about something like oil, sugar, wheat, etc. (and even these have different grades) then a "per unit" pricing makes sense.

I'm coming round to the idea of fixed pricing, however its the brass necks of the media companies that annoy me - 1.99 an episode fine, ok, I can accept that, but chopping an episode into smaller clips to sell at 1.99??? it doesn't seem right.

Quote:
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
You are trying to apply quantitative measurements to what is largely a qualitative comparison.

I disagree - A similar example would be a music company slicing a song into segments so that each chorus could be sold as a separate track in iTunes - thus letting the customer buy their favourite chorus - it's not exactly acceptable is it?


Don't get me wrong - i have nothing against Apple for doing this, I think its fantastic. Its a brave new, undiscovered medium that's starting to evolve, and Apple are one of the driving forces behind it. Its great that they have signed up new companies to ITMS, hopefully movies will be the next step. I just hope that the media companies face up to the fact the they can't rip people off just because it is a new medium.
post #23 of 47
I still laugh when I think about Steve saying that no one wants to view video on their iPods. This is going to explode into a huge new medium. All they need to do now is take the iPod video, rotate the device sideways so that you can get more real estate. Maybe through a PDA-style interface on there with a touch screen (it is the next evolutionary step, after all).

Definitely glad to see Galactica on there now. Hopefully some other classic stuff will make its way onto the music store, as some of us may not want to shell out money for the complete DVD collections but would like specific episodes.

Dumb question - is it currently possible to burn movies from the iTMS onto a DVD, in a video format rather than a data format? Or are we stuck with some sort of transcoding or other hack?

Another curiosity - how will this play into the possible new set top device (modified Mini or not)? You would almost have to have a subscription service, and be able to download new episodes automatically on your device.
post #24 of 47
For those complaining about the pricing structure you may bite your tongue. Look at what's happening in music, this is likely to eventually happen in video if its as successful. Coming next year Jobs will have to fight to keep all music at 99 cents. The music companies want to raise the price of content they deem more valuable.

I agree 6 minutes of Jay Leno for $1.99 is ridiculous. I imagine that has nothing to do with Apple, that's NBC.

Video is also where Apple should seriously look at subscription or a rental model. Unless a TV show is absolutely brilliant I'm not too likely to buy the episode as a permanent collection. But then I've never bought an entire season of any television show. I'll get them from Netflix and send them back.
post #25 of 47
I would be willing to pay $1.99 to get more cowbell (SNL)!

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #26 of 47
Quote:
Also, most people who complain about the 320 x 240 have never seen this on a tv. Tv resolution is not 720 x 480, it's 330 x 480 - if you have a good tuner. That's because tuners don't pass more that 330 lines horiz rez. Most barely get 300.

You MIGHT get better through cable, but probably not. Satellite can be even worse, with all the compression they often add.

Melgross is right you are not even seeing full NTSC on your television.

Cable actually makes it worse, because they are using MPEG 2 to compress the signal even further.

Its likely with HD boadcast they will compress the signal as much as quality control will allow to make room for as much bandwidth as they can squeeze through the pipe.
post #27 of 47
Quote:
Originally posted by ndmccormack

I disagree - A similar example would be a music company slicing a song into segments so that each chorus could be sold as a separate track in iTunes - thus letting the customer buy their favourite chorus - it's not exactly acceptable is it?

Naturally, this couldn't be done with a song, which is already pretty short. But it is always done with longer works. We get "The Best Of" albums all the time. But they are sold for full price. One song would be different. We also get operas being broken up, as well as symphonies, and any other long works.

So it's not unusual.

Even tv shows have famous moments, highlights. They show these on tv as specials, from time to time.

I do agree that I probably wouldn't buy one 6 minute piece for 2 bucks. what they should do is to let us choose a certain amount of them for the 2 bucks, say, three or five. That would let us compile our own hilight special. That I would do.
post #28 of 47
Thought this might be of interest. Let me know if the link doesn't work, sometimes these Forbes links only work directly, through my subscription. If so, I will post the article itself, but I don't like to do that. Make sure you get to the end of the article.

http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2005/...ap2372598.html
post #29 of 47
Quote:
Originally posted by melgross
Thought this might be of interest. Let me know if the link doesn't work, sometimes these Forbes links only work directly, through my subscription. If so, I will post the article itself, but I don't like to do that. Make sure you get to the end of the article.

http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2005/...ap2372598.html

It works.
'L'enfer, c'est les autres' - JPS
Reply
'L'enfer, c'est les autres' - JPS
Reply
post #30 of 47
Reasons NOT to buy TV shows from iTunes:

* Sub-DVD quality

* Widescreen shows (BSG) cropped down to iPod-friendly keyholed format

* $1.99 per episode (sometimes more), vs. lower cost if you buy a bunch of episodes at once on DVD

* DVDs come with special features and don't take up HD space

Reasons TO buy TV shows from iTunes:

* Get it NOW, no waiting, no shipping, no driving, no shopping around

* Get it before it even IS on DVD

* Get it on your iPod--easily/automatically

* No ads (same with DVD)

* Get just ONE episode--the one you missed! (cheaper AND quicker than renting a DVD, much less buying one--and you can do it in time to keep up with the series as it continues next week)

Make your choice. I won't be buying much. But that LAST reason is the BIG one for me. I missed an episode of Galactica this fall and so I didn't want to watch the rest of the season until it comes to Netflix. I'd have gladly paid the $1.99 to keep up with the series. Quality, format, etc. don't matter so much if I'm just "keeping up."
post #31 of 47
Quote:
Originally posted by melgross
Thought this might be of interest. Let me know if the link doesn't work, sometimes these Forbes links only work directly, through my subscription. If so, I will post the article itself, but I don't like to do that. Make sure you get to the end of the article.

http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2005/...ap2372598.html

Hmmm...... interesting comment from Zucker at NBC-- about how their strategy also includes making shows available as pay-per-view and as cell phone downloads.

Given that pay-per-view includes the provider subscription costs (which seem to go up every few months) and that cell phones are likely to provide a much worse viewing experience , cost more (if what they want to charge for music is any indication) and not have the computer/TV viewing options that the iPod offers, suddenly those $1.99 low res downloads look like a pretty good option.
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
They spoke of the sayings and doings of their commander, the grand duke, and told stories of his kindness and irascibility.
Reply
post #32 of 47
Hitchcock? Hitchcock! Hitchcock!!

My God, it's happening! By the end of the decade, the studios will have shut down save for server farms feeding their archives.

...and a million video podcasts (poor production value and all) shall reign.
MWSF '07: Steve Jobs hates my wallet and my mobile carrier.
Reply
MWSF '07: Steve Jobs hates my wallet and my mobile carrier.
Reply
post #33 of 47
Overall, this looks like a good (and surprising, to me anyway) development.

I will be a "customer on the verge" when Apple gets here:

1. Apple gives me a seemless, convenient, user-friendly way to get the video on my TV (iPod video need not apply).

2. Sufficient content that I could replace/eliminate my Cable TV and TiVO subscriptions (approximately $30/month). For me this includes "The West Wing", "Law & Order: Criminal Intent", "Recipe for Success", some shows for the kids (they like old "Dick van Dyke Show" and "I Love Lucy" re-runs).

I think they might be there by next fall.
post #34 of 47
Some misunderstanding on DVD's.

"DVD Quality" is a marketing tool. There is no standard DVD quality. DVD quality is based on many factors, and all DVD's are highly compressed. Some even more than others.

DVD compression has become an art at this point. There are many different compression tools used by many different people. There is a finite amount of space on a DVD and you have to fit the entire movie, subtitles, surround sound, languages, and extras.

Varying levels of compression are used within the same movie. Scenes that have less movement, less contrast, or fine detail recieve more compression. Scenes with more of these elements recieve less compression.

A DVD with a three hour movie and extras on the same disc has been highly compressed. A three hour movie that has its own disc with extras on a second disc has had less compression. A three hour movie that spreads out over two discs has had even less compression.

The least amount of compression just even brings you closer to full NTSC resolution nothing more.

Then there is the source material the DVD is made from. DVD's made in the 90's came from the same D1 source that VHS copies were made from. A blanket level of compression was used across the entire movie. Also the same color correction used to time the theatrical print was basically used for the DVD. Film theatrical prints have an entirely different color space than NTSC television. The resultant quality was less than impressive. These DVD's are still sitting on store shelves today.

It wasn't until 2000 that DVD's were mastered from HD source material. Or specialized color correction for the DVD or discriminatory compression were used. This takes time and is costly. At that time the studios would only place that investment in movies they felt would sell really well on DVD.

It's only until very recently that it has become the norm to master almost all DVD's from HD source material. Today it is common for the film's director of photography to color correct for the DVD at the same time he/she is color timing for the theatrical print. Or for a compressionist by eye discriminately apply compression.

Sound took the same basic route. Sound in your home is entirely different from the sound in a movie theater. Only recently has it become common for studios to pay for a special sound mix for the DVD release of a film.

Over all the DVD's sitting on store shelves. They all come from different places and taken different paths. Only the most recent and of those from big studios have gone through the more expensive path of optimization.
post #35 of 47
Quote:
Originally posted by TenoBell
Some misunderstanding on DVD's.

"DVD Quality" is a marketing tool. There is no standard DVD quality. DVD quality is based on many factors, and all DVD's are highly compressed. Some even more than others.

DVD compression has become an art at this point. There are many different compression tools used by many different people. There is a finite amount of space on a DVD and you have to fit the entire movie, subtitles, surround sound, languages, and extras.

Varying levels of compression are used within the same movie. Scenes that have less movement, less contrast, or fine detail recieve more compression. Scenes with more of these elements recieve less compression.

A DVD with a three hour movie and extras on the same disc has been highly compressed. A three hour movie that has its own disc with extras on a second disc has had less compression. A three hour movie that spreads out over two discs has had even less compression.

The least amount of compression just even brings you closer to full NTSC resolution nothing more.

Then there is the source material the DVD is made from. DVD's made in the 90's came from the same D1 source that VHS copies were made from. A blanket level of compression was used across the entire movie. Also the same color correction used to time the theatrical print was basically used for the DVD. Film theatrical prints have an entirely different color space than NTSC television. The resultant quality was less than impressive. These DVD's are still sitting on store shelves today.

It wasn't until 2000 that DVD's were mastered from HD source material. Or specialized color correction for the DVD or discriminatory compression were used. This takes time and is costly. At that time the studios would only place that investment in movies they felt would sell really well on DVD.

It's only until very recently that it has become the norm to master almost all DVD's from HD source material. Today it is common for the film's director of photography to color correct for the DVD at the same time he/she is color timing for the theatrical print. Or for a compressionist by eye discriminately apply compression.

Sound took the same basic route. Sound in your home is entirely different from the sound in a movie theater. Only recently has it become common for studios to pay for a special sound mix for the DVD release of a film.

Over all the DVD's sitting on store shelves. They all come from different places and taken different paths. Only the most recent and of those from big studios have gone through the more expensive path of optimization.

Come to the meeting this Thursday at the Apple store in SoHo. At 6:00
post #36 of 47
A fairly intelligent and good post, if it wasn't for the incorrect use of apostrophes.
post #37 of 47
(Double post. AI's a-chokin'!)
post #38 of 47
Quote:
Originally posted by TenoBell
"DVD Quality" is a marketing tool. There is no standard DVD quality. DVD quality is based on many factors, and all DVD's are highly compressed. Some even more than others.

Good points. But what we're talking about with the iPod videos is the 320x240 or so pixels. DVDs have something around four times the pixel resolution. Pixels 1/4 the size. (I know it varies--different aspect ratios etc.) Not to mention smoother motion: 60 fields per second.

Videos sold at 480x480 aren't as objectionable to me. And in any case, I'll accept 320x240 to catch an episode I missed, even if I lose some detail (vs. DVD) when I output my PowerBook to TV.
post #39 of 47
Melgross I was attempting to find a way to send you a private message. I just got to Los Angeles this weekend and am in pre production on a upcoming job. I won't be back in NY until after new years. I would like to see a schedule of your meetings.

Quote:
A fairly intelligent and good post, if it wasn't for the incorrect use of apostrophes.

School has been awhile ago but I'll try to be pay more attention to punctuation.
post #40 of 47
Quote:
But what we're talking about with the iPod videos is the 320x240 or so pixels. DVDs have something around four times the pixel resolution. Pixels 1/4 the size.

Actual pixels vs perceived sharpness is more art than science.

All I'm saying is don't go strictly by the numbers. There is a lot of grey area.
Its possible to take video that's incredibly degraded by its numbers, but by your eye it looks fine.

When Sony first came out with HDCAM its true resolution is 1440x1080. Sony sold it as full 1920x1080. Due to internal sharpening its difficult to tell the difference by eye.

The difference became aparent in real world use however.

The same is done with DVD's. They are highly compressed and sharpened to hide the actual loss of color and fidelity.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPod + iTunes + AppleTV
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPod + iTunes + AppleTV › Apple & NBC deal expands iTunes video service