OK, but, this is pretty much DVD res. Slightly lower, but on a SD set I'd wager the visible difference will be minimal, since an SD set can't display the full DVD frame anyway.
Most people still have SD sets. Pretty much everybody rents and buys movies in a format that has to letterbox widescreen material for SD sets and scales up same, either via the player or the display, for HD sets.
So what's the beef? Since when did all this become pathetic and unacceptable? Did BlueRay or HDDVD players become ubiquitous while I wasn't looking so that this represents some kind of giant step back in what we have become accustomed to? Am I going to able to buy a Blue Ray title for $9.99?
Why the expectation of 720p? DVDs are 480i native, and get line doubled to 480p by the player or the display.
Yes, we have HD cable and satellite, and no, these items are not for sale. DVDs are for sale, and this new sales medium comes close to matching them, so..... I can't see where res is a big issue.
Portability and price seem like the more likely points of contention.
I think it's mostly people that already have HDTV that are not pleased with the resolution, but before the time even 15% of the US has HDTV sets Apple will likely have higher resolutions available. I see this as a first step, and there is no real need for HD for the majority of people in downloads right now anyway. Broadband is getting faster, and I see download speed as their biggest issue here.
I absolutely hate wikipedia, but 640x480 is what you see if you have a SDTV. Unless you have a widescreen SDTV then your resolution will be seen at a 704x480 maximum best resolution.
I think it's mostly people that already have HDTV that are not pleased with the resolution, but before the time even 15% of the US has HDTV sets Apple will likely have higher resolutions available. I see this as a first step, and there is no real need for HD for the majority of people in downloads right now anyway. Broadband is getting faster, and I see download speed as their biggest issue here.
iTV has HDMI and component ports on the back. Why bother if all you're going to sell are 640x480 movies? 640x480 works just fine for iPods and the occasional playback on a smallish monitor (ie 23" probably ain't recommended).
THe one thing about iTV that I relly think needs to happen is that Apple just showed some of it's features, and when they give it the full announcment we see more. Like PVR features, and things like that.
That's not going to happen for just $300/box.
I think this is what those engineers from ElGato were doing at Apple. I think that maybe some of the video decoding is actually done on the computer from which the files are coming from.
Lemme give you an example: The EyeHome (from ElGato) is essentially the same product. It requires a mac on its LAN to be running the EyeHome software at all times which decodes video and sends it to the box.
If this product is similar (and Jobs didn't say one way or another), the box wouldn't be able to do anything, even watch trailers, without a computer on the network running iTunes.
My guess is that Apple doesn't WANT Tivo on its macs, because it would compete with the iTMS.
If you're interested in turning your mac into a PVR, check out the products at http://www.elgato.com they even have HD Tuners for Mac now.
NOTE: It looks as though Elgato has taken the EyeHome off the market. Gee, I wonder why.
iTV has HDMI and component ports on the back. Why bother if all you're going to sell are 640x480 movies?
Because your iPhotos will show in HD, your iMovie HD photos made with the latest HD camcorders will show in HD, and I betcha Apple's not going to leave movies on iTS at 640x480 forever. Sheesh, folks, get a little forward thinking here.
Better not tell the millions of people who are watching letterboxed DVDs on their standard definition 32" TVs......
Well, if they are watching their 32" TV from about 2 feet then I bet they aren't too happy with the results either. From 10 feet 640x480 on a 23" monitor is just fine...if a bit small.
10' from a 32" 480p TV is fine from a resolution standpoint but sucks greatly from an immersion standpoint. From 10' you really don't want to go lower than 720p on a 60" screen for movies. 480p kinda just sucks for movies. To get the immersive feel of a large screen you have to live with fairly low resolution in comparison to what the eye can see (and in comparison to HD and film).
Personal opinion is fine and can't really be argued with, but if better than DVD quality "sucks for movies" then your options for non-sucking movies are currently limited and therefor iTunes movies which are also better than DVD in some cases and equal to non-widescreen 480p in others is a fair offering.
Personal opinion is fine and can't really be argued with, but if better than DVD quality "sucks for movies" then your options for non-sucking movies are currently limited and therefor iTunes movies which are also better than DVD in some cases and equal to non-widescreen 480p in others is a fair offering.
Well...there are papers published that studied field of view and immersion so its not just personal opinion. Although being journaled papers the word "suck" isn't necessarily used.
Shall we settle for "sub-optimal"? The HDTV spec is there to replicate a movie experience within the limitations of the home. If you can meet the spec you replicate roughly the very back row in a good theater. There are two aspect: one is to get sufficient resolution that pixel structure can no longer be resolved. This is achieved when each pixel is one arc minute (1/60 of a degree) in size. The second is to have a horizontal viewing angle no less than 30 degrees to produce the "induction effect". [1]
Now the caveat is that for smaller screens folks prefer to sit further away as a function of screen height. For small displays folks prefer to sit 6X the screen height from the display rather than the 3X required for immersion. [2] Still, at the preferred distances you can see a difference between 480p and 720p...but typically not so much between 720p and 1080p.
In any case 640x480 is not "better" than DVD quality. A NTSC DVD is 720x480 while a PAL DVD is 720x576. It's "almost" DVD quality.
480p > 576i is perhaps more of a judgement call but assuming a factor of 1.6 (taken from Wikipedia) then 576i = 360p
Also, 480p does not imply 3:4 and therefore 640 width, 480p can also mean 16:9 without anamorphic trickery.
Put that all together and you're saying DVDs are worse than 'sucks', which as I said is your opinion and it appears you stick by that. It's worth making that clear though for the general populace for whom 'DVD-quality' is a mark of respect.
And just to be totally clear, I'm not saying iTunes Movie downloads are all 480p, though the 3:4 ones qualify.
Better not tell the millions of people who are watching letterboxed DVDs on their standard definition 32" TVs......
Wow so that's what happens today. The issue under discussion here is that Apple appears to be announcing kit for next year that does the same job for £££ more.
480p > 576i is perhaps more of a judgement call but assuming a factor of 1.6 (taken from Wikipedia) then 576i = 360p
Yes, my apologies.
Quote:
It's worth making that clear though for the general populace for whom 'DVD-quality' is a mark of respect.
Well it sure is in comparison to VHS. Not so grand in comparison to HD. And remember that HD specs only give you roughly the worst seat in the house at a movie theater. HD is not the end of the road IMHO even for consumer video.
Well maybe...it depends on some display technology that is as easy to hang as a large painting in sizes 100" or greater and doesn't require a front projector.
Wow so that's what happens today. The issue under discussion here is that Apple appears to be announcing kit for next year that does the same job for £££ more.
Hello.
I think iTV is just a tip of the whole ecosystem
What Apple really wants is to have Macs as the center of the home Video Hub.
Pretty soon Macs will have integrated HD drives that will read AND stream 1080p to the iTV.
This will also put pressure on the Movie Media industry either to lower the DVD HD pricing , which they won't , or to SUBSTANTIALY reduce the price of online content ( meaning 640 x 480 p movies will have to be priced at 4.99 USD, if the studios want to push HD DVD at 15 USD at the store.
Either way, Apple wins. They will have the Mac streaming and the iTV receiving the media around the house. Remember , that's all abouy the experience, for Apple. The content is just the means to...
And remember that HD specs only give you roughly the worst seat in the house at a movie theater. HD is not the end of the road IMHO even for consumer video.
Actually, the worst seat in the house is the one behind the screaming kid whose parents let him have those five boxes of candy....
HD may not be the end of the road, who knows, we may all go 3D holographic, but it's going to be awhile, despite IMAX-type film & digital formats that directors are pushing out here in Hollywood. From what little I'm seeing, if digital distribution really works with ease (and I've seen a few places across the nation that have it down pat), and the chip resolution on cameras keeps increasing (which it will), then down the line distribution might creep upwards... but it simply costs too much, and all the studio heads I've run across don't like extra cost for anything.
NOTE: It looks as though Elgato has taken the EyeHome off the market.
The EyeHome product page is still online and it's still available from their online store; $199 new, $99 refurbished.
Even with its crappy UI my EyeHome works fine for streaming EyeTV 200 recordings, ripped DVDs, and other supported content from a couple Macs.
Quote:
Gee, I wonder why.
EyeHome has been long overdue for a major upgrade and I've been predicting for over a year that someone (if not Elgato) would eventually release a superior replacement. Seemed more likely Apple would do it than license FairPlay to Elgato. The result is iTV, which appears to support an Apple-ized superset of EyeHome functionality, maybe (unfortunately) minus playback of unexported EyeTV recordings. Unless there are more smarts in iTV hardware than EyeHome it'll require Mac/PC connectivity, although the USB port on iTV might allow iPod or other peripheral connectivity for offline content playback.
Comments
OK, but, this is pretty much DVD res. Slightly lower, but on a SD set I'd wager the visible difference will be minimal, since an SD set can't display the full DVD frame anyway.
Most people still have SD sets. Pretty much everybody rents and buys movies in a format that has to letterbox widescreen material for SD sets and scales up same, either via the player or the display, for HD sets.
So what's the beef? Since when did all this become pathetic and unacceptable? Did BlueRay or HDDVD players become ubiquitous while I wasn't looking so that this represents some kind of giant step back in what we have become accustomed to? Am I going to able to buy a Blue Ray title for $9.99?
Why the expectation of 720p? DVDs are 480i native, and get line doubled to 480p by the player or the display.
Yes, we have HD cable and satellite, and no, these items are not for sale. DVDs are for sale, and this new sales medium comes close to matching them, so..... I can't see where res is a big issue.
Portability and price seem like the more likely points of contention.
I think it's mostly people that already have HDTV that are not pleased with the resolution, but before the time even 15% of the US has HDTV sets Apple will likely have higher resolutions available. I see this as a first step, and there is no real need for HD for the majority of people in downloads right now anyway. Broadband is getting faster, and I see download speed as their biggest issue here.
I absolutely hate wikipedia, but 640x480 is what you see if you have a SDTV. Unless you have a widescreen SDTV then your resolution will be seen at a 704x480 maximum best resolution.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SDTV
I think it's mostly people that already have HDTV that are not pleased with the resolution, but before the time even 15% of the US has HDTV sets Apple will likely have higher resolutions available. I see this as a first step, and there is no real need for HD for the majority of people in downloads right now anyway. Broadband is getting faster, and I see download speed as their biggest issue here.
iTV has HDMI and component ports on the back. Why bother if all you're going to sell are 640x480 movies? 640x480 works just fine for iPods and the occasional playback on a smallish monitor (ie 23" probably ain't recommended).
Vinea
THe one thing about iTV that I relly think needs to happen is that Apple just showed some of it's features, and when they give it the full announcment we see more. Like PVR features, and things like that.
That's not going to happen for just $300/box.
I think this is what those engineers from ElGato were doing at Apple. I think that maybe some of the video decoding is actually done on the computer from which the files are coming from.
Lemme give you an example: The EyeHome (from ElGato) is essentially the same product. It requires a mac on its LAN to be running the EyeHome software at all times which decodes video and sends it to the box.
If this product is similar (and Jobs didn't say one way or another), the box wouldn't be able to do anything, even watch trailers, without a computer on the network running iTunes.
My guess is that Apple doesn't WANT Tivo on its macs, because it would compete with the iTMS.
If you're interested in turning your mac into a PVR, check out the products at http://www.elgato.com they even have HD Tuners for Mac now.
NOTE: It looks as though Elgato has taken the EyeHome off the market. Gee, I wonder why.
Clever, but I wouldn't site bittorrent at all as any standard of quality.
Just buy the crap on iTunes, and pull some "fair use" shit by pulling it down at 1080p BluRay rip from BT.
iTV has HDMI and component ports on the back. Why bother if all you're going to sell are 640x480 movies?
Because your iPhotos will show in HD, your iMovie HD photos made with the latest HD camcorders will show in HD, and I betcha Apple's not going to leave movies on iTS at 640x480 forever. Sheesh, folks, get a little forward thinking here.
Flip to page 437, and we see that, yes, I can both estimate something to be a little higher or a little lower than a predefined standard! Fuck yes!
That is funny. Really funny.
...... 640x480 works just fine for iPods and the occasional playback on a smallish monitor (ie 23" probably ain't recommended).
Vinea
Better not tell the millions of people who are watching letterboxed DVDs on their standard definition 32" TVs......
Better not tell the millions of people who are watching letterboxed DVDs on their standard definition 32" TVs......
Well, if they are watching their 32" TV from about 2 feet then I bet they aren't too happy with the results either. From 10 feet 640x480 on a 23" monitor is just fine...if a bit small.
10' from a 32" 480p TV is fine from a resolution standpoint but sucks greatly from an immersion standpoint. From 10' you really don't want to go lower than 720p on a 60" screen for movies. 480p kinda just sucks for movies. To get the immersive feel of a large screen you have to live with fairly low resolution in comparison to what the eye can see (and in comparison to HD and film).
Vinea
480p kinda just sucks for movies.
Personal opinion is fine and can't really be argued with, but if better than DVD quality "sucks for movies" then your options for non-sucking movies are currently limited and therefor iTunes movies which are also better than DVD in some cases and equal to non-widescreen 480p in others is a fair offering.
Personal opinion is fine and can't really be argued with, but if better than DVD quality "sucks for movies" then your options for non-sucking movies are currently limited and therefor iTunes movies which are also better than DVD in some cases and equal to non-widescreen 480p in others is a fair offering.
Well...there are papers published that studied field of view and immersion so its not just personal opinion. Although being journaled papers the word "suck" isn't necessarily used.
Shall we settle for "sub-optimal"? The HDTV spec is there to replicate a movie experience within the limitations of the home. If you can meet the spec you replicate roughly the very back row in a good theater. There are two aspect: one is to get sufficient resolution that pixel structure can no longer be resolved. This is achieved when each pixel is one arc minute (1/60 of a degree) in size. The second is to have a horizontal viewing angle no less than 30 degrees to produce the "induction effect". [1]
Now the caveat is that for smaller screens folks prefer to sit further away as a function of screen height. For small displays folks prefer to sit 6X the screen height from the display rather than the 3X required for immersion. [2] Still, at the preferred distances you can see a difference between 480p and 720p...but typically not so much between 720p and 1080p.
In any case 640x480 is not "better" than DVD quality. A NTSC DVD is 720x480 while a PAL DVD is 720x576. It's "almost" DVD quality.
Vinea
[1] Psychophysical Analysis of the "Sensation of Reality" Induced by a Visual Wide-Field Display by T. Hatada, H. Sakata and H. Kusaka, SMPTE Journal, Vol. 89, pp. 560-569, August 1980.
[2] Influence of Display Size and Picture Brightness on the Preferred Viewing Distance for HDTV Programs by M. Ardito, Radiotelevisione Italiana Centro Ricerch
DVDs are 480i or 576i.
480p > 480i clearly
480p > 576i is perhaps more of a judgement call but assuming a factor of 1.6 (taken from Wikipedia) then 576i = 360p
Also, 480p does not imply 3:4 and therefore 640 width, 480p can also mean 16:9 without anamorphic trickery.
Put that all together and you're saying DVDs are worse than 'sucks', which as I said is your opinion and it appears you stick by that. It's worth making that clear though for the general populace for whom 'DVD-quality' is a mark of respect.
And just to be totally clear, I'm not saying iTunes Movie downloads are all 480p, though the 3:4 ones qualify.
Better not tell the millions of people who are watching letterboxed DVDs on their standard definition 32" TVs......
Wow so that's what happens today. The issue under discussion here is that Apple appears to be announcing kit for next year that does the same job for £££ more.
Minor clarification. You said 480p 'sucks'.
DVDs are 480i or 576i.
480p > 480i clearly
480p > 576i is perhaps more of a judgement call but assuming a factor of 1.6 (taken from Wikipedia) then 576i = 360p
Yes, my apologies.
It's worth making that clear though for the general populace for whom 'DVD-quality' is a mark of respect.
Well it sure is in comparison to VHS. Not so grand in comparison to HD. And remember that HD specs only give you roughly the worst seat in the house at a movie theater. HD is not the end of the road IMHO even for consumer video.
Well maybe...it depends on some display technology that is as easy to hang as a large painting in sizes 100" or greater and doesn't require a front projector.
Vinea
Wow so that's what happens today. The issue under discussion here is that Apple appears to be announcing kit for next year that does the same job for £££ more.
Hello.
I think iTV is just a tip of the whole ecosystem
What Apple really wants is to have Macs as the center of the home Video Hub.
Pretty soon Macs will have integrated HD drives that will read AND stream 1080p to the iTV.
This will also put pressure on the Movie Media industry either to lower the DVD HD pricing , which they won't , or to SUBSTANTIALY reduce the price of online content ( meaning 640 x 480 p movies will have to be priced at 4.99 USD, if the studios want to push HD DVD at 15 USD at the store.
Either way, Apple wins. They will have the Mac streaming and the iTV receiving the media around the house. Remember , that's all abouy the experience, for Apple. The content is just the means to...
My 2 c, of course.
And remember that HD specs only give you roughly the worst seat in the house at a movie theater. HD is not the end of the road IMHO even for consumer video.
Actually, the worst seat in the house is the one behind the screaming kid whose parents let him have those five boxes of candy....
HD may not be the end of the road, who knows, we may all go 3D holographic, but it's going to be awhile, despite IMAX-type film & digital formats that directors are pushing out here in Hollywood. From what little I'm seeing, if digital distribution really works with ease (and I've seen a few places across the nation that have it down pat), and the chip resolution on cameras keeps increasing (which it will), then down the line distribution might creep upwards... but it simply costs too much, and all the studio heads I've run across don't like extra cost for anything.
But, it's all a crap-shoot.
NOTE: It looks as though Elgato has taken the EyeHome off the market.
The EyeHome product page is still online and it's still available from their online store; $199 new, $99 refurbished.
Even with its crappy UI my EyeHome works fine for streaming EyeTV 200 recordings, ripped DVDs, and other supported content from a couple Macs.
Gee, I wonder why.
EyeHome has been long overdue for a major upgrade and I've been predicting for over a year that someone (if not Elgato) would eventually release a superior replacement. Seemed more likely Apple would do it than license FairPlay to Elgato. The result is iTV, which appears to support an Apple-ized superset of EyeHome functionality, maybe (unfortunately) minus playback of unexported EyeTV recordings. Unless there are more smarts in iTV hardware than EyeHome it'll require Mac/PC connectivity, although the USB port on iTV might allow iPod or other peripheral connectivity for offline content playback.