PDA

View Full Version : 1080p - This year?




swsmith
Jul 28, 2008, 12:26 PM
-1080p info from DBSTALK.com

-dish NETWORK - TurboHD package to feature 1080p
-DIRECTV - to offer 130 channels in HD and movies in 1080p

Blue-Ray is still better than 1080p broadcast or download? Not going anywhere anytime soon?

I want to limit of all these separate services. Spend the money on bandwidth used for all my devices. Directv kills the wallet with a hundred channels I don’t watch - HD or not! I would love to just have atv. Just when I thought that atv was going to be able to compete for the pay per use content. The 1080p is making me rethink cancelling satellite?



bacaramac
Jul 28, 2008, 03:14 PM
I think that ATV will go 1080p capable before we see 1080p content in the US. I am not even sure the US networks can support everyone streaming 1080p. International is a different store as overseas they have true broadband connectivity and probably a network capable of streaming 1080p content.

My guess is, Apple will update ATV (either software or hardware) to 1080p to support the big international push they have been shooting for (as it seems to me). Content would then come as it can be supported by different countries.

j3yq
Jul 30, 2008, 08:38 PM
1080p would be very nice, but my projector on supports 1080i:( so i can wait

swsmith
Aug 4, 2008, 10:23 PM
http://www.apple.com/trailers/disney/morninglight/hd/

How can I get this into ATV?

Diveflo
Aug 8, 2008, 11:26 AM
AppleTV isn't even supporting full 720p (h264 high profile, CABAC etc.). How the hell is it supposed to support 1080p without hardware upgrades...

Consultant
Aug 8, 2008, 11:31 AM
Unless you have an expensive TV (some 1080 tvs don't even do full 1080p), great eye sights, and only pay attention only to details, most people are not going to notice the difference between 720 and 1080 while watching motion programs.

dynaflash
Aug 8, 2008, 11:55 AM
AppleTV isn't even supporting full 720p (h264 high profile, CABAC etc.). How the hell is it supposed to support 1080p without hardware upgrades...

Huh? Afaik 720p does not imply high profile h.264 nor does it imply CABAC. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/720p in fact it does not even imply a given bitrate for the video stream. Comcast's "HD" movies are a classic example. Yes, they are technically "HD" but compared to their OTA counterparts are provided at a very low bitrate and therefore lower quality.

While you can argue whether or not the 720p 24p (the atv only supports it at 24 fps progressive) that the atv is capable of playing is good enough quality or not, you cannot disqualify it from the 720p category simply because it doesn't support cabac (which, btw the atv *can* play with proper vbv buffering of its video bitrate in x264).

Diveflo
Aug 8, 2008, 12:16 PM
Huh? Afaik 720p does not imply high profile h.264 nor does it imply CABAC. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/720p in fact it does not even imply a given bitrate for the video stream. Comcast's "HD" movies are a classic example. Yes, they are technically "HD" but compared to their OTA counterparts are provided at a very low bitrate and therefore lower quality.

While you can argue whether or not the 720p 24p (the atv only supports it at 24 fps progressive) that the atv is capable of playing is good enough quality or not, you cannot disqualify it from the 720p category simply because it doesn't support cabac (which, btw the atv *can* play with proper vbv buffering of its video bitrate in x264).

Okay but nearly every 720p file you get from the internet is encoded in high profile and CABAC. So okay, it can play 720p but you're not really able to use it except the iTunes HD movies.

dynaflash
Aug 8, 2008, 12:27 PM
Okay but nearly every 720p file you get from the internet is encoded in high profile and CABAC. So okay, it can play 720p but you're not really able to use it except the iTunes HD movies.
Right, most of those are really encoded to be played back on your computer. I am encoding OTA HD from my eyetv using HB to get some 720p HD content for my atv which is awfully nice looking (with cabac even). Better than any HD rentals I have seen so far (though admittedly I have only tried a few rentals). At any rate, encoded properly the atv *can* play some pretty nice looking 720p 24p content with full AC3 DD. The whole "720p, 1080p" thing when it comes to encoded content is kind of tossed around haphazardly imo as there is alot more to it than the actual picture size, as you really have pointed out.

fivepoint
Aug 8, 2008, 12:51 PM
Unless you have an expensive TV (some 1080 tvs don't even do full 1080p), great eye sights, and only pay attention only to details, most people are not going to notice the difference between 720 and 1080 while watching motion programs.

Very True. I agree, 100%. (http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=5955767&postcount=13)

Kilamite
Aug 10, 2008, 07:35 AM
Very True. I agree, 100%. (http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=5955767&postcount=13)

Nice chart - I've always looked for a good visual way of explaining it!

quid squid
Aug 16, 2008, 11:29 PM
do you think the AppleTV will require new hardware to do 1080p? i was thinking of picking one up soon, but if this is the case i will probably wait.

Tilpots
Aug 17, 2008, 01:39 PM
Very True. I agree, 100%. (http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=5955767&postcount=13)

Is this something you made yourself? If not, please give source.

belisle
Aug 17, 2008, 02:38 PM
AppleTV isn't even supporting full 720p (h264 high profile, CABAC etc.). How the hell is it supposed to support 1080p without hardware upgrades...

It won't. But a new Apple TV might, which I'd guess is unlikely anytime soon.

Unless you have an expensive TV (some 1080 tvs don't even do full 1080p), great eye sights, and only pay attention only to details, most people are not going to notice the difference between 720 and 1080 while watching motion programs.

If you have an TV that's native 1080p (or even i), then you will notice if it's running at 720. If your TV is native 720p, then obviously you won't notice.

Fivepoint's plagiarized chart, I imagine, assumes that you're comparing a native 720p TV with a native 1080p one, not running a 1080p TV at lower resolution. Even so, his chart tells me I need a 1080p projector for my 80" screen at 12' away.

Is this something you made yourself? If not, please give source.

It's from 1080p does matter (http://www.carltonbale.com/2006/11/1080p-does-matter/), by Carlton Bale. The author makes a pretty good argument to support his conclusion: "I want to set the record straight once and for all: if you are serious about properly setting up your viewing room, you will definitely benefit from 1080p."

CWallace
Aug 17, 2008, 02:48 PM
It takes me, on an 8mb/s cable modem pipe, about three times as long to download a 1080p Quicktime clip from Apple.com as it does to watch it. Now extrapolate that to a full movie. :eek: Even if I ante'd up the extra $10 a month to double that pipe, it would still take me longer to download it then watch it. And with many of those ISPs are considering bandwidth caps or extra-cost pricing, you might not get more then one or two movies before you hit it.

Now, Apple could provide 1080p support to enable Blu-Ray digital rips to look their best, but I am sure the content providers Apple works with would really appreciate that. :p

belisle
Aug 17, 2008, 03:05 PM
It takes me, on an 8mb/s cable modem pipe, about three times as long to download a 1080p Quicktime clip from Apple.com as it does to watch it. :eek: Even if I ante'd up the extra $10 a month to double that pipe, it would still take me longer to download it then watch it. And with many of those ISPs are considering bandwidth caps or extra-cost pricing, you might not get more then one or two movies before you hit it.

Yes, American broadband is a travesty (http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20080814-report-us-falling-further-behind-on-broadband-speeds-reach.html). The bandwidth caps (some of them, at least) should be a crime against humanity.

Tilpots
Aug 17, 2008, 03:21 PM
Fivepoint's plagiarized chart, I imagine, assumes that you're comparing a native 720p TV with a native 1080p one, not running a 1080p TV at lower resolution. Even so, his chart tells me I need a 1080p projector for my 80" screen at 12' away.



It's from 1080p does matter (http://www.carltonbale.com/2006/11/1080p-does-matter/), by Carlton Bale. The author makes a pretty good argument to support his conclusion: "I want to set the record straight once and for all: if you are serious about properly setting up your viewing room, you will definitely benefit from 1080p."

Thanks belisle. Odd that Fivepoints would use a chart that is totally opposite his argument, don't ya think?

I have a 1080p TV and can tell the difference, regardless of what people try to tell me.:)

fivepoint
Aug 17, 2008, 03:28 PM
Is this something you made yourself? If not, please give source.

The image is linked from another page. Right click the image and click "copy image link" if you want to know where it came from. BTW, I did provide the link for the Engadget article where I got it from a few posts later in that thread.



It won't. But a new Apple TV might, which I'd guess is unlikely anytime soon.

If you have an TV that's native 1080p (or even i), then you will notice if it's running at 720. If your TV is native 720p, then obviously you won't notice.

Fivepoint's plagiarized chart, I imagine, assumes that you're comparing a native 720p TV with a native 1080p one, not running a 1080p TV at lower resolution. Even so, his chart tells me I need a 1080p projector for my 80" screen at 12' away.

It's from 1080p does matter (http://www.carltonbale.com/2006/11/1080p-does-matter/), by Carlton Bale. The author makes a pretty good argument to support his conclusion: "I want to set the record straight once and for all: if you are serious about properly setting up your viewing room, you will definitely benefit from 1080p."

Plagiarized. Nice. Grow up, why don't you? Like I said, I posted the link... but since you didn't even read the other thread, you wouldn't know that. Also, thanks for posting the link to that article on this thread. It proves my point very well. Here is a quote from Carlton Bale's article which you may find interesting:

If you are a videophile with a properly setup viewing room, you should definitely be able to notice the resolution enhancement that 1080p brings. However, if you are an average consumer with a plasma on the far wall of your family room, you are not likely to be sitting close enough to notice any advantage. Check the chart above and use that to make your decision.

Yeah... that's right. Carlton basically says that if you're a VIDEOPHILE (less than 1% of the population) setting up a VIEWING ROOM (a.k.a. home theatre) then 1080p is worth it. Otherwise, in 99% of situations, it isn't. Congrats, you've done a very successful job and making yourself look stupid. There's no buyer's remorse on your part here, is there?



Thanks belisle. Odd that Fivepoints would use a chart that is totally opposite his argument, don't ya think?

I have a 1080p TV and can tell the difference, regardless of what people try to tell me.:)

No, actually you can't. Read the chart. It's science. The human eye can only resolve a certain amount of data... Read the chart, and it will tell you what your eyes can physically resolve, and what they can't. My guess is that you're eyes aren't somehow magically special, but rather more likely that you've convinced yourself that you can. The experts at every major tech magazine and blog can't tell a difference at these sizes/distances, but you can? Strange.

Kilamite
Aug 17, 2008, 03:43 PM
Fivepoint's plagiarized chart, I imagine, assumes that you're comparing a native 720p TV with a native 1080p one, not running a 1080p TV at lower resolution.

Imagine we are using a 40" TV, 720p will look exactly the same on a 720p 40" TV as 720p would look on a 1080p/i TV.

belisle
Aug 17, 2008, 03:48 PM
The image is linked from another page. Right click the image and click "copy image link" if you want to know where it came from. BTW, I did provide the link for the Engadget article where I got it from a few posts later in that thread. Plagiarized. Nice. Grow up, why don't you? Like I said, I posted the link... but since you didn't even read the other thread, you wouldn't know that. If you're a VIDEOPHILE (less than 1% of the population) setting up a VIEWING ROOM (aka theatre) then 1080p is worth it. Otherwise, in 99% of situations, it isn't.

I didn't read the other thread because you linked to one post, not the thread. I apologize. I like to be dramatic.

Anyway, I think you're exaggerating when you say that 99% of the population doesn't care about setting up an optimal viewing environment. We can pick an choose favorite quotes from Bale's post all day long. I like "Looking at this chart, it is apparent that 1080p is the lowest resolution to fall within the recommended seating distance range. Any resolution less than 1080p is not detailed enough if you are sitting the proper distance from the screen."

If you're the type that buys a TV and throws it in a room, then sure, 1080p might excessive. But if you're the type considers the question "How far should I sit from the screen and what resolution/screen size is optimum for that distance?" then 1080p might be reasonable.

You're taking that one chart out of context, presuming that the average person undersizes their TV. Pretty much the first question I asked when I sold TVs was "How far are you sitting from the screen?"

No, actually you can't. Read the chart. It's science.

How far is Tilpots sitting from the screen? Did he say he was not in the 1080p range? I don't think so.

fivepoint
Aug 17, 2008, 03:54 PM
Thanks belisle. Odd that Fivepoints would use a chart that is totally opposite his argument, don't ya think?

I have a 1080p TV and can tell the difference, regardless of what people try to tell me.:)

I didn't read the other thread because you linked to one post, not the thread. I apologize. I like to be dramatic.

Anyway, I think you're exaggerating when you say that 99% of the population doesn't care about setting up an optimal viewing environment. We can pick an choose favorite quotes from Bale's post all day long. I like "Looking at this chart, it is apparent that 1080p is the lowest resolution to fall within the recommended seating distance range. Any resolution less than 1080p is not detailed enough if you are sitting the proper distance from the screen."

If you're the type that buys a TV and throws it in a room, then sure, 1080p might excessive. But if you're the type considers the question "How far should I sit from the screen and what resolution is optimum for that distance?" then 1080p might be reasonable.

You're taking that one chart out of context, presuming that the average person undersizes their TV. Pretty much the first question I asked when I sold TVs was "How far are you sitting from the screen?"

Listen. It's not that complicated. I posted the graph so people could take a look, analyze their own setup, and make an educated decision. 1080p has it's uses, but I stand by my statement that 99% of people won't see ANY benefit to 1080p unless they're setting up a home theatre.

Don't take my word for it folks... go to your local best buy or whatever store you want. Find two identical TVS (same base model) with the only difference being resolution. Start 20 ft from the TV, and walk forward until you can see a difference. On a normal 50" TV, most won't see a difference until about 6 or 7ft. Much closer than the normal person sits from a 50" set.

As for Tilpots, since he took the time to post, quote me, and then say that he can see the difference, regardless of what anyone tells him, I assumed he was disputing the content of the graph. Seems fair.

belisle
Aug 17, 2008, 04:02 PM
1080p has it's uses, but I stand by my statement that 99% of people won't see ANY benefit to 1080p unless they're setting up a home theatre.

Now, let's compare to your previous words.


The problem is that people don't realize when it does matter, and when it doesn't. The chart I posted lets people know the facts. When it matters, and when it doesn't. Simple as that. For 90% of people, in 90% of TV viewing situations, the human eye physically can't resolve the difference between the two. It's as simple as that.

Care to explain how "90%" creeps to "99%"?

Nobody's disputing the chart, as far as I know. I'm disputing that the assumption that 90% and/or 99% of the population sits outside of the 1080p range.

Tilpots
Aug 17, 2008, 04:05 PM
As for Tilpots, since he took the time to post, quote me, and then say that he can see the difference, regardless of what anyone tells him, I assumed he was disputing the content of the graph. Seems fair.


Uh, yes, I can. That makes me magical and you an idiot using your logic. When was the last time you watched TV in my living room comparing my 1080p screen to its 720p equivalent using my eyes? I said nothing about the validity of the graph. I did the tests before buying my TV and could the difference every time.

Don't be mad that your inferior TV and poor eyesight aren't as good as mine.

Wakakanada
Aug 18, 2008, 12:34 AM
Well this thread is interesting, but besides debating the finer points of someone's charting ability, how do people who actually have ATV feel and a larger screen [say 46 inch and above] HDTV feel about the image quality? Would you slip in a dvd if you had it or watch on ATV:confused:?

Mr. lax
Aug 18, 2008, 01:22 AM
The image is linked from another page. Right click the image and click "copy image link" if you want to know where it came from. BTW, I did provide the link for the Engadget article where I got it from a few posts later in that thread.

Plagiarized. Nice. Grow up, why don't you? Like I said, I posted the link... but since you didn't even read the other thread, you wouldn't know that. Also, thanks for posting the link to that article on this thread. It proves my point very well. Here is a quote from Carlton Bale's article which you may find interesting:

If you are a videophile with a properly setup viewing room, you should definitely be able to notice the resolution enhancement that 1080p brings. However, if you are an average consumer with a plasma on the far wall of your family room, you are not likely to be sitting close enough to notice any advantage. Check the chart above and use that to make your decision.

Yeah... that's right. Carlton basically says that if you're a VIDEOPHILE (less than 1% of the population) setting up a VIEWING ROOM (a.k.a. home theatre) then 1080p is worth it. Otherwise, in 99% of situations, it isn't. Congrats, you've done a very successful job and making yourself look stupid. There's no buyer's remorse on your part here, is there?

No, actually you can't. Read the chart. It's science. The human eye can only resolve a certain amount of data... Read the chart, and it will tell you what your eyes can physically resolve, and what they can't. My guess is that you're eyes aren't somehow magically special, but rather more likely that you've convinced yourself that you can. The experts at every major tech magazine and blog can't tell a difference at these sizes/distances, but you can? Strange.

Take it easy, seriously. You're going to hurt yourself

nickane
Aug 18, 2008, 05:55 AM
It's from 1080p does matter (http://www.carltonbale.com/2006/11/1080p-does-matter/), by Carlton Bale. The author makes a pretty good argument to support his conclusion: "I want to set the record straight once and for all: if you are serious about properly setting up your viewing room, you will definitely benefit from 1080p."

That's very interesting. Pity it stops at 120", but I guess I can always extrapolate since they're linear progressions. I am in the "unfortunate" predicament of having a 1080p 46" LCD and a 720p projector (18' approx) in my living room, so I'm constantly having to decide whether resolution or picture size suits what I'm watching most. I know, I know, there are worse dilemmas life can throw at you... :D

Kilamite
Aug 18, 2008, 07:31 AM
This reminds me of what the camera industry is doing in convincing people that they need a lot of megapixels to take good photos. I used to work in a retailer that sold cameras along with other audio and TV appliances, and the amount of ignorant customers who would come in and tell me I was talking rubbish because I told them that having an 8 megapixel camera is useless to them for what they want it for.

I ended up pulling out six A4 printouts, each taken with: 800k, 1 megapixel, 2, 4, 6, 8. Each printout was the same photo, and a high quality photo printer was used.

And they could barely even tell the difference between 800k and 1 megapixel, let alone anything in 8 megapixels.

They were only going to be printing off 6x4" photos, yet demanded such high megapixels.

1080p this, 1080p that. As said already, unless you have the optimum setup, then you are hardly going to notice any difference between 720p and 1080p.

fivepoint
Aug 18, 2008, 08:42 AM
Well this thread is interesting, but besides debating the finer points of someone's charting ability, how do people who actually have ATV feel and a larger screen [say 46 inch and above] HDTV feel about the image quality? Would you slip in a dvd if you had it or watch on ATV:confused:?

I watch my ATV over a 50" Panasonic Plasma. It looks absolutely gorgeous. Now, since most of my content gets imported from DVDs, obviously a DVD would have slightly higher quality... but the ATV menu and the ability to have hundreds of movies (not to mention TV shows, YouTube, Podcasts, etc.) right at my finger tips makes it worth while.

I use the ATV preset in Handbrake. I think most people would struggle to see a difference between my files and a DVD. The ATV does not disappoint. However, if you are buying all of your SD content over the iTunes store... you will notice a decent amount of difference between that and DVD. It was formatted to play on an iPod, so it won't be nearly as clear as a full DVD source. The iTunes HD content is good though.



Take it easy, seriously. You're going to hurt yourself

I was accused of plagiarizing and 'spreading false information.' Since they tried to make me look like a fool, I felt it necessary to return the favor. It was quite easy since the truth was on my side the whole time.

Sorry if I got a little riled up. Just don't like it when people get on here and spout pure nonsense in attempt to make someone look bad... especially when they have nothing backing up their argument.

fivepoint
Aug 18, 2008, 08:43 AM
That's very interesting. Pity it stops at 120", but I guess I can always extrapolate since they're linear progressions. I am in the "unfortunate" predicament of having a 1080p 46" LCD and a 720p projector (18' approx) in my living room, so I'm constantly having to decide whether resolution or picture size suits what I'm watching most. I know, I know, there are worse dilemmas life can throw at you... :D

Poor guy. ;)



This reminds me of what the camera industry is doing in convincing people that they need a lot of megapixels to take good photos. I used to work in a retailer that sold cameras along with other audio and TV appliances, and the amount of ignorant customers who would come in and tell me I was talking rubbish because I told them that having an 8 megapixel camera is useless to them for what they want it for.

I ended up pulling out six A4 printouts, each taken with: 800k, 1 megapixel, 2, 4, 6, 8. Each printout was the same photo, and a high quality photo printer was used.

And they could barely even tell the difference between 800k and 1 megapixel, let alone anything in 8 megapixels.

They were only going to be printing off 6x4" photos, yet demanded such high megapixels.

1080p this, 1080p that. As said already, unless you have the optimum setup, then you are hardly going to notice any difference between 720p and 1080p.

Exactly. I made the same point in the other thread, here. (http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=5956157&postcount=15)

MikieMikie
Aug 18, 2008, 09:19 AM
Well this thread is interesting, but besides debating the finer points of someone's charting ability, how do people who actually have ATV feel and a larger screen [say 46 inch and above] HDTV feel about the image quality? Would you slip in a dvd if you had it or watch on ATV:confused:?

I have a 57" Samsung HDTV 1080p and cannot see any meaningful difference between a DVD and a Handbrake-encoded, Two-pass, AppleTV preset encode.

My optical media is growing mold.

fivepoint
Aug 18, 2008, 09:52 AM
My optical media is growing mold.

Amen. The digital media revolution is upon us. It started with photos and music, but that was just the beginning.

iMacmatician
Aug 18, 2008, 10:03 AM
The Apple tv might get a hardware upgrade with Atom at the event next month or at MWSF 2009. MWSF 2009 seems more likely because there are a lot of products rumored for at or near the September event. I'd say 1080p support will come at that time too, either new Apple tv-only (if it's hardware limited) or as a software upgrade (if it's software limited).

I would also expect a slight redesign of the Apple tv to match the new designs from Apple.

Kilamite
Aug 18, 2008, 10:22 AM
I would also expect a slight redesign of the Apple tv to match the new designs from Apple.

Does it need a redesign? I have it under my TV on the shelf, and you can't even see it!

belisle
Aug 18, 2008, 07:49 PM
As said already, unless you have the optimum setup, then you are hardly going to notice any difference between 720p and 1080p.

And my question is "Why wouldn't you try to have the optimum setup?" It's a question of a handful of factors easily within your control: TV size, resolution, and placement. The rest of the analysis (http://www.carltonbale.com/2006/11/1080p-does-matter/) that accompanied the chart explains that if you want to sit at the "optimum" distance, you'll benefit from 1080p. And it makes it pretty easy to match up the parameters.

I just don't see why bringing up 1080p gives rise to the argument "Since I'm happy with my nonoptimal setup, most people don't and shouldn't care about optimizing their setup. 720p ought to be enough for anyone."

Analogy: Let's say you just browse the web. Then, an 8-core Mac Pro with dual 30" Cinema Displays is overkill and a waste of money. That says nothing to denigrate the value of either of them. It just says your values and needs suggest you should get an iMac.

Analogy 2: Let's say someone (i.e. me) comes in wanting to print 8x10"s on a 200 lpi printer. You'd be doing me a disservice to say that that I'd be fine with a 3 MP camera. And what if I want to crop my photos because I didn't have enough zoom to fill the frame with my subject? I'm going to need a sensor with sufficient resolution to do what I want it to do. (Even we scale back to the layman, you're going to have a hard time convincing me that 100 dpi (A4 at 1 MP) is sufficient for printing a high-quality image. That's approaching screen resolution.)

Now, of course, there's the issue of effective resolution and that jamming more pixels onto a tiny sensor doesn't do you any good. The point is, these are all considerations to make with access to the right information. I'll try to optimize my camera for my photography needs, just like I'd do with a TV.

But 1080p is not the equivalent of a 1/2.3", 12.1 MP sensor being used to print 4"x6" photos. The crimes of the digital photography industry are far worse.

I was accused of plagiarizing and 'spreading false information.' Since they tried to make me look like a fool, I felt it necessary to return the favor. It was quite easy since the truth was on my side the whole time.

Sorry if I got a little riled up. Just don't like it when people get on here and spout pure nonsense in attempt to make someone look bad... especially when they have nothing backing up their argument.

No, taking it easy is absolutely right. I (and presumably others) didn't set out to make you look like a fool. I just said what was on my mind at the time, in addition to disputing your assumptions. It's nothing personal. I'm just some guy on the internet who throws words around.

belisle
Aug 18, 2008, 08:23 PM
I have a 57" Samsung HDTV 1080p and cannot see any meaningful difference between a DVD and a Handbrake-encoded, Two-pass, AppleTV preset encode.

Since you said DVD, I'm going to assume you're talking about a DVD and not, say, Blu-ray. Of course you can't see the difference. A DVD is NTSC resolution. It's being unconverted to 1080p. By the time it goes through all that conversion, it doesn't matter if you started with a DVD or handbrake. Garbage in, garbage out.

fivepoint
Aug 18, 2008, 08:57 PM
And my question is "Why wouldn't you try to have the optimum setup?" It's a question of a handful of factors easily within your control: TV size, resolution, and placement. The rest of the analysis (http://www.carltonbale.com/2006/11/1080p-does-matter/) that accompanied the chart explains that if you want to sit at the "optimum" distance, you'll benefit from 1080p. And it makes it pretty easy to match up the parameters.

I just don't see why bringing up 1080p gives rise to the argument "Since I'm happy with my nonoptimal setup, most people don't and shouldn't care about optimizing their setup. 720p ought to be enough for anyone."


The problem with your argument is that "optimal setup" is referring to a ultra super sweet theatre setup. Most people don't want that kind of experience when they're in their basic living room. Heck, many people think any TV larger than 42" is an eye-sore.

Would you buy a $3000 mountain bike to ride to the grocery store every day? No, because you would never utilize its abilities.

Would you buy a $300k house for your dog? No, because it would be just as happy in a small kennel.

Would you spend $2000 on a new Nikon 12mp camera with expensive lenses if you never print photos over a 4x6? No, because at that size, 2MP looks exactly like 12.

The fact of the matter is that most people, with normal TV setups will never see any benefit from higher resolutions. Not everybody is building home theaters... in fact, an extremely few are. I don't understand why this is so hard for people to 'get'.

belisle
Aug 18, 2008, 09:59 PM
Or would you buy an "8-core Mac Pro with dual 30" Cinema Display[s]" to browse the internet... So we're on the same page there. Thanks for adding additional examples.

Our only dispute, what "most" people think, is a circular argument. I don't have any data on most people. You don't have any data on most people. The argument is a wash. We could go back and forth with "Nah uh" "Yeah huh" all day long.

Not that the value of 1080p ever had anything to do with the original question: Will we see 1080p this year? Inquiring minds would like to know.

CultHero
Aug 18, 2008, 10:48 PM
okay, time for a newb question. Is it just upconverting when I choose the 1080p option with my apple TV?

Kilamite
Aug 19, 2008, 06:41 AM
If you want the truth, I'd rather have more fps (60) than 1080p (I'm talking in general here, not just the Apple TV).

More detail is great, but unless it is silky smooth, then I'd much rather have something lower resolution that is actually smooth when played.

mondesi43
Aug 19, 2008, 08:03 AM
Nobody's disputing the chart, as far as I know. I'm disputing that the assumption that 90% and/or 99% of the population sits outside of the 1080p range.

I would say it's between 90-95%. Most people I know who have a 1080p set think that my 720p Samsung is a 1080p version. There's not that many people who can actually tell the difference from a reasonable viewing distance. My 40" set is above the fireplace anywhere from 12-18' to the seats. I can see everything just fine. It looks the same as my friends 52" 1080p which is essentially the same viewing distance/angles.

People just buy into the sales hype and think the have to get the higher resolution to keep up with their buddies. I can tell the difference between the resolutions when I get within 8-10 feet, but there's no way I'm sitting that close to my set.

MikieMikie
Aug 19, 2008, 08:22 AM
Since you said DVD, I'm going to assume you're talking about a DVD and not, say, Blu-ray. Of course you can't see the difference. A DVD is NTSC resolution. It's being unconverted to 1080p. By the time it goes through all that conversion, it doesn't matter if you started with a DVD or handbrake. Garbage in, garbage out.

It would help if you read the original question before responding --

Originally Posted by Wakakanada
Well this thread is interesting, but besides debating the finer points of someone's charting ability, how do people who actually have ATV feel and a larger screen [say 46 inch and above] HDTV feel about the image quality? Would you slip in a dvd if you had it or watch on ATV?

DVD. Assume what you like, but read before you respond. This poster was curious about whether the Apple TV performed as well as a DVD player on a larger TV.

He didn't ask if Blu-Ray was better than cream cheese.

Diatribe
Aug 19, 2008, 08:47 AM
All your points that 720p looks the same as 1080p are all moot since Apple's 720p is not full 720p. Full 720p does look the same on a regular TV (50") but 1080p sure as hell looks better on my projector. Have you ever seen the Apple HD files? Blu-Ray smacks them left and right when it comes to picture quality. And sorry, not everyone who uses a projector needs a showroom... :rolleyes:

belisle
Aug 19, 2008, 10:40 AM
It would help if you read the original question before responding --

Yes, yes it would. I am officially an idiot (with respect to your post; I stand by my other words). Have a great day!

swsmith
Aug 19, 2008, 11:56 AM
I have 1080p content
I have atv
I have a 1080p TV

(I use HDMI - reguired for the tv to except 1080p? HDCP?)



Can this be viewed using atv in it's original resolution?

Screw the viewing distance and if my bionic eye is focused properly. Can this be done? Is so I do not know how? Please explain.

dynaflash
Aug 19, 2008, 12:11 PM
No, the atv cannot play 1080p content no how no way.

Kilamite
Aug 19, 2008, 12:12 PM
Apple TV won't be able to play 1080p content.

You can select 1080p as the output resolution, but the quality has to be 720p.

fivepoint
Aug 19, 2008, 12:20 PM
I have 1080p content
I have atv
I have a 1080p TV

(I use HDMI - reguired for the tv to except 1080p? HDCP?)



Can this be viewed using atv in it's original resolution?

Screw the viewing distance and if my bionic eye is focused properly. Can this be done? Is so I do not know how? Please explain.

No. (http://www.apple.com/appletv/specs.html)

"Video formats supported:
H.264 and protected H.264 (from iTunes Store): Up to 5 Mbps, Progressive Main Profile (CAVLC) with AAC-LC audio up to 160 Kbps (maximum resolution: 1280 by 720 pixels at 24 fps, 960 by 540 pixels at 30 fps) in .m4v, .mp4, and .mov file formats"

Tilpots
Aug 19, 2008, 02:16 PM
Glad to see this thread still going.:rolleyes:

I'm not sure why Apple hasn't gone to 1080p quite yet. Maybe they're waiting to update all the products at once, or at least start the trickle down effect. There's probably good reasons on their part, but they haven't done a great job of explaining themselves. I hope it's coming soon. Maybe the fact that they've been so mum on the project means it's right around the corner. Who knows?

And for anyone reading this thread that's trying to decide between 1080p and 720p, I feel for you. There's a lot of "opinions" here and you know what they say about opinions, "everyone has them and most of them stink." Stick to what your eyes and guts tell you. Don't go by "most people," decide for yourself what looks best and fits your budget.:)

MikieMikie
Aug 19, 2008, 02:47 PM
Yes, yes it would. I am officially an idiot (with respect to your post; I stand by my other words). Have a great day!

Thanks, and nyet sweat!

fivepoint
Aug 19, 2008, 03:14 PM
And for anyone reading this thread that's trying to decide between 1080p and 720p, I feel for you. There's a lot of "opinions" here and you know what they say about opinions, "everyone has them and most of them stink." Stick to what your eyes and guts tell you. Don't go by "most people," decide for yourself what looks best and fits your budget.:)

Now that is a statement I can agree with! Good advice to all. Here is what I said on the first page:

Don't take my word for it folks... go to your local best buy or whatever store you want. Find two identical TVS (same base model) with the only difference being resolution. Start 20 ft from the TV, and walk forward until you can see a difference. On a normal 50" TV, most won't see a difference until about 6 or 7ft. Much closer than the normal person sits from a 50" set.

belisle
Aug 19, 2008, 10:16 PM
Don't go by "most people," decide for yourself what looks best and fits your budget.

Now that is a statement I can agree with! Good advice to all. Here is what I said on the first page:


Don't take my word for it folks... go to your local best buy or whatever store you want. Find two identical TVS (same base model) with the only difference being resolution. Start 20 ft from the TV, and walk forward until you can see a difference. On a normal 50" TV, most won't see a difference until about 6 or 7ft. Much closer than the normal person sits from a 50" set.


That's funny, I could swear you just said "Now that a statement I agree with! And when you do that, you'll see that 720p is the way to go for normal people." (Also, Best Buy is pulling all sorts of other tricks in their video rooms, but don't let that concern you.)

fivepoint
Aug 20, 2008, 06:56 AM
That's funny, I could swear you just said "Now that a statement I agree with! And when you do that, you'll see that 720p is the way to go for normal people." (Also, Best Buy is pulling all sorts of other tricks in their video rooms, but don't let that concern you.)

Why do you keep doing this? My position has never changed. I stand by my assessment. 1080p is a waste for most consumers. It's correct. Just about every major HDTV site, magazine, etc. and blogging site such as engadget and gizmodo will back that up.

That being said, go to the store and give it a try for yourself. If you disagree, buy the set that matches your needs and wallet at that time.

belisle
Aug 20, 2008, 12:40 PM
Go to the store and give it a try for yourself. ... Buy the set that matches your needs and wallet at that time.

Now there is a statement I can agree with. /the end

fivepoint
Aug 20, 2008, 12:53 PM
I always have to get the final word. :) /the end