2. iPod video - 40/80GB with some flash included $299/$399 (only a maybe on the larger touch screen)
3. iTunes 7.0. Free.
4. iTunes Movies - purchase only, $9.99/$14.99; higher res equal to or a tad below DVD quality.
5. Front Row upgrade. Free.
6. 23" iMac HD with Core 2 Duo - for those who'd watch on a gorgeous computer screen. $1999. Other iMacs also upgraded to Core 2 Duo.
7. Maybe: Mac mini Core Solo EOL. 1.83 GHz Core Duo for $599. 2 GHz for $799. Low price of entry.
8. The one more thing will be for those who want to watch on a TV: the Airport-type device connected to your TV/entertainment center for wireless streaming from a Mac with decompression and decoding, and for receiving the remote control inputs for the Front Row app displayed on the TV. Comes with remote control. Device possibly called Showtime. $199. (This might be one of the neat devices that Intel referred to.)
Except for the iPod nanos, all the above announcements are tied to "Showtime".
As for the others, I think:
- the MBP upgrade is simply announced Sep 19 or 26 when available for shipping.
- the iPhone will come at another special event next month. Different focus.
- movie rentals will come in January. Satisfy some, and keep people wanting more.
Get ready to hear lots of disappointment because Apple won't announce the things that many people still want and expect.
Most people don't care much about quality. As long as they have the movie, they are happy.
You're crazy, cause for watching a movie I though most people did actually care alot about quality. Why do people buy HD TV's if they don't care about quality then?
I would be willing to bet that most people are happy with, or at least put up with, the current video quality because that is what is available and they are watching it on iPods or on their computer monitors and not on TV's. Video size is going to need to be at least DVD quality when they release a hardware component that is designed for viewing the video on TV's.
The quality is about the same as VHS, which people put up with in the billions, for decades, except that it doesn't have video lines, smeary color, and noise. Most people,still don't have Tv's that are much better than they were ten years ago.
On my 65" 1080p set they don't look good no matter what I do. But on my older 32" XBR, they do, once they are rez'd up somewhat.
I'm not calling for 320 x 240 here. I'm just telling the truth about the market, which is not the same as the people here (and even many of those find it to be ok).
My take is that this should be DVD quality.
If it is HD, then 720p would be most likely.
Look at the facts. This has to play on a large number of customers screens. Most customers do NOT have HD Tv's. Most of those who do, have 720p.
The download time of 720p is half that of 1080p.
Broadcast HD is almost all 720p. Thousands of movies, and Tv shows, sports, etc. are already encoded to 720p.
Unless it has changed, HD-DVD is 1080i, not p. Only Blu-Ray is 1080p. There won't be more than a few thousand of both units sold by the end of the year.
It's been determined that 720p and 1080i appear to have about the same visual quality.
There are almost no 1080p sets sold as yet, and won't be for some time, even though a fair number of new ones have just come out. Those are at the high end of the price structure.
Most HD sets are either 720 x 1280, or 768 x 1368, or 1024 x 1280.
None gain any benefit from 1080p, or even i.
So, my thoughts are that if this is of a higher quality than what has been offered, then it is most likely DVD (720 x 480i), or just maybe, 720p.
Apple could surprise us, of course, but there doesn't seem to be much of a market for anything higher right now, and there might not be for another 3 to 5 years.
You're crazy, cause for watching a movie I though most people did actually care alot about quality. Why do people buy HD TV's if they don't care about quality then?
I agree if there is any kind of integration here by Apple (between iTunes movie downloads and the newest unicorn, the 23" iMac) they'll have to offer HD, or minimally, DVD quality movies. They couldn't hope to compete with regular DVD sales otherwise.
Incidentally, I'm actually not expecting anything more than iTunes movie downloads announcement for this next event. All the talk about iPhone seems very unlikely. When's the last time Steve said... "Oh, and two more things...".
But it is still misleading to call it HDTV if you are going to drop the quality down (probably below SDTV levels).
That's a complex situation. Please see my post above.
High definition means that it has a higher rez, and better overall quality than standard fare. How much better? Satellite offers HD, but from what I've seen, it's terrible. Cable is better, but has its own problems. they both compress the hell out of the signals, particularly Satellite. Artifacts are common. But they are both HD.
That's a complex situation. Please see my post above.
High definition means that it has a higher rez, and better overall quality than standard fare. How much better? Satellite offers HD, but from what I've seen, it's terrible. Cable is better, but has its own problems. they both compress the hell out of the signals, particularly Satellite. Artifacts are common. But they are both HD.
So, what do you think?
So, according to your definition, you could upsample the output of a VHS player and call it HDTV?
You're crazy, cause for watching a movie I though most people did actually care alot about quality. Why do people buy HD TV's if they don't care about quality then?
you're speaking for yourself. As I mentioned, people here tend to care more.
But, over the years I've gone into people's homes with green, or purple faces on the screen, and they were perfectly happy.
VHS sucked, but people were perfectly happy.
People coming into my company for re-prints would bring photo that were way too dark, or had the colors way off. When I asked if I could make it better, they were startled. They thought they were fine. Then they would ask if it would cost more. I would say that it was easier to make it better than to look like that.
Sometimes they didn't want me to do it, because they were used to it!
Don't say I'm crazy. This is the way it is.
Very few people, as yet, buy HD Tv's. Many people buy the older, cheaper rear projection sstandard rez models. Look it up yourself.
So, according to your definition, you could upsample the output of a VHS player and call it HDTV?
Of course not. Where did you get that?
It has to start as an HD format.
But, on both my 65" hp, and my 24" crt Sony computer monitor, DVD rez'd up to 1080p does look very good. Not as good as native HD, but good. That's because it has started out as a pretty good quality file. VHS was very bad. There isn't anything you can do with that. I've tried in FCP, and using other software designed for that purpose, but you just magnify the defects.
Anyone who thinks they will offer movie downloads at anything less then DVD quality is crazy. So lets just dismiss that whole idea right now. Nobody (not even Apple) could command $15 for a 90 minute VHS quality video in this day and age. Especially since they already sell 45 minute TV episodes at that quality for only $1.99.
I have a feeling, like the guy above, that it will be 720p video. Afterall Apple has to offer something more if they are to sell at that price when brand new DVD's can be bought for $5-20 with packaging a special features.
At $15 for a movie in 720p I would buy it from the Apple media store. Especially if they gave me a good way to watch it on my computer or put it on my TV. But $15 for a DVD quality video, no thanks. I'll just got to the store.
Not just myself. I know plenty of people that care about movie quality too.
I know people who care as well. But, most people don't.
It's like iTunes music files. Most of us here, agree that they aren't very good. I can't listen to them over my audio system.
But Apple has sold well over a billion of them. To many people here as well.
Who are buying these low quality video's off Apple's and others sites?
By now, Apple must have sold over 40 million.
I would never want to watch a movie at that quality level, but DVD quality, which, by the way, is what billions of people watch very happily, would be fine for the vast majority of people.
Anyone who thinks they will offer movie downloads at anything less then DVD quality is crazy. So lets just dismiss that whole idea right now. Nobody (not even Apple) could command $15 for a 90 minute VHS quality video in this day and age. Especially since they already sell 45 minute TV episodes at that quality for only $1.99.
I have a feeling, like the guy above, that it will be 720p video. Afterall Apple has to offer something more if they are to sell at that price when brand new DVD's can be bought for $5-20 with packaging a special features.
At $15 for a movie in 720p I would buy it from the Apple media store. Especially if they gave me a good way to watch it on my computer or put it on my TV. But $15 for a DVD quality video, no thanks. I'll just got to the store.
This brings up another point. The deal with iTunes is you can burn up to 5 CDs, right? How many DVDs will you be allowed to burn with iTunes+Movies? Just the one? Maybe two?
Comments
They should last for more than 20 years. It's the RW's that are unreliable over that time period.
Ah, yes. You are correct. Thanks for clearing that up.
Nope, sorry. MPEG-4 is a pretty aggressive encoding format, and here are the sizes of movies on HD-DVD using that format:
[..]
If you are encoding a HDTV movie down to 2 GB, then you are losing a lot of quality.
Is that part 3, or part 10 (i.e., H.264)?
1. iPod nanos - colors, metallic case, 2/6/12GB $149/$199/$249
2. iPod video - 40/80GB with some flash included $299/$399 (only a maybe on the larger touch screen)
3. iTunes 7.0. Free.
4. iTunes Movies - purchase only, $9.99/$14.99; higher res equal to or a tad below DVD quality.
5. Front Row upgrade. Free.
6. 23" iMac HD with Core 2 Duo - for those who'd watch on a gorgeous computer screen. $1999. Other iMacs also upgraded to Core 2 Duo.
7. Maybe: Mac mini Core Solo EOL. 1.83 GHz Core Duo for $599. 2 GHz for $799. Low price of entry.
8. The one more thing will be for those who want to watch on a TV: the Airport-type device connected to your TV/entertainment center for wireless streaming from a Mac with decompression and decoding, and for receiving the remote control inputs for the Front Row app displayed on the TV. Comes with remote control. Device possibly called Showtime. $199. (This might be one of the neat devices that Intel referred to.)
Except for the iPod nanos, all the above announcements are tied to "Showtime".
As for the others, I think:
- the MBP upgrade is simply announced Sep 19 or 26 when available for shipping.
- the iPhone will come at another special event next month. Different focus.
- movie rentals will come in January. Satisfy some, and keep people wanting more.
Get ready to hear lots of disappointment because Apple won't announce the things that many people still want and expect.
Most people don't care much about quality. As long as they have the movie, they are happy.
You're crazy, cause for watching a movie I though most people did actually care alot about quality. Why do people buy HD TV's if they don't care about quality then?
I would be willing to bet that most people are happy with, or at least put up with, the current video quality because that is what is available and they are watching it on iPods or on their computer monitors and not on TV's. Video size is going to need to be at least DVD quality when they release a hardware component that is designed for viewing the video on TV's.
The quality is about the same as VHS, which people put up with in the billions, for decades, except that it doesn't have video lines, smeary color, and noise. Most people,still don't have Tv's that are much better than they were ten years ago.
On my 65" 1080p set they don't look good no matter what I do. But on my older 32" XBR, they do, once they are rez'd up somewhat.
I'm not calling for 320 x 240 here. I'm just telling the truth about the market, which is not the same as the people here (and even many of those find it to be ok).
My take is that this should be DVD quality.
If it is HD, then 720p would be most likely.
Look at the facts. This has to play on a large number of customers screens. Most customers do NOT have HD Tv's. Most of those who do, have 720p.
The download time of 720p is half that of 1080p.
Broadcast HD is almost all 720p. Thousands of movies, and Tv shows, sports, etc. are already encoded to 720p.
Unless it has changed, HD-DVD is 1080i, not p. Only Blu-Ray is 1080p. There won't be more than a few thousand of both units sold by the end of the year.
It's been determined that 720p and 1080i appear to have about the same visual quality.
There are almost no 1080p sets sold as yet, and won't be for some time, even though a fair number of new ones have just come out. Those are at the high end of the price structure.
Most HD sets are either 720 x 1280, or 768 x 1368, or 1024 x 1280.
None gain any benefit from 1080p, or even i.
So, my thoughts are that if this is of a higher quality than what has been offered, then it is most likely DVD (720 x 480i), or just maybe, 720p.
Apple could surprise us, of course, but there doesn't seem to be much of a market for anything higher right now, and there might not be for another 3 to 5 years.
You're crazy, cause for watching a movie I though most people did actually care alot about quality. Why do people buy HD TV's if they don't care about quality then?
I agree if there is any kind of integration here by Apple (between iTunes movie downloads and the newest unicorn, the 23" iMac) they'll have to offer HD, or minimally, DVD quality movies. They couldn't hope to compete with regular DVD sales otherwise.
Incidentally, I'm actually not expecting anything more than iTunes movie downloads announcement for this next event. All the talk about iPhone seems very unlikely. When's the last time Steve said... "Oh, and two more things...".
But it is still misleading to call it HDTV if you are going to drop the quality down (probably below SDTV levels).
That's a complex situation. Please see my post above.
High definition means that it has a higher rez, and better overall quality than standard fare. How much better? Satellite offers HD, but from what I've seen, it's terrible. Cable is better, but has its own problems. they both compress the hell out of the signals, particularly Satellite. Artifacts are common. But they are both HD.
So, what do you think?
Then again... Jobs could always use this forum to announce he's stepping down and Ron Popeil will be the new Apfel übermensch. Showtime, baby!
Oh, that's very good!
That's a complex situation. Please see my post above.
High definition means that it has a higher rez, and better overall quality than standard fare. How much better? Satellite offers HD, but from what I've seen, it's terrible. Cable is better, but has its own problems. they both compress the hell out of the signals, particularly Satellite. Artifacts are common. But they are both HD.
So, what do you think?
So, according to your definition, you could upsample the output of a VHS player and call it HDTV?
You're crazy, cause for watching a movie I though most people did actually care alot about quality. Why do people buy HD TV's if they don't care about quality then?
you're speaking for yourself. As I mentioned, people here tend to care more.
But, over the years I've gone into people's homes with green, or purple faces on the screen, and they were perfectly happy.
VHS sucked, but people were perfectly happy.
People coming into my company for re-prints would bring photo that were way too dark, or had the colors way off. When I asked if I could make it better, they were startled. They thought they were fine. Then they would ask if it would cost more. I would say that it was easier to make it better than to look like that.
Sometimes they didn't want me to do it, because they were used to it!
Don't say I'm crazy. This is the way it is.
Very few people, as yet, buy HD Tv's. Many people buy the older, cheaper rear projection sstandard rez models. Look it up yourself.
Option 1. DVD Quality $9.99
Option 2. HD Quality $14.99 (probably 720p)
These options would be great, and would please most of the people.
you're speaking for yourself.
Not just myself. I know plenty of people that care about movie quality too.
So, according to your definition, you could upsample the output of a VHS player and call it HDTV?
Of course not. Where did you get that?
It has to start as an HD format.
But, on both my 65" hp, and my 24" crt Sony computer monitor, DVD rez'd up to 1080p does look very good. Not as good as native HD, but good. That's because it has started out as a pretty good quality file. VHS was very bad. There isn't anything you can do with that. I've tried in FCP, and using other software designed for that purpose, but you just magnify the defects.
I have a feeling, like the guy above, that it will be 720p video. Afterall Apple has to offer something more if they are to sell at that price when brand new DVD's can be bought for $5-20 with packaging a special features.
At $15 for a movie in 720p I would buy it from the Apple media store. Especially if they gave me a good way to watch it on my computer or put it on my TV. But $15 for a DVD quality video, no thanks. I'll just got to the store.
Not just myself. I know plenty of people that care about movie quality too.
I know people who care as well. But, most people don't.
It's like iTunes music files. Most of us here, agree that they aren't very good. I can't listen to them over my audio system.
But Apple has sold well over a billion of them. To many people here as well.
Who are buying these low quality video's off Apple's and others sites?
By now, Apple must have sold over 40 million.
I would never want to watch a movie at that quality level, but DVD quality, which, by the way, is what billions of people watch very happily, would be fine for the vast majority of people.
Not just myself. I know plenty of people that care about movie quality too.
You just happen to be a quality guy!
Does Apple license Pixar's pixlet compression algorithm?
Apple designed, and coded the Pixlet algorithm.
Anyone who thinks they will offer movie downloads at anything less then DVD quality is crazy. So lets just dismiss that whole idea right now. Nobody (not even Apple) could command $15 for a 90 minute VHS quality video in this day and age. Especially since they already sell 45 minute TV episodes at that quality for only $1.99.
I have a feeling, like the guy above, that it will be 720p video. Afterall Apple has to offer something more if they are to sell at that price when brand new DVD's can be bought for $5-20 with packaging a special features.
At $15 for a movie in 720p I would buy it from the Apple media store. Especially if they gave me a good way to watch it on my computer or put it on my TV. But $15 for a DVD quality video, no thanks. I'll just got to the store.
This brings up another point. The deal with iTunes is you can burn up to 5 CDs, right? How many DVDs will you be allowed to burn with iTunes+Movies? Just the one? Maybe two?