Apple TV 'Take 2' HD Image Quality

[MacRumors]

http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com)

A few sites have posted their impressions and reviews of the Apple TV 'Take 2' update that was released just yesterday. Besides the new interface and computer-less design, the biggest new update to the Apple TV is the availability of High Definition iTunes rental content. This is an Apple TV-only feature at the moment, and only available in Rentals, not purchases. Anecdotal reports have ranged from good to great quality of the HD content. Gizmodo (http://gizmodo.com/355843/apple-tv-20-review) subjectively felt the HD quality was "better than DVD" but not "true" HD.

iLounge (http://ilounge.com/index.php/articles/comments/apple-tv-20-vs-blu-ray-dvd-hd-cable-the-comparison/) went a step further and made direct comparisons (with screenshots) between the Apple TV, Blu-Ray, DVD and HD Cable. The movie they chose was Live Free or Die Hard. Their results:

- Blu-Ray clear winner but surprised by how well Apple TV did
- Very little motion blur or artifacts in Apple TV
- "Because of its cleaner motion and audio, we felt that the Apple experience was better in both overall audio and video quality than the HD cable experience, and for most users, superior to renting a standard DVD as well."

Note that individual experiences may vary depending on the movie due to differences in source material and encoding. It's been said that the Apple TV HD movie previews don't necessarily reflect the quality of the actual HD movie quality.

Article Link (http://www.macrumors.com/2008/02/13/apple-tv-take-2-hd-image-quality/)

[calvy]

But it's still not powerful enough to play my downloaded 1080p mkv files, so screw it.

[whooleytoo]

Apple HD rentals obviously aren't available here yet, but I've tried HD rentals through Xbox Live and was very impressed (apart from 24 hours not being long enough, IMO).

Has anyone tried both HD rental services, and could comment on the respective qualities?

[Shacklebolt]

Gah.... I don't like it. I'm sure the movies still look very good, but I don't know if Apple's stock can take yet another, "Well, there's a catch..." in regards to Apple products.

[Cabbit]

But it's still not powerful enough to play my downloaded 1080p mkv files, so screw it.

way to keep it real man.

[tothecore]

how long did it take to buffer/dl?

will i have to wait an hour so watch my rental?

[Markleshark]

how long did it take to buffer/dl?

will i have to wait an hour so watch my rental?

That of course depends on your internet connection.

[ChrisK018]

Nice that there is some good picture quality.

I got all happy-- thinking I might get one-- but from what mighty macrumors tells me the max Apple TV puts out is 720p?

That means I wait. I want 1080p.

[Markleshark]

You can get 1080i as well.

[pjarvi]

I have a 6Mbps DSL connection, and it took around 5 hours for me to download Die Hard in HD. It gave a notification that it was ready to play after about 3 1/2 hours of downloading. I went to sleep instead, and plan on watching it this weekend.

[shawnce]

how long did it take to buffer/dl?

will i have to wait an hour so watch my rental?

As Markleshark said it depends on your internet connection (bandwidth) however you can start to view the rental as soon as enough of it has downloaded to keep ahead of playback (the AppleTV software will inform you when you can start to view). In other words you don't (necessarily) have to wait for the full download before you can start to watch. SD rentals startup relatively fast.

[orme292]

It took me hours to download an HD rental on 1.5mbps DSL.

However, while I did notice the quality difference between an SD movie and the HD rental, I generally wasn't as "blown away" as I am by 1080p and Blu-ray. Despite this, it's still great to bring HD Video to the home as easy as ATV makes it.

[madmaxmedia]

If it compares well to HD cable then that's a good sign IMO (considering bitrate is low compared to Blu-Ray). My HD cable broadcasts can look very good, definitely much better than DVD, depending on the source material.

If the HD selection can grow and rival Blu-Ray, ATV actually becomes a pretty compelling alternative to a Blu-Ray player (at current Blu-Ray hardware prices.)

[skirmish]

Can someone clear up for me, if the apple tv can output 1080p where's the bottleneck holding it back to 720 and is this a hardware or firmware issue?

[MacinJosh]

I question iLounge's decision to use JPGs on their website to compare the picture qualities. They should've used lossless compression like PNG images so we'd get a pixel perfect representation of each format. JPG compresses the image further and the quality suffers.

Joshua.

Can someone clear up for me, if the apple tv can output 1080p where's the bottleneck holding it back to 720 and is this a hardware or firmware issue?

Outputting 1080p is not a problem at all as it doesn't require much horsepower at all. 1080p = 1920x1080 which a 486PC from the early nineties could do with the right video card. The problem is decoding 1080p material which requires muchos power.

Joshua.

[calvy]

way to keep it real man.

Hehe, thanks. I'm just frustrated. I so badly want to buy one of these little boxes and put a full blow OS X on it, but it won't play the content I've got collected from newsgroups. Although I do hear it'll do 720p mkv files, and that is the majority of what I download.

[pgwalsh]

That Apple TV looks pretty good, but you could certainly see the difference between that and Blu-ray. The convenience factor will play a big role, but it would be more appealing if you could use it as a DVR too.

[mwp98223]

how long did it take to buffer/dl?

will i have to wait an hour so watch my rental?

I have a 10Mbs cable connection and appleTV connected via ethernet. An HD movie took about 1 hour to fully download, but AppleTV said I could start watching (I didn't try it) with only 2% downloaded after just a couple minutes. I have not yet watched the movie.

[InfernoSoul]

If it compares well to HD cable then that's a good sign IMO (considering bitrate is low compared to Blu-Ray). My HD cable broadcasts can look very good, definitely much better than DVD, depending on the source material.

If the HD selection can grow and rival Blu-Ray, ATV actually becomes a pretty compelling alternative to a Blu-Ray player (at current Blu-Ray hardware prices.)

I highly doubt it's going to rival Blu-ray's selection. 80% of the movie studios are backing Blu-ray. In my opinion that is just wishful thinking. That and Blu-ray obviously still looks better because it being a physical media and plenty of space for the Studios to work with, without being limited by the general public's internet connection. There are still more people out there that prefer to have physical media over digital media. DVD sales prove this. Blu-ray players have dropped from $1200 to $350 in little over a year. I'm betting by next year they might possibly be in the $150-250 if not cheaper depending on how successful Blu-ray becomes.

[Small White Car]

I question iLounge's decision to use JPGs on their website to compare the picture qualities. They should've used lossless compression like PNG images so we'd get a pixel perfect representation of each format. JPG compresses the image further and the quality suffers.

Joshua.

Well, for that matter, is shooting a TV screen with a camera "really" what you'll see?

The point is not to show WHAT you'll see, but rather to just compare the differences. It shows that AppleTV rentals are "close" to Blu-Ray and "better" than DVD.

That's what the point is here, and using JPEGs doesn't negate that lesson.

[Krevnik]

If it compares well to HD cable then that's a good sign IMO (considering bitrate is low compared to Blu-Ray). My HD cable broadcasts can look very good, definitely much better than DVD, depending on the source material.

Bitrate for 720p should be lower than Blu-Ray overall... by as much as 1/4th. Still isn't quite the same bitrate as what ATV provides. Still, HD cable is worse. They provide a higher bitrate, but it is MPEG-2, severely limiting the quality you can provide at that bitrate.

What I see in my first HD rental is that Comcast has macroblocking problems and is getting the bitrate capped during high-motion scenes which winds up being very bad for the quality of the movie. Noticeably so.

HD rentals from iTunes suffer a different quality problem due to the bitrate. I have yet to see macroblocking, and the image is quite sharp for a 720p source. The catch is that gradients in dark areas take damage, as do reds (I am still trying to figure out why H.263 and H.264 have such an issue with solid red). Overall, I would consider the 720p rental better quality and easier to watch than cable.

[slffl]

I take nothing from Gizmodo or Engadget seriously. They do nothing but pander to the anti-Apple and Sony trolls.

[sbrant]

If you are a videophile then maybe this is not the product for you. Its not for everyone. Stop complaining. I for one enjoy the fact that I can rent a movie with out leaving home. Not as good as a high end blue ray but whocares. Simple put if you don't like it don't buy it. Apple is not forcing you. They are just offering a means to a end, not the end.

[gkarris]

GREAT ARTICLE! I was wondering about the quality comparisons...

Blu-ray and 1080, obviously the best way to go on a larger screen where you can tell the difference.

Apple HD rentals obviously aren't available here yet, but I've tried HD rentals through Xbox Live and was very impressed (apart from 24 hours not being long enough, IMO).

Has anyone tried both HD rental services, and could comment on the respective qualities?

I've bought a couple of Star Trek episodes in 720p from XBox Live and looking at the article, the quality tends to be about the same as Apple - obviously the source material is the same - 720p. It only wet my apetite for wanting the shows on high def discs (Blu-ray the winner now I guess).

From the article:

It’s also worth noting that the Blu-Ray Disc’s biggest video and audio advantages are real, but will be lost on many HDTV users. Since the majority of HDTVs sold before 2007 were not capable of displaying true 1080p output—most were capped at 720p or 1080i—the superior video quality of the Blu-Ray versions of movies won’t be noticeable on such sets, and the difference between the Apple TV and Blu-Ray versions will be less noticeable. If you’re using a TV without the ability to display 1080p video—especially if you don’t have a receiver capable of decoding the Blu-Ray Disc’s DTS-HD signal—an Apple TV rental will be an almost complete substitute for renting the Blu-Ray.


And hence, Apple not releasing any Blu-ray drives in its computers...

[Small White Car]

(I am still trying to figure out why H.263 and H.264 have such an issue with solid red).

Because ALL video has trouble with the color red. This is an issue going back to, well, the first color TVs a half century ago.

When you see red graphics on TV they usually have some blue mixed in to help with that. When shooting stuff with a camera, however, some items are just plain red and it's unavoidable.

[MacinJosh]

Well, for that matter, is shooting a TV screen with a camera "really" what you'll see?

The point is not to show WHAT you'll see, but rather to just compare the differences. It shows that AppleTV rentals are "close" to Blu-Ray and "better" than DVD.

That's what the point is here, and using JPEGs doesn't negate that lesson.

Hm. True. I guess I jumped the gun on that one...

Joshua.

[Scarpad]

When it takes months to get a HD Movie from Netflix or BB, or your Local B&M Rental joint has'nt decided to support HD Yet, ATV is the perfect choice to fill that gap and provide a decent expierience, I'll be using it.

[happydude]

That Apple TV looks pretty good, but you could certainly see the difference between that and Blu-ray. The convenience factor will play a big role, but it would be more appealing if you could use it as a DVR too.

I won't get one until it is capable of DVR, Tivo, live t.v. capabilities, etc whathave you. It may never happen and therefore I may never get one. ah well. I think it is a nifty little box, but not enough for me to buy when I'm fully capable to watch movies as is. And with netflix coming in the mail and the fact that it is still quicker to even walk (or drive if it is snowing) the mile to the movie store . . . it isn't the all purpose-can't live without it device. it's getting close, but not enough for me yet.

[Small White Car]

I won't get one until it is capable of DVR, Tivo, live t.v. capabilities, etc whathave you. It may never happen and therefore I may never get one.

So you have a DVD player and a Tivo right now...2 boxes...but the fact that the AppleTV only replaces ONE of those things isn't good enough? It has to do both jobs?

Tough crowd.

[killmoms]

(I am still trying to figure out why H.263 and H.264 have such an issue with solid red). Overall, I would consider the 720p rental better quality and easier to watch than cable.

It's not an issue with H.263 and 4 so much as an issue with any 4:2:0 color subsampling at lower resolution when it's not being smoothed before display (and I'm pretty sure Apple's H.264 rentals are 4:2:0).

[bretm]

Find it interesting that this movie appears to be one shot with 16:9 and 4:3 in mind, with the widescreen version actually showing LESS of the image than the SD.

In the past, SD or Fullscreen versions were panned and scanned, showing only a portion of the image, losing the left and right. But as you can see in the HD cable version, there is actually MORE area at the top and bottom, creating closer to 4:3 image (almost 16:9).

I'll bet if you purchase the fullscreen version of the DVD, it will actually show more image than the widscreen. Normally I wouldn't buy the fullscreen because it's cropping off the left and right, but they've started shooting them this way. Actually cropping in to get the widescreen.

Don't worry, when they shoot the film there's plenty of rez to go round.

[blindzero]

I've downloaded some HD TV and movies on XBOX Live and I'd say it' looks comparable to the Apple TV pics. Definately better than upscaled DVD. Somewhat Better than Comcast HD because there is too many artifacts in live HD TV.

Still on the fence for Apple TV mainly because I really want a TIVO like option. If it had that, it would be a nobrainer for me.

I've used EyeTV on my Mac. Not sure why they couldn't just implement something like that...

[madmaxmedia]

I agree with your points for sure.

But for the time being, Blu-Ray is still early, so the library is not that large yet, and hardware prices are high. That's why AppleTV is not that far away from Blu-Ray in those aspects, right now. The available library of both pales to DVD, and hardware cost is close.

Personally, I'm sticking with DVD until Blu-Ray prices drop. As you say, by next holiday season player prices will be closer to $100 than $300, and the library will be much larger.

I highly doubt it's going to rival Blu-ray's selection. 80% of the movie studios are backing Blu-ray. In my opinion that is just wishful thinking. That and Blu-ray obviously still looks better because it being a physical media and plenty of space for the Studios to work with, without being limited by the general public's internet connection. There are still more people out there that prefer to have physical media over digital media. DVD sales prove this. Blu-ray players have dropped from $1200 to $350 in little over a year. I'm betting by next year they might possibly be in the $150-250 if not cheaper depending on how successful Blu-ray becomes.

[mwp98223]

The iLounge article and pictures is very interesting. While it may be hard to really see the differences in screen shots, there is some visible difference. More important, their explanations of the differences are good.

[blindzero]

Find it interesting that this movie appears to be one shot with 16:9 and 4:3 in mind, with the widescreen version actually showing LESS of the image than the SD.

In the past, SD or Fullscreen versions were panned and scanned, showing only a portion of the image, losing the left and right. But as you can see in the HD cable version, there is actually MORE area at the top and bottom, creating closer to 4:3 image (almost 16:9). .

I'm not an authority but I believe it was shot Super 35. Movies shot like that can be framed for Full Screen and Widescreen at the same time while filming. Cameron does this. Helps to preserve a good "Pan and Scan" version.

Seems like movies shot on HD at the right resolution could do this as well.

[Small White Car]

Find it interesting that this movie appears to be one shot with 16:9 and 4:3 in mind, with the widescreen version actually showing LESS of the image than the SD.


It's a different style of shooting that James Cameron has used a lot in his films. You've pretty much got the idea right on how it's done, but it's a choice by a few directors, NOT a change in the way all DVDs are being made.

And even then, I wouldn't say the full-screen version is the "real" version just because it shows more picture.

Rather, I see the difference as "the one shown in theaters" (widescreen) and "the one made just for full-screen DVDs."

Now, between those two choices, which one seems more "real" to you? I pick the "shown in theaters" version.

[happydude]

So you have a DVD player and a Tivo right now...2 boxes...but the fact that the AppleTV only replaces ONE of those things isn't good enough? It has to do both jobs?

Tough crowd.

maybe, i'm just saying from my perspective eliminating one box isn't worth it when i'm set up and happy as it is. it seems like a great unit and if starting out from scratch, maybe i'd consider it, but i'm set. all i'm saying is that if i could run live tv through it and record it on top of downloading, storing, watching rented/purchased movies . . . it might be more appealing. that's all. it just isn't the all encompassing digital solution i personally am willing to pay for . . . yet . . .

[crees!]

http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/08/02/13/apple_tv_take_2_an_in_depth_review_part_1_whats_new.html

[MattG]

I'm on a regular Comcast cable connection, and I was able to start watching the movie within a minute or two of purchasing.

[liberty4all]

If Apple TV had Blu-Ray, I'd buy one...

Come on Apple, make it a fully-functional entertainment device -- or add Blu-Ray to the Mini...

[uNext]

Apple tv rentals are close to blu ray?
lol


Wow- how can it be close to blu-ray when im pretty sure the hardware inside an aaple tv cant decode a 1080p file properly?

I have 3 tvs in my house all 1080p. (Sony xbr series, Samsung 56" lcd, Sharp Aquos)

On 2 of the tvs i have apple tv connected..i rented an hd movie..

and to me the quality is more compared to a up-conversion quality dvd.
FAR FROM EVEN GRACING TBLU RAY.

Wow anything to justify a purchase. Dont get me wrong apple tv is a good piece of convenient equpment. but far from blu ray

[killmoms]

Yeah, Super 35 shoots what amounts to a standard academy aperture movie (roughly 16:9) which is then soft-matted in theaters to 2.35:1 (the more "epic" screen shape), rather than Cinemascope which is an anamorphic 16:9 shooting format that results in a 2.35:1 screen shape when "unsqueezed" in the theater.

[dashiel]

all you 1080p snobs need to give it a rest (and yes i have a 1080p projector that i use for movies, in addition to my 42" LCD 720p that i used for most of my video display needs).

first of all no set actually delivers 1080p on moving pictures, the actual horizontal resolution drops pretty significantly when there's motion on the screen. in fact most of the recent high-end sets barely break the 720 resolution barrier for motion res

http://www.hometheatermag.com/images/archivesart/1107hookHDTVrez.jpg

secondly unless your watching from on a screen bigger than 50" from a fair distance 1080p is a waste of money

[tothecore]

thanks for the responses... im on a DSL 3.0... i was just curious... thx again!

[longofest]

Bluray will always look/sound better, because its full 1080p, whereas AppleTV HD is 720p. "HD" means a lot these days.

I haven't yet rented anything, but I really pleased with the improvements to fast-forward and rewinding.

[ayale99]

all you 1080p snobs need to give it a rest (and yes i have a 1080p projector that i use for movies, in addition to my 42" LCD 720p that i used for most of my video display needs).

first of all no set actually delivers 1080p on moving pictures, the actual horizontal resolution drops pretty significantly when there's motion on the screen. in fact most of the recent high-end sets barely break the 720 resolution barrier for motion res

http://www.hometheatermag.com/images/archivesart/1107hookHDTVrez.jpg

secondly unless your watching from on a screen bigger than 50" from a fair distance 1080p is a waste of money

Amen Brother! Who cares?! "Wah Wah It's not 1080p!"
Once you actually sit down and get into a movie, your not going to notice 720p or 1080p difference. I just can't imagine people sitting there watching a movie and thinking, "I can't follow the story line becasue my darn picture isn't 1080p!" Be happy with what you've got. 1080p will come.

And one more thing...
People need to chill about not having DVR in the Appletv Why the hell would Apple put a DVR in AND sell the tv show content on Itunes???? Anybody think of that? Yes, Apple please give me the option of buying a TV show from you OR recording it on your box. Which one do you think people would go for?

It's a business model people. Think about it.

That said, I love my AppleTv.

[whooleytoo]

Thanks gkarris & blindzero for the replies!

I'm on a regular Comcast cable connection, and I was able to start watching the movie within a minute or two of purchasing.

I'd expect the bitrate for 720p rentals to be somewhere in the region of 6 to 6.5Mbps; so I'd assume if you have a downlink faster than that (or, around 6.5Mbps with no contention) the movie would be ready to play almost immediately - as soon as it can be determined that data rate is steady.

If you're connection is slower than that figure, you'll likely have to wait a lot longer, depending on the length of the rental. I've a 7Mbps with no contention, pretty much specifically so I can try this out if/when it becomes available here.

Edit: of course, the servers presumably are under relatively little load these days. If and when AppleTV HD rentals take off, it'll be interesting to see how they handle the load.

[ziwi]

At least it is better than expected news. It seems as if this product will keep evolving at this point. Take 2 sure made it more intriguing though.

[detnyre]

Do you have file level access to the hard drive on the AppleTV?

I would like to be able to copy some of the large media files over to it without using iTunes...

Can you use iTunes to offload tv shows and movies over to the AppleTV and then have it removed from my computers hard drive?

Please advise.

Derek

[jmadlena]

So you have a DVD player and a Tivo right now...2 boxes...but the fact that the AppleTV only replaces ONE of those things isn't good enough? It has to do both jobs?

Tough crowd.

So you think he should replace one of those boxes with another box... or add a third box? So he should have two, or maybe three boxes, when he wants to reduce the number of boxes?

So unless the sarcasm of your comment is lost on me, I don't get it.

[DarkRail]

6 meg DSL by AT&T

HD movie ready to play on my AppleTV in about 1 minute.

Watched on my new 50" Pioneer Kuro plasma, and the picture was just great. Much like others have said, it lacks the full Blu-Ray dazzle, but FAR surpasses upscaled DVDs or anything on my HD cable (Time Warner Los Angeles). HD cable is riddled with blocking artifacts, while the AppleTV movie had none.

I'm really impressed. They could certainly improve on price and selection, but I can see slowly weening myself away from NetFlix in favor of this... or at least getting a cheaper Netflix subscription and using both. And I doubt I'll ever use my cable's pay-per-view now that this is available.

[queshy]

no idea why they sell it in canada, no movie rentals, and you can buy shows, but the shows all suck and theres only a few to begin with.

[whatever]

how long did it take to buffer/dl?

will i have to wait an hour so watch my rental?

Under 5 minutes for a HD movie to start playing and that adds into account that I accidently stopped the download when I rented a second movie.

[morespce54]

That seems pretty good (even if I'm not in the whole :apple:TV halo yet)!

[Small White Car]

So you think he should replace one of those boxes with another box... or add a third box?

I don't think he should do anything. I don't own an AppleTV either.

My point is that I think it's funny to complain that the AppleTV "only" does certain things. It's kind of like saying "since there's an iPhone, why would anyone buy an iPod Nano?"

Well, obviously, they do different things. I wasn't even critisizing the original poster for what he said. I was just pointing out that, like the iPod Nano, the AppleTV is aimed at certain things and we shouldn't expect it to change anytime soon. Adding Blu-Ray or Tivo to it only fights against the iTunes store. Not gonna happen.

[whatever]

Nice that there is some good picture quality.

I got all happy-- thinking I might get one-- but from what mighty macrumors tells me the max Apple TV puts out is 720p?

That means I wait. I want 1080p.

This whole 1080p vs 720p argument is really moot.

Yes, technically 1080p is better than 720p, you'll get no arguments from me on that. But....

A 1080p Blu-Ray disc playing on cheap LCD/Plasma TV will not look good as a 720p movie playing on a high end LCD/Plasma TV with excellent upscaling. In fact as I've mentioned in a previous thread, one of my friends who is very much into the Audio/Visual/HD world could not get over how well my TV upscaled a regular DVD. He said it was very close to a BLu-ray disc.

Then add in the room. Windows, floors, etc! If you really want to take advantage of the true HD experience, you might as well start working on a home theater.

Also another piece of the equation, which makes the argument very subjective, is the viewers vision. Everyone's vision is different, I for one cannot read sport scores on regular ESPN, however I can do so on ESPN HD. However, my sister is the complete opposite.

It will be a long time until 1080P is accepted into the mainstream, so you might as well enjoy 720P today and now with the talk of 3D TV....might as well hold off on Blu-Ray, unless you want to replace all of your content again.

[TechnoLawyer]

Nice that there is some good picture quality.

I got all happy-- thinking I might get one-- but from what mighty macrumors tells me the max Apple TV puts out is 720p? That means I wait. I want 1080p.

Life is short. Enjoy what's available today. That's my motto. :)

[TechnoLawyer]

In fact as I've mentioned in a previous thread, one of my friends who is very much into the Audio/Visual/HD world could not get over how well my TV upscaled a regular DVD. He said it was very close to a BLu-ray disc.

Which TV do you have?

[OldTimey]

I don't have an HDTV. Will there be any benefit to downloadin

hehe

forget it.

kudos to apple for getting this done. buying DVD's and/or Blu Ray disks is buying outdated technology.

If i want to see a movie in hi-def, I walk to the theatre! Best quality there is.

but that's just me!

[ceres]

GREAT ARTICLE! I was wondering about the quality comparisons...

Blu-ray and 1080, obviously the best way to go on a larger screen where you can tell the difference.



I've bought a couple of Star Trek episodes in 720p from XBox Live and looking at the article, the quality tends to be about the same as Apple - obviously the source material is the same - 720p. It only wet my apetite for wanting the shows on high def discs (Blu-ray the winner now I guess).

From the article:



And hence, Apple not releasing any Blu-ray drives in its computers...


1080p makes a lot of sense on tv sets 46 in and more. 720p scaled down from br discs on a modern 37-40 in 720p set looks very good, almost indiscernable from 1080p at 3-4m away from the tv. BR Players will be 150 USD/ EUR this xmas and all of the players upscale sd dvds to at least what Apple, Sony and MS can offer via their dl services. HD TV sales will continue to rise this year with most of the sets, even 37in, being 1080p right now.

[twoodcc]

sounds like the quality is pretty good. hopefully this will make its way to the mac, and not just the apple tv

[whatever]

Which TV do you have?
50" Pioneer Elite Plasma Pro-FHD1 Monitor. At the time of purchase I selected going with a monitor vs a TV mainly because the monitor was 1080P and I didn't need a tuner, since I was hooking it up to A/V system (TiVo, Digital Cable, A/V receiver, ETC).

Of course a few months after my purchase the new Elite KURO came out, so I had an opportunity to trade my Pro-FHD1 in for one (even swap, it's a long story), but after being put in contact with the AV guy who optimizes home theaters for a living (he did George Lucas home theater), I learned that Pro-HFD1 is superior to the newer Elite KURO (I guess there are more expensive parts in it which were substituted in the KURO line to bring the price down, I don't know for sure, but after two months of going back in forth I decided to keep what I had).

One more thing totality off topic, I wonder no one has mentioned the rumors of Apple buying Sony. These rumors started appearing again a few weeks ago. They need help and I can picture either Apple or MS buying them (alright did I just discredit this post with that statement?).

[benpatient]

Amen Brother! Who cares?! "Wah Wah It's not 1080p!"
Once you actually sit down and get into a movie, your not going to notice 720p or 1080p difference.

...says a guy who obviously hasn't sat down and watched Ratatouille on Blu-Ray on a 65" plasma.

When I got up and walked away, the real world looked blurry and dull for the next hour.

[ayale99]

...says a guy who obviously hasn't sat down and watched Ratatouille on Blu-Ray on a 65" plasma.

When I got up and walked away, the real world looked blurry and dull for the next hour.

Well, maybe except for you then. My eyes actually see the world in 2160p, so it's kind of a downgrade for me.

[cnorth3]

If Apple TV had Blu-Ray, I'd buy one...

Come on Apple, make it a fully-functional entertainment device -- or add Blu-Ray to the Mini...


Yeah. And an integrated popcorn maker/beer fridge too. I mean, I want fully functional, right? Stop trying to sell me this dumbed-down kludge-meat, Apple!

[NightStorm]

But it's still not powerful enough to play my downloaded 1080p mkv files, so screw it.So sorry Apple doesn't feel the need to help you watch pirated movies.

[adlproductions]

I rented the Transformers HD version on Apple TV. I have the DVD version of it also and saw the action scenes on it after viewing HD version. I could tell that the HD version was better and sound was very similar.

The UI is better than the previous version. Much easier to use. (Love the menu shortcut)

___________________________________________________________________
:apple: Iphone 8 GB
:apple: Macbook
:apple: 20' Imac G5

[filmguy15]

OMG seriously, I just can't STAND not watching my movies in 1080p....I just won't have it any lower. I mean granted, I can't actually tell the difference when I'm far away on my couch.....but that's not the point, it's the principle of the thing....

As soon as Apple comes out with Apple TV: 1080p (which I know they will, because they are here to make products for MY individual wants...), I'll get my complaint ready for how they don't have "PLAYS 1080p!!!" in big letters on the front of the unit, so all my friends will know that I have the biggest and the best.

Seriously....

[fanbrain]

This whole 1080p vs 720p argument is really moot.

Yes, technically 1080p is better than 720p, you'll get no arguments from me on that. But....

A 1080p Blu-Ray disc playing on cheap LCD/Plasma TV will not look good as a 720p movie playing on a high end LCD/Plasma TV with excellent upscaling. In fact as I've mentioned in a previous thread, one of my friends who is very much into the Audio/Visual/HD world could not get over how well my TV upscaled a regular DVD. He said it was very close to a BLu-ray disc.

Then add in the room. Windows, floors, etc! If you really want to take advantage of the true HD experience, you might as well start working on a home theater.

Also another piece of the equation, which makes the argument very subjective, is the viewers vision. Everyone's vision is different, I for one cannot read sport scores on regular ESPN, however I can do so on ESPN HD. However, my sister is the complete opposite.

It will be a long time until 1080P is accepted into the mainstream, so you might as well enjoy 720P today and now with the talk of 3D TV....might as well hold off on Blu-Ray, unless you want to replace all of your content again.

Exactly.

You can't expect the greatest picture if you don't have the greatest scaler, and you are still ultimately running through analog wire (component). Encoding/decoding/scaling etc all require a lot of processing.

[Avatar74]

I have a 6Mbps DSL connection, and it took around 5 hours for me to download Die Hard in HD. It gave a notification that it was ready to play after about 3 1/2 hours of downloading. I went to sleep instead, and plan on watching it this weekend.

I have 15 Mbps FIOS and it took maybe 2 hours to download Live Free or Die Hard in HD... but it was ready to start playback in about 30-45 seconds, and did so flawlessly.

As a sidenote: I had 5 Mbps FIOS but upgraded to 15 knowing that AppleTV 2.0 was on its way... I am thoroughly satisfied with the result of the extra ten bucks a month and hope that as content expands, I'll just do away with the 900 channels of crap I'm feeding my TV. :D

OMG seriously, I just can't STAND not watching my movies in 1080p....I just won't have it any lower. I mean granted, I can't actually tell the difference when I'm far away on my couch.....but that's not the point, it's the principle of the thing....

As soon as Apple comes out with Apple TV: 1080p (which I know they will, because they are here to make products for MY individual wants...), I'll get my complaint ready for how they don't have "PLAYS 1080p!!!" in big letters on the front of the unit, so all my friends will know that I have the biggest and the best.

Seriously....

1080p? Are you kidding me?

I'm mad as hell that it doesn't play 2540p on my $250,000 Barco theatrical digital projector! What about Ultra High Definition? What about Human Eye Vision. I'm just not satisfied until AppleTV can discern between wavelengths 1 nanometer apart like the human eye!

WHY!!!!

[Westside guy]

Unless there's a whole lot of content (and I don't mean HD vs. non-HD) that's available to Apple TV but not to the rest of us through the iTunes store, I don't (yet) see the value of getting an Apple TV since it really can't replace my DVD player. I don't personally want yet another box attached to my television (and yes, I realize that's just me and I don't speak for everyone).

I do look forward to the day when the downloadable rental content is comparable to what's available through Netflix or, perhaps more realistically, the corner DVD rental place.

I'm mad as hell that it doesn't play 2540p on my $250,000 Barco theatrical digital projector!

Well, sure, if you're the sort of person who enjoys slumming it on occasion...

I want the movies to be broadcast into my dreams, and sponsored by Lightspeed Brand Briefs™.

[InfernoSoul]

This whole 1080p vs 720p argument is really moot.

Yes, technically 1080p is better than 720p, you'll get no arguments from me on that. But....

A 1080p Blu-Ray disc playing on cheap LCD/Plasma TV will not look good as a 720p movie playing on a high end LCD/Plasma TV with excellent upscaling. In fact as I've mentioned in a previous thread, one of my friends who is very much into the Audio/Visual/HD world could not get over how well my TV upscaled a regular DVD. He said it was very close to a BLu-ray disc.

Then add in the room. Windows, floors, etc! If you really want to take advantage of the true HD experience, you might as well start working on a home theater.

Also another piece of the equation, which makes the argument very subjective, is the viewers vision. Everyone's vision is different, I for one cannot read sport scores on regular ESPN, however I can do so on ESPN HD. However, my sister is the complete opposite.

It will be a long time until 1080P is accepted into the mainstream, so you might as well enjoy 720P today and now with the talk of 3D TV....might as well hold off on Blu-Ray, unless you want to replace all of your content again.

This is laughable. No offense but it honestly seems your friend isn't into Audio/Visual as much as you say he say's he is. Screen size plays a big factor also. 32" or smaller the the difference between a DVD upscaled vs a 1080P Blu-ray may not be as noticeable when comparing on a 42"+ HDTV. Either way the movie will still be a lot sharper with better color depth then what DVD offers. Now saying a DVD upscaled comes very close to Blu-ray sounds ignorant to me. I'm not saying all Blu-ray movies are created equal but honestly comparing say Pirates of the Caribbean on Blu-ray and DVD with a decent sized HDTV(42"+). Blu-ray wins hands down. DVD can't compete with the sharpness or color depth which Blu-ray offers.

As for everyone else on this forum saying 1080P is "dumb" or "a waste", "you can't see that much of a difference". Then do this simple test change your monitor resolution from 1208 x 720P to 1920 x 1080P and let me know what difference you see. Stuff look a little different? Thought so. That is unless you are on a monitor which is not capable of those resolutions. Sounds like a lot of people know a little bit about the subject but haven't really tested it out for themselves. I really don't understand why people would go for the lower standard. If you guys want stay in the past I'm looking towards the future. Right now 1080P is where it's at but soon we'll be at even even higher resolution. Bring me 1440P!

[gkarris]

You have to remember what the AVERAGE person ownes. Not everyone has nice 50" screens or home theaters...

AppleTV is for the masses - the average 40" or smaller 720p sets.

I have an AppleTV to watch my favorite shows and music videos. My favorite movies and TV shows I end up getting on disc anyways and eventually erase the "almost DVD" quality TV shows from my iTunes and watch the discs.

I won't even rent the HD content. I will rent SD, and if I sorta like it, buy the DVD used. If I love it, end up with the Blu-ray...

I want media you can hold...

[Lucy Brown]

Looks like blu ray wins again and just yesterday I get an email from netflix saying that they are dumping HD DVD and going with blu ray. Guess my xbox 360 hd player is going to wind up in the garbage soon enough.

[ayale99]

So sorry Apple doesn't feel the need to help you watch pirated movies.

LOL. Nice one.

[LethalWolfe]

When I got up and walked away, the real world looked blurry and dull for the next hour.

I'm pretty sure that's called "eye strain." ;)


I really don't understand why people would go for the lower standard. If you guys want stay in the past I'm looking towards the future. Right now 1080P is where it's at but soon we'll be at even even higher resolution. Bring me 1440P!
For the same reason that people chose cell phones over land lines even though land lines have much better call quality. Or the same reason that people get songs off the internet instead of the much higher quality CDs from the store. Or the same reason people get movies and TV shows off the internet instead of the much higher quality versions from the store. It's convenient and the quality is "good enough."


Lethal

[fivepoint]

This is laughable. No offense but it honestly seems your friend isn't into Audio/Visual as much as you say he say's he is. Screen size plays a big factor also. 32" or smaller the the difference between a DVD upscaled vs a 1080P Blu-ray may not be as noticeable when comparing on a 42"+ HDTV. Either way the movie will still be a lot sharper with better color depth then what DVD offers. Now saying a DVD upscaled comes very close to Blu-ray sounds ignorant to me. I'm not saying all Blu-ray movies are created equal but honestly comparing say Pirates of the Caribbean on Blu-ray and DVD with a decent sized HDTV(42"+). Blu-ray wins hands down. DVD can't compete with the sharpness or color depth which Blu-ray offers.

As for everyone else on this forum saying 1080P is "dumb" or "a waste", "you can't see that much of a difference". Then do this simple test change your monitor resolution from 1208 x 720P to 1920 x 1080P and let me know what difference you see. Stuff look a little different? Thought so. That is unless you are on a monitor which is not capable of those resolutions. Sounds like a lot of people know a little bit about the subject but haven't really tested it out for themselves. I really don't understand why people would go for the lower standard. If you guys want stay in the past I'm looking towards the future. Right now 1080P is where it's at but soon we'll be at even even higher resolution. Bring me 1440P!


Not arguing here... just playing devil's advocate. So, if 1080P isn't going to be the highest in 5 years (or whatever) then why not pay HALF price right now for the 720P tv, and upgrade it when the next resolution format comes out? :)

"Sit far enough away... and 420i looks damn good!"

[ayale99]

You have to remember what the AVERAGE person ownes. Not everyone has nice 50" screens or home theaters...

AppleTV is for the masses - the average 40" or smaller 720p sets.

Exactly. Some people in this forum have a lot more money to spend on big HDTVs than others. I'm a mere mortal myself. Guess I'll have to make do with 720p. AppleTV is for the masses and the masses don't have giant 1080p HDTVs.
Something to keep in mind folks. They should make a gold-plated 1080p version for you rich guys to buy.

[killmoms]

Looks like blu ray wins again and just yesterday I get an email from netflix saying that they are dumping HD DVD and going with blu ray. Guess my xbox 360 hd player is going to wind up in the garbage soon enough.

Why? It still plays any HD DVDs you've bought just fine. I don't understand the "throw away a dying tech" mentality. Just keep using it until it doesn't work. If the investment you have in discs is still greater than the cost of a player, why not keep using it? Heck, I'd still buy HD DVDs for stuff that's still not releasing in Blu-ray, because the player still works fine. Plus it'll be an even longer wait for Universal/Paramount to go Blu-ray and release all the stuff they've already put on HD DVD only on Blu-ray... so why not?

[hayesk]

no idea why they sell it in canada, no movie rentals, and you can buy shows, but the shows all suck and theres only a few to begin with.

Here's why Canadian's would buy an AppleTV
- they use an eyeTV connected to their Mac in their office to record shows, but want to watch them on their TV
- they like the shows on iTunes - Corner Gas and Little Mosque on the Prairie are way better than any of the sitcoms on the US networks right now, or even back in the fall when there wasn't a writer's strike. You may not like them, but others do.
- you can view your photos on TV when your family comes over
- when you have a party, people can choose music they want to listen to without having to go through all of your CDs (although I wish the AppleTV had "Play Next in Party Shuffle" like in iTunes)
- you can easily browse movie trailers before going out to a movie
- you can view video podcasts on TV instead of on your iPod

I'm sure others can come up with more. Movie rentals are not the only function of this box.

[GQB]

I have a 6Mbps DSL connection, and it took around 5 hours for me to download Die Hard in HD. It gave a notification that it was ready to play after about 3 1/2 hours of downloading. I went to sleep instead, and plan on watching it this weekend.

For jollys, I used Speakeasy to check my upload and download speeds. I'm in the SF Bay area, and found a big difference between testing against a server in SF vs one in LA.

Anyone know where the iTunes Store servers are located?

[GQB]

...says a guy who obviously hasn't sat down and watched Ratatouille on Blu-Ray on a 65" plasma.

When I got up and walked away, the real world looked blurry and dull for the next hour.

And most people watch more SD content than HD, even if they have HD.
For them, any quality higher than HD will be seen as outstanding.

Very few people have 65" monitors (or will have Blu-Ray for a loooonnng time), and videophile standards are a poor indicator of popular perception.

Sounds like you have a cool system tho'.

[GQB]

I've downloaded some HD TV and movies on XBOX Live and I'd say it' looks comparable to the Apple TV pics. Definately better than upscaled DVD. Somewhat Better than Comcast HD because there is too many artifacts in live HD TV.

Still on the fence for Apple TV mainly because I really want a TIVO like option. If it had that, it would be a nobrainer for me.

I've used EyeTV on my Mac. Not sure why they couldn't just implement something like that...

Here's what I've not been able to figure out about EyeTV-type solutions...
Exactly what does this allow me to do with a cable connection?
- I know it can't do premium content (HBO etc). Even if ATV implemented cable card, that's been pretty much a flop in the market because of the need to accommodate the various cable providers.
- But beyond premium services, there's also the different levels of non-premium content. Basic service, Basic digital, Extended digital, etc.

Can EyeTV do everything EXCEPT Premium, or only a subset of the other cable flavors?

Any DRV solution that doesn't give me everything that the (admittedly crappy) Comcast DVR does (for $12/mo) isn't going to compete.

And that's why Apple isn't going to do DVR. They want to replace Cable/DVR, not support it.
Apple wants to be the 'ala carte' solution that everyone claims they want.

[whatever]

...says a guy who obviously hasn't sat down and watched Ratatouille on Blu-Ray on a 65" plasma.

When I got up and walked away, the real world looked blurry and dull for the next hour.

I often wondered, due to the nature of animation, does HD really make a difference? I mean come on, it's not like the non existent shadows or reflections are going to magically appear? So I would be surprised if a movie such as Ratatouille, The Simpsons or South Park would look any different in HD or regular DVD.

[killmoms]

I often wondered, due to the nature of animation, does HD really make a difference? I mean come on, it's not like the non existent shadows or reflections are going to magically appear? So I would be surprised if a movie such as Ratatouille, The Simpsons or South Park would look any different in HD or regular DVD.

...Which version of Ratatouille were you watching that didn't have shadows or reflections? :rolleyes:

South Park, probably not so much, but there's a LOT of detail packed into Pixar's movies, especially the more recent ones (and ESPECIALLY Ratatouille).

[dashiel]

As for everyone else on this forum saying 1080P is "dumb" or "a waste", "you can't see that much of a difference". Then do this simple test change your monitor resolution from 1208 x 720P to 1920 x 1080P and let me know what difference you see. Stuff look a little different? Thought so. That is unless you are on a monitor which is not capable of those resolutions. Sounds like a lot of people know a little bit about the subject but haven't really tested it out for themselves. I really don't understand why people would go for the lower standard. If you guys want stay in the past I'm looking towards the future. Right now 1080P is where it's at but soon we'll be at even even higher resolution. Bring me 1440P!


apples and oranges comparison. LCD panels have a "fixed" pixel ratio, changing from their native resolution to anything above or below that causes serious image degradation.

1080p on paper is superior to 720p, on larger screen it's visibly better. on anything below a 42" set the difference in practical usage (e.g. watching a movie, not comparing pixels side-by-side) is indiscernible.

[GQB]

Amen Brother! Who cares?! "Wah Wah It's not 1080p!"
Once you actually sit down and get into a movie, your not going to notice 720p or 1080p difference. I just can't imagine people sitting there watching a movie and thinking, "I can't follow the story line becasue my darn picture isn't 1080p!" Be happy with what you've got. 1080p will come.

And one more thing...
People need to chill about not having DVR in the Appletv Why the hell would Apple put a DVR in AND sell the tv show content on Itunes???? Anybody think of that? Yes, Apple please give me the option of buying a TV show from you OR recording it on your box. Which one do you think people would go for?

It's a business model people. Think about it.

That said, I love my AppleTv.

I was so excited to finally get content in the form of a lot of ESPN figure skating coverage this year that would get my wife to understand how cool my expensive HD stuff was.
So when, after noticing that she'd stopped recording her skating in HD and instead was DRV-ing off over SD, I asked her why.
Her answer?
1) the only real advantage HD gave her was the ability to read the brand off of the skaters' skates
2) HD took up so much space on the DVR that she preferred to not have to delete it as quickly to make room for other stuff.
3) she watches skating for overall movement (and in the case of movies, plot), not 'in the room with you sharpness.'

And this is a woman who's a successful ceramic artist, ergo no slouch in the visual requirements arena.

Just saying that despite the protest from videophiles, the market will be made on the basis of convenience of use and portability, not necessarily on 'best' quality.

[notjustjay]

Exactly. Some people in this forum have a lot more money to spend on big HDTVs than others. I'm a mere mortal myself. Guess I'll have to make do with 720p. AppleTV is for the masses and the masses don't have giant 1080p HDTVs.
Something to keep in mind folks. They should make a gold-plated 1080p version for you rich guys to buy.

2 years ago I would be nodding in agreement with you.

But today I can walk into Wal-Mart and buy a 42" 1080p LCD TV for $900.

By comparison, I remember helping my dad shop for a TV about 7 years ago, he paid $888 for a 32" CRT. It's not huge, and probably very comparable to what "the masses" own already.

[jaw04005]

Why? It still plays any HD DVDs you've bought just fine. I don't understand the "throw away a dying tech" mentality.

Simple. Many people who purchased the HD DVD add-on don't buy HD DVDs—they rent them only.

The same can be said for Blu-ray and even regular DVD.

[nagromme]

I rented an SD movie, and even that was just a bit better than DVD. Which was NOT true of TV shows I have bought last year--they were a bit less than DVD quality (though still good compared to what I'm used to from TV broadcasts).

By the specs, the SD rental had a peculiar width of 853--better than DVD's typical 720. But being "ultra-widescreen," vertical pixel size was smaller than it would be with a different shape of movie/TV.

(BTW, I can't speak for AppleTV--that product never interested me since my Mac IS my TV--but the movie rental experience from iTunes is very slick and easy. I kind of wish I did have a TV, because streaming music and album art to AppleTV via AirTunes sounds pretty cool.)

[ayale99]

2 years ago I would be nodding in agreement with you.

But today I can walk into Wal-Mart and buy a 42" 1080p LCD TV for $900.

By comparison, I remember helping my dad shop for a TV about 7 years ago, he paid $888 for a 32" CRT. It's not huge, and probably very comparable to what "the masses" own already.

Very True. But I'm willing to bet that the 1080p videophiles in these forums would laugh at your Walmart version. I've looked at the HD's in Walmart and they all look horrible. Can you really trust some of those random brands they stock at Wallyworld?

[whatever]

...Which version of Ratatouille were you watching that didn't have shadows or reflections? :rolleyes:

South Park, probably not so much, but there's a LOT of detail packed into Pixar's movies, especially the more recent ones (and ESPECIALLY Ratatouille).

Okay, I hate to break it to you, but animation, be it computer animated or hand drawn animation is not real. So you better stop rolling your eyes before they get stuck.

When you see the details in an animated film, it's man made, put there on purpose to make you think it looks real. I have nothing against that, it's a true artform (I wished Ratatouille was nominated for an Oscar for Movie of the Year!).

But to truly see the strengths of HD (720p, 1080i or 1080p) you need to be watching something live. Baseball looks great.

[LethalWolfe]

2 years ago I would be nodding in agreement with you.

But today I can walk into Wal-Mart and buy a 42" 1080p LCD TV for $900.

Resolution is not the same as image quality, and not all TVs are built the same. I'd wager a mid-to-hi end 720p TV will produce a better looking image than a low end 1080p TV. Of course this type of conversation always skips over the fact that the HD content that ends up in homes is very compressed and most likely didn't originate as 1080p to begin with. It's a bit like arguing over which high performance tires to put on your 100k mile, slighly rusted Buick.:D

I'm waiting for people to talk about how ******* the cutting between 720p and 1080p looked in "Cloverfield".:rolleyes:


Lethal

[ezekielrage_99]

But it's still not powerful enough to play my downloaded 1080p mkv files, so screw it.

I hope you don't me to literally screw the Apple TV :eek:

[shawnce]

Okay, I hate to break it to you, but animation, be it computer animated or hand drawn animation is not real. So you better stop rolling your eyes before they get stuck.

When you see the details in an animated film, it's man made, put there on purpose to make you think it looks real. I have nothing against that, it's a true artform (I wished Ratatouille was nominated for an Oscar for Movie of the Year!).

But to truly see the strengths of HD (720p, 1080i or 1080p) you need to be watching something live. Baseball looks great. No offense but your post doesn't make much sense...

If the source material for a movie has a high-level of image detail (naturally captured or artificially generated) it can and will benefit from being viewed in HD. Additionally animated flicks can be rendered at higher levels of detail then any camera can capture of the real world (it is just a matter of rendering time / model detail). Also since no lenses are involved scenes can be rendered with artificially deep fields of focus.

Anyway animated flicks these days have very high-level of detail in hair/fur, skin, etc. and as a result can be a very good way to see differences between 720p and 1080p.

[benpatient]

Okay, I hate to break it to you, but animation, be it computer animated or hand drawn animation is not real. So you better stop rolling your eyes before they get stuck.

When you see the details in an animated film, it's man made, put there on purpose to make you think it looks real. I have nothing against that, it's a true artform (I wished Ratatouille was nominated for an Oscar for Movie of the Year!).

But to truly see the strengths of HD (720p, 1080i or 1080p) you need to be watching something live. Baseball looks great.

you're missing the point...animation, precisely because it is NOT real, can look better in HD than real-life can, at least in an artistic sense. Each pixel of Ratatouille was massaged with care. When you see it in DVD, it looks great. When you see it on Apple TV in HD, or on XBOX Live HD download, it looks better, because more of the original pixels can be displayed "as intended." When you see it in 1080p, you're getting that many more of the original pixels...none of which were throw-away pixels.

Some day, a bigger format will be released, and the full resolution of digital film will be available in the home...with a big enough, quality screen and player, there will be literally no difference between what you see in a great theater, and what you see at home.

Most "real" stuff is subject to the limitations of recording media (film resolution, lens limitations, focus, depth of field, etc). Yes, it's "more" real, but that doesn't mean it will look better. In fact, Pixar has shown that it will usually not look as good. Pixar isn't subject to any limitations other than those of time, technology, and creative ability. I'd say they have all three quite well controlled.

Look, i'm a huge fan of HD resurrections of old films. I've been watching lots of old Cary Grant and Hitchcock films on HDNet Movies the last few months, and they are truly beautiful and artistic and wonderful.

But visually, just for gut-wrenching, jaw-dropping visual spendor, nothing can beat animation. And right now, nothing can beat animation at 1080p. It's top shelf.

[anonmill]

I know alot of people are hung up on the :apple:TV not supporting 1080P, I agree it would be nice if it supported it. But I have a 37" 720P TV which more than gets the job done. I have seen the nice Blu-Ray/1080P setups at the stores/friends and agree they are better than my set up. But the bottom line for me is I can't afford them right now. And when I look at all of my (many) DVDs and think about how many I have watched multiple times it comes down to this:

$5 for a very good (Much? Better than DVD by all reports I have scene) quality video I can easily get when I want it.

$25-$30 For a Discs I MAY watch 2 or 3 times

I already own the Apple TV and have been getting tons of great use out of it even before this update when combined with my eyeTV. My wife loves it, and that is saying a lot. I will eventually upgrade to 1080p, but the reality is I am getting more bang for my buck with these HD rentals, and with young kids (and not having to go anywhere to get content) the convenience is unmatched. Other than my kids DVDs there are probably only 5-10 DVDs I own that I have watched more than 2 times.

[avkills]

I am in the A/V industry; and it is quite obvious to anyone who understands frame size that 1080p is going to blow 720p out of the water.

However, like what has been said; watching on a smaller set less than 40" is probably not going to yield much visible difference; the difference will immediately become apparent when you jump to a large set or when projected on screen.

Folsom makes some excellent scalers but I'd be hard pressed to find anyone who could not tell the difference between a upscaled 480p Anamorphic DVD against any HD source whether it is 720p, 1080i, 1080p.

-mark

[thirdeyeopen666]

...Which version of Ratatouille were you watching that didn't have shadows or reflections? :rolleyes:

South Park, probably not so much, but there's a LOT of detail packed into Pixar's movies, especially the more recent ones (and ESPECIALLY Ratatouille).

Funny you mention it. I didn't think South Park would be a big deal in HD... Xbox Live gave away a free HD episode about a year ago. The quality was really outstanding compared to cable. Very bright and the lines were all sharp and well defined.

[DarkRail]

Okay, I hate to break it to you, but animation, be it computer animated or hand drawn animation is not real. So you better stop rolling your eyes before they get stuck.

When you see the details in an animated film, it's man made, put there on purpose to make you think it looks real. I have nothing against that, it's a true artform (I wished Ratatouille was nominated for an Oscar for Movie of the Year!).

But to truly see the strengths of HD (720p, 1080i or 1080p) you need to be watching something live. Baseball looks great.

FYI- RATATOUILLE is the most impressive content my 1080p system has ever seen.

I've watched many Blu-Ray discs since I got my 50" Kuro. Yes, I've even watched some baseball. But the rich detail in Ratatouille is what makes me proud of all the money I spent on the system. You see every hair on every rat. Background rats that seemed like mere blurs before are now so clear that they add emotional depth to the story.

Nothing against baseball, but it's hard for me to imagine a more satisfying HD experience than Ratatouille on Blu-Ray.

[avkills]

More than likely, Pixar is rendering out to a 2k film res for those animated features; hence the awesome quality in HD.

-mark

[frank781]

Can someone clear up for me, if the apple tv can output 1080p where's the bottleneck holding it back to 720 and is this a hardware or firmware issue?

In actuality the ATV has a max. resolution of 720 (1080i), but outputs at 1080p in the same way that upconverting DVD players do.

Apple insider in their review have a very god explanation on this.

ATV upconvertion is better than the DVD players based only on their source material. If the material is HD (720P) it should play better tan stadard DVD (480P)

[jmadlena]

...and sponsored by Lightspeed Brand Briefs™.

Futurama FTW.

[frank781]

no idea why they sell it in canada, no movie rentals, and you can buy shows, but the shows all suck and theres only a few to begin with.

You can buy iTunes card at Amazon and buy directly from the US store. If you don't have a US address, use a known address (look into a US magazine for example) and update your profile accordingly (or create a new profile).

You can use the same hack for content exclusive in Japan , uk, etc.

[dan3L]

Amen Brother! Who cares?! "Wah Wah It's not 1080p!"
Once you actually sit down and get into a movie, your not going to notice 720p or 1080p difference. I just can't imagine people sitting there watching a movie and thinking, "I can't follow the story line becasue my darn picture isn't 1080p!" Be happy with what you've got. 1080p will come.

And one more thing...
People need to chill about not having DVR in the Appletv Why the hell would Apple put a DVR in AND sell the tv show content on Itunes???? Anybody think of that? Yes, Apple please give me the option of buying a TV show from you OR recording it on your box. Which one do you think people would go for?

It's a business model people. Think about it.

That said, I love my AppleTv.

I agree... At the price of a DVD player you rip and play every movie you own (if you have the storage) and NEVER HAVE TO HUNT FOR A DISC AGAIN. Not to mention movie rental, music, podcasts,..... Whew. If you want Blue Ray buy it. For me , this type of device is a better way.

[queshy]

Nice to see they finally got the update out...

[DakotaGuy]

Why? It still plays any HD DVDs you've bought just fine. I don't understand the "throw away a dying tech" mentality. Just keep using it until it doesn't work. If the investment you have in discs is still greater than the cost of a player, why not keep using it? Heck, I'd still buy HD DVDs for stuff that's still not releasing in Blu-ray, because the player still works fine. Plus it'll be an even longer wait for Universal/Paramount to go Blu-ray and release all the stuff they've already put on HD DVD only on Blu-ray... so why not?

I ended up getting a Toshiba HD DVD player before the whole Warners move and there are times I wish I would have waited, but at least it was an inexpensive purchase. There is nothing wrong with the technology behind it. It does produce beautiful HD images and sounds great, however I know that Blu-ray has won that war. I plan on keeping my player and might even buy a dual format player this summer depending on prices. I thought I wouldn't buy any HD DVD's however with people dumping their collections for cheap on eBay I couldn't resist picking up a few great movies for pennies on the dollar. I also am a Netflix member, but with them dropping support I either need to buy a Blu-ray player or cancel Netflix and go with the Apple TV for rentals.

I have a 42" Vizio 720p (well actually 768p) HDTV so for me maybe the Apple TV is the best way to rent movies. I still have a player so I can pick up the occasional HD DVD or SD DVD if I want the actual disk, but for my rental needs I can just use the Apple TV and I do rent more then purchase.

I have heard that some Blu-rays have a long wait time on Netflix. Can anyone confirm this? Of course, with them winning the war that should get better in the future.

Last, if I only have a 720p capable TV is there really going to be a loss of quality from Blu-ray or HD DVD since the TV can't output more then that? I understand the sound quality might not be as good, but for movie renters that have equipment like I do maybe the Apple TV would be a better investment then another disc player.

[avkills]

Personally I see no need to go ape **** over it not supporting 1080p content; Even 720p has a ton more pixels than standard def and is quite obviously better for those who are not blind.

I'll wait for 2k sets before I get something bigger than what I already have; which is a Sony 32" LCD. Actually I will probably just get a projector, since I already have the 5ft wide foam core on the wall from my previous projector.

-mark

[megfilmworks]

FYI- RATATOUILLE is the most impressive content my 1080p system has ever seen.

I have to agree with that. Ratatouille is stunning. The artwork is showcased to the nth degree in HD (in this case BluRay).
My favorite film transfer is an old Cinerama movie called Grand Prix
(HD-DVD). Remarkable!!

[japanime]

But it's still not powerful enough to play my downloaded 1080p mkv files, so screw it.

Are these legal downloads? :D

[nuhusky001]

OK.. I'm sitting here reading all these 1080p is uber-best posts... and I'm actually feeling sick to my stomach. Why? Cause I use to be just like them. I bought the home theatre, I bought a $500 DVD player (one of the first Sonys), I bought the Rotel equipment.. the 5.1 audio setup... the whole thing. I also bought in 2001 a Rotel $1500 DVD/DVD-Audio player.. yes, it was $1500. And guess how many DVD-Audio discs I have... ONE. And I don't know where it is. anyway, to my point... I don't own DVD-Audio discs cause mp3's are more convenient. I don't own blu-ray or HD-DVD discs cause DVDs are more convenient. I agree with the article

http://www.roughlydrafted.com/2007/12/04/why-low-def-is-the-new-hd/

Convenience is the future. VOD for all shows, all networks, everything is the future. Watching something on a handheld device is where the teenagers $$ is going to go. The world is a mobile place... and 1080p vs 720p vs 480p doesn't matter on a 4" screen. in 7-10 years those 15 year olds who can't live without their cell phone/hand held device are going to be the mainstream market the companies are going after. Not me or most of the people in this forum. This is my opinion. This is why I buy the used $4 DVD on amazon and rip it to my Mac and can stream it to my apple tv. Would i buy a 720p DVD+ (if it existed) for $10.... not sure. But I'm not buying a 1080p disc for $25-30 so that it will be forever tied to a disc... and i can't take the movie with me on my ipod touch. SACD/DVD-Audio died because the future was convenience with mp3/AAC files. Will blu-ray/HD-DVD die? don't know. But its sure as hell NOT convenient. So, count me out of this "next-best thing".

[Frisco]

I ended up getting a Toshiba HD DVD player before the whole Warners move and there are times I wish I would have waited, but at least it was an inexpensive purchase. There is nothing wrong with the technology behind it. It does produce beautiful HD images and sounds great, however I know that Blu-ray has won that war. I plan on keeping my player and might even buy a dual format player this summer depending on prices. I thought I wouldn't buy any HD DVD's however with people dumping their collections for cheap on eBay I couldn't resist picking up a few great movies for pennies on the dollar. I also am a Netflix member, but with them dropping support I either need to buy a Blu-ray player or cancel Netflix and go with the Apple TV for rentals.

I have a 42" Vizio 720p (well actually 768p) HDTV so for me maybe the Apple TV is the best way to rent movies. I still have a player so I can pick up the occasional HD DVD or SD DVD if I want the actual disk, but for my rental needs I can just use the Apple TV and I do rent more then purchase.

I have heard that some Blu-rays have a long wait time on Netflix. Can anyone confirm this? Of course, with them winning the war that should get better in the future.

Last, if I only have a 720p capable TV is there really going to be a loss of quality from Blu-ray or HD DVD since the TV can't output more then that? I understand the sound quality might not be as good, but for movie renters that have equipment like I do maybe the Apple TV would be a better investment then another disc player.

From what I hear Blu-Ray does have a longer wait time on Netflix. This should improve now with Blu-Ray winning the format war.

If you have a 720p capable TV the loss quality will be virtually imperceptible compared to Apple TV.

[thestaton]

I rented Evan Almighty in HD and I think it looks & sounds great. The audio is certainly not uncompressed HD that you can get on BLU. However, this is a great compliment to netflix.

[BriChi]

I rented Evan Almighty in HD and I think it looks & sounds great. The audio is certainly not uncompressed HD that you can get on BLU. However, this is a great compliment to netflix.

LOL, I just rented it too, I am watching it as I type, It looks ad sounds great, I just got home with the ATV and so far loving it

[matticus008]

I won't get one until it is capable of DVR, Tivo, live t.v. capabilities, etc whathave you. It may never happen and therefore I may never get one.
It won't ever have live TV or DVR capabilities. There's no point to it; even with a CableCard, you can't get access to the full range of content available from your cable provider. Over the past 8 years or so, I've gone through 3 different TV tuner cards for my MythTV setup, and even the current one leaves quite a lot to be desired. Same situation with Tivo boxes--ones from two years ago are now paperweights. It's an exercise in futility to make hardware compatible with cable/satellite providers.

Cable companies refuse to allow guide access, which is the crippling blow to most of the useful features of a DVR. There's a cottage industry in putting up an alternative, but it's not free.

This stupid rat race is part of the motivation behind Internet content delivery and the AppleTV. Why would they add the functionality that frustrated them to the point of trying to create something new?

[andiwm2003]

..............................................................................

Convenience is the future. VOD for all shows, all networks, everything is the future. Watching something on a handheld device is where the teenagers $$ is going to go. The world is a mobile place... and 1080p vs 720p vs 480p doesn't matter on a 4" screen. in 7-10 years those 15 year olds who can't live without their cell phone/hand held device are going to be the mainstream market the companies are going after. Not me or most of the people in this forum. This is my opinion. This is why I buy the used $4 DVD on amazon and rip it to my Mac and can stream it to my apple tv. Would i buy a 720p DVD+ (if it existed) for $10.... not sure. But I'm not buying a 1080p disc for $25-30 so that it will be forever tied to a disc... and i can't take the movie with me on my ipod touch. SACD/DVD-Audio died because the future was convenience with mp3/AAC files. Will blu-ray/HD-DVD die? don't know. But its sure as hell NOT convenient. So, count me out of this "next-best thing".

i totally agree. i didn't buy an ATV because ripping and streaming stuff to the ATV and having a movie library that needs to be synced and all that is not convenient. but with movie rentals directly to the ATV and being able to start watching after a few min. of download/buffering is what i want. i can't care less about 1080p or 5.1 or whatever. it's supposed to be easy. it's just TV, nothing important.

i might cancel my comcast and buy an ATV. at $39/month for my comcast i can easily buy the ATV and rent the TV shows and movies i want.

[diabolic]

I like the convenience of the on demand downloads even if they don't take full advantage of my 1080p home theater setup. 720p is easily high enough quality for most people right now. Honestly, we won't be downloading on demand 1080p at Blu-Ray quality from anywhere anytime soon. The file sizes are ridiculous even compressed.

So far, I'm happy with the quality of the 720p Apple TV movies.

[bdkennedy1]

5 hours to download 2.5gb? Either your ISP is throttling your connection or Apple's servers were really taking a hit.

I have a 6Mbps DSL connection, and it took around 5 hours for me to download Die Hard in HD. It gave a notification that it was ready to play after about 3 1/2 hours of downloading. I went to sleep instead, and plan on watching it this weekend.

[gr8tfly]

5 hours to download 2.5gb? Either your ISP is throttling your connection or Apple's servers were really taking a hit.

Interesting. I had a phone line problem until this afternoon which dropped me down to 1400-1800kbps. Even at that, I figured it should have had enough buffered to start in less than 1 hr. It took 2:20 before it gave me the go ahead, at 58% (movie was "Next", 96 minutes - my rough, ballpark, estimate was 3GB).

I'm going to try another HD rental tonight, now that I'm back up to speed (usually 2800-2900).

[megfilmworks]

There really is no subjective difference between 1080p and 1080i.
If a player outputs 1080i and your projector (or tv) accepts 1080p it will still convert it to 1080p as all non-crt displays are progressive scan (I won't get into frame rate or other variables).

And most film is too grainy (director's creative choice) to benefit from any better resolution from HD. That's why some here are commenting on how great Ratatouille looks as it is not limited (or massaged) by the film.

The specs advertised are to make the public think they are getting something more. Smoke and mirrors.
There are other issues involved, but they are too complex for this forum.
The people who understand these things don't need a lesson and the ones that don't will need a semester of study to grasp the concepts involved.

[AidenShaw]

...I hear Blu-Ray does...
...with Blu-Ray winning...

...on BLU...

Blu-ray. Blu-ray.

Blu-ray or BD.

http://www.blu-ray.com/images/bluray.gif

(note the text)

[dabirdwell]

Why can't MAC people capitolize correctly?

Blu-ray. Blu-ray.

Blu-ray or BD.

http://www.blu-ray.com/images/bluray.gif

(note the text)


but shouldn't it be capit*A*lize?

I love your hardware posts, but a grammar Nazi has to watch out for spelling Nazis-
;)

[DakotaGuy]

From what I hear Blu-Ray does have a longer wait time on Netflix. This should improve now with Blu-Ray winning the format war.

If you have a 720p capable TV the loss quality will be virtually imperceptible compared to Apple TV.

Yeah I was kind of thinking with a 720p LCD HDTV I might be better off just to live with a few HD DVD's and up-converted SD DVD's of my favorite movies that I plan on watching a few times and move to the Apple TV for rentals. I am guessing on my TV I would not notice a difference between my current HD DVD's and Apple TV HD downloads. I don't see any advantages to rent Blu-rays at this time for the TV I own. I don't know, there are so many options!

[shigzeo]

i think this example is still simplifying things too much without even getting into quality of the original. firstly, that resolution (1900*1200) was only for still picture, like a desktop and if anything moved, it was only windows. a 486 could never playback non-interlaced 320-240 stuff very well. as soon as the processor has to do the decoding of the 16 million colours moving and with sound and then add compression onto that, 1080p is reserved for truly high end computers.

without a video card that can help decode, you probably look at a cpu that is minimum 3000mhz to never stutter.


Outputting 1080p is not a problem at all as it doesn't require much horsepower at all. 1080p = 1920x1080 which a 486PC from the early nineties could do with the right video card. The problem is decoding 1080p material which requires muchos power.

Joshua.

There really is no subjective difference between 720p and 1080i.
If a player outputs 1080p and your projector (or tv) accepts 1080p it will still convert it to 1080i as video is interlaced (I won't get into frame rate or other variables).

And most film is too grainy (director's creative choice) to benefit from any better resolution from HD. That's why some here are commenting on how great Ratatouille looks as it is not limited (or massaged) by the film.

The specs advertised are to make the public think they are getting something more. Smoke and mirrors.
There are other issues involved, but they are too complex for this forum.
The people who understand these things don't need a lesson and the ones that don't will need a semester of study to grasp the concepts involved.

indeed, a wonderful lecteur for us ... but i cannot even understand what you said there. actually perhaps a pm from you with lesson on condescention would be grand. ill be waiting,
your in red hot love.
shigzeo

[killmoms]

There really is no subjective difference between 720p and 1080i.
If a player outputs 1080p and your projector (or tv) accepts 1080p it will still convert it to 1080i as video is interlaced (I won't get into frame rate or other variables).
I'm wondering if there's a way you could be more wrong. No, video is not interlaced, unless it is. And if it isn't, it won't be output as interlaced (unless it needs to be). :rolleyes:

And most film is too grainy (director's creative choice) to benefit from any better resolution from HD. That's why some here are commenting on how great Ratatouille looks as it is not limited (or massaged) by the film.
Film certainly does have grain, some more than others, but there is still plenty of detail to glean from 35mm in HD, certainly more than, say, a standard def DVD can reveal. If there wasn't, then films wouldn't be mastered in 2K (or higher) for film-out.

[smallfield]

If Apple TV had Blu-Ray, I'd buy one...

Come on Apple, make it a fully-functional entertainment device -- or add Blu-Ray to the Mini...

You can't rent HD with the Mini. Frustrating. I was looking forward to this feature in iTunes, but if you buy the more expensive product, you can only rent the SD product.

Is the frame rate for 720p only 30fps? I though they had to decrease the rate to increase the resolution.

[matticus008]

i think this example is still simplifying things too much without even getting into quality of the original. firstly, that resolution (1900*1200) was only for still picture,
A pixel is a pixel. It doesn't matter for the sake of output whether it's a pixel in a video frame or one of an icon on a desktop. The poster you're replying to is correct in that regard.

If the output is 1920x1200 at 60Hz, then that's what gets pushed, 60 times a second, every second. Doing so takes relatively little computing power (though I'm not aware of any consumer hardware that offered 1920x1200 as a display mode before ~1995).
a 486 could never playback non-interlaced 320-240 stuff very well. as soon as the processor has to do the decoding of the 16 million colours moving and with sound and then add compression onto that, 1080p is reserved for truly high end computers.
That's what he said. Output isn't a problem; decoding is what takes muscle. AppleTV can push out the couple million pixels without a problem, but as a rendering device, it can't compose frames that complex for outputting.

[AidenShaw]

but shouldn't it be capit*A*lize?

I love your hardware posts, but a grammar Nazi has to watch out for spelling Nazis-
;)

...and you honestly don't think that I intentionally made errors on both "MAC" and "capitolize"?

I hope that most of the regular readers caught those "errors" and realized that they were part of the joke....

[Sandfleaz]

A big boost for Apple TV ... maybe not perfect, but it's come a long way baby!
.

[MagnusVonMagnum]

I highly doubt it's going to rival Blu-ray's selection. 80% of the movie studios are backing Blu-ray. In my opinion that is just wishful thinking.


First off, they're apples and oranges so you comparison isn't very good, IMO. One is a physical medium that you BUY (at ~$30 a pop no less) and the other is an on-demand RENTAL system. If they're not really competing (outside of Blockbuster Video at least), there's NO reason that the movie industry would/should want to not support Apple/iTunes as a distribution method. It just means MORE MONEY for them. Historically, on-demand pay-per-play is EXACTLY what the movie industry WANTS MORE THAN ANYTHING ON EARTH. It's the whole reason we got that stupid "Divx Dvd" system from Circuit City and friends because Hollywood LOVES the idea of charging you over and over and over again for watching the same movie. The public does not generally like that system, at least for physical media so they ended up dropping it.

Now if you look at the cable companies (who are also doing on-demand offerings now), they're getting all the big new movies on-demand. Maybe DVD comes out first, but the lag is getting pretty short even so. I'd imagine Apple will get similar treatment because ultimately that's what they're offering, on-demand movies.

I'm sure Blockbuster and other rental chains will HATE AppleTV as it directly affects their core business, but Hollywood doesn't care who is peddling their wares so long as they get their share.


That and Blu-ray obviously still looks better because it being a physical media and plenty of space for the Studios to work with, without being limited by the general public's internet connection. There are still more


Being a physical media has NOTHING to do with it. It all comes down to bitrates and that's it. There is no technical reason a downloadable HD movie couldn't be BETTER than Blu-ray (i.e. totally uncompressed, for example). Sure, it'd be a huge file, but that has more to do with bandwidth versus time and storage space than any inherent limitation in the method of transmission. They could in the future easily have an OPTION for compression (i.e. do you want to order high quality, medium quality or low quality HD based on your connection/time) and let the user decide what is acceptable based on time/storage capacity for their particular connection. I doubt they will do that, but it could be done.

1080i versus 1080P is negligible in the sense that any 1080i source made from film can be recombined back into 1080P through 3:2 pulldown the same way 480i sources can be easily converted into 480P with any halfway decent progressive DVD player and/or projector/tvs or external deinterlacers. The whole 1080P thing is overhyped given ALL LCD/Plasma/DLP sources can ONLY display 1080P on-screen (they all have to recombine either internally or before it gets the signal). The only question is whether they do it correctly/quality or not. Furthermore, most people wouldn't know the difference between 1080P and 720P because most people have TINY HDTV sets. By tiny, I mean under 60 inches. I've got a 720P Panasonic LCD projector with a 93 inch screen and it looks FANTASTIC. It's got one heck of a scaler in it also plus it's in near perfect calibration right out of the factory so even 480i tv looks better on it at 72" inches 4:3 mode than my old 57" CRT HDTV looked (46" 4:3) from just a few years ago.

Would I like a 1080P projector instead? Sure. Is it going to be night and day even at 93"? No, I don't think so. It would be noticeably sharper, but 720P on this screen/projector combo already looks like I'm looking out a window. Now if I'm going to use my laptop on it, the 1080P projector would come in handy for higher resolution/larger desktops.


people out there that prefer to have physical media over digital media. DVD sales prove this. Blu-ray players have dropped from $1200 to $350 in little


I buy DVDs because they're CHEAP. Why rent a new movie for $4-6 if I can BUY it for $5-12 on average? At the very least, I won't have to return it it to the rental store. More to the point, up until recently, on-demand and PPV movies have been abysmal quality. DVDs were better looking and CERTAINLY better sounding (5.1 DD or even 6.1 DTS blows away 2-channel stereo with dolby decoding) so OF COURSE I'm going to go for DVDs over on-demand offerings in those circumstances.

Recently, however, I moved where there is a DVD rental store less than 1/2 mile from my house. I find myself renting recent releases instead of going to the movie theater. Most movies I only watch once, maybe twice ever so why buy it if I can rent it for LESS than the cost of one matinee movie ticket and watch it in peace on my 93" screen with a high quality 6.1 sound setup with a good meal and beer at home instead of having kids kick my seat at the cineplex? But what makes it MORE interesting is that lately my cable company has started offering HDTV on-demand movies. They have a limited selection at the moment (obviously AppleTV would have a HUGE advantage here with 1000+ to start whereas my cable company only offers around 12 choices at any given time and they change over time).

So what I would have here is a situation where I can stay AT HOME (no trips to a rental store where they may or may not even carry blu-ray to rent; most places do NOT and WILL NOT any time soon carry them or any quantity/selection of them to rent) and watch very recent movies in high definition for under $6 a pop. How great is that? Or I can go buy a blu-ray player and spend $30 a pop to OWN a movie I will only watch once anyway.

Admittedly, there are SOME movies I'd prefer to own because I DO watch them several times a year, but that's about a dozen movies period over the history of movie-making (i.e. my favorites). If Playstation3 ever gets some interesting games out, I might buy one and get those few movies on blu-ray or something, but otherwise, I'm thinking AppleTV is where it's at for sheer convenience and savings. Because until I can buy a blu-ray movie for what I can buy a DVD for, there's no incentive for me to 'own' HD movies. I can use the savings in just renting them to do something more fun like go out to dinner afterwards.

[ravenvii]

*snip*

Just wanted to say... 93" plasma HDTV?! Drooooool, man you must have paid out the ass for that!

Still, to imagine, I paid only $750 for my 720p projector, and now have a ~120" (yeah, that's a 10' screen, baby) with great image quality, for a fraction of a fraction of what your TV costs, probably.

Yeah, it does have negatives - lighting issues, having to have a clear wall for it to project on, having nothing in the way between the projector and the wall, having to watch where you sit so you don't block the screen, etc etc. It's a pain, but when I think of the cost-to-size ratio, it makes it all worth it.

And to think, this is a entry-level projector. I can just imagine how good the picture quality would be from a projector even just twice the price (~1,500-2,000). That's the realm of the 1080p projectors, baby.

(Sorry folks for the off-topic post, back to AppleTV... I'm not using it until they put subtitles or captions in at least MOST of the movies. Until then, Netflix for the win.)

[Wiggin]

For people debating 1080 vs 720, you really should take a look at this chart:

http://s3.carltonbale.com/resolution_chart.html

It's one of the better representations of the fact that the human eye can only resolve a finite amount of detail. Just like a digital camera can only record a certain number of pixels. If you want to see more detail, you have to move closer to your subject (or TV, in this discussion).

So if the discussion is purely about resolution (not color accuracy, compression artifacts, bitrate, etc, etc), and taking the guy with the 65" TV as an example, if you are sitting more than about 8' from the TV, you are not seeing all 1080 lines of resolution. It doesn't matter who you are or how good your TV is. And if you sit more than about 12.5', you wouldn't even be able to see all the pixels if it were at 720p 65' TV.

And if you take a more typical 50" TV, you'd have to sit a mere 5' from the screen to see all 1080 lines of resolution. But as long as you are sitting closer than 9 feet, you'll get some improvement with 1080 vs 720, but it will only be marginal. So, if we assume the average TV is 42-50" and the average viewing distance of 8-10 feet (unless you live in a dorm or have a very specific set-up purely for movie watching, which most people don't), most people will not benefit significantly with 1080p.

For the example of Ratatoui (or however you spell it!), the perceived improvement on blu-ray is probably as much do with with color and lack of compression artifacts as it does with resolution. Blu-ray has significantly higher bandwidth to play with than other sources. The increased resolution from 720 to 1080 is only a 2.25x increase. Yet the bandwidth used in your blu-ray move far exceeds 2.25x the bandwidth used by other sources. So they are using that for something...higher quality compression. If you used those same compression settings at 720p, I'd wager you'd still have stunning quality. (And from the sounds of the reviews, Apple is using some very good compression settings for their HD content.)

For example, I have Comcast. There are some channels (Sci-Fi is one) where their standard def channel has better overall quality than their HD channel. Yes, I can see more pixels on HD. But the color banding, stuttering (dropped frames?), and severe macroblocking make it at times unwatchable. USA is another channel that suffers from this problem (at least here in Chicago). The SD channel may have fewer pixels, but the overall quality is better.

Similarly, my standard, non-upconverting DVD player shows a better picture on my Panasonic 42" 1080p TV than any of Comcast's HD channels. The picture just a wee bit soft, but the color accuracy and motion blows Comcast's picture quality away. This is because Comcast compresses the crap out of their channels and because the Panasonic has a damn good scaler in it. If you are sitting more than 12 feet from that 65" TV (or more than 9 feet from a 50" TV) and you say that 1080p looks better than 720p, I assure you it's not because of the increased resolution. It's because either your 720p video was poorly compressed (perhaps for bandwidth reasons) or because whichever component in your system is scaling the signal to 1080 to display on your TV (it has to be scaled), whether it's a receiver or your TV, it's doing a poor job of it.

[winterspan]

But it's still not powerful enough to play my downloaded 1080p mkv files, so screw it.

That is totally irrelevant to that matter at hand. And besides, It's not as if it was designed to play pirated files from the net. But, if you are looking for a great solution (dont know about mkv, may have to re-encode) get a Playstation 3. Great media player functionality.. I have a network share setup with a load of 720P DIVX files and they play great over Wifi. lower-mid bitrate 1080P will work too with wired ethernet or with a very high signal 802.11N.

[winterspan]

For people debating 1080 vs 720, you really should take a look at this chart...

You can sit here all day and analyze data about retina resolving power, but I will tell you straight up that I notice a difference between 720P content and 1080P content on my 46" Samsung LCD from about 8-9'. However, It's not enough to warrant animosity towards the AppleTV, and for a download solution, I would take it in a heartbeat for quick rentals. For more desired movies/special events and when I want to purchase I'll stick to BluRay.
However, Having a cablebox, amp/receiver, Tivo, and playstation 3, adding another box is such a pain.... It'll be like a big electronics orgy...

[nuhusky001]

i totally agree. i didn't buy an ATV because ripping and streaming stuff to the ATV and having a movie library that needs to be synced and all that is not convenient. but with movie rentals directly to the ATV and being able to start watching after a few min. of download/buffering is what i want. i can't care less about 1080p or 5.1 or whatever. it's supposed to be easy. it's just TV, nothing important.

i might cancel my comcast and buy an ATV. at $39/month for my comcast i can easily buy the ATV and rent the TV shows and movies i want.

Yes, syncing is kinda a pain... I agree. But I just stream it. I never sync ANYTHING. Of course my iMac never goes to sleep anymore. But I don't care. My hard disks still spin down. I also have a EyeTV Hybrid and "Digital" UHF antenna in my attic and get 18 stations. So I record network television shows on my iMac, convert it automatically to the apple tv format. And I only buy shows from cable channels. (Discovery, NGC etc) I've lived without cable for about 8 months... $70 a month... I'm figuring as of August '08 I would have paid for all the equipment I bought for my iMac DVR and my tosh 32" LCD television. Thats only 15 months without a cable bill. Scary how fast it adds up. (two EyeTV Hybrids, Antenna, Apple TV, 32" Toshiba = $1100)

[slate1]

... how the hell close are you guys sitting to your TV that you "just got to have" 1080p???

There gets a point where the real-wold application of higher and higher resolution just begins to get silly - I see the same thing with digital cameras. People insist on having 10mp digital cameras and then print out the pictures at postcard size on an inkjet printer.

Maybe I'm blind, but I own a 42" Panasonic (series 5) Plasma 480p EDTV that I purchased very early in on when plasma flat panels first hit and I also own a 50" Panasonic (series 8) Plasma 1080p HDTV. Side by side standing 2 feet away from the screen, of course I can see a difference. But sitting at the typical viewing distance of 8-12 feet they look remarkebly the same with the same content (yes, the EDTV will internally scale 720p and 1080i to 480p). This is with 480p -vs- 1080p, I can't imagine that you'd see ANY difference at even a few feet away between 720p and 1080p.

I'm an avid audiophile as well - and I am one of those that can hear minute differences in equipment. I can understand how some videophiles can become obsessed with such things as monitor resolution. What I learned on the audio side of things is to quit listening to the equipment and to start listening to the music. It sounds like some of the videophiles here are suffering from the same problem I had with audio - you're concentrating on the minute details of the equipment and not on the enjoyment of the experience.

Some people just have to have the biggest and the baddest - I can appreciate that, but to dismiss a great product like the AppleTV simply because it doesn't spec outside of real world application makes no sense to me whatsoever.

[smallfield]

Maybe I'm blind, but I own a 42" Panasonic (series 5)
Plasma 480p EDTV that I purchased very early in on when plasma flat panels first hit and I also own a 50" Panasonic (series 8) Plasma 1080p HDTV. Side by side standing 2 feet away from the screen, of course I can see a difference. But sitting at the typical viewing distance of 8-12 feet they look remarkebly the same with the same content

Do you have your source plugged in right????

I had a friend that got a Samsung HDTV and was using antenna cable from his HD box instead of HDMI and had a similar issue. Make sure your wiring is capable of HD.

I think 480p--> 1080i/720p/1080p is a HUGE difference. My 46" is about 10-12' from my couch and I can tell easily if the source is HD or not. Although I can't tell blu-ray v. 720p/1080i HD broadcast (excluding broadcast artifact), upscaled DVD v. BD is easy.

[ChrisK018]

Life is short. Enjoy what's available today. That's my motto. :)

I totally agree with this sentiment most of the time, and have to guiltily shrug my shoulders about being a 1080p snob-- as some other posters have noted. I am close to getting a new HD tv, and I know it is going to have to last me for 5+ years, so I want to get one that is as future proof as possible since they cost so much friggin' $$$.

[mchalebk]

I've had a 1080i capable TV (42" CRT rear projection) for six years now, but the AppleTV is the first HD source I've ever connected to it. Why no HD cable or satellite? Because they're hosing it up. They charge too much for it and I don't watch much live TV. Why no Blu-ray or HD-DVD? Because they're hosing it up. The format war was an amazingly bad set of decisions.

I did not buy AppleTV for the HD content, but I do plan to check it out. I know that, for my TV, HD rentals will look amazing. maybe not the extra detail so much, but I'm really looking forward to less motion artifacts.

In the not-too-distant future, I will be buying a flat panel TV. I'm starting my research now and I'm sure I'll end up with a 1080p set. The only good reason these days to not go that way is money and I can afford it, so why not? I don't have the world's greatest eyesight, so the extra resolution won't be that big a deal, but I certainly look forward to the absence of motion artifacts (which drive me nuts).

Just an aside for people who wonder what's so great about AppleTV: the main reason I bought my AppleTV was so I could quit using my computer as a music server and so that I can put home videos on it. This way my wife won't have to shuffle DVDs to watch her horse show videos or go through all the gyrations that were necessary to listen to music with my previous setup. It's also great the way it uses my iPhoto albums as a screensaver. Rentals are just a bonus for me.

[Digitalclips]

A big boost for Apple TV ... maybe not perfect, but it's come a long way baby!
.

I agree and I was so happy it was a software upgrade too, having bought an ATV the day it came out.

The quality of Apple's HD content on our 50" Sony HD set is fabulous and the FiOS we have (25/5) serves up the movies in almost real time. Flipping between HD material from Verizon FiOS HD and ATV HD to us, the difference is imperceptible.

My only suggestion to Apple is offer both SD and HD previews of movies in rental section. I have to go to the Theatrical Trailers to view in HD which seems silly if I am browsing rental section, if they are in the system anyway why not put an extra link on the Rental page to those HD previews as well as the current SD ones.

Excellent product Apple, keep the goodies coming :)

[Lucidmind]

If Apple TV had Blu-Ray, I'd buy one...

Come on Apple, make it a fully-functional entertainment device -- or add Blu-Ray to the Mini...

Yes please! Damn, that would sell.

[megfilmworks]

I thinks this chart explains best why film shot at 24 fps is not adversely affected by the difference between 1080i and p.
Most of the differences people are noticing are from other factors.

[daisydog]

Here's what I've not been able to figure out about EyeTV-type solutions...
Exactly what does this allow me to do with a cable connection?
- I know it can't do premium content (HBO etc). Even if ATV implemented cable card, that's been pretty much a flop in the market because of the need to accommodate the various cable providers.
- But beyond premium services, there's also the different levels of non-premium content. Basic service, Basic digital, Extended digital, etc.

Can EyeTV do everything EXCEPT Premium, or only a subset of the other cable flavors?

Any DRV solution that doesn't give me everything that the (admittedly crappy) Comcast DVR does (for $12/mo) isn't going to compete.

And that's why Apple isn't going to do DVR. They want to replace Cable/DVR, not support it.
Apple wants to be the 'ala carte' solution that everyone claims they want.

I too am interested in this topic. My wife likes watching local news, SEC football, PBS and a few select shows like HGTV. I don't watch cable at all or news (except fstv/Democracy Now). I watch occasional movies and just bought an ATV, especially to view photo/music content. I was wondering if the content my wife watches might be available using EyeTV? If so, she might be more willing to boot cable.

Thanks!!:)

[garty]

Yes please! Damn, that would sell.

It might but it won't ever happen. Neither will it ever have DVR functionality.

For me it's not about resolution, after all the most important aspect of the movie is the content, i.e. how good is it? I'm not going to watch a film just because it happens to be viewable at 1080p! There are many other factors to consider other than just resolution.

I doubt I'll ever buy a Blu-ray Disc player (note capitalization :cool:) I'll use a region free upscaling dvd for the few I own and the ones I get from Netflix and I'll rent both HD and SD movies on my :apple:TV for convenience and probably drop my Netflix subscription down to the basic minimum to get movies I can't get on the :apple:TV and TV shows.

[GQB]

Do you have your source plugged in right????

I had a friend that got a Samsung HDTV and was using antenna cable from his HD box instead of HDMI and had a similar issue. Make sure your wiring is capable of HD.



I guarantee he is properly connected. (Kinda condescending to assume someone can't plug in a cable properly.)
I have the same rig... got the 480p 37" Panny commercial ED monitor after long discussions on AVSforum showed me the LT 42" > 8 ft rule.
The funny thing is to watch the folks who popped big $$ for their 1080p justify their pursuit of diminishing returns by dismissing those (as someone just put it about music) who are watching the content, not the monitor.
Yes there's a difference for really large screens simply because they put you functionally closer to the screen.

But most hilarious are those who call for HD on the iPhone. THAT's 'spit-take funny'.

[slate1]

Do you have your source plugged in right????

I had a friend that got a Samsung HDTV and was using antenna cable from his HD box instead of HDMI and had a similar issue. Make sure your wiring is capable of HD.

I think 480p--> 1080i/720p/1080p is a HUGE difference. My 46" is about 10-12' from my couch and I can tell easily if the source is HD or not. Although I can't tell blu-ray v. 720p/1080i HD broadcast (excluding broadcast artifact), upscaled DVD v. BD is easy.

You're misunderstanding me. I'm not talking non-hd content versus hd content. I'm talking taking the same HD content (720p, 1080i, whatever) and sending it to the 480p and the 1080p set - from 10' away it's not a huge difference on a 42" plasma.

Blu-ray is a whole other issue and, frankly, doesn't even belong in the equation. There's no way ANY streamable deliverable on-demand medium is ever going to be able to compete with Blu-ray. That being said - for a rentable, on-demand service - in my mind AppleTV is hard to beat for image quality, ease of use, etc.

[andy721]

Lets just put it this way, blu ray owns all for now till the laser tvs come out, apple nice try but I would have expected something better then bluray. Something a lot more color coordinated, Also sharper and more realistic to the eye, sense you guys like putting your hardware ahead 3-5years.
Well I'm disappointed once again.:mad:

[fastbite]

I WANT IT!!! But I'm in the UK -- so no flicks for me. I'll keep on torrenting until they do. Hollywood is crap!

[killmoms]

Lets just put it this way, blu ray owns all for now till the laser tvs come out, apple nice try but I would have expected something better then bluray. Something a lot more color coordinated, Also sharper and more realistic to the eye, sense you guys like putting your hardware ahead 3-5years.
Well I'm disappointed once again.:mad:

You forgot to add a [/sarcasm] tag so people wouldn't be confused.

[Wiggin]

You can sit here all day and analyze data about retina resolving power, but I will tell you straight up that I notice a difference between 720P content and 1080P content on my 46" Samsung LCD from about 8-9'.

I have no doubt the picture is better, just saying that at that distance, it's not the resolution that making most of the difference.

So the people who fault Apple for not having 1080p content are just being impracticle. The file sizes need to be kept reasonable for downloading. And as my experience with Comcast SD vs Comcast HD vs DVD shows, I'd much rather have a high-quality encoding at a lower resolution than an overly compressed video at higher resolution. Apple made the right choice.

[ikir]

I think i will buy an AppleTV this year if the rent service will be activated in Europe.

[smallfield]

I guarantee he is properly connected. (Kinda condescending to assume someone can't plug in a cable properly.)
I have the same rig... got the 480p 37" Panny commercial ED monitor after long discussions on AVSforum showed me the LT 42" > 8 ft rule.
The funny thing is to watch the folks who popped big $$ for their 1080p justify their pursuit of diminishing returns by dismissing those (as someone just put it about music) who are watching the content, not the monitor.
Yes there's a difference for really large screens simply because they put you functionally closer to the screen.

But most hilarious are those who call for HD on the iPhone. THAT's 'spit-take funny'.

I agree that over about 9-10ft you shouldn't be able to tell HD v. ED on a 46" screen. To me it just looks better. Maybe you're right, it's because I bought one. I did think it looked better before spending money, hence the money...

Either way, using my Mac Mini on a 480p set would be annoying (Used this previously). The higher resolution gives me a usable desktop.

DVD should be 480p. I was just saying you can tell DVD from BD (granted on the same monitor). By the numbers you shouldn't be able to tell. Maybe it is a source effect (as you state). I've never had a 480p LCD/Plasma for comparison. So, I do think 1080i/720p/1080p are worth more than 480p (even at the longer viewing distance). 1080i v. 1080p... I don't see a difference, maybe you can. That is good for the iTunes/Apple TV. For me getting 1080i movie in an hour or 2 would be nice.

I agree you'd have to look really close at your iPhone to appreciate HD content...3- 4" viewing distance?

I was not trying to be condescending. This is a mac forum, not AV in nature. My friend using coaxial from his HD box is a doctor, owns an iPhone and MBP and is a smart guy. He had just recently gotten a HDTV. Some say about 1/2 of people with HDTVs have them setup where HD content is not transmitted. Trying to be helpful. Sorry.

You're misunderstanding me. I'm not talking non-hd content versus hd content. I'm talking taking the same HD content (720p, 1080i, whatever) and sending it to the 480p and the 1080p set - from 10' away it's not a huge difference on a 42" plasma.

Blu-ray is a whole other issue and, frankly, doesn't even belong in the equation. There's no way ANY streamable deliverable on-demand medium is ever going to be able to compete with Blu-ray. That being said - for a rentable, on-demand service - in my mind AppleTV is hard to beat for image quality, ease of use, etc.

I did misunderstand, didn't realize same source, different monitor. I can tell DVD v. BD, which should be 480p v. 1080p. At my distance/monitor size you shouldn't be able to tell. I agree there is a very small difference.

I think the Apple TV is a great idea. I wish they'd let my Mac Mini for HD content. Then I could use what I have already hooked up.

[avkills]

I generally do not have HD content going to my 32" Sony; but on occasion when the cable company decides to actually have the local stations HD broadcasts live (like they are suppose to); the difference is instantly noticeable; and my couch is about 6ft away.

In a way I wish they had never done 1080i, there is really no sense in it considering the way 99% of all HD sets work. Interlaced video should have died with Analog NTSC SD.

-mark

[diamond.g]

In a way I wish they had never done 1080i, there is really no sense in it considering the way 99% of all HD sets work. Interlaced video should have died with Analog NTSC SD.

-mark

Sadly, we would have been stuck with 720p broadcast. 1080p takes up too much bandwidth to broadcast over the air (mpeg2). What you really would be looking for would be cable boxes and tv's that can decode over the air mpeg4 (avc, h.264, ect). Which would be sweet, but more expensive than what we have now.

[kangaroo]

It may look good, but if Apple wants to compete with Netflix they had better increase, significantly, the number of titles available for rent. At this time Netflix claims ~90000 titles are available vs. only ~150 via iTunes. :eek:

[skp574]

I was holding out for an Apple TV after playing with the first incarnation. But since downloading some 1080p video files and playing them on my TV with my MacBook Pro, I am not going to get an ATV. It really should be 1080 ready at least so we can play out own content as well.

I have decided to get one of these instead: http://www.tvix.co.kr/Eng/products/HDM6500A.aspx as it plays just about anything you throw at it without the time consuming re-encoding to get it into an iTunes friendly format.

[zac4mac]

I got a 720p Aquos last year.
By the time 1080p is commonplace, that TV will go to the bedroom and I'll get a bigger set for the living room.
We rented and watched Matrix Revolution last night and I was very impressed with the quality.
Downloaded about 45% in an hour(Comcast Cable), then started watching.

I'm happy with the update and will use my TV more now.
I expect their movie selection will grow exponentially now.

Z

[dabirdwell]

...and you honestly don't think that I intentionally made errors on both "MAC" and "capitolize"?

I hope that most of the regular readers caught those "errors" and realized that they were part of the joke....


Whoa, easy there, just kidding around.

I guess I didn't get how a spelling error buttressed a capitalization joke.

Must have been having a dim day- don't take it personally. Never again will I challenge your mastery of the language or ability to use it incorrectly for ironic effect.

[MagnusVonMagnum]

Just wanted to say... 93" plasma HDTV?! Drooooool, man you must have paid out the ass for that!

Still, to imagine, I paid only $750 for my 720p projector, and now have a ~120" (yeah, that's a 10' screen, baby) with great image quality, for a fraction of a fraction of what your TV costs, probably.


I'm not exactly sure what gave you the idea I have a 93" plasma. I have a 93" screen with a 720P Panasonic LCD projector. I was commenting on how good the picture looks at 720P on it and that 1080P isn't going to make a HUGE difference by comparison, IMO, especially given compression and resolution limits on most broadcasts (cable/sat), seating distances (as mentioned by others in this thread) and especially given not all sets are created equal. I used to have a 57" CRT HDTV that could do 720P and 1080i and my 720P LCD looks better at 93" than it did at 57" by far. That's probably in part due to the fact the CRT sets had to be perfectly calibrated or you didn't get all your resolution. LCDs are typically better set up at the factory by comparison to CRTs. Alignment issues are non-existent on my Panasonic LCD, for example.


Yeah, it does have negatives - lighting issues, having to have a clear wall for it to project on, having nothing in the way between the projector and the wall, having to watch where you sit so you don't block the screen, etc etc. It's a pain, but when I think of the cost-to-size ratio, it makes it all worth it.


I don't need a clear wall. My screen drops down from the ceiling in front of my black-out drape set. When not in use, I can send it back up to the ceiling and open my drapes and use my family room as normal. I mounted the projector on the ceiling using a ceiling mount (~$40) so the only time anything/anyone could get in the way of the picture is if they're standing up with their arms up in the air. Setup was obviously more of a pain than setting a flat-screen on a stand, but not necessarily a lot more than than mounting one on a wall (drill a few holes; put in some hooks and anchors and put the screen and projector in place; hiding cables can be a chore, though).

But considering the whole system cost me less than than the price of a typical 46-inch plasma, I've been relatively happy with it. Lately, the bulb has been producing some occasional flicker (reminds me a bit of macrovision in appearance), though (stopped for a few months and just now started doing it again). Sadly, it's out of warranty. I don't know if it's the bulb or something else in the unit. I hate to buy a new $300-400 bulb and still have the issue. Hopefully, it's just passing another wear zone on the bulb and will stop again.

[Sheradon]

I have a 6Mbps DSL connection, and it took around 5 hours for me to download Die Hard in HD. It gave a notification that it was ready to play after about 3 1/2 hours of downloading. I went to sleep instead, and plan on watching it this weekend.

I also have a DSL connection from Bell (i'm in Canada) with 6 Mbit download and I rented the movie 'No reservation' in HD and it took about 10 min before the movie was ready to start and it was downloaded at 6% as per the AppleTV. The Movie played flawlesley for the next 2 hours.

The only thing, even if the soundsystem was showing Digital Dolby as a source the movie did not feel 5.1.