He's right, because the level of compression often applied wipes out the difference. In theory, 1080i has the same resolution as 1080p, it just doesn't handle quick movement as well. But when I watch a Blu-Ray movie, it looks much better than a 1080i Tv show. That's assuming I want to get close enough to tell the difference.
In practice, I don't see much difference between 720p and 1080i broadcasts. There's a lot of debate as to whether one is better than the other. It's not a cut and dry thing. 720p actually takes more bandwidth if the amount of compression is the same, and has a denser image. It deals better with sports. 1080p would be best, if they didn't overcompress it, but we won't see that for some time because of the bandwidth.
correct, most people see very little apparent difference between 1080i and 720p. including me. except 720p is better for action sports where interlacing might be noticed just a little. but 1080p does provide twice as much data per frame in theory as 1080i, depending on the actual compression method used.
but while broadcast HDTV is still running at 30 frames per second (not exactly), BluRay is running at 60 fps (not exactly). which is another reason why, in addition to its 1080p resolution, it looks noticeably better than 1080i HDTV. it can send twice as much data in theory per second to the TV compared to even broadcast 1080p (most HDTV's now can display @ 60 fps too). i don't know if all movies take advantage of this. but some do. the most impressive i've seen was Speed Racer, whose blazingly fast and vivid graphics were a real "wow" to see.
If people are trying to stream 1080p over their crappy connection then ask why it looks jerky I am not. Netflix among others should start to rent 1080p video next year and this -again arbitrary- hardware limitation will soon looks plain retarded.
You're missing the point. Most people don't have connections that will stream 1080p well. I have one, and I suppose you do too. But Apple isn't selling a device to a select few, as has been mentioned earlier.
I feel pretty sure that at some point, Apple will raise it.
But we also have to think if the studios are interfering here. Perhaps this was part of the deal.
There's no reason why the hardware couldn't stream 1080p.
If you live in an apartment or condo where you can regularly see 15+ networks , you might not want to stream, but want local storage. Streaming does not work in all situations.
yeah. you can store your iTunes media on an inexpensive big drive attached to your computer anyplace on your LAN of course. but to access it that computer has to be turned on and logged in. i wish the ATV2 could "see" a drive attached just to a router, like Airport Extreme, and play any file direct from it.
Gotta love the whole "you can't see a difference with 1080p" argument. I'll bet these are the same people who rave about the retina display and how crystal clear it is. Fact is 1080p is larger, therefore one can assume that if you view the same movie, on the same screen, 1080p will look sharper, and clearer, than it would in 720p. Exactly the same as how the retina display looks much nicer. Just because one person has poor eyesight doesn't mean the rest of us do. There is a completely valid reason for wanting 1080p.
Have you read why we've been saying that you may not see the difference? It's perfectly valid.
Do you not watch ABC, Fox, ESPN, Disney, and others because they are in 720P? Or are they worthless, too?
I don't watch modern television at all.
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross
I doubt very much that you can either from any normal seating position. You really have to sit CLOSE.
Think what you will.
Quote:
If you think you [can see a difference], then you have to rethink your understanding of what you're seeing.
It's funny that you think you can tell me what my eyes can and cannot see.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carmissimo
Sorry to say that if you are seeing a difference between 720p and 1080p regardless of viewing distance, that difference is strictly a product of your imagination.
Think what you will.
Quote:
If you find 720p video unwatchable, you're in an exceedingly small minority.
Certainly not unwatchable, but as there is a visible difference in 720 and 1080 and most of my content is now 1080 up from 480, it matters.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 8CoreWhore
So if you're avoiding products that don't do 1080P, you don't watch anything but SD or Bluray discs.
Yep. That'd be it. Your point? I'm hard driving my VHS/DVD library. If there is a 1080p alternative, I move to it. Pretty simple. I want a device that can play my library. If I can get one from Apple, all the better. If not, I'll keep using my computer.
Very few people sit close enough to get 1080 out of their sets.
Your use of the term "sets" would seem to imply what most people think of when they think of a "TV set". In that case, you're correct. However, there are many more factors to consider even in a fairly modest home theater, if that's what the application is.
(I almost wrote "high end home theater" but you no longer have to spend $50,000+ for a very impressive HT system any more.).
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross
I keep making this point to people. It's a manly spec thing. They think that the higher the spec, the better it is. While that may be the case in theory, it rarely is in practice. ...
"Higher is better" is generally true, but with a home theater there are many variables to consider that go well beyond mere screen resolution. I spent over two years designing and building mine. The implications of all the various specifications were mind-boggling. I eventually decided I needed 1080p, with its additional cost, since the seating arrangement and display size were such that 720p would have been inadequate. If your seating arrangement were different than mine, spending more money for 1080p would be a waste, since the difference simply can't be perceived from any seat location.
There are several good references available to help decide if 720p is adequate, or if you need something more.
The following Excel spreadsheet uses industry accepted standards to help calculate the interrelationships between resolution, screen dimensions, throw distance...: Home Theater Calculator: Viewing Distance, Screen Size
As I said it was mind-boggling, since I like to do everything right the first time, it took me years and required a major learning curve. The result is very impressive. So much that I have no desire to ever set foot in a traditional sticky-floor theater again. Most home theater owners would say the same.
Then there's the audio system... that's even more mind-boggling.
Gotta love the whole "you can't see a difference with 1080p" argument. I'll bet these are the same people who rave about the retina display and how crystal clear it is. Fact is 1080p is larger, therefore one can assume that if you view the same movie, on the same screen, 1080p will look sharper, and clearer, than it would in 720p. Exactly the same as how the retina display looks much nicer. Just because one person has poor eyesight doesn't mean the rest of us do. There is a completely valid reason for wanting 1080p.
Having said all that. It's pretty clear why Apple didn't include it. iTunes and most streaming services do not offer 1080p. This new AppleTV is gearing towards online content, they don't care if you have a library with hundreds of movies in 1080p. Pretty obvious considering they buried all user content under several sub menus. Before it was right up front, not anymore. I suppose it's funny when you think about it. When they first introduced the AppleTV, it's sole purpose was to bring your iTunes content from your mac/pc to your tv. Now they've made it even harder to do it's original purpose. At least they still consider it a hobby, and it will remain that way until they get their heads out of their asses.
The new one is great for new customers who have no content, but those of us who have spend hundreds if not thousands of dollars on content, it's a slap in the face.
What you hear or see is limited by your physical capabilities. No one is saying that there is no difference between 1080p and 720p. What is debatable, however, is that the difference is anywhere close to making any real difference when viewing video content. Don't forget that there is a difference between carefully examining a photograph and taking in video content. The brain is too busy processing constantly changing video input, processing story elements and audio data, to be that concerned with slight (very slight) variations in the picture being delivered.
Don't confuse the trick you're playing on your brain when you instruct it to find a difference in order to think you are more observant than the average person with any legitimate difference that you are picking up on. It's about the power of suggestion, nothing more.
correct, most people see very little apparent difference between 1080i and 720p. including me. except 720p is better for action sports where interlacing might be noticed just a little. but 1080p does provide twice as much data per frame in theory as 1080i, depending on the actual compression method used.
but while broadcast HDTV is still running at 30 frames per second (not exactly), BluRay is running at 60 fps (not exactly). which is another reason why, in addition to its 1080p resolution, it looks noticeably better than 1080i HDTV. it can send twice as much data in theory per second to the TV compared to even broadcast 1080p (most HDTV's now can display @ 60 fps too). i don't know if all movies take advantage of this. but some do. the most impressive i've seen was Speed Racer, whose blazingly fast and vivid graphics were a real "wow" to see.
1080p needs to send twice as much data per frame. But we need a minimum number of frames per sec for it to look smooth because of our visual retention.
This is why movie film does a double frame. While you're getting 24 new frames a second, there are two of them shown at a 48th of a second apart. So, in a sense, it's 48 fps.
I've watched European Tv, and it flickers slightly because of the lower frame rate. The fact that they broadcast higher rez didn't make the experience any better. In fact, the lower rez NTSC broadcasts more imformation, and often looks better, esp. with sports.
So what's happening here is that 1080i is broadcasting one field every 1/59.97th of a second, while 1080p is doing one frame at the same rate. Twice the data in the same time.
Maybe I will end up buying a MacMini and use it as HTPC without the hassle of transcoding all my home videos and blu-ray to a format AppleTV accepts.
Maybe at the end of the day is the best way around, too bad I have to fork the cash for it but I am sure Apple will be happy about that.
My only gripe is that front row UI is lame and I wished AppleTV UI could be applied to MacMini. Plex is nice but I am afraid my kids and wife will be too overwhelmed by it.
p.s. I don't have Fiber To The Home and full HD screens to have -arbitrary- limits put in upstream by an hardware manufacturer, just because Apple has chosen not to even try streaming 1080p...
The price is interesting but this limitation alone will make me stick with my current XBMC media center.
I have an XBOX360 and love it --- for gaming. It makes a lot of noise and the more you run it, the closer you get to a red ring of death. Also nothing save Blu-Ray is in 1080P, not even our XBOX. It's upconverted.
Just because you can't see the difference. The ellipses are implied.
Also implied is that I don't find it worth anything. It's perfectly fine for people with no 1080 content.
I can't believe how many people can't seem to see a difference between 720 and 1080. It boggles the mind.
Ah, the implication here is that I'm merely twirling my metaphorical digital wang, yes? Try again. I've never understood any of this nonsense about viewing distances, screen sizes, and 720 vs. 1080.
There is a visible difference. I can see it. This truth makes the difference in this product for me. Therefore the Apple TV serves me no purpose.
Then you don't understand Optics and Light.
When Apple can release a 326ppi 42" diagonal backlit LED that is Resolution Independent so that the Motion Picture industry can work in layers of the Z-plane and really leverage vector scaling with real-time bitmap rastering w/o any noticeable delay then you probably will be happy.
I have ordered and paid for the new Apple TV. We have watched a few movies on my Imac, I can't wait to watch iTune movies on my HD 50" Sony LCD TV. I earlier had purchased an Airport Extreme router to connect with our iMacs and iPhones, anticipating that I would be able to connect with this new Apple TV. This is exactly what I had hoped for, and I expect that this Apple TV will be extremely popular with the average consumer like me.
My only gripe is that front row UI is lame and I wished AppleTV UI could be applied to MacMini. Plex is nice but I am afraid my kids and wife will be too overwhelmed by it.
Your use of the term "sets" would seem to imply what most people think of when they think of a "TV set". In that case, you're correct. However, there are many more factors to consider even in a fairly modest home theater, if that's what the application is.
(I almost wrote "high end home theater" but you no longer have to spend $50,000+ for a very impressive HT system any more.).
"Higher is better" is generally true, but with a home theater there are many variables to consider that go well beyond mere screen resolution. I spent over two years designing and building mine. The implications of all the various specifications were mind-boggling. I eventually decided I needed 1080p, with its additional cost, since the seating arrangement and display size were such that 720p would have been inadequate. If your seating arrangement were different than mine, spending more money for 1080p would be a waste, since the difference simply can't be perceived from any seat location.
There are several good references available to help decide if 720p is adequate, or if you need something more.
The following Excel spreadsheet uses industry accepted standards to help calculate the interrelationships between resolution, screen dimensions, throw distance...: Home Theater Calculator: Viewing Distance, Screen Size
As I said it was mind-boggling, since I like to do everything right the first time, it took me years and required a major learning curve. The result is very impressive. So much that I have no desire to ever set foot in a traditional sticky-floor theater again. Most home theater owners would say the same.
Then there's the audio system... that's even more mind-boggling.
I've been in the business of broadcast/video/commercial photography a very long time, and I've seen standards come and go. I'm very particular about what I buy, and how I set it up.
There are some very simple numbers to plug into a system to come up with a realistic understanding of what you can and can't see. It's not a matter of someone guessing that they see something. I know, for example, that I can't see 1080 from my seating distance of 13 to 14 feet with my 61" inch monitor. I accept that. In order to do so, I would need a 103" diag. screen, and I'm not spending the $100 grand a plasma or LCD costs, or going to bother with a front projector at this time (a good one is at least $7,000 right now, and a good screen that size is a good $2,000. $5,000 for a good motorized model). I'm also not interested in screwing up my audio system by moving five feet closer.
These are choices we all have to make. But they have to be made with the understanding that nothing is perfect. I see a lot of people deceiving themselves about this.
My audio/video system costs a pretty penny, and you bet I spent time over it during a several year period. That includes working on the room by buying different rugs, removing the blinds and buying curtains- several times, etc. It's all very complex and expensive, and it's still a compromise. I have friends who built their homes around the home theater, and they still aren't happy, even though some of those theaters cost as much as a nice house around much of the country.
Can someone answer this question for me? The article's writer reports:
"MPEG-4 video, up to 2.5 Mbps, 640 by 480 pixels, 30 frames per second, Simple Profile with AAC-LC audio up to 160 Kbps, 48kHz, stereo audio in .m4v, .mp4, and .mov file formats."
Now for several years I've been HandBraking movies and TV shows as "legacy" .mp4 files not because I think it's the "best" format, but simply because I figured it was almost certain to be readable by a wide range of present and future machines. As my technology has improved, however, I've found that my mp4s often save at well over 640 x 480. So does the statement above mean that the forthcoming Apple TV won't be able to play this large and ever-increasing part of my collection?
Neither, they would both give you almost identical picture quality at the bit-rates Apple would be putting out. Your getting the same amount of picture data either way. Anything you have on your PC that isn't a 50gb blu-ray rip will not require 1080p.
We are talking about heavily compressed video here. This is why Apple didn't put 1080p. No reason to. Nothing they stream is high enough quality anyways. Your iTunes purchases are not high enough quality either.
Can someone answer this question for me? The article's writer reports:
"MPEG-4 video, up to 2.5 Mbps, 640 by 480 pixels, 30 frames per second, Simple Profile with AAC-LC audio up to 160 Kbps, 48kHz, stereo audio in .m4v, .mp4, and .mov file formats."
Now for several years I've been HandBraking movies and TV shows as "legacy" .mp4 files not because I think it's the "best" format, but simply because I figured it was almost certain to be readable by a wide range of present and future machines. As my technology has improved, however, I've found that my mp4s often save at well over 640 x 480. So does the statement above mean that the forthcoming Apple TV won't be able to play this large and ever-increasing part of my collection?
Thanks for your help.
iedsri
I don't use Handbreak, but don't they offer you options as to how you would want the files to be saved? If so, check out their info, and see how you saved them.
Comments
He's right, because the level of compression often applied wipes out the difference. In theory, 1080i has the same resolution as 1080p, it just doesn't handle quick movement as well. But when I watch a Blu-Ray movie, it looks much better than a 1080i Tv show. That's assuming I want to get close enough to tell the difference.
In practice, I don't see much difference between 720p and 1080i broadcasts. There's a lot of debate as to whether one is better than the other. It's not a cut and dry thing. 720p actually takes more bandwidth if the amount of compression is the same, and has a denser image. It deals better with sports. 1080p would be best, if they didn't overcompress it, but we won't see that for some time because of the bandwidth.
correct, most people see very little apparent difference between 1080i and 720p. including me. except 720p is better for action sports where interlacing might be noticed just a little. but 1080p does provide twice as much data per frame in theory as 1080i, depending on the actual compression method used.
but while broadcast HDTV is still running at 30 frames per second (not exactly), BluRay is running at 60 fps (not exactly). which is another reason why, in addition to its 1080p resolution, it looks noticeably better than 1080i HDTV. it can send twice as much data in theory per second to the TV compared to even broadcast 1080p (most HDTV's now can display @ 60 fps too). i don't know if all movies take advantage of this. but some do. the most impressive i've seen was Speed Racer, whose blazingly fast and vivid graphics were a real "wow" to see.
If people are trying to stream 1080p over their crappy connection then ask why it looks jerky I am not. Netflix among others should start to rent 1080p video next year and this -again arbitrary- hardware limitation will soon looks plain retarded.
You're missing the point. Most people don't have connections that will stream 1080p well. I have one, and I suppose you do too. But Apple isn't selling a device to a select few, as has been mentioned earlier.
I feel pretty sure that at some point, Apple will raise it.
But we also have to think if the studios are interfering here. Perhaps this was part of the deal.
There's no reason why the hardware couldn't stream 1080p.
If you live in an apartment or condo where you can regularly see 15+ networks , you might not want to stream, but want local storage. Streaming does not work in all situations.
yeah. you can store your iTunes media on an inexpensive big drive attached to your computer anyplace on your LAN of course. but to access it that computer has to be turned on and logged in. i wish the ATV2 could "see" a drive attached just to a router, like Airport Extreme, and play any file direct from it.
Gotta love the whole "you can't see a difference with 1080p" argument. I'll bet these are the same people who rave about the retina display and how crystal clear it is. Fact is 1080p is larger, therefore one can assume that if you view the same movie, on the same screen, 1080p will look sharper, and clearer, than it would in 720p. Exactly the same as how the retina display looks much nicer. Just because one person has poor eyesight doesn't mean the rest of us do. There is a completely valid reason for wanting 1080p.
Have you read why we've been saying that you may not see the difference? It's perfectly valid.
Do you not watch ABC, Fox, ESPN, Disney, and others because they are in 720P? Or are they worthless, too?
I don't watch modern television at all.
I doubt very much that you can either from any normal seating position. You really have to sit CLOSE.
Think what you will.
If you think you [can see a difference], then you have to rethink your understanding of what you're seeing.
It's funny that you think you can tell me what my eyes can and cannot see.
Sorry to say that if you are seeing a difference between 720p and 1080p regardless of viewing distance, that difference is strictly a product of your imagination.
Think what you will.
If you find 720p video unwatchable, you're in an exceedingly small minority.
Certainly not unwatchable, but as there is a visible difference in 720 and 1080 and most of my content is now 1080 up from 480, it matters.
So if you're avoiding products that don't do 1080P, you don't watch anything but SD or Bluray discs.
Yep. That'd be it. Your point? I'm hard driving my VHS/DVD library. If there is a 1080p alternative, I move to it. Pretty simple. I want a device that can play my library. If I can get one from Apple, all the better. If not, I'll keep using my computer.
Very few people sit close enough to get 1080 out of their sets.
Your use of the term "sets" would seem to imply what most people think of when they think of a "TV set". In that case, you're correct. However, there are many more factors to consider even in a fairly modest home theater, if that's what the application is.
I keep making this point to people. It's a manly spec thing. They think that the higher the spec, the better it is. While that may be the case in theory, it rarely is in practice. ...
"Higher is better" is generally true, but with a home theater there are many variables to consider that go well beyond mere screen resolution. I spent over two years designing and building mine. The implications of all the various specifications were mind-boggling. I eventually decided I needed 1080p, with its additional cost, since the seating arrangement and display size were such that 720p would have been inadequate. If your seating arrangement were different than mine, spending more money for 1080p would be a waste, since the difference simply can't be perceived from any seat location.
There are several good references available to help decide if 720p is adequate, or if you need something more.
The following is a cursory introduction: TV Viewing Distance and Screen Size: A Guide to Correct TV Placement
The following Excel spreadsheet uses industry accepted standards to help calculate the interrelationships between resolution, screen dimensions, throw distance...: Home Theater Calculator: Viewing Distance, Screen Size
As I said it was mind-boggling, since I like to do everything right the first time, it took me years and required a major learning curve. The result is very impressive. So much that I have no desire to ever set foot in a traditional sticky-floor theater again. Most home theater owners would say the same.
Then there's the audio system... that's even more mind-boggling.
Gotta love the whole "you can't see a difference with 1080p" argument. I'll bet these are the same people who rave about the retina display and how crystal clear it is. Fact is 1080p is larger, therefore one can assume that if you view the same movie, on the same screen, 1080p will look sharper, and clearer, than it would in 720p. Exactly the same as how the retina display looks much nicer. Just because one person has poor eyesight doesn't mean the rest of us do. There is a completely valid reason for wanting 1080p.
Having said all that. It's pretty clear why Apple didn't include it. iTunes and most streaming services do not offer 1080p. This new AppleTV is gearing towards online content, they don't care if you have a library with hundreds of movies in 1080p. Pretty obvious considering they buried all user content under several sub menus. Before it was right up front, not anymore. I suppose it's funny when you think about it. When they first introduced the AppleTV, it's sole purpose was to bring your iTunes content from your mac/pc to your tv. Now they've made it even harder to do it's original purpose. At least they still consider it a hobby, and it will remain that way until they get their heads out of their asses.
The new one is great for new customers who have no content, but those of us who have spend hundreds if not thousands of dollars on content, it's a slap in the face.
What you hear or see is limited by your physical capabilities. No one is saying that there is no difference between 1080p and 720p. What is debatable, however, is that the difference is anywhere close to making any real difference when viewing video content. Don't forget that there is a difference between carefully examining a photograph and taking in video content. The brain is too busy processing constantly changing video input, processing story elements and audio data, to be that concerned with slight (very slight) variations in the picture being delivered.
Don't confuse the trick you're playing on your brain when you instruct it to find a difference in order to think you are more observant than the average person with any legitimate difference that you are picking up on. It's about the power of suggestion, nothing more.
correct, most people see very little apparent difference between 1080i and 720p. including me. except 720p is better for action sports where interlacing might be noticed just a little. but 1080p does provide twice as much data per frame in theory as 1080i, depending on the actual compression method used.
but while broadcast HDTV is still running at 30 frames per second (not exactly), BluRay is running at 60 fps (not exactly). which is another reason why, in addition to its 1080p resolution, it looks noticeably better than 1080i HDTV. it can send twice as much data in theory per second to the TV compared to even broadcast 1080p (most HDTV's now can display @ 60 fps too). i don't know if all movies take advantage of this. but some do. the most impressive i've seen was Speed Racer, whose blazingly fast and vivid graphics were a real "wow" to see.
1080p needs to send twice as much data per frame. But we need a minimum number of frames per sec for it to look smooth because of our visual retention.
This is why movie film does a double frame. While you're getting 24 new frames a second, there are two of them shown at a 48th of a second apart. So, in a sense, it's 48 fps.
I've watched European Tv, and it flickers slightly because of the lower frame rate. The fact that they broadcast higher rez didn't make the experience any better. In fact, the lower rez NTSC broadcasts more imformation, and often looks better, esp. with sports.
So what's happening here is that 1080i is broadcasting one field every 1/59.97th of a second, while 1080p is doing one frame at the same rate. Twice the data in the same time.
Maybe I will end up buying a MacMini and use it as HTPC without the hassle of transcoding all my home videos and blu-ray to a format AppleTV accepts.
Maybe at the end of the day is the best way around, too bad I have to fork the cash for it but I am sure Apple will be happy about that.
My only gripe is that front row UI is lame and I wished AppleTV UI could be applied to MacMini. Plex is nice but I am afraid my kids and wife will be too overwhelmed by it.
Hmmm.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zune_Ma...ne_Marketplace
p.s. I don't have Fiber To The Home and full HD screens to have -arbitrary- limits put in upstream by an hardware manufacturer, just because Apple has chosen not to even try streaming 1080p...
The price is interesting but this limitation alone will make me stick with my current XBMC media center.
I have an XBOX360 and love it --- for gaming. It makes a lot of noise and the more you run it, the closer you get to a red ring of death. Also nothing save Blu-Ray is in 1080P, not even our XBOX. It's upconverted.
I don't watch modern television at all.
Think what you will.
It's funny that you think you can tell me what my eyes can and cannot see.
Well then, you can end the argument by giving us the numbers. What size is your screen, and how far away are you? Simple enough.
i wish the ATV2 could "see" a drive attached just to a router, like Airport Extreme, and play any file direct from it.
That would be a great feature that would make lots of sense. So a 99% chance it will never happen.
I rather doubt that.
Just because you can't see the difference. The ellipses are implied.
Also implied is that I don't find it worth anything. It's perfectly fine for people with no 1080 content.
I can't believe how many people can't seem to see a difference between 720 and 1080. It boggles the mind.
Ah, the implication here is that I'm merely twirling my metaphorical digital wang, yes? Try again. I've never understood any of this nonsense about viewing distances, screen sizes, and 720 vs. 1080.
There is a visible difference. I can see it. This truth makes the difference in this product for me. Therefore the Apple TV serves me no purpose.
Then you don't understand Optics and Light.
When Apple can release a 326ppi 42" diagonal backlit LED that is Resolution Independent so that the Motion Picture industry can work in layers of the Z-plane and really leverage vector scaling with real-time bitmap rastering w/o any noticeable delay then you probably will be happy.
My only gripe is that front row UI is lame and I wished AppleTV UI could be applied to MacMini. Plex is nice but I am afraid my kids and wife will be too overwhelmed by it.
Try xbmc if you haven't yet.
Your use of the term "sets" would seem to imply what most people think of when they think of a "TV set". In that case, you're correct. However, there are many more factors to consider even in a fairly modest home theater, if that's what the application is.
"Higher is better" is generally true, but with a home theater there are many variables to consider that go well beyond mere screen resolution. I spent over two years designing and building mine. The implications of all the various specifications were mind-boggling. I eventually decided I needed 1080p, with its additional cost, since the seating arrangement and display size were such that 720p would have been inadequate. If your seating arrangement were different than mine, spending more money for 1080p would be a waste, since the difference simply can't be perceived from any seat location.
There are several good references available to help decide if 720p is adequate, or if you need something more.
The following is a cursory introduction: TV Viewing Distance and Screen Size: A Guide to Correct TV Placement
The following Excel spreadsheet uses industry accepted standards to help calculate the interrelationships between resolution, screen dimensions, throw distance...: Home Theater Calculator: Viewing Distance, Screen Size
As I said it was mind-boggling, since I like to do everything right the first time, it took me years and required a major learning curve. The result is very impressive. So much that I have no desire to ever set foot in a traditional sticky-floor theater again. Most home theater owners would say the same.
Then there's the audio system... that's even more mind-boggling.
I've been in the business of broadcast/video/commercial photography a very long time, and I've seen standards come and go. I'm very particular about what I buy, and how I set it up.
There are some very simple numbers to plug into a system to come up with a realistic understanding of what you can and can't see. It's not a matter of someone guessing that they see something. I know, for example, that I can't see 1080 from my seating distance of 13 to 14 feet with my 61" inch monitor. I accept that. In order to do so, I would need a 103" diag. screen, and I'm not spending the $100 grand a plasma or LCD costs, or going to bother with a front projector at this time (a good one is at least $7,000 right now, and a good screen that size is a good $2,000. $5,000 for a good motorized model). I'm also not interested in screwing up my audio system by moving five feet closer.
These are choices we all have to make. But they have to be made with the understanding that nothing is perfect. I see a lot of people deceiving themselves about this.
My audio/video system costs a pretty penny, and you bet I spent time over it during a several year period. That includes working on the room by buying different rugs, removing the blinds and buying curtains- several times, etc. It's all very complex and expensive, and it's still a compromise. I have friends who built their homes around the home theater, and they still aren't happy, even though some of those theaters cost as much as a nice house around much of the country.
"MPEG-4 video, up to 2.5 Mbps, 640 by 480 pixels, 30 frames per second, Simple Profile with AAC-LC audio up to 160 Kbps, 48kHz, stereo audio in .m4v, .mp4, and .mov file formats."
Now for several years I've been HandBraking movies and TV shows as "legacy" .mp4 files not because I think it's the "best" format, but simply because I figured it was almost certain to be readable by a wide range of present and future machines. As my technology has improved, however, I've found that my mp4s often save at well over 640 x 480. So does the statement above mean that the forthcoming Apple TV won't be able to play this large and ever-increasing part of my collection?
Thanks for your help.
iedsri
Neither, they would both give you almost identical picture quality at the bit-rates Apple would be putting out. Your getting the same amount of picture data either way. Anything you have on your PC that isn't a 50gb blu-ray rip will not require 1080p.
We are talking about heavily compressed video here. This is why Apple didn't put 1080p. No reason to. Nothing they stream is high enough quality anyways. Your iTunes purchases are not high enough quality either.
Can someone answer this question for me? The article's writer reports:
"MPEG-4 video, up to 2.5 Mbps, 640 by 480 pixels, 30 frames per second, Simple Profile with AAC-LC audio up to 160 Kbps, 48kHz, stereo audio in .m4v, .mp4, and .mov file formats."
Now for several years I've been HandBraking movies and TV shows as "legacy" .mp4 files not because I think it's the "best" format, but simply because I figured it was almost certain to be readable by a wide range of present and future machines. As my technology has improved, however, I've found that my mp4s often save at well over 640 x 480. So does the statement above mean that the forthcoming Apple TV won't be able to play this large and ever-increasing part of my collection?
Thanks for your help.
iedsri
I don't use Handbreak, but don't they offer you options as to how you would want the files to be saved? If so, check out their info, and see how you saved them.
720 is a progressive picture. Even when viewed on a 1080p set, it will be superior to an interlaced picture.