Connects to TVs that support component video. outputs 1080i 60/50hz, 720p 60/50hz, 576 50hz (PAL), 480p 60 Hz.
Any TV that takes analog component in should work. Except probably mine that chokes on the Dish component out...
It won't with with my TV either. It's a good quality standard definition with component inputs. The catch? It doesn't support progressive scan, only interlace. According to the specs page, that's not supported.
And as for all the potential HD sources people are mentioning...you're going to have to transcode that to one of the limited codecs supported by iTV.
It will play anything the iTunes will play... So yes, if you rip a movie into iTunes, then Apple TV will play it.
More generally I think it'll play anything that Quicktime can play. I've had success installing extra Quicktime codecs and having Front Row be able to pick up and play "non-standard" videos.
Update: OK, just read Wiggin's post about not all Quicktime codecs being supported. Weird. This thing is starting to look less like a Mini and more like an oversized iPod. It doesn't make sense to me that it wouldn't play everything Front Row on a computer can play.
However, it's not yet clear what resolution it actually supports - the 720p on the site also says 24fps (and that's not HDTV rate - 60fps at 720p is HD)
Ugh, you're right. It does say 24fps. Can they even technically call this 720p?
The playback has to be at least 48P.
We can't literally watch 24P. Its below the thresh hold of persistent vision. You would see flickering images.
Ugh, you're right. It does say 24fps. Can they even technically call this 720p?
Yes because 720p describes resolution and that its progressive not interlaced. 720p/24 is for film sources to save bandwidth. 720p/60 is 55Mpixels/sec. 720p/24 is 22Mpixels/sec. Yes Virginia it is 720p and it is even HDTV. Total is 8-10 Mbps in MPEG-2. Don't know for H.264...around half?
Anyway from film material this avoids needing to do 3-2 pulldown out of 720p/60 and you get to conserve 60% of the bandwidth.
720p/24 for movies is the best tradeoff given the network infratructure between Apple.com and your house.
Quote:
Well, I was assuming this would do gigabit wired Ethernet (all the rest of Apple's current hardware does), so I didn't really care, but I just realized that the Ethernet port is only 10/100BASE-T.
Probably because the chip they use for decode has 10/100 included but maybe not. In any case wired is not an issue with the bit rates they describe. I guess no TV show HD at the beginning at 720p/60. Shame...guess v2 will have to do that along with real IPTV service if they go that route.
Quote:
Looks to me like Apple threw all their money into the iPhone, which few can afford and isn't available yet anyhow. But they really skimped on the Apple TV, which may suffice for people who want something that "just works", but really looks like it is going to offer little for someone who wants even decent HDTV A/V performance. I can't imagine how these issues would be fixable in software.
Reliable 720p/60 playback (VC-1) is hard with challenging material even on the 360 in software. If there isn't a Sigma or equivalent chip in there then there isn't going to be a software fix. If there is, they're underspec'ing probably because 720p/60 was spotty even over draft-N.
Eh...720p/24 with film sources look pretty good and for a downloaded medium about SOTA.
Yes because 720p describes resolution and that its progressive not interlaced. 720p/24 is for film sources to save bandwidth. 720p/60 is 55Mpixels/sec. 720p/24 is 22Mpixels/sec. Yes Virginia it is 720p and it is even HDTV. Total is 8-10 Mbps in MPEG-2. Don't know for H.264...around half?
Anyway from film material this avoids needing to do 3-2 pulldown out of 720p/60 and you get to conserve 60% of the bandwidth.
Mostly wrong. 720p24 (and 1080p24) are used for film sources because motion pictures are shot at 24fps, it has nothing to do with "conserving bandwidth." Presently, Hollywood DVDs are encoded at 480i24 (for NTSC). Blue Ray movies will most likely be stored as 1080p24. Star Wars II, one of the first major motion pictures shot on HD cameras, was shot at 1080p24 to preserve the "film look." The reason 24fps will persist for many years to come is that people are used to the "look" of it for cinema. Converting a 24fps film to 60fps video DOES NOT make the picture better, in fact it makes things worse.
However, few if any current displays are capable of accepting a 24fps signal, so 2:3 reverse pulldown MUST be performed to generate a 30p or 60i/p NTSC signal. This is done in the DVD player, when the player sees certain "flags" in the MPEG stream indicating that the material was telecined at 24fps. Once again, this frame rate conversion ALWAYS makes things worse, but if DVDs were encoded at 60i, pulldown would still be needed (during telecining). For a good explanation of the workings and pitfalls of pulldown, see http://www.dvdfile.com/news/special_...2_pulldown.htm
As an aside, the "holy grail" for cinematic picture quality with emerging technologies would be a 1080p24 source (think Blue Ray or HD-DVD) passing a signal purely in the digital domain (think HDMI) to a 24p capable, 1920x1080 display. This would avoid all picture degradation due to:
* deinterlacing and scaling effects
* motion artifacts (judder) introduced by pulldown
* needless digital to analog conversions
and would provide the best possible picture with the least possible image processing. The display would need to run at a 72Hz vertical refresh rate, of course, to avoid flicker. Each film frame would thus be displayed for 3 consecutive refresh cycles. This is similar to theatrical projection today--movie projectors actually run at 48fps and display each film frame twice.
All of this says...24fps is nothing to fear, and is in fact the appropriate frame rate for movies.
It just means that your TV can do letterbox when fed a wide screen signal. It does not mean your TV needs to be a widescreen LCD or tube.
Something like 95% of TV's produced in 10 years can do a native letterbox. Even the cheapest TV's today can do this.
Oh, come on. Standard-def TVs cannot handle a true widescreen (720p or 1080i) signal. In standard-definition TV, there is no such thing as a "wide screen" signal...the letterboxing you see when watching a widescreen DVD (anamorphic) is generated by the DVD player, not the TV.
According to the specs, the aTV requires at least a EDTV capable of accepting a 480p input. Regular TVs only accept 480i. Practically speaking, at a minimum you'll need a TV that accepts progressive input over component video.
Mostly wrong. 720p24 (and 1080p24) are used for film sources because motion pictures are shot at 24fps, it has nothing to do with "conserving bandwidth."
Yes, and while 720p/24 is part of the ATSC spec it isn't used when broadcasting movies over cable or satellite which typically is 1080i/60. Apple choosing to support 720p/24 is likely for bandwidth reasons because this limits offering 720p/60 and 720p/30 HD video programming (TV shows, sports coverage, etc). There shouldn't be any other reason that it couldn't do the full 720p/60 decode otherwise with a $30 chip from Sigma. Either that or the spec is wrong and they'll do 720p/60.
Well, okay you can drop frames from 720p/60. Ugh. Sport highlights should look great when you do that. Better add artifical motion blur and hope backgrounds were out of focus on medium pans or its judder city.
At least many HD shows are shot in 24p.
Quote:
The reason 24fps will persist for many years to come is that people are used to the "look" of it for cinema. Converting a 24fps film to 60fps DOES NOT make the picture better, in fact it makes things worse.
The point about filming at 60+ fps is that it is more likelike than 24fps. Not that you convert 24fps film to 60 fps.
Quote:
However, few if any current displays are capable of accepting a 24fps signal, so 2:3 reverse pulldown MUST be performed to generate a 30p or 60i/p NTSC signal. This is done in the DVD player, when the player sees certain "flags" in the MPEG stream indicating that the material was telecined at 24fps.
There are some displays that take 1080p/24 (like the Sony VPL-VW50...which will take in 1080p/24 and display at 96Hz). Nothing takes 720p with 24 frame sync AFAIK. 720p/24 is a working (computer) format...not a video format if I recall correctly. 1080p/24 is a video format.
Quote:
As an aside, the "holy grail" for cinematic picture quality with emerging technologies would be a 1080p24 source (think Blue Ray or HD-DVD) passing a signal purely in the digital domain (say over HDMI) to a 24p capable, 1920x1080 display. This would avoid all picture degradation due to:
* deinterlacing and scaling effects
* motion artifacts (judder) introduced by pulldown
* needless digital to analog conversions
Hardly. 1080 is too low a resolution to be the holy grail. 24 fps is good for a "filmlike" look (by definition) which is simply what we are used to...a juddery restriction that most film folk know how to work around for medium pans...not the end all of the medium.
Quote:
All of this says...24fps is nothing to fear, and is in fact the appropriate frame rate for movies.
No kidding. That's what I said. And upscaling from 720p to 1080p is trivial if you have a 1080p display device.
Oh, come on. Standard-def TVs cannot handle a true widescreen (720p or 1080i) signal.
Of course not. But the aTV also puts out 480p which any TV can show.
Quote:
Originally Posted by VideoFreek
In standard-definition TV, there is no such thing as a "wide screen" signal...the letterboxing you see when watching a widescreen DVD (anamorphic) is generated by the DVD player, not the TV.
Umm, no. FYI, there are several ways to letterbox.
One way is to burn the widescreen program to the DVD and send a wide screen (say 16:9) encoded signal and let your TV with the appropriate internal converter squeeze and letter box it to 4:3 on the fly. It's a trivial operation. That's why so many modern TV's can do it well.
Another way is to actually squeeze the program and paint a letter box around the wide program BEFORE your burn it the DVD, and send it to the TV as a 4:3 signal.
Some DVD's do it one way, some the other. Some give you both options. It sounds like the aTV will require a TV that can do on the fly letter boxing, which most, including my 8 year old Sony can.
Some older TV's can't - I sometimes have to letterbox the video (method 2) that I shoot for people using a 16:9 to 4:3 letter box converter so that is can be viewed on any TV.
Quote:
Originally Posted by VideoFreek
According to the specs, the aTV requires at least a EDTV capable of accepting a 480p input. Regular TVs only accept 480i. Practically speaking, at a minimum you'll need a TV that accepts progressive input over component video.
Practically speaking, virtually ALL TV's that have component in can accept a progressive encoded signal. Only some of the very earliest models may have a problem.
Most DVD's these days have a progressive scan output option, so it's simple to find out if your TV can handle the signal.
Umm, no. FYI, there are several ways to letterbox.
One way is to burn the widescreen program to the DVD and send a wide screen (say 16:9) encoded signal and let your TV with the appropriate internal converter squeeze and letter box it to 4:3 on the fly. It's a trivial operation. That's why so many modern TV's can do it well.
Not to belabor the point, Urban, but you've got this wrong. When watching anamorphic DVD on a 4:3 television, the letterboxing is generated by the DVD player, not the TV. There is no such thing as "on the fly letterboxing" in a TV...the DVD is either mastered with the black bars in place, in which case the DVD player simply sends the signal directly tho the TV, or anamorphically, in which case the DVD player will generate the black bars as mentioned above as long as you set up the DVD player for a 4:3 display. A good basic description of all this can be found here:
Interesting points, Vinea, thank you. I'd like to respond with a few more of my own.
Quote:
Originally Posted by vinea
The point about filming at 60+ fps is that it is more likelike than 24fps. Not that you convert 24fps film to 60 fps.
You're absolutely right, from a strict technical viewpoint, 60fps images are certainly "better" and more lifelike. However, people are so wedded to the "look" of 24fps that I think we may never see motion pictures shot at higher frame rates...it would look too much "like video" to us. In fact, some TV shows are shot on 35mm film and then transferred to video precisely to achieve this "filmlike" look. Ironically, I think people associate the look of 24fps with higher "quality."
Quote:
There are some displays that take 1080p/24 (like the Sony VPL-VW50...which will take in 1080p/24 and display at 96Hz). Nothing takes 720p with 24 frame sync AFAIK. 720p/24 is a working (computer) format...not a video format if I recall correctly. 1080p/24 is a video format.
Actually, 720p24 is a valid HDTV format, but you're essentially right...if someone is going to make the effort to handle 24fps natively, they'll go for 1080p and not 720p. Another problem is that right now, I'm not aware of many sources that actually output 24p over HDMI. Out of curiousity, do you know of any?
Quote:
Hardly. 1080 is too low a resolution to be the holy grail. 24 fps is good for a "filmlike" look (by definition) which is simply what we are used to...a juddery restriction that most film folk know how to work around for medium pans...not the end all of the medium.
Well, sure, more rez would be wonderful. But I was talking about what could be achieved with currently-emerging equipment and standards. There is certainly talk about going to more than 1080 lines, but that will be far, far in the future if ever (maybe not for displays, but remember--you need sources recorded at higher than 1080p to get the full benefit). Look how long we've lived with crappy 480-line resolution with NTSC!
BTW, judder, which is defined as uneven or jerky movement during slow pans, is not inherent to film--it comes about from the pulldown process when 24fps film is transferred to 30fps NTSC, because fields are recorded in an alternating 3:2 pattern during telecining.
Not to belabor the point, Urban, but you've got this wrong. When watching anamorphic DVD on a 4:3 television, the letterboxing is generated by the DVD player, not the TV. There is no such thing as "on the fly letterboxing" in a TV...the DVD is either mastered with the black bars in place, in which case the DVD player simply sends the signal directly tho the TV, or anamorphically, in which case the DVD player will generate the black bars as mentioned above as long as you set up the DVD player for a 4:3 display. A good basic description of all this can be found here:
On my Sony, an 8 year old 36" tube TV with a native 4:3 aspect ratio, I can feed it a wide screen, 16:9 signal from any source - DVD, DV VTR, miniDV Camera or HD DV camera, and it will squeeze and letter box the signal. It has to do this because screen is 4:3. In fact, in the menu set up of the TV, I have the option of turning on 16:9 all the time or "auto" which lets the TV decide based on the input. The default is auto.
I do this all the time. Some of my cameras and VTR's give me the choice of output with or without the black bars in place, some don't and I have a video monitor in the chain, so I know it happens at the TV.
On my Sony, an 8 year old 36" tube TV with a native 4:3 aspect ratio, I can feed it a wide screen, 16:9 signal from any source - DVD, DV VTR, miniDV Camera or HD DV camera, and it will squeeze and letter box the signal.
Ahh, I'm with you now. You have a so-called "EDTV"...these are essentially 480p-capable displays that have been marketed as sort of a "bridge" between standard TV and HDTV. See http://www.projectorcentral.com/hdtv_edtv.htm
I see Sony still offers these, including one that will accept HD broadcasts and letterbox/downrez them to fit on a 4:3 SD screen. http://www.nextag.com/SONY-KD27FS170...05/prices-html Why anyone would want to go this way is beyond me, but there you go.
Anyway, my comments are still valid for standard TVs, but I stand corrected with regard to the capabilities of EDTVs. Nevertheless, it is probably technically better to let the DVD player handle the letterboxing, unless the video scalers in the TV are vastly better than those in the DVD player (which is unlikely).
I see Sony still offers these, including one that will accept HD broadcasts and letterbox/downrez them to fit on a 4:3 SD screen. http://www.nextag.com/SONY-KD27FS170...05/prices-html Why anyone would want to go this way is beyond me, but there you go.
8 (9?) Years ago when I bought it, it was one of the few ways to ensure compatibility with all 16:9 sources when HD was prohibitively expensive.
Quote:
Originally Posted by VideoFreek
Nevertheless, it is probably technically better to let the DVD player handle the letterboxing, unless the video scalers in the TV are vastly better than those in the DVD player (which is unlikely).
On a higher res TV yes. On this Sony 480 tube, it doesn't make much of a difference. Either the video scaler is good or (more likely) the superiority of the DVD scaler is lost in the low res.
Am I missing something or is it just an iPod with wireless networking and built in outputs ?
It acts like an iPod in itunes you load it like an iPod from your iTunes etc.
apart from the HD output and remote control screen based gui what advantages does it have over pluging in an iPod to the TV ?
Other than optical digital audio out and the features you described, it is essentially the same as plugging an iPod into your system.
However, having an on screen GUI, access to my full audio and video iTunes library, and digital audio out are just the mix of features I'm looking for and together are reason enough to use this over an iPod connected to my system.
Other than optical digital audio out and the features you described, it is essentially the same as plugging an iPod into your system.
However, having an on screen GUI, access to my full audio and video iTunes library, and digital audio out are just the mix of features I'm looking for and together are reason enough to use this over an iPod connected to my system.
I was initially excited by the digital audio out, too, until I realized it would be passing 128k or higher AAC, which I don't think many receivers or sound processors can handle afaik. Yes, I could re-rip all my CDs to MP3 format (which my Rotel receiver does accept, I think), but this wouldn't solve the problem for content purchased on the iTMS. Given that the main purpose of aTV is to port iTMS content to home theater systems, I not sure what the point of the toslink output is? Any thoughts?
PS (Edit): it just dawned on me that since the aTV has analog audio outputs, it is obviously capable of decoding MP3, AAC, etc., which must be done before D-->A conversion. Duh. Is it possible that the device would decode and pass uncompressed digital audio (e.g., PCM) down the optical link? Now, that would be great! Unfortunately, it's impossible to tell from Apple's lame specs sheet.
I was initially excited by the digital audio out, too, until I realized it would be passing 128k or higher AAC, which I don't think many receivers or sound processors can handle afaik. Yes, I could re-rip all my CDs to MP3 format (which my Rotel receiver does accept, I think), but this wouldn't solve the problem for content purchased on the iTMS. Given that the main purpose of aTV is to port iTMS content to home theater systems, I not sure what the point of the toslink output is? Any thoughts?
The reason for the TOSLINK is that sends a digital audio signal to an outboard DAC which can result in much higher quality and/or allows your AV receiver to decode surround sound from the digital stream. Basically, you get 5.1 or 7.1 without Apple having to include a decoder and all the additional outs.
If it works like the digital audio out on the AirPort Express (And I have no reason to think that it won't), then it will pass a standards compliant PCM stream through the TOSLINK which can be decoded by any DAC. These streams are typically are 16/44.1, 16/48, 24/96, or 24/192 and 2-8 channels
I do that now with my AirPort Ex and a Monster Cable/Entech DAC ($50 super bargain)
In the case ofthe AirPort, the conversion from compressed format to PCM is done at the computer and is streamed to the AirPort.
I imagine that the aTV can do both an onboard compressed to PCM conversion for locally stored files and a stream download for remotes. It also has an onboard DAC, probably of comparable quality to the AirPort Express. Which is to say not bad, but not that good either.
Urban...you were typing your response as I was typing my edit. I (almost) beat you to it! Yes, the aTV must pass PCM over the Toslink, especially since they already do it with AirPort Express, as you point out. That WILL be very handy!
You're absolutely right, from a strict technical viewpoint, 60fps images are certainly "better" and more lifelike. However, people are so wedded to the "look" of 24fps that I think we may never see motion pictures shot at higher frame rates...it would look too much "like video" to us. In fact, some TV shows are shot on 35mm film and then transferred to video precisely to achieve this "filmlike" look. Ironically, I think people associate the look of 24fps with higher "quality."
True...but this is a learned behavior and I'm going to make a totally unsupported assertion: one that likely wont last past this generation as kids grow up with digital media.
Quote:
Actually, 720p24 is a valid HDTV format, but you're essentially right...if someone is going to make the effort to handle 24fps natively, they'll go for 1080p and not 720p. Another problem is that right now, I'm not aware of many sources that actually output 24p over HDMI. Out of curiousity, do you know of any?
Nope. I do notice that every so often when the ATSC specs are discussed someone always pipes ups to note that some of thse approved formats are never used for broadcast (like 720p24).
I've never seen anything that said it takes in 720p/24 or outputs it in the consumer market outside of HD cameras and then it goes to your computer not as a video output. And these are prosumer models. I can't recall which camera's either but it was for low end pro's that wanted film look (wedding shooters, etc) or indie projects.
Quote:
Look how long we've lived with crappy 480-line resolution with NTSC!
]
No arguments there.
Quote:
BTW, judder, which is defined as uneven or jerky movement during slow pans, is not inherent to film--it comes about from the pulldown process when 24fps film is transferred to 30fps NTSC, because fields are recorded in an alternating 3:2 pattern during telecining.
Um, not that I'm a camera guy (computer guy) but my understanding was that you set up very carefully on medium pans to avoid judder. I've seen a chart for panning speeds and recommended focal lengths. Typically this means making sure the background is out of focus with a narrow depth of field...which you get with 35mm. Someone shooting 24p HD not used to setting up for film will end up with judder on the background like crazy on these medium pans because the frame rate is so slow and the depth of field on a HD camera much higher.
But even for 35mm film, set up the shot not quite right and you get a bit of judder because of the low framerate and the movement.
Oh..and the discussion is rather moot...looks like the pulled 720p24 off the spec sheet...I guess we'll know the real specs when they actually ship.
Comments
Connects to TVs that support component video. outputs 1080i 60/50hz, 720p 60/50hz, 576 50hz (PAL), 480p 60 Hz.
Any TV that takes analog component in should work. Except probably mine that chokes on the Dish component out...
It won't with with my TV either. It's a good quality standard definition with component inputs. The catch? It doesn't support progressive scan, only interlace. According to the specs page, that's not supported.
And as for all the potential HD sources people are mentioning...you're going to have to transcode that to one of the limited codecs supported by iTV.
Originally Posted by vinea
Connects to TVs that support component video. outputs 1080i 60/50hz, 720p 60/50hz, 576 50hz (PAL), 480p 60 Hz.
Any TV that takes analog component in should work. Except probably mine that chokes on the Dish component out...
It won't with with my TV either. It's a good quality standard definition with component inputs.
Please see the wiki def of component video
480 and 576 are what standard, old fashioned, off the shelf tube tv's do. It is NOT high Def.
In other words, if your tv has component video in and can play a DVD using those inputs, it can play an Apple TV.
I missed the "doesn't have progressive scan" in your post. Sorry. You are right - your TV may not work with the aTV
It will play anything the iTunes will play... So yes, if you rip a movie into iTunes, then Apple TV will play it.
More generally I think it'll play anything that Quicktime can play. I've had success installing extra Quicktime codecs and having Front Row be able to pick up and play "non-standard" videos.
Update: OK, just read Wiggin's post about not all Quicktime codecs being supported. Weird. This thing is starting to look less like a Mini and more like an oversized iPod. It doesn't make sense to me that it wouldn't play everything Front Row on a computer can play.
However, it's not yet clear what resolution it actually supports - the 720p on the site also says 24fps (and that's not HDTV rate - 60fps at 720p is HD)
Ugh, you're right. It does say 24fps. Can they even technically call this 720p?
The playback has to be at least 48P.
We can't literally watch 24P. Its below the thresh hold of persistent vision. You would see flickering images.
Ugh, you're right. It does say 24fps. Can they even technically call this 720p?
Yes because 720p describes resolution and that its progressive not interlaced. 720p/24 is for film sources to save bandwidth. 720p/60 is 55Mpixels/sec. 720p/24 is 22Mpixels/sec. Yes Virginia it is 720p and it is even HDTV. Total is 8-10 Mbps in MPEG-2. Don't know for H.264...around half?
Anyway from film material this avoids needing to do 3-2 pulldown out of 720p/60 and you get to conserve 60% of the bandwidth.
720p/24 for movies is the best tradeoff given the network infratructure between Apple.com and your house.
Well, I was assuming this would do gigabit wired Ethernet (all the rest of Apple's current hardware does), so I didn't really care, but I just realized that the Ethernet port is only 10/100BASE-T.
Probably because the chip they use for decode has 10/100 included but maybe not. In any case wired is not an issue with the bit rates they describe. I guess no TV show HD at the beginning at 720p/60. Shame...guess v2 will have to do that along with real IPTV service if they go that route.
Looks to me like Apple threw all their money into the iPhone, which few can afford and isn't available yet anyhow. But they really skimped on the Apple TV, which may suffice for people who want something that "just works", but really looks like it is going to offer little for someone who wants even decent HDTV A/V performance. I can't imagine how these issues would be fixable in software.
Reliable 720p/60 playback (VC-1) is hard with challenging material even on the 360 in software. If there isn't a Sigma or equivalent chip in there then there isn't going to be a software fix. If there is, they're underspec'ing probably because 720p/60 was spotty even over draft-N.
Eh...720p/24 with film sources look pretty good and for a downloaded medium about SOTA.
Vinea
... the 720p on the site also says 24fps (and that's not HDTV rate - 60fps at 720p is HD)
Wrong. 24p is fully embraced by the HDTV standard for cinematic sources, as are 25p, 50p, 50i (PAL) and 30p, 60p and 60i (NTSC). See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-definition_television
Yes because 720p describes resolution and that its progressive not interlaced. 720p/24 is for film sources to save bandwidth. 720p/60 is 55Mpixels/sec. 720p/24 is 22Mpixels/sec. Yes Virginia it is 720p and it is even HDTV. Total is 8-10 Mbps in MPEG-2. Don't know for H.264...around half?
Anyway from film material this avoids needing to do 3-2 pulldown out of 720p/60 and you get to conserve 60% of the bandwidth.
Mostly wrong. 720p24 (and 1080p24) are used for film sources because motion pictures are shot at 24fps, it has nothing to do with "conserving bandwidth." Presently, Hollywood DVDs are encoded at 480i24 (for NTSC). Blue Ray movies will most likely be stored as 1080p24. Star Wars II, one of the first major motion pictures shot on HD cameras, was shot at 1080p24 to preserve the "film look." The reason 24fps will persist for many years to come is that people are used to the "look" of it for cinema. Converting a 24fps film to 60fps video DOES NOT make the picture better, in fact it makes things worse.
However, few if any current displays are capable of accepting a 24fps signal, so 2:3 reverse pulldown MUST be performed to generate a 30p or 60i/p NTSC signal. This is done in the DVD player, when the player sees certain "flags" in the MPEG stream indicating that the material was telecined at 24fps. Once again, this frame rate conversion ALWAYS makes things worse, but if DVDs were encoded at 60i, pulldown would still be needed (during telecining). For a good explanation of the workings and pitfalls of pulldown, see http://www.dvdfile.com/news/special_...2_pulldown.htm
As an aside, the "holy grail" for cinematic picture quality with emerging technologies would be a 1080p24 source (think Blue Ray or HD-DVD) passing a signal purely in the digital domain (think HDMI) to a 24p capable, 1920x1080 display. This would avoid all picture degradation due to:
* deinterlacing and scaling effects
* motion artifacts (judder) introduced by pulldown
* needless digital to analog conversions
and would provide the best possible picture with the least possible image processing. The display would need to run at a 72Hz vertical refresh rate, of course, to avoid flicker. Each film frame would thus be displayed for 3 consecutive refresh cycles. This is similar to theatrical projection today--movie projectors actually run at 48fps and display each film frame twice.
All of this says...24fps is nothing to fear, and is in fact the appropriate frame rate for movies.
It just means that your TV can do letterbox when fed a wide screen signal. It does not mean your TV needs to be a widescreen LCD or tube.
Something like 95% of TV's produced in 10 years can do a native letterbox. Even the cheapest TV's today can do this.
Oh, come on. Standard-def TVs cannot handle a true widescreen (720p or 1080i) signal. In standard-definition TV, there is no such thing as a "wide screen" signal...the letterboxing you see when watching a widescreen DVD (anamorphic) is generated by the DVD player, not the TV.
According to the specs, the aTV requires at least a EDTV capable of accepting a 480p input. Regular TVs only accept 480i. Practically speaking, at a minimum you'll need a TV that accepts progressive input over component video.
Mostly wrong. 720p24 (and 1080p24) are used for film sources because motion pictures are shot at 24fps, it has nothing to do with "conserving bandwidth."
Yes, and while 720p/24 is part of the ATSC spec it isn't used when broadcasting movies over cable or satellite which typically is 1080i/60. Apple choosing to support 720p/24 is likely for bandwidth reasons because this limits offering 720p/60 and 720p/30 HD video programming (TV shows, sports coverage, etc). There shouldn't be any other reason that it couldn't do the full 720p/60 decode otherwise with a $30 chip from Sigma. Either that or the spec is wrong and they'll do 720p/60.
Well, okay you can drop frames from 720p/60. Ugh. Sport highlights should look great when you do that. Better add artifical motion blur and hope backgrounds were out of focus on medium pans or its judder city.
At least many HD shows are shot in 24p.
The reason 24fps will persist for many years to come is that people are used to the "look" of it for cinema. Converting a 24fps film to 60fps DOES NOT make the picture better, in fact it makes things worse.
The point about filming at 60+ fps is that it is more likelike than 24fps. Not that you convert 24fps film to 60 fps.
However, few if any current displays are capable of accepting a 24fps signal, so 2:3 reverse pulldown MUST be performed to generate a 30p or 60i/p NTSC signal. This is done in the DVD player, when the player sees certain "flags" in the MPEG stream indicating that the material was telecined at 24fps.
There are some displays that take 1080p/24 (like the Sony VPL-VW50...which will take in 1080p/24 and display at 96Hz). Nothing takes 720p with 24 frame sync AFAIK. 720p/24 is a working (computer) format...not a video format if I recall correctly. 1080p/24 is a video format.
As an aside, the "holy grail" for cinematic picture quality with emerging technologies would be a 1080p24 source (think Blue Ray or HD-DVD) passing a signal purely in the digital domain (say over HDMI) to a 24p capable, 1920x1080 display. This would avoid all picture degradation due to:
* deinterlacing and scaling effects
* motion artifacts (judder) introduced by pulldown
* needless digital to analog conversions
Hardly. 1080 is too low a resolution to be the holy grail. 24 fps is good for a "filmlike" look (by definition) which is simply what we are used to...a juddery restriction that most film folk know how to work around for medium pans...not the end all of the medium.
All of this says...24fps is nothing to fear, and is in fact the appropriate frame rate for movies.
No kidding. That's what I said. And upscaling from 720p to 1080p is trivial if you have a 1080p display device.
Vinea
Oh, come on. Standard-def TVs cannot handle a true widescreen (720p or 1080i) signal.
Of course not. But the aTV also puts out 480p which any TV can show.
In standard-definition TV, there is no such thing as a "wide screen" signal...the letterboxing you see when watching a widescreen DVD (anamorphic) is generated by the DVD player, not the TV.
Umm, no. FYI, there are several ways to letterbox.
One way is to burn the widescreen program to the DVD and send a wide screen (say 16:9) encoded signal and let your TV with the appropriate internal converter squeeze and letter box it to 4:3 on the fly. It's a trivial operation. That's why so many modern TV's can do it well.
Another way is to actually squeeze the program and paint a letter box around the wide program BEFORE your burn it the DVD, and send it to the TV as a 4:3 signal.
Some DVD's do it one way, some the other. Some give you both options. It sounds like the aTV will require a TV that can do on the fly letter boxing, which most, including my 8 year old Sony can.
Some older TV's can't - I sometimes have to letterbox the video (method 2) that I shoot for people using a 16:9 to 4:3 letter box converter so that is can be viewed on any TV.
According to the specs, the aTV requires at least a EDTV capable of accepting a 480p input. Regular TVs only accept 480i. Practically speaking, at a minimum you'll need a TV that accepts progressive input over component video.
Practically speaking, virtually ALL TV's that have component in can accept a progressive encoded signal. Only some of the very earliest models may have a problem.
Most DVD's these days have a progressive scan output option, so it's simple to find out if your TV can handle the signal.
Umm, no. FYI, there are several ways to letterbox.
One way is to burn the widescreen program to the DVD and send a wide screen (say 16:9) encoded signal and let your TV with the appropriate internal converter squeeze and letter box it to 4:3 on the fly. It's a trivial operation. That's why so many modern TV's can do it well.
Not to belabor the point, Urban, but you've got this wrong. When watching anamorphic DVD on a 4:3 television, the letterboxing is generated by the DVD player, not the TV. There is no such thing as "on the fly letterboxing" in a TV...the DVD is either mastered with the black bars in place, in which case the DVD player simply sends the signal directly tho the TV, or anamorphically, in which case the DVD player will generate the black bars as mentioned above as long as you set up the DVD player for a 4:3 display. A good basic description of all this can be found here:
http://www.thedigitalbits.com/articles/anamorphic/
The point about filming at 60+ fps is that it is more likelike than 24fps. Not that you convert 24fps film to 60 fps.
You're absolutely right, from a strict technical viewpoint, 60fps images are certainly "better" and more lifelike. However, people are so wedded to the "look" of 24fps that I think we may never see motion pictures shot at higher frame rates...it would look too much "like video" to us. In fact, some TV shows are shot on 35mm film and then transferred to video precisely to achieve this "filmlike" look. Ironically, I think people associate the look of 24fps with higher "quality."
There are some displays that take 1080p/24 (like the Sony VPL-VW50...which will take in 1080p/24 and display at 96Hz). Nothing takes 720p with 24 frame sync AFAIK. 720p/24 is a working (computer) format...not a video format if I recall correctly. 1080p/24 is a video format.
Actually, 720p24 is a valid HDTV format, but you're essentially right...if someone is going to make the effort to handle 24fps natively, they'll go for 1080p and not 720p. Another problem is that right now, I'm not aware of many sources that actually output 24p over HDMI. Out of curiousity, do you know of any?
Hardly. 1080 is too low a resolution to be the holy grail. 24 fps is good for a "filmlike" look (by definition) which is simply what we are used to...a juddery restriction that most film folk know how to work around for medium pans...not the end all of the medium.
Well, sure, more rez would be wonderful. But I was talking about what could be achieved with currently-emerging equipment and standards. There is certainly talk about going to more than 1080 lines, but that will be far, far in the future if ever (maybe not for displays, but remember--you need sources recorded at higher than 1080p to get the full benefit). Look how long we've lived with crappy 480-line resolution with NTSC!
BTW, judder, which is defined as uneven or jerky movement during slow pans, is not inherent to film--it comes about from the pulldown process when 24fps film is transferred to 30fps NTSC, because fields are recorded in an alternating 3:2 pattern during telecining.
Not to belabor the point, Urban, but you've got this wrong. When watching anamorphic DVD on a 4:3 television, the letterboxing is generated by the DVD player, not the TV. There is no such thing as "on the fly letterboxing" in a TV...the DVD is either mastered with the black bars in place, in which case the DVD player simply sends the signal directly tho the TV, or anamorphically, in which case the DVD player will generate the black bars as mentioned above as long as you set up the DVD player for a 4:3 display. A good basic description of all this can be found here:
http://www.thedigitalbits.com/articles/anamorphic/
Again, there is more than one way to do this.
On my Sony, an 8 year old 36" tube TV with a native 4:3 aspect ratio, I can feed it a wide screen, 16:9 signal from any source - DVD, DV VTR, miniDV Camera or HD DV camera, and it will squeeze and letter box the signal. It has to do this because screen is 4:3. In fact, in the menu set up of the TV, I have the option of turning on 16:9 all the time or "auto" which lets the TV decide based on the input. The default is auto.
I do this all the time. Some of my cameras and VTR's give me the choice of output with or without the black bars in place, some don't and I have a video monitor in the chain, so I know it happens at the TV.
That's why I must sometimes use this: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/cont...ughType=search
When I copy DV tapes to VHS. It does on the fly letter boxing.
My DVD is set up to NOT letter box the out, but send it to the TV wide, which does the squeezing.
On my Sony, an 8 year old 36" tube TV with a native 4:3 aspect ratio, I can feed it a wide screen, 16:9 signal from any source - DVD, DV VTR, miniDV Camera or HD DV camera, and it will squeeze and letter box the signal.
Ahh, I'm with you now. You have a so-called "EDTV"...these are essentially 480p-capable displays that have been marketed as sort of a "bridge" between standard TV and HDTV. See http://www.projectorcentral.com/hdtv_edtv.htm
I see Sony still offers these, including one that will accept HD broadcasts and letterbox/downrez them to fit on a 4:3 SD screen. http://www.nextag.com/SONY-KD27FS170...05/prices-html Why anyone would want to go this way is beyond me, but there you go.
Anyway, my comments are still valid for standard TVs, but I stand corrected with regard to the capabilities of EDTVs. Nevertheless, it is probably technically better to let the DVD player handle the letterboxing, unless the video scalers in the TV are vastly better than those in the DVD player (which is unlikely).
I see Sony still offers these, including one that will accept HD broadcasts and letterbox/downrez them to fit on a 4:3 SD screen. http://www.nextag.com/SONY-KD27FS170...05/prices-html Why anyone would want to go this way is beyond me, but there you go.
8 (9?) Years ago when I bought it, it was one of the few ways to ensure compatibility with all 16:9 sources when HD was prohibitively expensive.
Nevertheless, it is probably technically better to let the DVD player handle the letterboxing, unless the video scalers in the TV are vastly better than those in the DVD player (which is unlikely).
On a higher res TV yes. On this Sony 480 tube, it doesn't make much of a difference. Either the video scaler is good or (more likely) the superiority of the DVD scaler is lost in the low res.
It acts like an iPod in itunes you load it like an iPod from your iTunes etc.
apart from the HD output and remote control screen based gui what advantages does it have over pluging in an iPod to the TV ?
j.
Am I missing something or is it just an iPod with wireless networking and built in outputs ?
It acts like an iPod in itunes you load it like an iPod from your iTunes etc.
apart from the HD output and remote control screen based gui what advantages does it have over pluging in an iPod to the TV ?
Other than optical digital audio out and the features you described, it is essentially the same as plugging an iPod into your system.
However, having an on screen GUI, access to my full audio and video iTunes library, and digital audio out are just the mix of features I'm looking for and together are reason enough to use this over an iPod connected to my system.
Other than optical digital audio out and the features you described, it is essentially the same as plugging an iPod into your system.
However, having an on screen GUI, access to my full audio and video iTunes library, and digital audio out are just the mix of features I'm looking for and together are reason enough to use this over an iPod connected to my system.
I was initially excited by the digital audio out, too, until I realized it would be passing 128k or higher AAC, which I don't think many receivers or sound processors can handle afaik. Yes, I could re-rip all my CDs to MP3 format (which my Rotel receiver does accept, I think), but this wouldn't solve the problem for content purchased on the iTMS. Given that the main purpose of aTV is to port iTMS content to home theater systems, I not sure what the point of the toslink output is? Any thoughts?
PS (Edit): it just dawned on me that since the aTV has analog audio outputs, it is obviously capable of decoding MP3, AAC, etc., which must be done before D-->A conversion. Duh. Is it possible that the device would decode and pass uncompressed digital audio (e.g., PCM) down the optical link? Now, that would be great! Unfortunately, it's impossible to tell from Apple's lame specs sheet.
I was initially excited by the digital audio out, too, until I realized it would be passing 128k or higher AAC, which I don't think many receivers or sound processors can handle afaik. Yes, I could re-rip all my CDs to MP3 format (which my Rotel receiver does accept, I think), but this wouldn't solve the problem for content purchased on the iTMS. Given that the main purpose of aTV is to port iTMS content to home theater systems, I not sure what the point of the toslink output is? Any thoughts?
The reason for the TOSLINK is that sends a digital audio signal to an outboard DAC which can result in much higher quality and/or allows your AV receiver to decode surround sound from the digital stream. Basically, you get 5.1 or 7.1 without Apple having to include a decoder and all the additional outs.
If it works like the digital audio out on the AirPort Express (And I have no reason to think that it won't), then it will pass a standards compliant PCM stream through the TOSLINK which can be decoded by any DAC. These streams are typically are 16/44.1, 16/48, 24/96, or 24/192 and 2-8 channels
I do that now with my AirPort Ex and a Monster Cable/Entech DAC ($50 super bargain)
In the case ofthe AirPort, the conversion from compressed format to PCM is done at the computer and is streamed to the AirPort.
I imagine that the aTV can do both an onboard compressed to PCM conversion for locally stored files and a stream download for remotes. It also has an onboard DAC, probably of comparable quality to the AirPort Express. Which is to say not bad, but not that good either.
You're absolutely right, from a strict technical viewpoint, 60fps images are certainly "better" and more lifelike. However, people are so wedded to the "look" of 24fps that I think we may never see motion pictures shot at higher frame rates...it would look too much "like video" to us. In fact, some TV shows are shot on 35mm film and then transferred to video precisely to achieve this "filmlike" look. Ironically, I think people associate the look of 24fps with higher "quality."
True...but this is a learned behavior and I'm going to make a totally unsupported assertion: one that likely wont last past this generation as kids grow up with digital media.
Actually, 720p24 is a valid HDTV format, but you're essentially right...if someone is going to make the effort to handle 24fps natively, they'll go for 1080p and not 720p. Another problem is that right now, I'm not aware of many sources that actually output 24p over HDMI. Out of curiousity, do you know of any?
Nope. I do notice that every so often when the ATSC specs are discussed someone always pipes ups to note that some of thse approved formats are never used for broadcast (like 720p24).
I've never seen anything that said it takes in 720p/24 or outputs it in the consumer market outside of HD cameras and then it goes to your computer not as a video output. And these are prosumer models. I can't recall which camera's either but it was for low end pro's that wanted film look (wedding shooters, etc) or indie projects.
Look how long we've lived with crappy 480-line resolution with NTSC!
]
No arguments there.
BTW, judder, which is defined as uneven or jerky movement during slow pans, is not inherent to film--it comes about from the pulldown process when 24fps film is transferred to 30fps NTSC, because fields are recorded in an alternating 3:2 pattern during telecining.
Um, not that I'm a camera guy (computer guy) but my understanding was that you set up very carefully on medium pans to avoid judder. I've seen a chart for panning speeds and recommended focal lengths. Typically this means making sure the background is out of focus with a narrow depth of field...which you get with 35mm. Someone shooting 24p HD not used to setting up for film will end up with judder on the background like crazy on these medium pans because the frame rate is so slow and the depth of field on a HD camera much higher.
But even for 35mm film, set up the shot not quite right and you get a bit of judder because of the low framerate and the movement.
Oh..and the discussion is rather moot...looks like the pulled 720p24 off the spec sheet...I guess we'll know the real specs when they actually ship.
Vinea