iTunes video quality?

Discussion in 'Mac Basics and Help' started by kingcrowing, Dec 24, 2005.

  1. kingcrowing macrumors 6502a

    kingcrowing

    Joined:
    May 24, 2004
    Location:
    Burlington, VT
    #1
    I downloaded the free battlestar Galactica thing in iTunes yesterday, I've never seen it but it looked cool so I thought I'd see what its about, and now I'd likt to check it out, but the quality wasnt too hot. right now I'm only running at 1024x768, but the quality was very poor at full screen, and I'm going to be getting a new computer with a mich higer resolution, so if its this bad I'm just going to spend the extra $$ and get it on DVD. so are these free movies any differnt in quality than the actual TV shows?
     
  2. ITASOR macrumors 601

    ITASOR

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2005
    Location:
    Oneida, NY
    #2
    Pretty sure they're the same quality as the paid ones. Remember, these are really in all truthfulness designed for the iPod w/ Video, not to be played at huge resolutions. They look amazing on the iPod screen.
     
  3. BornAgainMac macrumors 603

    BornAgainMac

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2004
    Location:
    Florida Resident
    #3
    Any video at 320x200 will look terrible at that resolution. If you hook up an iPod to a TV, the quality holds up really well even on large screens.
     
  4. ~Shard~ macrumors P6

    ~Shard~

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2003
    Location:
    1123.6536.5321
    #4
    Agreed - it's not TV quality per se, more like VCR-taped quality, but still definitely watchable. In the future I expect Apple to expand and improve their video offerings with higher quality content, but not for some time yet. For now, they are targeting watching these videos on your iPod mostly.
     
  5. iMeowbot macrumors G3

    iMeowbot

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2003
    #5
    Nope. They're actually charging people $2 a pop for that garbage, and people are willingly handing it over. Amazing, isn't it?
     
  6. ~Shard~ macrumors P6

    ~Shard~

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2003
    Location:
    1123.6536.5321
    #6
    For some people it works real well, and they don't mind paying, however I am in the situation where it just isn't worth it yet for me to use the service. When the content becomes higher quality and cheaper, then I will reconsider, for for Apple's initial stab at this whole video thing, I'll be holding off. I think it's excellent, and a great first step, but not something I'll be participating in due to the quality and cost.
     
  7. kingcrowing thread starter macrumors 6502a

    kingcrowing

    Joined:
    May 24, 2004
    Location:
    Burlington, VT
    #7

    yeah.. I mean $2 for a DVD quality episode isnt a bad deal.. but I'd much rather pay $10-$15 more a season and get it on DVD and be able to watch in on a 1080i LCD and have it still look good
     
  8. iMeowbot macrumors G3

    iMeowbot

    Joined:
    Aug 30, 2003
    #8
    I'm sure there's some value in there for people who really intend to watch the shows on an iPod. At least they don't have to convert the video into a suitable format. As a substitute for Tivo or VOD, it just isn't there.
     
  9. ~Shard~ macrumors P6

    ~Shard~

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2003
    Location:
    1123.6536.5321
    #9
    Yeah, I agree. However, at this stage of things, I would still prefer to have my higher quality copies of TV shows which I acquire from different sources rather than the iTMS, and just perform the necessary conversion on them to watch them on an iPod video. That way I have my high quality copies and copies which I could play on my iPod, rather than just a lower quality copy which I can't make better for my other viewing needs. ;) Not all my video watching would ever take place on just my iPod.
     
  10. wwooden macrumors 68000

    wwooden

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2004
    Location:
    Burlington, VT
    #10
    For people like my sister who lives in Paris, it is much easier for her to buy the episodes she likes from the iTMS then to pay for the shipping. Her computer is their only DVD player in their house, so it is going to be watched on there anyways. She bought the first season of The Office and really loved it, she could have the episode on the screen while she was doing other work.
     
  11. e²Studios macrumors 68020

    e²Studios

    Joined:
    Apr 12, 2005
    #11

    Correction, DVD's are 480p native. There are upconverting DVD players, I have a pioneer elite series one, but the fact remains that DVD's are really 480p at max resolution.

    Ed
     
  12. ~Shard~ macrumors P6

    ~Shard~

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2003
    Location:
    1123.6536.5321
    #12
    This is true. That being said however, I am still looking forward to buying a nice new 1080p TV later this year. ;) :cool:
     
  13. ChrisFromCanada macrumors 65816

    ChrisFromCanada

    Joined:
    May 3, 2004
    Location:
    Hamilton, Ontario (CANADA)
    #13
    Incorrect, DVDs are 480i native, its just that almost every DVD player has a scalar in it to convert the signal to 480p or higher.

    And yes I too will be getting a 1080p screen soon. Bestbuy here has 2 models already!
     
  14. ~Shard~ macrumors P6

    ~Shard~

    Joined:
    Jun 4, 2003
    Location:
    1123.6536.5321
    #14
    Thanks Chris, actually I meant 'i', not 'p' myself (not sure about Ed though.... ;)) And yeah, I've seen a couple 1080p models floating around as well. Hopefully by the time I'm ready to buy I'll have a few nice ones to choose from. :)
     
  15. Nermal Moderator

    Nermal

    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2002
    Location:
    New Zealand
    #15
    PAL DVDs are either 576i or 576p, depending on how they were encoded. Perhaps NTSC DVDs can use either format too.
     
  16. EricNau Moderator emeritus

    EricNau

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2005
    Location:
    San Francisco, CA
    #16
    How does that work? And why do DVD's look better on my TV compared to my computer screen? Shouldn't it be the other way around? :confused:
     
  17. Nermal Moderator

    Nermal

    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2002
    Location:
    New Zealand
    #17
    Computer screens have a much crisper image, so it's much easier to see imperfections in video. TVs are blurry, and the imperfections essentially get blurred out.
     
  18. EricNau Moderator emeritus

    EricNau

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2005
    Location:
    San Francisco, CA
    #18
    I guess that makes sense. Thanks
     
  19. EricNau Moderator emeritus

    EricNau

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2005
    Location:
    San Francisco, CA
    #19
    What's the difference between the "i" and the "p"? Is one better than the other? :confused: I guess I'm not very familiar with this stuff. :eek:
     
  20. Nermal Moderator

    Nermal

    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2002
    Location:
    New Zealand
    #20
    P stands for Progressive. Each frame of video is stored as one frame (as you'd expect). I stands for Interlaced, where each frame is divided into two parts, and reassembled at the other end. The reason for this is due to the power system. TVs operate at 25 frames per second*, but power is at 50 Hz (cycles per second). It was easier to push down half a frame (one field) per cycle, so that's what they did.

    *In some countries the numbers are a bit different, but the technique is the same.
     
  21. EricNau Moderator emeritus

    EricNau

    Joined:
    Apr 27, 2005
    Location:
    San Francisco, CA
    #21
    So one isn't really better than the other, they are just "different"?
     
  22. balamw Moderator

    balamw

    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2005
    Location:
    New England
    #22
    Most people prefer "p" since they each frame is fully updated at a given time, and this produces less flicker. With "i" you effectively get half a frame (every other line, sort of a window shade effect) updated every cycle of the power, but this generally happens so fast that you don't notice it.

    This might help http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interlaced

    B
     
  23. BlueRevolution macrumors 603

    BlueRevolution

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2004
    Location:
    Montreal, QC
    #23
    I prefer progressive video, on a computer monitor the interlacing can be quite noticeable during fast motion.

    I can't speak for iTunes videos, but I ripped Lost Season 1 from DVD to iPod using MacTheRipper at 320x240 H.264 640 kbps video 128 kbps AAC audio and it looked fantastic on my computer too, barely blurry even scaled up to 1280x1024. gotta love that H.264.
     
  24. Nermal Moderator

    Nermal

    Staff Member

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2002
    Location:
    New Zealand
    #24
    If you think 320x240 looks fantastic then you have low standards :rolleyes:

    I'm starting to get frustrated by DVDs, which are 720x576!
     
  25. Cooknn macrumors 68020

    Cooknn

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2003
    Location:
    Fort Myers, FL
    #25
    A bit OT: Anybody know what CBS uses? I know that ABC broadcasts Hi-Def at 720p and I believe NBC uses 1080i. It's just that CBS HD looks so much better than the others. I'm guessing 720p. I haven't been keeping up on the HDTV movement for a while. I suspect the new 1080p HDTV's will only be upconverting to progressive as the current DVD players do. I don't believe that anybody has plans to broadcast in 1080p, is that the understanding :confused:
     

Share This Page