or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPod + iTunes + AppleTV › Apple TV Take 2: an in-depth review (part 1): what's new
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Apple TV Take 2: an in-depth review (part 1): what's new - Page 2

post #41 of 91
Quote:
Originally Posted by nagromme View Post

"Analog broadcast TV has long used a nearly square aspect ratio that is stretched out by non-square pixels that results in everyone on TV looking ten pounds heavier."

That's not true. Analog TV doesn't even use pixels (just a continuous color "stream" on each line), and digital systems creating content for analog use square or NARROW (8:9) pixels, not wide. And regardless, the result is perfectly proportioned--broadcast TV has not "long used" a system that makes the image wider.

If you see a wide image it's simply because you have a widescreen (16:9) TV, and analog TV uses a 4:3 standard shape. You should set your TV differently to show black bars on the sides (or else zoom in), and then you'll get the shape (which is not nearly square) of non-widescreen TVs.

Speaking of which- wouldn't it be cool if we could set the image directly on the ATV- can we?
You can on cable TV remotes and most DVD machines. I rather set this on the device than the TV for 4:3 programs.
post #42 of 91
Quote:
Originally Posted by ShavenYak View Post

Perhaps I should just buy a Mini and use FrontRow instead. No HD movie rentals then, but frankly I think standard DVDs upconverted look better than heavily compressed H.264 at 720p most of the time. I'll take lower resolution over visible artifacting any day.

I thought the same thing, too. But then I read (forget where) that the new FrontRow doesn't pass-through the 5.1 digital audio when playing DVDs. Apparently, the old FrontRow actually played DVDs in the DVD Player application, which has a preference for 5.1 output. The new FrontRow no longer relies on DVD Player, and apparently Apple didn't think to include that option. If it weren't for that, I'd have an Intel mini with optical out hooked up to my TV and I'd be copying video_ts folders to an external hard drive. Granted, you could just play it in the DVD Player app manually, but that defeats the purpose of the convenience of it!

So:
- AppleTV with 5.1 HD content for rent, but can't play what you already own (until Handbrake figures out way to easily make a 5.1 rip of my DVDs!)
- or -
- Mac mini to (inconveniently) play the DVDs you already own, but no HD rental

Come on Apple, you are sooooo close to getting me to spend money!
post #43 of 91
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wiggin View Post

So:
- AppleTV with 5.1 HD content for rent, but can't play what you already own (until Handbrake figures out way to easily make a 5.1 rip of my DVDs!)
- or -
- Mac mini to (inconveniently) play the DVDs you already own, but no HD rental

Come on Apple, you are sooooo close to getting me to spend money!

With all of using it- shouldn't Handbrake be getting a cut?
post #44 of 91
"Apple TV is essentially a low end Mac with a video card supporting 1280x800 resolution."

This is the first I've read anywhere the actual video card resolution limit. I always understood that video was limited to 720p. But nowhere, including Apple's own specs page, have I ever seen a max resolution for photos. So, I assumed the 720p limit was related to limits for decoding video, not a display resolution limit.

But from the above, it appears that AppleTV will not display my photos at 1920 x 1080 resolution, even though it now supports 1080p ouput. Is that correct???

If so, very, very, sad.....
post #45 of 91
Quote:
Originally Posted by teckstud View Post

With all of using it- shouldn't Handbrake be getting a cut?

Using it? Who me? Why heavens no! That would be legally questionable!
post #46 of 91
Remote Disc needs to be added..
post #47 of 91
When Apple first released AirTunes, it could only play to a single AirportExpress at a time. They later updated it so you could stream to multiple recievers simultaneously.

I read a post elsewhere that stated that you can not stream to both an AppleTV and Airport Express at the same time. Can you confirm this? I hope it's not the case as that would disrupt my music distribution system!
post #48 of 91
Sigh, Appleinsider has been sliding downhill ever since the RoughlyDrafted people invaded (or perhaps simply took over). If the constant links to RD in EVERY "review" and many articles weren't enough, the reviews hardly deserve that moniker.

I know this is a pro-Apple site but maybe a little objectivity is in order. The first page of the article basically sets up the defense for why the video content of iTunes Store is more than sufficient for the needs of people wanting HD content, and the final page sets up the eventual comparison in the second part of this review. I'm sure that "review" will be no less than glowing. I'm sure it will point at a flaw or too but in the end, the "review" will end finding that "AppleTV and the iTunes Store is a great way to get into HD."

The review can't even get the facts straight. Blu-Ray is NOT Sony's format. And HD DVD certainly isn't Microsoft's format at this article states.

And despite the author's claim that "consumers haven't been buying the new HD disc formats," 2007 revenue from HD disc formats was more than double that of downloads:

http://www.hollywoodinhidef.com/blog_detail.php?id=164

And the author is quick to dismiss the fact that the Apple is priced not that far off the price of a Blu-Ray player or the fact that every time you want to watch an HD movie via the AppleTV it will cost you $5 with no current way to ever own that film.

Again, I've stopped expecting objectivity from this site's reviews but maybe they could just the name to Roughly Drafted 2 or just merge the two sites and be done with it.
post #49 of 91
Quote:
Originally Posted by Adjei View Post

Remote Disc needs to be added..

Remote Disc with a MacBook Air does not allow you to play video DVDs, so I don't think that would help with AppleTV.

I know I'll get laughed at for suggeting it (again) but Apple really need to add an optical drive. They've already got a DVD Player application and have whatever licensing they need for audio (might need an MPEG2 license); but for about $20 they could include the drive plus a few extra dollars (if that) for any additional licensing and then sell a new version of Apple TV for an additional $100 markup.

That extra $80 of profit would MORE than make up for any marginal decrease in iTunes Store sales, along with getting what I believe would be a much larger number of AppleTVs into homes. THAT should be their primary push right now. Not maximizing iTunes sales on day one.

That and the more practical argument that I have neither shelf space nor TV inputs for an AppleTV. Something's got to go. It will never replace either my cable box or my TiVo. That leaves the DVD player as the only candidate for replacement. And right now, AppleTV can not replace a DVD player.

One final argument... people can relate to a DVD player. They know what it does and how to use it. I think it would be a much easier sales pitch if you could say, "It'll play all your DVDs and all this other cools stuff it does." As opposed to, "It does a bunch of cools stuff you'll really like, but you've never done it before so just trust me."
post #50 of 91
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wiggin View Post

Remote Disc with a MacBook Air does not allow you to play video DVDs, so I don't think that would help with AppleTV.

I know I'll get laughed at for suggeting it (again) but Apple really need to add an optical drive. They've already got a DVD Player application and have whatever licensing they need for audio (might need an MPEG2 license); but for about $20 they could include the drive plus a few extra dollars (if that) for any additional licensing and then sell a new version of Apple TV for an additional $100 markup.

That extra $80 of profit would MORE than make up for any marginal decrease in iTunes Store sales, along with getting what I believe would be a much larger number of AppleTVs into homes. THAT should be their primary push right now. Not maximizing iTunes sales on day one.

That and the more practical argument that I have neither shelf space nor TV inputs for an AppleTV. Something's got to go. It will never replace either my cable box or my TiVo. That leaves the DVD player as the only candidate for replacement. And right now, AppleTV can not replace a DVD player.

One final argument... people can relate to a DVD player. They know what it does and how to use it. I think it would be a much easier sales pitch if you could say, "It'll play all your DVDs and all this other cools stuff it does." As opposed to, "It does a bunch of cools stuff you'll really like, but you've never done it before so just trust me."

Not a blu-ray? ATV is HD after all and DVDs are on the decline. And it would play both.
post #51 of 91
Quote:
Originally Posted by teckstud View Post

Not a blu-ray? ATV is HD after all and DVDs are on the decline. And it would play both.

Sure, that would be ideal; but even I know the limits of reasonable expectations!

To me, the arguement for DVD is easy...to allow me to play the content I alreay own. Image how spectacularly UNsuccesful the iPod would have been if you weren't able to load your own CDs onto it! A DVD drive would allow me to get immediate use of my purchase with the content I already own.

Put in a blu-ray and mark the price up another $200, and I'll buy one tomorrow! But, as has been pointed out in the article, the current AppleTV's video card wouldn't be able to decode the 1080p video on a blu-ray disc. You'd also need additinal licensing, etc, etc. So it would be a bit more work to implement.
post #52 of 91
Quote:
Originally Posted by ShavenYak View Post

If you purchase a song from the iTunes Store on an AppleTV, can you get it back to the library on your Mac? I would assume so, but you never know with Apple and the studios lately.

This does work... I bought a song on the AppleTV and it was soon on my iMac upstairs. I think this is supposed to work for all files EXCEPT movies.
post #53 of 91
Quote:
Originally Posted by caliminius View Post

Sigh, Appleinsider has been sliding downhill ever since the RoughlyDrafted people invaded (or perhaps simply took over). If the constant links to RD in EVERY "review" and many articles weren't enough, the reviews hardly deserve that moniker.

I know this is a pro-Apple site but maybe a little objectivity is in order. The first page of the article basically sets up the defense for why the video content of iTunes Store is more than sufficient for the needs of people wanting HD content, and the final page sets up the eventual comparison in the second part of this review. I'm sure that "review" will be no less than glowing. I'm sure it will point at a flaw or too but in the end, the "review" will end finding that "AppleTV and the iTunes Store is a great way to get into HD."

The review can't even get the facts straight. Blu-Ray is NOT Sony's format. And HD DVD certainly isn't Microsoft's format at this article states.

And despite the author's claim that "consumers haven't been buying the new HD disc formats," 2007 revenue from HD disc formats was more than double that of downloads:

http://www.hollywoodinhidef.com/blog_detail.php?id=164

And the author is quick to dismiss the fact that the Apple is priced not that far off the price of a Blu-Ray player or the fact that every time you want to watch an HD movie via the AppleTV it will cost you $5 with no current way to ever own that film.

Again, I've stopped expecting objectivity from this site's reviews but maybe they could just the name to Roughly Drafted 2 or just merge the two sites and be done with it.

+1

Totally agree, unless Apple move to a (or compete with a) subscription model they will fall the way of practically every cable VOD service, interesting at first but ultimately not worth the cost.

Regarding the article I spotted several technical misstatements that appear to make the Apple TV sound better than it actually is. Rather lame and obviously an Apple sales pitch IMO.
post #54 of 91
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kishan View Post

This does work... I bought a song on the AppleTV and it was soon on my iMac upstairs. I think this is supposed to work for all files EXCEPT movies.

It works for all purchased files, including movies, but not for rentals.
post #55 of 91
Quote:
Originally Posted by teckstud View Post

Speaking of which- wouldn't it be cool if we could set the image directly on the ATV- can we?
You can on cable TV remotes and most DVD machines. I rather set this on the device than the TV for 4:3 programs.

The AppleTV plays video in its native ratio. If the video is 4x3, it is played in 4x3 with black bars on each side. The problem is that most TVs out of the box have been set to stretch 4x3 video onto their 16x9 displays.
What goes online stays online. What is online will become public.
Reply
What goes online stays online. What is online will become public.
Reply
post #56 of 91
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wiggin View Post

When Apple first released AirTunes, it could only play to a single AirportExpress at a time. They later updated it so you could stream to multiple recievers simultaneously.

I read a post elsewhere that stated that you can not stream to both an AppleTV and Airport Express at the same time. Can you confirm this? I hope it's not the case as that would disrupt my music distribution system!

AirTunes will play on both your AppleTV and AirPort Express at the same time. I have successfully streamed a iTunes playlist to both my AppleTV and to my bedroom stereo.
What goes online stays online. What is online will become public.
Reply
What goes online stays online. What is online will become public.
Reply
post #57 of 91
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wiggin View Post

"Apple TV is essentially a low end Mac with a video card supporting 1280x800 resolution."

This is the first I've read anywhere the actual video card resolution limit. I always understood that video was limited to 720p. But nowhere, including Apple's own specs page, have I ever seen a max resolution for photos. So, I assumed the 720p limit was related to limits for decoding video, not a display resolution limit.

But from the above, it appears that AppleTV will not display my photos at 1920 x 1080 resolution, even though it now supports 1080p ouput. Is that correct???

If so, very, very, sad.....

This does seem mighty strange, since the NVIDIA GeForce Go 7300 chip internal to the Apple TV
can easily do 1920x1200 external with the right drivers. Even ye olde (4 years ancient)
Mac PPC G5 tower that contains a stock NVIDIA 5200 did this.

If this is true, then it is by dint of Apple's software choice, not due to a limitation of the 7300 graphix.

If Apple is taking multimegabit photo resolution (a property of even the most primitive
digital camera), then pumping it all through the AppleTV MacOS system at one measly
megapixel, then fuzzily re-scaling this to 2 megapixel 1080p, this is more than very, very sad.

I guess they are trying to say that 1280x800 to an Apple TV-internal HDMI 1080p
hardware scaler is an improvement over 1280x800 to an HDTV scaler (doubtful, since
expensive HDTVs would use scaler chips at least as sophisticated), but they could just
use the internal NVIDIA 7300 GPU + software to get better results without that nonsense.

If the Appleinsider author is not just plain wrong, what is the technical justification
for Apple to go thru this byzantine procedure to downscale photos (and future
webpages, too) by ignoring the inherent NVIDIA GPU chip capabitlities?
post #58 of 91
Quote:
Originally Posted by boazh View Post

So I was so excited for this update and ended up with huge disappointment.
There might be an issue with my update and I might need to repeat it although I don't know how to.... It appears that my ATV will freeze everyonce in awhile and the remote will not respond to any clicks, or will respond after 30 seconds. Also after pausing, it takes 10 secods sometimes for the media to start playing again. Anyone has the same issues?
I restrated several times and also run the diagnostic which tells me my ATV is working correctly... Why oh why Apple did not give us an option to have Genres for our collection of movies and tv shows is beyond me, It just lead me to think that Apple is no longer the company that strived to satisfy its users but rather make sure we all have an easy wat to spend $$ on renting or buying movies.

Hi - yes I have exactly the same problem, I was hoping that the update would cure that but it has not. I think it is an overheating issue, the unit is so well sealed there is no passage of air to cool it. I have tried relocating it in different areas, but no difference, was considering removing the rubber base and putting some stickers to raise it slightly.

Like you would be pleased to know if we are alone. I live in Singapore and the ambient temperature is usually 30 degrees celcius.. Is this the issue??

Brgds/Tony
post #59 of 91
Quote:
Originally Posted by aresee View Post

The AppleTV plays video in its native ratio. If the video is 4x3, it is played in 4x3 with black bars on each side. The problem is that most TVs out of the box have been set to stretch 4x3 video onto their 16x9 displays.

I understand that. I just wish I could manipulate the ATV's aspect ratio direct on the ATV like I can on my cable remote and DVD remote. I prefer to leave the TV at 16:9. Long 4:3 programs I like to stretch out on occasion. I prefer to set the TV once with 16:9 as the default and not change it again (don't like to have to use yet another remote).
post #60 of 91
Quote:
Originally Posted by teckstud View Post

... I prefer to leave the TV at 16:9. Long 4:3 programs I like to stretch out on occasion. ...

Ugh, the distortion drives me crazy.
What goes online stays online. What is online will become public.
Reply
What goes online stays online. What is online will become public.
Reply
post #61 of 91
Quote:
Originally Posted by aresee View Post

Ugh, the distortion drives me crazy.

Me too.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #62 of 91
Quote:
Originally Posted by teckstud View Post

I understand that. I just wish I could manipulate the ATV's aspect ratio direct on the ATV like I can on my cable remote and DVD remote. I prefer to leave the TV at 16:9. Long 4:3 programs I like to stretch out on occasion. I prefer to set the TV once with 16:9 as the default and not change it again (don't like to have to use yet another remote).

And you called yourself a videophile.
post #63 of 91
LeRyman wrote "I just think the overall look of the UI is amazingly "square" and not elegant like every other Apple product. This thing does not scream QUALITY like everything else they do. Add some color ... anything would help.

I totally agree, I was shocked when I first saw it come up, like a fragment of an Excel table that had somehow sleepwalked over from Office 2004. I was hoping it was just some sort of intial configuration page that would go away.
post #64 of 91
Quote:
Originally Posted by solipsism View Post

So, I'm guessing this is still using 10.4 at its base.

I've read that it's 10.4.7.


Quote:
Originally Posted by nagromme View Post

"Analog broadcast TV has long used a nearly square aspect ratio that is stretched out by non-square pixels that results in everyone on TV looking ten pounds heavier."

That's not true. Analog TV doesn't even use pixels (just a continuous color "stream" on each line), and digital systems creating content for analog use square or NARROW (8:9) pixels, not wide. And regardless, the result is perfectly proportioned--broadcast TV has not "long used" a system that makes the image wider.

I thought that section was odd too. The notion of the camera adding ten pounds applies to film as well as video (and I'm sure HD as well). Blaming it on pixel shape is misinformation, please correct it in the article.

Quote:
Originally Posted by caliminius View Post

The review can't even get the facts straight. Blu-Ray is NOT Sony's format. And HD DVD certainly isn't Microsoft's format at this article states.

While neither format is exclusively that of those two companies, there's no question that they both are heavily devoted to the respective formats.

Quote:
Originally Posted by PaddyF View Post

Totally agree, unless Apple move to a (or compete with a) subscription model they will fall the way of practically every cable VOD service, interesting at first but ultimately not worth the cost.

Digital subscription models will never be able to compete with mailing out CDs, not unless the studios radically change the way they license content.

Netflix doesn't have to pay a royalty every time they mail a disk out, that's how they can have their "unlimited" plans at those prices. For downloads, the studios require a royalty payment for each download, which means that a subscription model would either have a fairly low cap or would be substantially more expensive. It would be great to see a subscription model, but I don't think it's necessary for Apple to do well, and I don't think it's even possible given current studio constraints.
post #65 of 91
Quote:
Originally Posted by ascii View Post

"None of this is too difficult to figure out, but it does seems to result in a complex system of navigation menus, particularly for an Apple product."

No kidding. The Apple TV is just a grab bag of features, with a nasty hierarchical menu system to match. Apple products usually have a central unifying theme and a nice simply GUI that flows from that. I swear they outsourced the design of this thing.

I kind of feel the same when looking at the A-TV's U/I: nice but just "good enough". Maybe it's because a few days ago I got "spoiled" seeing a demo of the Kaleidascape system at a local Magnolia A/V store. (http://kaleidascape.com/ )
Here is a company that spent years in court fighting the RIAA while they perfected their system. They won and now their system legally copies your DVD movies onto the system's HDD. And then their UI kicks in. Looks like - well - "what you would expect from Apple...". It's quite a bit pricey (12K and up) but so where big-screen LCD TVs 5 years ago. The A-TV product train is in no way going fast enough for many of us. Running faster costs money. There is some great IP out there I wouldn't mind Apple spending some of their 15 billion it has in cash on.
post #66 of 91
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robre View Post

I kind of feel the same when looking at the A-TV's U/I: nice but just "good enough". Maybe it's because a few days ago I got "spoiled" seeing a demo of the Kaleidascape system at a local Magnolia A/V store. (http://kaleidascape.com/ )
Here is a company that spent years in court fighting the RIAA while they perfected their system. They won and now their system legally copies your DVD movies onto the system's HDD. And then their UI kicks in. Looks like - well - "what you would expect from Apple...". It's quite a bit pricey (12K and up) but so where big-screen LCD TVs 5 years ago. The A-TV product train is in no way going fast enough for many of us. Running faster costs money. There is some great IP out there I wouldn't mind Apple spending some of their 15 billion it has in cash on.

That is visual neat, but I don't think it's as usual at the AppleTV's system. I would prefer a hybrid of the two in a more Delicous Library type interface. Apple has stolen enough of their staff as it is!.

For the same reason that people wanted a list view in Stacks I wouldn't use this view for my content in the AppleTV. I don't even use CoverFlow in Finder or iTunes. I see it a novelty and not something to increase my productivity or usability. However, I don't see any reason why that can't be an toggle option for those users who do wish to use it.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
post #67 of 91
Quote:
Originally Posted by LeRyman View Post

I just think the overall look of the UI is amazingly "square" and not elegant like every other Apple product. This thing does not scream QUALITY like everything else they do. Add some color ... anything would help.

Are there any options to change this?

I have TiVo and there UI is very smooth, easy to understand and professional looking.

Looks sell!

I happen to think that the overall look of the UI is very elegant and Apple-like. So your view is purely subjective.
post #68 of 91
I applaud Apple for offering such a huge upgrade for an existing device (not to mention being able to) and offering it for free. I know all the Apple-bashers on these forums will never give them credit for it, but very few other companies would (or could) do the same.

BUT...

With true 1080p TVs being available now at a reasonable and ever-descending price, and with Blu-Ray finally winning the format war despite the frenzied efforts of Microsoft (yes, Microsoft!) to poison the well, I think anything that would hinder the complete and rapid shift to that maximal picture quality is a Bad Thing™. I think also that downloading HD video (as opposed to 320x240 video or excruciating 128,000 bps audio) over the internet is, and will remain for a long time a very small niche market. At least until they finally deliver the "optical fiber into your home" they've been promising for 20 years. I won't be buying an Apple TV until it's 1080p and I can download a 1080p movie in lossless compression in significantly less than real time. I'm not holding my breath!
post #69 of 91
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatesbasher View Post

I won't be buying an Apple TV until it's 1080p and I can download a 1080p movie in lossless compression in significantly less than real time. I'm not holding my breath!

You'll never see releases losslessly compressed. At least not unless there's a major breakthrough and someone invents lossless compression at ratios of 10+ to one (and way beyond).

With lossless compression, a movie in 1080p (or any HD format) would be hundreds of gigs. And compared to a lossy compression with a good codec and a high bitrate, you could probably get a version indistinguishable from the original by most if not all people at a fraction of the size.

While I think it would benefit the aTV to handle 1080p content, and at fairly high bitrates, I don't think rentals at 780 will slow adoption much.

And why is "significantly less than real time" important, considering you can't watch the content faster than real time? I have a hard time imagining a situation where more than 5-10% faster than real time provides an advantage.
post #70 of 91
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post

And you called yourself a videophile.

And want do you call yourself? Idiot?
You obviously have never heard of "burn-in"? That's what happens when you leave a non-moving image on for a period of time. That's why the Apple TV GUI is constantly moving and that why we have what are called screen-savers. Trust me you do not want to burn in side black bars on a 50 inch plasma. Do you even own a widescreen HD TV?
post #71 of 91
Quote:
Originally Posted by teckstud View Post

And want do you call yourself? Idiot?
You obviously have never heard of "burn-in"? That's what happens when you leave a non-moving image on for a period of time. That's why the Apple TV GUI is constantly moving and that why we have what are called screen-savers. Trust me you do not want to burn in side black bars on a 50 inch plasma. Do you even own a widescreen HD TV?

Yes, but I didn't buy a plasma for that reason.
post #72 of 91
Quote:
Originally Posted by teckstud View Post

And want do you call yourself? Idiot?

Here's a hint...if you want to call someone an idiot, it's probably best to do it using words that are spelled right...
post #73 of 91
Quote:
Originally Posted by minderbinder View Post

Here's a hint...if you want to call someone an idiot, it's probably best to do it using words that are spelled right...



.... as if being an excellent proofreader or speller means your not one as well?
post #74 of 91
Quote:
Originally Posted by minderbinder View Post

You'll never see releases losslessly compressed. At least not unless there's a major breakthrough and someone invents lossless compression at ratios of 10+ to one (and way beyond).

We already have lossless compression at about 50 to one. On every DVD. For 1080x1920 we need about 6 times the capacity. That's why we had to have Blu-Ray instead of the miserable HD-DVD halfway-house format. If you want to see 1080i video with lossless compression, just pull it off the air. That's why it's better than HD on cable. A 2-hour movie in 1080p is about 25 GB. By some fantastic coincidence, that's one layer of a Blu-Ray disc. Of course, even with cable internet, that would take almost 10 hours to download. Which was my point.

I want to download a movie in significantly less than real time because I refuse to try to watch something while it's still downloading. I know there are going to be constant glitches if it's downloading in the background. Even the positive reviews of the aTV say as much, and that's just with SD content.
post #75 of 91
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post

Yes, but I didn't buy a plasma for that reason.


And that's just proves that you're also not a videophile.
post #76 of 91
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatesbasher View Post

We already have lossless compression at about 50 to one. On every DVD.

No, DVD-Video is lossy, I don't understand why you think otherwise. The only lossless part of DVD-Video is PCM stereo audio, and most DVDs don't use that.
post #77 of 91
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post

No, DVD-Video is lossy, I don't understand why you think otherwise. The only lossless part of DVD-Video is PCM stereo audio, and most DVDs don't use that.

The video signal on a DVD can be compressed to about 2% of its original size (losslessly,) better than the about 3% of a JPEG still photo, because there's a great deal of redundancy from frame to frame. Digital cable is compressed further (at best about another 2x) because they want to fit as many channels in as possible. That's why no one uses that lossless one-hour mode on their DVD recorders. The 2 hr. mode is about equal to the quality you're getting over cable. Of course some of the channels they consider less important (which I watch all the time) are really severely compressed (worse than the 8-hour mode on my recorder. (Curse Comcast!)

The audio on a DVD is of course, extremely lossy: 5-channel CD-quality audio would be 3,528,000 bps. Almost as much as the video.
post #78 of 91
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatesbasher View Post

The video signal on a DVD can be compressed to about 2% of its original size (losslessly,) better than the about 3% of a JPEG still photo, because there's a great deal of redundancy from frame to frame.

Yes there is a great deal of redundancy that is removed, but MPEG-2 is still lossy. It may appear that no information is lost, but it is. The use of lossless is to describe a computational property, not a perceptual one. The data out of a decoder must be exactly the same as the data into the encoder to be lossless. There is no mode in MPEG-2 that is lossless. A lot of DVDs do have significant artifacts due to this lossy compression. You might not see this due to the quality or calibration of the TV, or many other factors.
post #79 of 91
Quote:
Originally Posted by teckstud View Post

And that's just proves that you're also not a videophile.

I don't think it's limited to one display technology.

I decided I wanted a bigger screen than is realistic for plasma.
post #80 of 91
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gatesbasher View Post

The video signal on a DVD can be compressed to about 2% of its original size (losslessly,) better than the about 3% of a JPEG still photo, because there's a great deal of redundancy from frame to frame. Digital cable is compressed further (at best about another 2x) because they want to fit as many channels in as possible. That's why no one uses that lossless one-hour mode on their DVD recorders. The 2 hr. mode is about equal to the quality you're getting over cable. Of course some of the channels they consider less important (which I watch all the time) are really severely compressed (worse than the 8-hour mode on my recorder. (Curse Comcast!)

The audio on a DVD is of course, extremely lossy: 5-channel CD-quality audio would be 3,528,000 bps. Almost as much as the video.

There is a tremendous amount of lossy compression going on with DVD video. It uses the MPEG-2 which I believe was approved in 1995. The masters are magnitudes larger than the 720x480 @ ~10Mb/sec bitrate that DVD maxes out at.

Even HD-DVD and Blu-ray use lossy compression with MPEG-2, VC-1 and MPEG-4 PART10 (H.264). The size is just too great to keep it uncompressed.
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
Dick Applebaum on whether the iPad is a personal computer: "BTW, I am posting this from my iPad pc while sitting on the throne... personal enough for you?"
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: iPod + iTunes + AppleTV
AppleInsider › Forums › Mobile › iPod + iTunes + AppleTV › Apple TV Take 2: an in-depth review (part 1): what's new