PDA

View Full Version : What kind of files can you stream to an Apple TV?




Pez555
Sep 27, 2010, 05:31 AM
Apologies if this has been asked before (im sure it has), but just need a quick answer.

Does the apple tv stream ANYTHING from your itunes library?

e.g, even stuff you havent bought from the itunes store? None of my music is from the itunes store, all CD's.



mrkramer
Sep 27, 2010, 05:33 AM
yes if it plays in iTunes it should be able to be streamed to the :apple:TV

Pez555
Sep 27, 2010, 07:44 AM
cool thanks, was just worried it only streamed itunes content or something. what about movies too? i dont need to worry about converting them or anything do i? as long as it plays in itunes it will stream to my tv.....

dXTC
Sep 27, 2010, 09:07 AM
cool thanks, was just worried it only streamed itunes content or something. what about movies too? i dont need to worry about converting them or anything do i? as long as it plays in itunes it will stream to my tv.....

Yes, this is correct. iTunes understands mp4, mov and m4v. As long as your movies are in one of these formats, :apple:tv will stream it from your iTunes Library to your TV without a problem. Other formats won't play directly in iTunes, even if they play in other applications.

HobeSoundDarryl
Sep 27, 2010, 09:55 AM
yes if it plays in iTunes it should be able to be streamed to the :apple:TV

To slightly correct this, if it plays in iTunes AND it falls within the :apple:TV max specs: http://www.apple.com/appletv/specs.html, it should play just fine on the :apple:TV.

The difference? Let's say you own a 1080HD camcorder (like me). You can shoot your home movies in 1080HD, import them into iMovie, edit and render them out at 1080, and they'll import and play in iTunes just fine. But :apple:TV can't handle anything above 720p30fps in the right format for iTunes (so I have to down convert the home movies to play on my :apple:TV).

Nit-picky? I don't know. That might be info that matters to the OP.

dXTC
Sep 27, 2010, 11:52 AM
To slightly correct this, if it plays in iTunes AND it falls within the :apple:TV max specs: http://www.apple.com/appletv/specs.html, it should play just fine on the :apple:TV.

The difference? Let's say you own a 1080HD camcorder (like me). You can shoot your home movies in 1080HD, import them into iMovie, edit and render them out at 1080, and they'll import and play in iTunes just fine. But :apple:TV can't handle anything above 720p30fps in the right format for iTunes (so I have to down convert the home movies to play on my :apple:TV).

Nit-picky? I don't know. That might be info that matters to the OP.

Good catch, HobeSoundDarryl. I hadn't thought of that. I guess those who HandBrake their BluRays will be in for a surprise if they don't downsample to 720p during conversion. But then again, they're probably used to that, since the old :apple:tv doesn't do 1080 either.

HobeSoundDarryl
Sep 27, 2010, 12:00 PM
Right. Too many people believe the "if it plays in iTunes, it will play on :apple:TV", but that's definitely NOT true. iTunes is far more capable than :apple:TV, and Quicktime (the underpinnings of both) is far more capable than iTunes. It's too bad that all that Quicktime can handle is not enabled out of the box. Maybe the hackers will be able to add such capabilities to this new model?

The good news is that 720p30fps is a fairly meaningful improvement over 720p24fps. It's only 6fps, but an important 6 for a lot of content. Maybe them 1080 source (not just BD, but also 1080p camcorder content) downconversions will look and play a little better on this new hardware at 720p30fps.

My money awaits either news that Apple just chose not to announce that the hardware could do better than 720p or the next model. Or I might just live with apps in some other hardware such as the apps in the new Samsung HDTVs. I've got the current model- and it's great for what it can do. I was just hoping for a bit more after the last 4 years between hardware refreshes than 6 more frames per second, netflix, airplay, and a smaller box.

newagemac
Sep 27, 2010, 12:22 PM
I understand what you mean about wanting more but actually that's a whole lot more you're getting when you consider it's also 1/3rd the original price.

The price appears to be very important for their plans. As much as people liked the original Apple TV, it was just too expensive to make it go mainstream and sell in large numbers which is why they haven't really done much with it.

With the new one at $99, maybe Apple can finally get a strong foothold in the living room market. Then, investing more time and resources into it would make more sense for them which would open the doors to adding more capabilities like 1080p in the future.

HobeSoundDarryl
Sep 27, 2010, 12:59 PM
I appreciate that. Price is a motivator for many. It just seems strange that Apple- of all companies- who generally do not compete on price for pretty much everything else they make- would choose to make this ONE thing key on price over- say- competing head-to-head in certain key hardware features like 1080p hardware. Look around, there's lots of little :apple:TV-like boxes (see Roku, WD, etc) that can do 1080p now, and they too are retailing for <$100.

Apple's offering will compete with these trying to win a place in those living rooms. They're also competing with the "bag of hurt" boxes which are increasingly coming with apps and home media streaming- all on 1080p hardware. They're also having to sell people on 720p is good enough when chances are high that the ONE thing Joe Average remembers about buying his HDTV was that "full HD" or "True HD" is 1080p. And if he's forgotten that, he's reminded it every time he looks at just about everything else he might look at to hook up that HDTV... except :apple:TV.

It's obvious from competing boxes priced the same that Apple could have rolled out 1080p hardware for the same price, or very near it. They just chose not to do so. Maybe the plan is to sell as many as they can "as is" then sell us again when the 1080p version rolls out? But the question is, will there be enough buyers of a 720p MAX box- even at $99- to get them to that point in time. I mean, we've had 720p MAX :apple:TVs for 4 years now, and the old ones had tangible bonus features like on-board storage and more connection options.

I continue to believe that this set-top box market is Apple's to take... but only if they decide to compete in very important variables (like picture quality- perceived or real). I don't think they can defeat the "bag of hurt" until their offering is fully toe to toe on the most fundamental benefits of either option: picture & sound. As is, I expect BD to continue outselling :apple:TVs, and hope that either:

the hardware is there for 1080p and Apple just chose for some reason to not unleash it yet, or
that the next-next-generation :apple:TV is not 4 more years away

We'll know about the former within about 2 weeks.

Apples big advantage is iTunes, and Apple's UI is the best. I would love for it to be released as stand alone software as a new "front row", and I'd probably make the new Apple TV be a Mini + front row. Or I'd love for any of these other guys to basically copy the great UI on their better hardware, and maximize the connection to iTunes via the XML files associated with iTunes. Or I'd like the "pro" model now, which could be the exact same version/case/software running on 1080p hardware priced at $149, $199, $249, and maybe a bit more. Ideally, the pro version would normalize the USB port so that we could bring forward the nice feature of local storage for our own media- a very nice feature of the old version- and that would be perfect. I'd have no problem paying 2.5X more than $99 for just 1080p and a normal USB port for local storage.

GreatDrok
Sep 27, 2010, 01:28 PM
720p @ 5Mbps (typical rate for ATV) looks better than 1080p @ 5Mbps (typical of what you find on certain websites) because it won't have noticeable artefacts (blocking etc). With digital video, resolution is only part of the equation and I've done extensive comparisons with original 1080p source material @20+Mbps, lower bit rate 1080p and 720p rips and I'm happy to compromise with 720p @ 5Mbps as it is a substantial improvement over SD material, doesn't consume too much space on disc and I still have the original 1080p source discs on my shelves.

HobeSoundDarryl
Sep 27, 2010, 02:13 PM
720p @ 5Mbps (typical rate for ATV) looks better than 1080p @ 5Mbps (typical of what you find on certain websites) because it won't have noticeable artefacts (blocking etc). With digital video, resolution is only part of the equation and I've done extensive comparisons with original 1080p source material @20+Mbps, lower bit rate 1080p and 720p rips and I'm happy to compromise with 720p @ 5Mbps as it is a substantial improvement over SD material, doesn't consume too much space on disc and I still have the original 1080p source discs on my shelves.

Of course a lower resolution at a fixed Mbps rate is going to look better than a higher resolution at that same Mbps rate; who do you think you're fooling with that kind of comparison? Following this logic, SD quality @ 2Mbps looks better than 720p at 2Mbps, or 320x200 quality at 500K looks better than 720p at 500K. Both SD and 320x200 will have less "artefacts" than 720p if we cap the resolution so that these even-lower resolution files look OK vs. 720p. Should we all compromise to 320 x 200?

It's good that you're happy to compromise... especially since it works out that your compromise just happens to line up perfectly with what Apple is delivering. That makes it very easy for you to buy exactly what Apple is selling and get exactly what you want out of it. How convenient!

Consider though, that had this little box had 1080p hardware in it, you could still get every bit of the exact same experience, still download 720p files, just like you can download SD versions instead of 720p now, etc. AND those of us who were hoping for a little more (than 6 more frames per second over what the 2006 version could do), could have got what we wanted too.

Most simply: a 1080p capable box would have given the "720p is good enough" crowd everything they're getting now, exactly as they apparently like it now. And the "1080p or bust" crowd could have also got what they wanted too. Even Apple would have won by getting to sell more units to both camps.

You wouldn't have been forced to download only 1080p content and thus have the Zune download experience again, anymore than someone with a broadband connection slower than yours is forced to download only the 720p version now.

Why is it that in this one thing from Apple, all these people are so quick to argue "less is more" yet we all want the latest & greatest in our Macs & iDevices. It's especially puzzling where in this particular thing- 1080p- it is easy to see other little comparable boxes with 1080p selling for < $100. If they could do it, so could Apple. Why do we have to come up with all these justifications for why it makes sense that we're paying just as much as other set-top boxes and getting less hardware capability for that money?

Lastly, while I'm not President of the "1080p or bust" crowd (and I do own a couple of :apple:TV's myself), I would bet a good number of the 1080p'ers would have been happy to pay up for the 1080p version, even if that was all that differentiated it from the 720p MAX version. Personally, for my own applications, I could care less about download speed, file sizes & storage, internet bandwidth, "the chart", etc. I'd just like to have something as iTunes-connected as the new :apple:TV capable of 1080p playback like other little set top boxes from Roku, WD, etc.

Seamaster
Sep 27, 2010, 02:33 PM
When the App Store for Apple TV launches we'll have VLC on there and all our problems will be solved... ;)

DJinTX
Sep 27, 2010, 04:19 PM
Of course a lower resolution at a fixed Mbps rate is going to look better than a higher resolution at that same Mbps rate; who do you think you're fooling with that kind of comparison? Following this logic, SD quality @ 2Mbps looks better than 720p at 2Mbps, or 320x200 quality at 500K looks better than 720p at 500K. Both SD and 320x200 will have less "artefacts" than 720p if we cap the resolution so that these even-lower resolution files look OK vs. 720p. Should we all compromise to 320 x 200?

It's good that you're happy to compromise... especially since it works out that your compromise just happens to line up perfectly with what Apple is delivering. That makes it very easy for you to buy exactly what Apple is selling and get exactly what you want out of it. How convenient!

Consider though, that had this little box had 1080p hardware in it, you could still get every bit of the exact same experience, still download 720p files, just like you can download SD versions instead of 720p now, etc. AND those of us who were hoping for a little more (than 6 more frames per second over what the 2006 version could do), could have got what we wanted too.

Most simply: a 1080p capable box would have given the "720p is good enough" crowd everything they're getting now, exactly as they apparently like it now. And the "1080p or bust" crowd could have also got what they wanted too. Even Apple would have won by getting to sell more units to both camps.

You wouldn't have been forced to download only 1080p content and thus have the Zune download experience again, anymore than someone with a broadband connection slower than yours is forced to download only the 720p version now.

Why is it that in this one thing from Apple, all these people are so quick to argue "less is more" yet we all want the latest & greatest in our Macs & iDevices. It's especially puzzling where in this particular thing- 1080p- it is easy to see other little comparable boxes with 1080p selling for < $100. If they could do it, so could Apple. Why do we have to come up with all these justifications for why it makes sense that we're paying just as much as other set-top boxes and getting less hardware capability for that money?

Lastly, while I'm not President of the "1080p or bust" crowd (and I do own a couple of :apple:TV's myself), I would bet a good number of the 1080p'ers would have been happy to pay up for the 1080p version, even if that was all that differentiated it from the 720p MAX version. Personally, for my own applications, I could care less about download speed, file sizes & storage, internet bandwidth, "the chart", etc. I'd just like to have something as iTunes-connected as the new :apple:TV capable of 1080p playback like other little set top boxes from Roku, WD, etc.

You make some valid points, but consider a scenario where Apple did bake in 1080 goodness into the new Apple TV. Do you think it would still be $99? I'm thinking it would be more like $199, maybe more. And if this is the case, are you thinking it would sell really well? I am thinking that it would still sell to the same niche market that the original ATV did. And in doing so, Apple wouldn't have made any inroads into convincing a new consumer base to buy into it.

It seems short-sighted to only compare price points and 720 vs. 1080, as there is much more to the equation. Apple knows that if they want to solve the living room puzzle, they have to balance price with features. Specifically Steve said in order to compete in the living room, they have to compete against the set top boxes that are being given away for free or nearly free by the cable company. So they aren't trying to match features of a high powered HTPC, they are competing with the free-ish hardware that the cable company gives/rents to you. So to do this, they need a very inexpensive box.

Sure, they could have delivered everything under the sun, but it would have been too expensive, and few would have bought it. This would ensure the new ATV to stay as a hobby. Basically, they determined that $99 was the right price point for this device, and then built in as much as they could for that price. I guarantee that if it did 1080 that it would cost significantly more.

You fault the new ATV for not having 1080, and probably other things as well, and for this, you say it is over-priced and under-powered. But I can say the same thing about other boxes in terms of user experience. Apple is committed to refined user interfaces, ease of setup and use, and seamless interoperability with other Apple devices. All of this research and development costs money, and many people including myself understand the value this brings to the brand, and that the price increases accordingly to pay for a better product. I am not against 1080 as a principle, I disagree with it because of what it would do to the price, and therefore user adoption.

HobeSoundDarryl
Sep 27, 2010, 07:00 PM
You make some valid points, but consider a scenario where Apple did bake in 1080 goodness into the new Apple TV. Do you think it would still be $99? I'm thinking it would be more like $199, maybe more.

Why do 720p fans or "as is" fans keep assuming that 1080p hardware would make it cost any more? Here's a couple of 1080p set top boxes with lots of similar capabilities and then some retailing for <$100: http://shop.roku.com/Roku-Digital-Video-Player-Options-W5.aspx Certainly, if a little company like Roku can get 1080p hardware in their set-top box, a massive player like Apple could get at least as good a deal on 1080p hardware.

Look around. Lots of players have <$100 1080p-equipped boxes to hook to 1080p HDTVs. Are they somehow superior to Apple at getting a good deal on 1080p chipsets?

I suspect 1080p chipsets would be cheaper than 720p chipsets courtesy of economies of scale. After all, who else besides Apple is putting 720p MAX chipsets in their consumer hardware to link to a HDTV? My guess is that chipsets limited to 720p is probably becoming increasingly "special order", while 1080p chipsets are becoming commoditized (if they are not already).

It seems short-sighted to only compare price points and 720 vs. 1080, as there is much more to the equation. Apple knows that if they want to solve the living room puzzle, they have to balance price with features. Specifically Steve said in order to compete in the living room, they have to compete against the set top boxes that are being given away for free or nearly free by the cable company. So they aren't trying to match features of a high powered HTPC, they are competing with the free-ish hardware that the cable company gives/rents to you. So to do this, they need a very inexpensive box.

OK. So again, see the link above. It's not a requirement that 1080p hardware must be priced a lot higher than $99. Just the opposite actually. If you look around a bit, you'll see lots of different 1080p hardware priced at or below Apple's price.

I agree they don't have to load it with everything in a full computer (HTPC), but they could at least compete head-to-head with similar set-top boxes on one of the most crucial features: picture resolution/quality. Instead, this Christmas Apple's 720p MAX set top box for $99 has to compete against boxes like Roku 1080p set-top box priced for $79-$99. Wouldn't it be nice to at least be toe-to-toe on fundamental graphics hardware? Then, the niceties of Apple's better UI, complete compatibility with all things iTunes, etc could face off against ROKUs and similar many more apps, 1080p content to rent via VUDU and similar, and so on.

I guarantee that if it did 1080 that it would cost significantly more.
Well, since you guarantee it, I'll assume you have insights into Apple that I don't have. My assumption is the much bigger player (Apple) would at least have the same bargaining power for 1080p chips as the relatively tiny players like Roku. But maybe you know that Apple is incapable of striking as good of a deal?

I am not against 1080 as a principle, I disagree with it because of what it would do to the price, and therefore user adoption.
Well since your entire post revolved around an assumption that 1080p would have automatically made Apple's set-top box a lot more expensive than $99, does the above proof of smaller companies rolling out 1080p set-top boxes retailing for less than that change your opinion at all?

Again, I can't guarantee that Apple would have been able to keep the price at $99, but I do offer the above to illustrate your assumption is probably not correct. Else, Apple might want to buy Roku and put their hardware bargaining team to work on all future negotiations... because clearly there's some major negotiating talents at that small company if your guarantee is still in place. Apple might also buy the guys in charge of WD TV, and a few of the BD player negotiators who are getting 1080p chipsets plus a laser and disc spinner in a box for under $100: http://www.walmart.com/ip/VIZIO-VBR120-Blu-ray-Player-with-Internet-Apps/14972572

Note: as an Apple TV owner, I don't share the above examples suggesting they are superior in every way to Apple TV... just to illustrate the fallacy that a 1080p version was automatically going to have to cost a lot more than $99. I love my Apple TV (2006 version), but after 4 years, I was certainly hoping for a video upgrade of more than just 6 frames per second in 720p.

DJinTX
Sep 27, 2010, 08:14 PM
Well since your entire post revolved around an assumption that 1080p would have automatically made Apple's set-top box a lot more expensive than $99, does the above proof of smaller companies rolling out 1080p set-top boxes retailing for less than that change your opinion at all?



No, your post doesn't change my mind. Obviously this is all speculation, but an interesting debate none the less. Neither of us are privvy to Apple's decision making process, nor can we guess with much accuracy at the price of a non-existent product. Apple has decided that the new ATV with stated specs is perfectly priced at $99 (by their estimation), so this makes $99 the baseline. So if your argument is that Apple of all companies would be likely to add better specs/features above the baseline and not increase price...meanwhile my argument is that they would definitely increase price along with additional specs/features above baseline, then I think I am more likely to be correct.

When has Apple ever added value in terms of specs and features without increasing price? Comparing it against other products price points isn't very accurate because Apple did not make those products, they didn't set the price for those products, and they do not contain Apple's R&D.

We are all aware that Apple marches to the beat of their own drummer when it comes to product features and the corresponding pricing structure. Could Apple come out with an ATV with 1080 for $99? Of course they could. They could also come out with all those features for $49, but they aren't going to. If Roku had invested in first class R&D for the hardware and interface, then their prices would definitely increase. That's just how it works. No one invests as much as Apple or is as committed to excellence as Apple. And because of that, users pay a little more for that benefit.

It's not about how much the individual components cost. If it were, then all these boxes would cost about $30. I am willing to pay more for the Apple experience, and it is worth every penny.

HobeSoundDarryl
Sep 27, 2010, 08:28 PM
So first you were so certain it would be a lot more than $99 if it had 1080p hardware. Then, I show you very solid relative evidence it didn't have to be priced at any higher than $99.

So now the logic is that Apple priced it exactly right for what it is. If it had anything better built in, it would have to be priced higher? Well that's as sure an argument as possible... the best comeback to an improper assumption to justify Apple's decision-making as I've ever seen.

I suppose then, that if Apple would have priced this new :apple:TV at $999, you would be equally certain that because they priced it there, that's exactly where it should be priced. Or, there's no room for any other value proposition- including relative value propositions- because Apple always prices things exactly right.

I can't come back with anything against that kind of logic. I would need Apple to officially post that they mis-priced it at $99, or that they forgot to mention that it includes 1080p for $99.

I suppose when iPhone 1 or 2 first launched at one price, that was the exact right price because Apple priced it as such. Then, (was it) a month or so later when they cut the price of it (because sales plunged after the initial fan base), that that lower price was also the right price because Apple priced it as such. Seems like the exact same hardware was involved. But I suppose Apple was pricing it exactly right for what it was... at 2 different prices?

rkuo
Sep 27, 2010, 08:53 PM
So first you were so certain it would be a lot more than $99 if it had 1080p hardware. Then, I show you very solid relative evidence it didn't have to be priced at any higher than $99.

So now the logic is that Apple priced it exactly right for what it is. If it had anything better built in, it would have to be priced higher? Well that's as sure an argument as possible... the best comeback to an improper assumption to justify Apple's decision-making as I've ever seen.

I suppose then, that if Apple would have priced this new :apple:TV at $999, you would be equally certain that because they priced it there, that's exactly where it should be priced. Or, there's no room for any other value proposition- including relative value propositions- because Apple always prices things exactly right.

I can't come back with anything against that kind of logic. I would need Apple to officially post that they mis-priced it at $99, or that they forgot to mention that it includes 1080p for $99.

I suppose when iPhone 1 or 2 first launched at one price, that was the exact right price because Apple priced it as such. Then, (was it) a month or so later when they cut the price of it (because sales plunged after the initial fan base), that that lower price was also the right price because Apple priced it as such. Seems like the exact same hardware was involved. But I suppose Apple was pricing it exactly right for what it was... at 2 different prices?
Uh, come on. The decision making process was simple. The A4 chip only support accelerated 720p playback. Had they gone with all new hardware for the Apple TV, the parts cost might be equal or cheaper but it would not have the full force of iOS development behind it and it would not have come out as quickly as it did (being a "hobby" project).

There is NO WAY Apple would have engineered a new hardware platform just for the Apple TV. You can expect future iterations of the Apple TV to move in lockstep with iPhone and iPad until the AppleTV business finds a way to stand on its own.

HobeSoundDarryl
Sep 27, 2010, 09:07 PM
Uh, come on. The decision making process was simple. The A4 chip only support accelerated 720p playback. Had they gone with all new hardware for the Apple TV, the parts cost might be equal or cheaper but it would not have the full force of iOS development behind it and it would not have come out as quickly as it did (being a "hobby" project).

There is NO WAY Apple would have engineered a new hardware platform just for the Apple TV. You can expect future iterations of the Apple TV to move in lockstep with iPhone and iPad until the AppleTV business finds a way to stand on its own.

Um, the 2006 edition of :apple:TV had it's own hardware platform. That was engineered before it was even a "hobby". It's not like they had a pile of A4s laying around and they needed something to do with them.

Furthermore iOS is just a layer on OS X underpinnings, which is coded on top of several varied hardware platforms. Apple could very likely take the Roku, WD or other hardware platform "as is" and get an iOS layer running on it.

iOS is no more married to the A4 than it was to the A4 predecessor. :apple:TV is a very simple device: no touch screen, no accelerometers, no 3G, no gps, no ______________, and so on. It is a minimal device compared to the "big 3" iDevices. Even the UI borrows heavily from the UI running on a Pentium D (I think) plus a graphics coprocessor on the old one.

Don't live in illusions where Apple is so small they can only do one thing at a time, or work with one hardware platform at a time, or build something as relatively simple as the new :apple:TV (vs. say- an iPhone) that their only option was an A4 core and no 1080p coprocessor options.

Or choose to live there and eat up everything they serve as they serve it. I own a bunch of Apple stuff myself- including the 2006 version of (2) :apple:TVs. But I retain the ability to recognize shortcomings in product design choices where I see them. 4 years ago, they gave us an :apple:TV to hook to (only) HDTVs and it had graphics hardware limited to 720p24fps. 4 years later, they give us one that can max out at 720p30fps in a world where 1080p is so common in so many competing products, other set-top boxes with 1080p can be found for substantially below $99.

You are welcome to your opinions, as I should be welcomed to offer mine. Just because mine differs from Apple's decision should not automatically make it wrong. I am a product BUYER after all.

DJinTX
Sep 27, 2010, 10:26 PM
HobeSoundDarryl,

Congrats on missing the point. Not that we can ever resolve this, but I never said I believed the price Apple chose to be perfect...I said that they deemed it perfect. And until they change it, then yes, it is their perfect price for this item. Unfortunately I do not dictate their prices.

Also, I never said Apple couldn't offer it for a cheaper price. On the contrary, they set their own prices. They can do whatever they want, including giving it away for free, or charging $1000. That is up to their marketing team to decide, not me. And depending on where they price it, they could sell a million, or sell 30.

All I am saying is that the two different hardware chips are worth different amounts, and Apple would most certainly charge a higher price for the 1080 if they used it.

cadillac1234
Sep 27, 2010, 11:15 PM
I've never been able to get 1080p to stream over any connection except for a direct Ethernet connection. I've tried n wireless and power line and none have had enough bandwidth to handle the 1080p stream.

I think 720p compromise is probably a good one at this point until there is a more reliable standard connection. I don't have the inclination to run 100m of Cat6 through my basement to get the extra bump needed.

Pez555
Sep 28, 2010, 07:49 AM
great info thanks guys.

most of the movies/tv shows i have in my itunes are converted (not HD) and thus are slightly worse quality than the originals, so i assume it will still all work fine.

My primary question was to just ask about films that arent in HD, as i hardly have any anyway, however if down the road i do get some problems with any HD films, i will cross that bridge when i get to it!

DJinTX
Sep 28, 2010, 09:08 AM
Don't live in illusions where Apple is so small they can only do one thing at a time, or work with one hardware platform at a time, or build something as relatively simple as the new :apple:TV (vs. say- an iPhone) that their only option was an A4 core and no 1080p coprocessor options.

I for one have no illusions of Apple's size. They have recently become the second largest corporation by market value.



Or choose to live there and eat up everything they serve as they serve it. I own a bunch of Apple stuff myself- including the 2006 version of (2) :apple:TVs. But I retain the ability to recognize shortcomings in product design choices where I see them.

I think you are misunderstanding. I personally agree with many experts who believe that the human eye cannot see the difference between 720 and 1080 unless you sit way to close. Of course if you can tell a difference, that's great for you. I can certainly be critical about design flaws, or shortcomings, but I think that this is neither. They designed it with this hardware, so it isn't a flaw. And for the majority of people who cannot even tell the difference, then it is also not a shortcoming. Just a more economical way to bring a great experience to as many users as possible.



4 years ago, they gave us an :apple:TV to hook to (only) HDTVs and it had graphics hardware limited to 720p24fps. 4 years later, they give us one that can max out at 720p30fps in a world where 1080p is so common in so many competing products, other set-top boxes with 1080p can be found for substantially below $99.

It doesn't matter what other companies bring to market. Apple doesn't base their offerings on other companies. They do what makes the most sense for their unique products and users.


You are welcome to your opinions, as I should be welcomed to offer mine. Just because mine differs from Apple's decision should not automatically make it wrong. I am a product BUYER after all.

Yes, you are definitely welcome to your opinions, and I don't think you are wrong or right. This is all individual opinion. I just have a differing opinion.

michial
Sep 28, 2010, 11:27 AM
Can I rip already owned content not purcheased through the itunes store into itunes and have it streamed through appletv? I have tons of movies and cds from my own collection, so I assume if I add them into itunes it will work. Hopefully video podcasts will as well? ANybody know about this?
Will I have to convert avi. files? If so any good tricks or software recs for converting to itunes compatible?

newagemac
Sep 28, 2010, 11:38 AM
Yes, you can rip your own content (or download it) and have it play through the Apple TV as long as is in a format that Apple TV can handle.

Mainly up to 720p/30fps h.264 in .mp4, .mov, or .m4v format. If it's not in the required format there are many options to convert it like Handbrake or Quicktime. Most people who rip their content convert with Handbrake. Especially for content ripped using MakeMKV from Blu Rays.

DJinTX
Sep 28, 2010, 11:40 AM
Can I rip already owned content not purcheased through the itunes store into itunes and have it streamed through appletv? I have tons of movies and cds from my own collection, so I assume if I add them into itunes it will work. Hopefully video podcasts will as well? ANybody know about this?
Will I have to convert avi. files? If so any good tricks or software recs for converting to itunes compatible?

Any iTunes-friendly media (that plays directly in iTunes) should stream just fine. It won't matter if it was bought in the iTunes store or not. Only if it is a supported file type.

From Apple's site:

Video formats

* H.264 video up to 720p, 30 frames per second, Main Profile level 3.1 with AAC-LC audio up to 160 Kbps per channel, 48kHz, stereo audio in .m4v, .mp4, and .mov file formats

* MPEG-4 video, up to 2.5 Mbps, 640 by 480 pixels, 30 frames per second, Simple Profile with AAC-LC audio up to 160 Kbps, 48kHz, stereo audio in .m4v, .mp4, and .mov file formats

* Motion JPEG (M-JPEG) up to 35 Mbps, 1280 by 720 pixels, 30 frames per second, audio in ulaw, PCM stereo audio in .avi file format

Audio formats supported

* HE-AAC (V1), AAC (16 to 320 Kbps), protected AAC (from iTunes Store), MP3 (16 to 320 Kbps), MP3 VBR, Audible (formats 2, 3, and 4), Apple Lossless, AIFF, and WAV; Dolby Digital 5.1 surround sound pass-through

Photo formats

* JPEG, GIF, TIFF

captain kaos
Sep 29, 2010, 12:25 AM
Can you stream to the Apple TV if its not in iTunes?

What im looking to do is have a way of watching VPN'd UK TV in Australia. If i can watch this on my macbook pro, would i then be able to stream that to the ATV? I read there maybe a possibility to stream over Airplay?

Any ideas on this?

DJinTX
Sep 29, 2010, 07:22 PM
Can you stream to the Apple TV if its not in iTunes?

What im looking to do is have a way of watching VPN'd UK TV in Australia. If i can watch this on my macbook pro, would i then be able to stream that to the ATV? I read there maybe a possibility to stream over Airplay?

Any ideas on this?

I believe that if you are using the ATV remote to initiate streaming from the living room, then it will only find media in iTunes, and iTunes has to be running on the Mac it is streaming from.

If you initiate the stream from the other end (your Mac/iPhone/iPod/iPad) then right out of the box you can stream iTunes content to the ATV. Or, after the iOS 4.2 update in november you will be able to stream HTML5 content from Mac or iOS device to the ATV via Airplay. Although I have no idea what the limitations of AirPlay will be.

GSX
Sep 29, 2010, 07:52 PM
Yes, you can rip your own content (or download it) and have it play through the Apple TV as long as is in a format that Apple TV can handle.

Mainly up to 720p/30fps h.264 in .mp4, .mov, or .m4v format. If it's not in the required format there are many options to convert it like Handbrake or Quicktime. Most people who rip their content convert with Handbrake. Especially for content ripped using MakeMKV from Blu Rays.

I have some further questions to ask if I may.

If I rip content(movies/TV shows) and play it with the Apple TV will the Apple TV display all the meta data of the files? Such as plot, rating, etc. I assume so, but I'm not sure.

Can I make playlists of movies and TV shows or organize the files some how? For example could I make a section/folder of "Documentaries" or "Anime".

Also I have seen some videos of Apple TVs menus running. In all the videos it looks like on the top of the screen there are advertised movies, tv shows, music, etc. Are those really advertisements displaying new releases? It's kind of hard to tell. If so is there a way to turn them off? I really have no interest in being advertised to like that.

Thanks for the help.

stoplis
Sep 30, 2010, 03:29 AM
This might sound silly, but has anyone tried streaming a 1080p video from iTunes to their Apple TV? Seeing as the iPhone 4 and iPad are capable.
I might not even display at 1080p (i.e. it may downscale to 720p), but if it is capable of playing the files you could at least keep your existing files at 1080p for future proofing (e.g. when ATV V.3 comes out) and watching on other devices (e.g. your computer).

tropic10
Sep 30, 2010, 05:27 AM
This might sound silly, but has anyone tried streaming a 1080p video from iTunes to their Apple TV? Seeing as the iPhone 4 and iPad are capable.
I might not even display at 1080p (i.e. it may downscale to 720p), but if it is capable of playing the files you could at least keep your existing files at 1080p for future proofing (e.g. when ATV V.3 comes out) and watching on other devices (e.g. your computer).

Someone on the Handbrake forums was able to stream a 1080p file.

http://forum.handbrake.fr/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=18102

Since he doesn't have a 1080p TV though, he doesn't know if Apple TV downscales to 720p.

GreatDrok
Oct 2, 2010, 02:21 PM
Someone on the Handbrake forums was able to stream a 1080p file.

http://forum.handbrake.fr/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=18102

Since he doesn't have a 1080p TV though, he doesn't know if Apple TV downscales to 720p.

It doesn't. The original ATV supported up to 1080p output but could only play 720p@25fps and 5Mbps max whereas the new one seems capable of decoding higher rates and full 1080p but it downscales it to 720p. Perverse huh?

Back to my earlier point though, 720p @ 5Mbps VBR (just so there is no claiming that I meant fixed bit rate) will be much better looking than 1080p @ 5Mbps VBR. 1080p needs to be at a higher rate to actually benefit from being 1080p since the actual picture will be softened by the low bit rate. I've done the comparisons and there is no point in having 1080p at rates low enough to stream reliably over a wireless network.

I have plenty of 1080p material - I have Blu Ray and HD DVD players and they look great but the compromise of space and quality means that 720p looks HD enough while not using as much space so it is good to have. I'm not interested in these low bit rate 1080p rips as they lack detail compared to 720p rips at the same rate since detail in digital video is a combination of the bit rate and the resolution you're trying to encode.