1080p - This year?

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

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

1080p would be very nice, but my projector on supports 1080i so i can wait

AppleTV isn't even supporting full 720p (h264 high profile, CABAC etc.). How the hell is it supposed to support 1080p without hardware upgrades...

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

Diveflo said:

AppleTV isn't even supporting full 720p (h264 high profile, CABAC etc.). How the hell is it supposed to support 1080p without hardware upgrades...

Click to expand...

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

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

dynaflash said:

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

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

Click to expand...

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

Diveflo said:

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

Click to expand...

Right, most of those are really encoded to be played back on your computer. I am encoding OTA HD from my eyetv using HB to get some 720p HD content for my atv which is awfully nice looking (with cabac even). Better than any HD rentals I have seen so far (though admittedly I have only tried a few rentals). At any rate, encoded properly the atv *can* play some pretty nice looking 720p 24p content with full AC3 DD. The whole "720p, 1080p" thing when it comes to encoded content is kind of tossed around haphazardly imo as there is alot more to it than the actual picture size, as you really have pointed out.

Consultant said:

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

Click to expand...

Very True. I agree, 100%.

fivepoint said:

Very True. I agree, 100%.

Click to expand...

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

do you think the AppleTV will require new hardware to do 1080p? i was thinking of picking one up soon, but if this is the case i will probably wait.

fivepoint said:

Very True. I agree, 100%.

Click to expand...

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

Diveflo said:

AppleTV isn't even supporting full 720p (h264 high profile, CABAC etc.). How the hell is it supposed to support 1080p without hardware upgrades...

Click to expand...

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

Consultant said:

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

Click to expand...

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

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

Tilpots said:

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

Click to expand...

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

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

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

CWallace said:

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

Click to expand...

Yes, American broadband is a travesty. The bandwidth caps (some of them, at least) should be a crime against humanity.

belisle said:

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



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

Click to expand...

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

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

Tilpots said:

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

Click to expand...

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

belisle said:

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

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

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

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

Click to expand...

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

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

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

Tilpots said:

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

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

Click to expand...

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

belisle said:

Fivepoint's plagiarized chart, I imagine, assumes that you're comparing a native 720p TV with a native 1080p one, not running a 1080p TV at lower resolution.

Click to expand...

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

fivepoint said:

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

Click to expand...

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

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

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

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

fivepoint said:

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

Click to expand...

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

Tilpots said:

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

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

Click to expand...

belisle said:

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

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

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

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

Click to expand...

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

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

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

fivepoint said:

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

Click to expand...

Now, let's compare to your previous words.

fivepoint said:

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

Click to expand...

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

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

fivepoint said:

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

Click to expand...

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

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

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

fivepoint said:

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

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

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

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

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

Click to expand...

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