Apple Announces Release of HD Movie Sales and Rentals via iTunes

[TheCheapGeek]

That is crap, Apple should come up with a way around two files in iTunes.

They have, all HD content is listed as HD-SD. One entry in itunes represents both files. When you sync to an SD compatible device the D version is used, when you play on your computer or sync to the Apple TV the HD version is used. I made a Video tutorial on doing this with your own video files.

http://bit.ly/HDSD

[BenRoethig]

Another good move forward along with bigger hard drives on the Macs, but the Achilles heal of the movie store is the "bag of hurt" level of DRM. Until we get similar import/export rights to what we have on the music side, it won't take off the way it should. There isn't a whole lot of reason to buy a digital movie over physical media right there is on the music side.

[overcast]

Um.... DVD is 720 × 576, this is 1280x720. How exactly is DVD "better quality"?

Resolution is not a measure of picture quality.

[Tallest Skil]

Well I bet the macbook/macbook air users are not happy about this since the macbook air doesn't have a dedicated graphics card, and therefore will not run the HD very smooth. Expect very jerky performance on any mac machines without graphics cards.

I beg to differ, but okay. :confused:

[overcast]

It's much simpler than that: the studios made IT investments to prepare for Blu-Ray. They're not going to pull out before they've had a decent return, or whoever made the decision will seem less competent.
Or the fact that going from high resolution Blu-Ray, down to "HD" download rips is going backwards in the quality department.

[overcast]

Question from one who is severely uninformed:

I assume that 1280x720 shows natively with small black bars on a 1280x800 macbook.

What does it look like on a 1440x900 or 1680x1050 screen? Will it look just as good or better on the 1280x800 resolution screen?

Ray

It will look like 1280x720, scaled proportionately to those resolutions.

[guzhogi]

why would i even want to own them? Watch them once and im through with it...why own....

What if it's your favorite movie? I'm sure you'd want to see it multiple times. But for most movies, I'd still like to just rent them.

As for HD quality, probably 720. the AppleTV still only truly supports 720, and 1080P movies would take forever and a day to download.

As for price, that's fairly expensive. While DVDs & Blu-Ray have the cost of making the discs & distribution, they also have all the extra special features & are of higher quality. Plus, I've noticed that movies & TV shows often cut some scenes out that were in the originals. Example: in Star Trek IV: The Voyage Home, they don't the punk on the bus scene, which is arguably the best scene in the whole movie. While there may be costs of bandwidth, they can't be more than their physical counterparts.

[raybo]

It will look like 1280x720, scaled proportionately to those resolutions.

Does this make it look worse?

[Evangelion]

Resolution is not a measure of picture quality.

It's one of the measures. I bet that if you put a 720P ITMS-movie next to the DVD-version, the ITMS-version will look better.

In fact, there is a comparison available:

http://www.ilounge.com/index.php/articles/comments/apple-tv-20-vs-blu-ray-dvd-hd-cable-the-comparison

A quote:

"What impressed us about the Apple TV HD rental was that the video, despite needing to be sent over the Internet rather than residing comfortably on a DVD or Blu-Ray Disc, exhibited little in the way of motion blur or compression artifacts—it looked as good as could be expected from 720p, which is to say comfortably better than DVD quality, but shy of the best a Blu-Ray Disc can offer on a top TV."

So let me repeat: How exactly is DVD "better quality" than what 720P from ITMS is?

[Avatar74]

Well I bet the macbook/macbook air users are not happy about this since the macbook air doesn't have a dedicated graphics card, and therefore will not run the HD very smooth. Expect very jerky performance on any mac machines without graphics cards.

I'm a MacBook Air user. HD resolution at that screen size isn't all that critical. I have some SD movies and they work just fine.

I have an HDTV and a full-range 5.1 channel surround system, and AppleTV, for watching HD movies from iTunes. So no, it doesn't bother me much.

In retrospect, I don't think the MacBook Air was a wise purchase, but I don't think that buying a new computer every couple years just to "keep up" with the ridiculous pace of technology is financially sensible in the first place. I make enough money... I could buy a new laptop every month if I wanted. But what purpose would that serve? Movies aren't a really good reason to do so.

I don't mean to go on a tangent, but there are a lot of young people on these forums, and I think there's a general tendency to look down upon those who don't constantly upgrade, or who set their sights lower than the "latest and greatest" (the constant ridiculing of 720p, etc.)... and it's unsettling. It's this kind of attitude that got us where we are economically in the first place... the Christmas morning mentality of having a new toy every five minutes to fill that gaping hole in one's self-image.

I can afford the toys... I just am old enough to realize their value is fleeting. I know that sounds strange since I did buy the MacBook Air, but I acknowledge it was a financial mistake.... but not because it doesn't have enough gadgets or features. But because spending $2000 on a rapidly depreciating asset isn't really sensible... but I guess saying that here is anathema.

[Warforged Hero]

So how would you play these on your HDTV?

I've tried to download HD TV shows onto my video iPod and get an iTunes message that my iPod doesn't support the format.

Can't transfer them to the PS3 because of DRM...

[rhett7660]

Resolution is not a measure of picture quality.

Yes please explain this one........

[jzuena]

This does raise a question for me. You made me think of it.

I wonder if this is the beginning of the end for AppleTV? I hope not. But with HD rentals (and purchases) coming to iTunes, maybe Apple is signaling that the Mini is just as well for the living room.

I think Apple TV will still be around for those who won't buy a Mac but do want to use iTunes for their movies (although if you are that against Apple, you will probably go with an Xbox 360 and Microsoft's online viewing option -- I have no idea how well it works, since I don't have a 360). But Apple is now acknowledging that there are many minis hooked up to TVs as well, so they might as well push that solution, too (it doesn't hurt that a mini costs much more than the Apple TV, either; if you are going to cannibalize sales, you might as well do it with something even more expensive :D ).

[russ99]

sadly i agree with you

still i want my bluray and osx

As do I, but we'll have to wait at least until Intel's Nehalem is in all Mac platforms, as that processor/board combo has the on-chip capability for BD playback.

The one good thing this could do is force Sony to offer HD content for purchase on their online store, as right now HD is rental only. I'd also love to see the prices come down to that $15-20 level on all HD content, regardless of delivery method.

This won't replace BD rentals from Netflix for me, but a decent option for those with a BD player.

[Undecided]

Yes please explain this one........

If you look at this comparison (http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/08/02/14/apple_tv_take_2_review_part_2_hd_movie_comparisons.html&page=2)between iTunes HD (Apple TV), HD cable, DVD, and blu ray, you'll see that compression plays a huge role in apparent video quality.

From their close up screenshots, it's clear that iTunes HD is better than HD cable and DVD, and close to, but not quite as good as, blu ray.

[NightStorm]

This does raise a question for me. You made me think of it.

I wonder if this is the beginning of the end for AppleTV? I hope not. But with HD rentals (and purchases) coming to iTunes, maybe Apple is signaling that the Mini is just as well for the living room.

I might agree with this, if the Mini had a HDMI port. Right now, it just isn't easy to hookup out-of-the-box. If anything, I think this announcement signals that Apple is committed to doing something in this space... I would be very surprised if the AppleTV doesn't see a significant update by the end of the year.

[russ99]

Another good move forward along with bigger hard drives on the Macs, but the Achilles heal of the movie store is the "bag of hurt" level of DRM. Until we get similar import/export rights to what we have on the music side, it won't take off the way it should. There isn't a whole lot of reason to buy a digital movie over physical media right there is on the music side.

Agree, but that DRM is on all platforms now, Apple, MS and Sony's online stores all have different types of DRM. And Blu-Ray also has DRM too. The movie industry has learned from the mistakes of the music industry, so I'm not sure you'll see that anytime soon.

The best we can hope for is the current administration loosens the grip of Bush's DMCA and legalizes fair-use again, where if we purchased a locked copy, we can also have a unlocked copy for personal use. Which wouldn't legalize free distribution (piracy) BTW.

[DakotaGuy]

It just goes further to show you that they don't care about the quality of these "HD" movies.

Remember, "W", which is a lengthy movie, clocked in around 3GB and they call it HD.

While DVD uses the very inefficient MPG-2 codec, it's still worth noting that a DVD with Digital Dolby has double the footprint of these new "HD" movie downloads.

Considering that W. comes on a 50GB DL Blu-ray you can pretty much figure out which one is going to offer a far superior picture and audio experience.

[mrrory]

Great news :)

[ZeebUK]

All I want to know is when do we get the HD films to buy in the UK?

Got Apple TV, and loads of films already, QoS on pre-order - but can't see the option to get HD version.

Seems to have 5.1 Sound - but I WANT HD!!!

[MagicBoy]

All I want to know is when do we get the HD films to buy in the UK?

Got Apple TV, and loads of films already, QoS on pre-order - but can't see the option to get HD version.

Seems to have 5.1 Sound - but I WANT HD!!!

We'll only get stiffed on the price anyway. I'll buy the BluRay.

[johnmadden78]

All I want to know is when do we get the HD films to buy in the UK?

Got Apple TV, and loads of films already, QoS on pre-order - but can't see the option to get HD version.

Seems to have 5.1 Sound - but I WANT HD!!!

While we're at it, when will we get *any* TV/Movie content in Ireland? I wouldn't (necessarily) buy, but I have a two-hour commute each way. Would be nice if once in a while I could rent a movie in work and watch on my iPhone on the way home.

[AidenShaw]

From their close up screenshots, it's clear that iTunes HD is better than HD cable and DVD, and close to, but not quite as good as, blu ray.

I look at the same pictures, and Apple TV seems far worse than Blu-ray to me.

http://www.ilounge.com/index.php/articles/comments/apple-tv-20-vs-blu-ray-dvd-hd-cable-the-comparison

Apple TV seems OK, but so much detail has been "smoothed" out that it's a false perception.

Look at the detail on the Capitol on that page. Blu-ray shows the stone blocks, and you can see the ribbing on the ridge at the top of the portico. The foreground gate has detail in the arch.

Apple TV doesn't show the blocks, the portico ridge is a simple unadorned line, and the arch of the gate is plain.

So, while Apple TV doesn't have obvious compression artifacts, the detail is missing.

Good application of perceptual psychology....

Note that the page says:

While the Blu-Ray version was the clear winner of the bunch, we were surprised by how well the Apple TV fared in comparison to the other formats we tested. Its weakest performance was in the straight shot-for-shot resolution test, where we looked at how all four devices displayed a scene with fine details.

So, I'll be happy with my BD player....


I don't mean to go on a tangent, but there are a lot of young people on these forums, and I think there's a general tendency to look down upon those who don't constantly upgrade, or who set their sights lower than the "latest and greatest" (the constant ridiculing of 720p, etc.)... and it's unsettling. It's this kind of attitude that got us where we are economically in the first place... the Christmas morning mentality of having a new toy every five minutes to fill that gaping hole in one's self-image.

Somehow, I can't equate the desire for 1080p content for my 1080p video system with conspicuous consumption and economic collapse. Especially when the Apple 720p version is $20 + bandwidth + storage + backup storage, and $20 is about the average price for a BD movie.

[Warforged Hero]

I look at the same pictures, and Apple TV seems far worse than Blu-ray to me.

I noticed all of the things you pointed out as well. I've had mine for little over a year now and while many recent dvd releases look pretty good, they're all lacking in audio quality as compared to a blu-ray disc with Dolby DTS-MA.

And while I say new releases of SD discs "look pretty good," I mean precisely that. Blu-ray releases of the same film are noticeably sharper.

After a while you get used to seeing the pores on the actors' faces, each individual bead of sweat or fleck of stubble. You start to miss it when you watch a SD disc, even if it's a good transfer.

[flir67]

Here we go I'm curious to see the quality…


3.6gb download wow.........just wow..... boy talking about having a full load on the net. I'm surprised the networks can handle such large volumes of movie downloads

[jmpage2]

3.6gb download wow.........just wow..... boy talking about having a full load on the net. I'm surprised the networks can handle such large volumes of movie downloads

This is one reason that ISPs have started to institute bandwidth caps, throttling of bandwidth, etc.

For every person downloading an iTunes movie there are 100 people downloading pirated torrents that are the same size.

Now imagine that they try to do this with 1080P video, the total bandwidth on the network would increase dramatically.

[Cynicalone]

3.6gb download wow.........just wow..... boy talking about having a full load on the net. I'm surprised the networks can handle such large volumes of movie downloads

And COX Cable (my ISP) in the US does have bandwidth caps. They just don't like to publish the info.

http://www.cox.com/policy/limitations.asp

Funny how deep they bury that info.

[stevielee]

That's not the point. See the thing is for 99% of Americans, a 720p HD quality movie is very good. What you get from iTunes that you will never get from disc media is convenience. Imagine you own an Apple TV, iPhone/iPod Touch and a computer (Mac or PC). Once you buy a movie, it's on all your devices. Take a laptop on a plane or iPhone on a plane. Watch it on your 70" TV at home. Watch it on your computer. It's awesome! Not only that, how easy is it to purchase. Just a click and you have it in minutes! Plus you can give it to family, provided that you use one of your 5 DRM authorizations. Lastly, think about how easy it is to play it. Just a click on a menu and you're there. No need to shuffle around with a rack full of DVDs! Can't do any of that with physical media!

Personally I love Blu-Ray but honestly I also have an Apple TV and there isn't that much of a difference. You almost have to view them back to back to notice. The HD on Apple TV is great and will satisfy 99% of the people out there. I definitely prefer Apple TV/iTunes HD any day!

Kan-O-Z


And with this single all-in-one posting, you have nicely articulated Apple's grand strategy for how they intend serve (control) all media content on the OSX platform for the foreseeable future - with iTunes being their sole portal of distribution.

Apple couldn't have PR'ed it any better than you just did here. Their iTunes media portal model model is intended to do exactly as you stated in your post - to deliver you to all of their other "closed loop" pricey toys (hardware), such as their iPhone, iPod, Apple TV, desktop and laptop computers etc..

"You don't need no sinkin' Blu-ray...we'll provide you with our version of HD content (even if it's lower quality but comes Apple premium pricing and obligatory DRM restrictions). You'll like it and come back for more. Why?..because you're locked into the Apple family of products now. Everything you do from here on end (binarywise) will be controlled by the Big A"

I swear, when I read this "news release" that Apple (via iTunes portal) is finally offering some kind of "HD Content", I laughed out loud and had to check the date to see if it was 2006 or something. And with this announcement, we can clearly see why Apple refuses to provide Blu-Ray support with OSX. They are NOT going to allow choice, or anything that would distract Macheads from thinking that all media naturally flows ONLY through their iTunes portal. God forbid.. someone should figure out that you can go and actually buy music, movies, etc., from any other source besides iTunes, that is not only higher quality and cheaper, but is truly portable, and can be viewed, or played independent (outside) of Apple's "premium" products.

I'm a Mac Tech and I'm still proudly and successfully using iTunes 6.02. All I use it for is as a music player and database. Nothing else. And with over 1 1/2 TB's of non-AAC, 320BR+ MP3's, that I've purchased, or downloaded independent of iTunes, it would take about 2 or 3 years just for iTunes 8 "Gapless" crappola to get through my entire collection (if it didn't crash first) - let alone processing the bloatware "Album Art".

I do realize that most computer users (PC & Mac) are content to just sit back and let a company (Apple, Microsoft) serve them up content - with little or no control over the end product - and then look no further for any other options for that content - even if It is inferior and overpriced. Hey, after all it's about convenience..isn't it?
But it's a big, wide world of media out there boys and girls, and if you wait until corporations finally "offer" content that has been available outside of them for quite awhile now, well...
you can passively pay through the nose for less and still remain on the cutting edge of... yesterday!

[overcast]

Yes please explain this one........

I have a 720x480 picture.

It's now displayed on a 720x480 screen, and it looks as good as it's going to get.

Now it's displayed on a 1920x1080 screen, and it looks like a 720x480 picture scaled to fit a 1920x1080 display. That doesn't magically change the source of the picture, and make it have higher resolution.

Also, I'm not even factoring in compression algorithms and their effect on image quality.

Dig?

[Gaelic2]

Are there any movies out there worth 20 bucks?:confused:

[emulator]

Are there any movies out there worth 20 bucks?:confused:
indeed, as a blu-ray. but a HD download? not even $1. just don't get why would anyone buy these 720p "HD Ready" content with no subs, extra content and so on... :eek:

In response to all those saying "Bluray is Dead":

Do you think the industry will let this happen?
those people are blind. you can't even compare a DTS-HD / 40 Mbps picture with the crappy 720p people download. of course, you must have the correct audio visual equipment, blu-rays are not meant for laptops.

and let's not forget, :apple: praised their boombox as hifi. :D:rolleyes:

[blackpond]

Completely uninformed.

This only the first trumpet as the battle begins. iTunes downloads are the Riders of Rohan charging against the hordes of Sauron on the plain in front of Minas Tirith.

We are NOWHERE near being done with this war.

Super Hi-Vision will come out on disk format at about the same time as 1080p downloads become feasible in the United States.

Think Oliphaunts charging against the Riders after the Riders had beaten the snot out of the orcs (current disk 1080p offerings).

Downloads will NOT beat optical media until after 2020.

I do wonder, though. If BluRay showed up on the market the same year that DVD did, would DVD ever have become as popular as it did? Digital downloads are here now and are quickly growing in popularity as an alternative to optical media. That can't be a good thing for any new optical format trying to gain a foothold.

[blackpond]

I hate to admit it folks, as I am a film lover at heart and seek the best image possible, whenever possible... but the hard truth is: People choose convenience over quality. Look at Youtube... what a pile of horse poop... speaking for content and quality.... and how popular is that site now?

Digital distribution will replace optical media. If not this year or the next... it will. It's too damn convenient. And yes, Apple is poised to reign supreme in this area as they have an early jump on the competition.

For all the 720P haters out there. iTunes 1080P will come. What will optical have then? A pretty box that takes up shelf space in my house?

[Avatar74]

Somehow, I can't equate the desire for 1080p content for my 1080p video system with conspicuous consumption and economic collapse. Especially when the Apple 720p version is $20 + bandwidth + storage + backup storage, and $20 is about the average price for a BD movie.

You're forgetting the cost of the 1080p video system as itself an unnecessary expense. So the total cost is really what you spent on that system plus the marginal cost of $5-6 per HD movie versus SD.

It's kind of like buying a high performance car with a tuned engine that only runs on premium (not the ones that "recommend" premium, but the ones with different ignition timing)... It's still four wheels and seats but you've elected to spend lots of money on it, only to end up having everything around it cost you more... the fuel, maintenance, time lost having it constantly in the shop, etc. Believe me, I owned such a car and I'm glad I grew out of it.

It's not that we shouldn't enjoy anything... but what is enjoyment comprised of? Anyone can throw money at something for a little temporary enjoyment, but that wears off very quickly. As I've gotten older, I've enjoyed more and more figuring out how to gain better than adequate results for minimum cost. That requires some skill and work. The fact that anyone who throws money at something can get the same material result doesn't impress me. And money is very easy to make if that is the extent of one's aspiration and imagination.

Don't get me wrong... I like a good HD movie. But I came fairly late into the game because every piece of hardware is going to be obsolete in 6 months anyway. What other benefit is there than bragging rights in buying technologies at their highest price points and least field tested phase? 1080p is far from commonplace... there is only one real source for content (BD discs). So right now it's pretty overpriced. Not a good investment. By the time 1080p does become commonplace, fanboys will be wanking it to UHD, 2k, 4k or some other standard and essentially saying they cannot live without it.

Well why not then go get yourself a $100,000 Sony SXRD 4k projector? Once you start rationalizing one unnecessary expenditure, where do you stop? There's a record producer who spent $6 million on his home theater and has one. And I've never even heard of the guy. What exactly does this mentality serve other than bragging rights, which are in themselves worth nothing in this or any other economy.

[AidenShaw]

Look at Youtube...

I'd rather not, thank you.

;)



You're forgetting the cost of the 1080p video system as itself an unnecessary expense. So the total cost is really what you spent on that system plus the marginal cost of $5-6 per HD movie versus SD.

The 1080p flat panel was a replacement for an 11 year old CRT television, and actually cost less than the CRT. There aren't many SD TVs available now, and anything beyond small budget screens are likely to be 1080p (or older designs being closed out).

But you're right - about any purchase other than the food necessary to avoid starvation is an unnecessary expense.

[fridgeymonster3]

IAfter a while you get used to seeing the pores on the actors' faces, each individual bead of sweat or fleck of stubble. You start to miss it when you watch a SD disc, even if it's a good transfer.

I agree with you completely. I've even basically stopped watching any of my standard DVD's because I'd much rather watch a blu-ray or even an HD movie on Directv.

[Tymbo]

If I were to rent a HD movie off itunes to watch on my mac, would it be Closed-Capt.?
As a hearing-impaired individual, I am curious to know because I don't like driving to blockbuster when I want to rent a movie.

[Evangelion]

I have a 720x480 picture.

It's now displayed on a 720x480 screen, and it looks as good as it's going to get.

Now it's displayed on a 1920x1080 screen, and it looks like a 720x480 picture scaled to fit a 1920x1080 display. That doesn't magically change the source of the picture, and make it have higher resolution.

Also, I'm not even factoring in compression algorithms and their effect on image quality.

Dig?

How exactly would even lower resolution DVD-image look "better" on that screen? And besides, 720p is not 720x480, it's 1280x720.

[Evangelion]

If you look at

From their close up screenshots, it's clear that iTunes HD is better than HD cable and DVD, and close to, but not quite as good as, blu ray.

No-one has claimed that HD-content from ITMS looks better than blu-ray. It does not. The claim was that normal DVD looks better than HD-content on ITMS. Which is BS.

[Cynicalone]

If I were to rent a HD movie off itunes to watch on my mac, would it be Closed-Capt.?
As a hearing-impaired individual, I am curious to know because I don't like driving to blockbuster when I want to rent a movie.

I believe the answer to this is no. I tried to turn it on and watch a movie on my iMac and no captions.

[jmpage2]

I believe the answer to this is no. I tried to turn it on and watch a movie on my iMac and no captions.

I don't believe they offer subtitles either, at least the couple of iTunes movie downloads that I've gotten as a complimentary thing to the purchased Blu-Ray disc don't have subtitles that I've seen.

I frequently watch my DVD/BD discs while working out and it's nice to turn the subtitles on while watching so I don't have to turn the volume up over that of my elliptical trainer.

[Undecided]

From their close up screenshots, it's clear that iTunes HD is better than HD cable and DVD, and close to, but not quite as good as, blu ray.

No-one has claimed that HD-content from ITMS looks better than blu-ray. It does not. The claim was that normal DVD looks better than HD-content on ITMS. Which is BS.

That's exactly what I said. You, I, and the content of the link I provided all agree.

:confused:

[killmoms]

I'm surprised at all the complaining about these 720p downloads. I work with video all day long—I've seen what HDCAM 1080p masters of film transfers look like. They look good. They look incredible, actually. Blu-ray movies played on my PS3 look great. So I figured to my eyes, 720p streaming from Netflix on my Xbox 360 would look like crap in comparison.

Imagine how surprised I was to find that, instead of focusing on compression weaknesses in the stream, I just sat back and enjoyed Pan's Labyrinth. Sure there were weaknesses here and there, and I'm positive the Blu-ray would look great in comparison, side by side or one after the other.

But the point is, I sat there and enjoyed the movie and not once went "Ugh, I wish I was watching this on Blu-ray." Was it as good as it could be? Of course not. But was it good enough to enjoy and feel like I was getting my money's worth? Absolutely. And I'm sure Netflix's 720p streams are no higher bitrate than Apple's 720p downloads/rentals.

I think for many people less trained in the eye than me, 720p will be plenty good enough. As bandwidth increases and technology progresses, I'm sure higher-quality options will be made available. But for now, I wouldn't call what's being offered "crap."

[megfilmworks]

For all the 720P haters out there. iTunes 1080P will come. What will optical have then? A pretty box that takes up shelf space in my house?

Or taking up space in a landfill.

[rockosmodurnlif]

I'm a Mac Tech and I'm still proudly and successfully using iTunes 6.02. All I use it for is as a music player and database. Nothing else. And with over 1 1/2 TB's of non-AAC, 320BR+ MP3's, that I've purchased, or downloaded independent of iTunes, it would take about 2 or 3 years just for iTunes 8 "Gapless" crappola to get through my entire collection (if it didn't crash first) - let alone processing the bloatware "Album Art".
You should really trim some of the garbage you have in your library. I'm at 70 GBs @ 128 KBps and despite listening to new music and adding new songs, I manage to keep it around 70 GBs because I always find trash that's just not worth keeping. I can't imagine what crap you've probably never heard in a year that is hidden in a 1.5 TB library.

And there's nothing wrong with album art though I didn't start using it until I got my iPhone. Some of it is truly enticing (Herb Alpert and Ohio Players for instance) so i don't see how that's bloatware. You don't have to add the art if you don't want to.

I like the convenience offered by the whole iTunes ecosphere but I don't like the DRM so I've yet to buy or rent any videos from iTunes.

[MacFly123]

Sounds good to me. I do want 1080p of course. Maybe that will come with the next Apple TV update hopefully this year some time!

[AidenShaw]

Was it as good as it could be? Of course not. But was it good enough to enjoy and feel like I was getting my money's worth? Absolutely.

... and I know a couple of people who enjoy "wide screen" movies on their Iphones.

It's good that this option is available, but I prefer the more immersive experience of 1080p and 8 channel 96 khz 24-bit uncompressed sound (as well as the extras).

Perhaps if Apple's price were half that of a Blu-ray it would be more attractive - but at price parity, no.

[donbadman]

that's practically the price of a bluray...

... Why would you pay for a hi-def download when you could get a better quality DVD?

+1000000000000000000000

You talk realness,
meh 720p... Rubbish...

[donbadman]

Sounds good to me. I do want 1080p of course. Maybe that will come with the next Apple TV update hopefully this year some time!

No one owns, or will own apple TV, its an epic fail... :D:D

Edit: to add, ****** all this corporate money grabbing bs, apples moves have been all too obvious since the "year of HD" that never was, itunes sucks why was my old winamp using about 2% of a 700mhz Athlon and iTunes rinses about 50% of a 2.4ghz P4 on canterwood?

Plus it's totally screwed up one of my raids from crashing out whilst syncing my iphone... meh apple sort yo self oot

[coday182]

Is Apple ever going to follow suit in the music department, and start offering FLAC downloads, or atleast Apple Lossless? It's a joke that iTunes Plus offers "Hi-Def" downloads at a super duper 256 kbps.

[CPD_1]

No one owns, or will own apple TV, its an epic fail... :D:D

That's interesting. I'm fairly certain that I know at least a dozen people who own them, myself included. It also does what it's built to do quite well. Not a failure in my eyes.

[TuffLuffJimmy]

That's interesting. I'm fairly certain that I know at least a dozen people who own them, myself included. It also does what it's built to do quite well. Not a failure in my eyes.

Yeah, but you live in an iBubble (you're a MacRumors member, case and point). No one outside of that bubble owns an AppleTV.

[MacFly123]

No one owns, or will own apple TV, its an epic fail... :D:D

Edit: to add, ****** all this corporate money grabbing bs, apples moves have been all too obvious since the "year of HD" that never was, itunes sucks why was my old winamp using about 2% of a 700mhz Athlon and iTunes rinses about 50% of a 2.4ghz P4 on canterwood?

Plus it's totally screwed up one of my raids from crashing out whilst syncing my iphone... meh apple sort yo self oot

Are you being sarcastic? I LOVE my Apple TV and I know many people that want one. Anyone I show it to wants one, they just don't really know about it because Apple doesn't advertise it like its other products.

Soon it will be the hub of your digital life and entertainment center with DVR functionality and games and an SDK with the app store and much more, trust me.

Sales have gone up 300% too without any push on Apple's part!

Oh and iTunes rules! :D

[MagnusVonMagnum]

Only just HD, on a large screen or projector you need 1920x1080.

An what about the sound?

Bluray with high bitrate 1920x1080 AVC and lossless audio wins by a mile.

I'm so sick of seeing this kind of BS. "Only just" ? What the heck does that mean? Tell me, is 1080i "just HD" also? I'm going to bet that your answer is no, it's REAL HD. Get a clue. The actual "information" difference between 720P and 1080i is practically negligible (1080i is really only 540 lines of information at any given moment and uses a trick of the brain to try and make you think you are seeing more than that; technically 720P at a given moment in time is higher vertical resolution). 1080i is interlaced which in general is inferior to a progressive image. For static images, you'll get an apparent higher resolution, but with motion you will get an inferior picture.

So does that mean you 'need' 1080P to be "real HD" ??? Let me clue you in. 1080P wasn't even talked about except in theory early on and some said it wouldn't come into real use at all because of the massive bandwidth requirements. Short of Blu-Ray or some kind of Internet delivery, this is still largely true. You will probably NEVER see it on Cable or Satellite for that reason. So by your "only just" standards does that mean that all the program material on broadcast television, cable and satellite out there in the whole world is "only just" HD??? THAT is exactly what you're telling me, after all. HDTV means television, but I guess we "only just" see HD on actual television broadcasts. :rolleyes:

I find the utter snobbery disgusting (and that IS what I keep seeing, snobbery) associated with Blu-Ray and this whole 1080P business. I've said it before and I'll say it again, MOST of the people yelling the loudest about how utterly fantastic 1080P is and how HORRIBLE 720P is (all over that extra 360 lines) are watching it on smallish sets (under 60") at long distances (over 8 feet) and so the snobbish claims are LAUGHABLE to anyone that knows ANYTHING about resolving distances.

Check this article out: http://www.tvtechnology.com/article/12836

What this means is the human eye (with 20/20 vision) can resolve detail for 1080P to approximately 3x the screen height distance. Thus, if you have a 60" 16x9 screen (29 inch height), you can resolve all the detail out to about 7.25 feet. If you are sitting out further than that, you are starting to lose resolution acuity and any improvement is completely in your head and/or imagination (hence where the snobbery starts as in audiophile type claims where people seem to think they're super human and can sense things others cannot).

Here's an article with a chart that makes it perfectly clear as to where the benefits begin and end for a given format:

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

As you can see, unless you are watching VERY LARGE sets and/or sitting VERY CLOSE (not true of MOST people), the benefits of 1080P are MOOT. I'm in no way saying that 1080P isn't 'better' than 720P. HOWEVER, you HAVE to be sitting within the range of that chart for your eyes to see the full resolution details (at 20/20 vision; if you have lower vision, the distances decrease that you have to sit at to see the detail).

So your average consumer might have a 46" HD set. You have to be sitting no further than 5.75 feet away with 20/20 vision to ACTUALLY SEE the full 1080P resolution! How many people do you know that sit less than 6 feet from their 46" sets? If you are sitting around 8 feet away, you will JUST be able to see the full 720P resolution! If you are sitting over 13 feet away, you might as well just watch a DVD because you will not see any more resolution than one!

I'm sure these numbers are coming as a shock to some and others think I'm crazy, stupid or nuts, but this is science, not active imaginations run wild with bogus claims about superior pictures they do not actually see.

I've got a 93" screen and one of the higher quality 720P projectors out there. I sit 8 feet away from the screen. At that distance and screen size, I could theoretically see the FULL benefit of 1080P so for my room and screen, a 1080P projector upgrade could be in my future. If I were sitting 14 feet away, there would be no point in ever upgrading. I couldn't POSSIBLY tell the difference. Yet I've seen plenty of 93" screens in use with seating distances of around 12 feet. At that distance, the difference between 720P and 1080P would barely be noticeable at all. And that's with a pretty darn large screen and a pretty average seating distance. Many people sit 20 feet away from their televisions. At that distance, you would need a screen that is at least 106" to just barely start to see a difference with 1080P and about 140" to see ALL the detail at that distance. How many people do you know that have 140" screens?

As for the lossless audio claim, it's suffice to say the ignorance surrounding what is audible out there even in (maybe especially within) audiophile circles is astounding. I followed the scene for years and met no end of "goldenear" types that couldn't tell 16-bit/44.1kHz audio from a 128kbit MP3 even when the test was done blind. Even with trained ears, you cannot distinguish 256kbit (128kbit per channel) AAC from the source material. The differences are inaudible. Dolby Digital could have audible differences, but the liklihood of one being able to tell the difference between it and even a "super lossless" format is pretty darn small once the test goes blind (science instead of imagination). Find me some people that even have DECENT audio gear and then maybe we can worry about whether a difference in quality is actually audible or not. I have $2000 ribbon speakers (Carver) upstairs with custom active crossovers and 500 watts (into 4 ohms) per channel total amplification on that system and over $3000 worth of speakers (PSB) in my home theater room downstairs. I'm quite familiar with "good" sound.

So what I'm saying is that yes, 1080P is superior to 720P. 4 is still bigger than 3 even in the scientific community. But that in no way substantiates the claims made by the masses, most of whom are completely ignorant about things like resolving distances and blind testing for audio. These "huge" differences aren't huge at all under many very common conditions (from small screens versus seating distances to cheap playback speakers) and I dare wager that most of the claims on this site are made from ego and snobbery, not actual science. Compression is another topic that is greatly exaggerated by the golden eyes types. Most of this stuff comes from the "my X (computer, hard disk, car engine, whatever) is bigger/better than yours lines of thinking. Sorry if I don't just lump sum it all into a neat package of 1080P is better period. If you don't take the room/TV size/seating distance into account, it's a meaningless statement.

[Bye Bye Baby]

Finally. Of course I am not sure about pricing. A bit expensive.

Apple's model for pricing was very simple and efficient. Now that the record labels and the movie studios are getting into the act, all that will go.

Both industries are notoriously greedy and short sighted. I only hope they will not destroy the goose that laid the golden egg. In their efforts to break iTunes' stronghold and increase prices, they are only inviting more piracy.

[mrklaw]

I don't get the comments about Apple not wanting bluray in their computers.

Why would they leave it out simply because it 'competes' (I disagree) with a service they offer?

they are selling operating systems and computers - thats where they make their profit. They can't deliberately restrict those because of a service, as it will make them uncompetitive in the market.

By that model, they should remove DVD and CD playback and force you to use itunes.


Personally the reason is simply money. They are making a fortune putting cheap superdrives into their computers and don't want to take the hit by putting 'expensive' bluray drives in and paying the license fees associated with them. Plus they would maybe need to support HDMI for audio which they won't want to do

Its just their greed stopping them. Eventually they'll be forced to put them in, at least as an option - its not a premium offering in the real world anymore, its in many normal computers.

[mrklaw]

oh and as for superHD, and why do we need 1080p when 720p is fine?

For me, bluray is archival quality. I shouldn't need any more than that. With DVD I didn't have that.

When I'm collecting movies, I'd be happier to spend the money knowing that movie will stay with me even as my equipment improves. Sure, DVD might look great on your 40" screen, but it doesn't when you have a projector. and the difference in audio is very noticeable between DVD and bluray.

As for 4k, I don't see it. Digital 2k cinema at the moment is pretty much only 1080p at the moment, and while that will likely improve (possibly to 4k) that won't be needed at home

[mrhud]

wasnt this already available :confused:

Yes. I thought HD movies were already available?

[gkarris]

I'm so sick of seeing this kind of BS. "Only just" ? What the heck does that mean? Tell me, is 1080i "just HD" also? I'm going to bet that your answer is no, it's REAL HD. Get a clue. The actual "information" difference between 720P and 1080i is practically negligible (1080i is really only 540 lines of information at any given moment and uses a trick of the brain to try and make you think you are seeing more than that; technically 720P at a given moment in time is higher vertical resolution). 1080i is interlaced which in general is inferior to a progressive image. For static images, you'll get an apparent higher resolution, but with motion you will get an inferior picture.

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



Thanks for the chart - I was wondering where it was on the internet.

BTW, I can tell the difference between 720p, 1080i, and 1080p. I'm 6.5 feet away from a 55" diag screen in 16:9 mode - I have a projector and I can tell the resolution difference with the way it processes 720 input vs 1080 input....

oh and as for superHD, and why do we need 1080p when 720p is fine?

For me, bluray is archival quality. I shouldn't need any more than that. With DVD I didn't have that.

When I'm collecting movies, I'd be happier to spend the money knowing that movie will stay with me even as my equipment improves. Sure, DVD might look great on your 40" screen, but it doesn't when you have a projector. and the difference in audio is very noticeable between DVD and bluray.

As for 4k, I don't see it. Digital 2k cinema at the moment is pretty much only 1080p at the moment, and while that will likely improve (possibly to 4k) that won't be needed at home

Same here. It's nice to know you're buying physical media that is capable of higher res, even though you may never need it.

Yes, when you have a front projector, large screen, a dark room, and sitting close, you can tell the difference.

[gkarris]

Well I bet the macbook/macbook air users are not happy about this since the macbook air doesn't have a dedicated graphics card, and therefore will not run the HD very smooth. Expect very jerky performance on any mac machines without graphics cards.

Please stop spreading your FUD...

MacBooks with the GMA3100 graphics play iTunes 720p files just fine...

MacBook Airs struggle with the lower processor.

Neither of them with the nVidia graphic chips will have a problem at all and even play 1080p.

[donbadman]

Are you being sarcastic? I LOVE my Apple TV and I know many people that want one. Anyone I show it to wants one, they just don't really know about it because Apple doesn't advertise it like its other products.

Soon it will be the hub of your digital life and entertainment center with DVR functionality and games and an SDK with the app store and much more, trust me.

Sales have gone up 300% too without any push on Apple's part!

Oh and iTunes rules! :D

No Sarcasm at all, its no good as a 'media hub' as it's all tied in to apple hardware, I'm not going to buy one and I don't know anyone who owns one.

And as for iTunes it is a massive system hog for something that should use minimal resources.

And when will iTunes sync my phone with firefox?

I'll bet never cause they want to tie people in to all apple hardware, I dont like this attitude it is protectionist and ultimately bad for competition.

[CPD_1]

Yeah, but you live in an iBubble (you're a MacRumors member, case and point). No one outside of that bubble owns an AppleTV.

Mmm. Not entirely. Half of the other users are Windows users. My best friend, Matt, is very much a windows guy, but he's the first to admit that Apples got a few things right. He's got an iPod, not because it's trendy, but because it serves his needs and interfaces well with iTunes. He had a HTPC for a couple of years, but decided to go with the :apple:tv when he saw mine.

Not everyone is trapped in the "iBubble" just because they use Apple's hardware. None of the content on my iPod or :apple:tv are DRM'd (except my television season). I've got about 200 movies at my disposal whenever I want them, and at least 20 of those are HD rips I performed myself. I avoided buying an overpriced BD player and instead bought a (somewhat cheaper) BR drive so I can rip them to a playable format for my :apple:tv.

Some may say it's a work around, but it's all about the convenience of having it all instantly. Will I ever pick up a BR player for my TV? Maybe when they drop down to the $99 mark. In the mean time, I'll keep enjoying having all my discs in a couple of bins in my attic, out of the way.

EDIT:
No Sarcasm at all, its no good as a 'media hub' as it's all tied in to apple hardware, I'm not going to buy one and I don't know anyone who owns one.

And as for iTunes it is a massive system hog for something that should use minimal resources.

And when will iTunes sync my phone with firefox?

I'll bet never cause they want to tie people in to all apple hardware, I dont like this attitude it is protectionist and ultimately bad for competition.

Do you mean, "it's all tied into apple software"? Because I'm pretty sure many people use iTunes without a Mac. And I'm also pretty sure that many iPod owners are Windows users. Could it be that you would like to think Apple requires you to have all Apple hardware to use their other hardware, because if so, you are sadly mistaken. Plenty of people use the Airport Extreme without a Mac in sight. I know plenty of college students who use both a MacBook (given to them by their school) and a desktop PC. It's not as black and white as you're making it out to be.

[wilderkun]

I gave an :apple:tv and I use it almost everday. I have about 700gs of movies because I rip them. I used to have a quad mac pro, but it died so appple I'd replacing it with a quad 2.26 nehalem, so my rip speed will increse dramaticly.
I'm a film maker and I can def tell the difference. I will most likely not be buying hd movies from apple. I prefer to buy bluray films mainly brcayse one day I will rip them drm free.
I use an iPhone and a touch but unless apple released a bigger screen product I will buy an archos player with a hdd to play my movies on when I travel. I like my touch 32gig but there I'd not enough memory for my movies and my music.

[dornoforpyros]

Ugg not in Canada... again.

[gkarris]

Mmm. Not entirely. Half of the other users are Windows users. My best friend, Matt, is very much a windows guy, but he's the first to admit that Apples got a few things right. He's got an iPod, not because it's trendy, but because it serves his needs and interfaces well with iTunes. He had a HTPC for a couple of years, but decided to go with the :apple:tv when he saw mine.

Not everyone is trapped in the "iBubble" just because they use Apple's hardware. None of the content on my iPod or :apple:tv are DRM'd (except my television season). I've got about 200 movies at my disposal whenever I want them, and at least 20 of those are HD rips I performed myself. I avoided buying an overpriced BD player and instead bought a (somewhat cheaper) BR drive so I can rip them to a playable format for my :apple:tv.

Some may say it's a work around, but it's all about the convenience of having it all instantly. Will I ever pick up a BR player for my TV? Maybe when they drop down to the $99 mark. In the mean time, I'll keep enjoying having all my discs in a couple of bins in my attic, out of the way.

EDIT:


Do you mean, "it's all tied into apple software"? Because I'm pretty sure many people use iTunes without a Mac. And I'm also pretty sure that many iPod owners are Windows users. Could it be that you would like to think Apple requires you to have all Apple hardware to use their other hardware, because if so, you are sadly mistaken. Plenty of people use the Airport Extreme without a Mac in sight. I know plenty of college students who use both a MacBook (given to them by their school) and a desktop PC. It's not as black and white as you're making it out to be.

I use a Compaq Presario Desktop I got on closeout for $199. I share my PC Printer so I can print from Windows. I added iTunes and it's my AppleTV server. I also sync my iPhone to it.

Before I got the AppleTV, you were supposed to "easily" use Windows Media Sharing and get the content (non-iTunes anyways) on an XBox 360. Well 2 evenings (for a total of 8 hours) later of being unsuccessful, I went and got an AppleTV.

It took 5 minutes to set up and get it working... :eek:

[megfilmworks]

No one owns, or will own apple TV, its an epic fail... :D:D


I own three and they work great.
I also have BDs and DVRs.

In order of quality:
BR
ATV
DVR

In order of convenience:
ATV
DVR
BR

Order of Compatibility:
ATV
BR
DVR

[stevielee]

You should really trim some of the garbage you have in your library. I'm at 70 GBs @ 128 KBps and despite listening to new music and adding new songs, I manage to keep it around 70 GBs because I always find trash that's just not worth keeping. I can't imagine what crap you've probably never heard in a year that is hidden in a 1.5 TB library.

And there's nothing wrong with album art though I didn't start using it until I got my iPhone. Some of it is truly enticing (Herb Alpert and Ohio Players for instance) so i don't see how that's bloatware. You don't have to add the art if you don't want to.

I like the convenience offered by the whole iTunes ecosphere but I don't like the DRM so I've yet to buy or rent any videos from iTunes.

You've got "70GBs @128KBps" and you're talking to me about "trimming" the garbage? Really?...128 Bit rate?
My music collection is so large not only because I have so much music (collected throughout the years), but because it's a much higher quality than anything in your 70GB iPod quality AAC iTunes music library. I actually listen to my music on a decent audio system..so I can easily tell the difference between crappy, highly compressed 128KBps AAC iTunes Music files, and 320KBps and above MP3 files. I hope you never have to listen to your 128KBps files on any real speakers - outside of Pod earbuds, or those low-end computer audio outfits...cause only then are you going to realize how much money you've wasted buying 70GB's worth of tinny, flat, muffled audio files, with major distortion at higher base & treble levels.

And that's my point. Most folks have been so dumbed down in media quality for the sake of "convenience", or space, that they have happily settled for lower quality music and videos - even if it still cost them around the same price, or more, as the higher quality alternative.

Try listening to Miles Davis's "Kind of Blue" in your 128KBps AAC format, and then try listening to it in 320KBps MP3, or Aiff file format on a good Denon receiver with a couple of Klipch XL-23 speakers. You'll weep at all the money you've rat holed in iTunes 'Music'.

[hexonxonx]

No one owns, or will own apple TV, its an epic fail... :D:D




I'll be buying one myself eventually once I buy an HDTV.

[mambodancer]

Yeah, but you live in an iBubble (you're a MacRumors member, case and point). No one outside of that bubble owns an AppleTV.

Sorry, as a Mac consultant serving about 400 clients I would guesstimate that about 10% or more have AppleTV's. And none of them are in the Macrumers/Apple bubble.

[Tallest Skil]

Yeah, but you live in an iBubble (you're a MacRumors member, case and point). No one outside of that bubble owns an AppleTV.

Two opthamologists in my town own Apple TVs. Neither of them are here.

[MagnusVonMagnum]

And that's my point. Most folks have been so dumbed down in media quality for the sake of "convenience", or space, that they have happily settled for lower quality music and videos - even if it still cost them around the same price, or more, as the higher quality alternative.

Try listening to Miles Davis's "Kind of Blue" in your 128KBps AAC format, and then try listening to it in 320KBps MP3, or Aiff file format on a good Denon receiver with a couple of Klipch XL-23 speakers. You'll weep at all the money you've rat holed to iTunes Music.

Hmmm, you use the inferior MP3 (compared to AAC in general for a given bit-rate) format and listen to horn-loaded (distortion) speakers that cut-off bass at 86Hz (awful crossover point and no mention of a sub to augment the total lack of bass those speakers have) and yet you feel the superiority to disrespect other people? :eek:

For reference, I maintain both Apple Lossless and 256kbps AAC libraries and my primary music listening room has $2000/pair Carver ribbon speakers with an active crossover system. I still don't feel the need to badmouth those that have 128kbps AAC libraries. It's neither as bad as you make it out to be to begin with and doesn't take into account the switch to 256kbps AAC (over 80% complete at the iTunes store) with the ability to upgrade previously purchased music.

Like the Blu-Ray 1080P arguments in general, I believe some people on here have self-esteem issues that they feel the need to put down others to make themselves feel superior.

[Blue Velvet]

Hmmm, you use the inferior MP3...

I believe some people on here have self-esteem issues that they feel the need to put down others to make themselves feel superior.


Please. Give it a rest. This has nothing to do with the thread's topic. Thanks.

[bruinsrme]

I use a Compaq Presario Desktop I got on closeout for $199. I share my PC Printer so I can print from Windows. I added iTunes and it's my AppleTV server. I also sync my iPhone to it.

Before I got the AppleTV, you were supposed to "easily" use Windows Media Sharing and get the content (non-iTunes anyways) on an XBox 360. Well 2 evenings (for a total of 8 hours) later of being unsuccessful, I went and got an AppleTV.

It took 5 minutes to set up and get it working... :eek:

The xbox360 is great, I can pull media and radio right from my pioneer reciever, media from any from the 4 computers and from the NAS.

Al 3 Xbox360s are networked and can pull media from any PC, receiver and NAS

[MacFly123]

No Sarcasm at all, its no good as a 'media hub' as it's all tied in to apple hardware, I'm not going to buy one and I don't know anyone who owns one.

And as for iTunes it is a massive system hog for something that should use minimal resources.

And when will iTunes sync my phone with firefox?

I'll bet never cause they want to tie people in to all apple hardware, I dont like this attitude it is protectionist and ultimately bad for competition.

So why are you an Apple user??? If you don't like the ecosystem which is the best, easiest, most fun, and most seamless out there, then you can get out! ;)

As for the whole Apple TV argument, it is pretty subjective that you don't know anybody with one or that wants one but I do, however Apple's sales numbers obviously point to the accuracy of my statement over yours!

[SAIRUS]

I find this a huge step forward for digital distribution, but I have the equipment where 720p isn't enough. Wow, Mac stuff not good enough.

Really though, with bandwidth caps and DVD only sound on downloads, its hard to fully take to digital downloads.

1080p DTS MA is just the best, and sadly its on disc only. I do love the convience of digital has (we have a bunch of DVDs ripped to a huge hard drive that we access via the PS3), but right now disc media for me.

Love digital copies on Blu-rays for the travel.

[seedster2]

For people who dislike optical media this is surely great news.

I am sure users of Apple TV are happy. But, it's a supposed "hobby" that doesn't sell well. If it did, I am certain :apple: wouldnt consider it a hobby any longer and put resources behind it rather than stick it in a corner of their store.

Most people are looking for convenience and cable on demand and netflix have that locked up. No additional hardware required. People looking to spend $250 for additional hardware will likely be buying BR instead of an :apple:TV.

We won't even begin to talk about the astute/careful approach Studios are taking with maintaining control/leverage with their product.

[stevielee]

Hmmm, you use the inferior MP3 (compared to AAC in general for a given bit-rate) format and listen to horn-loaded (distortion) speakers that cut-off bass at 86Hz (awful crossover point and no mention of a sub to augment the total lack of bass those speakers have) and yet you feel the superiority to disrespect other people? :eek:

For reference, I maintain both Apple Lossless and 256kbps AAC libraries and my primary music listening room has $2000/pair Carver ribbon speakers with an active crossover system. I still don't feel the need to badmouth those that have 128kbps AAC libraries. It's neither as bad as you make it out to be to begin with and doesn't take into account the switch to 256kbps AAC (over 80% complete at the iTunes store) with the ability to upgrade previously purchased music.

Like the Blu-Ray 1080P arguments in general, I believe some people on here have self-esteem issues that they feel the need to put down others to make themselves feel superior.

If you'd take your head out of your AAC'd a** and realize that I was responding to someone who thought that 70GB's of 128Kbps AAC files was the way to go and that my Music library was probably loaded with "garbage" because I had more than him..etc, etc.

And talk about people with "self-esteem" issues, You bather on throughout many of these forums, raggin' on other for not being as MagnusVonMagnum as yourself. You are the posterboy of condescendtion here ..Sheesh!

And get outta here with dissing a very nice, mid-level pair of Klipsch speakers ( base is just fine thanks) - and playing your own game of mine-is-bigger - just because you paid twice as much to get your overpriced "Carvers" with their big-a##ed boom box base. I pity your neighbors if you happen to live in close proximity to actual humans when you crank up your monster sub.

And If you really think that Apple's iTunes 128Kbps AAC "Lossless" is better than higher bit rate MP3's (320VBR)...well, they saw you coming a mile away.
Also, try converting 70GB's or so of low quality AAC files via iTunes to their new, and finally higher quality 256Kbps AAC files and it will not only take you many, many hours, but mucho more $$$ @ 30 cents per file to "upgrade".

You keep on thinking that a 720p downloaded "HD" file is anything close to a actual Blu-ray movie in quality and I've got some 128Kbps "High Quality" AAC files I'd like to unload real cheap. You're just the kind of consumer (mark) that Apple has been making piles of money off of these past few years.

[str1f3]

For people who dislike optical media this is surely great news.

I am sure users of Apple TV are happy. But, it's a supposed "hobby" that doesn't sell well. If it did, I am certain :apple: wouldnt consider it a hobby any longer and put resources behind it rather than stick it in a corner of their store.

Most people are looking for convenience and cable on demand and netflix have that locked up. No additional hardware required. People looking to spend $250 for additional hardware will likely be buying BR instead of an :apple:TV.

We won't even begin to talk about the astute/careful approach Studios are taking with maintaining control/leverage with their product.

I'm not an apple tv user but for me the apple tv has better value than Blu-ray player since there is more than just playing movies that it can do. It is a hobby right now because that is all apple can do with it. Can it give you something like Hulu? No. It is apparent with the Boxee incident, the networks want you to use hulu on a computer. Netflix? No. That would cannibalize iTunes sales.
For me ultimately the best box is a computer. I just use my MacBook pro in combination with air mouse (iPhone app) and that gives me the best/cheapest results for what I need (though I may yet still get an apple tv for comfort).

As for the back and forth between Blu-ray and itunes downloads, I think everybody has what they want. If you're into the highest performance get BD. If you want quick and painless you have iTunes. While I'm sure there are a lot of video snobs in this thread, not many exist in the world. Most people are quite happy with DVD, much less HD. There was a study done that said only 25% of Americans could even tell HD from DVD.
I'm personally happy with the quality of the iTunes downloads, just not the pricing of it. There is no reason why the downloaded media should approach the cost of physical media. I don't blame apple but the industry.

[woodgear]

with this iTunes method of distribution. when you buy a HD movie. what do you do with it? can you burn it to blue-ray? don't get me wrong I think the iTunes is a good idea. I just not sure that when I can go to say bestbuy and buy the dvd for $19.99 and keep or download for the 19.99 and not have a back-up?

[hexonxonx]

with this iTunes method of distribution. when you buy a HD movie. what do you do with it? can you burn it to blue-ray? don't get me wrong I think the iTunes is a good idea. I just not sure that when I can go to say bestbuy and buy the dvd for $19.99 and keep or download for the 19.99 and not have a back-up?

You can't burn it to a disk but you can copy it to other computers for backup which is what I do. Another benefit is that I don't have to stop and put away all these DVDs or find storage space for all these DVD cases. Same reasons I stopped buying CDs years ago. Why buy a CD when I can buy from iTunes and not have to worry about CDs. I have stacks of CDs that I burned myself that I no longer use and that are just getting dusty now. I'll likely just throw them away because I'll never play them again. My iPod plugs into my Pioneer car deck and I can play the iPod from the touch screen and even watch the videos on the screen. The deck has a DVD player built in but I don't need it when I can watch the videos from my iPod on the decks screen.

All of this technology is making DVDs and CDs pointless.

On iTunes, I've purchased 1534 individual TV shows, over 100 movies and I'm ready for even more. Bring it on HD!

Oh by the way, I cancelled my DirecTV last fall because I rarely watched TV. All my viewing is done via my Macs.

[Scarpad]

Anything I buy on Itunes I backup to DVD Rom Data disk so I have a Hard Copy.

[MagnusVonMagnum]

with this iTunes method of distribution. when you buy a HD movie. what do you do with it? can you burn it to blue-ray? don't get me wrong I think the iTunes is a good idea. I just not sure that when I can go to say bestbuy and buy the dvd for $19.99 and keep or download for the 19.99 and not have a back-up?

You should back up your entire computer to a 2nd hard drive (or other medium) and that would include your movie collection. For example, I recently bought TWO Seagate 1.5TB internal drives for my PowerMac server. I use Carbon Copy Cloner to maintain a bootable identical copy of the first drive with the second one. If something ever happens to one of the drives, I can immediately boot off the other one without issue until I get a replacement drive, which I would then install in place of the defective one and then copy the contents of the good one back over to that one and I'm right back where I started. Really, it wouldn't even be a bad idea to have two backups of your media collection. I've already got my music and music videos backed up twice, but I plan on getting a dual enclosure for the two 500GB drives I replaced with the two 1.5TB drives and then using RAID 0 to bridge them and give me a 1TB external media backup drive on which I'll put all my iTunes library stuff, movies included and I can move that backup off site even for even more protection. The point is you don't even need hard media anymore, just lots of backup space.

As soon as movies like The Matrix and Star Wars become available in HD to buy, I can just download them and run Carbon Copy Cloner and I'm all set. I can then stream them around the house to my two AppleTV units and take a copy with me on my iPod Touch in regular definition (since one is included). No, I can't pop them into a BD player. They're not BD or DVD. But I can pop them into my laptop or my brother's computer to temporarily authorize to watch via iTunes there. Of course, it would be better if they were non-DRM and then you could play them on any player that plays .H264 movies like the Popcorn A-110 or even a PS3. And no they're not 1080P. Not everyone needs 1080P to enjoy a movie. 720P is much better than DVD quality and at the moment my projector is only 720P so BD would offer little improvement anyway. Even so, I only plan to buy a few movies I tend to watch multiple times. Otherwise, it's not worth it.

And despite what some might make you want to think, anamorphic DVDs still look pretty good on a 93" screen even. Yes, sharper is nicer, but it's still the movie that is more important than the technology. Do you watch movies to see HD or watch movies to watch movies? In the audio world, there are people (called audiophiles) that buy $50,000 in equipment and own a couple dozen CDs to impress people with and there are people that own $1000 systems that own several hundred, maybe even thousands of CDs because they love music. I'm starting to think with Blu-Ray the same thing is starting to happen. Yes, I'd prefer 1080P, but until I get a 1080P projector (could be years as my 720P is working fine and 1080P projectors are still over $2000 for the most part), I'm not going to worry about it. Movies are just one medium I watch anyway (there's also cable which is either 1080i or 720P at best and online sources which are typically even worse looking, but that doesn't mean they aren't entertaining) and 1080P won't really help with those sources anyway. I'm sort of surprised there isn't a boycott organized to try and somehow force someone to broadcast cable in 1080P since 1080i and 720P are supposedly so horrible. Good luck with that sort of thing.

[woodgear]

thanks to all for the info. some questions:
1. how much space is a 120min HD from iTunes?
2. if you loose your space can you download again from iTunes or do you need to purchase again?
3. I agree that it is the experience of watching movies is the goal, but is the sound the full deal, DTS,dolby digital etc? This will make a difference to me?


it looks like I will be looking for a ebay G5 Mac Pro as a server or a NAS like the buffalo link-station quad? any thoughts, comments on what is the best way?

[Cave Man]

You keep on thinking that a 720p downloaded "HD" file is anything close to a actual Blu-ray movie in quality and I've got some 128Kbps "High Quality" AAC files I'd like to unload real cheap.

There is a clear difference between 720p Blu-ray transcodes and 1080p Blu-ray rips (i.e., same movie) on my 10-foot screen and 1080p Sanyo projector, but my 42" Samsung TV is only 720p and if there's a difference between 1080p and 720p I can't see it. So, if one only has a 720p TV, then getting 1080p is superfelous.

Besides, I think what's more important is the bit rate. A high bit rate 720p can look much better than a poor bit rate 1080p. There's more to this than resolution.

[liltroy37]

if i had :apple:tv ..then maybe :rolleyes:

Yeah, on an iMac screen, I can't really tell a difference. To be honest, I don't think most people can tell the difference between HD and standard on TV's less than 42 inches. So even with an apple tv, it might be pointless unless u have a awesome setup :cool:

[hexonxonx]

Yeah, on an iMac screen, I can't really tell a difference. To be honest, I don't think most people can tell the difference between HD and standard on TV's less than 42 inches. So even with an apple tv, it might be pointless unless u have a awesome setup :cool:

Oh you can notice the difference on a Mac screen. on my 20" iMac or my 23" ACD I can see the difference between the HD versions and the SD versions. When Lost was first released on iTunes, it was in the SD format and I had purchased the first four seasons that way. Season five, I bought in HD and was so kind of mad that when I bought the earlier seasons that they were only available in SD. I deleted the SD seasons and repurchased them in HD. I haven't regretted that since.

[AidenShaw]

I deleted the SD seasons and repurchased them in HD.

This may be the strongest indication that higher resolution will win, and that downloads won't kill optical until the content (resolution and extras) is identical. Downloads have to catch up on the audio and multi-scene/extras front.

I'm not replacing all of my DVDs with BDs. But, when a favorite movie comes out in BD I do find myself purchasing the BD copy.

If I *may* watch it again - I'll keep the DVD.

If I *will* watch it again - I'll probably get the BD.

If I will watch it *again* and *again* - I'll definitely get the BD.

I just don't like listening to and watching DVDs anymore - completely spoiled by BD.

And "listening" is important. It's not unusual to be startled by sounds coming from behind while watching a BD movie. Eight channel 96KHz 24bit sound is amazing!

[PCMacUser]

Don't know if anyone has already asked - don't want to read through 14 pages of posts - but:

How big is a 720p HD download from iTunes?

[hexonxonx]

Don't know if anyone has already asked - don't want to read through 14 pages of posts - but:

How big is a 720p HD download from iTunes?

I bought the HD version of the Lucky Ones and the HD version was 3.54GB and the SD version that comes with it was 1.53GB so that's just over 5GB.

[PCMacUser]

I bought the HD version of the Lucky Ones and the HD version was 3.54GB and the SD version that comes with it was 1.53GB so that's just over 5GB.

Thanks. My data cap is 10Gb, so that means two movies per month and that's all. I think I'll have to stick with optical media for now.

[HipPriest]

Quote:
Originally Posted by GeekLawyer View Post
1280:544 = 2.35:1

Looks like rather than include the black borders in a 2.35:1 aspect ratio (cinemascope), Apple has cropped the image to 1280x544.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ViRGE View Post
That's not downsampled. 720P defines a resolution of 1280x720, but only for material that is using a 16:9 (1.77:1) aspect ratio. Movies use a range of aspect ratios, 1280x544 is consistent with a 2.35:1 ratio movie.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Undecided View Post
No, the second figure represents the actual lines for the film, which depends on the dimensions. The more widescreen it is, the lower that figure will be. There's no point in Apple sending you the black bars that would appear at the top and bottom if it were sending you full 1280x720 frames.

Good, you all passed the test ;) .

Still sad, though, to pay "HD" prices for a 700 Kpixel movie...

No, we're talking about computer technology here: they could have encoded the 2.35:1 movie at 1280x720 with a flag for the pixel aspect and given you more vertical detail. They probably chose to do it this way to save bandwidth on the majority of movies, and for simplicity. Though Blu-ray made the same choice to only support square pixels, that makes more sense since TV's aren't more than 1080p vertical anyway, though hypothetically non-square pixels could have been used to provide more detail on projectors with anamorphic lenses.

[mambodancer]

I'm so sick of seeing this kind of BS. "Only just" ? What the heck does that mean? Tell me, is 1080i "just HD" also? I'm going to bet that your answer is no, it's REAL HD. Get a clue. The actual "information" difference between 720P and 1080i is practically negligible (1080i is really only 540 lines of information at any given moment and uses a trick of the brain to try and make you think you are seeing more than that; technically 720P at a given moment in time is higher vertical resolution). 1080i is interlaced which in general is inferior to a progressive image. For static images, you'll get an apparent higher resolution, but with motion you will get an inferior picture.

So does that mean you 'need' 1080P to be "real HD" ??? Let me clue you in. 1080P wasn't even talked about except in theory early on and some said it wouldn't come into real use at all because of the massive bandwidth requirements. Short of Blu-Ray or some kind of Internet delivery, this is still largely true. You will probably NEVER see it on Cable or Satellite for that reason. So by your "only just" standards does that mean that all the program material on broadcast television, cable and satellite out there in the whole world is "only just" HD??? THAT is exactly what you're telling me, after all. HDTV means television, but I guess we "only just" see HD on actual television broadcasts. :rolleyes:

I find the utter snobbery disgusting (and that IS what I keep seeing, snobbery) associated with Blu-Ray and this whole 1080P business. I've said it before and I'll say it again, MOST of the people yelling the loudest about how utterly fantastic 1080P is and how HORRIBLE 720P is (all over that extra 360 lines) are watching it on smallish sets (under 60") at long distances (over 8 feet) and so the snobbish claims are LAUGHABLE to anyone that knows ANYTHING about resolving distances.

Check this article out: http://www.tvtechnology.com/article/12836

What this means is the human eye (with 20/20 vision) can resolve detail for 1080P to approximately 3x the screen height distance. Thus, if you have a 60" 16x9 screen (29 inch height), you can resolve all the detail out to about 7.25 feet. If you are sitting out further than that, you are starting to lose resolution acuity and any improvement is completely in your head and/or imagination (hence where the snobbery starts as in audiophile type claims where people seem to think they're super human and can sense things others cannot).

Here's an article with a chart that makes it perfectly clear as to where the benefits begin and end for a given format:

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

As you can see, unless you are watching VERY LARGE sets and/or sitting VERY CLOSE (not true of MOST people), the benefits of 1080P are MOOT. I'm in no way saying that 1080P isn't 'better' than 720P. HOWEVER, you HAVE to be sitting within the range of that chart for your eyes to see the full resolution details (at 20/20 vision; if you have lower vision, the distances decrease that you have to sit at to see the detail).

So your average consumer might have a 46" HD set. You have to be sitting no further than 5.75 feet away with 20/20 vision to ACTUALLY SEE the full 1080P resolution! How many people do you know that sit less than 6 feet from their 46" sets? If you are sitting around 8 feet away, you will JUST be able to see the full 720P resolution! If you are sitting over 13 feet away, you might as well just watch a DVD because you will not see any more resolution than one!

I'm sure these numbers are coming as a shock to some and others think I'm crazy, stupid or nuts, but this is science, not active imaginations run wild with bogus claims about superior pictures they do not actually see.

I've got a 93" screen and one of the higher quality 720P projectors out there. I sit 8 feet away from the screen. At that distance and screen size, I could theoretically see the FULL benefit of 1080P so for my room and screen, a 1080P projector upgrade could be in my future. If I were sitting 14 feet away, there would be no point in ever upgrading. I couldn't POSSIBLY tell the difference. Yet I've seen plenty of 93" screens in use with seating distances of around 12 feet. At that distance, the difference between 720P and 1080P would barely be noticeable at all. And that's with a pretty darn large screen and a pretty average seating distance. Many people sit 20 feet away from their televisions. At that distance, you would need a screen that is at least 106" to just barely start to see a difference with 1080P and about 140" to see ALL the detail at that distance. How many people do you know that have 140" screens?

As for the lossless audio claim, it's suffice to say the ignorance surrounding what is audible out there even in (maybe especially within) audiophile circles is astounding. I followed the scene for years and met no end of "goldenear" types that couldn't tell 16-bit/44.1kHz audio from a 128kbit MP3 even when the test was done blind. Even with trained ears, you cannot distinguish 256kbit (128kbit per channel) AAC from the source material. The differences are inaudible. Dolby Digital could have audible differences, but the liklihood of one being able to tell the difference between it and even a "super lossless" format is pretty darn small once the test goes blind (science instead of imagination). Find me some people that even have DECENT audio gear and then maybe we can worry about whether a difference in quality is actually audible or not. I have $2000 ribbon speakers (Carver) upstairs with custom active crossovers and 500 watts (into 4 ohms) per channel total amplification on that system and over $3000 worth of speakers (PSB) in my home theater room downstairs. I'm quite familiar with "good" sound.

So what I'm saying is that yes, 1080P is superior to 720P. 4 is still bigger than 3 even in the scientific community. But that in no way substantiates the claims made by the masses, most of whom are completely ignorant about things like resolving distances and blind testing for audio. These "huge" differences aren't huge at all under many very common conditions (from small screens versus seating distances to cheap playback speakers) and I dare wager that most of the claims on this site are made from ego and snobbery, not actual science. Compression is another topic that is greatly exaggerated by the golden eyes types. Most of this stuff comes from the "my X (computer, hard disk, car engine, whatever) is bigger/better than yours lines of thinking. Sorry if I don't just lump sum it all into a neat package of 1080P is better period. If you don't take the room/TV size/seating distance into account, it's a meaningless statement.

Finally someone who tells it like it is. Thank you, thank you, thank you.

I'd love to see a Mythbuster episode on this. After reading the posts on HD this and Bluray that, doing my own research and comparisons, listening to my clients in the audio and video world, it has become more and more obvious that few people on this forum really know what they are talking about.

[Bubba Satori]

To be honest, I don't think most people can tell the difference between HD and standard on TV's less than 42 inches.

Yes they can. I've never had a customer who couldn't tell the difference. Never.

[Scarpad]

I'm not an apple tv user but for me the apple tv has better value than Blu-ray player since there is more than just playing movies that it can do. It is a hobby right now because that is all apple can do with it. Can it give you something like Hulu? No. It is apparent with the Boxee incident, the networks want you to use hulu on a computer. Netflix? No. That would cannibalize iTunes sales.
For me ultimately the best box is a computer. I just use my MacBook pro in combination with air mouse (iPhone app) and that gives me the best/cheapest results for what I need (though I may yet still get an apple tv for comfort).

As for the back and forth between Blu-ray and itunes downloads, I think everybody has what they want. If you're into the highest performance get BD. If you want quick and painless you have iTunes. While I'm sure there are a lot of video snobs in this thread, not many exist in the world. Most people are quite happy with DVD, much less HD. There was a study done that said only 25% of Americans could even tell HD from DVD.
I'm personally happy with the quality of the iTunes downloads, just not the pricing of it. There is no reason why the downloaded media should approach the cost of physical media. I don't blame apple but the industry.

I agree If Itunes would give us a reason to preorder Hi Def films, say Quantum of Solace for $14.99 in Hi def with the SD Included, I think I would jump at that.

[Scarpad]

thanks to all for the info. some questions:
1. how much space is a 120min HD from iTunes?
2. if you loose your space can you download again from iTunes or do you need to purchase again?
3. I agree that it is the experience of watching movies is the goal, but is the sound the full deal, DTS,dolby digital etc? This will make a difference to me?


it looks like I will be looking for a ebay G5 Mac Pro as a server or a NAS like the buffalo link-station quad? any thoughts, comments on what is the best way?

Itunes does need to implement what Amazon is doing, allow redownloading of the library you have already purchased.

[Vip]

So what is the DRM on these HD movies? are they DRM free like iTunes plus?

Ta

[Cave Man]

So what is the DRM on these HD movies? are they DRM free like iTunes plus?

No chance in hell.

[Sehnsucht]

What? Every new movie I buy is an HD DVD.


Where do you get them? I thought HD DVDs weren't made anymore. :confused:

[Sehnsucht]

Hmmm, you use the inferior MP3 (compared to AAC in general for a given bit-rate) format and listen to horn-loaded (distortion) speakers that cut-off bass at 86Hz (awful crossover point and no mention of a sub to augment the total lack of bass those speakers have) and yet you feel the superiority to disrespect other people? :eek:

For reference, I maintain both Apple Lossless and 256kbps AAC libraries and my primary music listening room has $2000/pair Carver ribbon speakers with an active crossover system. I still don't feel the need to badmouth those that have 128kbps AAC libraries. It's neither as bad as you make it out to be to begin with and doesn't take into account the switch to 256kbps AAC (over 80% complete at the iTunes store) with the ability to upgrade previously purchased music.

PWNed! :D :D

[dmlogs]

omg twilight !!!

:D

[sccaldwell]

that's practically the price of a bluray...

... Why would you pay for a hi-def download when you could get a better quality DVD?

Have to say I agree....I'm quite disappointed on the quality and prices.

$19.99 for a 720p movie? You're kidding, right? When I saw that HD was finally available, I thought it might be time for me to finally get that AppleTV I've been eyeing....but then I saw the prices.

And $5 to RENT it? You're kidding, right? I get 3-at-a-time Blu-Ray discs from NetFlix for $17.99, so if I cycle through them only twice in a month, I'm getting 6 full-HD (1080p) movies for what I'd pay $30 through iTunes, and for lower-quality. Oh, and with that, I get unlimited streaming from Netflix of over 10K movies (granted, most are older, but still...).

I'm as much of an Apple fanboy as anyone, but c'mon guys...let's at least make it price-competitive, please!!!

[polaris20]

Thanks. My data cap is 10Gb, so that means two movies per month and that's all. I think I'll have to stick with optical media for now.

Ouch. That's going to be the bigger kicker, if ISP's get more aggressive with bandwidth caps.

[AidenShaw]

Ouch. That's going to be the bigger kicker, if ISP's get more aggressive with bandwidth caps.

I think that we'll see more and more ISPs moving to a either tiered pricing ($ for 10GB/month, $$ for 50GB/month, $$$$ for 250GB/m) or direct "metering" and "pay per byte".

Even low quality video is a bandwidth hog, and it only makes sense to make those who are using more bandwidth to pay more.

[Tallest Skil]

Where do you get them? I thought HD DVDs weren't made anymore. :confused:

Over 400 titles on Amazon. Cheaper than Blu-ray, too, and brand new.

Movies today generally suck eggs (CIP, the "_____ Movie" trash and related pop-cultureesque films), and HD DVD had a lot of classic (read: GOOD) movies on board before it died. When I get the hankering for a new one, I can find virtually anything I want.

[mambodancer]

Anyone want to buy my laserdisc collection? About 300+ films, many Criterion Collection...

[xbjllb]

Oh yeah. BTW, blu-ray, you have just now become antiquated!!! It's just a matter of time before you're truly obsolete:(

As long as you're blind.

:apple:

[xbjllb]

Pretty much. Good riddance.

NOW if they add it, it will be no sooner than 2015, as I have said.

And as I have said, in that case, Apple won't exist by 2012.

:apple:

[eleven59]

started my HD "QoS" download about 30 min ago (11:30p monday)... cant wait to try it out (in a few hours lol), AND it comes with a DL of the SD version....

[MagnusVonMagnum]

Have to say I agree....I'm quite disappointed on the quality and prices.

$19.99 for a 720p movie? You're kidding, right? When I saw that HD was finally available, I thought it might be time for me to finally get that AppleTV I've been eyeing....but then I saw the prices.

Given new DVD movies are often $20 also, I'm not sure what's so horrible about getting a 720P HD movie for $20, especially given BD movies are $25-30. If you need 1080P or want extras, yes, it makes sense. But that doesn't make the Apple movies completely out of line. I would agree that $15 would be more attractive to me, though. Actually, just having something to actually buy (A stinking lousy dozen or less movies to start? Why even bother is my reaction; I want movies like the Matrix and Star Wars in HD. I doubt I'll see those for months, maybe YEARS, even though many are or have been available to rent on ATV already. I guess they can't get "permission" to sell 99.9999% of all movies given the insanely low number of movies available on the announcement day)


And $5 to RENT it? You're kidding, right? I get 3-at-a-time Blu-Ray discs


I guess you don't get out to actual video rental stores much these days (at LEAST that much for a new release DVD, let alone BD) if the only comparison you have is a subscription based model, based entirely on usage and requiring 1-2 days to get a hold of your movie, which just plain SUCKS for those of us that want our movies NOW. I don't even want to have to go drive to the video store to get it in a half hour. The best thing about renting movies from Apple is it's ready to play in less than 1 minute and yet the HD quality is about 3x better than the cable PPV HD movie I rented awhile back (which was very blocky compressed; I see NO obvious compression artifacts in ATV HD rentals. For all the talk about heavy compression, it's a load of BS, IMO. They look pretty darn good in that respect).

I think if Apple would offer $10 HD movie sales for older titles and $15 for new titles, they'd sell like hotcakes. They probably should knock a buck off rental prices across the board and they really should consider a subscription model for movies and even more so for TV shows (I don't want to "OWN" tv shows; I wouldn't mind renting them for 50 cents an episode or $1 for HD episodes). The worst part is if the movies don't sell and rentals don't take off they might assume there's no interest instead of concluding their prices are too high. I see nothing wrong with offering 720P downloads, but I agree that they should take into account the lack of a physical medium, lack of extras and the lower resolution when figuring the prices, which is why I suggested $15 instead. Sub-DVD quality sales should be under $10, IMO. $5 sales seem to do well when they offer them and that's why rentals should start at $1.99 for sub-DVD and $2.99 for 720P HD, IMO.

[polaris20]

I think that we'll see more and more ISPs moving to a either tiered pricing ($ for 10GB/month, $$ for 50GB/month, $$$$ for 250GB/m) or direct "metering" and "pay per byte".

Even low quality video is a bandwidth hog, and it only makes sense to make those who are using more bandwidth to pay more.

I think the real problem (at least here in the States) is that the problem is not so much the amount of bandwidth people use, but rather how woefully inadequate broadband is compared to other parts of the world, namely Japan.

If we had their infrastructure, no one would be worrying about bandwidth caps.

[Sky Blue]

Over 400 titles on Amazon. Cheaper than Blu-ray, too, and brand new.

Movies today generally suck eggs (CIP, the "_____ Movie" trash and related pop-cultureesque films), and HD DVD had a lot of classic (read: GOOD) movies on board before it died. When I get the hankering for a new one, I can find virtually anything I want.

Are you still on your HD-DVD kick? Not all films nowadays are ***** and when older movies come out for BR, they not coming out HD-DVD.

[AidenShaw]

I think the real problem (at least here in the States) is that the problem is not so much the amount of bandwidth people use, but rather how woefully inadequate broadband is compared to other parts of the world, namely Japan.

If we had their infrastructure, no one would be worrying about bandwidth caps.

And "pay per byte" is a good and fair way to generate capital to fund the infrastructure improvements.

[Sehnsucht]

Over 400 titles on Amazon. Cheaper than Blu-ray, too, and brand new.

Movies today generally suck eggs (CIP, the "_____ Movie" trash and related pop-cultureesque films), and HD DVD had a lot of classic (read: GOOD) movies on board before it died. When I get the hankering for a new one, I can find virtually anything I want.

Hee hee, you mean "suck major ass"!!! :D

That's awesome! I'm on Amazon all the time but never noticed those before. :cool:

[polaris20]

And "pay per byte" is a good and fair way to generate capital to fund the infrastructure improvements.

When looking at what the cable companies are currently charging as it is, I respectfully disagree.

[whooleytoo]

And "pay per byte" is a good and fair way to generate capital to fund the infrastructure improvements.

Possibly, but equally that could deter widespread adoption of large digital movie (& game/software, etc) downloads. Particularly if it in reality means "overcharge per byte".

[AidenShaw]

When looking at what the cable companies are currently charging as it is, I respectfully disagree.

With estimates of $120 billion and above (http://www.internetinnovation.org/press-room/press-releases/broadband-internet-crunch-is-beginning-to-occur/) to expand capacity, I suggest that the ISPs probably don't have the necessary capital.

[jmpage2]

Hee hee, you mean "suck major ass"!!! :D

That's awesome! I'm on Amazon all the time but never noticed those before. :cool:

You guys seriously need to get over yourselves. HD DVD is dead. There will be no new titles, and, amazingly, new movies make up the bulk of purchases.

I owned three different HD DVD machines and 50 titles. I had a variety of problems with discs skipping on every machine, especially with the combo disc titles.

I was a big proponent of HD DVD back in the day, but after experiencing the additional reliability for playback with Blu-Ray (no skipping, lockups, pixelation or dropouts) I am 100% converted.

[barkmonster]

:D

Why would anyone in their right mind pay that much for DRM restricted, "feature only" HD versions of movies?

It's beyond a joke and only fanboys would pay that kind of money for it just so they've got it in their iTunes library or on their Apple TV's anaemic hard drive.

Using Quantum of Solace as an example, I looked on froogle for the cheapest price:

BluRay: £16.99 (-15% VAT and converted to USD $11.13)

# 'Another Way To Die' Music Video
# Trailers
# Bond On Location Feature
# 5 Featurettes - Start of Shooting - On Location - Olga Kurylenko and the Boat Chase - Director Marc Forster - The Music
# Crew Files

Compared with Apple's "Feature Only" Download: $19.99 (+ 15% VAT and converted to UK Pounds £15.76)

It may only be £1.23 difference but what your missing out on is more than worth the extra cash even if it's for the psychological affect of physical ownership of a blu-ray disc, let alone all the extra's you may only watch once but get anyway.

Also the difference between 720p and an anamorphic DVD played through a decent scaler doesn't even justify the extra cost when the blu-ray disc is full 1080p HD

[polaris20]

With estimates of $120 billion and above (http://www.internetinnovation.org/press-room/press-releases/broadband-internet-crunch-is-beginning-to-occur/) to expand capacity, I suggest that the ISPs probably don't have the necessary capital.

Looking at what Comcast alone brings in, I still disagree. But whatever. ;) I personally think it's more along the lines of them not wanting to give up an ounce of profit to increase the speeds and area of the networks.

[AidenShaw]

Looking at what Comcast alone brings in, I still disagree. But whatever. ;) I personally think it's more along the lines of them not wanting to give up an ounce of profit to increase the speeds and area of the networks.

Comcast's net income is about $2.5B/year - a bit short....

Also note that the problem isn't solely at the last mile with the local telco/cable companies. There's a huge problem with backbone bandwidth, so getting 100 Mbps into the home isn't going to solve everything unless the local telco/cable company has terabit uplinks to the backbone.

(10,000 homes at 100 Mbps is 1 Tbps)

[polaris20]

Comcast's net income is about $2.5B/year - a bit short....

But you're saying an extra $10 a month or so for tiered bandwidth is going to help? If ISP's are so far off to generate enough capital, then minor bumps in caps per tier isn't going to help that much either.

[AidenShaw]

But you're saying an extra $10 a month or so for tiered bandwidth is going to help? If ISP's are so far off to generate enough capital, then minor bumps in caps per tier isn't going to help that much either.

At that tier, it would be about $2B/year for Comcast - nearly doubling their profit.

And I didn't say $10 - I didn't suggest a tier price. Something like a $1 per GB per month does sound appropriate, though, for the first tier.

[polaris20]

At that tier, it would be about $2B/year for Comcast - nearly doubling their profit.

And I didn't say $10 - I didn't suggest a tier price. Something like a $1 per GB per month does sound appropriate, though, for the first tier.

My point really is that the cable companies are already so incredibly overpriced as it is, that adding the caps and accompanying tiers would be kind of insulting. On DSL for instance, I pay less than half of what my in-laws and parents pay on Comcast.

Of course I don't know what Comcast's operating costs are, nor do I know what other cable companies' operating costs are.

[eleven59]

i personally dont care for "extras" anymore... dont add value to me if im not watching any of it. and most of it is nothing new or special or interesting to me. a few comments? meh. outtakes? how they did it? honestly- wooptie doo. and my tv isnt 1080 so thats a waste too right now. so an occasional HD download isnt a big deal to me. ive never been afraid to try something anyways.

sure, having the bluray disc as a hard copy, and putting the movie on a comp for an instant library is ideal to me. but i still cant remember the last time i watched any extra "features"

either way, as consumers, were ALL boned. whether its the ISP's, the studios, or even bluray tech, its only a short time till were having to buy the next HD format bc it offers 2x the resolution, etc... its all part of their plan....

so, regardless of what you prefer to buy, you're still getting cheated out of having the full experience, and yet you're still paying for that lesser experience

[2009NRL]

The ripping itself isn't; having the rip is.

it's confusing, but there are ways to have a rip legally.

Its actually the opposite. Illegal to rip (generally speaking). Legal to have a rip.

[blackpond]

I think the real problem (at least here in the States) is that the problem is not so much the amount of bandwidth people use, but rather how woefully inadequate broadband is compared to other parts of the world, namely Japan.

If we had their infrastructure, no one would be worrying about bandwidth caps.

Agreed. Though considering Japan has the geographic size of one large state in the US and a population of only 127.3 million compared to 306 million in the U.S. -- it is no wonder the U.S. broadband physical infrastructure is behind in comparison.

[Pigumon]

Most deffinatly 720.

Which of course, is still HD.

definitely 720

Anyway, although 720 is higher-def than 480, it shouldn't get the title of "HD". This was just a marketing ploy to sell uninformed people a lower quality product until they could finally come out with true 1080P equipment.

It sickens me that Apple, who used to be known for high quality, would still be selling 720P content when 1080P has been available for so long.

I had to buy a tiny "apple tv"-like device from CHINA just to get 1080P upscaling and content to my TV. (HDX-1000 in case you were wondering)
I LOVE Apple's design in both product and interface, and would buy an Apple TV in a second if they'd only support 1080P.

[Pigumon]

Agreed. Though considering Japan has the geographic size of one large state in the US and a population of only 127.3 million compared to 306 million in the U.S. -- it is no wonder the U.S. broadband physical infrastructure is behind in comparison.

Are you being a Japan fanboy? I talk to people in Japan everyday by videochat and while they see me crystal clearly, there video is constantly dropping out and extremely compressed. When I ask them to download something, they take 5 times as long as a download here. Maybe its good in center of Tokyo, but people just 10 minutes away have terrible up/down speeds.

I don't know why people think Japan is so high-tech... they excel at making mobile phones, toilet seats, and other gadgets, but not much of the real tech we're innovating each day in the U.S. They are quicker to market and more accepting of a new idea or item, though.

[Mackilroy]

<snip>
You're one of those people that believes anything less than 1080p isn't HD, aren't you.? So you probably bought into Sony's 'Full HD' bull, no doubt. Good luck with being a accomplice for the media companies. :)

As far as Japan goes, they do a lot more than phones and toilet seats and gadgets. They also make very good cars and control most of the international supertanker market. They're the second biggest economy in the world after the US.

And if they see you crystal-clear while you get drop-outs and compression, the problem isn't on their end. ;)

[Goona]

definitely 720

Anyway, although 720 is higher-def than 480, it shouldn't get the title of "HD". This was just a marketing ploy to sell uninformed people a lower quality product until they could finally come out with true 1080P equipment.

It sickens me that Apple, who used to be known for high quality, would still be selling 720P content when 1080P has been available for so long.

I had to buy a tiny "apple tv"-like device from CHINA just to get 1080P upscaling and content to my TV. (HDX-1000 in case you were wondering)
I LOVE Apple's design in both product and interface, and would buy an Apple TV in a second if they'd only support 1080P.

You know how long it would take to download a 1080p movie? :eek:

[AidenShaw]

You know how long it would take to download a 1080p movie? :eek:

No - I get the Blu-ray in the mail from Netflix.

[MagnusVonMagnum]

definitely 720

Anyway, although 720 is higher-def than 480, it shouldn't get the title of "HD".


What WOULD you call it then? Sorta-HD? The term HD was and IS designated for 720P and 1080i. Those were the two HD standards invented for the HD revolution. 1080P was and is not available in any broadcast format. 1080i is NOT higher real resolution than 720P. It's interlaced 540P which uses a trick of the brain to give "apparent" more resolution for static images. It is NOT higher real resolution and is vastly inferior to 720P for material with a lot of movement in it. By your standards, NOTHING on broadcast, cable or satellite TV could be called "HD". Just Blu-Ray. Why not propose calling 1080P "Super HD" or something instead of suggesting not calling the HD standards what they were from day 1?



This was just a marketing ploy to sell uninformed people a lower quality product until they could finally come out with true 1080P equipment.


That is certainly NOT the true history of HD.


It sickens me that Apple, who used to be known for high quality, would still be selling 720P content when 1080P has been available for so long.


Clearly, you know nothing about bandwidth limitations for downloading (the 720P downloads alone are more than many people's limits would allow). AppleTV for better or worse wasn't designed for this purpose in mind. They've adapted their investment in hardware for the market demand after the fact. If you don't like it, don't buy it. Either wait for Apple to update the hardware (if they ever do) or go buy a BD player. Whining about the product won't make it produce 1080P.

This whole 1080P snobbery trend is what truly sickens me (and most of it is from people that don't have sets at viewing distances that would show the difference anyway). If anything is a marketing ploy, it's pushing 1080P on set sizes where it makes little to no difference. And the price gap isn't a small one. For example, if you sit more than 5.75 feet from a 46" 1080P set, you will only 720P worth of resolution and the 720P set costs $400 less than the cheaper-end 1080P ones so the joke is on the consumer most of the time. Yes, if you have a truly large set and sit a medium distance away then 1080P is preferable, but that's a pretty small minority of people and that doesn't mean 720P looks like crap or something. I've got a 93" set at 8 feet and at that distance I COULD see 100% of the 1080P detail IF I had a 1080P projector, but at the time I bought my 720P projector, the 1080P ones were $5000+ and that was a bit out of my price range. Even today almost all of them are over $2000 to start (screen not included). Even so, 720P looks pretty darn amazing compared to what a $25,000 NTSC projector produced in the mid 1990's. Half the people out there with HD capable sets don't even have proper HD signals yet (either the wrong cable box or a very limited number of "sorta HD" channels. I get over 50 channels of HD from my cable company, but I have a high quality 3rd party source. My mother who lives in another part of the state gets about 24 HD channels from Time Warner at a higher cost than I get 50.

Frankly, a 720P cheaper alternative to Blu-Ray isn't a bad thing, IMO right now. If you're going to compete with 1080P, Blu-Ray has the advantage of low-compression. No internet based download is going to easily compete with that at 1080P. But at 720P, it's feasible. I can get a signal about a minute after ordering a 720P iTunes rental. If you had a BD signal at those compression levels, it'd take a good day to download the entire movie over a 5MBit connection. That's not a viable business model, IMO and many ISPs would undoubtedly start capping what you could download each month if they haven't already. In short, not everyone NEEDS 1080P Blu-Ray. My only complaint about Apple selling 720P is that they should drop the price to $10 or $12 for older movies and $15 for new ones to really offer a nice alternative to Blu-Ray given the lower resolution.

Yes, I would prefer if my AppleTV supported 1080P for future reference and higher picture displays if/when I get a 1080P projector some day, but if 720P "sickens" you, then how did you EVER stand to watch NTSC all your life before HD? Or was that before your time on Earth?

[blackpond]

Are you being a Japan fanboy? I talk to people in Japan everyday by videochat and while they see me crystal clearly, there video is constantly dropping out and extremely compressed. When I ask them to download something, they take 5 times as long as a download here. Maybe its good in center of Tokyo, but people just 10 minutes away have terrible up/down speeds.

I don't know why people think Japan is so high-tech... they excel at making mobile phones, toilet seats, and other gadgets, but not much of the real tech we're innovating each day in the U.S. They are quicker to market and more accepting of a new idea or item, though.

hehe. Hardly. My post was in defense of the United States. If anything I'm a U.S.A fanboy and proud of it. ;)

If what you say is true about bandwidth limitations in Japan then I'd say that's very sad for them... I wasn't aware.

One other thing I'd like to mention - that is not so biased by country -- the internet as most know it is a very young technology (15 years perhaps?). How long did it take television broadcast and cable to reach high definition standards? It sure wasn't 15 years. No my friends, digital delivery over IP is here to stay and will reign supreme sooner than many think.