So what? There probably won't be a consumer digital format available for quite some time that won't be "viciously compressed", so for most people, that particular type of comparison simply won't arise.
We're all so used to H.264, MPEG-2 and XVID/DIVX, heh. Just as snow and haze was the go during analog standard def TV, "digital blockiness" is this decade's digital video signature.
A 720x576 PAL DVD or 720x480 NTSC DVD overall gives 414,720 and 345,600 total pixels available. (Not all is used even in anamorphic encoding of DVDs).
If the movie is 16:9, then an anamorphic encoding does use all of the 720x480/720x576 pixels. It's only if the movie is left at its original aspect ratio (1.85:1 or 2.39:1) that not all of the pixels can be used.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sunilraman
Can we confirm then that 640x360 means you are getting cropped versions, that is, 16:9 versions of movies that are 2.39:1 at the theatre?
I've not heard whether iTunes movies have black bars or not. I think they give you 16:9 versions of the films.
If the movie is 16:9, then an anamorphic encoding does use all of the 720x480/720x576 pixels. It's only if the movie is left at its original aspect ratio (1.85:1 or 2.39:1) that not all of the pixels can be used.
Yes. I was referring to the original 1.85:1 or 2.39:1 aspect ratios as practically no major movies are shot at 16:9. 8)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. H
I've not heard whether iTunes movies have black bars or not. I think they give you 16:9 versions of the films.
I am certain there are no black bars actually encoded into the iTunes Movie file. They don't have to encode any black bar parts, that's just a waste of data 8). But hmm... looks like they could be giving us 16:9 versions of the films, 640x360 pixels.
So technically that's another disadvantage compared to anamorphic DVDs which give you a wider, clearer picture on your high-def TV.
Those poor cinematographers... just a few months after their work is released on the big screen in glorious widescreen 1.85 or 2.39 aspect ratios, it's chopped to 16:9 (1.777etc : 1) aspect ratios for the salivating hordes that are the iTunes Moviegoers. Heh. iTunes Moviegoers.
New ad #1:
Dude with dirty sweatshirt, no date, popcorn fakebutter stains on pants (at least, that's what it looks like. heh), walks in - "Hi, I'm a cinema moviegoer".
Cool dude with hot but slightly alternative chick - "Hi, we're iTunes moviegoers".
[something something insert idea here]
New ad #2:
Dude with dirty sweatshirt, walks in, looks more frazzled this time - "Hi, I'm a... "
Cool couple on couch - "Shh... the movie's already started..."
Dude with dirty sweatshirt looks to the back - "F*cking parking!!"
Audience background sound - "Shhhhh..!!!"
New ad #3:
Dude with dirty sweatshirt - eating popcorn, watching movie,
Dude with dirty sweatshirt stumbles into cool couple on couch. "Hi, I'm a DVD renter"
Cool couple - "Hi again, we're iTunes Movie buyers".
Dude's sweatshirt is kinda ripped up.
Cool couple - "Hey, what happened to you?"
Dude: "Oh man, it was hell just trying to get that last copy of Pirates of the Caribbean 2 (Dead Man's Chest) at the rental place".
Cool couple - "Hey, we got it right here on iTunes, wanna join in?"
Dude: stumbles around a bit, looks somewhat lost, bangs his forhead with his palm: "aarhg, damn, I got to return that copy of... uh... The Little Mermaid, I think it's ... ah, damn... overdue....." ...stumbles away...
Yeah, it's kinda raw and there's way too much swearing but the ideas out there now. AAPL, you have my address for those sweet royalty checks when you air these ads...!! BITCHES!!!
I kinda pitched* the idea to Steve, we'll see if he takes it on board...
*By this I mean staking out his house all night, following him to work, and then shouting at him from across the road as he drives into the Apple campus.
We're all so used to H.264, MPEG-2 and XVID/DIVX, heh. Just as snow and haze was the go during analog standard def TV, "digital blockiness" is this decade's digital video signature.
I still prefer analog PAL SVHS video to DVD. Some DVD's I can sit and watch the colour graduations and artifacting in walls behind characters or watch as their eyes move but their skin doesn't.
At least with a decent VHS copy it's just soft and mildly blurry instead of sharp and graduated.
Of course, when I point this out to people that are watching with me they
a) can't see it
b) are delusional about the quality because "it's digital" isn't it so therefore can't be worse.
I still don't know how anyone watched the low bandwidth early digital TV crap we had here in the UK. Unwatchable. Wasn't helped by being commercial Sky crap too mind, converted badly from NTSC.
It's a major effort for me to detune my vision to watch bad digital output. I've a feeling that Apple's iTV device will be something I'll detest if it's goal is showing iTunes content and Google/YouTube content.
So what? There probably won't be a consumer digital format available for quite some time that won't be "viciously compressed", so for most people, that particular type of comparison simply won't arise.
My point is about context. All you have for context is various consumer quality formats and claim to be so picky. You really don't know what great quality looks like to be so picky. After you really have seen great quality anything less is just less.
There may be a slightly better less but less just the same.
My point is about context. All you have for context is various consumer quality formats and claim to be so picky. You really don't know what great quality looks like to be so picky. After you really have seen great quality anything less is just less.
My point is that your particular context is completely irrelevant because it doesn't exist at all in the consumer market. Kind of like comparing a bicycle to a Soyuz capsule, as far as I'm concerned.
My point is that your particular context is completely irrelevant because it doesn't exist at all in the consumer market. Kind of like comparing a bicycle to a Soyuz capsule, as far as I'm concerned.
True that. 99.999% of the public hasn't seen the master, so why even bring it up?
It's like telling people that all mid-fi audio rack systems sound the same, because once you've heard a Linn Sondek turntable playing into some Mark Levinson amps through Apogee speakers, everything else sounds like sheeite.
Maybe it sorta does, but 99.9% of the public does not have a $25,000 home audio system, so its pretty much pointless to make the comparison.
Here are some recent quotes from professional people in film and television about broadcast and internet compression, iTunes movies, and the iPod.
These are words from people who make the movies and television you watch.
Quote:
Most of the time broadcasters receive a tape. In the case of movies that HBO receives either D5 or HDCAM SR. Most of the networks are transitioning and investing in HDCAM SR. HBO like most other networks takes tapes it receives and captures them into a video server usually using some flavor of MPEG compression.
Quote:
For any recent programs, the source for the DVD or internet movie download (Apple iTunes) is exactly the same as for the original broadcast. And the broadcast master went through a 1U rack mount MPEG-2 encoder with a latency of about two seconds and a price tag of about $15,000. The DVD and internet download went through a quarter million dollar Hitachi encoder which has an air-conditioned machine room all to itself. The internet movie has gone through MPEG-4 compression. Even if the bitrates were the same, which they aren't, the DVD and internet movie will still look better.
Quote:
Current HD TV looks like garbage because of how many times it gets recompressed. DVCRPRO HD and HDCAM original footage looks pristine, water falls don't look blocky, sports doesn't break up etc... Problem is after they capture that pristine footage in a mpeg on a video server then they compress again to broadcast it then the cable and sat company receive on their equipment and recompresses it again to mpeg to fit in their bandwidth allocation system (most digital sat systems do variable bit rate encoding and monitor all channels and allocate bandwidth to channels that need it the most at the time, ie. lots of motion, detail etc..)
Quote:
I downloaded Kanye West's Diamonds of Sierra Leone (2.40 b&w shot in Paris) at 640x480 resolution and it looks stunning.
Quote:
??you're already getting a highly compressed image on your DVDs and over digital cable. I haven't bought any of the new iTunes content yet, but I'd be surprised if watching, say, a music video compressed as an MP4 at 640x480 resolution isn't actually higher quality than the profoundly crappy picture I get on (some of) my SD digital channels through Cablevision.
Quote:
I bought one as soon as they came out. Never had much use for an iPod UNTIL it came with video. I've put most of my commercials, all music videos, different versions of my reel, and trailers on it. It is a perfect sales tool for me because I always carry my work around with me. I also use it for phone contacts and calendar.
I've begun to encode all of my work in 640x480 MPEG 4, but use Apple's Compression Codec because I can get a much cleaner image. When I plug it into a TV and play my work from it for people, it looks just about as good as a DVD.
Can't tell you how many people I've had meetings with lately that have been glad I brought it because I can show them a style they're talking about that may not be on my reel. I can't say enough about it. In fact, I know 3 people who bought after seeing my work on mine.
And if it were just about movie sales, I think they'd be less anxious about giving it up. However, Target and Walmart can't get the same effect by moving to digitial downloads (even though there should be larger profit margins and less waste there), since they make a lot of extra money from people coming in the store to get DVD's at the lowest prices, then buying more while they're in the store.
Unfortunately, this makes for a situation where the interests of retailers and consumer are not at all in line.
Well I hope Target wins so us consumers will see better DVD prices. Or just stick it to the studios for trying to stick consumers with that Broadcast Flag garbage.
Comments
So what? There probably won't be a consumer digital format available for quite some time that won't be "viciously compressed", so for most people, that particular type of comparison simply won't arise.
We're all so used to H.264, MPEG-2 and XVID/DIVX, heh. Just as snow and haze was the go during analog standard def TV, "digital blockiness" is this decade's digital video signature.
A 720x576 PAL DVD or 720x480 NTSC DVD overall gives 414,720 and 345,600 total pixels available. (Not all is used even in anamorphic encoding of DVDs).
If the movie is 16:9, then an anamorphic encoding does use all of the 720x480/720x576 pixels. It's only if the movie is left at its original aspect ratio (1.85:1 or 2.39:1) that not all of the pixels can be used.
Can we confirm then that 640x360 means you are getting cropped versions, that is, 16:9 versions of movies that are 2.39:1 at the theatre?
I've not heard whether iTunes movies have black bars or not. I think they give you 16:9 versions of the films.
If the movie is 16:9, then an anamorphic encoding does use all of the 720x480/720x576 pixels. It's only if the movie is left at its original aspect ratio (1.85:1 or 2.39:1) that not all of the pixels can be used.
Yes. I was referring to the original 1.85:1 or 2.39:1 aspect ratios as practically no major movies are shot at 16:9. 8)
I've not heard whether iTunes movies have black bars or not. I think they give you 16:9 versions of the films.
I am certain there are no black bars actually encoded into the iTunes Movie file. They don't have to encode any black bar parts, that's just a waste of data 8). But hmm... looks like they could be giving us 16:9 versions of the films, 640x360 pixels.
So technically that's another disadvantage compared to anamorphic DVDs which give you a wider, clearer picture on your high-def TV.
Those poor cinematographers... just a few months after their work is released on the big screen in glorious widescreen 1.85 or 2.39 aspect ratios, it's chopped to 16:9 (1.777etc : 1) aspect ratios for the salivating hordes that are the iTunes Moviegoers. Heh. iTunes Moviegoers.
New ad #1:
Dude with dirty sweatshirt, no date, popcorn fakebutter stains on pants (at least, that's what it looks like. heh), walks in - "Hi, I'm a cinema moviegoer".
Cool dude with hot but slightly alternative chick - "Hi, we're iTunes moviegoers".
[something something insert idea here]
New ad #2:
Dude with dirty sweatshirt, walks in, looks more frazzled this time - "Hi, I'm a... "
Cool couple on couch - "Shh... the movie's already started..."
Dude with dirty sweatshirt looks to the back - "F*cking parking!!"
Audience background sound - "Shhhhh..!!!"
New ad #3:
Dude with dirty sweatshirt - eating popcorn, watching movie,
looks slightly uncomfortable.
Split screen:
Cool couple - eating popcorn, watching movie, looking relaxed and lovey.
Dude with dirty sweatshirt - "Oh man I really gotta go to the bathroom"
Cool couple - pauses movie with FrontRow, guy or girl gets up to go to the bathroom.
Dude with dirty sweatshirt - zoom in on him, he looks really uncomfortable for a while,
then slowly, looks relaxed.
Heh. Yeah these ideas are real raw but the potential's there for a Mac dude - PC dude thing.
New ad #4
Dude with dirty sweatshirt stumbles into cool couple on couch. "Hi, I'm a DVD renter"
Cool couple - "Hi again, we're iTunes Movie buyers".
Dude's sweatshirt is kinda ripped up.
Cool couple - "Hey, what happened to you?"
Dude: "Oh man, it was hell just trying to get that last copy of Pirates of the Caribbean 2 (Dead Man's Chest) at the rental place".
Cool couple - "Hey, we got it right here on iTunes, wanna join in?"
Dude: stumbles around a bit, looks somewhat lost, bangs his forhead with his palm: "aarhg, damn, I got to return that copy of... uh... The Little Mermaid, I think it's ... ah, damn... overdue....." ...stumbles away...
Yeah, it's kinda raw and there's way too much swearing but the ideas out there now. AAPL, you have my address for those sweet royalty checks when you air these ads...!! BITCHES!!!
............
............
*By this I mean staking out his house all night, following him to work, and then shouting at him from across the road as he drives into the Apple campus.
We're all so used to H.264, MPEG-2 and XVID/DIVX, heh. Just as snow and haze was the go during analog standard def TV, "digital blockiness" is this decade's digital video signature.
I still prefer analog PAL SVHS video to DVD. Some DVD's I can sit and watch the colour graduations and artifacting in walls behind characters or watch as their eyes move but their skin doesn't.
At least with a decent VHS copy it's just soft and mildly blurry instead of sharp and graduated.
Of course, when I point this out to people that are watching with me they
a) can't see it
b) are delusional about the quality because "it's digital" isn't it so therefore can't be worse.
I still don't know how anyone watched the low bandwidth early digital TV crap we had here in the UK. Unwatchable. Wasn't helped by being commercial Sky crap too mind, converted badly from NTSC.
It's a major effort for me to detune my vision to watch bad digital output. I've a feeling that Apple's iTV device will be something I'll detest if it's goal is showing iTunes content and Google/YouTube content.
practically no major movies are shot at 16:9.
I know that. But they are often cropped to 16:9 for DVD, and now iTunes.
DVD's and digital cable are also viscously compressed. At MPEG 2 on top of it. You just don't know what it looked like before to compare it to.
Sure. But at least DVDs look pretty good on computer screens and HDTVs, most of the time.
iTunes downloads, at current compression levels, do not.
.
So what? There probably won't be a consumer digital format available for quite some time that won't be "viciously compressed", so for most people, that particular type of comparison simply won't arise.
My point is about context. All you have for context is various consumer quality formats and claim to be so picky. You really don't know what great quality looks like to be so picky. After you really have seen great quality anything less is just less.
There may be a slightly better less but less just the same.
My point is about context. All you have for context is various consumer quality formats and claim to be so picky. You really don't know what great quality looks like to be so picky. After you really have seen great quality anything less is just less.
My point is that your particular context is completely irrelevant because it doesn't exist at all in the consumer market. Kind of like comparing a bicycle to a Soyuz capsule, as far as I'm concerned.
My point is that your particular context is completely irrelevant because it doesn't exist at all in the consumer market. Kind of like comparing a bicycle to a Soyuz capsule, as far as I'm concerned.
True that. 99.999% of the public hasn't seen the master, so why even bring it up?
It's like telling people that all mid-fi audio rack systems sound the same, because once you've heard a Linn Sondek turntable playing into some Mark Levinson amps through Apogee speakers, everything else sounds like sheeite.
Maybe it sorta does, but 99.9% of the public does not have a $25,000 home audio system, so its pretty much pointless to make the comparison.
These are words from people who make the movies and television you watch.
Most of the time broadcasters receive a tape. In the case of movies that HBO receives either D5 or HDCAM SR. Most of the networks are transitioning and investing in HDCAM SR. HBO like most other networks takes tapes it receives and captures them into a video server usually using some flavor of MPEG compression.
For any recent programs, the source for the DVD or internet movie download (Apple iTunes) is exactly the same as for the original broadcast. And the broadcast master went through a 1U rack mount MPEG-2 encoder with a latency of about two seconds and a price tag of about $15,000. The DVD and internet download went through a quarter million dollar Hitachi encoder which has an air-conditioned machine room all to itself. The internet movie has gone through MPEG-4 compression. Even if the bitrates were the same, which they aren't, the DVD and internet movie will still look better.
Current HD TV looks like garbage because of how many times it gets recompressed. DVCRPRO HD and HDCAM original footage looks pristine, water falls don't look blocky, sports doesn't break up etc... Problem is after they capture that pristine footage in a mpeg on a video server then they compress again to broadcast it then the cable and sat company receive on their equipment and recompresses it again to mpeg to fit in their bandwidth allocation system (most digital sat systems do variable bit rate encoding and monitor all channels and allocate bandwidth to channels that need it the most at the time, ie. lots of motion, detail etc..)
I downloaded Kanye West's Diamonds of Sierra Leone (2.40 b&w shot in Paris) at 640x480 resolution and it looks stunning.
??you're already getting a highly compressed image on your DVDs and over digital cable. I haven't bought any of the new iTunes content yet, but I'd be surprised if watching, say, a music video compressed as an MP4 at 640x480 resolution isn't actually higher quality than the profoundly crappy picture I get on (some of) my SD digital channels through Cablevision.
I bought one as soon as they came out. Never had much use for an iPod UNTIL it came with video. I've put most of my commercials, all music videos, different versions of my reel, and trailers on it. It is a perfect sales tool for me because I always carry my work around with me. I also use it for phone contacts and calendar.
I've begun to encode all of my work in 640x480 MPEG 4, but use Apple's Compression Codec because I can get a much cleaner image. When I plug it into a TV and play my work from it for people, it looks just about as good as a DVD.
Can't tell you how many people I've had meetings with lately that have been glad I brought it because I can show them a style they're talking about that may not be on my reel. I can't say enough about it. In fact, I know 3 people who bought after seeing my work on mine.
And if it were just about movie sales, I think they'd be less anxious about giving it up. However, Target and Walmart can't get the same effect by moving to digitial downloads (even though there should be larger profit margins and less waste there), since they make a lot of extra money from people coming in the store to get DVD's at the lowest prices, then buying more while they're in the store.
Unfortunately, this makes for a situation where the interests of retailers and consumer are not at all in line.
Well I hope Target wins so us consumers will see better DVD prices. Or just stick it to the studios for trying to stick consumers with that Broadcast Flag garbage.