Geez, this is no surprise coming from people who have already been vocal detractors of ATV.
I stand by that statement. Anytime anything negative is said about ATV, the same chorus comes out proclaiming its doomed to fail. This is being said with total subjectivity and no objectivity. It may fail it may not fail. Most likely Apple will sell a few hundred thousand units which will be a profit and over time Apple will increase ATV functionality the same way it did with the iPod.
The poor movie quality is a compromise. In everyone's complaints that fact is being left out. Few people in the general public would have the patience to wait for hours for a DVD quality download. When we press the buy button most people want instant gratification.
The music videos are the least compressed because no one has a problem waiting 5-10 minutes for a download. Television shows are more compressed but people can wait 20-30 minutes for a download. Apple likely feels people don't have the patience to wait more than an hour for a full movie to download and ready to view. So they've found a bit rate and file size that allows the movie to be fully downloaded in that amount of time and ready to view.
I agree that the movies are overly compressed. I would rather wait a couple of hours for better quality. Ultimately the market will determine if Apple made the best choice. If it shows they haven't I'm sure they will adjust.
But what I don't get is why 640 X 480 video should be so much worse than DVD? Isn't DVD just 720 X 480? Should that difference even be really noticeable? Maybe the compression doesn't play well with the TV?
There are two things at play here. First, assuming the DVD is anamorphic and the source 16:9, all of those 720x480 pixels are used for the picture. If the source is 2.35:1, around 720 x 363 pixels are used for picture information (the rest make up black bars top and bottom of the image). iTunes Movies are not anamorphic. The maximum width is 640 pixels, and the height varies with movie ratio. 16:9 movies are 640 x 360, 2.35:1 movies are 640 x 272. So widescreen movies have 50% more pixels on anamorphic DVD relative to iTunes Movie encodes. Secondly, as discussed already in this thread, is the compression being used. Whilst H.264 is a superior codec to MPEG-2, the Main Profile (as used by iTunes) can't compensate for the drastically lower bitrate relative to DVDs.
Using High Profile H.264 instead would really help, but unfortunately this is even harder to decode than Main Profile, so only the computers with the very fastest CPUs, or hardware-decode assistance, would be able to play the files. And at the moment Apple haven't implemented the High Profile in QuickTime, but that's another matter.
Personally, I think that the files should be at least equal to DVD in terms of resolution, and have at least 1/2 the bitrate of DVD. Yes, increasing the bitrate would mean the files take longer to download, but I feel Apple got the convenience/quality balance wrong on this occasion.
One thing that people haven't mentioned is that increasing the size of downloads doesn't only mean the customer has to wait longer - it also means that Apple have to pay more for bandwidth. Do not underestimate the impact of this. I'm really hoping that Apple are working on some kind of bit-torrent type distribution system to try and work around this problem, with an aim to ultimately offering 720p downloads. This would bring the requirement for another increase in video track bit-rate.
It seems that the consensus in this thread is that the AppleTV image quality problem is the amount of compression used on the iTunes Movie files. I think it may be possible that there is a driver issue on the AppleTV as well. AppleTV uses the GeForce Go 7300 to decode/de-interlace/scale - I don't know how much the quality of this process depends upon driver implementation - could the process be flawed for low-resolution, low bit-rate files? I talked in another thread about how this (hardware decode/de-interlace/scale) should give the AppleTV an upper hand in video quality (relative to a Mac) when driving TVs, but maybe I was mistaken ? How do the same files look when a Mac is playing the same files and outputting to the same TVs?
Who would shell out all that money for an HDTV and not have at least 5 channel sound? Once Apple finally puts HD content on iTunes, they still won't be able to send surround through Atv...
I don't believe that's accurate. The "no discrete surround-sound" problem with the AppleTV is a software one rather than a hardware one.
Could be both hardware and software.
Solution 1: Add multi-channel AAC codec to Apple TV and re-encode appropriate iTunes Store contents. Requires HDMI connection and receiver/processor capable of decoding multi-channel AAC (virtually none) or multi-channel LPCM (newer mid- to high-end receivers). If Apple TV had multi-channel analog audio output, just about all receivers/processors would be able to handle multi-channel audio. 5G and 5.5G iPods may require firmware update to handle multi-channel AAC audio.
Solution 2: Same as solution 1, but with Dolby Digital Live. Requires Toslink digital audio connection and receiver/processor capable of decoding Dolby Digital (just about any receivers on the market). Apple will need to pay license and Apple TV may not handle this additional chore while playing 720p video.
Solution 3: Add Dolby Digital (or Dolby Digital Plus) codec to Apple TV, QuickTime Player, and 5G and 5.5G iPods; re-encode appropriate iTunes Store contents. This would be most ideal for consumers, but it will require Apple to pay license to Dolby.
Likely scenario would be solution 1 that requires HDMI connection and receiver/processor capable of processing multi-channel LPCM audio over HDMI.
I think more likely scenario would be none of the above, as in Apple won't do a thing and promote plain vanilla Dolby Surround.
I would have to strongly agree. The movies look horrible on the Sony TV's. Here's the interesting thing. I've downloaded several iTS TV Shows and played them through my S-video out port to my 720p Samsung plasma, and they look a whole heck of a lot better than the movies from the Apple TV on the Sony Bravias at the Apple Store. What gives?
I'm late to the thread, apologies if all this has been mentioned, just needed to sound off a few thoughts.
I think Sony always goes for a too "sharp and pure" look with it's LCDs, Still and Video cameras. On my 17" 1280x1024 DVI LCD I can almost taste the bullets whizzing by when playing Ghost Recon A.W. NFS: Most Wanted and FEAR, HL2+ looks sharp and tasty.
For movies: dvdrips, xvids, trailers, I rather watch on my widescreen MacBook, even if it is only 13.3", the contrast and reflections and blockiness of the Sony LCD is not so nice.
Plasmas have *always* had a nice, softer look with velvety blacks.
I think there are two problems here. One is of course the rez and upscaling limitations of the video clips, iTunes Movies, Bravias. Another is that the Bravias are probably 30+inch 1080p-spec'd, and they're LCDs. All this = welcome to block-Town.
...I think it may be possible that there is a driver issue on the AppleTV as well. AppleTV uses the GeForce Go 7300 to decode/de-interlace/scale - I don't know how much the quality of this process depends upon driver implementation - could the process be flawed for low-resolution, low bit-rate files? I talked in another thread about how this (hardware decode/de-interlace/scale) should give the AppleTV an upper hand in video quality (relative to a Mac) when driving TVs, but maybe I was mistaken ? How do the same files look when a Mac is playing the same files and outputting to the same TVs?
On a Mac Pro 2.66ghz QuadXeon 1GB RAM, the 7300GT when driving a 30" Cinema Display, the upscaling is pretty darn good for taking something like a DVD [Matrix(1999)] and bashing it up to 2560 x 1600 pixels. That is 4 megapixels compared to 1920x1080p which is 2 megapixels. A well-encoded (ie no shadow/ dark areas, high contrast film source) 1080p trailer from Apple website upscaled to 2560 x 1600 looks stunning even right in front of a 30" Cinema Display.
Current Mac hardware driving DVI output-input into a Plasma 42" would be a nice setup.
NO AppleTV in my neck of the "woods" yet, but LCDs = I'd never game without one ever again (with an LCD I feel I'm getting every pixel worth out of that nVidia GPU) ; at the same time LCDs = I'd never watch big screen video/movie/tv stuff on it.
Don't get me started on 1080p film cameras. I'd prefer everything still be shot on super35mm or anamorphic or whatever. FILM. 1080 HDTV even fairly bloody high-end stuff, nice, but Sonys in that range are way too "harsh and sharp". The Panasonics especially prosumer to high-end pro 1080p cameras are nicer, particularly those with variable frame rate (ie, true slow motion). OK. Now back to my nVidia 6600GT... Mmm... smell those pixels....on my Sony ... Heh
I agree with you completely here, nvidia, I think Apple made a mistake going with those Bravias.
There's still a problem with the movies, but trying to up-res a sub DVD, low bit-rate image to a 1080p display (and I just checked Sony's site, that's definitely what they're using) that tends towards aggressive sharpening is just asking for it. As in, worst case scenario.
I bet if they had used Panny 32" plasmas the results would have been a lot more pleasing.
But I still don't get why. His Jobness is usually so completely anal about this stuff, you know he was all over this roll-out, didn't the fact that a 1080p display device wasn't a good match for what they had to show come up at some point? Didn't he look at, say, "Oh Brother Where Art Thou" and say, "Whoops, that's not working, how else can we do this?"
I can only hope that they have plans in the near-term to get higher res stuff on-line, but it sure isn't going to help their case to have what they have now serving as the demo of what Apple Tv can do.
I was at a friend's house last night and we watched some stuff he had dl'ed on his XBox 360, on a 32" Samsung LCD 720p screen, and it looked great. Flawless, even.
Now, this stuff was TV shows, I have no idea what movies look like. And it was a wired connection to the LCD from the XBox, so that may have some bearing on what's possible. And I'm no fan of how MS has set up their store, or their stupid "point" system, or the interface.
But I can't understand how Apple can't have at least some stuff that looked as good as what I watched last night. Or, to put it another way, they better get some stuff that looks that good, if they want to succeed with their living room strategy.
.....But I can't understand how Apple can't have at least some stuff that looked as good as what I watched last night. Or, to put it another way, they better get some stuff that looks that good, if they want to succeed with their living room strategy....
Sony made them an offer they couldn't refuse... ...His Steveness IMHO wanted to roll out this convergence stuff, for the "common man", blockiness is a part of life. Satellite TV, for example, some people get it at somewhat blocky MPEG2. HDD recorders, MPEG2, I believe.
It is confusing. Maybe it's the chief of Retail Stores, that decided to go with the latest and sexiest "true 1080p" Bravias. And now most people are like, oops....
Yeah, still, IMHO, iSteve wanted to get this rolling, at current quality and bitrates, and hoping that more studios come on board. Perhaps using Sonys in store was to get Sony Film content ??? ...What do they need for WB? Huge "Neo" and "Morpheus" cardboard cutouts at the Store? ... And LucasFilm? Apple has to THX-certify everything from iPod to AppleTV to all Macs [all of which must now come with THX certified speakers and/or headphones] ...???? ........ Hmmm
Anyway, I'm ready to stick a fork in this one. The whole HDTV/Convergence thing is a bit out of my focus at this stage. In my internship (4th week this week ! OMFG!) I've got to focus on some EDU clients, track down a freakin' HP Designjet dealer price, plus April is BIG for NAB, CS3 official launches and shipping begins, and........ um, yeah, more stuff.... ).
I love Panasonic. Plasma. Progressive HDTV true-slow motion prosumer video cams. Word.
But I still don't get why. His Jobness is usually so completely anal about this stuff, you know he was all over this roll-out, didn't the fact that a 1080p display device wasn't a good match for what they had to show come up at some point? Didn't he look at, say, "Oh Brother Where Art Thou" and say, "Whoops, that's not working, how else can we do this?"
I think Steve may not have been the 'final OK' on AppleTV. If his fingerprints were all over the thing, he would have talked it up much hotter than he did. Anyone else get that impression.
I got the feeling from Steve that he was Colin Powell trying to convince the UN that Iraq had mobile chemical weapon labs just before we invaded... I didn't buy it, even from him.
I think Steve may not have been the 'final OK' on AppleTV. If his fingerprints were all over the thing, he would have talked it up much hotter than he did. Anyone else get that impression.
I got the feeling from Steve that he was Colin Powell trying to convince the UN that Iraq had mobile chemical weapon labs just before we invaded... I didn't buy it, even from him.
Maybe, but that's not how Apple works, is it?
From everything I've ever read, Steve is all over everything that comes out of Cupertino. And it's not like they've been releasing hardware left and right so he might have been stretched too thin-- beside the iPhone and the 2G Nano there hasn't been much of anything.
Maybe he got so caught up in the iPhone (which clearly is something he is wildly enthusiastic about) he was captured by his own RDF and just sat at his desk all day with an iPhone going "make picture bigger, make picture smaller, make picture bigger, make picture smaller......"
When they showed him the Apple TV he just sort of went "yeah, sure, uh huh, whatever, make picture bigger......"
I can't even find an Apple TV to check out. Comp USA doesn't have any on display in their Apple section. The ASC is on vacation. Circuit City doesn't have them on display yet. Best Buy had one synced to a Windows PC, but it must've been in the warehouse because I sure as heck couldn't find it!
From everything I've ever read, Steve is all over everything that comes out of Cupertino. And it's not like they've been releasing hardware left and right so he might have been stretched too thin-- beside the iPhone and the 2G Nano there hasn't been much of anything.
Maybe he got so caught up in the iPhone (which clearly is something he is wildly enthusiastic about) he was captured by his own RDF and just sat at his desk all day with an iPhone going "make picture bigger, make picture smaller, make picture bigger, make picture smaller......"
When they showed him the Apple TV he just sort of went "yeah, sure, uh huh, whatever, make picture bigger......"
Maybe he was in treatment for his illness at the time? I really don't know, but it is so not Apple... and it sounds even more un-Applish everytime I hear a new disappointing report on it.
Confirmed. It's a total fuck-up. I would use "frack" except the magnitude of the debacle is astonishing. That and Battlestar G. is over for the year.
I saw two Bravias in store at Sony official retail outlet.
THEY VIDEO OUTPUT IS ABSOLUTELY HIDEOUS.
The only way this could have flown is if Sony Pictures is in return going to release movies/tv on iTunes by July 2007.
I've got to warn my store manager and bosses about this. STAY AWAY from the Bravias. I hate to bash brand names, but, you'd have to be brave to buy a Bravia.
They were demo-ing HD Sony cameras output to the LCD 30" or so. And then HDMI output to the 30" with clearly labelled "BluRay" logo on a demo loop (you know, the typical "vacation" scenes and stuff...). This is supposed to be "1080p". It looks terrible. Really.
AppleTV HDMI or component into the Bravias is a big mistake. I am quite confident in this regard at this stage. The colours are to sharp and harsh, oversaturated and unnatural, the contrast glaring, the upscaling somehow creating even further "sub-blockiness" instead of smoothing things out.
I know things are different for different regions (I am in Asia) ... but the Sony LCD TVs had a logo of "Full 1080" next to it - no "p" or "i". It's misleading, because next to it they had a chart showing that the 1080 they are referring to is 1440 lines x 1080 pixels.
If you want to see some beautiful HD at true 1080p (besides 1080p trailers on a 30" Apple Cinema Display)... check out Sharp Aquos with their own demo reel [proprietary "HVD" format AFAIK] (last I saw it was like a Japanese silk and paints and stuff - beautiful, except contrast was not as deep as plasmas). Also, for HDTVs, 30" or 42", I would take a 720p Samsung or Panasonic plasma that has true 1280 x 720 pixels not like 1024 x 720 or stuff. And certainly check the in-built upscaler in these to see DVD, Composite, Component, DVI/HDMI, iPod, iTunes Movies/ TV Shows, BluRay sources and see how it flies.
Maybe we're all too much of aesthetes but Bravias are a no-go zone IMO at this stage. Certainly for anything Apple-related. The brand managers for various Apple stores/ resellers must be gagging and gasping for air right now.
Most important for the recommendations I'm going to make is to go for 1280x720 true native progressive pixels on *plasma*. How much true 1080"p" content are we likely to have, from a global perspective, anyway, over the next 5 years?
Comments
Geez, this is no surprise coming from people who have already been vocal detractors of ATV.
I stand by that statement. Anytime anything negative is said about ATV, the same chorus comes out proclaiming its doomed to fail. This is being said with total subjectivity and no objectivity. It may fail it may not fail. Most likely Apple will sell a few hundred thousand units which will be a profit and over time Apple will increase ATV functionality the same way it did with the iPod.
The poor movie quality is a compromise. In everyone's complaints that fact is being left out. Few people in the general public would have the patience to wait for hours for a DVD quality download. When we press the buy button most people want instant gratification.
The music videos are the least compressed because no one has a problem waiting 5-10 minutes for a download. Television shows are more compressed but people can wait 20-30 minutes for a download. Apple likely feels people don't have the patience to wait more than an hour for a full movie to download and ready to view. So they've found a bit rate and file size that allows the movie to be fully downloaded in that amount of time and ready to view.
I agree that the movies are overly compressed. I would rather wait a couple of hours for better quality. Ultimately the market will determine if Apple made the best choice. If it shows they haven't I'm sure they will adjust.
After trying the major products in this space I'm a vocal detractor of them all. None of them are good enough yet.
Have you tried this?
anal enough to care that much about HD quality.
You have to be anal to care about quality?
But what I don't get is why 640 X 480 video should be so much worse than DVD? Isn't DVD just 720 X 480? Should that difference even be really noticeable? Maybe the compression doesn't play well with the TV?
There are two things at play here. First, assuming the DVD is anamorphic and the source 16:9, all of those 720x480 pixels are used for the picture. If the source is 2.35:1, around 720 x 363 pixels are used for picture information (the rest make up black bars top and bottom of the image). iTunes Movies are not anamorphic. The maximum width is 640 pixels, and the height varies with movie ratio. 16:9 movies are 640 x 360, 2.35:1 movies are 640 x 272. So widescreen movies have 50% more pixels on anamorphic DVD relative to iTunes Movie encodes. Secondly, as discussed already in this thread, is the compression being used. Whilst H.264 is a superior codec to MPEG-2, the Main Profile (as used by iTunes) can't compensate for the drastically lower bitrate relative to DVDs.
Using High Profile H.264 instead would really help, but unfortunately this is even harder to decode than Main Profile, so only the computers with the very fastest CPUs, or hardware-decode assistance, would be able to play the files. And at the moment Apple haven't implemented the High Profile in QuickTime, but that's another matter.
Personally, I think that the files should be at least equal to DVD in terms of resolution, and have at least 1/2 the bitrate of DVD. Yes, increasing the bitrate would mean the files take longer to download, but I feel Apple got the convenience/quality balance wrong on this occasion.
One thing that people haven't mentioned is that increasing the size of downloads doesn't only mean the customer has to wait longer - it also means that Apple have to pay more for bandwidth. Do not underestimate the impact of this. I'm really hoping that Apple are working on some kind of bit-torrent type distribution system to try and work around this problem, with an aim to ultimately offering 720p downloads. This would bring the requirement for another increase in video track bit-rate.
It seems that the consensus in this thread is that the AppleTV image quality problem is the amount of compression used on the iTunes Movie files. I think it may be possible that there is a driver issue on the AppleTV as well. AppleTV uses the GeForce Go 7300 to decode/de-interlace/scale - I don't know how much the quality of this process depends upon driver implementation - could the process be flawed for low-resolution, low bit-rate files? I talked in another thread about how this (hardware decode/de-interlace/scale) should give the AppleTV an upper hand in video quality (relative to a Mac) when driving TVs, but maybe I was mistaken
Who would shell out all that money for an HDTV and not have at least 5 channel sound? Once Apple finally puts HD content on iTunes, they still won't be able to send surround through Atv...
Once Apple finally puts HD content on iTunes, they still won't be able to send surround through Atv...
I don't believe that's accurate. The "no discrete surround-sound" problem with the AppleTV is a software one rather than a hardware one.
I don't believe that's accurate. The "no discrete surround-sound" problem with the AppleTV is a software one rather than a hardware one.
Could be both hardware and software.
Solution 1: Add multi-channel AAC codec to Apple TV and re-encode appropriate iTunes Store contents. Requires HDMI connection and receiver/processor capable of decoding multi-channel AAC (virtually none) or multi-channel LPCM (newer mid- to high-end receivers). If Apple TV had multi-channel analog audio output, just about all receivers/processors would be able to handle multi-channel audio. 5G and 5.5G iPods may require firmware update to handle multi-channel AAC audio.
Solution 2: Same as solution 1, but with Dolby Digital Live. Requires Toslink digital audio connection and receiver/processor capable of decoding Dolby Digital (just about any receivers on the market). Apple will need to pay license and Apple TV may not handle this additional chore while playing 720p video.
Solution 3: Add Dolby Digital (or Dolby Digital Plus) codec to Apple TV, QuickTime Player, and 5G and 5.5G iPods; re-encode appropriate iTunes Store contents. This would be most ideal for consumers, but it will require Apple to pay license to Dolby.
Likely scenario would be solution 1 that requires HDMI connection and receiver/processor capable of processing multi-channel LPCM audio over HDMI.
I think more likely scenario would be none of the above, as in Apple won't do a thing and promote plain vanilla Dolby Surround.
I would have to strongly agree. The movies look horrible on the Sony TV's. Here's the interesting thing. I've downloaded several iTS TV Shows and played them through my S-video out port to my 720p Samsung plasma, and they look a whole heck of a lot better than the movies from the Apple TV on the Sony Bravias at the Apple Store. What gives?
I'm late to the thread, apologies if all this has been mentioned, just needed to sound off a few thoughts.
I think Sony always goes for a too "sharp and pure" look with it's LCDs, Still and Video cameras. On my 17" 1280x1024 DVI LCD I can almost taste the bullets whizzing by when playing Ghost Recon A.W. NFS: Most Wanted and FEAR, HL2+ looks sharp and tasty.
For movies: dvdrips, xvids, trailers, I rather watch on my widescreen MacBook, even if it is only 13.3", the contrast and reflections and blockiness of the Sony LCD is not so nice.
Plasmas have *always* had a nice, softer look with velvety blacks.
I think there are two problems here. One is of course the rez and upscaling limitations of the video clips, iTunes Movies, Bravias. Another is that the Bravias are probably 30+inch 1080p-spec'd, and they're LCDs. All this = welcome to block-Town.
...I think it may be possible that there is a driver issue on the AppleTV as well. AppleTV uses the GeForce Go 7300 to decode/de-interlace/scale - I don't know how much the quality of this process depends upon driver implementation - could the process be flawed for low-resolution, low bit-rate files? I talked in another thread about how this (hardware decode/de-interlace/scale) should give the AppleTV an upper hand in video quality (relative to a Mac) when driving TVs, but maybe I was mistaken
On a Mac Pro 2.66ghz QuadXeon 1GB RAM, the 7300GT when driving a 30" Cinema Display, the upscaling is pretty darn good for taking something like a DVD [Matrix(1999)] and bashing it up to 2560 x 1600 pixels. That is 4 megapixels compared to 1920x1080p which is 2 megapixels. A well-encoded (ie no shadow/ dark areas, high contrast film source) 1080p trailer from Apple website upscaled to 2560 x 1600 looks stunning even right in front of a 30" Cinema Display.
Current Mac hardware driving DVI output-input into a Plasma 42" would be a nice setup.
There's still a problem with the movies, but trying to up-res a sub DVD, low bit-rate image to a 1080p display (and I just checked Sony's site, that's definitely what they're using) that tends towards aggressive sharpening is just asking for it. As in, worst case scenario.
I bet if they had used Panny 32" plasmas the results would have been a lot more pleasing.
But I still don't get why. His Jobness is usually so completely anal about this stuff, you know he was all over this roll-out, didn't the fact that a 1080p display device wasn't a good match for what they had to show come up at some point? Didn't he look at, say, "Oh Brother Where Art Thou" and say, "Whoops, that's not working, how else can we do this?"
I can only hope that they have plans in the near-term to get higher res stuff on-line, but it sure isn't going to help their case to have what they have now serving as the demo of what Apple Tv can do.
I was at a friend's house last night and we watched some stuff he had dl'ed on his XBox 360, on a 32" Samsung LCD 720p screen, and it looked great. Flawless, even.
Now, this stuff was TV shows, I have no idea what movies look like. And it was a wired connection to the LCD from the XBox, so that may have some bearing on what's possible. And I'm no fan of how MS has set up their store, or their stupid "point" system, or the interface.
But I can't understand how Apple can't have at least some stuff that looked as good as what I watched last night. Or, to put it another way, they better get some stuff that looks that good, if they want to succeed with their living room strategy.
.....But I can't understand how Apple can't have at least some stuff that looked as good as what I watched last night. Or, to put it another way, they better get some stuff that looks that good, if they want to succeed with their living room strategy....
Sony made them an offer they couldn't refuse...
It is confusing. Maybe it's the chief of Retail Stores, that decided to go with the latest and sexiest "true 1080p" Bravias. And now most people are like, oops....
Yeah, still, IMHO, iSteve wanted to get this rolling, at current quality and bitrates, and hoping that more studios come on board. Perhaps using Sonys in store was to get Sony Film content ???
Anyway, I'm ready to stick a fork in this one. The whole HDTV/Convergence thing is a bit out of my focus at this stage. In my internship (4th week this week ! OMFG!) I've got to focus on some EDU clients, track down a freakin' HP Designjet dealer price, plus April is BIG for NAB, CS3 official launches and shipping begins, and........ um, yeah, more stuff....
I love Panasonic. Plasma. Progressive HDTV true-slow motion prosumer video cams. Word.
"Joe Sixpack", on the other hand, is a widely used colloquialism for "average working guy", and not generally thought of as derogatory.
I'd say the term "Joe Six-pack" is a common term for a working stiff, HOWEVER, it is dismissive if not derogatory. It's certainly no compliment.
But I still don't get why. His Jobness is usually so completely anal about this stuff, you know he was all over this roll-out, didn't the fact that a 1080p display device wasn't a good match for what they had to show come up at some point? Didn't he look at, say, "Oh Brother Where Art Thou" and say, "Whoops, that's not working, how else can we do this?"
I think Steve may not have been the 'final OK' on AppleTV. If his fingerprints were all over the thing, he would have talked it up much hotter than he did. Anyone else get that impression.
I got the feeling from Steve that he was Colin Powell trying to convince the UN that Iraq had mobile chemical weapon labs just before we invaded... I didn't buy it, even from him.
I think Steve may not have been the 'final OK' on AppleTV. If his fingerprints were all over the thing, he would have talked it up much hotter than he did. Anyone else get that impression.
I got the feeling from Steve that he was Colin Powell trying to convince the UN that Iraq had mobile chemical weapon labs just before we invaded... I didn't buy it, even from him.
Maybe, but that's not how Apple works, is it?
From everything I've ever read, Steve is all over everything that comes out of Cupertino. And it's not like they've been releasing hardware left and right so he might have been stretched too thin-- beside the iPhone and the 2G Nano there hasn't been much of anything.
Maybe he got so caught up in the iPhone (which clearly is something he is wildly enthusiastic about) he was captured by his own RDF and just sat at his desk all day with an iPhone going "make picture bigger, make picture smaller, make picture bigger, make picture smaller......"
When they showed him the Apple TV he just sort of went "yeah, sure, uh huh, whatever, make picture bigger......"
Maybe, but that's not how Apple works, is it?
From everything I've ever read, Steve is all over everything that comes out of Cupertino. And it's not like they've been releasing hardware left and right so he might have been stretched too thin-- beside the iPhone and the 2G Nano there hasn't been much of anything.
Maybe he got so caught up in the iPhone (which clearly is something he is wildly enthusiastic about) he was captured by his own RDF and just sat at his desk all day with an iPhone going "make picture bigger, make picture smaller, make picture bigger, make picture smaller......"
When they showed him the Apple TV he just sort of went "yeah, sure, uh huh, whatever, make picture bigger......"
Maybe he was in treatment for his illness at the time? I really don't know, but it is so not Apple... and it sounds even more un-Applish everytime I hear a new disappointing report on it.
I saw two Bravias in store at Sony official retail outlet.
THEY VIDEO OUTPUT IS ABSOLUTELY HIDEOUS.
The only way this could have flown is if Sony Pictures is in return going to release movies/tv on iTunes by July 2007.
I've got to warn my store manager and bosses about this. STAY AWAY from the Bravias. I hate to bash brand names, but, you'd have to be brave to buy a Bravia.
They were demo-ing HD Sony cameras output to the LCD 30" or so. And then HDMI output to the 30" with clearly labelled "BluRay" logo on a demo loop (you know, the typical "vacation" scenes and stuff...). This is supposed to be "1080p". It looks terrible. Really.
AppleTV HDMI or component into the Bravias is a big mistake. I am quite confident in this regard at this stage. The colours are to sharp and harsh, oversaturated and unnatural, the contrast glaring, the upscaling somehow creating even further "sub-blockiness" instead of smoothing things out.
I know things are different for different regions (I am in Asia) ... but the Sony LCD TVs had a logo of "Full 1080" next to it - no "p" or "i". It's misleading, because next to it they had a chart showing that the 1080 they are referring to is 1440 lines x 1080 pixels.
If you want to see some beautiful HD at true 1080p (besides 1080p trailers on a 30" Apple Cinema Display)... check out Sharp Aquos with their own demo reel [proprietary "HVD" format AFAIK] (last I saw it was like a Japanese silk and paints and stuff - beautiful, except contrast was not as deep as plasmas). Also, for HDTVs, 30" or 42", I would take a 720p Samsung or Panasonic plasma that has true 1280 x 720 pixels not like 1024 x 720 or stuff. And certainly check the in-built upscaler in these to see DVD, Composite, Component, DVI/HDMI, iPod, iTunes Movies/ TV Shows, BluRay sources and see how it flies.
Maybe we're all too much of aesthetes but Bravias are a no-go zone IMO at this stage. Certainly for anything Apple-related. The brand managers for various Apple stores/ resellers must be gagging and gasping for air right now.
Most important for the recommendations I'm going to make is to go for 1280x720 true native progressive pixels on *plasma*. How much true 1080"p" content are we likely to have, from a global perspective, anyway, over the next 5 years?