People are forgetting also that most HD content is highly compressed. Most HD channels on TV are not even 720p or they are double letter-boxed 720p which is even worse than regular broadcast quality. The only time the average viewer will even come across 1080p or 1080i material is if they buy a BluRay disc of a recent movie and have a very good player and the latest TV.
True 720p, uncompressed looks fantastic and most people will be happy with that if it turns out to be the case.
Yes most everything consumers watch on TV is compressed - DVD, Blu-ray, AppleTV, broadcast TV, cable. If it is MPEG (MPEG-2, MPEG-4), it is compressed. But compression does not preclude it from being 720p or 1080i. The average viewer comes across 1080i when they watch CBS or PBS. And no latest TV required, HDTV have been around for years.
ABC and FOX standardized on 720p. Why not Apple? I don't see what is the big deal, and as others have said, 1080p requires too much bandwidth or compression.
The 1080p isn't the biggest issue, it's the 5 Mbps max bit rate that sucks. It's ok for the low quality web video snippets, but I wouldn't pay for that. Not where there are better alternatives out there for a lower price.
So true. If Apple deigned to use good encoders and/or more high-end features of AVC, it could be decent, but not as it is now.
probably hard to do full 1080p with the iDevice spec. Also if it's going full streaming bandwidth is going to be a problem.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Baron Munchausen
I suspect dropping 1080p was forced upon Apple due to new innards not hacking it robustly. If it is not suited to certain situations, why not have both options? Does not make sense, hence my suspicions.
It’s actually quite easy. Imagination has been making video decoders that can handle High-Profile 1080p for the most intense Blu-ray moving for some time. Note that Apple uses their tech in their iPhone, iPod Touch and iPad, as well as own a reported 3.6% of the company.
Remember, this will plugged in so a power source isn’t an issue like it would be on portable device.
Quote:
Originally Posted by gem
Im sorry but I disagree that recent experience suggests Apple will be able to use the name iTV. The issue is that whilst the others are names which were no longer used, ITV is one of the 5 main TV stations in the UK and as it is a product effectively forming your own TV station I highly doubt they will allow usage of the name. There would be too much confusion for everyone in the UK who knows ITV as a TV station that has been around for decades, its like if they released a product called NBC. Its just a bit ridiculous.
You have a point about iTV being the new name, but Apple may be renaming the device. It’s what you do when you have a product that has a negative mindshare so it might behoove them to rename it from TV.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pats
The A4 video encoder is based on the VXD 370 and Apple will not need to worry about power consumption so if they limit to 720p it is to reduce file size of the stream.
Quote:
PowerVR VXD 370 (previously known as "MSVDX") is a high definition, multi-standard video decode core. PowerVR VXD 370 is capable of decoding H.264, VC-1(WMV 9), DivX, MPEG-4, H.263, MPEG-2, MPEG-1, JPEG at resolutions including 720p, 1080i and 1080p. This multiple decoder support has been implemented in an extremely power efficient architecture. As an example, in a 90nm 133MHz implementation power consumption for the core is in the range of 30mW to <50mW for decoding high definition MPEG-2 main profile and high definition H.264 high profile.
Concludes King-Smith: "Because PowerVR VXD 370 is a highly optimised architecture, with a stream processor to analyse the incoming video bit-stream and reconfigure flexible multi-mode decode modules in the core accordingly, there are huge benefits in reducing silicon area and power consumption " particularly as a large proportion of the processing logic is common for the many video standards supported by the core."
PowerVR VXD 370 supports all HD resolutions and may be configured to support multiple stream decode allowing rich picture"in-picture options such as Electronic Programme Guide (EPG) grids of sub-videos for easy channel selection by the user.
Here is a direct link to Imagination’s video decoder products.
Don't forget that online streaming will be from iTunes only, which does not offer 1080p anyways.
I do see that as a reason to limit the TV. Wasn’t the original TV released with 720p when iTunes Store had no HD content available. Even if it’s not available now, it will come eventually to the iTS.
Also, there are other 1080p sources on the internet, like YouTube, that is accessible from the current TV interface. There is also LAN streamed content. Apple probably won’t allow MKV containers which already tend to have H.264/AAC codecs for Blu-ray rips, but converting to a different container would make it playable.
1080p helps future proof the device, but more importantly, IMO, is the first step for being a contender in the Media Extender Appliance market that has shot forward since the original TV was released.
ABC and FOX standardized on 720p. Why not Apple? I don't see what is the big deal, and as others have said, 1080p requires too much bandwidth or compression.
You Americans are so US centered, were happy enjoying our 50mb/s £17.99/month with 'cable tv', free weekend and evening calls package very much thankyou.
Yes most everything consumers watch on TV is compressed - DVD, Blu-ray, AppleTV, broadcast TV, cable. If it is MPEG (MPEG-2, MPEG-4), it is compressed. But compression does not preclude it from being 720p or 1080i. The average viewer comes across 1080i when they watch CBS or PBS. And no latest TV required, HDTV have been around for years.
As someone who has the new equipment and subscribes to HDTV, this is absolute BS and completely wrong.
The broadcast HD is so highly compressed it's of lower quality than the average upscaled DVD. anyone who thinks they are getting 1080p over the wire from CBS or PBS is dreaming or uninformed.
When Apple released the new Magic Track Pad, I thought the purpose might be to operate it with a new iOS based Apple TV.
I?ve seen that proposed a few times. I never understood how that would be easier or better than an iDevice with the remote control to quickly type in names or navigate quickly via other on-screen helpers. Or just a remote control. I just don?t see trying to tap and swipe a touchpad makes much sense, especially knowing the touchpad requires a physical press of the front feet for tap.
I'll probably pick one up but not gonna use it for anything where quality AQ/PQ matter - stuff that I won't own or rent on Blu-ray. I enjoy TV series off iTunes. It's what I use the AppleTV for now. Would be great if it supported DLNA.
TV standards based on constraints from older codecs. I don't think comparisons are so easy between streamed or downloaded 720p H.323 or MPEG4 and the MPEG2 stuff that most cable providers are strapped to.
I don't see this device counting on the videophile or audiophile for a customer. All streamed content is garbage on the 65" or the 120" at my viewing distance. Not so much cause of the resolution but for the lack of color depth, macro blocking, missing detail & the less care taken in the encoding. This thing is for the people who buy content to watch on their computers who are also looking for a way to use it in the rest of their home.
Most consumers can't even tell the difference between 720p, 1080p and upscaled DVD ???????
Are you kidding ??? Just open your eyes ....
The difference between 720p and 1080p is just HUGE !!!!!!!!!!!!
If steve Jobs says 720P is good enough then that's what you're gonna watch. Lord Jobs steers the entertainment business just like he steers the Internet.
No 1080p takes it off my buy list and recomend list.
I can vouch for the 720 being fine for most consumers.
I actually bought both a 1080 and a 720 50" plasma and set them up against the same wall. I then sat back on my couch 12' away and I could not tell the difference in quality. I returned the 1080 to the store and the price difference of $500 to my pocket. Here is a chart to show the viewing distance compared to resolution....it should show.... compared to cost and compared to ego of saying you own a 1080 screen.
As someone who has the new equipment and subscribes to HDTV, this is absolute BS and completely wrong.
The broadcast HD is so highly compressed it's of lower quality than the average upscaled DVD. anyone who thinks they are getting 1080p over the wire from CBS or PBS is dreaming or uninformed.
Actually, you subscribe to HD programming, not HDTV. And if people think they are getting 1080p they are dreaming or uninformed as it is 1080i (as in the letter after "h" and before "j"). And if your HD channels are lower quality than upscaled DVD, time to call you cable company and get that fixed.
People with extra money are better off with a Mac Mini now that it has HDMI output. For iTV to be a consumer device Apple needs to lower the price below the current AppleTV $229 price. They need to go down as low as $149 and maybe $99, which means stripping the device to bare minimum.
Yes you're correct, as I own both "apple tv" "new mac mini server" I say the best route is with the new mac mini with hdmi connect...but when you ad aTV Flash to the apple tv then it's a whole better experience, so I could see what the apps would do as it would give you better options, because Atv as it is needs some help, but hey it was supposed to be a hobby remember? Well I like the hobby pretty much thank you :-)
Comments
Agreed.
People are forgetting also that most HD content is highly compressed. Most HD channels on TV are not even 720p or they are double letter-boxed 720p which is even worse than regular broadcast quality. The only time the average viewer will even come across 1080p or 1080i material is if they buy a BluRay disc of a recent movie and have a very good player and the latest TV.
True 720p, uncompressed looks fantastic and most people will be happy with that if it turns out to be the case.
Yes most everything consumers watch on TV is compressed - DVD, Blu-ray, AppleTV, broadcast TV, cable. If it is MPEG (MPEG-2, MPEG-4), it is compressed. But compression does not preclude it from being 720p or 1080i. The average viewer comes across 1080i when they watch CBS or PBS. And no latest TV required, HDTV have been around for years.
1080i and 1080p are two very different viewing experiences on a large TV. Don't conflate the two.
It was conflated by the person I was responding to with the reference to broadcast HD and 1080.
The 1080p isn't the biggest issue, it's the 5 Mbps max bit rate that sucks. It's ok for the low quality web video snippets, but I wouldn't pay for that. Not where there are better alternatives out there for a lower price.
So true. If Apple deigned to use good encoders and/or more high-end features of AVC, it could be decent, but not as it is now.
probably hard to do full 1080p with the iDevice spec. Also if it's going full streaming bandwidth is going to be a problem.
I suspect dropping 1080p was forced upon Apple due to new innards not hacking it robustly. If it is not suited to certain situations, why not have both options? Does not make sense, hence my suspicions.
It’s actually quite easy. Imagination has been making video decoders that can handle High-Profile 1080p for the most intense Blu-ray moving for some time. Note that Apple uses their tech in their iPhone, iPod Touch and iPad, as well as own a reported 3.6% of the company.
Remember, this will plugged in so a power source isn’t an issue like it would be on portable device.
Im sorry but I disagree that recent experience suggests Apple will be able to use the name iTV. The issue is that whilst the others are names which were no longer used, ITV is one of the 5 main TV stations in the UK and as it is a product effectively forming your own TV station I highly doubt they will allow usage of the name. There would be too much confusion for everyone in the UK who knows ITV as a TV station that has been around for decades, its like if they released a product called NBC. Its just a bit ridiculous.
You have a point about iTV being the new name, but Apple may be renaming the device. It’s what you do when you have a product that has a negative mindshare so it might behoove them to rename it from TV.
The A4 video encoder is based on the VXD 370 and Apple will not need to worry about power consumption so if they limit to 720p it is to reduce file size of the stream.
PowerVR VXD 370 (previously known as "MSVDX") is a high definition, multi-standard video decode core. PowerVR VXD 370 is capable of decoding H.264, VC-1(WMV 9), DivX, MPEG-4, H.263, MPEG-2, MPEG-1, JPEG at resolutions including 720p, 1080i and 1080p. This multiple decoder support has been implemented in an extremely power efficient architecture. As an example, in a 90nm 133MHz implementation power consumption for the core is in the range of 30mW to <50mW for decoding high definition MPEG-2 main profile and high definition H.264 high profile.
Concludes King-Smith: "Because PowerVR VXD 370 is a highly optimised architecture, with a stream processor to analyse the incoming video bit-stream and reconfigure flexible multi-mode decode modules in the core accordingly, there are huge benefits in reducing silicon area and power consumption " particularly as a large proportion of the processing logic is common for the many video standards supported by the core."
PowerVR VXD 370 supports all HD resolutions and may be configured to support multiple stream decode allowing rich picture"in-picture options such as Electronic Programme Guide (EPG) grids of sub-videos for easy channel selection by the user.
Here is a direct link to Imagination’s video decoder products.
Don't forget that online streaming will be from iTunes only, which does not offer 1080p anyways.
I do see that as a reason to limit the TV. Wasn’t the original TV released with 720p when iTunes Store had no HD content available. Even if it’s not available now, it will come eventually to the iTS.
Also, there are other 1080p sources on the internet, like YouTube, that is accessible from the current TV interface. There is also LAN streamed content. Apple probably won’t allow MKV containers which already tend to have H.264/AAC codecs for Blu-ray rips, but converting to a different container would make it playable.
1080p helps future proof the device, but more importantly, IMO, is the first step for being a contender in the Media Extender Appliance market that has shot forward since the original TV was released.
ABC and FOX standardized on 720p. Why not Apple? I don't see what is the big deal, and as others have said, 1080p requires too much bandwidth or compression.
You Americans are so US centered, were happy enjoying our 50mb/s £17.99/month with 'cable tv', free weekend and evening calls package very much thankyou.
Yes most everything consumers watch on TV is compressed - DVD, Blu-ray, AppleTV, broadcast TV, cable. If it is MPEG (MPEG-2, MPEG-4), it is compressed. But compression does not preclude it from being 720p or 1080i. The average viewer comes across 1080i when they watch CBS or PBS. And no latest TV required, HDTV have been around for years.
As someone who has the new equipment and subscribes to HDTV, this is absolute BS and completely wrong.
The broadcast HD is so highly compressed it's of lower quality than the average upscaled DVD. anyone who thinks they are getting 1080p over the wire from CBS or PBS is dreaming or uninformed.
Yeah, just like fewer and fewer people can tell the difference between Mac OS X and Windows 7.
Apple now gets to unilaterally decide what is "good enough" for consumers. This is Microsoft through and through.
I use both in my office and I can unequivocally say that W7 is pathetic. Its only saving grace is that it uses less space than XP.
There you go... Either way you prove my point.
...
When Apple released the new Magic Track Pad, I thought the purpose might be to operate it with a new iOS based Apple TV.
I?ve seen that proposed a few times. I never understood how that would be easier or better than an iDevice with the remote control to quickly type in names or navigate quickly via other on-screen helpers. Or just a remote control. I just don?t see trying to tap and swipe a touchpad makes much sense, especially knowing the touchpad requires a physical press of the front feet for tap.
...and there is the issue of ITV being the name of a TV channel in the UK since the 1950s...
Apple sez: "Here's a check, now be quiet for a while..."
TV standards based on constraints from older codecs. I don't think comparisons are so easy between streamed or downloaded 720p H.323 or MPEG4 and the MPEG2 stuff that most cable providers are strapped to.
I don't see this device counting on the videophile or audiophile for a customer. All streamed content is garbage on the 65" or the 120" at my viewing distance. Not so much cause of the resolution but for the lack of color depth, macro blocking, missing detail & the less care taken in the encoding. This thing is for the people who buy content to watch on their computers who are also looking for a way to use it in the rest of their home.
-Chris
Most consumers can't even tell the difference between 720p, 1080p and upscaled DVD ???????
Are you kidding ??? Just open your eyes ....
The difference between 720p and 1080p is just HUGE !!!!!!!!!!!!
If steve Jobs says 720P is good enough then that's what you're gonna watch. Lord Jobs steers the entertainment business just like he steers the Internet.
That Wii-mote controller clone Apple filed for might come in handy running the iOS without touch.
I would say "+1" but there is a 5 character minimum..
No 1080p takes it off my buy list and recomend list.
I can vouch for the 720 being fine for most consumers.
I actually bought both a 1080 and a 720 50" plasma and set them up against the same wall. I then sat back on my couch 12' away and I could not tell the difference in quality. I returned the 1080 to the store and the price difference of $500 to my pocket. Here is a chart to show the viewing distance compared to resolution....it should show.... compared to cost and compared to ego of saying you own a 1080 screen.
http://carltonbale.com/1080p-does-matter
The broadcast HD is so highly compressed it's of lower quality than the average upscaled DVD.
Agreed. When I watch nightly news from too close, there is so much compression, Brian Williams looks like he has a mask on.
As someone who has the new equipment and subscribes to HDTV, this is absolute BS and completely wrong.
The broadcast HD is so highly compressed it's of lower quality than the average upscaled DVD. anyone who thinks they are getting 1080p over the wire from CBS or PBS is dreaming or uninformed.
Actually, you subscribe to HD programming, not HDTV. And if people think they are getting 1080p they are dreaming or uninformed as it is 1080i (as in the letter after "h" and before "j"). And if your HD channels are lower quality than upscaled DVD, time to call you cable company and get that fixed.
People with extra money are better off with a Mac Mini now that it has HDMI output. For iTV to be a consumer device Apple needs to lower the price below the current AppleTV $229 price. They need to go down as low as $149 and maybe $99, which means stripping the device to bare minimum.
Yes you're correct, as I own both "apple tv" "new mac mini server" I say the best route is with the new mac mini with hdmi connect...but when you ad aTV Flash to the apple tv then it's a whole better experience, so I could see what the apps would do as it would give you better options, because Atv as it is needs some help, but hey it was supposed to be a hobby remember? Well I like the hobby pretty much thank you :-)