Will these adapters work with 480p? If I recall correctly I had to set my Mac Mini to Interlace in order to used the S-Video adapter.
It's isn't the physical adapter that we need to worry about. The metal and plastic needed to change the shape of a plug and location of pins is dirt cheap. All of the potentially useful physical adapters already exist and are relatively cheap.
What remains to be seen is if the AppleTV video hardware and drivers support the various output types people desire. Apple's spec sheets don't indicate support but this omission isn't conclusive.
I think what he means is that the Apple TV hardware doesn't support SDTV.
Yep, that's part of it. I was specifically addressing Mel's seemingly contradictory comment:
Quote:
Now that iTunes offers video quality that is more than good enough for the vast majority, remembering that most people still do not have a widescreen, hi def. set, ?
If, as he's claiming, "most people still do not have a widescreen, hi def. set" why is it even relevant "that iTunes offers video quality that is more than good enough for the vast majority" if Apple TV is incompatible with their existing SDTV (480i) sets according to the current specifications on Apple's site?
In that context I don't see the correlation between iTunes video quality and Apple TV being compatible (or not) with any particular type of TV. The "vast majority" or "most people" with SDTV won't be able to use ATV at all, period. And I don't understand why certain Apple reps have been telling people that ATV is compatible with their "standard" TVs.
Hopefully that makes it clearer why I questioned Mel's remark.
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross
We don't know if it upscales all video or not. We don't k ow what it does to SD proportions, etc.
Even if one does need a widescreen Tv, the rest of the argument holds.
But we do know what the published specs say and that's what my comments are based on. For sake of further discussion let's say we don't ignore them? (the specs, that is; you can ignore my comments if you want to. )
Although my ~3-year-old TV has component video input the manual explicitly says it doesn't support a progressive scan frequency and to switch any attached DVD player to interlace mode. That's been a non-issue with my older Pioneer DVD changer since it doesn't have progressive output.
AFAWK (again, based on published specs) Apple TV can't be "switched" to output 480i and I have no idea if there's some sort of adaptor/converter that can do it. Or, alternatively, somehow make a 480i SDTV compatible with ATV's 480p EDTV specification. Either way, would that be sufficient to satisfy ATV's "widescreen" requirement? None of that seems promising to me but maybe someone else here understands the technical details enough to know for sure what is/isn't possible. The most recent posts seem to already be heading in that direction ?
AFAWK (again, based on published specs) Apple TV can't be "switched" to output 480i and I have no idea if there's some sort of adaptor/converter that can do it. Or, alternatively, somehow make a 480i SDTV compatible with ATV's 480p EDTV specification. Either way, would that be sufficient to satisfy ATV's "widescreen" requirement? None of that seems promising to me but maybe someone else here understands the technical details enough to know for sure what is/isn't possible. The most recent posts seem to already be heading in that direction ?
sjk, I think we have the same issue with the Apple TV. No SDTV support. Now others say as it not yet a shipping product that it might yet do 480i. I'm not putting any hope in this. Cause if it does support 480i why isn't Apple saying so. That feature would be in the chip set they are buying which is already in place.
I think there will be a lot of screams when this starts arriving in peoples hands and they find that it won't work with their component capable, but interlace only, TVs.
It's these analog connections I've been looking at. And what I think will be the problem is interlace and progressive. Those adapters will probably work with an interlaced input but not with a progressive input. I have a DVD player that has 480i/p component and s-video outputs. The s-video output displays a picture when the player is set for interlace. It does not display a picture when progressive is selected.
And if it was this easy then why am I returning an A/V receiver I just bought. The sells people said that it could do all the conversions I wanted. But its manual explicitly stated that it will not down convert component (analog inputs) to s-video/composite. It will cross convert s-video and composite, and it will up convert s-video/composite to component. If it is as easy as you think, why wasn't the capability put in there?
Component outputs can be combined into an S-Video output. As I said, the adapter is more expensive. It can also be turned into composite, same way. S-Video can be turned into composite, no problem.
Component output is USUALLY interlace. S-Video is always interlace.
Remember, we're talking about Tv output, not computer output.
Honestly, the specs Apple gives for the AppleTv are incomplete. Sometimes Apple will say that something is required, but it turns out to be not so.
For example, the real specs for the component output are not stated.
I have a lot of experience in these matters, and I can only go by what I know.
But, really, we won't find out until these get into the hands of the reviewers, or tech sites.
Yep, that's part of it. I was specifically addressing Mel's seemingly contradictory comment:
If, as he's claiming, "most people still do not have a widescreen, hi def. set" why is it even relevant "that iTunes offers video quality that is more than good enough for the vast majority" if Apple TV is incompatible with their existing SDTV (480i) sets according to the current specifications on Apple's site?
In that context I don't see the correlation between iTunes video quality and Apple TV being compatible (or not) with any particular type of TV. The "vast majority" or "most people" with SDTV won't be able to use ATV at all, period. And I don't understand why certain Apple reps have been telling people that ATV is compatible with their "standard" TVs.
Hopefully that makes it clearer why I questioned Mel's remark.
But we do know what the published specs say and that's what my comments are based on. For sake of further discussion let's say we don't ignore them? (the specs, that is; you can ignore my comments if you want to. )
Although my ~3-year-old TV has component video input the manual explicitly says it doesn't support a progressive scan frequency and to switch any attached DVD player to interlace mode. That's been a non-issue with my older Pioneer DVD changer since it doesn't have progressive output.
AFAWK (again, based on published specs) Apple TV can't be "switched" to output 480i and I have no idea if there's some sort of adaptor/converter that can do it. Or, alternatively, somehow make a 480i SDTV compatible with ATV's 480p EDTV specification. Either way, would that be sufficient to satisfy ATV's "widescreen" requirement? None of that seems promising to me but maybe someone else here understands the technical details enough to know for sure what is/isn't possible. The most recent posts seem to already be heading in that direction ?
What I've saying is that Apple doesn't always publish complete, or even true specs. Component makes me think that this DOES support SD, even though they are hinting that it does not.
Adapters can convert "p" into "i", but they are expensive.
sjk, I think we have the same issue with the Apple TV. No SDTV support. Now others say as it not yet a shipping product that it might yet do 480i. I'm not putting any hope in this. Cause if it does support 480i why isn't Apple saying so. That feature would be in the chip set they are buying which is already in place.
I think there will be a lot of screams when this starts arriving in peoples hands and they find that it won't work with their component capable, but interlace only, TVs.
Apple IS saying that it will only support "p" when they give supported Tv formats, but it may not be entirely true.
It could be that the HDMI only supports "p", but the component supports SD, and they are glossing over that.
There could be a good reason for that.
Apple has been sued more than once for not supporting something that they stated that they supported.
If Apple is intending to have 720p downloads soon, they wouldn't be playable at full rez on an SD set. Lawsuit ensues.
People try to download hi def "p" movie trailers and shorts from Apple's site, and it either doesn't work, or again, looks bad. Lawsuir ensues.
Remember the bruhaha about 801.11n? Did Apple mention it was there? No! Why?
sjk, I think we have the same issue with the Apple TV. No SDTV support.
That's correct.
Quote:
Now others say as it not yet a shipping product that it might yet do 480i. I'm not putting any hope in this. Cause if it does support 480i why isn't Apple saying so. That feature would be in the chip set they are buying which is already in place.
Is it possible 480i might be supported in the hardware, disabled by default but technically feasible to enable? Similar to how the 802.11n enabler will activate 802.11n in supporting hardware, for lack of a better analogy. Obviously all the ATV hardware components aren't exactly known yet; I'm just wondering if disabled 480i support and reactivation makes sense technically.
Quote:
I think there will be a lot of screams when this starts arriving in peoples hands and they find that it won't work with their component capable, but interlace only, TVs.
Uh, huh. And I've already speculated a similar thing could happen with iTunes-compatible content that ATV won't support, added to iTunes libraries before and/or after ATV's purchase. It doesn't take much imagination to see how such scenarios might occur. Less of an impact than if the iPod didn't support MP3, but still possibly significant.
Oh, I just noticed Mel showed up before I'd finished this so nothing I've written is intentionally related to what he's written.
Component outputs can be combined into an S-Video output. As I said, the adapter is more expensive. It can also be turned into composite, same way. S-Video can be turned into composite, no problem.
Component output is USUALLY interlace. S-Video is always interlace.
Remember, we're talking about Tv output, not computer output.
I thought we were talking about TV input compatibility with Apple TV output.
Quote:
Honestly, the specs Apple gives for the AppleTv are incomplete. Sometimes Apple will say that something is required, but it turns out to be not so.
What would it take to satisfy your definition of complete? Right now that's all Apple's given us to work with (plus the keynote demo) so that's my baseline for this discussion. I'm aware they omit certain details from specs, for whatever reason.
Quote:
For example, the real specs for the component output are not stated.
In what way are they incomplete and is that genuinely or speculatively relevant to the SDTV/480i compatibility issue?
My questions are sincere, btw.
Quote:
I have a lot of experience in these matters, and I can only go by what I know.
I've included the published ATV specs because that's the only official reference point myself and many other potential buyers have to go by right now.
Quote:
But, really, we won't find out until these get into the hands of the reviewers, or tech sites.
Of course. And I've been hoping you'd see that I'd just like to best understand the feasibility of certain things to whatever extent that's currently possible within boundaries I've tried to clearly establish. I've intentionally omitted reasons for doing this pre-shipping research, which I wouldn't be pursuing now if it didn't matter.
What I've saying is that Apple doesn't always publish complete, or even true specs. Component makes me think that this DOES support SD, even though they are hinting that it does not.
And that's still an unknown, regardless of what you or I or anyone else thinks.
Quote:
Adapters can convert "p" into "i", but they are expensive.
Surely less expensive than any new ATV-compatible widescreen EDTV/HDTV?
I'm completely unfamiliar with those type of adaptors so any reference(s) would be appreciated.
I thought we were talking about TV input compatibility with Apple TV output.
AppleTv output is Tv monitor input. That's what you mean, isn't it?
Quote:
What would it take to satisfy your definition of complete? Right now that's all Apple's given us to work with (plus the keynote demo) so that's my baseline for this discussion. I'm aware they omit certain details from specs, for whatever reason.
Complete would detail all of the resolutions the device is capable of outputting, through ALL of its outputs, at what frequencies. Alternatively, they could list the min, and the max, stating that all in between values are supported (or not, as the case may be), at which frequencies.
That is the way we see them stated on video equipment, video cards, and computer monitors.
Apple gives less than minimal specs. They aren't even specs as industry standards go. Saying what Tv's you "need" is not stating specs, neither is the way they present the resolutions. They are supposed to break out those specs for each output, as I've said.
Quote:
In what way are they incomplete and is that genuinely or speculatively relevant to the SDTV/480i compatibility issue?
See above, and yes, they are.
Quote:
My questions are sincere, btw.
If I didn't think they were, I wouldn't bother to answer. I've gone down that road here before.
Quote:
I've included the published ATV specs because that's the only official reference point myself and many other potential buyers have to go by right now.
They are the only thing we have to go by right now. That's the problem.
But, I could get this to work with any monitor, regardless of the specs. It just depends on how much you want to spend, and why you would want to do it.
Quote:
Of course. And I've been hoping you'd see that I'd just like to best understand the feasibility of certain things to whatever extent that's currently possible within boundaries I've tried to clearly establish. I've intentionally omitted reasons for doing this pre-shipping research, which I wouldn't be pursuing now if it didn't matter.
I do see. We're all in the same boat on this. Your reasons can be kept to yourself. The mere fact that you have questions is enough.
And that's still an unknown, regardless of what you or I or anyone else thinks.
Well, yes, that's part of what I'm saying.
Quote:
Surely less expensive than any new ATV-compatible widescreen EDTV/HDTV?
I'm completely unfamiliar with those type of adaptors so any reference(s) would be appreciated.
Yes, less expensive. Perhaps you see why people might be interested, at least, until they decide to spend the big bucks. But, these can cost as much as the AppleTv, or more, depending on the quality.
Check here. It's the CV131A Component to NTSC. I don't remember offhand if that model is S-Video or composite. But, there are others.
Apple IS saying that it will only support "p" when they give supported Tv formats, but it may not be entirely true.
It could be that the HDMI only supports "p", but the component supports SD, and they are glossing over that.
That's the kind of speculation I'm trying to minimize.
Quote:
There could be a good reason for that.
<?examples snipped?>
I understand that and your possible scenarios.
Quote:
Remember the bruhaha about 801.11n? Did Apple mention it was there? No! Why?
Yes. No. Because.
I've always realized the possibility of ATV hardware/software having more features than Apple's publicly announced us so far. I'm just interested in culling information from the published specs, pretending it's true while being aware it might be incomplete or inaccurate, and applying it to relevant issues such as SDTV (in)compatibility.
That's the kind of speculation I'm trying to minimize.
I understand that and your possible scenarios.
Yes. No. Because.
I've always realized the possibility of ATV hardware/software having more features than Apple's publicly announced us so far. I'm just interested in culling information from the published specs, pretending it's true while being aware it might be incomplete or inaccurate, and applying it to relevant issues such as SDTV (in)compatibility.
We are really on the same wavelength here (heh, appropriate for the discussion).
They are the only thing we have to go by right now. That's the problem.
No problem, just an acknowledged constraint.
Yeah, I see what you mean about how vague and general the specs are. They're intended as "good enough" for the mainstream market. Other folks will need, or have interest in, the kind of information from field testing or covered in more detailed product or repair manuals.
Quote:
But, I could get this to work with any monitor, regardless of the specs. It just depends on how much you want to spend, and why you would want to do it.
That's a possibility I*was seeking to understand, thanks. Now I get how there could be quality/expensive factors that would make it impractical for this application. And thanks for the links in your next post.
I'm satisfied for now and it's a good place to stop since I'm leaving soon for the evening so my time here's short anyway.
From where I sit, AppleTV is a good product for the people for which it's intended; those people with fairly new TVs who are buying TV shows and movies from the iTunes Store.
What I don't get, is the stated specification that AppleTV outputs 720P. What 720P, from where? Except for a few movie trailers, I don't know of any legal MP4 content available at such high resolution. So, while I think AppleTV is a good box, the video available at the iTunes Store is not.
It seems unlikely, since Apple only recently upgraded the resolution of the TV shows at the store, that they'd be planning another upgrade soon. What's available there now is pretty poor. When comparing a purchased iTS TV show to a TV show from a DVD, the difference is startling. And, the DVD show can be ripped (illegally) to a smaller file size than the same show from iTS and it will still look much better! What gives?
From where I sit, AppleTV is a good product for the people for which it's intended; those people with fairly new TVs who are buying TV shows and movies from the iTunes Store.
That's the intent. To build a market for themselves out of people buying content from iTunes, and then streaming it to their Tv.
Quote:
What I don't get, is the stated specification that AppleTV outputs 720P. What 720P, from where? Except for a few movie trailers, I don't know of any legal MP4 content available at such high resolution. So, while I think AppleTV is a good box, the video available at the iTunes Store is not.
The output is not only to 720p. It's also listed as working with EDTV, which is 854 x 480p. But, it could have a built-in scaler, which will bring the content up to 720p (or possibly even 1080i, as that's mentioned), if the Tv can deliver that.
Quote:
It seems unlikely, since Apple only recently upgraded the resolution of the TV shows at the store, that they'd be planning another upgrade soon. What's available there now is pretty poor. When comparing a purchased iTS TV show to a TV show from a DVD, the difference is startling. And, the DVD show can be ripped (illegally) to a smaller file size than the same show from iTS and it will still look much better! What gives?
I have a 65" 1080p Hp DLP. I have found that the difference between Apple's iTunes movie content and the actual DVD to be small, most of the time. It's not the difference in rez that matters (basically, there is none, for most purposes), but the transcoding. This is not done by Apple. Just as many DVD's are much worse than the actual movie, so can Apple's content be.
I'm not willing to make a blank statement about thew quality, because I've only compared about a dozen films so far, and that's enough for me to buy for test purposes. I haven't tried any Paramount films.
If you've ripped a (already compressed) DVD, and it looks better than iTunes content, then something is wrong. Possibly, your subjectivity is getting in the way.
The output is not only to 720p. It's also listed as working with EDTV, which is 854 x 480p. But, it could have a built-in scaler, which will bring the content up to 720p (or possibly even 1080i, as that's mentioned), if the Tv can deliver that.
The resolution of iTS TV shows is 640x480. Tell me how you can scale 480 up to 720 and retain the same quality. It can't be done. Resolution is fixed; not scaleable as some people believe.
Quote:
Originally Posted by melgross
If you've ripped a (already compressed) DVD, and it looks better than iTunes content, then something is wrong. Possibly, your subjectivity is getting in the way.
I agree, it seems like something must be wrong. I experimented with an episode from the second season of "Lost" of which I own the DVD. I purchased the episode from iTS after the resolution upgrade announcement in August. Then I ripped the same episode from my DVD for comparison. The ripped file looks far, far superior. Details such as people and trees on the beach in the distance are much sharper in the ripped DVD file. This is the case even though the iTS file is about 500MB and the ripped file is 350MB. Perhaps only that "Lost" episode is of particularly bad quality on iTS. I haven't felt like wasting money comparing any others.
The resolution of iTS TV shows is 640x480. Tell me how you can scale 480 up to 720 and retain the same quality. It can't be done. Resolution is fixed; not scaleable as some people believe.
No, it's not that simple. Rez is not fixed.There are (so far) 18 different standards in digital Tv, any of them can be converted (and are!) into any of the others. Proportion CAN be fixed, but even that is often changed. If you've ever used PS, or another program, that allows you to interpolate up and down, you know how this is done.
Case in point. Many widescreen Tv's automatically widen 4:3 to 16:9 by widening the edges of the content while leaving the middle third, or so, untouched. Most people actually prefer that. You concentrate on that middle, but your peripheral vision doesn't pick the distortion up, unless you look for it.
You can scale to any point, up or down. This is being done all the time. I'm surprised you don't know this!
Look at the specs for almost any DVD player capable of "p" output. You will see that they will scale SD DVD's to 720p or 1080i. The more expensive models will even go to 1080p.
The widescreen Tv's themselves will scale SD to the native rez as well.
Check that out.
When I watch a DVD on my Mac, through my Sony 24" crt, at 1920 x 1080p, scaling is involved. Despite what some say, it looks great!
You can buy scalers separately, if you wish. They go from about $300 to $50,000, depending on what the scaling factor must be, and the quality needed.
Quote:
I agree, it seems like something must be wrong. I experimented with an episode from the second season of "Lost" of which I own the DVD. I purchased the episode from iTS after the resolution upgrade announcement in August. Then I ripped the same episode from my DVD for comparison. The ripped file looks far, far superior. Details such as people and trees on the beach in the distance are much sharper in the ripped DVD file. This is the case even though the iTS file is about 500MB and the ripped file is 350MB. Perhaps only that "Lost" episode is of particularly bad quality on iTS. I haven't felt like wasting money comparing any others.
It's odd. But there can be reasons for it.
Tv's have a sharpening control. When these controls are set to the middle, so that one side says "softer", and the other says "sharper", one is led to believe that the center position is set of "none". Not so. "None" is almost all the way to the end of "softer". On my Sony 36" XBR, it turns it off alltogether. Similarly on my Hp 65" 1080p model. When you do that, the "video" appearance of the content changes to a more film-like look. Not as sharp, but far more natural. Many people prefer the sharp, hard edges. I don't.
I bring this up because it's very likely when you are doing the transcending from the already compressed, sharpened, file on DVD, the program is not only re-compressing, but giving it additional sharpening to overcome the natural degradation that occurs from any compression.
Now you have double compression, and sharpening over sharpening. As most companies believe (correctly) that most consumers are not sophisticated enough to understand that less sharpening is actually better, and want the sharpest image possible, the sharpening applied is rather high. Often it is not adjustable. They may not even mention that is is being done! Why worry you with little things like that?
That, as well as our unconscious desires, affect what what we see, and think we see.
Case in point. Many widescreen Tv's automatically widen 4:3 to 16:9 by widening the edges of the content while leaving the middle third, or so, untouched. Most people actually prefer that. You concentrate on that middle, but your peripheral vision doesn't pick the distortion up, unless you look for it.
You can scale to any point, up or down. This is being done all the time. I'm surprised you don't know this!
I don't want to pick a fight here but resolution is definitely fixed. Sure, you can scale up to large sizes with a loss of quality. You cannot take a 480 line picture and convert it to 720 or 1080 without loss of quality. Or, should I say, the low-res quality remains the same but it's bigger so that poor quality is more noticeable.
I work in the graphic arts business. Customers are always providing logos to us that come from their websites at 72 dpi. When we ask them for a higher resolution logo, they say "just scale it up!" I'm sorry, but it doesn't work that way but it's hard to convince those customers.
Since you mentioned it, I'll mention that I hate the stretch feature available on most widescreen TVs. On mine, it's called "horizon." The center is almost normal and the sides are stretched way out of proportion to fill the screen. It looks horrible and almost makes me dizzy. The TNT-HD station often shows old NTSC movies in 'horizon" mode and calls that HD! What a bunch of nonsense.
Comments
Will these adapters work with 480p? If I recall correctly I had to set my Mac Mini to Interlace in order to used the S-Video adapter.
It's isn't the physical adapter that we need to worry about. The metal and plastic needed to change the shape of a plug and location of pins is dirt cheap. All of the potentially useful physical adapters already exist and are relatively cheap.
What remains to be seen is if the AppleTV video hardware and drivers support the various output types people desire. Apple's spec sheets don't indicate support but this omission isn't conclusive.
I think what he means is that the Apple TV hardware doesn't support SDTV.
Yep, that's part of it. I was specifically addressing Mel's seemingly contradictory comment:
Now that iTunes offers video quality that is more than good enough for the vast majority, remembering that most people still do not have a widescreen, hi def. set, ?
If, as he's claiming, "most people still do not have a widescreen, hi def. set" why is it even relevant "that iTunes offers video quality that is more than good enough for the vast majority" if Apple TV is incompatible with their existing SDTV (480i) sets according to the current specifications on Apple's site?
In that context I don't see the correlation between iTunes video quality and Apple TV being compatible (or not) with any particular type of TV. The "vast majority" or "most people" with SDTV won't be able to use ATV at all, period. And I don't understand why certain Apple reps have been telling people that ATV is compatible with their "standard" TVs.
Hopefully that makes it clearer why I questioned Mel's remark.
We don't know if it upscales all video or not. We don't k ow what it does to SD proportions, etc.
Even if one does need a widescreen Tv, the rest of the argument holds.
But we do know what the published specs say and that's what my comments are based on. For sake of further discussion let's say we don't ignore them? (the specs, that is; you can ignore my comments if you want to.
Although my ~3-year-old TV has component video input the manual explicitly says it doesn't support a progressive scan frequency and to switch any attached DVD player to interlace mode. That's been a non-issue with my older Pioneer DVD changer since it doesn't have progressive output.
AFAWK (again, based on published specs) Apple TV can't be "switched" to output 480i and I have no idea if there's some sort of adaptor/converter that can do it. Or, alternatively, somehow make a 480i SDTV compatible with ATV's 480p EDTV specification. Either way, would that be sufficient to satisfy ATV's "widescreen" requirement? None of that seems promising to me but maybe someone else here understands the technical details enough to know for sure what is/isn't possible. The most recent posts seem to already be heading in that direction ?
AFAWK (again, based on published specs) Apple TV can't be "switched" to output 480i and I have no idea if there's some sort of adaptor/converter that can do it. Or, alternatively, somehow make a 480i SDTV compatible with ATV's 480p EDTV specification. Either way, would that be sufficient to satisfy ATV's "widescreen" requirement? None of that seems promising to me but maybe someone else here understands the technical details enough to know for sure what is/isn't possible. The most recent posts seem to already be heading in that direction ?
sjk, I think we have the same issue with the Apple TV. No SDTV support. Now others say as it not yet a shipping product that it might yet do 480i. I'm not putting any hope in this. Cause if it does support 480i why isn't Apple saying so. That feature would be in the chip set they are buying which is already in place.
I think there will be a lot of screams when this starts arriving in peoples hands and they find that it won't work with their component capable, but interlace only, TVs.
It's these analog connections I've been looking at. And what I think will be the problem is interlace and progressive. Those adapters will probably work with an interlaced input but not with a progressive input. I have a DVD player that has 480i/p component and s-video outputs. The s-video output displays a picture when the player is set for interlace. It does not display a picture when progressive is selected.
And if it was this easy then why am I returning an A/V receiver I just bought. The sells people said that it could do all the conversions I wanted. But its manual explicitly stated that it will not down convert component (analog inputs) to s-video/composite. It will cross convert s-video and composite, and it will up convert s-video/composite to component. If it is as easy as you think, why wasn't the capability put in there?
Component outputs can be combined into an S-Video output. As I said, the adapter is more expensive. It can also be turned into composite, same way. S-Video can be turned into composite, no problem.
Component output is USUALLY interlace. S-Video is always interlace.
Remember, we're talking about Tv output, not computer output.
Honestly, the specs Apple gives for the AppleTv are incomplete. Sometimes Apple will say that something is required, but it turns out to be not so.
For example, the real specs for the component output are not stated.
I have a lot of experience in these matters, and I can only go by what I know.
But, really, we won't find out until these get into the hands of the reviewers, or tech sites.
Yep, that's part of it. I was specifically addressing Mel's seemingly contradictory comment:
If, as he's claiming, "most people still do not have a widescreen, hi def. set" why is it even relevant "that iTunes offers video quality that is more than good enough for the vast majority" if Apple TV is incompatible with their existing SDTV (480i) sets according to the current specifications on Apple's site?
In that context I don't see the correlation between iTunes video quality and Apple TV being compatible (or not) with any particular type of TV. The "vast majority" or "most people" with SDTV won't be able to use ATV at all, period. And I don't understand why certain Apple reps have been telling people that ATV is compatible with their "standard" TVs.
Hopefully that makes it clearer why I questioned Mel's remark.
But we do know what the published specs say and that's what my comments are based on. For sake of further discussion let's say we don't ignore them? (the specs, that is; you can ignore my comments if you want to.
Although my ~3-year-old TV has component video input the manual explicitly says it doesn't support a progressive scan frequency and to switch any attached DVD player to interlace mode. That's been a non-issue with my older Pioneer DVD changer since it doesn't have progressive output.
AFAWK (again, based on published specs) Apple TV can't be "switched" to output 480i and I have no idea if there's some sort of adaptor/converter that can do it. Or, alternatively, somehow make a 480i SDTV compatible with ATV's 480p EDTV specification. Either way, would that be sufficient to satisfy ATV's "widescreen" requirement? None of that seems promising to me but maybe someone else here understands the technical details enough to know for sure what is/isn't possible. The most recent posts seem to already be heading in that direction ?
What I've saying is that Apple doesn't always publish complete, or even true specs. Component makes me think that this DOES support SD, even though they are hinting that it does not.
Adapters can convert "p" into "i", but they are expensive.
sjk, I think we have the same issue with the Apple TV. No SDTV support. Now others say as it not yet a shipping product that it might yet do 480i. I'm not putting any hope in this. Cause if it does support 480i why isn't Apple saying so. That feature would be in the chip set they are buying which is already in place.
I think there will be a lot of screams when this starts arriving in peoples hands and they find that it won't work with their component capable, but interlace only, TVs.
Apple IS saying that it will only support "p" when they give supported Tv formats, but it may not be entirely true.
It could be that the HDMI only supports "p", but the component supports SD, and they are glossing over that.
There could be a good reason for that.
Apple has been sued more than once for not supporting something that they stated that they supported.
If Apple is intending to have 720p downloads soon, they wouldn't be playable at full rez on an SD set. Lawsuit ensues.
People try to download hi def "p" movie trailers and shorts from Apple's site, and it either doesn't work, or again, looks bad. Lawsuir ensues.
Remember the bruhaha about 801.11n? Did Apple mention it was there? No! Why?
sjk, I think we have the same issue with the Apple TV. No SDTV support.
That's correct.
Now others say as it not yet a shipping product that it might yet do 480i. I'm not putting any hope in this. Cause if it does support 480i why isn't Apple saying so. That feature would be in the chip set they are buying which is already in place.
Is it possible 480i might be supported in the hardware, disabled by default but technically feasible to enable? Similar to how the 802.11n enabler will activate 802.11n in supporting hardware, for lack of a better analogy. Obviously all the ATV hardware components aren't exactly known yet; I'm just wondering if disabled 480i support and reactivation makes sense technically.
I think there will be a lot of screams when this starts arriving in peoples hands and they find that it won't work with their component capable, but interlace only, TVs.
Uh, huh. And I've already speculated a similar thing could happen with iTunes-compatible content that ATV won't support, added to iTunes libraries before and/or after ATV's purchase. It doesn't take much imagination to see how such scenarios might occur. Less of an impact than if the iPod didn't support MP3, but still possibly significant.
Oh, I just noticed Mel showed up before I'd finished this so nothing I've written is intentionally related to what he's written.
Component outputs can be combined into an S-Video output. As I said, the adapter is more expensive. It can also be turned into composite, same way. S-Video can be turned into composite, no problem.
Component output is USUALLY interlace. S-Video is always interlace.
Remember, we're talking about Tv output, not computer output.
I thought we were talking about TV input compatibility with Apple TV output.
Honestly, the specs Apple gives for the AppleTv are incomplete. Sometimes Apple will say that something is required, but it turns out to be not so.
What would it take to satisfy your definition of complete? Right now that's all Apple's given us to work with (plus the keynote demo) so that's my baseline for this discussion. I'm aware they omit certain details from specs, for whatever reason.
For example, the real specs for the component output are not stated.
In what way are they incomplete and is that genuinely or speculatively relevant to the SDTV/480i compatibility issue?
My questions are sincere, btw.
I have a lot of experience in these matters, and I can only go by what I know.
I've included the published ATV specs because that's the only official reference point myself and many other potential buyers have to go by right now.
But, really, we won't find out until these get into the hands of the reviewers, or tech sites.
Of course. And I've been hoping you'd see that I'd just like to best understand the feasibility of certain things to whatever extent that's currently possible within boundaries I've tried to clearly establish. I've intentionally omitted reasons for doing this pre-shipping research, which I wouldn't be pursuing now if it didn't matter.
What I've saying is that Apple doesn't always publish complete, or even true specs. Component makes me think that this DOES support SD, even though they are hinting that it does not.
And that's still an unknown, regardless of what you or I or anyone else thinks.
Adapters can convert "p" into "i", but they are expensive.
Surely less expensive than any new ATV-compatible widescreen EDTV/HDTV?
I'm completely unfamiliar with those type of adaptors so any reference(s) would be appreciated.
I thought we were talking about TV input compatibility with Apple TV output.
AppleTv output is Tv monitor input. That's what you mean, isn't it?
What would it take to satisfy your definition of complete? Right now that's all Apple's given us to work with (plus the keynote demo) so that's my baseline for this discussion. I'm aware they omit certain details from specs, for whatever reason.
Complete would detail all of the resolutions the device is capable of outputting, through ALL of its outputs, at what frequencies. Alternatively, they could list the min, and the max, stating that all in between values are supported (or not, as the case may be), at which frequencies.
That is the way we see them stated on video equipment, video cards, and computer monitors.
Apple gives less than minimal specs. They aren't even specs as industry standards go. Saying what Tv's you "need" is not stating specs, neither is the way they present the resolutions. They are supposed to break out those specs for each output, as I've said.
In what way are they incomplete and is that genuinely or speculatively relevant to the SDTV/480i compatibility issue?
See above, and yes, they are.
My questions are sincere, btw.
If I didn't think they were, I wouldn't bother to answer. I've gone down that road here before.
I've included the published ATV specs because that's the only official reference point myself and many other potential buyers have to go by right now.
They are the only thing we have to go by right now. That's the problem.
But, I could get this to work with any monitor, regardless of the specs. It just depends on how much you want to spend, and why you would want to do it.
Of course. And I've been hoping you'd see that I'd just like to best understand the feasibility of certain things to whatever extent that's currently possible within boundaries I've tried to clearly establish. I've intentionally omitted reasons for doing this pre-shipping research, which I wouldn't be pursuing now if it didn't matter.
I do see. We're all in the same boat on this. Your reasons can be kept to yourself. The mere fact that you have questions is enough.
And that's still an unknown, regardless of what you or I or anyone else thinks.
Well, yes, that's part of what I'm saying.
Surely less expensive than any new ATV-compatible widescreen EDTV/HDTV?
I'm completely unfamiliar with those type of adaptors so any reference(s) would be appreciated.
Yes, less expensive. Perhaps you see why people might be interested, at least, until they decide to spend the big bucks. But, these can cost as much as the AppleTv, or more, depending on the quality.
Check here. It's the CV131A Component to NTSC. I don't remember offhand if that model is S-Video or composite. But, there are others.
http://www.hrx.com/order.htm
You can check here directly. This is one of the largest pro dealers around. I buy most of my equipment from them.
http://www.markertek.com/
Apple IS saying that it will only support "p" when they give supported Tv formats, but it may not be entirely true.
It could be that the HDMI only supports "p", but the component supports SD, and they are glossing over that.
That's the kind of speculation I'm trying to minimize.
There could be a good reason for that.
<?examples snipped?>
I understand that and your possible scenarios.
Remember the bruhaha about 801.11n? Did Apple mention it was there? No! Why?
Yes. No. Because.
I've always realized the possibility of ATV hardware/software having more features than Apple's publicly announced us so far. I'm just interested in culling information from the published specs, pretending it's true while being aware it might be incomplete or inaccurate, and applying it to relevant issues such as SDTV (in)compatibility.
That's the kind of speculation I'm trying to minimize.
I understand that and your possible scenarios.
Yes. No. Because.
I've always realized the possibility of ATV hardware/software having more features than Apple's publicly announced us so far. I'm just interested in culling information from the published specs, pretending it's true while being aware it might be incomplete or inaccurate, and applying it to relevant issues such as SDTV (in)compatibility.
We are really on the same wavelength here (heh, appropriate for the discussion).
They are the only thing we have to go by right now. That's the problem.
No problem, just an acknowledged constraint.
Yeah, I see what you mean about how vague and general the specs are. They're intended as "good enough" for the mainstream market. Other folks will need, or have interest in, the kind of information from field testing or covered in more detailed product or repair manuals.
But, I could get this to work with any monitor, regardless of the specs. It just depends on how much you want to spend, and why you would want to do it.
That's a possibility I*was seeking to understand, thanks. Now I get how there could be quality/expensive factors that would make it impractical for this application. And thanks for the links in your next post.
I'm satisfied for now and it's a good place to stop since I'm leaving soon for the evening so my time here's short anyway.
What I don't get, is the stated specification that AppleTV outputs 720P. What 720P, from where? Except for a few movie trailers, I don't know of any legal MP4 content available at such high resolution. So, while I think AppleTV is a good box, the video available at the iTunes Store is not.
It seems unlikely, since Apple only recently upgraded the resolution of the TV shows at the store, that they'd be planning another upgrade soon. What's available there now is pretty poor. When comparing a purchased iTS TV show to a TV show from a DVD, the difference is startling. And, the DVD show can be ripped (illegally) to a smaller file size than the same show from iTS and it will still look much better! What gives?
From where I sit, AppleTV is a good product for the people for which it's intended; those people with fairly new TVs who are buying TV shows and movies from the iTunes Store.
That's the intent. To build a market for themselves out of people buying content from iTunes, and then streaming it to their Tv.
What I don't get, is the stated specification that AppleTV outputs 720P. What 720P, from where? Except for a few movie trailers, I don't know of any legal MP4 content available at such high resolution. So, while I think AppleTV is a good box, the video available at the iTunes Store is not.
The output is not only to 720p. It's also listed as working with EDTV, which is 854 x 480p. But, it could have a built-in scaler, which will bring the content up to 720p (or possibly even 1080i, as that's mentioned), if the Tv can deliver that.
It seems unlikely, since Apple only recently upgraded the resolution of the TV shows at the store, that they'd be planning another upgrade soon. What's available there now is pretty poor. When comparing a purchased iTS TV show to a TV show from a DVD, the difference is startling. And, the DVD show can be ripped (illegally) to a smaller file size than the same show from iTS and it will still look much better! What gives?
I have a 65" 1080p Hp DLP. I have found that the difference between Apple's iTunes movie content and the actual DVD to be small, most of the time. It's not the difference in rez that matters (basically, there is none, for most purposes), but the transcoding. This is not done by Apple. Just as many DVD's are much worse than the actual movie, so can Apple's content be.
I'm not willing to make a blank statement about thew quality, because I've only compared about a dozen films so far, and that's enough for me to buy for test purposes. I haven't tried any Paramount films.
If you've ripped a (already compressed) DVD, and it looks better than iTunes content, then something is wrong. Possibly, your subjectivity is getting in the way.
The output is not only to 720p. It's also listed as working with EDTV, which is 854 x 480p. But, it could have a built-in scaler, which will bring the content up to 720p (or possibly even 1080i, as that's mentioned), if the Tv can deliver that.
The resolution of iTS TV shows is 640x480. Tell me how you can scale 480 up to 720 and retain the same quality. It can't be done. Resolution is fixed; not scaleable as some people believe.
If you've ripped a (already compressed) DVD, and it looks better than iTunes content, then something is wrong. Possibly, your subjectivity is getting in the way.
I agree, it seems like something must be wrong. I experimented with an episode from the second season of "Lost" of which I own the DVD. I purchased the episode from iTS after the resolution upgrade announcement in August. Then I ripped the same episode from my DVD for comparison. The ripped file looks far, far superior. Details such as people and trees on the beach in the distance are much sharper in the ripped DVD file. This is the case even though the iTS file is about 500MB and the ripped file is 350MB. Perhaps only that "Lost" episode is of particularly bad quality on iTS. I haven't felt like wasting money comparing any others.
The resolution of iTS TV shows is 640x480. Tell me how you can scale 480 up to 720 and retain the same quality. It can't be done. Resolution is fixed; not scaleable as some people believe.
No, it's not that simple. Rez is not fixed.There are (so far) 18 different standards in digital Tv, any of them can be converted (and are!) into any of the others. Proportion CAN be fixed, but even that is often changed. If you've ever used PS, or another program, that allows you to interpolate up and down, you know how this is done.
Case in point. Many widescreen Tv's automatically widen 4:3 to 16:9 by widening the edges of the content while leaving the middle third, or so, untouched. Most people actually prefer that. You concentrate on that middle, but your peripheral vision doesn't pick the distortion up, unless you look for it.
You can scale to any point, up or down. This is being done all the time. I'm surprised you don't know this!
Look at the specs for almost any DVD player capable of "p" output. You will see that they will scale SD DVD's to 720p or 1080i. The more expensive models will even go to 1080p.
The widescreen Tv's themselves will scale SD to the native rez as well.
Check that out.
When I watch a DVD on my Mac, through my Sony 24" crt, at 1920 x 1080p, scaling is involved. Despite what some say, it looks great!
You can buy scalers separately, if you wish. They go from about $300 to $50,000, depending on what the scaling factor must be, and the quality needed.
I agree, it seems like something must be wrong. I experimented with an episode from the second season of "Lost" of which I own the DVD. I purchased the episode from iTS after the resolution upgrade announcement in August. Then I ripped the same episode from my DVD for comparison. The ripped file looks far, far superior. Details such as people and trees on the beach in the distance are much sharper in the ripped DVD file. This is the case even though the iTS file is about 500MB and the ripped file is 350MB. Perhaps only that "Lost" episode is of particularly bad quality on iTS. I haven't felt like wasting money comparing any others.
It's odd. But there can be reasons for it.
Tv's have a sharpening control. When these controls are set to the middle, so that one side says "softer", and the other says "sharper", one is led to believe that the center position is set of "none". Not so. "None" is almost all the way to the end of "softer". On my Sony 36" XBR, it turns it off alltogether. Similarly on my Hp 65" 1080p model. When you do that, the "video" appearance of the content changes to a more film-like look. Not as sharp, but far more natural. Many people prefer the sharp, hard edges. I don't.
I bring this up because it's very likely when you are doing the transcending from the already compressed, sharpened, file on DVD, the program is not only re-compressing, but giving it additional sharpening to overcome the natural degradation that occurs from any compression.
Now you have double compression, and sharpening over sharpening. As most companies believe (correctly) that most consumers are not sophisticated enough to understand that less sharpening is actually better, and want the sharpest image possible, the sharpening applied is rather high. Often it is not adjustable. They may not even mention that is is being done! Why worry you with little things like that?
That, as well as our unconscious desires, affect what what we see, and think we see.
Case in point. Many widescreen Tv's automatically widen 4:3 to 16:9 by widening the edges of the content while leaving the middle third, or so, untouched. Most people actually prefer that. You concentrate on that middle, but your peripheral vision doesn't pick the distortion up, unless you look for it.
You can scale to any point, up or down. This is being done all the time. I'm surprised you don't know this!
I don't want to pick a fight here but resolution is definitely fixed. Sure, you can scale up to large sizes with a loss of quality. You cannot take a 480 line picture and convert it to 720 or 1080 without loss of quality. Or, should I say, the low-res quality remains the same but it's bigger so that poor quality is more noticeable.
I work in the graphic arts business. Customers are always providing logos to us that come from their websites at 72 dpi. When we ask them for a higher resolution logo, they say "just scale it up!" I'm sorry, but it doesn't work that way but it's hard to convince those customers.
Since you mentioned it, I'll mention that I hate the stretch feature available on most widescreen TVs. On mine, it's called "horizon." The center is almost normal and the sides are stretched way out of proportion to fill the screen. It looks horrible and almost makes me dizzy. The TNT-HD station often shows old NTSC movies in 'horizon" mode and calls that HD! What a bunch of nonsense.