Download to your Mac or PC then stream from your mac/pc to your AppleTV. Of course I have the current AppleTV so I'm limited to the lower HDTV but at the price of AppleTV, I could be convinced to get a new AppleTV.
Another option is to put enough solid state RAM in the Apple TV to hold say 4 hours of HDTV so you have the space to hold one very long movie locally.
A current HD movie is about 4GB. I believe the current generation AppleTV has 8GB of storage to buffer streaming material. So technically you could stream some 1080 movies depending on length, but for safety they'd probably have to bump the internal storage to 16GB.
Why couldn't they utilize this in the rumored iPad HD and also Verizon LTE and eventually AT&T will be able to stream 1080 content. Too bad that will be a data sucker
Can you supply any evidence that it's now 10Mb/s? Last I read it was just under 4Mb/s.
No, he can't, because this is kotatsu we're talking about, and he's well known for trolling and pulling magical numbers out of nowhere in a desperate attempt to make Apple look bad.
No, he can't, because this is kotatsu we're talking about, and he's well known for trolling and pulling magical numbers out of nowhere in a desperate attempt to make Apple look bad.
Who cares about the 1080p spec... what will the compression ratio be? It doesn't matter if they have 60 frames a second at full resolution if all of those pixels are filled with macroblocks during any sort of motion.
Exactly. I don't rent 720p from Apple any more, because the quality is only marginally better than SD.
This is really strange, because I was just going to say the same thing back to YOU, except you've said exactly what I was going to say.
If you can't tell that Apple's "720p" content is horribly compressed and terrible to look at, you have serious problems somewhere on your end.
I'm not saying that it isn't compressed, and I'm often surprised at what still frames of shows that I've bought in HD look like on my computer, but on a TV- actually watching the shows in motion, to say there isn't a clear difference between the SD and HD material is misleading. You can pick apart still images, but as an experience, it's clearly sharper, way better than broadcast HD, and I'll take that option every time it's available. And if you can't say that, then I'd wager you're sitting too far from your TV.
... so I think the writing is on the wall for Blu Ray.
that statement has been recycled again and again since 2006. the format will persist for years to come especially in markets where it's cost prohibitive to offer high-definition video and audio.
This is really strange, because I was just going to say the same thing back to YOU, except you've said exactly what I was going to say.
If you can't tell that Apple's "720p" content is horribly compressed and terrible to look at, you have serious problems somewhere on your end.
I find Apple's 720p quality excellent, and much better than SD, although still short of bluray quality. I suspect that some TVs accentuate compression artifacts more than others. Cranking up the TV's sharpness and contrast settings too high can do this.
A current HD movie is about 4GB. I believe the current generation AppleTV has 8GB of storage to buffer streaming material. So technically you could stream some 1080 movies depending on length, but for safety they'd probably have to bump the internal storage to 16GB.
In theory, yes, but nobody wants to wait an hour for a show to buffer enough so that it won't stall halfway through.
In theory, yes, but nobody wants to wait an hour for a show to buffer enough so that it won't stall halfway through.
As it does now, your wait will vary depending on your connection speed. When I first got my G1 AppleTV, HD movie rentals tended to take about 5 minutes to buffer, but after 1 stalled film early on I'd usually wait 10.
Today, since the release of the G2 AppleTV [and I don't own one, I'm still on G1] buffering seems to happen much faster. I don't know what they've done but HD movies are usually available within a minute or two, and I've never had one fail. And I'm usually renting a movie a week.
What I'm saying is, if I have to wait double that length for a 1080 movie [2-4 minutes], that's not a deal killer for me.
Besides frame size and compression rate, we also have to keep in mind that as the processor in iOS devices get beefier, their ability to utilize more efficient but more processor intensive codecs becomes greater. You can get the raw size down on movies if the processor decoding the file can take up the slack. Eventually, compression will become more invisible, and movies delivered at 1080p will get closer and closer to being imperceptible from BluRay for 99% of people. And I think the time scale on this is shorter than some people think.
Although all movies can be de-interlaced to 480p, some TV shows shot on video predate 480p, and are inherently 480i
I'm trying to understand what you're saying. There isn't a single theatrically released "movie" in the last 100 years that's resolution is capped at 480p. Films took a resolution hit when they were scanned for broadcast on TV. The original film material has, in many cases, an effective resolution many times higher than 1080p.
For Example, the recent restoration of the 1939 film WIZARD OF OZ. The nitrate elements were digitally scanned at 8K for archival purposes. That's approximately 8 times the resolution of current 1080p.
As for TV. Interlacing was the method by which the material was broadcast, and not necessarily recorded. Many early TV shows video signal was direct recorded to film for archiving.
In fact, the WORST period in terms of longevity would seem to be the 80's and 90s, when finishing was done on video. So whereas the original STAR TREK can have it's original film negative scanned for release on BluRay, STAR TREK: TNG is stuck at 480i, since it was edited, and it's visual effects produced at that resolution.
But shows like ANDY GRIFFITH, GILLIGAN'S ISLAND, or LOST IN SPACE could all be released on BluRay, and benefit very much from it.
Here's a handy chart that shows the resolution of images from web all the way up to 8K. NTSC is #16, 720p is #14, and 1080p is #12:
Comments
Download to your Mac or PC then stream from your mac/pc to your AppleTV. Of course I have the current AppleTV so I'm limited to the lower HDTV but at the price of AppleTV, I could be convinced to get a new AppleTV.
Another option is to put enough solid state RAM in the Apple TV to hold say 4 hours of HDTV so you have the space to hold one very long movie locally.
A current HD movie is about 4GB. I believe the current generation AppleTV has 8GB of storage to buffer streaming material. So technically you could stream some 1080 movies depending on length, but for safety they'd probably have to bump the internal storage to 16GB.
Why couldn't they utilize this in the rumored iPad HD
Because there won't be a Retina iPad this year and because the iPad 2 (and possibly iPad 1) already plays 1080p video content.
Verizon LTE
Late late LATE next year at the ABSOLUTE earliest.
stream 1080 content
Too bad the telecoms would NEVER allow it.
Can you supply any evidence that it's now 10Mb/s? Last I read it was just under 4Mb/s.
No, he can't, because this is kotatsu we're talking about, and he's well known for trolling and pulling magical numbers out of nowhere in a desperate attempt to make Apple look bad.
No, he can't, because this is kotatsu we're talking about, and he's well known for trolling and pulling magical numbers out of nowhere in a desperate attempt to make Apple look bad.
I wouldn't say pulling them out of nowhere...
Who cares about the 1080p spec... what will the compression ratio be? It doesn't matter if they have 60 frames a second at full resolution if all of those pixels are filled with macroblocks during any sort of motion.
Exactly. I don't rent 720p from Apple any more, because the quality is only marginally better than SD.
Exactly. I don't rent 720p from Apple any more, because the quality is only marginally better than SD.
Get your eyes checked or your TV fixed.
Get your eyes checked or your TV fixed.
This is really strange, because I was just going to say the same thing back to YOU, except you've said exactly what I was going to say.
If you can't tell that Apple's "720p" content is horribly compressed and terrible to look at, you have serious problems somewhere on your end.
This is really strange, because I was just going to say the same thing back to YOU, except you've said exactly what I was going to say.
If you can't tell that Apple's "720p" content is horribly compressed and terrible to look at, you have serious problems somewhere on your end.
I'm not saying that it isn't compressed, and I'm often surprised at what still frames of shows that I've bought in HD look like on my computer, but on a TV- actually watching the shows in motion, to say there isn't a clear difference between the SD and HD material is misleading. You can pick apart still images, but as an experience, it's clearly sharper, way better than broadcast HD, and I'll take that option every time it's available. And if you can't say that, then I'd wager you're sitting too far from your TV.
... so I think the writing is on the wall for Blu Ray.
that statement has been recycled again and again since 2006. the format will persist for years to come especially in markets where it's cost prohibitive to offer high-definition video and audio.
I have no special knowledge of Netflix' catalog, but if I were to guess, I'd say their top quality looks to be 720p.
Netflix has begun offering 1080p for a few titles. I know the PS3 client supports 1080p. Of course, it is highly compressed 1080p, not bluray quality.
This is really strange, because I was just going to say the same thing back to YOU, except you've said exactly what I was going to say.
If you can't tell that Apple's "720p" content is horribly compressed and terrible to look at, you have serious problems somewhere on your end.
I find Apple's 720p quality excellent, and much better than SD, although still short of bluray quality. I suspect that some TVs accentuate compression artifacts more than others. Cranking up the TV's sharpness and contrast settings too high can do this.
A current HD movie is about 4GB. I believe the current generation AppleTV has 8GB of storage to buffer streaming material. So technically you could stream some 1080 movies depending on length, but for safety they'd probably have to bump the internal storage to 16GB.
In theory, yes, but nobody wants to wait an hour for a show to buffer enough so that it won't stall halfway through.
There isn't anything anywhere that predates 480.
Although all movies can be de-interlaced to 480p, some TV shows shot on video predate 480p, and are inherently 480i
If you grew up with 3 black&white TV channels, rabbit-ears, and "snow", then 720p video on demand on a widescreen plasma display is freakin' nirvana.
In theory, yes, but nobody wants to wait an hour for a show to buffer enough so that it won't stall halfway through.
As it does now, your wait will vary depending on your connection speed. When I first got my G1 AppleTV, HD movie rentals tended to take about 5 minutes to buffer, but after 1 stalled film early on I'd usually wait 10.
Today, since the release of the G2 AppleTV [and I don't own one, I'm still on G1] buffering seems to happen much faster. I don't know what they've done but HD movies are usually available within a minute or two, and I've never had one fail. And I'm usually renting a movie a week.
What I'm saying is, if I have to wait double that length for a 1080 movie [2-4 minutes], that's not a deal killer for me.
Besides frame size and compression rate, we also have to keep in mind that as the processor in iOS devices get beefier, their ability to utilize more efficient but more processor intensive codecs becomes greater. You can get the raw size down on movies if the processor decoding the file can take up the slack. Eventually, compression will become more invisible, and movies delivered at 1080p will get closer and closer to being imperceptible from BluRay for 99% of people. And I think the time scale on this is shorter than some people think.
Although all movies can be de-interlaced to 480p, some TV shows shot on video predate 480p, and are inherently 480i
I'm trying to understand what you're saying. There isn't a single theatrically released "movie" in the last 100 years that's resolution is capped at 480p. Films took a resolution hit when they were scanned for broadcast on TV. The original film material has, in many cases, an effective resolution many times higher than 1080p.
For Example, the recent restoration of the 1939 film WIZARD OF OZ. The nitrate elements were digitally scanned at 8K for archival purposes. That's approximately 8 times the resolution of current 1080p.
As for TV. Interlacing was the method by which the material was broadcast, and not necessarily recorded. Many early TV shows video signal was direct recorded to film for archiving.
In fact, the WORST period in terms of longevity would seem to be the 80's and 90s, when finishing was done on video. So whereas the original STAR TREK can have it's original film negative scanned for release on BluRay, STAR TREK: TNG is stuck at 480i, since it was edited, and it's visual effects produced at that resolution.
But shows like ANDY GRIFFITH, GILLIGAN'S ISLAND, or LOST IN SPACE could all be released on BluRay, and benefit very much from it.
Here's a handy chart that shows the resolution of images from web all the way up to 8K. NTSC is #16, 720p is #14, and 1080p is #12:
http://gadgets.boingboing.net/gimage..._bbg_large.png