I don't know much about the topic you are two are discussing, but I do know there is a major difference between layman definitions and industry definitions. And it sounds like you two are debating over the definition of an industry term.
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)
* Possibly more computationally heavy encryption
If you'll read back to at least one of my earlier posts, you will see that I AGREE about using the highest possible original to work from. No problem there.
If you'll read back to at least one of my earlier posts, you will see that I AGREE about using the highest possible original to work from. No problem there.
I didn't know there was a disagreement. (other than the "compression" tangent)
Have any thoughts on how significant a quality improvement there is when ripping from an original source rather than DVD?
For instance, can a rip that is lower res than DVD actually look better than a DVD because of considerations other than resolution? Perception is a funny thing so I'm curious if what I'm perceiving is simply placebo effect.
I didn't know there was a disagreement. (other than the "compression" tangent)
Have any thoughts on how significant a quality improvement there is when ripping from an original source rather than DVD?
For instance, can a rip that is lower res than DVD actually look better than a DVD because of considerations other than resolution? Perception is a funny thing so I'm curious if what I'm perceiving is simply placebo effect.
Maybe it changes the gamma curve? Supposedly H.264 has better color sampling than MPEG-2.
I didn't know there was a disagreement. (other than the "compression" tangent)
No, there wasn't another disagreement. I was just pointing out that despite the agreement, I do agree that we must start with the best source, no matter how compressed we need the end result to be.
Quote:
Have any thoughts on how significant a quality improvement there is when ripping from an original source rather than DVD?
As DVD's ARE compressed, any further compression will result in possible artifacts. Unfortunately, few people doing this at home have access to the hardware and software that studios use. That can compensate of these problems. H.264 is already heavily compressed. a straight rip with no further compression, as roomy as that is, is the best way to go.
As for original materials, it depends on what they were.
Even industry digital movie equipment usually compresses the signal, though in a not noticeable way. This equipment preserves far more of the color content that home software does. I'm sure that all compressed content sold or rented would be compressed from a much higher level source than the DVD. I don't know of any company that would use the DVD as a source.
Quote:
For instance, can a rip that is lower res than DVD actually look better than a DVD because of considerations other than resolution? Perception is a funny thing so I'm curious if what I'm perceiving is simply placebo effect.
That's a funny question because that can actually happen!
It's the opposite of the situation where most hi def Tv's make broadcast look WORSE, after it's upscaled, rather than better.
When you upscale a signal, if it isn't pristine, it is difficult to make it look as good, much less better, because all of the defects get magnified, and odd artifacts often occur.
When rezzing down, other than for softness, those same defects get averaged out, and often disappear.
But, again, it depends on how good, or bad, the original is.
If you have poor detail in the shadows on the DVD, then a down rez will often eliminate them entirely, resulting in large dark grey blobs.
Colors can become more garish as the samples are averaged together.
A lot of this depends on the software makers decisions as to how they think the image would please the larger part of the user base.
Too bad, but most people think that oversaturated images are better (orange faces anyone?).The software company may then oversaturate the compressed image by choosing to duplicate a pixels color level that has more color, rather than to moderate the result according to the less saturated one next to it.
This is amateur software. Pro level software won't do that, and offers many options. Apple's Compressor is very good, but isn't a RIP tool..
Hopefully, this may clear up issues for those who aren't happy about the 24 hour period available after starting to view a movie rental.
Chris Breen, editor of Macworld, has written an article, that seems to show that Apple is accommodating those who START their movie, but then fail to finish it in the 24 hour period. Apparently, if you don't turn the movie off, but instead pause it, you can resume after the rental time is over.
But what happens when you start a different movie or listen to songs for awhile? And will this work on the AppleTV?
I don't like the 24 hour limitation because I treat movies like I do books. I will start and pause them often to do other things before I am finished with them. It has taken me a week or more to finish a single movie.
But what happens when you start a different movie or listen to songs for awhile? And will this work on the AppleTV?
I don't like the 24 hour limitation because I treat movies like I do books. I will start and pause them often to do other things before I am finished with them. It has taken me a week or more to finish a single movie.
Read the article. He tells all he knows, and doesn't know. He addresses your questions clearly.
Does any one know if there are ANY parental controls on this new Apple TV? I have a house full of teenagers and very young children. Though I would love to purchase a new Apple TV, I am concerned that, left to their own devices, my kids would rent all kinds of inappropriate things and cost me a fortune in rental costs.
My dream Apple TV would at first require a password to purchase and rent all programing AND have a check box that allows you to remember that password OR NOT. (Like they have on iTunes) That would allowing me the kind of control that makes me very comfortable with the Apple TV.
Does it have this kind of interface, does anyone know?
From the Settings menu, you can set parental controls that limit what your kids can buy and rent on Apple TV. Or set up your screen saver, your network, your TV resolution, and more.
There is also a video but since the horrible computers here at work dont support quicktime im not sure what is says. Hope it helps.
From the Settings menu, you can set parental controls that limit what your kids can buy and rent on Apple TV. Or set up your screen saver, your network, your TV resolution, and more.
There is also a video but since the horrible computers here at work dont support quicktime im not sure what is says. Hope it helps.
Apples not being very informative here. I to am interested in how to limit what is displayed and presented to the casual AppleTV viewer. Currently you can choose not to sync questionable material to the ATV but the new movie list feature makes it look like the ATV will automatically search out and stream all available iTunes movies. Even movies you do not want to share with friends and family. I can see some embarrassing moments ahead
Apples not being very informative here. I to am interested in how to limit what is displayed and presented to the casual AppleTV viewer. Currently you can choose not to sync questionable material to the ATV but the new movie list feature makes it look like the ATV will automatically search out and stream all available iTunes movies. Even movies you do not want to share with friends and family. I can see some embarrassing moments ahead
Can we rate out media in iTunes? If not, they really should add that feature.
The only current rental I have is 853x405. That is better than DVD quality, is it not?
I want to bring this up again. This surprised me because it contradicted what I had believed, but I accepted it. Now I'm having second thoughts again.
First, I'd like to confirm that others are getting this resolution from iTunes rentals. I just tried one (The Village), and it was 640x344. Maybe different movies are encoded differently, but I'd just like to see some confirmation.
Second, I'd like to confirm that this 853x405 resolution plays on the iPod. I've searched around a bit and although some iPods can handle anamorphic video properly, I can't find any evidence that an iPod would be able to play a file with a resolution this large, anamorphic encoding or otherwise.
I want to bring this up again. This surprised me because it contradicted what I had believed, but I accepted it. Now I'm having second thoughts again.
First, I'd like to confirm that others are getting this resolution from iTunes rentals. I just tried one (The Village), and it was 640x344. Maybe different movies are encoded differently, but I'd just like to see some confirmation.
Second, I'd like to confirm that this 853x405 resolution plays on the iPod. I've searched around a bit and although some iPods can handle anamorphic video properly, I can't find any evidence that an iPod would be able to play a file with a resolution this large, anamorphic encoding or otherwise.
Thanks.
I think you might test it by fiddling with Quicktime or Handbrake exports to output the resolution that you want. I don't have a video iPod so I can't help.
I want to bring this up again. This surprised me because it contradicted what I had believed, but I accepted it. Now I'm having second thoughts again.
First, I'd like to confirm that others are getting this resolution from iTunes rentals. I just tried one (The Village), and it was 640x344. Maybe different movies are encoded differently, but I'd just like to see some confirmation.
Second, I'd like to confirm that this 853x405 resolution plays on the iPod. I've searched around a bit and although some iPods can handle anamorphic video properly, I can't find any evidence that an iPod would be able to play a file with a resolution this large, anamorphic encoding or otherwise.
Thanks.
The next video rental I watch I'll surely check. The Village is for sale and rental, so does that mean it was available, and therefore encoded, before the rentals and new "DVD quality" resolution was in effect?
I did notice the film I watched in 853x405 (which is an odd size) still remained at the 1.5MBps limit, which is maximum throughout that Apple states iDevices can handle. The film was very dark to help reflect the dreary nature nature of a East Germany during the Cold War so I'm wondering if their encoding software pre-determines the bitrate and then encodes the resolution at the maximum allowance of that bitrate.
The next video rental I watch I'll surely check. The Village is for sale and rental, so does that mean it was available, and therefore encoded, before the rentals and new "DVD quality" resolution was in effect?
Good point. What was the video you rented with that higher resolution?
BTW, can the newer iPods (the ones capable of viewing rentals) display higher-resolution videos than older ones?
Comments
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)
* Possibly more computationally heavy encryption
If you'll read back to at least one of my earlier posts, you will see that I AGREE about using the highest possible original to work from. No problem there.
If you'll read back to at least one of my earlier posts, you will see that I AGREE about using the highest possible original to work from. No problem there.
I didn't know there was a disagreement.
Have any thoughts on how significant a quality improvement there is when ripping from an original source rather than DVD?
For instance, can a rip that is lower res than DVD actually look better than a DVD because of considerations other than resolution? Perception is a funny thing so I'm curious if what I'm perceiving is simply placebo effect.
I didn't know there was a disagreement.
Have any thoughts on how significant a quality improvement there is when ripping from an original source rather than DVD?
For instance, can a rip that is lower res than DVD actually look better than a DVD because of considerations other than resolution? Perception is a funny thing so I'm curious if what I'm perceiving is simply placebo effect.
Maybe it changes the gamma curve? Supposedly H.264 has better color sampling than MPEG-2.
I didn't know there was a disagreement.
No, there wasn't another disagreement. I was just pointing out that despite the agreement, I do agree that we must start with the best source, no matter how compressed we need the end result to be.
Have any thoughts on how significant a quality improvement there is when ripping from an original source rather than DVD?
As DVD's ARE compressed, any further compression will result in possible artifacts. Unfortunately, few people doing this at home have access to the hardware and software that studios use. That can compensate of these problems. H.264 is already heavily compressed. a straight rip with no further compression, as roomy as that is, is the best way to go.
As for original materials, it depends on what they were.
Even industry digital movie equipment usually compresses the signal, though in a not noticeable way. This equipment preserves far more of the color content that home software does. I'm sure that all compressed content sold or rented would be compressed from a much higher level source than the DVD. I don't know of any company that would use the DVD as a source.
For instance, can a rip that is lower res than DVD actually look better than a DVD because of considerations other than resolution? Perception is a funny thing so I'm curious if what I'm perceiving is simply placebo effect.
That's a funny question because that can actually happen!
It's the opposite of the situation where most hi def Tv's make broadcast look WORSE, after it's upscaled, rather than better.
When you upscale a signal, if it isn't pristine, it is difficult to make it look as good, much less better, because all of the defects get magnified, and odd artifacts often occur.
When rezzing down, other than for softness, those same defects get averaged out, and often disappear.
But, again, it depends on how good, or bad, the original is.
If you have poor detail in the shadows on the DVD, then a down rez will often eliminate them entirely, resulting in large dark grey blobs.
Colors can become more garish as the samples are averaged together.
A lot of this depends on the software makers decisions as to how they think the image would please the larger part of the user base.
Too bad, but most people think that oversaturated images are better (orange faces anyone?).The software company may then oversaturate the compressed image by choosing to duplicate a pixels color level that has more color, rather than to moderate the result according to the less saturated one next to it.
This is amateur software. Pro level software won't do that, and offers many options. Apple's Compressor is very good, but isn't a RIP tool..
Maybe it changes the gamma curve? Supposedly H.264 has better color sampling than H.264.
Wanna rewrite that last sentence?
Wanna rewrite that last sentence?
I did, I'm sorry I goofed that one.
Chris Breen, editor of Macworld, has written an article, that seems to show that Apple is accommodating those who START their movie, but then fail to finish it in the 24 hour period. Apparently, if you don't turn the movie off, but instead pause it, you can resume after the rental time is over.
http://www.macworld.com/article/1317...errentals.html
I don't like the 24 hour limitation because I treat movies like I do books. I will start and pause them often to do other things before I am finished with them. It has taken me a week or more to finish a single movie.
But what happens when you start a different movie or listen to songs for awhile? And will this work on the AppleTV?
I don't like the 24 hour limitation because I treat movies like I do books. I will start and pause them often to do other things before I am finished with them. It has taken me a week or more to finish a single movie.
Read the article. He tells all he knows, and doesn't know. He addresses your questions clearly.
Greetings all!
Does any one know if there are ANY parental controls on this new Apple TV? I have a house full of teenagers and very young children. Though I would love to purchase a new Apple TV, I am concerned that, left to their own devices, my kids would rent all kinds of inappropriate things and cost me a fortune in rental costs.
My dream Apple TV would at first require a password to purchase and rent all programing AND have a check box that allows you to remember that password OR NOT. (Like they have on iTunes) That would allowing me the kind of control that makes me very comfortable with the Apple TV.
Does it have this kind of interface, does anyone know?
Thanks for the input.
here is what i found from http://www.apple.com/appletv/features.html#settings
From the Settings menu, you can set parental controls that limit what your kids can buy and rent on Apple TV. Or set up your screen saver, your network, your TV resolution, and more.
There is also a video but since the horrible computers here at work dont support quicktime im not sure what is says. Hope it helps.
here is what i found from http://www.apple.com/appletv/features.html#settings
From the Settings menu, you can set parental controls that limit what your kids can buy and rent on Apple TV. Or set up your screen saver, your network, your TV resolution, and more.
There is also a video but since the horrible computers here at work dont support quicktime im not sure what is says. Hope it helps.
Apples not being very informative here. I to am interested in how to limit what is displayed and presented to the casual AppleTV viewer. Currently you can choose not to sync questionable material to the ATV but the new movie list feature makes it look like the ATV will automatically search out and stream all available iTunes movies. Even movies you do not want to share with friends and family. I can see some embarrassing moments ahead
Boobs already on your LAN? Hmmm, can that be controlled by choosing which playlists to share via rendevous?
Go ahead and let them watch the new Rambo though. It's the American way.
[edit]
I think i just used up my 2008 quota for using the term boob.
Apples not being very informative here. I to am interested in how to limit what is displayed and presented to the casual AppleTV viewer. Currently you can choose not to sync questionable material to the ATV but the new movie list feature makes it look like the ATV will automatically search out and stream all available iTunes movies. Even movies you do not want to share with friends and family. I can see some embarrassing moments ahead
Can we rate out media in iTunes? If not, they really should add that feature.
Can we rate out media in iTunes? If not, they really should add that feature.
iTunes 7.6 does not offer me the opportunity to but any kind of rating (G, GP, R, X, Explicit or Clean) onto a movie I imported from iMovie.
The only current rental I have is 853x405. That is better than DVD quality, is it not?
I want to bring this up again. This surprised me because it contradicted what I had believed, but I accepted it. Now I'm having second thoughts again.
First, I'd like to confirm that others are getting this resolution from iTunes rentals. I just tried one (The Village), and it was 640x344. Maybe different movies are encoded differently, but I'd just like to see some confirmation.
Second, I'd like to confirm that this 853x405 resolution plays on the iPod. I've searched around a bit and although some iPods can handle anamorphic video properly, I can't find any evidence that an iPod would be able to play a file with a resolution this large, anamorphic encoding or otherwise.
Thanks.
I want to bring this up again. This surprised me because it contradicted what I had believed, but I accepted it. Now I'm having second thoughts again.
First, I'd like to confirm that others are getting this resolution from iTunes rentals. I just tried one (The Village), and it was 640x344. Maybe different movies are encoded differently, but I'd just like to see some confirmation.
Second, I'd like to confirm that this 853x405 resolution plays on the iPod. I've searched around a bit and although some iPods can handle anamorphic video properly, I can't find any evidence that an iPod would be able to play a file with a resolution this large, anamorphic encoding or otherwise.
Thanks.
I think you might test it by fiddling with Quicktime or Handbrake exports to output the resolution that you want. I don't have a video iPod so I can't help.
I want to bring this up again. This surprised me because it contradicted what I had believed, but I accepted it. Now I'm having second thoughts again.
First, I'd like to confirm that others are getting this resolution from iTunes rentals. I just tried one (The Village), and it was 640x344. Maybe different movies are encoded differently, but I'd just like to see some confirmation.
Second, I'd like to confirm that this 853x405 resolution plays on the iPod. I've searched around a bit and although some iPods can handle anamorphic video properly, I can't find any evidence that an iPod would be able to play a file with a resolution this large, anamorphic encoding or otherwise.
Thanks.
The next video rental I watch I'll surely check. The Village is for sale and rental, so does that mean it was available, and therefore encoded, before the rentals and new "DVD quality" resolution was in effect?
I did notice the film I watched in 853x405 (which is an odd size) still remained at the 1.5MBps limit, which is maximum throughout that Apple states iDevices can handle. The film was very dark to help reflect the dreary nature nature of a East Germany during the Cold War so I'm wondering if their encoding software pre-determines the bitrate and then encodes the resolution at the maximum allowance of that bitrate.
The next video rental I watch I'll surely check. The Village is for sale and rental, so does that mean it was available, and therefore encoded, before the rentals and new "DVD quality" resolution was in effect?
Good point. What was the video you rented with that higher resolution?
BTW, can the newer iPods (the ones capable of viewing rentals) display higher-resolution videos than older ones?