dsnort said:
Maybe someone shoudl get to work on adding subtitles to Itunes 7 and FrontRow then. Missing that feature was so ****ing dense of Apple.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Disney: 125,000 iTunes Movies Sold In 1 Week
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Maybe someone shoudl get to work on adding subtitles to Itunes 7 and FrontRow then. Missing that feature was so ****ing dense of Apple.
Sorry if the question has been answered before, but here goes:
Is any of the film content in iTunes Store in 16x9 encoded? In other words, is it enhanced for widescreen displays (commonly known as anamorphically encoded)?
Is any of the film content in iTunes Store in 16x9 encoded? In other words, is it enhanced for widescreen displays (commonly known as anamorphically encoded)?
spicyapple said:
Not correct. Most Hollywood movies are encoded as interlaced and then pressed to dvd, just to be sure that all tv-sets (old and new) are able to display the content. If all film dvd:s were to be encoded as progressive, we wouldn't need all these more or less expensive deinterlacers in digital display systems (progressive in nature) and video sources. And also, we would need interlacers in all analogue displays (interlaced in nature)...not realistic.
Reference:
http://www.thedigitalbits.com/officialfaq.html#3.8 and
http://www.thedigitalbits.com/officialfaq.html#1.40 (esp. second paragraph)
stuartluff said:I think he just said "we hope to take this international in 2007" meaning tough **** you will have to wait most probably end of 2007.
In Belgium they promised us TV shows for 2006, still no word if that will be the case.
bommai said:
Not true, al least not here in Belgium, and probably not in the US, too.
All TV sets here have Component or SCART, which is basically your component pushed together in one block. When iTV is released here it will also include component to SCART as a standard accesory.
Bibulous said:
I know, otherwise I wouldn't have known anything about data centers in the first place. They probably use it for iTS, since ,Mac hasn't really grown much
GOOD! I think the HD DVD is out of control already. The future isn't in DVDs in my opinion, it's in digital formats. The iTV is just the first to prove it.spicyapple said:Wow. Good news for Apple and the future of the iTS in getting more studios on board.
If Apple can just convince studios to release movies in 720p and 1080p formats, it would kill off the blu-ray / HD DVD rivalry once and for all.
I am glad this movie thing is successful. I like the lower prices on new releases but I wish I could burn one copy to dvd so I can watch it anywhere.
Interesting that you say that.jessica. said:
For those of us who have enjoyed videos over the years, we've had the following formats:
- Beta
- VHS
- Super VHS
- CED
- LD, and it variants
- DVD
and now HD-DVD / Bluray
Maybe the key for the format change is to line the companies pockets!
liketom said:i used to love them laser discs
Hey, now that I bought an A/D converter, I could finally get my LDs to DVD and and selling off the LDs. Of allthe garbage on DVD surprising how much on LD still hasn't made it to DVD (and may never...
)Well after 8 pages I'm not sure my 2 cents counts for much, but after buying MY "test movie" last night (the brilliant Romy and Michele's High School Reunion), I have a few observations.
Video Quality: Definitely looks a little soft on my widescreen 34" Sony HDTV, but not really bothersome. I'd argue with those who say you can't tell the difference from a DVD, but then again if you just threw the digital file on, I doubt anyone would complain.
Download speed: I must be lucky, because I got the entire movie in 20 minutes flat on my Cable modem. I don't expect that to be the standard, though.
Audio quality: Granted, this was not Revenge of the Sith, but the audio was totally satisfactory. I listened on headphones to get a better sense and the sound was perfectly fine.
My initial reaction was similar to many, in that I couldnt' imagine why people would want a digital file with no physical media, no artwork, and digital rights management, but I've begun to feel this will gain the same appeal as digital audio has. When iTunes started selling music, I was the first to poo-pooh the concept. I am a rabid music collector and couldn't imagine paying for a product without the jewel case, liner notes, etc... now I buy most of my music from iTunes (most, not all) and I don't regret it. I realized i really didn't WANT to cart around cases and discs when I could just have it all digitally, ready to watch, on my device. It's too early to say the same will happen with movies (which, admittedly, are a different animal) but I can definitely see the possibility of lightning striking twice.
Video Quality: Definitely looks a little soft on my widescreen 34" Sony HDTV, but not really bothersome. I'd argue with those who say you can't tell the difference from a DVD, but then again if you just threw the digital file on, I doubt anyone would complain.
Download speed: I must be lucky, because I got the entire movie in 20 minutes flat on my Cable modem. I don't expect that to be the standard, though.
Audio quality: Granted, this was not Revenge of the Sith, but the audio was totally satisfactory. I listened on headphones to get a better sense and the sound was perfectly fine.
My initial reaction was similar to many, in that I couldnt' imagine why people would want a digital file with no physical media, no artwork, and digital rights management, but I've begun to feel this will gain the same appeal as digital audio has. When iTunes started selling music, I was the first to poo-pooh the concept. I am a rabid music collector and couldn't imagine paying for a product without the jewel case, liner notes, etc... now I buy most of my music from iTunes (most, not all) and I don't regret it. I realized i really didn't WANT to cart around cases and discs when I could just have it all digitally, ready to watch, on my device. It's too early to say the same will happen with movies (which, admittedly, are a different animal) but I can definitely see the possibility of lightning striking twice.
Right off the bat, I have two final generation Powerbook G4s (one is mine, one is my son's) so I figured that it would be a good side by side test for the new video formats.
I went to iTunes and grabbed a copy of Grosse Pointe Blank and popped the DVD version in for a side by side test.
I have to say that the quality on the iTunes version was very great. There are portions of the video where the quality definitely look better than the DVD version played back through the Apple DVD Player and portions that without a doubt look significantly worse.
When it comes to Title Sequences (Credits and some text overlays in the begining), the DVD wins hands down as the edges get a very choppy on the iTunes version.
When it comes to your normal scenes where people are talking and not much is going on, the iTunes version seems to have the edge (less pixelized backgrounds, appears to have greater detail around edges of fairly stationary objects, etc.).
When it comes to high action sequences, it really is a toss up between the two as neither really look that great (substantial bluring around moving objects).
For the parts of the show that matter, I would say that h264 (iTunes) scales better on larger high resolution screens than MPEG2 (DVD).
I plan on grabbing some stills and editing them together at the seams to see if there really is a noticable difference or if my eyes are playing tricks on me, but that will have to wait for a couple days.
I went to iTunes and grabbed a copy of Grosse Pointe Blank and popped the DVD version in for a side by side test.
I have to say that the quality on the iTunes version was very great. There are portions of the video where the quality definitely look better than the DVD version played back through the Apple DVD Player and portions that without a doubt look significantly worse.
When it comes to Title Sequences (Credits and some text overlays in the begining), the DVD wins hands down as the edges get a very choppy on the iTunes version.
When it comes to your normal scenes where people are talking and not much is going on, the iTunes version seems to have the edge (less pixelized backgrounds, appears to have greater detail around edges of fairly stationary objects, etc.).
When it comes to high action sequences, it really is a toss up between the two as neither really look that great (substantial bluring around moving objects).
For the parts of the show that matter, I would say that h264 (iTunes) scales better on larger high resolution screens than MPEG2 (DVD).
I plan on grabbing some stills and editing them together at the seams to see if there really is a noticable difference or if my eyes are playing tricks on me, but that will have to wait for a couple days.
spaz said:
I'd have to say most people care almost nothing about a case or liner notes for DVDs since there really isn't anything of substance. Usually a synopsis and a chapter listing. With DVDs the good stuff is actually on the DVD, and hopefully the download is the same, with menus and different audio tracks, etc. If not, there is no point to downloading movies.
But geez, ditch the jewel cases and liner notes and grow up already. Unless you're not grown up, in which case I envy you. Enjoy!
bretm said:
I don't think being "grown up" has anything to do with it, which is a bit of a patronizing way to put it. For those who do enjoy having the physical disc plus case, instert, etc. in their hands, great. There's absolutely nothing wrong what-so-ever in wanting that. Why would it? It's a matter of personal preference.
I would wager easily that most people do want and enjoy having that tactile experience of holding the case, reading the insert (if it comes with one), and placing the disc in the DVD player. The people who generally don't care about that sort of thing are the few who are ready for a service like this, or people who have been downloading TV shows and movies already, whether legal or otherwise.
I'm looking forward to downloading HD content for my iTV, but I'm going to miss having that case, and I'm an old man--again, being "grown up" has nothing to do with it.
Already I hear people grumbling that downloading these sub-DVD quality movies taking couple of hours even with high speed cable connections. HD quality would be about 6-8 times larger in file size and could take a day to download. Not sure if we are there yet...in terms of bandwidth.spicyapple said:
Where do you get 6-8x 720p has only 3x the resolution and 1080i is just slightly higher than that. Only 1080p is 6-8x the raw resolution, but compression tends to work better if you give it more data to work with so birtates do not scale linearly with the number of pixels, and it can often be closer to a square root, so 720p might only be 2x as long as current movies with 1080p 3-4x.spydr said:
B
Not sure if anyone will read my post after 8 pages...
But, sheesh!
Why all the excitement at all? I would never ever even considering paying any money for something like that (and I consider myself to be insanely rich).
$10. Or more.
For the privilege of downloading a DRMed-through-the nose file.
Which you don't get to "own" in the same sense as you would own a disk (and you also get nice cover art with the disk!).
For all this money, you don't even get the benefit of being able to redownload the said DRMed file in case your har drive crashes... No sir! Even though iTMS keeps record of everuthing you buy, to download your stuff again, you will need to pay again.
Basically, the content providers try to milk you twice. They want that DRMed download to be treated as a physical object for certain purposes, and a licensed piece of intellectual property for the other purposes.
And everyone's favorite company, Apple, is complicit in this big scam.
Yes, I do think iTMS is a big scam - and I will not ever spend a cent there.
You can flame my post all you want, but this is the hard truth.
All of those DRMed services suck because they do not provide the extra value for me to even consider to buy into all this locked in crap.
And, yes, I do have a video iPod.
I prefer to fill it up on AllOfMP3.com, or by ripping DVDs.
But, sheesh!
Why all the excitement at all? I would never ever even considering paying any money for something like that (and I consider myself to be insanely rich).
$10. Or more.
For the privilege of downloading a DRMed-through-the nose file.
Which you don't get to "own" in the same sense as you would own a disk (and you also get nice cover art with the disk!).
For all this money, you don't even get the benefit of being able to redownload the said DRMed file in case your har drive crashes... No sir! Even though iTMS keeps record of everuthing you buy, to download your stuff again, you will need to pay again.
Basically, the content providers try to milk you twice. They want that DRMed download to be treated as a physical object for certain purposes, and a licensed piece of intellectual property for the other purposes.
And everyone's favorite company, Apple, is complicit in this big scam.
Yes, I do think iTMS is a big scam - and I will not ever spend a cent there.
You can flame my post all you want, but this is the hard truth.
All of those DRMed services suck because they do not provide the extra value for me to even consider to buy into all this locked in crap.
And, yes, I do have a video iPod.
I prefer to fill it up on AllOfMP3.com, or by ripping DVDs.
You do realize DVD itself is heavily DRMed, although its CSS is easily cracked. Its Macrovision protection is flawed, and regional coding can be circumvented.
If iTS movie DRM can be cracked, would it make it a better value for you? Why are we even comparing it to DVDs? If you wish to have the convenience of portable digital downloads, then it is a great service.
If iTS movie DRM can be cracked, would it make it a better value for you? Why are we even comparing it to DVDs? If you wish to have the convenience of portable digital downloads, then it is a great service.
spicyapple said:
I am comparing this iTMS stuff to DVDs because, duh, it costs the same.
And media companies think that I should pay the same money for less stuff in return.
The answer to your second question is YES. iTMS WILL be a better value for me if DRM was cracked, and Apple was not releasing iTunes nerfs to kill the DRM holes.
DVDs are DRMed, but this DRM is hard-coded, cannot be updated, and has already been cracked. Apple, on the other hand, plays cat-and-mouse games with crackers and does update their DRM periodically (of course, to avoid troubles with RIAA/MPAA).
Thus, no matter what they do, I am not buying their stuff. Until the price goes significantly down (read: cheaper than AllOfMP3.com).
spaz said:
Right. All that and the picture isn't as good, the audio isn't as good, there's no cost benefit.
If they were half price I wouldn't by any. Max I would pay is a third of the fee to rent.
However, I will never use the iTunes store for music either. I like hard copies, album artwork, printed cd's, how they look on a shelf. But this is being real clinical about it, hard copies mean so much more than that.
I don't want to have to turn my computer on to see my music collection.
I'm not against the purely digital medium, it will just never be for me. I remember somebody saying on here when some sales statistics got posted 'it seems people are still buying music the traditional way'. LOL Factor Ten. CD's are going nowhere. Vinyl is coming back for christs sake, let alone CD's dying. Few real bands today release a record and don't have it on vinyl.
The current movie offering will only sell on ease of purchase.
I will always want shelves full of cool stuff to flick through. It doubles as one of the, if not thee, coolest features of a room.
Lightivity said:
Being 16x9 encoded is not the same thing as being anaporphically encoded.
Being 16x9 encoded just means that the video is meant to be viewed at a 16x9 ratio. Yes, the movies (that I have bought, anyway,) are 16x9. Specifically, Good Will Hunting is 640x344.
Anamorphically encoded refers to the act of 'stretching' 16x9 source to the height of 4x3; so that you effectively get 33% more 'vertical' data than horizontal. The TV is then supposed to 'squish' the video back to 16x9. So, for example, if you tell your DVD player that you have a '16x9 anamorphic' TV, it will output the widescreen video to fill the entire 720x480 resolution. If you tell it you have a '16x9 non-anamorphic', it will still be outputting 720x480, but will add black bars on the top and bottom, to achive a 'video' resolution of 720x405.
My TV, for example, has a special '16x9 anamorphic' mode where it actually re-aims its electron beam so that it's only drawing in the 16x9 area, but at a higher vertical density than it normally would. Meaning that I no longer have square pixels. Instead, I have pixels that are 1.33 times wider than tall. (More data packed in height-wise.)
If iTunes movies were sold as anamorphic, then Good Will Hunting would be 640x372, and rely on the TV to 'squish' the 372 high into the height that 344 should be. Thereby displaying more vertical information in the same space.
ehurtley said:
I know exactly what 'anamorphic' means, and it was precisely what I meant when saying "16x9-encoded", with the exception that 'anamorphic' is a totally confusing and natively incorrect term.
Why? Because nothing is ever stretched or squashed in digital video. The anamorphic concept has unfortunately been transfered from the celluloid world where light truly is pressed together on a 35-mm film frame only to be expanded in the theater. Now, maybe I should have added the word "enhanced for widescreen" after "16x9-encoded" but it doesn't matter: All 16x9-videomaterial is encoded so that all 720x480 pixels carry the approximate dimension of 16x9 with the aim of fitting a television that holds a display with 1.78:1 proportions. That is the very definition of 16x9. It is not anamorphical. It is not sqeezed. It is just 16x9 pixels spread across a compatible display.
Ehurtley, what I think you thought I meant, was aspect ratio. But that is something completely else. The aspect ratio is the proportions of the frame the director intended the action to be shown in, and there are several. One is 2.35:1, but the most common is 1.85:1, which most closely resembles the 1.78:1 frame that 16x9-encoded video fits right into. The only ones using the 1:78:1 aspect ratio is tv-productions. Film productions rarely use it (they stick to conventional 2.35:1 and 1.85:1).
Don't confuse the 1.78:1 aspect ratio which -- together with 1.85:1 and 2.35:1 -- is the artistic concept of framing action, with 16x9-encoding which is the technical solution of using a standard pixel resolution in a widescreen setup.
So, my question remains: is there any 16x9-encoded film content on iTunes Store?