Does that still make a difference when the AAC quality is still well below that of a CD?
Definitely. Source quality is of the utmost importance no matter the final compression rate.
Keep in mind CD audio and DVD video is in fact "compressed" already. Re-compressing it to an even lower bit-rate produces lower fidelity results than compressing just a single time from the original source.
The only question is... is the difference perceivable? I suspect that it is unnoticeable to most but obvious to some. (with a good dose of placebo thrown in just to confuse everyone)
All DVDs use interlaced video and there isn't a great way to quantitatively compare that to a non-interlaced video mastered from film. Some people are very susceptible to interlacing artifacts while others will never be able to tell the difference.
There are also the issues of color space and frame rate. It would be interesting to know how apple is producing these files. I doubt an actual DVD is anywhere in the production chain. Or at least I hope not.
I've often wondered the same about iTunes. Audio CDs are much lower fidelity than the original production. It is possible that Apple has been ripping from the original, highest-def source, rather than re-down-sampling from the already down-sampled consumer release.
What I'm getting at is, I suspect that the Apple's rips (should) look and sound better than is possible when ripping from DVDs or CDs.
Don't forget that film itself isn't projected the way it is shot.
Film is shot at 24 fps, but projected back at 48 fps with two identical frames presented one after the other to reduce flicker.
Color space has to match the much narrower space of Tv. That's been changing over the years, but not in a standard way. Tv, any older standard, has about 1 million colors possible. HD, in theory, allows for 16.7 million, but I doubt most Tv's can reproduce it, except for a very few models. The HDMI 1.3 spec allows for "deep color". We'll have to see how that works out.
The question of CD quality is argued back and forth. Considering that the mics, mixers, and associated equipment is no better than, or of lower fidelity than the CD itself, it's an interesting argument.
Quality is always better when moving from the original source.
An interesting aside about this. When my company began producing graphics and video for the internet from clients content, we found that content shot on Betacam always looked better than content shot on lesser machines—even when what we had to produce was 320 x 240 with 16 bit color, rather than 24, and high compression rates.
Higher quality original material ALWAYS produces better end quality because it handles the downsampling, and high compression better!
Definitely. Source quality is of the utmost importance no matter the final compression rate.
Keep in mind CD audio and DVD video is in fact "compressed" already. Re-compressing it to an even lower bit-rate produces lower fidelity results than compressing just a single time from the original source.
The only question is... is the difference perceivable? I suspect that it is unnoticeable to most but obvious to some. (with a good dose of placebo thrown in just to confuse everyone)
Cd audio is sampled, not compressed. There is a difference.
I just rented another movie. My clock is correct and I'm getting a 5103 error. The didn't fix it they actually broke it. I'm not the only one. Anyone who has apparently altered their clock (unsure of timeframe) will be able to download the rental but not play it. This is very discouraging and sheds a darkness over the rentals. There is no resolution on Apple's site yet. I'll call tomorrow to find a solution.
DO NOT ADJUST YOUR CLOCK TO TEST THIS OUT ? DO NOT ADJUST YOUR CLOCK TO TEST THIS OUT ? DO NOT ADJUST YOUR CLOCK TO TEST THIS OUT ? DO NOT ADJUST YOUR CLOCK TO TEST THIS OUT ? DO NOT ADJUST YOUR CLOCK TO TEST THIS OUT ? DO NOT ADJUST YOUR CLOCK TO TEST THIS OUT ? DO NOT ADJUST YOUR CLOCK TO TEST THIS OUT ? DO NOT ADJUST YOUR CLOCK TO TEST THIS OUT ? DO NOT ADJUST YOUR CLOCK TO TEST THIS OUT
I reported my issue via iTunes Store on Sunday. I got an email from Apple's iTunes support staff via email at 2pm PST. They said they'd look into it and get back to me. They haven't yet but the video is now working fine. One unfortunate thing is that I have lost all the day it was locked out for. i assumed they'd credit me back a few days from the server, though I don't know if that is possible.
I reported my issue via iTunes Store on Sunday. I got an email from Apple's iTunes support staff via email at 2pm PST. They said they'd look into it and get back to me. They haven't yet but the video is now working fine. One unfortunate thing is that I have lost all the day it was locked out for. i assumed they'd credit me back a few days from the server, though I don't know if that is possible.
Ho ho. You know better than that.
You actually told Apple that you tried to get around their time limiting DRM? And then you asked for credit?
You you!
Wow!!!
That was brave of you. I would have taken my tail between my legs and slunk off into the dark!
But, you have now given Apple a fruitless line of testing to go down, so that's something.
I do want so desperately to test it again but I'll wait until 10.5.2 to arrive. I just can't leave well enough alone. They have to be working on a solution to the clock thing that doesn't alter the rental time or lock out rentals.
My solution would be:
If time has changed iTunes to verify correct time on iTunes servers.
If not internet connection is found to iTunes Servers dialogue box appears.
Once time is verified iTunes checks to see if rental is still valid
If valid, rental starts playing.
Obviously that is overly simplified and I'm sure there are better ways but that is surely better than the error I had for 48 hours.
Yes. You can sync more data from your main computer (potentially your entire iTunes library) and hold more rented movies.
Personally I don't see as necessary. My 802.11n network streams stuff plenty fast. I haven't synced anything to mine.
I went for the larger HDD since I have three 802.11g devices on my 802.11n network, so I was worried about having to stream too much video. My tv finally arrives tomorrow. I think the FedEx truck broke down for five days.
In this instance, we were talking about whether iTS rips are made from consumer media or from the original source. Compression is a good loose term to describe the conversion of data in order to use less storage. You're right that there can be a distinction between it and sampling. But in this instance, when we're talking about both sampling and compression of the same file with no need to distinguish between the two. It made sense to use a term that can encompass both.
How about a car analogy?
I drove my "car" to work today. But feel free to correct me because it is actually an "SUV".
Words can have multiple meanings and using the more "accurate" definition, as you put it, isn't always the most communicative thing to do. If someone is speaking broadly, it makes more sense to use a term with a broad definition or connotation. Using the more specific term can actually be less accurate.
Your quest to have everyone use your single definition of "compression" may have noble intentions, but it certainly isn't making this a more informative thread. It has done exactly the opposite by taking us off on a useless tangent, thereby defeating the purpose of your original nitpick, which I assume was to educate.
Back to my original point...
Does anyone know how the iTS rips are produced? I've seen a few places where people mention that their personal DVD rips look worse than the Apple equivalents. Has anyone else noticed this to be the case?
In this instance, we were talking about whether iTS rips are made from consumer media or from the original source. Compression is a good loose term to describe the conversion of data in order to use less storage. You're right that there can be a distinction between it and sampling. But in this instance, when we're talking about both sampling and compression of the same file with no need to distinguish between the two. It made sense to use a term that can encompass both.
How about a car analogy?
I drove my "car" to work today. But feel free to correct me because it is actually an "SUV".
Words can have multiple meanings and using the more "accurate" definition, as you put it, isn't always the most communicative thing to do. If someone is speaking broadly, it makes more sense to use a term with a broad definition or connotation. Using the more specific term can actually be less accurate.
Your quest to have everyone use your single definition of "compression" may have noble intentions, but it certainly isn't making this a more informative thread. It has done exactly the opposite by taking us off on a useless tangent, thereby defeating the purpose of your original nitpick, which I assume was to educate.
Back to my original point...
Does anyone know how the iTS rips are produced? I've seen a few places where people mention that their personal DVD rips look worse than the Apple equivalents. Has anyone else noticed this to be the case?
Not missing the point at all.
What you're doing with your own definition is leading people to think that something is being done, when it isn't. this isn't MY definition. It is THE definition.
Agreeing on terminology is the most important thing one must do before having a discussion involving that terminology. People simply can't define words any way they like.
Sampling leaves everything intact below half the sample frequency. Lossy compression throws away increasing amounts of that data the more the date is compressed. CD is not compressed, MP3, AAC, and other compression schemes throw away much of that data.
If you want to argue that sampling throws away data above the sample rate, then you would be correct.
We obviously disagree about the definition of "compression".
(I'll resist the urge to rebut further because it is making it impossible to discuss what i'm more interested in.)
... the A/V production chain for content on the iTS?
It'll be interesting to see how Apple's rips compare to rips of equivalent resolution from consumer media. I'm hypothesizing that ripping straight from original sources will result in far superior looking video than is possible than when ripping from DVD or possibly even HD media.
Things it has going for it:
* Higher resolution source
* Compressed once instead of twice
* No interlacing/deinterlacing in the production chain
* No frame rate conversion
* One less color space conversion (unsure about this one)
Comments
Does that still make a difference when the AAC quality is still well below that of a CD?
Definitely. Source quality is of the utmost importance no matter the final compression rate.
Keep in mind CD audio and DVD video is in fact "compressed" already. Re-compressing it to an even lower bit-rate produces lower fidelity results than compressing just a single time from the original source.
The only question is... is the difference perceivable? I suspect that it is unnoticeable to most but obvious to some. (with a good dose of placebo thrown in just to confuse everyone)
Resolution isn't the only consideration either.
All DVDs use interlaced video and there isn't a great way to quantitatively compare that to a non-interlaced video mastered from film. Some people are very susceptible to interlacing artifacts while others will never be able to tell the difference.
There are also the issues of color space and frame rate. It would be interesting to know how apple is producing these files. I doubt an actual DVD is anywhere in the production chain. Or at least I hope not.
I've often wondered the same about iTunes. Audio CDs are much lower fidelity than the original production. It is possible that Apple has been ripping from the original, highest-def source, rather than re-down-sampling from the already down-sampled consumer release.
What I'm getting at is, I suspect that the Apple's rips (should) look and sound better than is possible when ripping from DVDs or CDs.
Don't forget that film itself isn't projected the way it is shot.
Film is shot at 24 fps, but projected back at 48 fps with two identical frames presented one after the other to reduce flicker.
Color space has to match the much narrower space of Tv. That's been changing over the years, but not in a standard way. Tv, any older standard, has about 1 million colors possible. HD, in theory, allows for 16.7 million, but I doubt most Tv's can reproduce it, except for a very few models. The HDMI 1.3 spec allows for "deep color". We'll have to see how that works out.
The question of CD quality is argued back and forth. Considering that the mics, mixers, and associated equipment is no better than, or of lower fidelity than the CD itself, it's an interesting argument.
Quality is always better when moving from the original source.
An interesting aside about this. When my company began producing graphics and video for the internet from clients content, we found that content shot on Betacam always looked better than content shot on lesser machines—even when what we had to produce was 320 x 240 with 16 bit color, rather than 24, and high compression rates.
Higher quality original material ALWAYS produces better end quality because it handles the downsampling, and high compression better!
Does that still make a difference when the AAC quality is still well below that of a CD?
As far as I know, Apple doesn't rip anything. the content companies do their own ripping.
Definitely. Source quality is of the utmost importance no matter the final compression rate.
Keep in mind CD audio and DVD video is in fact "compressed" already. Re-compressing it to an even lower bit-rate produces lower fidelity results than compressing just a single time from the original source.
The only question is... is the difference perceivable? I suspect that it is unnoticeable to most but obvious to some. (with a good dose of placebo thrown in just to confuse everyone)
Cd audio is sampled, not compressed. There is a difference.
Cd audio is sampled, not compressed. There is a difference.
And that's what you chose to comment about?
(It seems like you're off on a rebutal/nitpick bender)
But yes, sampling is a form of compression by many people's definitions.
Is there a distinct advantage to getting the bigger HD in the AppleTV?
Yes. You can sync more data from your main computer (potentially your entire iTunes library) and hold more rented movies.
Personally I don't see as necessary. My 802.11n network streams stuff plenty fast. I haven't synced anything to mine.
I just rented another movie. My clock is correct and I'm getting a 5103 error. The didn't fix it they actually broke it. I'm not the only one. Anyone who has apparently altered their clock (unsure of timeframe) will be able to download the rental but not play it. This is very discouraging and sheds a darkness over the rentals. There is no resolution on Apple's site yet. I'll call tomorrow to find a solution.
DO NOT ADJUST YOUR CLOCK TO TEST THIS OUT ? DO NOT ADJUST YOUR CLOCK TO TEST THIS OUT ? DO NOT ADJUST YOUR CLOCK TO TEST THIS OUT ? DO NOT ADJUST YOUR CLOCK TO TEST THIS OUT ? DO NOT ADJUST YOUR CLOCK TO TEST THIS OUT ? DO NOT ADJUST YOUR CLOCK TO TEST THIS OUT ? DO NOT ADJUST YOUR CLOCK TO TEST THIS OUT ? DO NOT ADJUST YOUR CLOCK TO TEST THIS OUT ? DO NOT ADJUST YOUR CLOCK TO TEST THIS OUT
I reported my issue via iTunes Store on Sunday. I got an email from Apple's iTunes support staff via email at 2pm PST. They said they'd look into it and get back to me. They haven't yet but the video is now working fine. One unfortunate thing is that I have lost all the day it was locked out for. i assumed they'd credit me back a few days from the server, though I don't know if that is possible.
And that's what you chose to comment about?
(It seems like you're off on a rebutal/nitpick bender)
But yes, sampling is a form of compression by many people's definitions.
Sigh!
No, it's not nitpicking, and no, sampling is not compression, even if a few people want to think so.
I reported my issue via iTunes Store on Sunday. I got an email from Apple's iTunes support staff via email at 2pm PST. They said they'd look into it and get back to me. They haven't yet but the video is now working fine. One unfortunate thing is that I have lost all the day it was locked out for. i assumed they'd credit me back a few days from the server, though I don't know if that is possible.
Ho ho. You know better than that.
You actually told Apple that you tried to get around their time limiting DRM? And then you asked for credit?
You
Wow!!!
That was brave of you. I would have taken my tail between my legs and slunk off into the dark!
Ho ho. You know better than that.
You actually told Apple that you tried to get around their time limiting DRM? And then you asked for credit?
You
Wow!!!
That was brave of you. I would have taken my tail between my legs and slunk off into the dark!
I told them i had a kernel panic. I had read a couple reports of rentals giving the same error after that happening.
Either way, I didn't fear the reputations of altering my own clock time outside of not getting a response at all from iTunes support.
I told them i had a kernel panic. I had read a couple reports of rentals giving the same error after that happening.
Either way, I didn't fear the reputations of altering my own clock time outside of not getting a response at all from iTunes support.
Aw, now you gone and spoiled it!
But, you have now given Apple a fruitless line of testing to go down, so that's something.
Aw, now you gone and spoiled it!
But, you have now given Apple a fruitless line of testing to go down, so that's something.
I do want so desperately to test it again but I'll wait until 10.5.2 to arrive. I just can't leave well enough alone.
My solution would be:Obviously that is overly simplified and I'm sure there are better ways but that is surely better than the error I had for 48 hours.
Yes. You can sync more data from your main computer (potentially your entire iTunes library) and hold more rented movies.
Personally I don't see as necessary. My 802.11n network streams stuff plenty fast. I haven't synced anything to mine.
I went for the larger HDD since I have three 802.11g devices on my 802.11n network, so I was worried about having to stream too much video. My tv finally arrives tomorrow. I think the FedEx truck broke down for five days.
Sigh!
No, it's not nitpicking, and no, sampling is not compression, even if a few people want to think so.
Any other definitions you want us to scratch out of the dictionary while you're at it?
Any other definitions you want us to scratch out of the dictionary while you're at it?
I think he has a point on that one, even if it is a nitpick. I haven't found any articles on digital sampling that call it compression.
Any other definitions you want us to scratch out of the dictionary while you're at it?
I'm just trying to be accurate.
In this instance, we were talking about whether iTS rips are made from consumer media or from the original source. Compression is a good loose term to describe the conversion of data in order to use less storage. You're right that there can be a distinction between it and sampling. But in this instance, when we're talking about both sampling and compression of the same file with no need to distinguish between the two. It made sense to use a term that can encompass both.
How about a car analogy?
I drove my "car" to work today. But feel free to correct me because it is actually an "SUV".
Words can have multiple meanings and using the more "accurate" definition, as you put it, isn't always the most communicative thing to do. If someone is speaking broadly, it makes more sense to use a term with a broad definition or connotation. Using the more specific term can actually be less accurate.
Your quest to have everyone use your single definition of "compression" may have noble intentions, but it certainly isn't making this a more informative thread. It has done exactly the opposite by taking us off on a useless tangent, thereby defeating the purpose of your original nitpick, which I assume was to educate.
Back to my original point...
Does anyone know how the iTS rips are produced? I've seen a few places where people mention that their personal DVD rips look worse than the Apple equivalents. Has anyone else noticed this to be the case?
And completely missing the point by doing so...
In this instance, we were talking about whether iTS rips are made from consumer media or from the original source. Compression is a good loose term to describe the conversion of data in order to use less storage. You're right that there can be a distinction between it and sampling. But in this instance, when we're talking about both sampling and compression of the same file with no need to distinguish between the two. It made sense to use a term that can encompass both.
How about a car analogy?
I drove my "car" to work today. But feel free to correct me because it is actually an "SUV".
Words can have multiple meanings and using the more "accurate" definition, as you put it, isn't always the most communicative thing to do. If someone is speaking broadly, it makes more sense to use a term with a broad definition or connotation. Using the more specific term can actually be less accurate.
Your quest to have everyone use your single definition of "compression" may have noble intentions, but it certainly isn't making this a more informative thread. It has done exactly the opposite by taking us off on a useless tangent, thereby defeating the purpose of your original nitpick, which I assume was to educate.
Back to my original point...
Does anyone know how the iTS rips are produced? I've seen a few places where people mention that their personal DVD rips look worse than the Apple equivalents. Has anyone else noticed this to be the case?
Not missing the point at all.
What you're doing with your own definition is leading people to think that something is being done, when it isn't. this isn't MY definition. It is THE definition.
Agreeing on terminology is the most important thing one must do before having a discussion involving that terminology. People simply can't define words any way they like.
Sampling leaves everything intact below half the sample frequency. Lossy compression throws away increasing amounts of that data the more the date is compressed. CD is not compressed, MP3, AAC, and other compression schemes throw away much of that data.
If you want to argue that sampling throws away data above the sample rate, then you would be correct.
(I'll resist the urge to rebut further because it is making it impossible to discuss what i'm more interested in.)
... the A/V production chain for content on the iTS?
It'll be interesting to see how Apple's rips compare to rips of equivalent resolution from consumer media. I'm hypothesizing that ripping straight from original sources will result in far superior looking video than is possible than when ripping from DVD or possibly even HD media.
Things it has going for it:
* Higher resolution source
* Compressed once instead of twice
* No interlacing/deinterlacing in the production chain
* No frame rate conversion
* One less color space conversion (unsure about this one)
* Possibly more computationally heavy compression