or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › News flash: Apple confirms media event
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

News flash: Apple confirms media event - Page 3

post #81 of 230
What the hell happened to Pixlet? Or was it a fuzzy name for H.264?
post #82 of 230
Quote:
Originally Posted by onlooker

Apple designed, and coded the Pixlet algorithm.

So Apple licenses it to Pixar?

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #83 of 230
Quote:
Originally Posted by Placebo

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

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

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #84 of 230
Quote:
Originally Posted by ApplePi

Anyone who thinks they will offer movie downloads at anything less then DVD quality is crazy. So lets just dismiss that whole idea right now. Nobody (not even Apple) could command $15 for a 90 minute VHS quality video in this day and age. Especially since they already sell 45 minute TV episodes at that quality for only $1.99.

I have a feeling, like the guy above, that it will be 720p video. Afterall Apple has to offer something more if they are to sell at that price when brand new DVD's can be bought for $5-20 with packaging a special features.

At $15 for a movie in 720p I would buy it from the Apple media store. Especially if they gave me a good way to watch it on my computer or put it on my TV. But $15 for a DVD quality video, no thanks. I'll just got to the store.

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.
post #85 of 230
Quote:
Originally Posted by onlooker

Apple designed, and coded the Pixlet algorithm.

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.
post #86 of 230
Quote:
Originally Posted by Feynman

Think Apple Lossless for video.

Impossible.
post #87 of 230
Quote:
Originally Posted by Feynman

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.

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

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #88 of 230
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich

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.
post #89 of 230
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 will know the truth, and the truth will
set you free."
Reply
"you will know the truth, and the truth will
set you free."
Reply
post #90 of 230
Quote:
Originally Posted by Feynman

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.

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.
post #91 of 230
Quote:
Originally Posted by mark2005

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!

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.

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #92 of 230
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?
post #93 of 230
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.
post #94 of 230
Quote:
Originally Posted by retiarius

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?

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

BUT, 852 x 480p is considered to be HD.
post #95 of 230
Quote:
Originally Posted by e1618978

So, according to your definition, you could upsample the output of a VHS player and call it HDTV?

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.
post #96 of 230
Quote:
Originally Posted by retiarius

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?

Thus, the iPad™. See above.

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

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #97 of 230
Quote:
Originally Posted by minderbinder

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?

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

Quote:
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.

A would agree with that.
post #98 of 230
Quote:
Originally Posted by minderbinder

And I think you guys who think this will include a phone announcement are crazy.

Agreed.

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #99 of 230
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross

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

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.
post #100 of 230
Remember the December 2005 article from Think Secret? Could any of that be true?http://thinksecret.com/news/0511contentdist.html
When they said "Think Different", I ran with it.
Reply
When they said "Think Different", I ran with it.
Reply
post #101 of 230
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich

So Apple licenses it to Pixar?

I don't think they have to.
onlooker
Registered User

Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: parts unknown




http://www.apple.com/feedback/macpro.html
Reply
onlooker
Registered User

Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: parts unknown




http://www.apple.com/feedback/macpro.html
Reply
post #102 of 230
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross

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.


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.
onlooker
Registered User

Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: parts unknown




http://www.apple.com/feedback/macpro.html
Reply
onlooker
Registered User

Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: parts unknown




http://www.apple.com/feedback/macpro.html
Reply
post #103 of 230
Quote:
Originally Posted by JimDreamworx

What better way to watch movies than on a 23" iMac?

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>?".
post #104 of 230
Quote:
Originally Posted by murk

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

I really hope so, the idea of cramming HD, or nearly HD movies on my hard drive is making me cringe a little...
post #105 of 230
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!
 iMac 24-inch 2.16 GHz, Intel Core 2 Duo
2GB DDR SDRAM, NVIDIA GeForce 7600 GT 256MB SDRAM
250GB HDD
OSX "Lion" 10.7.1
 iBook G4 - 14"
OSX "Leopard" 10.5.8
Reply
 iMac 24-inch 2.16 GHz, Intel Core 2 Duo
2GB DDR SDRAM, NVIDIA GeForce 7600 GT 256MB SDRAM
250GB HDD
OSX "Lion" 10.7.1
 iBook G4 - 14"
OSX "Leopard" 10.5.8
Reply
post #106 of 230
Quote:
Originally Posted by murk

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

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.
post #107 of 230
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
post #108 of 230
Quote:
Originally Posted by DeaPeaJay

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.

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #109 of 230
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
post #110 of 230
Quote:
Originally Posted by DeaPeaJay

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

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

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #111 of 230
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)
post #112 of 230
Quote:
Originally Posted by minderbinder

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.

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.
post #113 of 230
Quote:
Originally Posted by onlooker

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.

No, I don't remember that part offhand. But I said that I didn't disagree.
post #114 of 230
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kishan

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 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".
post #115 of 230
Quote:
Originally Posted by DeaPeaJay

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

Ha! That would be a good one.
post #116 of 230
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpamSandwich

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.

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

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #117 of 230
Quote:
Originally Posted by dutch pear

Airport HD - it is indeed possible, see This C|net article

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.
post #118 of 230
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

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply

Proud AAPL stock owner.

 

GOA

Reply
post #119 of 230
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross

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.

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.
post #120 of 230
Quote:
Originally Posted by dutch pear

Airport HD - it is indeed possible, see This C|net article

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.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Future Apple Hardware
AppleInsider › Forums › Mac Hardware › Future Apple Hardware › News flash: Apple confirms media event