I have mixed feeling about it. On one hand I wanted to see a new widescreen ipod with touch screen and everything. But on the other I'm happy that my 5G iPod is still current, so long as it plays the new 640x480 content from the iTS, which it sounds like it will.
The iTV thing sounds great. I'd love to see the video of it in action later on and no doubt Apple will improve upon it before releasing it. Not even the name was final, but the price was, so at least we know it's coming, what it's all about and what it will cost. I'm curious if it has a hard drive in it though and if you need a computer for it to work or if it will work on it's own. Can someone clarify?
Overall you can't expect the world, Apple really showed some great stuff.
The only thing that disappoints me is the cost of the movies and the lack or a rental and/or subscription plan. I'm not going to buy 640x480 movies at that price. Sorry Apple.
I'm not going to buy 640x480 movies at that price. Sorry Apple.
I thought it was just me. I'm thinking just like you. I'm now anxious to see HD DVD and Blue Ray disk players hit the market as well as the movies in that format. I'd rather just spend the extra money on that.
DVD is stored interlaced right? Theoretically, if apple masters the h.264 from something better than a DVD, they should look better than DVDs. Granted, not quite as much horizontal resolution, but a newer and more aggressive codec in addition to progressive scan ought to make them look pretty good.
THe one thing about iTV that I relly think needs to happen is that Apple just showed some of it's features, and when they give it the full announcment we see more. Like PVR features, and things like that.
Wow, that's unacceptable. That's worse than the quality most Bittorrented bootlegs run at.
I don't know about that. They tend to be Xvid or Divx because H264 encoding is so slow. If you put Divx/Xvid up beside H264 then you can see that H264 is noticeably better quality and the resolution difference is that between 4:3 and 16:9, which to most isn't noticeable. I agree that 640x480 is a stupid format to use though because original DVDs and movies are shot in widescreen. Does that mean on the ipod display you're going to get about 1/3 of the screen as black bars?
In that case, it would've made more sense to introduce a widescreen ipod (720x404?) and encode all the movies at that resolution. What I don't get is why they don't make a screen that is 404x720 and have a slightly smaller click-wheel at the bottom. This way for games, photos and playlists, you get the advantage of a tall screen and for movies, you turn it on its side to get widescreen.
I'm disappointed to say the least about the new iPods
You have to keep it in context. Your imagination can create something that is technically and economically impossible to mass manufacture at the right price point.
As long as Apple keeps raking in billions I'm sure they can live with the disappointment of the few.
Quote:
On one hand I wanted to see a new widescreen ipod with touch screen and everything.
Such as this I'm sure Apple experimented with something like this. No one makes anything like this so it most likely doesn't work. Its probably too expensive to sell, a larger screen means battery life is poor, or too fragile for everyday use.
Quote:
I'm not going to buy 640x480 movies at that price. Sorry Apple.
On American broadcast television that is what you are watching.
Quote:
DVD is stored interlaced right?
Pretty much only if the video source was interlaced, movies are progressive.
Quote:
That's worse than the quality most Bittorrented bootlegs run at.
Oh please. If those quality starved Bittorent movies are your benchmark for HD, you have no idea what real HD looks like.
OK, but, this is pretty much DVD res. Slightly lower, but on a SD set I'd wager the visible difference will be minimal, since an SD set can't display the full DVD frame anyway.
Most people still have SD sets. Pretty much everybody rents and buys movies in a format that has to letterbox widescreen material for SD sets and scales up same, either via the player or the display, for HD sets.
So what's the beef? Since when did all this become pathetic and unacceptable? Did BlueRay or HDDVD players become ubiquitous while I wasn't looking so that this represents some kind of giant step back in what we have become accustomed to? Am I going to able to buy a Blue Ray title for $9.99?
Why the expectation of 720p? DVDs are 480i native, and get line doubled to 480p by the player or the display.
Yes, we have HD cable and satellite, and no, these items are not for sale. DVDs are for sale, and this new sales medium comes close to matching them, so..... I can't see where res is a big issue.
Portability and price seem like the more likely points of contention.
Comments
The iTV thing sounds great. I'd love to see the video of it in action later on and no doubt Apple will improve upon it before releasing it. Not even the name was final, but the price was, so at least we know it's coming, what it's all about and what it will cost. I'm curious if it has a hard drive in it though and if you need a computer for it to work or if it will work on it's own. Can someone clarify?
Overall you can't expect the world, Apple really showed some great stuff.
The only thing that disappoints me is the cost of the movies and the lack or a rental and/or subscription plan. I'm not going to buy 640x480 movies at that price. Sorry Apple.
I'm not going to buy 640x480 movies at that price. Sorry Apple.
I thought it was just me. I'm thinking just like you. I'm now anxious to see HD DVD and Blue Ray disk players hit the market as well as the movies in that format. I'd rather just spend the extra money on that.
DVD is stored interlaced right? Theoretically, if apple masters the h.264 from something better than a DVD, they should look better than DVDs. Granted, not quite as much horizontal resolution, but a newer and more aggressive codec in addition to progressive scan ought to make them look pretty good.
Off to download one now and see...
and for that money i'll get the real DVD instead
Wow, that's unacceptable. That's worse than the quality most Bittorrented bootlegs run at.
I don't know about that. They tend to be Xvid or Divx because H264 encoding is so slow. If you put Divx/Xvid up beside H264 then you can see that H264 is noticeably better quality and the resolution difference is that between 4:3 and 16:9, which to most isn't noticeable. I agree that 640x480 is a stupid format to use though because original DVDs and movies are shot in widescreen. Does that mean on the ipod display you're going to get about 1/3 of the screen as black bars?
In that case, it would've made more sense to introduce a widescreen ipod (720x404?) and encode all the movies at that resolution. What I don't get is why they don't make a screen that is 404x720 and have a slightly smaller click-wheel at the bottom. This way for games, photos and playlists, you get the advantage of a tall screen and for movies, you turn it on its side to get widescreen.
I'm disappointed to say the least about the new iPods
You have to keep it in context. Your imagination can create something that is technically and economically impossible to mass manufacture at the right price point.
As long as Apple keeps raking in billions I'm sure they can live with the disappointment of the few.
On one hand I wanted to see a new widescreen ipod with touch screen and everything.
Such as this I'm sure Apple experimented with something like this. No one makes anything like this so it most likely doesn't work. Its probably too expensive to sell, a larger screen means battery life is poor, or too fragile for everyday use.
I'm not going to buy 640x480 movies at that price. Sorry Apple.
On American broadcast television that is what you are watching.
DVD is stored interlaced right?
Pretty much only if the video source was interlaced, movies are progressive.
That's worse than the quality most Bittorrented bootlegs run at.
Oh please. If those quality starved Bittorent movies are your benchmark for HD, you have no idea what real HD looks like.
Oh please. If those quality starved Bittorent movies are your benchmark for HD, you have no idea what real HD looks like.
Yeah, you sort of just proved my point? Xvid-encoded BT movies are shit and these would appear to be lower or marginally better quality.
Yeah, you sort of just proved my point? Xvid-encoded BT movies are shit and these would appear to be lower or marginally better quality.
"Lower or marginally better?" Did you get dropped on your head?
Flip to page 437, and we see that, yes, I can both estimate something to be a little higher or a little lower than a predefined standard! Fuck yes!
Flip to page 437, and we see that, yes, I can both estimate something to be a little higher or a little lower than a predefined standard! Fuck yes!
Kudos. Seriously.
Kudos. Seriously.
OK, but, this is pretty much DVD res. Slightly lower, but on a SD set I'd wager the visible difference will be minimal, since an SD set can't display the full DVD frame anyway.
Most people still have SD sets. Pretty much everybody rents and buys movies in a format that has to letterbox widescreen material for SD sets and scales up same, either via the player or the display, for HD sets.
So what's the beef? Since when did all this become pathetic and unacceptable? Did BlueRay or HDDVD players become ubiquitous while I wasn't looking so that this represents some kind of giant step back in what we have become accustomed to? Am I going to able to buy a Blue Ray title for $9.99?
Why the expectation of 720p? DVDs are 480i native, and get line doubled to 480p by the player or the display.
Yes, we have HD cable and satellite, and no, these items are not for sale. DVDs are for sale, and this new sales medium comes close to matching them, so..... I can't see where res is a big issue.
Portability and price seem like the more likely points of contention.