It may be the case that 50" plasma TV owners will be disappointed but are those 6 people really in the market for online rentals? They can easily get Blu-Ray discs through the mail or order their butler to go to the store and pick one up.
The latter wouldn't work at all. What if someone rings the doorbell while the butler is at the video store? Who would open the door? The maid? The cook? The gardener? The valet? They are not trained to answer the door. It would be better to send the chauffeur to the video store. Otherwise, buy one of the major studios and have them authorize 1080p film rentals.
The latter wouldn't work at all. What if someone rings the doorbell while the butler is at the video store? Who would open the door? The maid? The cook? The gardener? The valet? They are not trained to answer the door. It would be better to send the chauffeur to the video store. Otherwise, buy one of the major studios and have them authorize 1080p film rentals.
Don't think I haven't considered that! If I could I sware I would buy every major studio and fire all of the executives......hell and the music labels while I'm at it!! And I would totally change how the money is made and distributed and put an end to this freakin nonsense concerning downloaded content.
In the menatime, I'm not even satisfied with my zero gravity perfect chair. I KNEW I should have gotten the motorized version. Bah!!
Actually, I'm working on a way to get my 30" 2560x1600 screen with monitor arm and mobile cpu station setup motorized as well. So as I fully recline in the perfect chair the monitor arm would automatically adjust the monitor's position for optimal viewing.
I plan a similar setup for when I eventually get a 52" 1080p lcd. Its adjustable mobile monitor stand setup alone will cost around $800.00.
The number of pixels/second displayed by 720p content is about 80% of the number of pixels/second displayed by 1080i60.
Excellent post! But you missed a BIG one here. 720p (1280x720x30) actually has 44% of the pixels/second as 1080i (1920x(1080/2)x60). That is a MASSIVE difference!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mr. Me
However, the amount of data that you see at 720p may actually be greater because 1080i providers are more likely to cheat on the specifications.
What is probably the most important thing to broadcast HD is the compression needed to acheive a target bitrate. A 1080i broadcast needs to be compressed more than 720p to "fit" in the same airspace. I can see that for sports, 720P is be prefereable, as it would be less prone to "breaking up" with action, and therefore look "better"
I haven't tried Apple's HD, but the few TV shows I have purchased (making up for missed episodes) on iTunes were horribly compressed. I did notice the later purchases were bigger and looked better, but still inferior to broadcast SDTV. I would expect even an HD download to be far more compressed than broadcast HDTV, and not really taking advantage of the format.
I'm sticking with my HD-DVD player. That is, until I can't get anything interesting to watch anymore... I have yet to notice a single compression artifact, picture and sound are way above broadcast quality.
You strike me as the same person who would complain if it was 1080p...why? because then it would cost more...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Olternaut
I'm sorry but with this news my official opinion on macworld 2008 is that it SUCKED !!!!
HD rentals imo was the only real important announcement from the show. I was all excited at first about it then I learned you can only get the HD movies if you buy the appletv........ok fine. I thought, finally what I have been waiting for, full 1080p HD downloads. TO HELL WITH BLU-RAY AND HD-DVD!!!
I was all set to even go out to buy a big freakin 52" monster of an lcd all because of that take2 apple tv.
Now I learn the friggin thing is still only 720p!!!!!
ARGHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Well, since I'm NOT buying the ultra slim notebook and there is no mactouch and no real HD appletv to speak of..........I'm kinda dissapointed.
You strike me as the same person who would complain if it was 1080p...why? because then it would cost more...
No no! Yes I did gripe a bit when I saw he was going to charge more for the HD content and it was a bit annoying to find out its only for a 24 hour rental. But even so I was all set to go ahead of my schedule and buy a 52" 1080p lcd the next day just for the apple tv take 2.
But when I found it it was only going to be 720p (highly compressed at that) I changed my mind. If it was 1080p the only thing I might complain about after my first download would be the probable compressed data stream I would get which would downgrade the quality.
1080p...ish I suppose.
But I would have still rented. And careful how you use the word troll k?
No no! Yes I did gripe a bit when I saw he was going to charge more for the HD content and it was a bit annoying to find out its only for a 24 hour rental. But even so I was all set to go ahead of my schedule and buy a 52" 1080p lcd the next day just for the apple tv take 2.
But when I found it it was only going to be 720p (highly compressed at that) I changed my mind. If it was 1080p the only thing I might complain about after my first download would be the probable compressed data stream I would get which would downgrade the quality.
1080p...ish I suppose.
And if you hadn't read on the internets? that Apple TV movie rentals are only 720p, you would have never known the frickin' difference. Ignorance is bliss.
fascinating discussion! so i tried to list all the factors, from start to finish, that go into how good a hi-def video we see (maybe i missed something):
1.a. (if applicable) the quality of the original film or analog video content.
1.b. (if applicable) later technical restoration/enhancement of the quality of the original film or analog video.
2.a. the quality level of the initial digital video image capture and the quality of the equipment used.
2.b. or the quality level of the initial digitalization of film or analog video.
3. impacts of any digital content processing prior to CATV/internet transmission or DVD disc manufacture.
4. for DVD's, the quality level category of disc manufacture (SD, ED, HD, etc.) and the quality of the manufacturing process.
5.a. for CATV or internet, the consequences of the encoding/compression method used for transmission.
5.b. for CATV or internet, impacts of any transmission route processing, interference, or other constraints.
6.a. the impacts of the content processing by the DVD playback or CATV/internet receiving equipment, PC, etc., prior to video output.
6.b. (if applicable) the impact of any enhancement processing, such as deinterlacing and "upconversion," by the playback/receiving equipment.
7. the quality of the cable connections to the television.
8. the quality and technology of the television's display.
9.a. impacts of the television's video signal processing.
9.b. (if applicable) the impact of any enhancement processing, such as deinterlacing and "upconversion," by the television.
10.a. how big the television is.
10.b. how close you sit to it.
11. how good your eyesight is.
obviously there are many interacting factors here, some major, some minor. for content over the internet, like AppleTV, the compression and transmission factors are huge.
Excellent post! But you missed a BIG one here. 720p (1280x720x30) actually has 44% of the pixels/second as 1080i (1920x(1080/2)x60). That is a MASSIVE difference!
...
You missed this one. Standard 720p is 720p60. You are correct about 1080i. Therefore, the number of pixels on the screen each second are as follows:
720p60 -> 1280x720x60 = 55,296,000
1080i60 -> 1920x1080x30 = 62,208,000
Therefore, 1080i puts 12.5% more pixels on the screen each second than does 720p. The difference is significant but not massive. However, this seemingly modest difference is enough to cause trouble for some broadcasters trying to fit 1080i video tracks into their bandwidth.
To Alfiejr, your post is a good in the main. However, the image acquisition and processing stages are the ones that have a noticeable effect on HD video quality. Transmission has virtually none. It is a digital transmission. As such, it will either be received or not. It it is received, then the viewer will see a perfect picture save the occasional drop-out or pixelation. If it is not received, then the viewer will see either a blank screen or a "no signal" warning.
Consumers may be overspending on TV sets for resolution that they cannot see. However, a much higher percentage of money is wasted on cables. Monster has convinced entirely too many customers that they need $100 pieces of wire to connect their set top boxes and DVD players to their TV sets when a $20 set of wires from Wal-Mart will do the job.
So I'm watching the HD DVD version of Transformers on my Sharp.
I'm sitting there just gawking at the PQ. Megan Fox never looked better and then it hits me...my HDTV is scaling the picture DOWN to 720. I'm not seeing 1080p.
This pretty much tells me that consumers will Love a well mastered 720p film. I've seen two identically sized Sharps at Best Buy sitting side by side playing the same content. One was 1366x768 and the other was 1920x1080 both were 37". Frankly I could bare perceive a difference in the picture. I truly think 1080p takes more than 42" to discern differences and likely above 60 inches to make any real difference at all.
If I can get my movie faster bring on the 720p. If the movie is a keeper I'll buy the HD optical version.
The Xbox Live 720p rental of Transformers is what made me a HD rentals fan. The picture quality just blew me away.
You missed this one. Standard 720p is 720p60. You are correct about 1080i. Therefore, the number of pixels on the screen each second are as follows:
720p60 -> 1280x720x60 = 55,296,000
1080i60 -> 1920x1080x30 = 62,208,000
Therefore, 1080i puts 12.5% more pixels on the screen each second than does 720p. The difference is significant but not massive. However, this seemingly modest difference is enough to cause trouble for some broadcasters trying to fit 1080i video tracks into their bandwidth.
To Alfiejr, your post is a good in the main. However, the image acquisition and processing stages are the ones that have a noticeable effect on HD video quality. Transmission has virtually none. It is a digital transmission. As such, it will either be received or not. It it is received, then the viewer will see a perfect picture save the occasional drop-out or pixelation. If it is not received, then the viewer will see either a blank screen or a "no signal" warning.
Consumers may be overspending on TV sets for resolution that they cannot see. However, a much higher percentage of money is wasted on cables. Monster has convinced entirely too many customers that they need $100 pieces of wire to connect their set top boxes and DVD players to their TV sets when a $20 set of wires from Wal-Mart will do the job.
I get the impression that while 720p/60 is used for sports broadcasts, etc, most movies are still recorded at 24fps and so displayed in 720p/24. This implies that, given that there are only 24 frames of information to be displayed every second anyway, a 1080i feed with a good deinterlacer would still remain superior for movie-watching.
I get the impression that while 720p/60 is used for sports broadcasts, etc, most movies are still recorded at 24fps and so displayed in 720p/24. This implies that, given that there are only 24 frames of information to be displayed every second anyway, a 1080i feed with a good deinterlacer would still remain superior for movie-watching.
You are right that movies are 24 fps, but that is the source material. Of everything transmitted to your home, movies strain the system least. Through a process called 2:3 pull-up, 24 fps source material is converted to 60 fps (720p) or 30 fps (1080i) for transmission. This process scans odd source frames twice and even frames three times. BTW, all flat panels deinterlace and display their content progressively. The only interlaced displays are CRTs. However, these are rapidly disappearing from stores. Read more about these issues here.
You are right that movies are 24 fps, but that is the source material. Of everything transmitted to your home, movies strain the system least. Through a process called 2:3 pull-up, 24 fps source material is converted to 60 fps (720p) or 30 fps (1080i) for transmission. This process scans odd source frames twice and even frames three times. BTW, all flat panels deinterlace and display their content progressively. The only interlaced displays are CRTs. However, these are rapidly disappearing from stores. Read more about these issues here.
Oh, I'm aware of the specifics. What I was impressing is that while TV broadcasts are actually PRODUCED at high frame-rate, films are not. Regardless of 2:3 pulldown, the raw information in the movie is only 24 frames per second, meaning that whether it's drawn as 60 720p frames or 60 1080i frames, you're seeing the same number of distinct images. So when it comes to movies, you're not 'losing' information like you might be with a high-refresh sports broadcast. Both formats are, effectively, displaying 24 frames per second of information, but both 1080i and 1080p are displaying far more detail. The whole issue of 'pixels per second' becomes a non-issue when the source material is only providing X amount of those pixels and the rest is repeated or interpolated.
Also, deinterlacers do vary in quality. Some televisions do a lousy job of it, others are almost flawless. I'm lucky enough to have a Sony SXRD that does almost perfect deinterlacing - I've seen others that are definitely better off just working with 720p.
And if you hadn't read on the internets? that Apple TV movie rentals are only 720p, you would have never known the frickin' difference. Ignorance is bliss.
You would love to think so wouldn't you. But when I ran that movie whichever I chose on my 52" and started to see artifacts here and there and noticed the quality wasn't that great (for my eyes not yours) I would have said "whats going on here?" I would have then jumped on the internet and did my research, found out it was only 720p....ish and yelled bloody murder.
But, since I'm addicted to daily tech news from multiple sites I became aware of this before I made any purchase.
*sigh* I see myself getting a cheap blu-ray player to hold me over till officially sanctioned 1080p downloads comes to the market.
You would love to think so wouldn't you. But when I ran that movie whichever I chose on my 52" and started to see artifacts here and there and noticed the quality wasn't that great (for my eyes not yours) I would have said "whats going on here?" I would have then jumped on the internet and did my research, found out it was only 720p....ish and yelled bloody murder.
But, since I'm addicted to daily tech news from multiple sites I became aware of this before I made any purchase.
*sigh* I see myself getting a cheap blu-ray player to hold me over till officially sanctioned 1080p downloads comes to the market.
You know, most of the video artifacts on DVD's are related to the variable bit rates being used to optimize contents to fit the limited 8.5GB DVD for movie and all the extras in mpeg2. The compression artifacts are most visible when being upcaled to higher resolution, because the actifacts also get process as if it's part of the video signal. On the online contents, such compression issues may not be present. For one, it uses more storage efficient AVC/H264 and the sacrifice of bit rate due to storage limitation may not be necessary. When using advanced video codec, it should be easy to obtain about 90-95% transparent content quality from the master when using 18 to 24 mbps (for 1080p, so 720p may require about 1/2 bit rate), unless the compressionist did a poor job putting it together.
It's hard to believe your experience to be true, because the artifacts of compression or deinterlacing should not exist in professionally prepared 720p contents. However, the possible limitation would still exisit with hardware decoding H264 (CPU with GPU asist) and ability of software to process video. Hence, YMMV as a out come for those with out dated or poor software player.
Actually, this is the only reason I do not use mac OS for HTPC because of the poor video playing software.
*sigh* I see myself getting a cheap blu-ray player to hold me over till officially sanctioned 1080p downloads comes to the market.
No one will be serving up 1080p movie downloads that can match the quality of a Blu-Ray disc for many, many, many years. Bandwidth speeds and costs are nowhere near acceptable for 25GB-40GB per-movie downloads, not to mention lack of adequate storage space for both the digital store and the consumer. And good luck with finding a "cheap" Blu-ray player.
You know, most of the video artifacts on DVD's are related to the variable bit rates being used to optimize contents to fit the limited 8.5GB DVD for movie and all the extras in mpeg2. The compression artifacts are most visible when being upcaled to higher resolution, because the actifacts also get process as if it's part of the video signal. On the online contents, such compression issues may not be present. For one, it uses more storage efficient AVC/H264 and the sacrifice of bit rate due to storage limitation may not be necessary. When using advanced video codec, it should be easy to obtain about 90-95% transparent content quality from the master when using 18 to 24 mbps (for 1080p, so 720p may require about 1/2 bit rate), unless the compressionist did a poor job putting it together.
It's hard to believe your experience to be true, because the artifacts of compression or deinterlacing should not exist in professionally prepared 720p contents. However, the possible limitation would still exisit with hardware decoding H264 (CPU with GPU asist) and ability of software to process video. Hence, YMMV as a out come for those with out dated or poor software player.
Actually, this is the only reason I do not use mac OS for HTPC because of the poor video playing software.
Is the service available now? Could someone who is really a video expert rent a few of these "HD" movies and play them on their big screen and post a review? Isn't there expert reviews on apple's rental service yet?
I would still not rent until its 1080p but I would like to know other people's experiences with the service, the various types of devices they played the movies on, and the quality and experience with each. All devices should be tried from ipods to 52" inch screens. As well as SD and HD downloads of the same movie.
No one will be serving up 1080p movie downloads that can match the quality of a Blu-Ray disc for many, many, many years. Bandwidth speeds and costs are nowhere near acceptable for 25GB-40GB per-movie downloads, not to mention lack of adequate storage space for both the digital store and the consumer. And good luck with finding a "cheap" Blu-ray player.
As long as studios use advanced video and audio encodes(H264 or VC-1) at 18 to 24 mbps, stripped down one language and one audio track, then 99% of 1080p24 movie files should fit fine in 15 to 25GB space. However, in 720p, it would only require 7.5 to 12.5GB to stream instead. Much more stream friendly for current internet services at 3 to 10 Mbps.
Is the service available now? Could someone who is really a video expert rent a few of these "HD" movies and play them on their big screen and post a review? Isn't there expert reviews on apple's rental service yet?
I would still not rent until its 1080p but I would like to know other people's experices with the service the various types of devices they played the movies on and the quality and experience with each. All devices should be tried from ipod to 52" inch screens. As well as SD and HD downloads of the same movie
I'm not an expert in any way. I'm just a HT hobbyist. I would probably try the download once for myself to check out the Quality of HD download service, but I'd most likely wait to purchase. I still have many HD-DVD's in the wrapper.
I would likely use this apple rental for guests. I'm old fashion when it comes to movie collection, and I'd still prefer the physical discs in 1080p for me. But I'm game with 720p download rental for chick flicks I'm required to watch with the boss.
Comments
His best bet is a BR player and movies on disc only.
It may be the case that 50" plasma TV owners will be disappointed but are those 6 people really in the market for online rentals? They can easily get Blu-Ray discs through the mail or order their butler to go to the store and pick one up.
The latter wouldn't work at all. What if someone rings the doorbell while the butler is at the video store? Who would open the door? The maid? The cook? The gardener? The valet? They are not trained to answer the door. It would be better to send the chauffeur to the video store. Otherwise, buy one of the major studios and have them authorize 1080p film rentals.
The latter wouldn't work at all. What if someone rings the doorbell while the butler is at the video store? Who would open the door? The maid? The cook? The gardener? The valet? They are not trained to answer the door. It would be better to send the chauffeur to the video store. Otherwise, buy one of the major studios and have them authorize 1080p film rentals.
Don't think I haven't considered that! If I could I sware I would buy every major studio and fire all of the executives......hell and the music labels while I'm at it!! And I would totally change how the money is made and distributed and put an end to this freakin nonsense concerning downloaded content.
In the menatime, I'm not even satisfied with my zero gravity perfect chair. I KNEW I should have gotten the motorized version. Bah!!
Actually, I'm working on a way to get my 30" 2560x1600 screen with monitor arm and mobile cpu station setup motorized as well. So as I fully recline in the perfect chair the monitor arm would automatically adjust the monitor's position for optimal viewing.
I plan a similar setup for when I eventually get a 52" 1080p lcd. Its adjustable mobile monitor stand setup alone will cost around $800.00.
The number of pixels/second displayed by 720p content is about 80% of the number of pixels/second displayed by 1080i60.
Excellent post! But you missed a BIG one here. 720p (1280x720x30) actually has 44% of the pixels/second as 1080i (1920x(1080/2)x60). That is a MASSIVE difference!
However, the amount of data that you see at 720p may actually be greater because 1080i providers are more likely to cheat on the specifications.
What is probably the most important thing to broadcast HD is the compression needed to acheive a target bitrate. A 1080i broadcast needs to be compressed more than 720p to "fit" in the same airspace. I can see that for sports, 720P is be prefereable, as it would be less prone to "breaking up" with action, and therefore look "better"
I haven't tried Apple's HD, but the few TV shows I have purchased (making up for missed episodes) on iTunes were horribly compressed. I did notice the later purchases were bigger and looked better, but still inferior to broadcast SDTV. I would expect even an HD download to be far more compressed than broadcast HDTV, and not really taking advantage of the format.
I'm sticking with my HD-DVD player. That is, until I can't get anything interesting to watch anymore...
I'm sorry but with this news my official opinion on macworld 2008 is that it SUCKED !!!!
HD rentals imo was the only real important announcement from the show. I was all excited at first about it then I learned you can only get the HD movies if you buy the appletv........ok fine. I thought, finally what I have been waiting for, full 1080p HD downloads. TO HELL WITH BLU-RAY AND HD-DVD!!!
I was all set to even go out to buy a big freakin 52" monster of an lcd all because of that take2 apple tv.
Now I learn the friggin thing is still only 720p!!!!!
ARGHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Well, since I'm NOT buying the ultra slim notebook and there is no mactouch and no real HD appletv to speak of..........I'm kinda dissapointed.
Stop feeding the trolls
News at 11.
You strike me as the same person who would complain if it was 1080p...why? because then it would cost more...
No no! Yes I did gripe a bit when I saw he was going to charge more for the HD content and it was a bit annoying to find out its only for a 24 hour rental. But even so I was all set to go ahead of my schedule and buy a 52" 1080p lcd the next day just for the apple tv take 2.
But when I found it it was only going to be 720p (highly compressed at that) I changed my mind. If it was 1080p the only thing I might complain about after my first download would be the probable compressed data stream I would get which would downgrade the quality.
1080p...ish I suppose.
But I would have still rented. And careful how you use the word troll k?
No no! Yes I did gripe a bit when I saw he was going to charge more for the HD content and it was a bit annoying to find out its only for a 24 hour rental. But even so I was all set to go ahead of my schedule and buy a 52" 1080p lcd the next day just for the apple tv take 2.
But when I found it it was only going to be 720p (highly compressed at that) I changed my mind. If it was 1080p the only thing I might complain about after my first download would be the probable compressed data stream I would get which would downgrade the quality.
1080p...ish I suppose.
And if you hadn't read on the internets? that Apple TV movie rentals are only 720p, you would have never known the frickin' difference. Ignorance is bliss.
1.a. (if applicable) the quality of the original film or analog video content.
1.b. (if applicable) later technical restoration/enhancement of the quality of the original film or analog video.
2.a. the quality level of the initial digital video image capture and the quality of the equipment used.
2.b. or the quality level of the initial digitalization of film or analog video.
3. impacts of any digital content processing prior to CATV/internet transmission or DVD disc manufacture.
4. for DVD's, the quality level category of disc manufacture (SD, ED, HD, etc.) and the quality of the manufacturing process.
5.a. for CATV or internet, the consequences of the encoding/compression method used for transmission.
5.b. for CATV or internet, impacts of any transmission route processing, interference, or other constraints.
6.a. the impacts of the content processing by the DVD playback or CATV/internet receiving equipment, PC, etc., prior to video output.
6.b. (if applicable) the impact of any enhancement processing, such as deinterlacing and "upconversion," by the playback/receiving equipment.
7. the quality of the cable connections to the television.
8. the quality and technology of the television's display.
9.a. impacts of the television's video signal processing.
9.b. (if applicable) the impact of any enhancement processing, such as deinterlacing and "upconversion," by the television.
10.a. how big the television is.
10.b. how close you sit to it.
11. how good your eyesight is.
obviously there are many interacting factors here, some major, some minor. for content over the internet, like AppleTV, the compression and transmission factors are huge.
Excellent post! But you missed a BIG one here. 720p (1280x720x30) actually has 44% of the pixels/second as 1080i (1920x(1080/2)x60). That is a MASSIVE difference!
...
You missed this one. Standard 720p is 720p60. You are correct about 1080i. Therefore, the number of pixels on the screen each second are as follows:
720p60 -> 1280x720x60 = 55,296,000
1080i60 -> 1920x1080x30 = 62,208,000
Therefore, 1080i puts 12.5% more pixels on the screen each second than does 720p. The difference is significant but not massive. However, this seemingly modest difference is enough to cause trouble for some broadcasters trying to fit 1080i video tracks into their bandwidth.
To Alfiejr, your post is a good in the main. However, the image acquisition and processing stages are the ones that have a noticeable effect on HD video quality. Transmission has virtually none. It is a digital transmission. As such, it will either be received or not. It it is received, then the viewer will see a perfect picture save the occasional drop-out or pixelation. If it is not received, then the viewer will see either a blank screen or a "no signal" warning.
Consumers may be overspending on TV sets for resolution that they cannot see. However, a much higher percentage of money is wasted on cables. Monster has convinced entirely too many customers that they need $100 pieces of wire to connect their set top boxes and DVD players to their TV sets when a $20 set of wires from Wal-Mart will do the job.
So I'm watching the HD DVD version of Transformers on my Sharp.
I'm sitting there just gawking at the PQ. Megan Fox never looked better and then it hits me...my HDTV is scaling the picture DOWN to 720. I'm not seeing 1080p.
This pretty much tells me that consumers will Love a well mastered 720p film. I've seen two identically sized Sharps at Best Buy sitting side by side playing the same content. One was 1366x768 and the other was 1920x1080 both were 37". Frankly I could bare perceive a difference in the picture. I truly think 1080p takes more than 42" to discern differences and likely above 60 inches to make any real difference at all.
If I can get my movie faster bring on the 720p. If the movie is a keeper I'll buy the HD optical version.
The Xbox Live 720p rental of Transformers is what made me a HD rentals fan. The picture quality just blew me away.
You missed this one. Standard 720p is 720p60. You are correct about 1080i. Therefore, the number of pixels on the screen each second are as follows:
720p60 -> 1280x720x60 = 55,296,000
1080i60 -> 1920x1080x30 = 62,208,000
Therefore, 1080i puts 12.5% more pixels on the screen each second than does 720p. The difference is significant but not massive. However, this seemingly modest difference is enough to cause trouble for some broadcasters trying to fit 1080i video tracks into their bandwidth.
To Alfiejr, your post is a good in the main. However, the image acquisition and processing stages are the ones that have a noticeable effect on HD video quality. Transmission has virtually none. It is a digital transmission. As such, it will either be received or not. It it is received, then the viewer will see a perfect picture save the occasional drop-out or pixelation. If it is not received, then the viewer will see either a blank screen or a "no signal" warning.
Consumers may be overspending on TV sets for resolution that they cannot see. However, a much higher percentage of money is wasted on cables. Monster has convinced entirely too many customers that they need $100 pieces of wire to connect their set top boxes and DVD players to their TV sets when a $20 set of wires from Wal-Mart will do the job.
I get the impression that while 720p/60 is used for sports broadcasts, etc, most movies are still recorded at 24fps and so displayed in 720p/24. This implies that, given that there are only 24 frames of information to be displayed every second anyway, a 1080i feed with a good deinterlacer would still remain superior for movie-watching.
I get the impression that while 720p/60 is used for sports broadcasts, etc, most movies are still recorded at 24fps and so displayed in 720p/24. This implies that, given that there are only 24 frames of information to be displayed every second anyway, a 1080i feed with a good deinterlacer would still remain superior for movie-watching.
You are right that movies are 24 fps, but that is the source material. Of everything transmitted to your home, movies strain the system least. Through a process called 2:3 pull-up, 24 fps source material is converted to 60 fps (720p) or 30 fps (1080i) for transmission. This process scans odd source frames twice and even frames three times. BTW, all flat panels deinterlace and display their content progressively. The only interlaced displays are CRTs. However, these are rapidly disappearing from stores. Read more about these issues here.
You are right that movies are 24 fps, but that is the source material. Of everything transmitted to your home, movies strain the system least. Through a process called 2:3 pull-up, 24 fps source material is converted to 60 fps (720p) or 30 fps (1080i) for transmission. This process scans odd source frames twice and even frames three times. BTW, all flat panels deinterlace and display their content progressively. The only interlaced displays are CRTs. However, these are rapidly disappearing from stores. Read more about these issues here.
Oh, I'm aware of the specifics. What I was impressing is that while TV broadcasts are actually PRODUCED at high frame-rate, films are not. Regardless of 2:3 pulldown, the raw information in the movie is only 24 frames per second, meaning that whether it's drawn as 60 720p frames or 60 1080i frames, you're seeing the same number of distinct images. So when it comes to movies, you're not 'losing' information like you might be with a high-refresh sports broadcast. Both formats are, effectively, displaying 24 frames per second of information, but both 1080i and 1080p are displaying far more detail. The whole issue of 'pixels per second' becomes a non-issue when the source material is only providing X amount of those pixels and the rest is repeated or interpolated.
Also, deinterlacers do vary in quality. Some televisions do a lousy job of it, others are almost flawless. I'm lucky enough to have a Sony SXRD that does almost perfect deinterlacing - I've seen others that are definitely better off just working with 720p.
And if you hadn't read on the internets? that Apple TV movie rentals are only 720p, you would have never known the frickin' difference. Ignorance is bliss.
You would love to think so wouldn't you. But when I ran that movie whichever I chose on my 52" and started to see artifacts here and there and noticed the quality wasn't that great (for my eyes not yours) I would have said "whats going on here?" I would have then jumped on the internet and did my research, found out it was only 720p....ish and yelled bloody murder.
But, since I'm addicted to daily tech news from multiple sites I became aware of this before I made any purchase.
*sigh* I see myself getting a cheap blu-ray player to hold me over till officially sanctioned 1080p downloads comes to the market.
You would love to think so wouldn't you. But when I ran that movie whichever I chose on my 52" and started to see artifacts here and there and noticed the quality wasn't that great (for my eyes not yours) I would have said "whats going on here?" I would have then jumped on the internet and did my research, found out it was only 720p....ish and yelled bloody murder.
But, since I'm addicted to daily tech news from multiple sites I became aware of this before I made any purchase.
*sigh* I see myself getting a cheap blu-ray player to hold me over till officially sanctioned 1080p downloads comes to the market.
You know, most of the video artifacts on DVD's are related to the variable bit rates being used to optimize contents to fit the limited 8.5GB DVD for movie and all the extras in mpeg2. The compression artifacts are most visible when being upcaled to higher resolution, because the actifacts also get process as if it's part of the video signal. On the online contents, such compression issues may not be present. For one, it uses more storage efficient AVC/H264 and the sacrifice of bit rate due to storage limitation may not be necessary. When using advanced video codec, it should be easy to obtain about 90-95% transparent content quality from the master when using 18 to 24 mbps (for 1080p, so 720p may require about 1/2 bit rate), unless the compressionist did a poor job putting it together.
It's hard to believe your experience to be true, because the artifacts of compression or deinterlacing should not exist in professionally prepared 720p contents. However, the possible limitation would still exisit with hardware decoding H264 (CPU with GPU asist) and ability of software to process video. Hence, YMMV as a out come for those with out dated or poor software player.
Actually, this is the only reason I do not use mac OS for HTPC because of the poor video playing software.
*sigh* I see myself getting a cheap blu-ray player to hold me over till officially sanctioned 1080p downloads comes to the market.
No one will be serving up 1080p movie downloads that can match the quality of a Blu-Ray disc for many, many, many years. Bandwidth speeds and costs are nowhere near acceptable for 25GB-40GB per-movie downloads, not to mention lack of adequate storage space for both the digital store and the consumer. And good luck with finding a "cheap" Blu-ray player.
You know, most of the video artifacts on DVD's are related to the variable bit rates being used to optimize contents to fit the limited 8.5GB DVD for movie and all the extras in mpeg2. The compression artifacts are most visible when being upcaled to higher resolution, because the actifacts also get process as if it's part of the video signal. On the online contents, such compression issues may not be present. For one, it uses more storage efficient AVC/H264 and the sacrifice of bit rate due to storage limitation may not be necessary. When using advanced video codec, it should be easy to obtain about 90-95% transparent content quality from the master when using 18 to 24 mbps (for 1080p, so 720p may require about 1/2 bit rate), unless the compressionist did a poor job putting it together.
It's hard to believe your experience to be true, because the artifacts of compression or deinterlacing should not exist in professionally prepared 720p contents. However, the possible limitation would still exisit with hardware decoding H264 (CPU with GPU asist) and ability of software to process video. Hence, YMMV as a out come for those with out dated or poor software player.
Actually, this is the only reason I do not use mac OS for HTPC because of the poor video playing software.
Is the service available now? Could someone who is really a video expert rent a few of these "HD" movies and play them on their big screen and post a review? Isn't there expert reviews on apple's rental service yet?
I would still not rent until its 1080p but I would like to know other people's experiences with the service, the various types of devices they played the movies on, and the quality and experience with each. All devices should be tried from ipods to 52" inch screens. As well as SD and HD downloads of the same movie.
No one will be serving up 1080p movie downloads that can match the quality of a Blu-Ray disc for many, many, many years. Bandwidth speeds and costs are nowhere near acceptable for 25GB-40GB per-movie downloads, not to mention lack of adequate storage space for both the digital store and the consumer. And good luck with finding a "cheap" Blu-ray player.
As long as studios use advanced video and audio encodes(H264 or VC-1) at 18 to 24 mbps, stripped down one language and one audio track, then 99% of 1080p24 movie files should fit fine in 15 to 25GB space. However, in 720p, it would only require 7.5 to 12.5GB to stream instead. Much more stream friendly for current internet services at 3 to 10 Mbps.
Is the service available now? Could someone who is really a video expert rent a few of these "HD" movies and play them on their big screen and post a review? Isn't there expert reviews on apple's rental service yet?
I would still not rent until its 1080p but I would like to know other people's experices with the service the various types of devices they played the movies on and the quality and experience with each. All devices should be tried from ipod to 52" inch screens. As well as SD and HD downloads of the same movie
I'm not an expert in any way. I'm just a HT hobbyist. I would probably try the download once for myself to check out the Quality of HD download service, but I'd most likely wait to purchase. I still have many HD-DVD's in the wrapper.
I would likely use this apple rental for guests. I'm old fashion when it comes to movie collection, and I'd still prefer the physical discs in 1080p for me.