News flash: Apple confirms media event - Page 3

What the hell happened to Pixlet? Or was it a fuzzy name for H.264?

So Apple licenses it to Pixar?

I don't think so, H.264 is the industry standard, not just Apple's, not sure if it uses wavelet compression also.

Here it is:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H.264

And here is Pixlet info (accuracy could be shaky, this is Wikipedia after all):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pixlet

I would agree. Apple sell music on the iTMS to people who are barely able tell of the low compression.

Why would Apple then release video to the masses to people who could see obvious artifacts?

Think Apple Lossless for video.

Of course there are those who are true audiophiles who import there CDs to a much higher bitrate and do not even use iTunes. The same could be said for movies.

iTunes has never been for the ultra high end audio/moviephile who spends thousands on a home entertainment system.

That's interesting, considering that Pixar has very fine programmers, and has programmed all of their own specialty software.

But, even if Apple did do it, and I'm not disagreeing with you on that, who would own it?

If Apple was paid to do it for Pixar, then it wouldn't be theirs. They would have to license it.

Impossible.

You have no idea what you're talking about. Standard DV files are very big. Uncompressed HD is enormous.

Sure and if you import a CD at the highest bitrate how large would it be? More than 700 MBs depending on the length of the album. Does Apple compress their music like this for the iTMS? The Apple Lossless format is not uncompressed audio.

If anyone could make this look good it would be Apple.

Hey, we have a prior case here known as music from the iTunes Music Store. That's where Apple insists on using the 128k bitrate and calling it CD-quality, although many people dispute that characterization, and ask for more.

So for video, Apple will pick a quality that is just a bit below what most would call DVD quality and call it that. I'm sure the studios want lower quality for downloads, and Apple pushes for higher quality, and this is where they compromise for the price. If people buy from the store, it will largely be because of convenience.

I don't see why anyone should think Apple would stop being like Apple always is.

But maybe, just maybe they will surprise us!

You're confusing audio and video. A CD has a very low bitrate of 150 KBs. That's what 1x speed means. The total SIZE of the CD file is maybe 700MB.

A DVD is already highly compressed. Even MPEG 2 compresses from 3 to10 times. MPEG 4 compresses several times as much.

If you uncompress a DVD, you will get a file that is a good 15GB in size. A Blu-Ray file at 1080p uncompressed from MPEG 2, or 4 can be many times that size..

Losseless encoding is NEVER better than about 2:1 on average. You would end up with a vast file, with such a large bitrate (it can be over 100MBs, uncompressed), that it couldn't be played.

I agree with you on this.

Another possibility is that Apple will market full-length movies for another product form factor.

In other words, iPod video is the ideal product to view downloaded TV shows on the go... If Apple introduces their new iPad™, as a streaming mobile video pad, bigger than the speculated "real" iPod video (and nearly identical to the Sony product whose name escapes me at this moment) so that every member of the family can wander about and outside the house, and even use the built-in iChat videoconferencing to replace the old home intercom. Mom and Dad can assign "viewing allowances" for the kids and restrict their channel access, and in the meantime they can catch up on regular TV or purchased movies from the "completely new" iTunes+Movies store.

The video/movie files would thus be larger than the current iPod videos, but still considerably smaller than HDTV quality... because they wouldn't need to be bigger.

This would be another example of Apple creating a new market, just like they did for iPod video, where there previously was none. This also makes the studios happy because they have totally new market for product that doesn't compete with their current and upcoming formats.

apple's quicktime HD gallery exhibits 852x480p content:

http://www.apple.com/quicktime/guide...endations.html

so they've already warped that definition to encompass something less than 720p.

the current iPod already does 640x360 to TV, when encoded with MPEG4.

i guess they can cheat further by having non-square pixels, say 480p
stretched anamorphically.

anything less than 480p is unsatisfying when rescaled to 1920x1080p,
the burgeoning living room screen standard.

apple store ipod kiosk movie dispensers, anyone?

What I am (somewhat wishfully) guessing:

-Movie Store. 480p. $9.99-$14.99 or $3 for a one time rental. No subscription fees.

-New iPod nanos. Still black and white. 2GB, 5GB and 10GB.

-iPhone. 2GB, 5GB and 10 GB.

-No 23" iMac.

-Airport AV. Front Row on your TV, wirelessly. Movies accessable from there.

Technically, it IS HD. 852 x 480i is extended definition.

BUT, 852 x 480p is considered to be HD.

That seems to be what many of the broadcasters and cable companies are doing. HD is defined by the resolution. Is there part of the HD definition that excludes crappy encoding and low bitrates?

And I think you guys who think this will include a phone announcement are crazy. You really think apple is going to have a couple big movie related announcments, and then throw in a totally unrelated (huge) phone announcment with it? No way. Even if the phone was ready to go, they'd wait a couple weeks and give it its own event.

Thus, the iPad™. See above.

By the way, I'm taking full credit for coining iTunes+Movies.

Mostly they are re-encoding the movie theater versions to 720p.


A would agree with that.

Agreed.

I know. But my point is that in some cases, broadcasters are using really low bitrates with lots of artifacts that doesn't really show an improvement over regular ntsc.

Remember the December 2005 article from Think Secret? Could any of that be true?http://thinksecret.com/news/0511contentdist.html

I don't think they have to.

Apparently you don't remember the keynote, and I don't feel like reciting it.

the short version is SJ had Apple it to help pixar out because they wanted a high def version of wavlet on a scrubbable more portable format. Apple succeeded, and then it was introduced as part of QT.

how about on a 40 inch, 1080p LCD display, on a sueded microfiber chaise lounge, with my fiance next to me and a glass of good Bordeaux in my hand? Seriously... 23 inches is great for a dorm room or a studio apartment, or an office, but I think that in order to make for a good living room experience, I would need to get my Video_TS folders off my external hard drive and onto such a display with the seamless experience that Apple has so wonderfully done with the iTunes/iPod axis. Here's hoping that such a thing soon becomes possible with whatever Jobs & Co. have in store for us on the 12th.

edit: oh... and my fiance is 100% electronics clueless... but she quickly figured out the iPod Mini I got her! Please Apple, spare me hours of "how do I watch <insert desperate housewives/greys anatomy episode here>?".

I really hope so, the idea of cramming HD, or nearly HD movies on my hard drive is making me cringe a little...

I have a brand new 0% interest credit card at the ready ! The "HD" is not a requirement, nor the 23-inch, what I'm looking for is the new "Intel Core 2 Duo processor!" Having said that though, the 23-inch and "HD" would make the whole package even more sweeet!

The problem with that is what is the lag time between pushing play and the video starting? Also, what happens when there is a problem with the internet...say trafic if up or part of it goes down, or Apple's servers go down? A bunch of very pissed off people. And if someone got the idea to give Apple a bad name how easy would it be to bring down the servers? I'm not thrilled with that idea even though from a storage point of view it is a fairly good idea.

Ok, isn't Apple rumored to have an Ultra Portable PC or something along the lines of microsoft's Origami project thing in the works? That would seem to make sense to me. It's the perfect size for portable movies.

I'm thinking (or hoping) for something no more than 1/3 of an inch thick, hopefully 1/4" thick, 7" wide by 4" tall. Or around that size anyway. That you can easily carry around, like a pad of paper. The thinner the better. if it gets over 1/2 an inch, it's WAY too thick. That's what I'm hoping for anyway. Just speculating

Apple iPad™ people... iPad™! Look further up in this thread. \

Recap:
If Apple introduces their new iPad™, as a streaming mobile video pad, bigger than the speculated "real" iPod video (and nearly identical to the Sony product whose name escapes me at this moment) so that every member of the family can wander about and outside the house, and even use the built-in iChat videoconferencing to replace the old home intercom. Mom and Dad can assign "viewing allowances" for the kids and restrict their channel access, and in the meantime they can catch up on regular TV or purchased movies from the "completely new" iTunes+Movies store.

The video/movie files would thus be larger than the current iPod videos, but still considerably smaller than HDTV quality... because they wouldn't need to be bigger.

This would be another example of Apple creating a new market, just like they did for iPod video, where there previously was none. This also makes the studios happy because they have totally new market for product that doesn't compete with their current and upcoming formats.

I confess I only read the last page. Too lazy to read them all

Edit: oops that was mentioned on this page wasn't it...

Ok, I confess again, I only *skimmed* this last page

It's understandable. I was involved in another thread that was 7 pages long! 7 pages!

Here's what I hope Apple will deliver on Tuesday. (In case you're wondering, I don't actually believe they'll do this at all; it's just what I think they should do.)

Hardware:
2, 4, 8GB nanos (nanoes?)
40, 80GB iPods w/ video
80GB "true" Video iPod
23" iMac
Mini-based media center

Software:
Front Row 2.0 (plug-in architecture)
Film Vault 1.0 (an iTunes-for-videos app, OSX+WinXP, allows you to rip--legitly--content from HDDVD/BR disks)
iTunes 6.5 (works seamlessly with iTunes)
Film Vault movie store (has hotlinks to iTMS, and vice-versa, movies at 480p)

They are. That's what I said above. But it's even being done with 720p broadcasts, from hi rez masters. There's only so much bandwidth in a satellite, and it comes down to number of channels (more money) or more bandwidth (happier customers, but less money). You know which wins.

But, you see, as long people BELIEVE they are getting something special, they don't question it, and are happy.

When the image breaks up, they think about how much worse it must be for all the other slobs who aren't using this "best" technoliogy.

This is a problem to overcome.

And many people can't recognize better quality when they see it.

No, I don't remember that part offhand. But I said that I didn't disagree.

I hope you're sitting reeal close to that 40" 1080p set, because more than 4.5 to five feet away, and you can't see the detail from a 40".

Ha! That would be a good one.

Oh, man... I just remembered the name of the Sony product... LocationFree.

You know what they say........ "Goodie Goodie Gumdrops"

Ahh... The olden days.

Anyways.

I really want a Cinema Display with iSight, IR, and most importantly, reduced price. But that prolly aint guna happen cause they just recerntly reduced the price.

Other than that I think the one more thing will be come sort of media box hub thingamajiggor.

Interesting (very interesting) survey which may directly relate to the positioning of whatever media solution Apple does (or doesn't) introduce.

http://www.ecommercetimes.com/rsstory/52809.html

Only slighly off-topic response... When my cable goes out and I switch to the ancient antenna, I notice that the quality of the broadcast stations is better than with Comcast's advanced digital cable. Comcast may now be working to expunge the color from their transmitted pictures.

More on topic... The natural market for a video download service is clearly in some flavor of real HD. Most people who could benefit from HD movies don't have a way to see them because they don't have an HD player. However, the file sizes seem to make this nearly impossible. Apple would have to send huge files that people would somehow have to store (since even fewer people have HD DVD writers) and get to their TVs. Further, most people would probably be downloading these files over lines that belong to companies that also want to sell you movies. If Apple is successful, Comcast or Verizon will be up nights figuring out how to stop them. What's more, from the studios' standpoint, a Hi-Def download business will appear to risk their newest source of revenue.

Standard definition movies are easier technologically, but Apple would be competing in an existing market, where consumers already have all the toys, cables, and Netflix return envelopes to make other choices. Apple's download service can occupy part of that market, but I don't see this as a compelling opportunity for Apple, and the more successful it is, the less ISPs are going to like or allow it. This same skepticism could probably have been applied to the iTunes Music Store, but there I think that the technical issues are much less dominant, and I'm guessing that people are less sensitive to their AAC-128-quality music than to overcompressed video.

Not over 802.11a/b/g/n, and not using tcp/ip. As playlistmag notes, any video, even if non-HD with decent compression that is over an hour gets bogged down even on wired gigabit ethernet. It's just the nature of tcp/ip: the protocol demands accuracy and integrity of data w/o regard to time, while the media plyer demands timeliness of data. A+B=Crap.

The only way this can happen now is if Apple's going to integrate additional hardware and some proprietary data transmission protocol into the Airport. In otherwords, not gonna happen.