Apple TV - FULL HD version??

[christian2006]

I like the idea of an Apple TV. However at the moment I just don't feel it is worth the cost. 40GB version would not be worth getting and the 160GB version is so expensive for what it is.

I would like to see Apple bring out a FULL HD (1080p) version that can compete with blu-ray. They also need to have a better way of getting content on to the unit.

In the UK we have Lovefilm. Here you can rent blu-ray discs for a monthly subscription and there are many tariffs available.

What would make Apple TV attrative to me is this:

Full HD & TrueHD audio (I am sure the new Nvida chips they are using can process 1080p HD)
Bigger HD - 320GB/500GB

Then iTunes Store should have a subcription model for Movies and TV content.

There could be unlimited tariffs and capped tariffs.

Also a subscription for TV shows. I feel it point less to buy TV shows especially as in the UK most TV is Free (apart from the license fee). It be so cool to wake up in the morning and have last nights TV downloaded to your iPod/iPhone ready to watch or downloaded to you Apple TV ready to watch when you want.

Who else thinks this is an appealing product/service?

[deorg]

I am waiting also for a Full HD ATV, It would have to bring a LOT bigger Hard drive, and an HMDI conector.
I realy dont feel confortable hacking into it, because each upgrade will be a complete mess...

[Tallest Skil]

Then iTunes Store should have a subcription model for Movies and TV content.

Oh, no. No Zune store crap for us, thanks.

Full HD is second on my list of reasons I haven't bought one yet.

First, Apple needs to get their DVR patents working for them.
Then 720 to 1080.
Then larger storage. I don't care too much about this, because I can always get my own drive cheaper and install it.

[Kilamite]

1080p compared to 720p at the normal viewing distance isn't worth the hype. The 720p content I have on my Apple TV is staggering - the detail is brilliant. I've played back 1080p content via my Mac onto my TV and the very slight/hardly noticeable increase isn't worth it. Fair enough as the TV size increases (beyond 46") then you'll notice more of a difference, but it is all down to viewing distance as well.

I agree that the hard drive size in the Apple TV is an embarrassment - iTunes streaming isn't the best solution (network bandwidth, iTunes and your Mac has to be running). I'd rather Apple had make the Apple TV slightly larger and fitted in a desktop hard drive that is a lot cheaper - 500GB and 1TB options.

I don't purchase content off iTunes. I have a 500GB external hard drive packed of movies (ripped from DVD's) and TV shows (recorded a lot of them).

and an HMDI conector.

HDMI you mean. And the Apple TV already has HDMI output.

[Volante]

I've read tests where people have had a hard time noticing the difference between 720p and 1080p. But that was downscaled bluray. Apple's 720p isn't that good. With 1080p-support it could hopefully handle high bitrate 720p. For example, the infamous bird scene in Planet Earth goes up to (and over?) 30mbps at 720p. The current Apple TV is nowhere near handling that.

[hitekalex]

I agree that the hard drive size in the Apple TV is an embarrassment - iTunes streaming isn't the best solution (network bandwidth, iTunes and your Mac has to be running). I'd rather Apple had make the Apple TV slightly larger and fitted in a desktop hard drive that is a lot cheaper - 500GB and 1TB options.


Rather than spending money on AppleTVs with huge hard drives, people should consider investing in some decent Cat5e cabling in their homes and going with centralized iTunes server for streaming.

I have 3 x AppleTVs in my home and I couldn't imagine the hassle of managing 3 separate libraries. It was much cheaper to just add a couple of 1TB drives to my iMac and this way all my content is in one place for streaming to any of my aTVs around the house.

So in my set up I don't really bother about the size of AppleTV local drives - when I am out of disk space, I just add another cheap TB drive to my NAS array.

[MagnusVonMagnum]

I've talked to so many people that have gotten Blu-Ray and/or HDTVs in general and tell me they can't tell or can barely tell the difference between DVD and Blu-Ray OR SD television stations and HD ones. This is on 30-48 inch flat screens. So I have to wonder when I see so many people complaining and complaining and moaning that AppleTV isn't 1080P. Like half of you could tell the difference if it were! To compound the problem, people that buy those size screens will sit 12 to 20 feet away. No wonder they cannot tell the difference. The human eye has limited resolution resolving distances and if you sit beyond them with a given size screen per resolution, it's literally impossible to tell the difference. I think it's more of a wanting higher numbers just because they're higher than a real issue with most of the complainers. If you got a 90"+ screen and high quality projector, I can see why you'd want more. But someone with a 28" screen complaining? Maybe if they see 3 feet away....

Personally, I have a 93" screen and one of the highest rated 720P projectors out there (the Panasonic PT-AX100U) and the difference isn't exactly subtle at that screen size and sitting at the 8 feet distance of my view couch. On the other hand, AppleTV's 720P HD movie rentals look fantastic. This business about Apple's 720P being poor is total nonsense. I've rented dozens of HD movies and most are leaps and bounds better than HDNet, which is BY FAR the highest quality HD cable/sat station out there. At the distance I'm sitting, would Blu-Ray have potential to look better? Yes, it would. Would it if I were watching a 40-inch set? Not really. Does that mean AppleTV HD rentals look like crap? Hardly. They blow away the DVDs I have and are a great way to watch one-off movies (no trip to the rental store and hoping they have a Blu-Ray disc for the movie I want and no paying $25+ to own a movie I might watch once or twice in a lifetime).


What AppleTV DOES need is more features (without having to hack it). It SHOULD have an internet browser and for goodness sake, it's about time they added a visualizer! Having to watch photo slideshows during music and nothing else SUCKS.

I agree with the people bemoaning the lack of a subscription feature. I have almost ZERO desire to 'own' television shows. But if there were a monthly fee to watch unlimited tv shows or better yet movies, I'd jump on board assuming it was reasonable. At bare minimum, they should offer a rental option for TV shows. I don't want to own, let alone store them!

Apple should really work harder to convince the studios to allow rentals the same time as DVD. It's bad enough waiting months and months to watch a movie at home that's come and gone from the movie theater (who wants to go to a movie theater and pay $6-10 a ticket when you have a 93" screen and high quality 6.1 at home??? I sure as heck don't), but to to make matters worse, you then have to wait another 30-50 days to RENT a movie that IS available at Blockbuster or wherever to rent immediately. I mean that just plain SUCKS. And then you can't buy it in HD, so screw that. I don't want to own a less than DVD quality iTunes movie. I just want to rent them in HD. And then you only get 24 hours to watch it. That also sucks. 48 would be more reasonable and it's the standard in other countries, so why does the U.S. get screwed? Apple's clout fails to impress.

The sad thing about the hard drive space is now that AppleTV can control other AirTunes devices in the house, you no longer 'need' a server to run a whole house audio system. Any AppleTV in the house can control it and run off its own hard drive. But if you have a tiny hard drive, it just sucks as there's not enough room to run a decent size library in lossless (my lossless music library + music videos is 144GB and still growing), let alone if you own tv shows and/or movies. I could BARELY fit my 256kbit compressed library (that I use for iPods and my car stereo) and that leaves precious little room for photos let alone space to buffer rented movies and the like. They could have at least made it easier to change the drive.

[Volante]

The thing is; you can't go by resolution alone. I'm sure Apple could software update to 1080p at 5mbps, but what's the point? Bitrate increase, rabbel, bitrate increase, rabbel.

[iOrlando]

i have apple tv and rented a movie in HD and i really wouldnt notice/cant imagine the quality or sound being any better. I really think some of you are being very picky with your quality demands to the point that maybe one device will never satisfy your quality appetite. Apple TV is still an untapped resource and apple admits this...its what a "hobby" is suppose to look like, but i think it deserves a little more justice then it seems to get on these posts. i know the people on here are on the top of their audio/video game, but i think for 96% of people...the sound/quality from the HD rentals are top-notch. (as of now...i really dont get the concept of buying movies..since i only like watching them 1 or 2 times...i know that iTunes doesnt have many HD options for purchasing movies..but i mainly rent)

[carlgo]

I've talked to so many people that have gotten Blu-Ray and/or HDTVs in general and tell me they can't tell or can barely tell the difference between DVD and Blu-Ray OR SD television stations and HD ones.

This is usually because they plug their new HDTV in and watch in...SD! I had a long "argument" with a friend who just didn't believe he needed a special DirecTv dish and box to get HD. Finally, he did what I said and was so happy to see actual HD.

The moral of this is that if you can't tell the difference, you did something wrong. HD is hugely different than SD, although the networks dumb it down as much as they can for their own evil purposes (except HDNET).

I would like to see the new FCC people lay down the law and enforce some reasonable standards.

[Cave Man]

i have apple tv and rented a movie in HD and i really wouldnt notice/cant imagine the quality or sound being any better.

On the right sized screen, 1080p is better than 720p. And True-HD and DTS-HD are better than DD or DTS.

I really think some of you are being very picky with your quality demands to the point that maybe one device will never satisfy your quality appetite.

This is probably true for most people. But perhaps more importantly, the cost of getting into a 1080p large screen and audio system that can decode True-HD or DTS-HD will dwarf the cost of the Apple TV. If you're going to spend that kind of money, there are better solutions than the ATV. And don't forget the download bandwidth for 1080p/HD audio - it is crazy, crazy, crazy.

[NightStorm]

The problem with the 1080p hype is that most people sit way too far from their television to tell the difference.

[spice weasel]

I want my Apple TV to pop popcorn for me. I mean, really, how does Apple expect people to have a true entertainment experience if this thing can't even make popcorn? :D

[Tilpots]

Don't forget the DVR! Any respectable media hub has gotta have the ability to record OTA TV. iTunes store competition or not, free is free.

[iOrlando]

The problem with the 1080p hype is that most people sit way too far from their television to tell the difference.


true...i think most people sit way too close due to room size limitations. For tv's over 55 inch you really should be sitting pretty far back...most likely the proper seating arrangement is only attainable in an open floor layout and not a "bedroom" or similar squarish 15 ft by 15 ft layout.

[NightStorm]

true...i think most people sit way too close due to room size limitations. For tv's over 55 inch you really should be sitting pretty far back...most likely the proper seating arrangement is only attainable in an open floor layout and not a "bedroom" or similar squarish 15 ft by 15 ft layout.

You actually should be setting closer to HDTVs in order for your eyes to benefit from the additional resolution.

[Duffinator]

Regradless if you can see a difference between 720P and 1080P the world has moved to 1080P as the standard video resolution and so should the next version of the ATV.

[Duffinator]

true...i think most people sit way too close due to room size limitations. For tv's over 55 inch you really should be sitting pretty far back...I have yet to find a TV that is too large and until it rivals the movie theater experience I'm sticking to bigger is better. ;) Get the biggest TV you can afford and fit in your space and you'll never second guess yourself.

[NightStorm]

Regradless if you can see a difference between 720P and 1080P the world has moved to 1080P as the standard video resolution and so should the next version of the ATV.

I'm going to have to disagree; broadcast output is 720p or 1080i. Bluray is really the only traditional 1080p source I can think of at the moment.

[iOrlando]

You actually should be setting closer to HDTVs in order for your eyes to benefit from the additional resolution.

okay...just remember your eye doctors phone number because you will be needing glasses/stronger prescription over time.

i was referring to BIG tv's...just about the biggest you can get rear projector..mainly 65 inchers...i think i might have seen 70 in some catalog..but i dont think they come any bigger. (if you can prove me wrong..show me the ad) and then for front projector screens...there is no fun to be had sitting close to the screen, unless you are one of those people who sit in the first 10 rows of a movie theater.

for a 35-40 inch...sure..it can fit in any room...

[Duffinator]

I'm going to have to disagree; broadcast output is 720p or 1080i. Bluray is really the only traditional 1080p source I can think of at the moment.True but we're not talking about broadcast TV. Were talking about the ATV, displays, and other sources in your home. Just about every TV manufacturer has a sticker that says 1080P TRUE HD on their display sets. Just go to any store and most large sets are now 1080P. The ATV (and any other sources for that matter) should be able to take advantage of that capability. Some STBs already are outputing 1080P and most others will follow. The course is set and there's no changing it now. Who knows, maybe some broadcast network will do 1080P although not likely in the near future. I stick by my original statement that the world has moved to 1080P and so should the ATV. :D

[Kilamite]

i was referring to BIG tv's...just about the biggest you can get rear projector..mainly 65 inchers...i think i might have seen 70 in some catalog..but i dont think they come any bigger. (if you can prove me wrong..show me the ad) and then for front projector screens...there is no fun to be had sitting close to the screen, unless you are one of those people who sit in the first 10 rows of a movie theater.

Same applies - there comes a point when you are sitting far enough back that you won't notice the difference between 720p and 1080p. For a TV of that size, as you say, you don't want to be up close. So you end up with the TV's perspective size being the same as any other TV at the ideal viewing distance. Be it a 15", 40", 100". And at that point, you'd notice very little difference/nothing to get hyped up about, between 720p and 1080p.


True but we're not talking about broadcast TV. Were talking about the ATV, displays, and other sources in your home. Just about every TV manufacturer has a sticker that says 1080P TRUE HD on their display sets. Just go to any store and most large sets are now 1080P. The ATV (and any other sources for that matter) should be able to take advantage of that capability. Some STBs already are outputing 1080P and most others will follow. The course is set and there's no changing it now. Who knows, maybe some broadcast network will do 1080P although not likely in the near future. I stick by my original statement that the world has moved to 1080P and so should the ATV. :D

1080p media is HUGE. For the size it takes up against the minimal detail increase, it just isn't worth it. Plus there isn't a chance in hell that Apple will start providing 1080p content for rental on iTunes.

[Duffinator]

1080p media is HUGE. For the size it takes up against the minimal detail increase, it just isn't worth it. To you. My point it not to debate the merits of 720P, 1080i or 1080P. Most displays sold today are 1080P capable and so should the next ATV. The market place has already made that decision. If you don't currently own a 1080P capable set you will some day. :D

[Kilamite]

To you. My point it not to debate the merits of 720P, 1080i or 1080P. Most displays sold today are 1080P capable and so should the next ATV. The market place has already made that decision.

So your reasoning for the Apple TV to do 1080p is just because everything else does it regardless of whether it is worth it at all? Considering no content on iTunes will ever be 1080p for at least another 5 years (the internet struggles as it is, ISP's won't let people watch movies that are 10GB's every few nights).

Plus ripping Blu-Ray movies is tricky with all the content protection, so tell me, why do you want a 1080p Apple TV?

[Duffinator]

...so tell me, why do you want a 1080p Apple TV?I want something that's future proof (at least for a few years) and I want all my sources to match my display devices. If the ATV was 1080i capable we wouldn't be having this discussion. But since it's not why not have the next version be 1080P capable instead of just 1080i? Even $80 upconverting DVD players output 1080P. I doubt there is much of a cost difference to upgrade the ATV to 1080P vs. 1080i.

BTW, good discussion.

[NightStorm]

I want something that's future proof (at least for a few years) and I want all my sources to match my display devices. If the ATV was 1080i capable we wouldn't be having this discussion. But since it's not why not have the next version be 1080P capable instead of just 1080i? Even $80 upconverting DVD players output 1080P. I doubt there is much of a cost difference to upgrade the ATV to 1080P vs. 1080i.

BTW, good discussion.

I'd take a progressive signal (720p) over an interlaced one (1080i) any day, but that's just my opinion. There is a substantial difference in processing power needed to decode a 1080i versus a 1080p signal.

[jaw04005]

Lets get a few things straight. The Apple TV can output at both 1080i (since 1.x) and even 1080p (since 2.x) on supported displays. However, playback is limited to 720p.

There's a big difference between outputting at a certain resolution and playing back content at a certain resolution.

Even $80 upconverting DVD players output 1080P. I doubt there is much of a cost difference to upgrade the ATV to 1080P vs. 1080i.

That's exactly what the Apple TV is capable of doing. It's upscaling content just like your DVD player.

The Apple TV just cannot playback files that are greater than 720p, just like your upscaling DVD player cannot playback files that are greater than 480p/576p (PAL).

1080p content is a long ways off from being mainstream. In fact, the only place you can get 1080p content at the moment is Blu-ray.

I do think 720p @ 30 fps support would be nice. They should also update the processor and RAM so it can support 1080i @ 24/30 fps just for kicks (less compression time on my part from EyeTV recordings).

[Kilamite]

I want something that's future proof (at least for a few years) and I want all my sources to match my display devices. If the ATV was 1080i capable we wouldn't be having this discussion. But since it's not why not have the next version be 1080P capable instead of just 1080i? Even $80 upconverting DVD players output 1080P. I doubt there is much of a cost difference to upgrade the ATV to 1080P vs. 1080i.

Future proof for how long? TV technology is changing so rapidly. Few years ago in the UK, people splashed out on some Freeview boxes (some paid £100+ for hard drive ones) and couple months ago, Freeview got updated/something changed and all of a sudden half the Freeview boxes out there stopped working and they got told to buy new ones.

Especially that Blu-Ray only just won the HD war, and it is still uncertain whether Blu-Ray is here to stay or whether it'll be a distant memory in 5 years time.

I'm not sticking up for Apple here - I'm just saying that there is no use for 1080p (yet*) on the Apple TV. *and if Apple did offer 1080p stuff on iTunes, it won't be for another 5 years anyway when bandwidth is no longer an issue.

Maybe one day we'll see 1080p movies being available by other means than Blu-Ray - going to a shop with a USB stick and purchasing it that way. But nothing is certain.

If Apple put 1080p into the Apple TV now, people would moan and moan that there is no 1080p content they can actually put on it.

[dynaflash]

"Even $80 upconverting DVD players output 1080P"

As was pointed out before, they will *upconvert* to 1080p, not play 1080p since all sd dvd's are 480p (okay, not totally true since pal is actually 576p or whatever, but you get my point). Whereas the atv can actually *play* a 720p source and can upconvert to 1080p as well.

There seems to be some misunderstanding as to what devices can *play* and what they can *upconvert* to as was accurately pointed out previously.

Afaik, the only true playback device capable of truly playing 1080p content (read:sans upconverting) is a Blu-Ray player.

[VTMac]

The notion that 1080p is the "standard" is just plain silly. Standards are set by markets. And by any avg market figures you can find, a very small minority < 15% of the tv sets in use in the US are capable of 1080p. An even smaller number of playback devices (< 5% -- blue ray players only) are capable of playing 1080p content.

Right now, 1080p is nothing more than marketing hype that TV vendors use to try to differentiate their screens from those they commonly sold 2-3 years ago. As a practical matter that vast majority of both displays and play back devices on the market are entirely incapable of anything remotely approaching 1080p.

On top of that we're in a poor economy where people are increasingly being more cautious about new discretionary expenditures. I think it's safe to say you're not going to see 1080p playback become common place for at least 3-5 years.

The rest of it is just fodder for internet discussion. Out there in the real world of parents, grandparents, families with 2-3 kids .. 1080p simply doesn't matter.

And until it does matter to those people, it won't matter to Apple.

[Dapness]

I agree with you Kilamite on the whole reasoning for not making a 1080p atv just yet. The only people that would benefit from it would be those who could rip a Blue-Ray or acquire a ripped copy. That's a very small percentage right now and the file size would be substantial. Sure all the hype with TV's now is 1080P/120hz but once again, only a Blue-Ray can take full advantage of that (the 1080p at least). They need some new gimmick to sell TVs, damn if it isn't working.

I'm completely happy with my atv at the moment. I acquired a high bitrate Blue-Ray rip of a certain new Pixar robot flick and it looks great on my 52" 1080p display. My buddy brought his Blue-Ray DVD player over to compare the 2 images of the same movie. There were 5 of us observing, 2 cinema employees and 3 Circuit City employees. 2 couldn't really tell the difference and the other 3 said they could make out very minor differences but certainly not enough to warrant spending the extra money to buy a Blue-Ray player and have to pay the high cost of the media. In the end the Blue-Ray owner was left upset shaking his head looking at his player while 3 others were looking up prices for the atv ... especially after I showed them the Boxee hack ;)

In my opinion the disc is dead ... at least in my household it is!!

[soLoredd]

Agree with VTMac about 1080p. Pure commercial fodder. I'm better off with a 720p and some insane contrast ratio than these shat 1080p TVs they are putting out. As mentioned, the companies had to find some way to keep people interested in the newest thing and 1080p was too easy to pass up.

One of my good friends actually upgraded his HDTV due to a 30,000:1 ratio and not 1080p. I told him to go plasma this time around, but he has issues :D.

Anyway, what the Apple TV needs (and what Apple needs, really) is to open up the USB port and to also let us buy the HD movies as they are now. Renting is fine, my wife and I rent movies all the time but there are some I want to buy. And I am not buying a blu-ray player after getting sodded by hd-dvd.

[Cave Man]

I'll be keeping my 40" 720p ATV system and my 110" 1080p system, thank you very much. There is a difference on the latter, for sure.

[Michael CM1]

I agree with you Kilamite on the whole reasoning for not making a 1080p atv just yet. The only people that would benefit from it would be those who could rip a Blue-Ray or acquire a ripped copy. That's a very small percentage right now and the file size would be substantial. Sure all the hype with TV's now is 1080P/120hz but once again, only a Blue-Ray can take full advantage of that (the 1080p at least). They need some new gimmick to sell TVs, damn if it isn't working.

I'm completely happy with my atv at the moment. I acquired a high bitrate Blue-Ray rip of a certain new Pixar robot flick and it looks great on my 52" 1080p display. My buddy brought his Blue-Ray DVD player over to compare the 2 images of the same movie. There were 5 of us observing, 2 cinema employees and 3 Circuit City employees. 2 couldn't really tell the difference and the other 3 said they could make out very minor differences but certainly not enough to warrant spending the extra money to buy a Blue-Ray player and have to pay the high cost of the media. In the end the Blue-Ray owner was left upset shaking his head looking at his player while 3 others were looking up prices for the atv ... especially after I showed them the Boxee hack ;)

In my opinion the disc is dead ... at least in my household it is!!

1) How valid are opinions of people that don't know it's called Blu-ray? It's not Blue Ray, and there is no DVD in it (just as DVDs aren't DVCDs).
2) So Blu-ray is dead because you can steal HD videos from elsewhere and, well, that's cheaper? Forget all that. You fail to count that HD downloads will start to suck up hard drive space. You eventually will need to buy extra hard drives, and that will cost you about $120 for 500GB. If the HD movie downloads cost $25 each, you're maybe saving $5 for a lower-quality video with no ability to play without an ATV, iPod or computer. Oh yeah, no special features either. You have to fork out $230 for the ATV, which is more than a bunch of BD players were this weekend.
3) I'll say this again: The idiot Blu-ray owner sulked at owning a BD player and then looked at a $230 device? This held water a year ago, but BD players are comparably priced. A Samsung unit that I would buy if I didn't have one already is $200 most places. Samsung and LG models with Netflix streaming are $300. Some POS Wal-Mart offbrand unit was $130 on Black Friday. No HD movies are available for download, so where is the frickin' advantage?

I own both a BD player and an Apple TV, but I'm not about to tout the ATV as some magic box that will sink Blu-ray Disc or even DVD. Apple still can't manage a decent UI for ATV even though iTunes is the perfect model. No, I still can't easily get to playlists or reliably play video without it telling me it's in the wrong format (5 minutes after playing the same video). You may love living disc-free in your house, and I don't think you should change your ways. But the majority of people (VAST majority) aren't going to give up discs in the next decade. Bank on it.

[MagnusVonMagnum]

true...i think most people sit way too close due to room size limitations. For tv's over 55 inch you really should be sitting pretty far back...most likely the proper seating arrangement is only attainable in an open floor layout and not a "bedroom" or similar squarish 15 ft by 15 ft layout.

I think your information is a bit outdated. Still reading the distances suggested for standard definition NTSC CRT displays per chance? I've got a 93" screen and I sit 8 feet away. It STILL doesn't look anywhere near as big as a typical movie theater in terms of how much of my peripheral vision it encompasses. So no, it's not too big. As for how close you sit, even standard definition distances don't apply if you are using a scan-doubler and any modern LCD or DLP or plasma display have scan-doublers (if not quadruplers) in them. Hence, the old numbers no longer apply.

The real issues I've noticed is that sitting any closer than 6-7 feet you start getting eye strain from focal length issues. That is to say you need to sit far enough away that your eyes are focused on infinity or your eyes can feel tired. My eyes bothered me far more with a 57" CRT HDTV that was so deep that I ended up sitting 5.5 feet away from the edge of the screen than having a 93" screen that is 8 feet away from my eyes. The larger screen is not an issue. I could easily go to a 120" 2.35:1 ratio screen (using a Panavision lens) to increase the width of the picture to the sides of the room practically and eye strain would be no worse nor would resolving distances. The key for me is to sit over 7 feet away and my eyes are comfortable.

The problem with older standard definition displays were that you could see scan lines if you sat too close and like "screen door" issues with some LCD displays, it's simply unacceptable to look at for most people. Scan doublers halved (and quadruplers halve yet again) the old distances, though and pretty much eliminated the problem. Newer LCD projectors (mine is a Panasonic PT-AX100U) don't have screen door issues unless you sit closer than 4 feet away or thereabouts, so again, sitting close is not an issue. 8 feet for a 93" 16:9 screen feels fine to me. I'd prefer a 2.35:1 screen with the same height, though for movies like Star Wars so I'd have no bars. Sitting halfway up at one of my favorite movie theaters, the screen is still much larger in size relative to my peripheral vision than I can attain with a 93" 16x9 screen at that distance.


okay...just remember your eye doctors phone number because you will be needing glasses/stronger prescription over time.


That is tantamount to an old wives tale. Ask any competent eye doctor and they will tell you that temporary eye strain does NOT lead to permanently worse vision. At worst, it will result in a slight blurring from tired eye muscles. It will not permanently harm your vision. True vision changes are the result of the natural changes in eyeball length and shape, not muscle strain on the focusing lens muscles.

[iMars]

So your reasoning for the Apple TV to do 1080p is just because everything else does it regardless of whether it is worth it at all? Considering no content on iTunes will ever be 1080p for at least another 5 years (the internet struggles as it is, ISP's won't let people watch movies that are 10GB's every few nights).

Plus ripping Blu-Ray movies is tricky with all the content protection, so tell me, why do you want a 1080p Apple TV?
Why not? As I have a 40" FullHD LCD TV since a few weeks, I'm addicted to FullHD movies. I've seen SD TV on it, normal DVD, 720P and 1080P on it. And to be honest... 720P looks great,... but 1080p looks much better... so to answer your question on why? Why look 720p if you can look 1080p?


I want something that's future proof (at least for a few years) and I want all my sources to match my display devices. If the ATV was 1080i capable we wouldn't be having this discussion. But since it's not why not have the next version be 1080P capable instead of just 1080i? Even $80 upconverting DVD players output 1080P. I doubt there is much of a cost difference to upgrade the ATV to 1080P vs. 1080i.

BTW, good discussion.
Very good discussion indeed!
Lets get a few things straight. The Apple TV can output at both 1080i (since 1.x) and even 1080p (since 2.x) on supported displays. However, playback is limited to 720p.

There's a big difference between outputting at a certain resolution and playing back content at a certain resolution.

That's exactly what the Apple TV is capable of doing. It's upscaling content just like your DVD player.

The Apple TV just cannot playback files that are greater than 720p, just like your upscaling DVD player cannot playback files that are greater than 480p/576p (PAL).

1080p content is a long ways off from being mainstream. In fact, the only place you can get 1080p content at the moment is Blu-ray.

I do think 720p @ 30 fps support would be nice. They should also update the processor and RAM so it can support 1080i @ 24/30 fps just for kicks (less compression time on my part from EyeTV recordings).
I think you're wrong, imho. Well, you're right about the Apple TV, for sure.

But saying that 1080p is a long way off from being mainstream, doesn't mean that Apple doesn't have to make a 1080p player (Apple TV). Just because the fastest Mac Pro isn't mainstream, doesn't mean that it shouldn't excist ;)

I'm about to buy a mediacenter, and to be honest, Apple TV was my first choice, but because of the limitation (720p), I don't think it's worth it ($299), while a HDX-1000 (http://learnhd.blogspot.com/2008/10/hdx1000-review-1-whats-in-box-and.html) costs about $219 (without hdd, but that aint the costs).

So if Apple do bring out a 1080p version, I'll be very interested, else... the HDX1000 (http://learnhd.blogspot.com/2008/10/hdx1000-review-1-whats-in-box-and.html) wins.

[Nakor]

Just throwin in my 2 cents here ;) I dont see a reason why Apple couldnt have enabled the aTV to play higher resolution files. Im sure the price premium wouldnt have been that great - and certainly isnt now. Ive already modded the aTV to play other formats, just wish it could play better quality.

IMO I think this is one case where the simple is better motto isnt quite working out so well... but who am I? :p

[boomish]

Why not? As I have a 40" FullHD LCD TV since a few weeks, I'm addicted to FullHD movies. I've seen SD TV on it, normal DVD, 720P and 1080P on it. And to be honest... 720P looks great,... but 1080p looks much better... so to answer your question on why? Why look 720p if you can look 1080p?

I'm about to buy a mediacenter, and to be honest, Apple TV was my first choice, but because of the limitation (720p), I don't think it's worth it ($299), while a HDX-1000 (http://learnhd.blogspot.com/2008/10/hdx1000-review-1-whats-in-box-and.html) costs about $219 (without hdd, but that aint the costs).

So if Apple do bring out a 1080p version, I'll be very interested, else... the HDX1000 (http://learnhd.blogspot.com/2008/10/hdx1000-review-1-whats-in-box-and.html) wins.

well I was going to build a media Centre PC, I have Mac's for my music work but PC's for my games and office, in the end I promted for an ATV as an interim as to be honest it is so cheap & easy compared to building a Media PC, I have a 50" plasma and have downloaded and ripped tons of movies now 135 movies filling 500GB so a lot of HD ones, which I stream via my old G5 (new Mac Pro in studio) and I must admit it looks amazing, having all the kids films etc all organised is fantastic. Compared to the PS3 I have is negligable you really have to A/B them, which your just not going to do when you want to sit and browse to a movie, the other main selling point is we can sift through our synced photo's this alone means we can see the photo's taken that day rather than huddled around a computer screen, plus the peace that I know my photo's are backup not just by my computer 's backup but by ATV. You can expand it now to 350Gb for less than £50!
The plan was always to build a Media PC but seeing as that was over 6 months ago, now I'm not sure if I can be bothered.
Everyone that comes round and see's the little Apple box wants one :)

[Chupa Chupa]

The problem with the 1080p hype is that most people sit way too far from their television to tell the difference.

1080p is no more hype than a nail gun. In the right application it's the right tool. Now I suspect you would not hang a picture with a nail gun, you'd use a hammer, just as you wouldn't frame a house with a hammer, you you'd a nail gun. Same goes with 1080p. It looks great on a large (52"+) screen, but on a smaller screen it's overkill. But there is a difference between "hype," and "overkill."

[iOrlando]

i think the more "stuff" you currently use and have on tv's and such...the less "useful" apple TV would be....

For me...I have about 8 dvds...dont watch any of them....dont have any tv shows/movies outside of itunes....so i use the 40gb ATV to rent HD movies..youtube..probably will try this hulu thing down the road...and it works fine....but if i was dealing with converting dvd files and such..i can see hassle and what not....

I think of apple products as a ecosystem...they usually will work fine with each other...and apple likes it like that...i have no problem just buying apple products for entertainment purposes hence why i didnt bother with the whole netflix or x-box movie rental systems..

this whole issue of 1080i and such...does anyone have a video or site that can show the difference between the two because i am still skeptical it will make such a different. kinda reminds me of a fictious argument like which is better? HD or HD++ or HD plus premium or HD Ultra premium...etc..

[NightStorm]

1080p is no more hype than a nail gun. In the right application it's the right tool. Now I suspect you would not hang a picture with a nail gun, you'd use a hammer, just as you wouldn't frame a house with a hammer, you you'd a nail gun. Same goes with 1080p. It looks great on a large (52"+) screen, but on a smaller screen it's overkill. But there is a difference between "hype," and "overkill."
No, it looks no different than a 52" 720p screen if you're sitting too far from it. My point was that salespeople/consumers give no thought to their actual room and seating arrangements, and just buy it because 1080 > 720 so it must be what they need. I have a sneaking suspicion that 720p is more than enough for the majority of living rooms in the United States.

[NightStorm]

I think your information is a bit outdated. Still reading the distances suggested for standard definition NTSC CRT displays per chance? I've got a 93" screen and I sit 8 feet away. It STILL doesn't look anywhere near as big as a typical movie theater in terms of how much of my peripheral vision it encompasses. So no, it's not too big. As for how close you sit, even standard definition distances don't apply if you are using a scan-doubler and any modern LCD or DLP or plasma display have scan-doublers (if not quadruplers) in them. Hence, the old numbers no longer apply.

The real issues I've noticed is that sitting any closer than 6-7 feet you start getting eye strain from focal length issues. That is to say you need to sit far enough away that your eyes are focused on infinity or your eyes can feel tired. My eyes bothered me far more with a 57" CRT HDTV that was so deep that I ended up sitting 5.5 feet away from the edge of the screen than having a 93" screen that is 8 feet away from my eyes. The larger screen is not an issue. I could easily go to a 120" 2.35:1 ratio screen (using a Panavision lens) to increase the width of the picture to the sides of the room practically and eye strain would be no worse nor would resolving distances. The key for me is to sit over 7 feet away and my eyes are comfortable.

The problem with older standard definition displays were that you could see scan lines if you sat too close and like "screen door" issues with some LCD displays, it's simply unacceptable to look at for most people. Scan doublers halved (and quadruplers halve yet again) the old distances, though and pretty much eliminated the problem. Newer LCD projectors (mine is a Panasonic PT-AX100U) don't have screen door issues unless you sit closer than 4 feet away or thereabouts, so again, sitting close is not an issue. 8 feet for a 93" 16:9 screen feels fine to me. I'd prefer a 2.35:1 screen with the same height, though for movies like Star Wars so I'd have no bars. Sitting halfway up at one of my favorite movie theaters, the screen is still much larger in size relative to my peripheral vision than I can attain with a 93" 16x9 screen at that distance.



That is tantamount to an old wives tale. Ask any competent eye doctor and they will tell you that temporary eye strain does NOT lead to permanently worse vision. At worst, it will result in a slight blurring from tired eye muscles. It will not permanently harm your vision. True vision changes are the result of the natural changes in eyeball length and shape, not muscle strain on the focusing lens muscles.

Thank you for posting this. I was going to write a reply to his comment last night when I got home from work and completely forgot.

[iOrlando]

I think your information is a bit outdated. Still reading the distances suggested for standard definition NTSC CRT displays per chance? I've got a 93" screen and I sit 8 feet away. It STILL doesn't look anywhere near as big as a typical movie theater in terms of how much of my peripheral vision it encompasses. So no, it's not too big. As for how close you sit, even standard definition distances don't apply if you are using a scan-doubler and any modern LCD or DLP or plasma display have scan-doublers (if not quadruplers) in them. Hence, the old numbers no longer apply.

The real issues I've noticed is that sitting any closer than 6-7 feet you start getting eye strain from focal length issues. That is to say you need to sit far enough away that your eyes are focused on infinity or your eyes can feel tired. My eyes bothered me far more with a 57" CRT HDTV that was so deep that I ended up sitting 5.5 feet away from the edge of the screen than having a 93" screen that is 8 feet away from my eyes. The larger screen is not an issue. I could easily go to a 120" 2.35:1 ratio screen (using a Panavision lens) to increase the width of the picture to the sides of the room practically and eye strain would be no worse nor would resolving distances. The key for me is to sit over 7 feet away and my eyes are comfortable.

The problem with older standard definition displays were that you could see scan lines if you sat too close and like "screen door" issues with some LCD displays, it's simply unacceptable to look at for most people. Scan doublers halved (and quadruplers halve yet again) the old distances, though and pretty much eliminated the problem. Newer LCD projectors (mine is a Panasonic PT-AX100U) don't have screen door issues unless you sit closer than 4 feet away or thereabouts, so again, sitting close is not an issue. 8 feet for a 93" 16:9 screen feels fine to me. I'd prefer a 2.35:1 screen with the same height, though for movies like Star Wars so I'd have no bars. Sitting halfway up at one of my favorite movie theaters, the screen is still much larger in size relative to my peripheral vision than I can attain with a 93" 16x9 screen at that distance.



That is tantamount to an old wives tale. Ask any competent eye doctor and they will tell you that temporary eye strain does NOT lead to permanently worse vision. At worst, it will result in a slight blurring from tired eye muscles. It will not permanently harm your vision. True vision changes are the result of the natural changes in eyeball length and shape, not muscle strain on the focusing lens muscles.




Here's a chart about proper distance....seems like you are sitting too close for comfort..

[jaw04005]

Why not? As I have a 40" FullHD LCD TV since a few weeks, I'm addicted to FullHD movies. I've seen SD TV on it, normal DVD, 720P and 1080P on it. And to be honest... 720P looks great,... but 1080p looks much better... so to answer your question on why? Why look 720p if you can look 1080p?.

You do realize this likely has about as much to do your HDTV's internal scaler than it does the resolution bump from 720p to 1080p on 40" TV, right?

For example, one of my HDTVs is 720p (actually 1366x768p). You would think that a 1080i source would look just as good as a 720p source (progressive vs. interlaced aside).

However, my specific HDTV scales 1080i sources particuarly poor. Therefore, if I'm watching a 1080i source on my 720p HDTV---it looks worse than when I watch a 720p source.

I think you're wrong, imho. Well, you're right about the Apple TV, for sure..

Well at least you now understand that the Apple TV can "output" 1080p, correct? Just like your $80 DVD player. At least we've furthered the discussion to 1080p playback instead of 1080p output.

But saying that 1080p is a long way off from being mainstream, doesn't mean that Apple doesn't have to make a 1080p player (Apple TV). Just because the fastest Mac Pro isn't mainstream, doesn't mean that it shouldn't excist ;)

I'm not against 1080p. I just think 1080p source material is hard to come by, and the technology right now requires a substantial jump in hardware compared to just 720p. For example, the Apple TV's processor would likely have to be bumped up to a Core 2 Duo from a single-core Pentium M to properly play back 1080p files.

This would likely lead to a price hike for a price sensitive device. A price hike is the last thing the Apple TV needs at the moment. If Apple can upgrade manage to upgrade the Apple TV to support 1080p and not jack up the price I'm all for it.

I'm about to buy a mediacenter, and to be honest, Apple TV was my first choice, but because of the limitation (720p), I don't think it's worth it ($299), while a HDX-1000 (http://learnhd.blogspot.com/2008/10/hdx1000-review-1-whats-in-box-and.html) costs about $219 (without hdd, but that aint the costs)..

How's the user interface on that device?

[Kilamite]

Why not? As I have a 40" FullHD LCD TV since a few weeks, I'm addicted to FullHD movies. I've seen SD TV on it, normal DVD, 720P and 1080P on it. And to be honest... 720P looks great,... but 1080p looks much better... so to answer your question on why? Why look 720p if you can look 1080p?

If. Exactly...if.

Blu-Ray is the only source of 1080p movies, and you can't rip them very easily, plus the storage size if you did rip them.

So why do you want the Apple TV to do 1080p if there is no media available that is 1080p for it? Do you want it to be a Blu-Ray player as well? If so, then I understand your argument, but not agree with it, since the idea of the Apple TV is to eliminate the need to get off your backside and put a disc in.

[kiranmk2]

I'm not against 1080p. I just think 1080p source material is hard to come by, and the technology right now requires a substantial jump in hardware compared to just 720p. For example, the Apple TV's processor would likely have to be bumped up to a Core 2 Duo from a single-core Pentium M to properly play back 1080p files.

This would likely lead to a price hike for a price sensitive device. A price hike is the last thing the Apple TV needs at the moment. If Apple can upgrade manage to upgrade the Apple TV to support 1080p and not jack up the price I'm all for it.



Unless Apple use the nVidia 9400M chipset from the macbooks - 1080p decoding on a chip allowing a cooler CPU to be used. I've already got a 160 Gb ATV, but a 1080p unit with 3.5" disk would make me upgrade just for future-proofing.

[MagnusVonMagnum]

Here's a chart about proper distance....seems like you are sitting too close for comfort..

If you say so. No one that's watched it has complained one bit yet and it's perfectly comfortable to me. 18 feet is a far cry from 8 feet yet 1080P is only 11 feet on your chart? The reviews of the Panasonic quoted no aberrations at 4 feet even. The old method was where the eye could discern scan lines. What is it now? Something someone made up? You can't see screen door or scan lines at 8 feet and it doesn't cause eye strain and YET it's still not as "big" looking as a movie theater so I can't agree with that chart at all.

[kiranmk2]

Unless Apple use the nVidia 9400M chipset from the macbooks - 1080p decoding on a chip allowing a cooler CPU to be used. I've already got a 160 Gb ATV, but a 1080p unit with 3.5" disk would make me upgrade just for future-proofing.

In fact, not a day after I made this comment, look at what's coming out

http://www.engadget.com/2008/12/03/asus-eee-box-b204-b206-grows-an-hdmi-port-handles-high-def-ma/

1080p HD material from a 20 W box with an Atom cpu.

[dynaflash]

Unless Apple use the nVidia 9400M chipset from the macbooks - 1080p decoding on a chip allowing a cooler CPU to be used. I've already got a 160 Gb ATV, but a 1080p unit with 3.5" disk would make me upgrade just for future-proofing.
Would be nice. Of course the current atv already hands off a good chunk of its h.264 decoding to the existing Nvidia 7300 GeForce Go GPU likely via nvidia's TrueVideo API. Its one of the reasons newer rev's of the atv can play back higher quality content than the older versions imho as the atv software is modified to better interact with the nvidia chip.

http://www.anandtech.com/mac/showdoc.aspx?i=2951&p=6

http://www.nvidia.com/page/go_7300.html

A side note: Evidence of this is found on the boxee forums as the devs have been having issues getting boxee to properly utilize the full potential of the video gpu in the atv. Hence poorer playback capabilities than the stock atv software.

We can properly assume that apple's atv engineers have full access to the nvidia's decoding api and can/have taken better advantage of it.

[Cave Man]

Of course the current atv already hands off a good chunk of its h.264 decoding to the existing Nvidia 7300 GeForce Go GPU likely via nvidia's TrueVideo API. ...Evidence of this is found on the boxee forums as the devs have been having issues getting boxee to properly utilize the full potential of the video gpu in the atv. Hence poorer playback capabilities than the stock atv software.

That would seem to also explain why XBMC, which solely relies on cpu, also sucks on the ATV.

[dynaflash]

That would seem to also explain why XBMC, which solely relies on cpu, also sucks on the ATV.

Probably, as well evidence of new atv software updates upgrading the atv's use of the gpu for decoding also help explain why as of version 2, for the first time the atv actually offered higher specs for h.264 than for MPEG-4. Normally MPEG-4 is much less cpu intensive to decode than h.264, however the nvidia gpu cannot decode regular MPEG-4 so its all done by the atv's 1Ghz cpu.

http://www.apple.com/appletv/specs.html

Not always but sometimes those apple fellers are pretty smart.

[jaw04005]

If they can do 1080p with the current hardware — that'd be fantastic. Although, I'd rather have on-the-fly playlist creation for Movies, TV Shows and Podcasts first. :)

We used to have a member who was on the Apple TV team. I know he answered many of our questions about the Take 2 update. I'm sure we've scared him off by now, but maybe someday he'll comment on the CPU/GPU.

On a side note, I really love my Apple TV (especially since the 2.3 update). I just wish Steve Jobs would quit calling it a hobby. :rolleyes:

It makes it sound like he's prepared to dump it at anytime.

[dynaflash]

If they can do 1080p with the current hardware — that'd be fantastic.
Well, even using the gpu for decoding 1080p with any real decent bitrate and options seems unlikely, right now they aren't even doing 720 at 29 fps, only 24 (though I have manually transferred 29fps at 720 with cabac even and the atv played it just fine, which points to an iTunes limitation not atv). But, each update does seem to squeeze a bit more out of the decoder .... we can only hope.

[carlgo]

All this seems to be an either/or discussion. Why not a combo atv/blu-ray unit? Some things are more convenient on disk and others as downloads. An all-in-one Apple device would have been nice.

As it is, I bought a $200 Black Friday Sony BR player. Accessing and loading disks is not that hard, really, and the quality is the best possible.

Yes, I know Apple wants to sell downloads. I don't think offering access to disks would limit ITunes sales at all. People who will not commit to atv would have one and if they liked the service, they would use it, eventually migrating almost exclusively to downloads. Right now you have to either get two devices, or commit to one or the other.

1080p is what people want, like it or not, or whether they "need" it or not. Any new device needs to work at 1080p or it will not sell as well as it might.

[VTMac]

1080p is what people want, like it or not, or whether they "need" it or not. Any new device needs to work at 1080p or it will not sell as well as it might.

LOL. This statement couldn't be further from the truth. The truth is a small minority of message boards posters, technology geeks, and videophiles want 1080p (blu ray). The FACT is that the sales figures are making it painfully clear, that even at $200 (and less), the average public doesn't care about 1080p content (blu ray) at all.

Apple is not going to push any technology that either doesn't already have a mainstream market demand .. or that doesn't in some way create a competitive advantage for them. Blu ray has no mainstream demand whatsoever. And the technology provides Apple with no unique competitive advantage (think technology lock in). Hence we see blu ray on 0 Apple products.

[d21mike]

If I understand this correctly, the TV Setting of 1080P means the AppleTV will UP-CONVERT to 1080P, Right? If so, why can't it support full HD as the input source?

Thanks,

[fivepoint]

LOL. This statement couldn't be further from the truth. The truth is a small minority of message boards posters, technology geeks, and videophiles want 1080p (blu ray). The FACT is that the sales figures are making it painfully clear, that even at $200 (and less), the average public doesn't care about 1080p content (blu ray) at all.

Apple is not going to push any technology that either doesn't already have a mainstream market demand .. or that doesn't in some way create a competitive advantage for them. Blu ray has no mainstream demand whatsoever. And the technology provides Apple with no unique competitive advantage (think technology lock in). Hence we see blu ray on 0 Apple products.

I tend to agree. I think it's becoming more and more obvious that 1080p and Blu-Ray are not necessarily the next big thing. If I had to put money down at this moment, I'd put it on 720p downloadable and streaming content becoming the next big thing.

[srl7741]

If I understand this correctly, the TV Setting of 1080P means the AppleTV will UP-CONVERT to 1080P, Right? If so, why can't it support full HD as the input source?

Thanks,

To expand on your question does this also mean that the ATV should be set to 720p on that menu even tho your TV may have 1080p? I was wondering about that. I have switched back and forth a few times from 720 to 1080 and streamed a movie. I don't see any difference in the picture quality.

.

[MagnusVonMagnum]

LOL. This statement couldn't be further from the truth. The truth is a small minority of message boards posters, technology geeks, and videophiles want 1080p (blu ray). The FACT is that the sales figures are making it painfully clear, that even at $200 (and less), the average public doesn't care about 1080p content (blu ray) at all.

I don't think you've looked much outside these Apple forums then. Blu-Ray is currently being adopted at a much faster pace than the DVD was when it was first introduced. So how you can possibly suggest the public doesn't want it, I don't know other than the typical ignorance of all things outside Apple I find on these forums on a near daily basis.


Apple is not going to push any technology that either doesn't already have a mainstream market demand .. or that doesn't in some way create a competitive advantage for them. Blu ray has no mainstream demand whatsoever.


The no mainstream bit is total bologna (see above). The truth is Apple doesn't want to support Blu-ray because it conflicts with their own HD movie rentals and tv show sales (and they probably have more plans over time with iTunes). That's money straight into their pockets. And Apple has proven time and time again, that it acts only out of the interests of their wallets. They don't care about consumer desires, be it mid-range towers or OS X Blu-ray movie support. They only care about maximizing profit and often emphasizing form (Steve seems obsessed with 'thin') over function.


And the technology provides Apple with no unique competitive advantage (think technology lock in). Hence we see blu ray on 0 Apple products.

Read: Blu-ray offers Apple no barrels of money so why bother with it even if ticks off a few non-fanboys that look outside of iTunes once in awhile. Never mind that you cannot buy HD movies even at 720P on iTunes yet, only rent. Even then, I could not rent the so-so Indiana Jones Crystal Skull movie on my AppleTV for reasons unknown, only in SD and only after over 30 days from when the DVD was released.

And while some of you might not be able to tell a DVD from a Blu-ray disc on your 24" monitors at 12 feet away, it's near earth shattering noticeable on a 93" screen at 8 feet, even with a 720P projector (and even with an ATV 720P HD rental for that matter; both look leaps and bounds better than DVD). That same projector/screen combo I bought for over $2000 a year and a half ago can now be had for around $1200 total, maybe less, which is about the same as a so-so brand 48" flat-screen. It simply requires lower room lighting and slightly more initial set-up time.

If I understand this correctly, the TV Setting of 1080P means the AppleTV will UP-CONVERT to 1080P, Right? If so, why can't it support full HD as the input source?

Thanks,

AppleTV has two major problems. One is its hardware isn't really up to the task of decoding 1080P video. It only has a 1GHz processor off the Pentium M line, if I remember correctly and so compression would have to be light to even hope for it to work. The other problem is bandwidth in delivering movies. Apple is mostly interested in selling you stuff. They don't care about you encoding your own stuff and don't support it. They don't support 3rd party services unless they have a deal with them (e.g. You Tube) or we'd have official support for Boxee or any of its derivative sources by now (like Hulu). The amount of bandwidth needed to transfer a 1080P movie (even highly compressed, which is probably a non-option for today's ATV hardware) is pretty high. With a 5Mbit connection, I can just barely watch a 720P compressed movie in near real time (1-2 minute delay on average before it says I can start watching). With 1080P, I'd probably have to wait for 1/3 or more of the movie to download before I could even hope to start watching it and that's assuming it isn't constantly breaking up due to a lack of processing power to handle it.

Really, 720P HD movies look pretty darn good on my 93" screen at a mere 8 feet (better than anything on cable including HDNet, which is by far cable's best HD station in terms of quality). I really don't see a strong need for 1080P unless you have much larger screen sizes. I really do think most people simply have this "bigger is better" notion of numbers in their head. And sure if you have a 200" screen at 12 feet even, I fully understand why you'd want 1080P and I certainly would want it for actually BUYING movies (archiving). But for rentals, the vast majority of people out there should be happy with Apple's quality for HD movies. But the bigger is better notion means even people with 20" monitors won't be happy because they have it in their mind that 1080P is where it's at. I'm sure Sony loves that notion, though.

Even if future ATV hardware makes 1080P a breeze and you don't mind longer downloads or assume the average Internet connection will improve in the next few years, it'll create yet ANOTHER problem in that 1080P movies would be completely incompatible with current ATV hardware, resulting in the need to carry every HD movie rental TWICE *or* abandon the entire current ATV user base. Maybe Apple should have planned ahead a little better and included beefier hardware from the start. I'm sure they were thinking cost advantage at the time, but technology things and prices change quickly whereas video standards like 1080P will probably be around for a LONG time.

[d21mike]

To expand on your question does this also mean that the ATV should be set to 720p on that menu even tho your TV may have 1080p? I was wondering about that. I have switched back and forth a few times from 720 to 1080 and streamed a movie. I don't see any difference in the picture quality.

.

I really do not know. However, with my "cable box" it is better for me to use the highest posible setting (1080I) so that my TV does not keep switching modes. If I allow all settings in the cable box you can see a major change between going from an HD Channel to s SD Channel. Not sure if this has anything to do with HDMI or my TV or ???.

[Kilamite]

To expand on your question does this also mean that the ATV should be set to 720p on that menu even tho your TV may have 1080p? I was wondering about that. I have switched back and forth a few times from 720 to 1080 and streamed a movie. I don't see any difference in the picture quality.

Upscaling to 1080p and being able to playback at 1080p are completely different. Being able to playback 1080p is very processor intensive. However, upscaling it to 1080p just means it'll be able to output any source (up to 720p) to resolution.

No, you don't have to switch between 720p and 1080p for your Apple TV - it won't affect the quality at all. Same scenario: switching your Mac's resolution isn't going to change the video playback quality (unless of course you choose a screen resolution lower than the video resolution which would result in downscaling).

[dynaflash]

The no mainstream bit is total bologna
Fair enough statement .... so then we would conclude that you prove it here ...
And while some of you might not be able to tell a DVD from a Blu-ray disc on your 24" monitors at 12 feet away, it's near earth shattering noticeable on a 93" screen at 8 feet, even with a 720P projector (and even with an ATV 720P HD rental for that matter; both look leaps and bounds better than DVD).
93" screen at 8 feet away ... very mainstream


its hardware isn't really up to the task of decoding 1080P video. It only has a 1GHz processor off the Pentium M line, if I remember correctly and so compression would have to be light to even hope for it to work.
... And you really think they are decoding even 720p with that cpu alone ? I think not, just ask the xmbc and boxee devs.
Really, 720P HD movies look pretty darn good on my 93" screen at a mere 8 feet (better than anything on cable including HDNet, which is by far cable's best HD station in terms of quality). I really don't see a strong need for 1080P unless you have much larger screen sizes. I really do think most people simply have this "bigger is better" notion of numbers in their head. And sure if you have a 200" screen at 12 feet even, I fully understand why you'd want 1080P and I certainly would want it for actually BUYING movies (archiving).
Sooo I gotta ask , the point of your original argument I quoted above is .... ?

[dynaflash]

Maybe Apple should have planned ahead a little better and included beefier hardware from the start. I'm sure they were thinking cost advantage at the time, but technology things and prices change quickly whereas video standards like 1080P will probably be around for a LONG time.
Ever feel the top of your atv with the "weak" components inside ?
Toss in even a 2.16 intel c2d and you would have the China Syndrome.
In fact, the existing 1Ghz pentium m in the atv is reportedly underclocked for exactly that thermal reason. As with all things, there is a balance between function and form.

[jaw04005]

If I understand this correctly, the TV Setting of 1080P means the AppleTV will UP-CONVERT to 1080P, Right? If so, why can't it support full HD as the input source?

Because there is a big difference in terms of performance between upscaling to 1080p and playing back files at 1080p.

Your $50 up-scaling DVD player can output 1080p, but it doesn't have the horsepower to play back Blu-ray discs (even if it had a Blu-ray drive).

Same thing.

To expand on your question does this also mean that the ATV should be set to 720p on that menu even tho your TV may have 1080p? I was wondering about that. I have switched back and forth a few times from 720 to 1080 and streamed a movie. I don't see any difference in the picture quality.

That's because either your 1080p HDTV is so good at upscaling you can't tell the difference or your HDTV is 720p. You should at least be able to tell the difference in terms of menu/text clarity.

If you have a 1080p HDTV, set the Apple TV output to 1080p
If you have a 720p/1080i HDTV, set the Apple TV output to 720p.
If you have a 480i/1080i HDTV, set the Apple TV output to 1080i.
If you have a 480p EDTV, set the Apple TV output to 480p.*
If you have a 480i TV, set the Apple TV output to 480i.*

If your PAL, substitute 576 for 480. :)

* This resolution is unsupported by Apple. Your EDTV or TV needs to either be 16:9 or have a "widescreen mode" feature.

[christian2006]

wow,

did not think it would kick off this much discussion :)

I can see the argument about 720p and 1080p. FIVES Gadget show in the UK did a side by side comparision of the Apple TV and a blu-ray player.

They had the same TV, HDMI cable and watched the same movie, I am legend.

The Blu-ray won but only just. The one thing that let the Apple TV down is that it took 4 hours for the film to start playing. However they did not say what connection speed they had which I feel was unfair as people may assume that 4 hours is how long it would take for everyone.

Regardless of quality I just feel Apple TV and iTunes as it content source which legal is the only source if we leave out ripping DVD etc. Is poor value for money when you can get a blu-ray player for less or a PS3 which will do media streaming. And there are blu-ray disc rental packages that are better than value than renting movies from iTunes at £4.49 a pop for a HD version.

I have only ever rented 1 movie on my Mac at full price and a few of the 99p offerings. I would like to rent HD movies but can't on my Mac.

I also can't play blu-ray dvd on my Mac. (only if I boot Windows!!)

Apple for me need to push the price of movies down, even better have a subscription for their hobby to work.

[MagnusVonMagnum]

Fair enough statement .... so then we would conclude that you prove it here ...

93" screen at 8 feet away ... very mainstream


I'm sorry, but your post makes no sense to me what-so-ever. There is no point made that I can see and no argument given, only hard to comprehend comments. You seem stuck on some strange idea about how close you should sit to an HDTV. "Mainstream" would be 32 inch set, BTW. Let me know when you get a 93" one and we'll talk.

Ever feel the top of your atv with the "weak" components inside ?
Toss in even a 2.16 intel c2d and you would have the China Syndrome.
In fact, the existing 1Ghz pentium m in the atv is reportedly underclocked for exactly that thermal reason. As with all things, there is a balance between function and form.

Ever hear of using a larger case so it doesn't get that hot? The thing is unnecessarily small. It could be the size of a rack-mounted CD player and it wouldn't make a bit of difference to me. It's going on an equipment rack no matter what anyway. But Steve Jobs seems obsessed with thin boxy shapes for some bizarre reason. Maybe instead of a so-called 'balance' between form and function, function should take priority and form should follow. Who wants something that doesn't work right or doesn't work as well as it could have because Steve wants it to look like miniaturized pizza box? The same could be said of the Mac Mini and the iMac too. A little larger size would provide much faster speeds and larger storage sizes. They would still be pretty small, but oh so much nicer.

[dynaflash]

I'm sorry, but your post makes no sense to me what-so-ever. There is no point made that I can see and no argument given, only hard to comprehend comments. You seem stuck on some strange idea about how close you should sit to an HDTV. "Mainstream" would be 32 inch set, BTW. Let me know when you get a 93" one and we'll talk.
My fault, the impression I got was you were repudiating a previous posters contention that 1080p was not mainstream. To me it looked like you were making the argument that 1080p is mainstream, and then went on to illustrate what a difference it makes on your totally *huge* projector setup. I was merely pointing out that I did not think your massive setup was mainstream.

Mea Culpa

Ever hear of using a larger case so it doesn't get that hot? The thing is unnecessarily small. It could be the size of a rack-mounted CD player and it wouldn't make a bit of difference to me. It's going on an equipment rack no matter what anyway.
Maybe, imho I still think you would need a fan setup >= an mbp, and personally I would not want those fans screaming away in my entertainment center. But no matter, I would wager Jobs and Co. do not come here looking for advice anyway. :)

[srl7741]

I really do not know. However, with my "cable box" it is better for me to use the highest posible setting (1080I) so that my TV does not keep switching modes. If I allow all settings in the cable box you can see a major change between going from an HD Channel to s SD Channel. Not sure if this has anything to do with HDMI or my TV or ???.

Upscaling to 1080p and being able to playback at 1080p are completely different. Being able to playback 1080p is very processor intensive. However, upscaling it to 1080p just means it'll be able to output any source (up to 720p) to resolution.

No, you don't have to switch between 720p and 1080p for your Apple TV - it won't affect the quality at all. Same scenario: switching your Mac's resolution isn't going to change the video playback quality (unless of course you choose a screen resolution lower than the video resolution which would result in downscaling).



That's because either your 1080p HDTV is so good at upscaling you can't tell the difference or your HDTV is 720p. You should at least be able to tell the difference in terms of menu/text clarity.

If you have a 1080p HDTV, set the Apple TV output to 1080p
If you have a 720p/1080i HDTV, set the Apple TV output to 720p.
If you have a 480i/1080i HDTV, set the Apple TV output to 1080i.
If you have a 480p EDTV, set the Apple TV output to 480p.*
If you have a 480i TV, set the Apple TV output to 480i.*

If your PAL, substitute 576 for 480. :)

* This resolution is unsupported by Apple. Your EDTV or TV needs to either be 16:9 or have a "widescreen mode" feature.

Thanks for the replies, it has helped me understand things better.

The menus do seem to look a little more crisp when changing the ATV setting to 1080p however the movies I watch are the same quality. I can't see any difference when playing a movie so I have just kept the ATV setting on 1080p. (I'm using a 52' LCD TV 1080p) connected via HDMI cable.

ATV is working great so far and I have no complaints at all. It's nice to have all my multi-media in one place yet have several access points.


Again thanks for the help.

[VaDor]

I've talked to so many people that have gotten Blu-Ray and/or HDTVs in general and tell me they can't tell or can barely tell the difference between DVD and Blu-Ray OR SD television stations and HD ones. This is on 30-48 inch flat screens.

That is so wrong!!

If you friends can't distinguish from DVD and Blueray or SD and HD content, they have a cheapy hdtv television or are seeing the wrong channels thinking that are HD but are only SD.

I have a 42" sony bravia 2 with motionflow 100hz and I note the very diference between SD and HD, blueRay and Dvd and 720p e 1080p (this one specially in action scenes).

For a true HD experience Apple Tv as to support 1080p and you have to buy a good full HDTV (advise 40w4500 ou serie z from sony)!!! Or apple tv isn't a full HD machine....

[Cave Man]

For a true HD experience Apple Tv as to support 1080p and you have to buy a good full HDTV (advise 40w4500 ou serie z from sony)!!! Or apple tv isn't a full HD machine....

I though true HD was 4k. ;)

[EricM]

I'd take a progressive signal (720p) over an interlaced one (1080i) any day, but that's just my opinion.

I'd take the 1080i any day. My TV knows how to deinterlace, and there's enough information in 1080i60 to put a 24 fps film source back together perfectly. My TV scales well too, but there's no such thing as perfect scaling.

[mtbdudex]

Here's a chart about proper distance....seems like you are sitting too close for comfort..

Good post on the resolution/distance chart.
I've quoted that to many people.
My 42" 720p HDTV in the 1st floor family room works fine at our seating viewing distance.

I just finished my basement Home Theatre 130" DIY 2.35:1 curved screen (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=15186244#post15186244), seating at 10'6" and 16'6", and have been on the fencepost about AppleTV, I'd really like to go with it with full 1080p support....
(carpeting install is over xmas break)
http://lh3.ggpht.com/_FqTNmgNQHz8/ST4-kBPwOPI/AAAAAAAACok/Cj7rdNvypHY/s400/IMG_0324.JPG http://lh3.ggpht.com/_FqTNmgNQHz8/SUPBjsCt2aI/AAAAAAAACr8/JxQmNgRVpzQ/s400/IMG_0376.JPG

[iOrlando]

Good post on the resolution/distance chart.
I've quoted that to many people.
My 42" 720p HDTV in the 1st floor family room works fine at our seating viewing distance.

I just finished my basement Home Theatre 130" DIY 2.35:1 curved screen (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=15186244#post15186244), seating at 10'6" and 16'6", and have been on the fencepost about AppleTV, I'd really like to go with it with full 1080p support....
(carpeting install is over xmas break)
http://lh3.ggpht.com/_FqTNmgNQHz8/ST4-kBPwOPI/AAAAAAAACok/Cj7rdNvypHY/s400/IMG_0324.JPG http://lh3.ggpht.com/_FqTNmgNQHz8/SUPBjsCt2aI/AAAAAAAACr8/JxQmNgRVpzQ/s400/IMG_0376.JPG



nice setup....you have any sites that you used for research on benefits of the curved screens? I never heard much about it. What do you have for cable? digital/HD?

[OldGuyDave]

What AppleTV DOES need is more features (without having to hack it). It SHOULD have an internet browser and for goodness sake, it's about time they added a visualizer! Having to watch photo slideshows during music and nothing else SUCKS.

I agree with the people bemoaning the lack of a subscription feature. I have almost ZERO desire to 'own' television shows. But if there were a monthly fee to watch unlimited tv shows or better yet movies, I'd jump on board assuming it was reasonable. At bare minimum, they should offer a rental option for TV shows. I don't want to own, let alone store them!

I agree with that! A monthly fee for renting TV shows (World wide) I'd scrap my Pay TV rental for something like that.
I NEVER buy films and I'd never pay 3€ for a 20 Min. TV show I don't want to own!
But a monthly fee for renting TV shows and Movies would be good.
The problem is in Europe there are still no Movie sales and the TV shows are too expensive.
:(

But I still love my Apple TV!

[aiannar974]

I have a 1080p 52 inch tv that has never seen a 1080p signal. I wonder one thing - everything is gets, it needs to convert to 1080p. Doesn't this alone effect picture quality?

[carlgo]

LOL. This statement couldn't be further from the truth. The truth is a small minority of message boards posters, technology geeks, and videophiles want 1080p (blu ray). The FACT is that the sales figures are making it painfully clear, that even at $200 (and less), the average public doesn't care about 1080p content (blu ray) at all.

Apple is not going to push any technology that either doesn't already have a mainstream market demand .. or that doesn't in some way create a competitive advantage for them. Blu ray has no mainstream demand whatsoever. And the technology provides Apple with no unique competitive advantage (think technology lock in). Hence we see blu ray on 0 Apple products.

"LOL"? Only a small minority of message board posters...etc want 1080p? I certainly don't get that impression at all. Quite the opposite. Maybe you need to get off the Luddite Board and check it out.

A combo ATV/BR player would be that competitive advantage. I would guess that far more people are interested in BR players than ATVs. A combo unit would likely sell more briskly than a download-only device and that would have the obvious effect of increasing the population of ATVs and that would result in more downloads. Hmmm, more devices sold and more downloads...wouldn't that increase profits more than the "hobby" that ATV is now?

720p, 1080i, apple pie: it doesn't matter how many pixels or geekos per ions there are. The industry is marketed by morons who have created products that nobody understands, are difficult to install and operate and many people are afraid to buy. Nice job guys!

Disclaimer: my plasma is 720p. It is wonderful. If it broke, I would get a 1080p. It is the defacto standard now. You don't have to think it is a necessary standard, but you have to know that it is the standard.

[mtbdudex]

nice setup....you have any sites that you used for research on benefits of the curved screens? I never heard much about it. What do you have for cable? digital/HD?
Comcast HD DVR box, and PS3 for Blu-ray.


This will explain the benefits.
Basically if you watch "scope" (2.35:1) pictures with a PJ and anamorphic lens, you get some pincushion, the curved screen will minimize/eliminate that.
http://www.stewartfilmscreen.com/white_paper/curvedscreens_derskine_wp.pdf

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?p=15282219#post15282219

[G4R2]

I've had a 1080p compatible television since they first became available several years ago. Most programming, with the exception of some Bluray players, simply aren't encoded in this format so that benefits of that mode for viewing television hasn't been realized.

However, one important (at least to me) advantage of 1080p capability is the higher resolution afforded when connected to a computer. I routinely hook up my laptop to the television.

So I would agree with most of you who have said that video content delivered over 1080p on a properly enabled ATV probably won't add much value to the device.

But video content is just one of the capabilities of the ATV. The ATV essentially runs a modified version of OS X, much like the iPhone runs a stripped down and altered version of the OS. Therefore the ATV is capable of delivering content other than video to television screens. Games, for instance, would benefit from 1080p as they can actually be delivered at that resolution.

No doubt a debate might be had about whether a game in 1080p is visually superior to a game in 1080i or 720p. I tend to think that higher, non-interlaced resolutions improve the visual quality of computer applications though this may be a subjective preference and perhaps HD has maxed out our actual ability to discern the distinction.

In any case, the 1080p question should be applied more broadly then to whether it just benefits movies or television shows and to include computer interfaces and games.

As for my own ATV wishes, 1080p is certainly in there, but for the device to reach its full potential it has to start dishing up content beyond video. I know that there are pro's and con's, vigorously defended and attacked in these forums, about using the ATV as a stealth game console but the inevitable technological improvements that Apple will need to make in order to keep step with the competition will make this path all the more apparent.