Does that mean that WalMart wasn't afraid of Cinema Now and Unbox?
I'm sure Wal-Mart can clearly see of the three Apple has had the clearest vision about its media distribution and presentation, as well as the most effective execution.
Cinema Now nor Unbox have anything close to the iPod. Apple has aggressive plans for the future. So far we have not seen the same vision from Cinema Now or Unbox.
How is it Wal-mart has so much power, just because it sells things?
Say the rumors that it was sending Disney DVDs back are true. Now, there are millions of parents who still want to buy Disney DVDs, so they'll just go to another store that actually stocks them, like K-Mart.
And while the parents are there, they may buy baby food and $100 worth of other groceries.
Wal-mart loses the DVD sale, and the grocery sale. The studios still sell their DVDs.
Doesn't Wal-mart have more to lose from this pig-headed attitude?
I'm not sure why a movie download of lesser quality, that includes less content, and that has more restrictive consumer rights wouldn't cost less than a DVD.
Price is not based on the quality or the DRM. For one people over state the difference between 720x480 and 640x480. In the real world people cannot see the difference.
For two DVD's have DRM also, just because its DRM has been broken does not negate the fact that its against the law to break it.
The price difference between iTunes movies and DVD is in the fact that the iTunes movie is only data. The DVD has to be replicated onto a physical medium and packaged.
Studios pay for DVD media, replication, and packaging. Studios incur none of those costs with iTunes movies.
Price is not based on the quality or the DRM. For one people over state the difference between 720x480 and 640x480. In the real world people cannot see the difference.
I guess I'm not the real world. There's a significant difference between a letterboxed 640x480 video and an anamorphic 720x480 video. I quit buying non-anamorphic videos a long time ago. Most widescreen DVDs are anamorphic. Heck, the free iTunes Galactica promo didn't have very impressive video quality.
Anamorphic DVD. Come back to me when you are projecting 2K in your home then you have something to be high and mighty about.
Whether its anamorphic DVD, letterboxed DVD, digital broadcast television, iTunes movie, bittorrent. They are all extremely compressed and all have lost extreme amounts of resolution, detail and color.
Your anamorphic DVD's look like shit in comparison to the HD master it was replicated from. That HD master looks like shit in comparison to the answer print that was struck form the original negative.
From the answer print to HD master is a huge step down. From HD to DVD master is a huge step down.
Anamorphic DVD, digital broadcast, and letterbox DVD, iTunes movie are just shades of difference.
If you hook up with say Target, the people that shop there (and I'm one of them) usually are more financially sound. I'm not disrespecting anyone that shops at Wal-Mart, I'm just stating a visual and numbers fact. And like rain said in his post, most go for the cheap MP3 player and unfortunately never understand the quality of an iPod do to the price tag. I see no reason to work with a company like Wa-Mart. I just have a bad taste about that place and I feel a lot morecomfortable walking into a nice, clean Target. Maybe it's just me?
Anamorphic DVD, digital broadcast, and letterbox DVD, iTunes movie are just shades of difference.
An anamorphic DVD can hold 50% more detail than a letterboxed iTunes video for about the same price, if you take out the value of the 5.1 audio and other features.
Yes anamorphic DVD's do contain more resolution than letterboxed. I'm not denying that.
Its the best of the worst. But its not so much better that you can look your nose down at the other options as being greatly inferior.
Viewing HDCAM SR on a $14,000 Sony HD monitor puts everything in context.
I was comparing things of what I see as noticibly different quality but very similar prices. Your camara example falls well outside the similar prices bit. I would hope that a $14k camera can produce an image that's better than what you can buy on a $10 DVD, but that's not even comparing similar types of products either.
The point is to see an image that is far better brings context to the difference between two highly compressed images.
If you were able to watch an image in HDCAM SR. Watch that same image in anamorphic DVD and letter boxed DVD.
Because the first is so much better than the latter two. You see slight differences between the latter two but neither are nearly as good as the first.
The difference between anamorphic and letterbox become negligible in comparison to how much worse they both look in comparison to HDCAM SR.
The difference between anamorphic and letterbox become negligible in comparison to how much worse they both look in comparison to HDCAM SR.
I still don't see how that's relevant. I do enjoy seeing HD footage but I still think the difference between iTunes and DVD is still very noticible. Is HDsomething much better? Yes, but when it comes to a given budget, iTunes is clearly inferior to DVD.
People on these lists pertain to be such sticklers for video quality. The funny part is everything you have to compare is highly compressed and consumer quality.
While there is nothing wrong with consumer quality you have to acknowledge I'm watching consumer quality.
I work with high quality images as a profession. Whatever anyone thinks they've seen I've seen far better.
Once you've seen what Movies and TV shows look like before they are broadcast or encoded for DVD. Then you know debating which highly compressed consumer format looks better than whichever other highly compressed consumer format becomes a matter of opinion at best. Because they are both highly compressed consumer formats.
How is it Wal-mart has so much power, just because it sells things?
Say the rumors that it was sending Disney DVDs back are true. Now, there are millions of parents who still want to buy Disney DVDs, so they'll just go to another store that actually stocks them, like K-Mart.
And while the parents are there, they may buy baby food and $100 worth of other groceries.
Wal-mart loses the DVD sale, and the grocery sale. The studios still sell their DVDs.
Doesn't Wal-mart have more to lose from this pig-headed attitude?
Walmarts sales last year were $250 billion. Yes, you read it right.
While they have found that people buying a DVD buy more than other shoppers, it isn't either, or. They will lose some. But it would amount to a small percentage. But 40% of all DVD's are sold through Walmart. In many places where Walmart is, there are no other places to go to buy DVD's, or much anything else, for that matter.
I guess I'm not the real world. There's a significant difference between a letterboxed 640x480 video and an anamorphic 720x480 video. I quit buying non-anamorphic videos a long time ago. Most widescreen DVDs are anamorphic. Heck, the free iTunes Galactica promo didn't have very impressive video quality.
Jeff, I'm not quite sure what you are saying.
Widescreen DVD's are 720 (vertical) pixels, by whatever is needed for the height. 320 pixels if the ratio is 2.25 to 1. That is about the widest one gets. 16/9 would be 405.
Anamorphic requires a lens to undistort the image, and leads to LOWER quality. Remember the number of pixels is fixed. An anamorphic image would have to be stored as a 720 vertical pixel file. If you stretch that out, you are still getting 720, now stretched, pixels.
That requires a front projection unit with a reverse anamorphic lens. There is no other way to do true anamorphic production.
Likely a coupon. There is no way that a business would just give a "cut".
If it is Walmart getting money just for 'allowing' the studios sell their products, that is simply extortion and someone should look at a RICO investigation. Seriously, if a guy on a Harley came into your business and said he would allow you to sell products, so long as you give him a kickback, that is extortion.
Price is not based on the quality or the DRM. For one people over state the difference between 720x480 and 640x480. In the real world people cannot see the difference.
For two DVD's have DRM also, just because its DRM has been broken does not negate the fact that its against the law to break it.
The price difference between iTunes movies and DVD is in the fact that the iTunes movie is only data. The DVD has to be replicated onto a physical medium and packaged.
Studios pay for DVD media, replication, and packaging. Studios incur none of those costs with iTunes movies.
I'm not so much hung up on the quality difference (though there IS a difference). But the rights are significantly different, and I'm not talking about ripping DVDs. With iTunes Store music, you can always burn the music and have a CD. The quality will be lower than if you'd bought the CD straight, but you've got a CD if you lose your data, give up computers, don't want an iPod, etc. You can't do that with iTunes Store videos. You also don't have chapters (?), commentaries, or other extras that often come with DVDs.
Widescreen DVD's are 720 (vertical) pixels, by whatever is needed for the height. 320 pixels if the ratio is 2.25 to 1. That is about the widest one gets. 16/9 would be 405.
Anamorphic requires a lens to undistort the image, and leads to LOWER quality. Remember the number of pixels is fixed. An anamorphic image would have to be stored as a 720 vertical pixel file. If you stretch that out, you are still getting 720, now stretched, pixels.
Anamorphic DVD is not as close to anamorphic filming / projection as you seem to think. The concepts are similar but what you do with it is different. For one, it is very likely that if you own widescreen DVD, most of them are anamorphic DVD. A lens is not required to "fix" an anamorphic DVD image. The DVD player (software or deck) or the TV does the (un) stretching, a lens is unnecessary.
"Stretching" is done for either a 4:3 or 16:9 image. Note that assuming a DVD image had square pixels, its aspect ratio would hypothetically be 1.5:1. For a 4:3 image and non-anamorphic widescreen images on a DVD, the pixel is actually narrower than it is tall (.88:1), for widescreen images, the pixel is wider than it is tall (1.18:1). Anamorphic DVD simply makes better use of the image area for widescreen movies. A standard letterboxed 16:9 video would only use 360 scan lines but on an anamorphic DVD would use all 480 scan lines.
If it is Walmart getting money just for 'allowing' the studios sell their products, that is simply extortion and someone should look at a RICO investigation. Seriously, if a guy on a Harley came into your business and said he would allow you to sell products, so long as you give him a kickback, that is extortion.
If Walmart simply threatened to blackball Apple, by not selling any more iPods, or the movie studios, by not selling DVD's, then yes.
But, we really don't know what was said, or the context in which it was said. We don't know if what was said was said in a serious manner, or in an offhand, not really meant way.
If Apple and Walmart come to a deal, it will be better for both of them. Apple will sell more downloads with Walmart selling coupons, and Walmart will sell more iPods. The movie studios will also sell more downloads.
I'm not so much hung up on the quality difference (though there IS a difference). But the rights are significantly different, and I'm not talking about ripping DVDs. With iTunes Store music, you can always burn the music and have a CD. The quality will be lower than if you'd bought the CD straight, but you've got a CD if you lose your data, give up computers, don't want an iPod, etc. You can't do that with iTunes Store videos. You also don't have chapters (?), commentaries, or other extras that often come with DVDs.
I'm not sure about that. I believe that Apple said that not only can you back this up, but they are recommending that you do so.
What you can't do, is to burn a DVD that a stand alone DVD player will play as a DVD.
Comments
Does that mean that WalMart wasn't afraid of Cinema Now and Unbox?
I'm sure Wal-Mart can clearly see of the three Apple has had the clearest vision about its media distribution and presentation, as well as the most effective execution.
Cinema Now nor Unbox have anything close to the iPod. Apple has aggressive plans for the future. So far we have not seen the same vision from Cinema Now or Unbox.
Say the rumors that it was sending Disney DVDs back are true. Now, there are millions of parents who still want to buy Disney DVDs, so they'll just go to another store that actually stocks them, like K-Mart.
And while the parents are there, they may buy baby food and $100 worth of other groceries.
Wal-mart loses the DVD sale, and the grocery sale. The studios still sell their DVDs.
Doesn't Wal-mart have more to lose from this pig-headed attitude?
I'm not sure why a movie download of lesser quality, that includes less content, and that has more restrictive consumer rights wouldn't cost less than a DVD.
Price is not based on the quality or the DRM. For one people over state the difference between 720x480 and 640x480. In the real world people cannot see the difference.
For two DVD's have DRM also, just because its DRM has been broken does not negate the fact that its against the law to break it.
The price difference between iTunes movies and DVD is in the fact that the iTunes movie is only data. The DVD has to be replicated onto a physical medium and packaged.
Studios pay for DVD media, replication, and packaging. Studios incur none of those costs with iTunes movies.
Price is not based on the quality or the DRM. For one people over state the difference between 720x480 and 640x480. In the real world people cannot see the difference.
I guess I'm not the real world. There's a significant difference between a letterboxed 640x480 video and an anamorphic 720x480 video. I quit buying non-anamorphic videos a long time ago. Most widescreen DVDs are anamorphic. Heck, the free iTunes Galactica promo didn't have very impressive video quality.
Whether its anamorphic DVD, letterboxed DVD, digital broadcast television, iTunes movie, bittorrent. They are all extremely compressed and all have lost extreme amounts of resolution, detail and color.
Your anamorphic DVD's look like shit in comparison to the HD master it was replicated from. That HD master looks like shit in comparison to the answer print that was struck form the original negative.
From the answer print to HD master is a huge step down. From HD to DVD master is a huge step down.
Anamorphic DVD, digital broadcast, and letterbox DVD, iTunes movie are just shades of difference.
Anamorphic DVD, digital broadcast, and letterbox DVD, iTunes movie are just shades of difference.
An anamorphic DVD can hold 50% more detail than a letterboxed iTunes video for about the same price, if you take out the value of the 5.1 audio and other features.
Its the best of the worst. But its not so much better that you can look your nose down at the other options as being greatly inferior.
Viewing HDCAM SR on a $14,000 Sony HD monitor puts everything in context.
Yes anamorphic DVD's do contain more resolution than letterboxed. I'm not denying that.
Its the best of the worst. But its not so much better that you can look your nose down at the other options as being greatly inferior.
Viewing HDCAM SR on a $14,000 Sony HD monitor puts everything in context.
I was comparing things of what I see as noticibly different quality but very similar prices. Your camara example falls well outside the similar prices bit. I would hope that a $14k camera can produce an image that's better than what you can buy on a $10 DVD, but that's not even comparing similar types of products either.
If you were able to watch an image in HDCAM SR. Watch that same image in anamorphic DVD and letter boxed DVD.
Because the first is so much better than the latter two. You see slight differences between the latter two but neither are nearly as good as the first.
The difference between anamorphic and letterbox become negligible in comparison to how much worse they both look in comparison to HDCAM SR.
The difference between anamorphic and letterbox become negligible in comparison to how much worse they both look in comparison to HDCAM SR.
I still don't see how that's relevant. I do enjoy seeing HD footage but I still think the difference between iTunes and DVD is still very noticible. Is HDsomething much better? Yes, but when it comes to a given budget, iTunes is clearly inferior to DVD.
While there is nothing wrong with consumer quality you have to acknowledge I'm watching consumer quality.
I work with high quality images as a profession. Whatever anyone thinks they've seen I've seen far better.
Once you've seen what Movies and TV shows look like before they are broadcast or encoded for DVD. Then you know debating which highly compressed consumer format looks better than whichever other highly compressed consumer format becomes a matter of opinion at best. Because they are both highly compressed consumer formats.
iTunes is clearly inferior to DVD.
You certainly are free to your opinion.
How is it Wal-mart has so much power, just because it sells things?
Say the rumors that it was sending Disney DVDs back are true. Now, there are millions of parents who still want to buy Disney DVDs, so they'll just go to another store that actually stocks them, like K-Mart.
And while the parents are there, they may buy baby food and $100 worth of other groceries.
Wal-mart loses the DVD sale, and the grocery sale. The studios still sell their DVDs.
Doesn't Wal-mart have more to lose from this pig-headed attitude?
Walmarts sales last year were $250 billion. Yes, you read it right.
While they have found that people buying a DVD buy more than other shoppers, it isn't either, or. They will lose some. But it would amount to a small percentage. But 40% of all DVD's are sold through Walmart. In many places where Walmart is, there are no other places to go to buy DVD's, or much anything else, for that matter.
The movie industry has far more to lose.
I guess I'm not the real world. There's a significant difference between a letterboxed 640x480 video and an anamorphic 720x480 video. I quit buying non-anamorphic videos a long time ago. Most widescreen DVDs are anamorphic. Heck, the free iTunes Galactica promo didn't have very impressive video quality.
Jeff, I'm not quite sure what you are saying.
Widescreen DVD's are 720 (vertical) pixels, by whatever is needed for the height. 320 pixels if the ratio is 2.25 to 1. That is about the widest one gets. 16/9 would be 405.
Anamorphic requires a lens to undistort the image, and leads to LOWER quality. Remember the number of pixels is fixed. An anamorphic image would have to be stored as a 720 vertical pixel file. If you stretch that out, you are still getting 720, now stretched, pixels.
That requires a front projection unit with a reverse anamorphic lens. There is no other way to do true anamorphic production.
Likely a coupon. There is no way that a business would just give a "cut".
If it is Walmart getting money just for 'allowing' the studios sell their products, that is simply extortion and someone should look at a RICO investigation. Seriously, if a guy on a Harley came into your business and said he would allow you to sell products, so long as you give him a kickback, that is extortion.
Price is not based on the quality or the DRM. For one people over state the difference between 720x480 and 640x480. In the real world people cannot see the difference.
For two DVD's have DRM also, just because its DRM has been broken does not negate the fact that its against the law to break it.
The price difference between iTunes movies and DVD is in the fact that the iTunes movie is only data. The DVD has to be replicated onto a physical medium and packaged.
Studios pay for DVD media, replication, and packaging. Studios incur none of those costs with iTunes movies.
I'm not so much hung up on the quality difference (though there IS a difference). But the rights are significantly different, and I'm not talking about ripping DVDs. With iTunes Store music, you can always burn the music and have a CD. The quality will be lower than if you'd bought the CD straight, but you've got a CD if you lose your data, give up computers, don't want an iPod, etc. You can't do that with iTunes Store videos. You also don't have chapters (?), commentaries, or other extras that often come with DVDs.
Jeff, I'm not quite sure what you are saying.
Widescreen DVD's are 720 (vertical) pixels, by whatever is needed for the height. 320 pixels if the ratio is 2.25 to 1. That is about the widest one gets. 16/9 would be 405.
Anamorphic requires a lens to undistort the image, and leads to LOWER quality. Remember the number of pixels is fixed. An anamorphic image would have to be stored as a 720 vertical pixel file. If you stretch that out, you are still getting 720, now stretched, pixels.
Anamorphic DVD is not as close to anamorphic filming / projection as you seem to think. The concepts are similar but what you do with it is different. For one, it is very likely that if you own widescreen DVD, most of them are anamorphic DVD. A lens is not required to "fix" an anamorphic DVD image. The DVD player (software or deck) or the TV does the (un) stretching, a lens is unnecessary.
"Stretching" is done for either a 4:3 or 16:9 image. Note that assuming a DVD image had square pixels, its aspect ratio would hypothetically be 1.5:1. For a 4:3 image and non-anamorphic widescreen images on a DVD, the pixel is actually narrower than it is tall (.88:1), for widescreen images, the pixel is wider than it is tall (1.18:1). Anamorphic DVD simply makes better use of the image area for widescreen movies. A standard letterboxed 16:9 video would only use 360 scan lines but on an anamorphic DVD would use all 480 scan lines.
You also don't have chapters (?), commentaries, or other extras that often come with DVDs.
Another forum member said that the movie they bought had chapters.
If it is Walmart getting money just for 'allowing' the studios sell their products, that is simply extortion and someone should look at a RICO investigation. Seriously, if a guy on a Harley came into your business and said he would allow you to sell products, so long as you give him a kickback, that is extortion.
If Walmart simply threatened to blackball Apple, by not selling any more iPods, or the movie studios, by not selling DVD's, then yes.
But, we really don't know what was said, or the context in which it was said. We don't know if what was said was said in a serious manner, or in an offhand, not really meant way.
If Apple and Walmart come to a deal, it will be better for both of them. Apple will sell more downloads with Walmart selling coupons, and Walmart will sell more iPods. The movie studios will also sell more downloads.
Everyone will be happy.
I'm not so much hung up on the quality difference (though there IS a difference). But the rights are significantly different, and I'm not talking about ripping DVDs. With iTunes Store music, you can always burn the music and have a CD. The quality will be lower than if you'd bought the CD straight, but you've got a CD if you lose your data, give up computers, don't want an iPod, etc. You can't do that with iTunes Store videos. You also don't have chapters (?), commentaries, or other extras that often come with DVDs.
I'm not sure about that. I believe that Apple said that not only can you back this up, but they are recommending that you do so.
What you can't do, is to burn a DVD that a stand alone DVD player will play as a DVD.