But two programs are rarely directly interchangeable. That is the issue. For example...I wouldn't pay a dime for 30 (22 actually) minutes of Bosom Buddies but I might pay the $1.99 for 30 (22 actually) minutes of "Seinfeld".
I think what you are saying is more a matter of taste - I too am a great fan of Seinfeld and I'm really hoping my girlfriend will buy me series 5+6 on DVD this xmas! If she doesn't then maybe I would also buy an episode for 1.99 on iTunes. However if Brasseye - another show I really like - was sold at 1.99 for a 4 minute clip I'd be rather disappointed in the media company. They both are amazing shows with intelligent scripts and loyal fans, both weigh in at 30 (22 ) minutes long. So why not just charge 1.99 for the whole show - its Greed from the media company and things like this will put people off buying into the new medium.
Quote:
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
If we are talking about something like oil, sugar, wheat, etc. (and even these have different grades) then a "per unit" pricing makes sense.
I'm coming round to the idea of fixed pricing, however its the brass necks of the media companies that annoy me - 1.99 an episode fine, ok, I can accept that, but chopping an episode into smaller clips to sell at 1.99??? it doesn't seem right.
Quote:
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
You are trying to apply quantitative measurements to what is largely a qualitative comparison.
I disagree - A similar example would be a music company slicing a song into segments so that each chorus could be sold as a separate track in iTunes - thus letting the customer buy their favourite chorus - it's not exactly acceptable is it?
Don't get me wrong - i have nothing against Apple for doing this, I think its fantastic. Its a brave new, undiscovered medium that's starting to evolve, and Apple are one of the driving forces behind it. Its great that they have signed up new companies to ITMS, hopefully movies will be the next step. I just hope that the media companies face up to the fact the they can't rip people off just because it is a new medium.
I still laugh when I think about Steve saying that no one wants to view video on their iPods. This is going to explode into a huge new medium. All they need to do now is take the iPod video, rotate the device sideways so that you can get more real estate. Maybe through a PDA-style interface on there with a touch screen (it is the next evolutionary step, after all).
Definitely glad to see Galactica on there now. Hopefully some other classic stuff will make its way onto the music store, as some of us may not want to shell out money for the complete DVD collections but would like specific episodes.
Dumb question - is it currently possible to burn movies from the iTMS onto a DVD, in a video format rather than a data format? Or are we stuck with some sort of transcoding or other hack?
Another curiosity - how will this play into the possible new set top device (modified Mini or not)? You would almost have to have a subscription service, and be able to download new episodes automatically on your device.
For those complaining about the pricing structure you may bite your tongue. Look at what's happening in music, this is likely to eventually happen in video if its as successful. Coming next year Jobs will have to fight to keep all music at 99 cents. The music companies want to raise the price of content they deem more valuable.
I agree 6 minutes of Jay Leno for $1.99 is ridiculous. I imagine that has nothing to do with Apple, that's NBC.
Video is also where Apple should seriously look at subscription or a rental model. Unless a TV show is absolutely brilliant I'm not too likely to buy the episode as a permanent collection. But then I've never bought an entire season of any television show. I'll get them from Netflix and send them back.
Also, most people who complain about the 320 x 240 have never seen this on a tv. Tv resolution is not 720 x 480, it's 330 x 480 - if you have a good tuner. That's because tuners don't pass more that 330 lines horiz rez. Most barely get 300.
You MIGHT get better through cable, but probably not. Satellite can be even worse, with all the compression they often add.
Melgross is right you are not even seeing full NTSC on your television.
Cable actually makes it worse, because they are using MPEG 2 to compress the signal even further.
Its likely with HD boadcast they will compress the signal as much as quality control will allow to make room for as much bandwidth as they can squeeze through the pipe.
I disagree - A similar example would be a music company slicing a song into segments so that each chorus could be sold as a separate track in iTunes - thus letting the customer buy their favourite chorus - it's not exactly acceptable is it?
Naturally, this couldn't be done with a song, which is already pretty short. But it is always done with longer works. We get "The Best Of" albums all the time. But they are sold for full price. One song would be different. We also get operas being broken up, as well as symphonies, and any other long works.
So it's not unusual.
Even tv shows have famous moments, highlights. They show these on tv as specials, from time to time.
I do agree that I probably wouldn't buy one 6 minute piece for 2 bucks. what they should do is to let us choose a certain amount of them for the 2 bucks, say, three or five. That would let us compile our own hilight special. That I would do.
Thought this might be of interest. Let me know if the link doesn't work, sometimes these Forbes links only work directly, through my subscription. If so, I will post the article itself, but I don't like to do that. Make sure you get to the end of the article.
Thought this might be of interest. Let me know if the link doesn't work, sometimes these Forbes links only work directly, through my subscription. If so, I will post the article itself, but I don't like to do that. Make sure you get to the end of the article.
* Widescreen shows (BSG) cropped down to iPod-friendly keyholed format
* $1.99 per episode (sometimes more), vs. lower cost if you buy a bunch of episodes at once on DVD
* DVDs come with special features and don't take up HD space
Reasons TO buy TV shows from iTunes:
* Get it NOW, no waiting, no shipping, no driving, no shopping around
* Get it before it even IS on DVD
* Get it on your iPod--easily/automatically
* No ads (same with DVD)
* Get just ONE episode--the one you missed! (cheaper AND quicker than renting a DVD, much less buying one--and you can do it in time to keep up with the series as it continues next week)
Make your choice. I won't be buying much. But that LAST reason is the BIG one for me. I missed an episode of Galactica this fall and so I didn't want to watch the rest of the season until it comes to Netflix. I'd have gladly paid the $1.99 to keep up with the series. Quality, format, etc. don't matter so much if I'm just "keeping up."
Thought this might be of interest. Let me know if the link doesn't work, sometimes these Forbes links only work directly, through my subscription. If so, I will post the article itself, but I don't like to do that. Make sure you get to the end of the article.
Hmmm...... interesting comment from Zucker at NBC-- about how their strategy also includes making shows available as pay-per-view and as cell phone downloads.
Given that pay-per-view includes the provider subscription costs (which seem to go up every few months) and that cell phones are likely to provide a much worse viewing experience , cost more (if what they want to charge for music is any indication) and not have the computer/TV viewing options that the iPod offers, suddenly those $1.99 low res downloads look like a pretty good option.
Overall, this looks like a good (and surprising, to me anyway) development.
I will be a "customer on the verge" when Apple gets here:
1. Apple gives me a seemless, convenient, user-friendly way to get the video on my TV (iPod video need not apply).
2. Sufficient content that I could replace/eliminate my Cable TV and TiVO subscriptions (approximately $30/month). For me this includes "The West Wing", "Law & Order: Criminal Intent", "Recipe for Success", some shows for the kids (they like old "Dick van Dyke Show" and "I Love Lucy" re-runs).
"DVD Quality" is a marketing tool. There is no standard DVD quality. DVD quality is based on many factors, and all DVD's are highly compressed. Some even more than others.
DVD compression has become an art at this point. There are many different compression tools used by many different people. There is a finite amount of space on a DVD and you have to fit the entire movie, subtitles, surround sound, languages, and extras.
Varying levels of compression are used within the same movie. Scenes that have less movement, less contrast, or fine detail recieve more compression. Scenes with more of these elements recieve less compression.
A DVD with a three hour movie and extras on the same disc has been highly compressed. A three hour movie that has its own disc with extras on a second disc has had less compression. A three hour movie that spreads out over two discs has had even less compression.
The least amount of compression just even brings you closer to full NTSC resolution nothing more.
Then there is the source material the DVD is made from. DVD's made in the 90's came from the same D1 source that VHS copies were made from. A blanket level of compression was used across the entire movie. Also the same color correction used to time the theatrical print was basically used for the DVD. Film theatrical prints have an entirely different color space than NTSC television. The resultant quality was less than impressive. These DVD's are still sitting on store shelves today.
It wasn't until 2000 that DVD's were mastered from HD source material. Or specialized color correction for the DVD or discriminatory compression were used. This takes time and is costly. At that time the studios would only place that investment in movies they felt would sell really well on DVD.
It's only until very recently that it has become the norm to master almost all DVD's from HD source material. Today it is common for the film's director of photography to color correct for the DVD at the same time he/she is color timing for the theatrical print. Or for a compressionist by eye discriminately apply compression.
Sound took the same basic route. Sound in your home is entirely different from the sound in a movie theater. Only recently has it become common for studios to pay for a special sound mix for the DVD release of a film.
Over all the DVD's sitting on store shelves. They all come from different places and taken different paths. Only the most recent and of those from big studios have gone through the more expensive path of optimization.
"DVD Quality" is a marketing tool. There is no standard DVD quality. DVD quality is based on many factors, and all DVD's are highly compressed. Some even more than others.
DVD compression has become an art at this point. There are many different compression tools used by many different people. There is a finite amount of space on a DVD and you have to fit the entire movie, subtitles, surround sound, languages, and extras.
Varying levels of compression are used within the same movie. Scenes that have less movement, less contrast, or fine detail recieve more compression. Scenes with more of these elements recieve less compression.
A DVD with a three hour movie and extras on the same disc has been highly compressed. A three hour movie that has its own disc with extras on a second disc has had less compression. A three hour movie that spreads out over two discs has had even less compression.
The least amount of compression just even brings you closer to full NTSC resolution nothing more.
Then there is the source material the DVD is made from. DVD's made in the 90's came from the same D1 source that VHS copies were made from. A blanket level of compression was used across the entire movie. Also the same color correction used to time the theatrical print was basically used for the DVD. Film theatrical prints have an entirely different color space than NTSC television. The resultant quality was less than impressive. These DVD's are still sitting on store shelves today.
It wasn't until 2000 that DVD's were mastered from HD source material. Or specialized color correction for the DVD or discriminatory compression were used. This takes time and is costly. At that time the studios would only place that investment in movies they felt would sell really well on DVD.
It's only until very recently that it has become the norm to master almost all DVD's from HD source material. Today it is common for the film's director of photography to color correct for the DVD at the same time he/she is color timing for the theatrical print. Or for a compressionist by eye discriminately apply compression.
Sound took the same basic route. Sound in your home is entirely different from the sound in a movie theater. Only recently has it become common for studios to pay for a special sound mix for the DVD release of a film.
Over all the DVD's sitting on store shelves. They all come from different places and taken different paths. Only the most recent and of those from big studios have gone through the more expensive path of optimization.
Come to the meeting this Thursday at the Apple store in SoHo. At 6:00
"DVD Quality" is a marketing tool. There is no standard DVD quality. DVD quality is based on many factors, and all DVD's are highly compressed. Some even more than others.
Good points. But what we're talking about with the iPod videos is the 320x240 or so pixels. DVDs have something around four times the pixel resolution. Pixels 1/4 the size. (I know it varies--different aspect ratios etc.) Not to mention smoother motion: 60 fields per second.
Videos sold at 480x480 aren't as objectionable to me. And in any case, I'll accept 320x240 to catch an episode I missed, even if I lose some detail (vs. DVD) when I output my PowerBook to TV.
Melgross I was attempting to find a way to send you a private message. I just got to Los Angeles this weekend and am in pre production on a upcoming job. I won't be back in NY until after new years. I would like to see a schedule of your meetings.
Quote:
A fairly intelligent and good post, if it wasn't for the incorrect use of apostrophes.
School has been awhile ago but I'll try to be pay more attention to punctuation.
But what we're talking about with the iPod videos is the 320x240 or so pixels. DVDs have something around four times the pixel resolution. Pixels 1/4 the size.
Actual pixels vs perceived sharpness is more art than science.
All I'm saying is don't go strictly by the numbers. There is a lot of grey area.
Its possible to take video that's incredibly degraded by its numbers, but by your eye it looks fine.
When Sony first came out with HDCAM its true resolution is 1440x1080. Sony sold it as full 1920x1080. Due to internal sharpening its difficult to tell the difference by eye.
The difference became aparent in real world use however.
The same is done with DVD's. They are highly compressed and sharpened to hide the actual loss of color and fidelity.
Actual pixels vs perceived sharpness is more art than science.
I know what you mean, and I have no problem with people finding 320x240 acceptable at TV size. I do too--for casual "missed episode" viewing.
But I've watched 320x240 video (with otherwise high-quality compression) on TV. It was acceptable--BUT it is NOT just in people's heads that 320x240 iTunes downloads fall short of DVD quality.
Yes, DVD varies, yes there are subjective factors, and yes, numbers alone is an incomplete picture. But those factors really, truly, do NOT make iTMS downloads as good as DVD.
There are lots of reasons for that, bandwidth and download time included--and even at 320x240, these videos still have their place.
Comments
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
But two programs are rarely directly interchangeable. That is the issue. For example...I wouldn't pay a dime for 30 (22 actually) minutes of Bosom Buddies but I might pay the $1.99 for 30 (22 actually) minutes of "Seinfeld".
I think what you are saying is more a matter of taste - I too am a great fan of Seinfeld and I'm really hoping my girlfriend will buy me series 5+6 on DVD this xmas! If she doesn't then maybe I would also buy an episode for 1.99 on iTunes. However if Brasseye - another show I really like - was sold at 1.99 for a 4 minute clip I'd be rather disappointed in the media company. They both are amazing shows with intelligent scripts and loyal fans, both weigh in at 30 (22
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
If we are talking about something like oil, sugar, wheat, etc. (and even these have different grades) then a "per unit" pricing makes sense.
I'm coming round to the idea of fixed pricing, however its the brass necks of the media companies that annoy me - 1.99 an episode fine, ok, I can accept that, but chopping an episode into smaller clips to sell at 1.99??? it doesn't seem right.
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
You are trying to apply quantitative measurements to what is largely a qualitative comparison.
I disagree - A similar example would be a music company slicing a song into segments so that each chorus could be sold as a separate track in iTunes - thus letting the customer buy their favourite chorus - it's not exactly acceptable is it?
Don't get me wrong - i have nothing against Apple for doing this, I think its fantastic. Its a brave new, undiscovered medium that's starting to evolve, and Apple are one of the driving forces behind it. Its great that they have signed up new companies to ITMS, hopefully movies will be the next step. I just hope that the media companies face up to the fact the they can't rip people off just because it is a new medium.
Definitely glad to see Galactica on there now. Hopefully some other classic stuff will make its way onto the music store, as some of us may not want to shell out money for the complete DVD collections but would like specific episodes.
Dumb question - is it currently possible to burn movies from the iTMS onto a DVD, in a video format rather than a data format? Or are we stuck with some sort of transcoding or other hack?
Another curiosity - how will this play into the possible new set top device (modified Mini or not)? You would almost have to have a subscription service, and be able to download new episodes automatically on your device.
I agree 6 minutes of Jay Leno for $1.99 is ridiculous. I imagine that has nothing to do with Apple, that's NBC.
Video is also where Apple should seriously look at subscription or a rental model. Unless a TV show is absolutely brilliant I'm not too likely to buy the episode as a permanent collection. But then I've never bought an entire season of any television show. I'll get them from Netflix and send them back.
Also, most people who complain about the 320 x 240 have never seen this on a tv. Tv resolution is not 720 x 480, it's 330 x 480 - if you have a good tuner. That's because tuners don't pass more that 330 lines horiz rez. Most barely get 300.
You MIGHT get better through cable, but probably not. Satellite can be even worse, with all the compression they often add.
Melgross is right you are not even seeing full NTSC on your television.
Cable actually makes it worse, because they are using MPEG 2 to compress the signal even further.
Its likely with HD boadcast they will compress the signal as much as quality control will allow to make room for as much bandwidth as they can squeeze through the pipe.
Originally posted by ndmccormack
I disagree - A similar example would be a music company slicing a song into segments so that each chorus could be sold as a separate track in iTunes - thus letting the customer buy their favourite chorus - it's not exactly acceptable is it?
Naturally, this couldn't be done with a song, which is already pretty short. But it is always done with longer works. We get "The Best Of" albums all the time. But they are sold for full price. One song would be different. We also get operas being broken up, as well as symphonies, and any other long works.
So it's not unusual.
Even tv shows have famous moments, highlights. They show these on tv as specials, from time to time.
I do agree that I probably wouldn't buy one 6 minute piece for 2 bucks. what they should do is to let us choose a certain amount of them for the 2 bucks, say, three or five. That would let us compile our own hilight special. That I would do.
http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2005/...ap2372598.html
Originally posted by melgross
Thought this might be of interest. Let me know if the link doesn't work, sometimes these Forbes links only work directly, through my subscription. If so, I will post the article itself, but I don't like to do that. Make sure you get to the end of the article.
http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2005/...ap2372598.html
It works.
* Sub-DVD quality
* Widescreen shows (BSG) cropped down to iPod-friendly keyholed format
* $1.99 per episode (sometimes more), vs. lower cost if you buy a bunch of episodes at once on DVD
* DVDs come with special features and don't take up HD space
Reasons TO buy TV shows from iTunes:
* Get it NOW, no waiting, no shipping, no driving, no shopping around
* Get it before it even IS on DVD
* Get it on your iPod--easily/automatically
* No ads (same with DVD)
* Get just ONE episode--the one you missed! (cheaper AND quicker than renting a DVD, much less buying one--and you can do it in time to keep up with the series as it continues next week)
Make your choice. I won't be buying much. But that LAST reason is the BIG one for me. I missed an episode of Galactica this fall and so I didn't want to watch the rest of the season until it comes to Netflix. I'd have gladly paid the $1.99 to keep up with the series. Quality, format, etc. don't matter so much if I'm just "keeping up."
Originally posted by melgross
Thought this might be of interest. Let me know if the link doesn't work, sometimes these Forbes links only work directly, through my subscription. If so, I will post the article itself, but I don't like to do that. Make sure you get to the end of the article.
http://www.forbes.com/feeds/ap/2005/...ap2372598.html
Hmmm...... interesting comment from Zucker at NBC-- about how their strategy also includes making shows available as pay-per-view and as cell phone downloads.
Given that pay-per-view includes the provider subscription costs (which seem to go up every few months) and that cell phones are likely to provide a much worse viewing experience , cost more (if what they want to charge for music is any indication) and not have the computer/TV viewing options that the iPod offers, suddenly those $1.99 low res downloads look like a pretty good option.
My God, it's happening! By the end of the decade, the studios will have shut down save for server farms feeding their archives.
...and a million video podcasts (poor production value and all) shall reign.
I will be a "customer on the verge" when Apple gets here:
1. Apple gives me a seemless, convenient, user-friendly way to get the video on my TV (iPod video need not apply).
2. Sufficient content that I could replace/eliminate my Cable TV and TiVO subscriptions (approximately $30/month). For me this includes "The West Wing", "Law & Order: Criminal Intent", "Recipe for Success", some shows for the kids (they like old "Dick van Dyke Show" and "I Love Lucy" re-runs).
I think they might be there by next fall.
"DVD Quality" is a marketing tool. There is no standard DVD quality. DVD quality is based on many factors, and all DVD's are highly compressed. Some even more than others.
DVD compression has become an art at this point. There are many different compression tools used by many different people. There is a finite amount of space on a DVD and you have to fit the entire movie, subtitles, surround sound, languages, and extras.
Varying levels of compression are used within the same movie. Scenes that have less movement, less contrast, or fine detail recieve more compression. Scenes with more of these elements recieve less compression.
A DVD with a three hour movie and extras on the same disc has been highly compressed. A three hour movie that has its own disc with extras on a second disc has had less compression. A three hour movie that spreads out over two discs has had even less compression.
The least amount of compression just even brings you closer to full NTSC resolution nothing more.
Then there is the source material the DVD is made from. DVD's made in the 90's came from the same D1 source that VHS copies were made from. A blanket level of compression was used across the entire movie. Also the same color correction used to time the theatrical print was basically used for the DVD. Film theatrical prints have an entirely different color space than NTSC television. The resultant quality was less than impressive. These DVD's are still sitting on store shelves today.
It wasn't until 2000 that DVD's were mastered from HD source material. Or specialized color correction for the DVD or discriminatory compression were used. This takes time and is costly. At that time the studios would only place that investment in movies they felt would sell really well on DVD.
It's only until very recently that it has become the norm to master almost all DVD's from HD source material. Today it is common for the film's director of photography to color correct for the DVD at the same time he/she is color timing for the theatrical print. Or for a compressionist by eye discriminately apply compression.
Sound took the same basic route. Sound in your home is entirely different from the sound in a movie theater. Only recently has it become common for studios to pay for a special sound mix for the DVD release of a film.
Over all the DVD's sitting on store shelves. They all come from different places and taken different paths. Only the most recent and of those from big studios have gone through the more expensive path of optimization.
Originally posted by TenoBell
Some misunderstanding on DVD's.
"DVD Quality" is a marketing tool. There is no standard DVD quality. DVD quality is based on many factors, and all DVD's are highly compressed. Some even more than others.
DVD compression has become an art at this point. There are many different compression tools used by many different people. There is a finite amount of space on a DVD and you have to fit the entire movie, subtitles, surround sound, languages, and extras.
Varying levels of compression are used within the same movie. Scenes that have less movement, less contrast, or fine detail recieve more compression. Scenes with more of these elements recieve less compression.
A DVD with a three hour movie and extras on the same disc has been highly compressed. A three hour movie that has its own disc with extras on a second disc has had less compression. A three hour movie that spreads out over two discs has had even less compression.
The least amount of compression just even brings you closer to full NTSC resolution nothing more.
Then there is the source material the DVD is made from. DVD's made in the 90's came from the same D1 source that VHS copies were made from. A blanket level of compression was used across the entire movie. Also the same color correction used to time the theatrical print was basically used for the DVD. Film theatrical prints have an entirely different color space than NTSC television. The resultant quality was less than impressive. These DVD's are still sitting on store shelves today.
It wasn't until 2000 that DVD's were mastered from HD source material. Or specialized color correction for the DVD or discriminatory compression were used. This takes time and is costly. At that time the studios would only place that investment in movies they felt would sell really well on DVD.
It's only until very recently that it has become the norm to master almost all DVD's from HD source material. Today it is common for the film's director of photography to color correct for the DVD at the same time he/she is color timing for the theatrical print. Or for a compressionist by eye discriminately apply compression.
Sound took the same basic route. Sound in your home is entirely different from the sound in a movie theater. Only recently has it become common for studios to pay for a special sound mix for the DVD release of a film.
Over all the DVD's sitting on store shelves. They all come from different places and taken different paths. Only the most recent and of those from big studios have gone through the more expensive path of optimization.
Come to the meeting this Thursday at the Apple store in SoHo. At 6:00
Originally posted by TenoBell
"DVD Quality" is a marketing tool. There is no standard DVD quality. DVD quality is based on many factors, and all DVD's are highly compressed. Some even more than others.
Good points. But what we're talking about with the iPod videos is the 320x240 or so pixels. DVDs have something around four times the pixel resolution. Pixels 1/4 the size. (I know it varies--different aspect ratios etc.) Not to mention smoother motion: 60 fields per second.
Videos sold at 480x480 aren't as objectionable to me. And in any case, I'll accept 320x240 to catch an episode I missed, even if I lose some detail (vs. DVD) when I output my PowerBook to TV.
A fairly intelligent and good post, if it wasn't for the incorrect use of apostrophes.
School has been awhile ago but I'll try to be pay more attention to punctuation.
But what we're talking about with the iPod videos is the 320x240 or so pixels. DVDs have something around four times the pixel resolution. Pixels 1/4 the size.
Actual pixels vs perceived sharpness is more art than science.
All I'm saying is don't go strictly by the numbers. There is a lot of grey area.
Its possible to take video that's incredibly degraded by its numbers, but by your eye it looks fine.
When Sony first came out with HDCAM its true resolution is 1440x1080. Sony sold it as full 1920x1080. Due to internal sharpening its difficult to tell the difference by eye.
The difference became aparent in real world use however.
The same is done with DVD's. They are highly compressed and sharpened to hide the actual loss of color and fidelity.
Originally posted by TenoBell
Actual pixels vs perceived sharpness is more art than science.
I know what you mean, and I have no problem with people finding 320x240 acceptable at TV size. I do too--for casual "missed episode" viewing.
But I've watched 320x240 video (with otherwise high-quality compression) on TV. It was acceptable--BUT it is NOT just in people's heads that 320x240 iTunes downloads fall short of DVD quality.
Yes, DVD varies, yes there are subjective factors, and yes, numbers alone is an incomplete picture. But those factors really, truly, do NOT make iTMS downloads as good as DVD.
There are lots of reasons for that, bandwidth and download time included--and even at 320x240, these videos still have their place.
But the quality issue IS a real one.