Apples 1080p content sucks

[mic j]

Originally Posted by roidy

But it's obviously not working is it given the example I've posted, the studio/Apple just needs to look at the resulting file and think to themselves that looks crap lets up the bitrate and get it looking good for our customers, good god it not hard.

You can argue the toss all you want, it wont change the fact, that file is crap and not fit to be on sale.

Yes, it is working. Not sure how things are in the UK but in the US, once I break the seal on the DVD package it's not returnable unless the disc is unplayable. They don't care if I am disappointed in the video/audio quality, just think the story line sucks or whatever.

[roidy]

Originally Posted by chenks

a scratched car is physically damaged.
comparing it to a blu-ray purchase, you are not complaining that the disc would be scratched, you are saying that the quality of the content is not, in your opinion, good enough.

your download is not physically damaged, it plays correctly.
it's just that, in your opinion, the quality of the "content" is not up to your standards. that is a subjective complaint, not a physical complaint.

It's not about weather it's a physical item or not, it's about QUALITY

QUALITY

Definition
In manufacturing, a measure of excellence or a state of being free from defects, deficiencies, and significant variations, brought about by the strict and consistent adherence to measurable and verifiable standards to achieve uniformity of output that satisfies specific customer or user requirements.

If your car is scratched then the quality of that car is diminished and you'd complain, likewise if your file looks like crap then the quality is diminished and you'd complain.

Originally Posted by chenks

if it was "physically" damaged i would return it to the place of purchase.
your download is not physically damaged, thus rendering your argument "moot".

Again, it's about quality not physical damage. If the quality of a item, be it physical or downloaded, isn't up to standards then you complain and get a refund.

----------

Originally Posted by chenks

go ahead and complain then rather that arguing about it here.

Already have, don't you think that wasn't the first thing I did

----------

Originally Posted by mic j

Yes, it is working. Not sure how things are in the UK but in the US, once I break the seal on the DVD package it's not returnable unless the disc is unplayable. They don't care if I am disappointed in the video/audio quality, just think the story line sucks or whatever.

In the UK we have a thing called "Fit for Purpose". It dosen't matter if you unwrap the packaging, if the item has quality defects, like bad picture quality (not bad story line ), ie is not "Fit for Purpose" then you're entitled to a replacement or full refund. Infact I think this law covers most of europe as well.

[roidy]

Originally Posted by mic j

Have you tried to contact Apple Customer Support with a complaint and a request for a refund?

Never mind. I see hafr already asked that.

Originally Posted by hafr

Have you contacted Apple and told them this?

Yep, sorry guys, didn't see your posts, too busy in a heated discussion with chenks

Yep, that was the first thing I did, contact Apple through iTunes and request a refund.

[nateo200]

Originally Posted by roidy

Well it's not Apple crap, as Apple don't do the encoding. What I'm saying is you don't need to compare those images to anything to tell that it's just a crap encode plain and simple.

Even if you did compare those images to a Blu-ray and the Blu-ray was just as bad it still dosen't change the fact that the encoded file is crap and shouldn't be on sale.

Studio's are required to send Apple a master of the video file in ProRes 4444. That means someone else other than the studio is doing the encoding in between and that is probably Apple as I have no clue why Apple would request a big ass ProRes 4444 file as we are certainly not downloading that which can only mean they are indeed doing the encoding. Regardless there name is on it. And don't give me this BS about source quality because we all know their are some ****** Blu-ray's out their from ****** masters but that is not even 15% of every Blu-ray ever made. If a movie is making 100million dollars I expect every ounce of computer encoding power to make it worth buying.

[roidy]

Originally Posted by nateo200

Studio's are required to send Apple a master of the video file in ProRes 4444. That means someone else other than the studio is doing the encoding in between and that is probably Apple as I have no clue why Apple would request a big ass ProRes 4444 file as we are certainly not downloading that which can only mean they are indeed doing the encoding. Regardless there name is on it.

Really, I and alot of other people assumed that the studios did the encoding and then sent the files to Apple.

And don't give me this BS about source quality because we all know their are some ****** Blu-ray's out their from ****** masters but that is not even 15% of every Blu-ray ever made. If a movie is making 100million dollars I expect every ounce of computer encoding power to make it worth buying.

Stop right there! exactly what BS am I giving you????

You're making my exact point I don't care what the original sources look like, I don't care who encoded them, all I care about is when I purchase a file from Apple I expect the best quality possible, not the crap I got from the file I posted.

[mic j]

Originally Posted by nateo200

Studio's are required to send Apple a master of the video file in ProRes 4444. That means someone else other than the studio is doing the encoding in between and that is probably Apple as I have no clue why Apple would request a big ass ProRes 4444 file as we are certainly not downloading that which can only mean they are indeed doing the encoding. Regardless there name is on it. And don't give me this BS about source quality because we all know their are some ****** Blu-ray's out their from ****** masters but that is not even 15% of every Blu-ray ever made. If a movie is making 100million dollars I expect every ounce of computer encoding power to make it worth buying.

Do TV shows also have to submit as ProRes 4444?

[chiefpavvy]

Originally Posted by chenks

nope, your bitrate theory is flawed.
improvement in encoding techniques mean that bitrate numbers are becoming more meaningless.

higher bitrate does not always mean better quality.

This. Just as we now have audio that really does sound fantastic at ridiculous low bit rates (64k HE-AAC, for example) which just a few years ago would have been laughed at as impossible and far-fetched. So too goes video encoding. It is evolving and advancing all the time. You can no longer discern the quality of an encoding simply by the bitrate. I've seen some pretty fantastic encodes with relatively low bitrates and some pretty crap encodes with very high bitrates.

On the OPs premise, of course, Apple gets the best quality source possible. A source better than you can purchase as it is a studio master, as opposed to a Blu-Ray disc which is already lossy compression (albeit very good). TV shows may be a different story as they remain a hodge-podge depending on the studio and such. One can have fantastic masters, another not so much. It really varies quite a bit.

[roidy]

I know and agree that higher bitrates arn't the be all and end all of quality. I've encoded 1080p content from blu-ray with a quarter of the bitrate and still can't tell the difference from the original. However that dosen't change the fact that the quality of the file I posted is shockingly poor and Apple has no business selling it in it's current state. What I was saying is if they just used a higher bitrate to start with we'd get a much better quality file.

I've now downloaded about 6 different 1080p files from various different iTunes TV Shows and the quality of all of them is poor. What's the point of Apple offering 1080p content if the quality is worse than the 720p versions, we may as well just stick to the 720p versions.

[chiefpavvy]

Every one I've spoken to seems fairly happy with the quality of iTunes 1080P content, both movies and television programming. I don't buy much of either so I can't give my own assessment.

[wxman2003]

One thing I see day after day is that MLB 720p streaming is of higher quality than any 1080p streaming from Apple or Netflix.

[Nermal]

Originally Posted by mic j

Do TV shows also have to submit as ProRes 4444?

TV shows are in 422 HQ, if I recall correctly.

Edit: Yes, it's 422 HQ, and so are movies.

[roidy]

Originally Posted by Nermal

TV shows are in 422 HQ, if I recall correctly.

Edit: Yes, it's 422 HQ, and so are movies.

Very interesting read, thanks Nermal.

So for all those people telling me not to blame Apple and instead blame the movie studios it seems I'm blaming the right people after all. If Apple are requesting files with bitrates of 88-220Mpbs then there's absolutely no excuse for them selling poor quality encodes like I posted.

[chenks]

Originally Posted by roidy

Very interesting read, thanks Nermal.

So for all those people telling me not to blame Apple and instead blame the movie studios it seems I'm blaming the right people after all. If Apple are requesting files with bitrates of 88-220Mpbs then there's absolutely no excuse for them selling poor quality encodes like I posted.

you're still ignoring the fact that with modern encoding techniques, bitrate is the not "be all and end all". there may well be something a-miss with the specific example you posted, but to say that it is definitely just bitrate is foolish.

what was the outcome of the complaint you made?

[mic j]

Originally Posted by roidy

Very interesting read, thanks Nermal.

So for all those people telling me not to blame Apple and instead blame the movie studios it seems I'm blaming the right people after all. If Apple are requesting files with bitrates of 88-220Mpbs then there's absolutely no excuse for them selling poor quality encodes like I posted.

So I have a mp4 video I downloaded that is so pixilated it's hard to watch from anything less than across the room. It's 720p and 29Mbps. How come it doesn't look pristine with that bitrate?

Because....garbage in....garbage out, regardless of technical encoding specifications.

Maybe Apple should monitor quality and reject anything that is not pristine, maybe not. I still think the problem would be solved by allowing the viewing of a small sample before downloading. You don't like it...don't download it.

[roidy]

Originally Posted by mic j

So I have a mp4 video I downloaded that is so pixilated it's hard to watch from anything less than across the room. It's 720p and 29Mbps. How come it doesn't look pristine with that bitrate?

Was it encoded from a source equal to the ones Apple use, ie 88-220Mbps direct from a studio? If the studio is sending Apple high quality source material then there isn't going to be a problem, if the source is crap then Apple would/should reject it. You say you downloaded a 720p 29Mbps file, well thats about the bitrate of most Blu-ray so whoever encoded it must be a little bit simple. The fact that it was encoded with a stupidly high bitrate and still looks like crap means the source was crap to start with.

This is a quote from the document Nermal linked:-

Quality is important to us at iTunes. We expect to receive the highest-quality assets available. Our product must meet or exceed the quality of the physical product already out in the marketplace.

Reading this I can tell you Apples 1080p content is nowhere near the quality of products already out in the marketplace.

Maybe Apple should monitor quality and reject anything that is not pristine, maybe not. I still think the problem would be solved by allowing the viewing of a small sample before downloading. You don't like it...don't download it.

No maybe about it if Apple is encoding the files themselves then they must be aware of the quality of both the input and output files.

----------

Originally Posted by chenks

you're still ignoring the fact that with modern encoding techniques, bitrate is the not "be all and end all". there may well be something a-miss with the specific example you posted, but to say that it is definitely just bitrate is foolish.

I'm not ignoring any facts, I been encoding video for years, and yes I've already said bitrate isn't the be all and end all of obtaining good quality, however it is one of the most important factors. OK, by your reasoning, if bitrate isn't important than why are Blu-Rays not encoded at 4-5Mbps like Apples content? Because the higher bitrates, ie 20-30Mbps seen on Blu-ray give them better quality.

what was the outcome of the complaint you made?

Haven't hear from Apple yet, will post back once I hear from them.

[Nermal]

Originally Posted by roidy

Reading this I can tell you Apples 1080p content is nowhere near the quality of products already out in the marketplace.

I fully agree with that; not only in terms of picture quality but the overall content. I've had a TV episode with the last few minutes missing, one with the first minute missing, one with the complete video but no sound for the last minute or so, and one with a complete episode, followed by a blank screen, followed by the first few minutes of the next episode. In yet another case, the episodes were out of order; I downloaded episode 4 of something and got episode 5 (which was especially confusing since episode 5 hadn't aired yet!)

It's clear that nobody sits down and watches these files once they've been produced.

[mic j]

Originally Posted by Nermal

It's clear that nobody sits down and watches these files once they've been produced.

That's the kind of job I would like to do!!!

[heisenberg123]

Well think positive it cost you 4.99 to realize apple sucks, could be worse... Or was the point of this thread to get us to rally behind you in your rant?

[brentsg]

Originally Posted by Nermal

I fully agree with that; not only in terms of picture quality but the overall content. I've had a TV episode with the last few minutes missing, one with the first minute missing, one with the complete video but no sound for the last minute or so, and one with a complete episode, followed by a blank screen, followed by the first few minutes of the next episode. In yet another case, the episodes were out of order; I downloaded episode 4 of something and got episode 5 (which was especially confusing since episode 5 hadn't aired yet!)

It's clear that nobody sits down and watches these files once they've been produced.

I've received an e-mail from Apple on occasion, that I should re-download particular episodes because they had replaced the original files with ones of better quality (or with fixes).

At least they seem to respond to problem reports.

I also had a series where I was unable to download a proper file for the last couple of episodes. They simply credited my account for the price of the full season.

[Nermal]

I've had email too (and reported problematic episodes myself), but frankly it's often less hassle to buy the Blu-rays. The only time I'll buy TV shows from iTunes now is when they're brand new and not yet available on disk.

Also, is that Wizard of Wor in your avatar?

[brentsg]

Originally Posted by Nermal

I've had email too (and reported problematic episodes myself), but frankly it's often less hassle to buy the Blu-rays. The only time I'll buy TV shows from iTunes now is when they're brand new and not yet available on disk.

Also, is that Wizard of Wor in your avatar?

I seem to have settled into a mode where I'll iTunes buy something that's either not available yet, or something that's cluttering up the DVR that isn't terribly priced. I'll always buy critical content on Blu-ray though.

And yes, Wizard of Wor!

[StinDaWg]

No need to start a new thread as there is already one here, but I'm going to add pictures that shows Apples 1080p encodes do indeed suck compared to their 720p. Apple went on and on about their improved compression on the 1080p, but in the end they are still bit starved and look worse than the 720p in all instances besides animation. The only videos that look better in 1080p are shows like Family Guy, because animation doesn't need a high bitrate to maintain transparency.

As you can see from these comparisons, the 1080p is blurry, lacks detail, any film grain has been scrubbed. It looks like garbage, and I can't believe apple is getting away selling this as an upgrade to 720p.

The Walking Dead 1080p itunes vs. 720p* itunes
*Spline36Resize()



30 Rock S07E01 720p vs 1080p



30 Rock S07E01 720p vs 1080p



Elementary S01E01 720p vs 1080p



Boardwalk Empire 1080p vs 720p


More...
http://screenshotcomparison.com/comparison/149165
http://screenshotcomparison.com/comparison/149162
http://screenshotcomparison.com/comp...8977/picture:1
http://screenshotcomparison.com/comparison/152657

Anyone who thinks they are getting an upgrade from apple by downloading 1080p aren't. This could all be fixed by increasing the bitrate on the 1080p files from ~5000 kbps to 7000-8000, but they obviously don't care about quality, just getting the 1080p buzzword out there to sell more product.

[gursis11]

Doesn't the device have to support 1080p in order for you to watch 1080p content??
In the case of Apple TV, only the 3rd gen.

[orestes1984]

If the master source is terrible then no amount of reencoding by Apple is going to fix the problem. Most TV shows are recorded in low bitrate for HDTV which is where your problem originates. If you think the problem is Apple then buy Blu-Rays and rip them yourself... That is if you think you can do better.

[roidy]

Originally Posted by orestes1984

If the master source is terrible then no amount of reencoding by Apple is going to fix the problem.

But the master sources aren't terrible because it's what they use to produce the Blu-ray copys they sell.

Most TV shows are recorded in low bitrate for HDTV which is where your problem originates.

That is just plain wrong, TV shows are filmed in very high quality digital so that they can produce excellent quality Blu-rays from them at a later time. Yes HDTV encodes are a lower bitrate because they have limited bandwidth to sent them OTA or via cable, but to say they are originally filmed in a low bitrate is just wrong.

If you think the problem is Apple then buy Blu-Rays and rip them yourself... That is if you think you can do better.

You're just contradicted yourself there, if they're recorded/filmed in a low quality like you think then the Blu-ray version will suck as well, because like you say "If the master source is terrible then no amount of reencoding is going to fix the problem".