On CRT, interlaced works fine. And there are certainly more CRTs out there.
If the future was CRT I'd tend to agree go interlaced with the downloads.
But
1) when it comes to Widescreen TVs, the majority are progressive (ie Plasma or LCD).
2) Our laptops, iPods, iPhones are progressive.
3) Interlaced TV shows use less bandwidth (not half as you say, but certainly less), but this is because they cut out every 2nd line... which is ideal IF it was filmed that way
4) Film is done progressively. Typically 24p. This gets converted to 60i. The compression of the original 24p uses less bandwidth than compressing the 60i version, and looks better.
I'm struggling to see the advantage...
Okay... it'd be great if Apple catered for the millions of existing users out there with CRTs and 4:3 screens (users like me, actually) by providing a much smaller TV file that's lower res and interlaced (for any show that was filmed interlaced)
...BUT I think Apple should cater for the new markets of 720p and high bandwidth. Perhaps they can do both.
Am I missing something?
software can easily bring the two lines together in a progressive display. In fact, that's exactly what's done, and the result looks better than it does when shown as interlaced.
It's not really too much of an issue. Remember that all DVDs are also interlaced.
It's not really too much of an issue. Remember that all DVDs are also interlaced.
I agree, it's not much of an issue.
I just can't see any reason to broadcast interlaced - except (as I said) if you're using an interlaced CRT TV, and if the source was recorded in interlaced.
So it downloads twice as fast, and works with more equipment.
Neither are really true though. Interlaced NTSC 60i, progressive movies are encoded at 24p, taking out the duplicate fields reduces the amount of data to compress by 20%, and once you do that, most of the data to encode it as progressive is already there.
Interlacing a progressive video stream is easy, pretty much all DVD players do that. Deinterlacing video is complex enough and shouldn't be necessary in this case.
I'm not aware of any advantages in encoding film sourced video as interlaced.
Neither are really true though. Interlaced NTSC 60i, progressive movies are encoded at 24p, taking out the duplicate fields reduces the amount of data to compress by 20%, and once you do that, most of the data to encode it as progressive is already there.
Interlacing a progressive video stream is easy, pretty much all DVD players do that. Deinterlacing video is complex enough and shouldn't be necessary in this case.
I'm not aware of any advantages in encoding film sourced video as interlaced.
This is actually a complex issue. It really only is significant with the best quality playback equipment.
Apple is trying to change the model for watching TV, but they may need to play with existing systems in order to do that. I think for now that AppleTV PLUS DVR could replace cable entirely for a significant number of people, where AppleTV on its own could not. I wonder what Apple will choose.
This is actually the problem. The studios will not give Apple content in any form that competes with other business models. The MPAA does not want to put cable out of business. They do not want to damage DVD sales. They do not want to damage commercial advertisement sponsored TV. They are simply afraid of this online distribution model. I believe that eventually, Apple will have to present some type of Elgato EyeTV type solution. If the AppleTV could record directly from the TV and send its content directly to the computer or a docked iPod, it would be game over. That is what I waiting for.
I'm wondering what the implications of all this are for the AppleTV (er, TV). I'm really interested in picking one up, but I've been holding out for a new version.
I'm wondering what the implications of all this are for the AppleTV (er, TV). I'm really interested in picking one up, but I've been holding out for a new version.
I suppose it depends on how much contenr Apple can hook in. It really needs to be in the thousands of movies, long term. Hundreds sounds good, but really isn't.
Comments
On CRT, interlaced works fine. And there are certainly more CRTs out there.
If the future was CRT I'd tend to agree go interlaced with the downloads.
But
1) when it comes to Widescreen TVs, the majority are progressive (ie Plasma or LCD).
2) Our laptops, iPods, iPhones are progressive.
3) Interlaced TV shows use less bandwidth (not half as you say, but certainly less), but this is because they cut out every 2nd line... which is ideal IF it was filmed that way
4) Film is done progressively. Typically 24p. This gets converted to 60i. The compression of the original 24p uses less bandwidth than compressing the 60i version, and looks better.
I'm struggling to see the advantage...
Okay... it'd be great if Apple catered for the millions of existing users out there with CRTs and 4:3 screens (users like me, actually) by providing a much smaller TV file that's lower res and interlaced (for any show that was filmed interlaced)
...BUT I think Apple should cater for the new markets of 720p and high bandwidth. Perhaps they can do both.
Am I missing something?
software can easily bring the two lines together in a progressive display. In fact, that's exactly what's done, and the result looks better than it does when shown as interlaced.
It's not really too much of an issue. Remember that all DVDs are also interlaced.
It's not really too much of an issue. Remember that all DVDs are also interlaced.
I agree, it's not much of an issue.
I just can't see any reason to broadcast interlaced - except (as I said) if you're using an interlaced CRT TV, and if the source was recorded in interlaced.
So it downloads twice as fast, and works with more equipment.
Neither are really true though. Interlaced NTSC 60i, progressive movies are encoded at 24p, taking out the duplicate fields reduces the amount of data to compress by 20%, and once you do that, most of the data to encode it as progressive is already there.
Interlacing a progressive video stream is easy, pretty much all DVD players do that. Deinterlacing video is complex enough and shouldn't be necessary in this case.
I'm not aware of any advantages in encoding film sourced video as interlaced.
Neither are really true though. Interlaced NTSC 60i, progressive movies are encoded at 24p, taking out the duplicate fields reduces the amount of data to compress by 20%, and once you do that, most of the data to encode it as progressive is already there.
Interlacing a progressive video stream is easy, pretty much all DVD players do that. Deinterlacing video is complex enough and shouldn't be necessary in this case.
I'm not aware of any advantages in encoding film sourced video as interlaced.
This is actually a complex issue. It really only is significant with the best quality playback equipment.
Apple is trying to change the model for watching TV, but they may need to play with existing systems in order to do that. I think for now that AppleTV PLUS DVR could replace cable entirely for a significant number of people, where AppleTV on its own could not. I wonder what Apple will choose.
This is actually the problem. The studios will not give Apple content in any form that competes with other business models. The MPAA does not want to put cable out of business. They do not want to damage DVD sales. They do not want to damage commercial advertisement sponsored TV. They are simply afraid of this online distribution model. I believe that eventually, Apple will have to present some type of Elgato EyeTV type solution. If the AppleTV could record directly from the TV and send its content directly to the computer or a docked iPod, it would be game over. That is what I waiting for.
I'm wondering what the implications of all this are for the AppleTV (er, TV). I'm really interested in picking one up, but I've been holding out for a new version.
I suppose it depends on how much contenr Apple can hook in. It really needs to be in the thousands of movies, long term. Hundreds sounds good, but really isn't.