Just finished watching 'Grosse Pointe Blank' via iTunes rental @ 2.99. I have seen the movie in the Walmart dump bin for $5 but knew I would only watch once so always passed it up. It's a cute movie but I was right, once is enough. It took about 15 minutes to download with my Comcast High speed. I watched it on my 27 inch ilo HDTV which happens to be my MacPro monitor. I didn't have any problem with the quality or the 24 hour view time. I wonder how long it takes for a movie to move from New 3.99 to Not So New 2.99? I want to rent Nick Cages movie 'Next'. Something else I don't think I need in my library but want to see.
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.
Apple Announces Apple TV Take 2 + Price Drop
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
802.11n can BARELY successfully stream 720p files from my computer to my apple tv successfully. no way it could do 1080p. I don't understand how they will be able to download 3gb movies in real time either, but again, too much data from 1080p.
Oh yeah. I admit I will never be buying any iTunes movie - the quality sucks for my standards. I do think the consumers should make a stand on the amount of time they rent them for and the like and yes, a decent 1080p movie is never coming across my DSL.
And I was motivated primarily about BigHat's calling someone else a technology moron when he obviously didn't know what the recommendations for optimal viewing of HD was. Was just too delicious to pass up.
I will get an AppleTV as soon as find out if 'we' will be be able to make movie files that utilize the DD5.1 passthru. I won't even have it connected with HDMI because its sole purpose will be to make my extensive DVD collection digitally available. But less than DD5.1 sound, less than 1080 display - I most definitely am not its target audience in that regard.
Oh trust me, you can wait until that comes out on the SciFi channel. You will regret any greater expenditure.
There are so many things wrong with what you said in this post... you have it backwards. You're supposed to sit much closer with higher resolutions...
Before speaking, consider the disclosures of your calculator:
"THX also publishes standards for movie theaters to adhere to for THX certification."
"Based on data from Electrohome, which suggests a viewing distance of three to six screen widths for video."--based on the 3(w) minimum distance put forth by the SMPTE for home use, or the 30˚ figure for home theater (NOT your living room) installations.
Your calculator is for the installation of high-end theater systems in homes in dedicated rooms using projection equipment. It says so directly on it. It recommends a 107" screen for a 12-foot room. A 12-foot living room is a smallish space, and 107" TV isn't in anyone's budget.
That calculator is tremendously useful for people installing $35,000 theater systems in their basements and pool houses. It is not designed for use in private homes and living rooms, where most people have their setups.
Sitting five feet from a 65" HDTV on a daily basis most certainly does hurt your eyes. "Modern TVs" are meant to be used in homes. They are not meant to be the focal point for cinema-grade reproductions--home projection is what those calculators are for. At a ten foot distance, a 50" HDTV is not wasting anything. Film is a medium for telling stories and for showing breathtaking sights--you don't have enough time to study all two million pixels in every frame. The impact it has on the overall experience is marked, even 15 long feet away in Siberia.
No, the real folly is that your television in your home isn't meant to replicate the cinema experience to the tiniest detail. Your living room or bedroom is not a scale reproduction of a movie theater. If you are going for a cinematic experience and doing a home theater installation in its own room, then those calculators become meaningful...not before.
The 30˚ SMPTE calculator is, once more, for cinema reproduction. The home guideline is a minimum of triple the width of the set--more than 10 feet on a 50" plasma.
There is no "HOME" THX distance--they only certify movie theaters. The calculator is geared toward reproducing that experience in a home theater, which is a dedicated room. Your living room, regardless of your TV and surround setup, is not a "home theater" in the way that the calculator figures are geared to create.
You've gone completely 'round the bend if you think that you're wasting money or "losing" anything by sitting at a sensible distance.
What can I say Matticus, you must have gone to the wrong link. The one I gave you is for "Thinking about buying a new HDTV, projector, or TV set and wondering what size to get?" Not $35,000 home theaters. This is for setting up your HD TV for plain old home viewing.
"Most people are comfortable watching TV between this distance and half this distance." which for my TV is 6.5 feet to 13 feet. And you can even go closer.
There are of course more errors in your reply but simply put you are once again wrong and you are common sense wrong. Why bother with higher resolutions at all if you are sitting too far away for the human eye to appreciate it? As the dealers, the websites and everyone else told us even before HD the best viewing distance was just behind where you could see the individual 'scan lines'. Now with higher resolutions the optimal distance is where the viewing angle is the same as the media was designed for, so yes THX is looking for a 36º arc, and so on.
At least drop the silly 'ruin your eyes' tact but you really need to examine the rest of your errors too. How's this - if you have a decent sized HD TV how about sitting and watching a couple movies at the calculator's recommended distance and see if maybe you might have been missing out all along?
"Most people are comfortable watching TV between this distance and half this distance." which for my TV is 6.5 feet to 13 feet. And you can even go closer.
There are of course more errors in your reply but simply put you are once again wrong and you are common sense wrong. Why bother with higher resolutions at all if you are sitting too far away for the human eye to appreciate it? As the dealers, the websites and everyone else told us even before HD the best viewing distance was just behind where you could see the individual 'scan lines'. Now with higher resolutions the optimal distance is where the viewing angle is the same as the media was designed for, so yes THX is looking for a 36º arc, and so on.
At least drop the silly 'ruin your eyes' tact but you really need to examine the rest of your errors too. How's this - if you have a decent sized HD TV how about sitting and watching a couple movies at the calculator's recommended distance and see if maybe you might have been missing out all along?
It is not. SMPTE home theater guidelines and THX movie theater guidelines are not for homes. They also do not scale well to small sizes because they ignore audio--a six foot audio box is much, much too small for adequate 7.1 surround sound.
Unless you were lying about having a 65" TV, the correct numbers, from that calculator, are 12.25 to 24.5 feet. That is exactly consistent with my previous comment.
The "most people comfortable" line is referenced in the "Maximum viewing distance" box--not the SMPTE or THX boxes. I don't know where you get your numbers, because not one of those boxes says 13 feet.
It further does not follow that maximum distance for resolving HDTV is the optimum distance for the television.
Actually, your distance of 6 feet would give you a 43˚ viewing angle. You would not meet THX certification requirements (maximum front row angle of 36˚) and exceed SMPTE maximum recommendation of 30˚. That's even assuming you have set up a theater configuration for yourself.
You're too close for your own chosen calculator.
It looks great from six feet away. It looks great and perfectly clear from 10 feet, too. And 12. At a distance of 6 feet, I can squeeze three people in front of the TV. That's not ideal. It doesn't matter if I'm losing a little bit of detail because it's not at the focal point for full-resolution viewing. The focal point is impractical.
It remains absurd. A living room is not a cinema. It is not supposed to match a cinema for field of vision or detailed acuity. If I want to study the picture, I'll stand up and walk closer. If I want to enjoy the film (which includes its audio), in the company of friends and family, I'll configure the room as suggested for home viewing--no seating closer than 3 times the width. In the living room, that means 13 feet for my set. In the bedroom, 10 feet. No one complains of missing any detail--there's not nearly enough time to count the pixels. A 1080p picture looks amazing to everyone in the room, and the sofa isn't 3 feet from the wall. Works for everyone.
It's utterly unbelievable that you would use as a living room reference a figure that says a 12-foot room requires a 107" television.
Why not just set the plasma screen on the floor and lay on top of it? (It's just as ridiculous as sitting 5 feet away from a 55" set.)
matticus said:
Yes yes, I'm lying.
I responded to your quote from the that said the recommendation was 3-6 times the width (a 65" diagonal is 52" wide) and the view comfortable viewing is from that to 1 half. Taking the 3x you get a distance of 78" or 6.5 feet. And that is the MAXIMUM viewable distance not the recommended.With my set up the recommended THX is 7.3 feet, the MAXIMUM SMPTE is 8.8 feet MAXIMUM HDTV 1080 is 8.5 feet meaning, of course, that what's best is less than that.
And not to worry, when I lay back in my recliner I am at an optimum smidge less than 7.5 feet away from the screen. See, I like my viewing experience and after spending the money on a 65" I want my money's worth by having the best viewing experience possible.
And the rest of your comments show the inherent problem of your complaints: the 'focal point is impractical' for YOU. It is 'absurd' for YOU. Of course a living room is not a cinema but who has the TV as the center piece of their living room outside 'All in the Family'? Who even considers that everyone who could sit in the living room must be able to see the TV? I guess you do since assume a 12 foot recommended viewing distance from a 107" HDTV means the room is 12 feet to you. Rest assured there are those that have one part of the living room for TV viewing and leave some of it for people to do other things or actually move the TV out of the living room al together so it doesn't interfere with other important activities.
And again no matter how much you complain common sense (as well as the expert recommendations) is against you - Sitting outside the optimal viewing range sort of negates the whole point of bothering with HD to begin with. For someone with viewing needs like yourself of course 760 1080 heck 480 is all pretty much the same because you sit so far back they all munge into pretty much the same image - great for you but what does that have to do with proper HD viewing? That YOU don't care what quality of view you have is pretty evident but then why is it so important for you to comment about something you don't care about? No matter how much you complain the recommended viewing distances will still be the same - they haven't changed in years - best viewing distance is just after loss of horizontal scan line resolution. TVs got bigger and higher resolution not so we could sit further away but so we could sit close enough to have the intended immersive experience just as they were intended to provide.
Sounds like you have your living room set up like a sports bar - again fine for you but what does it have to do with the topic at hand?
That gives you 156"--13 feet.Yes yes, I'm lying.
No, comfortable viewing is from one half of the maximum (6 widths), which is how you get the 3-6 range to begin with. 6.5 feet would be one-quarter, far inside that range.
6.5 feet is one-quarter the "maximum" distance reported by your own calculator. Now you're just trolling.
You seem to be confused. The THX and SMPTE numbers aren't for living rooms. It's not any more complicated than that simple fact. The calculator's numbers based on those guidelines are for home theater installations, not for "plain old home viewing", as you put it.
Where did that come from? My living room is totally separate from the great room and the study--if people don't want to watch TV, they're in the wrong room. But just like most people don't have home theaters, most people do keep their televisions in their living rooms and don't have great rooms and dens and studies, so your numbers are useless for room planning.
No, the point is to illustrate that those figures are not designed around home environments. They are calculations to recreate a theater environment. This is inconsistent with general home use.
That's the thing. They're not against me. The "comfortable TV" distance is 3 to 6 times the width of the set. You're using the wrong numbers.
Now you've truly lost it, never mind that there is no such thing as '760'. The difference between the three is marked, even if you're not drooling directly on the panel. It's utterly deluded to suggest that people should sit 6 feet from or closer to their televisions every day in their homes.
And half of that is 6.5 feet. It is half of either 3x or 6x. Again, there are multiple calculators and charts on the web - best buy, cnet, many blogs, many more. I am at the right distance. They also say that sitting closer is better. Nice Easy to Read Chart
No they are for how far away to sit for the best viewing experience regardless of room. That calculator (as well as all the other charts and such on the internet) are about the best way to view the HDTV no matter where it is. That's the simple fact.
But its pretty obvious that you just want to argue for the sake of argument. You are wrong, its pretty obvious you are wrong both empirically and deductively, and yet you want to desperately appear right. I am fascinated as to why but no matter. The best viewing distance for serious TV watching will remain the same no matter WHAT your opinion is and most sensible people will realize it.
You've already got the half! 3 is half of 6. My goodness. The range is 3 to 6 widths, which is based on the maximum recommendation (6 widths), and most people are comfortable from that distance to half of that distance (3 widths).
You don't seem to understand what the chart is telling you. In fact, it clearly shows that at a distance of 12-13 feet, the benefit of 1080p would "start to be noticeable" which completely invalidates your claim about lost value. Further, once you're at the the line for "full benefit" you'll no longer gain anything by sitting even closer.
Hardly. The THX and SMPTE numbers represent the optimum recreation of the cinema experience for picture size for a single viewer at that location--no account for audio, for multiple viewers, or for practical considerations of the typical home. It's also based on a fundamental assumption of a room that is at least 10 times the size of a typical living room with screens dozens of times larger than non-projectors can produce. The ratios scale linearly to top it all off. A sensible person can see that this isn't a great model. You're assuming that the best end solution is either the most theater-like or being able to resolve the most pixels.
Those are terrible assumptions. If I stand 2 feet in front of my TV, I can see SUBPIXELS! Almost 5 million of them (can't quite focus on the corners of the screen so close)! That's the most detailed look at the picture I can get. Yet it's not the best movie experience.
I can sit 6 feet from it, too. This is a poor furniture layout, and a maximum of three people can sit close enough to see. Their viewing experience is subpar, too, because the calculator is based on a single viewer, so lateral deflection isn't considered. It also doesn't take audio into account--you can't focus 7.1 audio in a box that small. But that doesn't matter because at this distance, if I pause the movie, I can study all of its details in the best possible clarity. Of course, if I watch anything in 720p, I have to move all the furniture, because I'm WAY too close.
Or I can put it at the recommended distance (3 to 6 widths), which allows enough seating for everyone, enough of a sound box to create an immersive audio experience, enough distance to watch standard DVDs, 720p, or 1080p content, and still be close enough to notice the differences among the three. The best of all worlds.
You have to know how to use the calculators and balance the other components. The sites carry this disclaimer as well. It's a basic reference. The numbers are individual points of information. Treating them as conclusory marks of where you need to be makes you the worst kind of pedant.
Balancing factors for placement is a far more subtle requirement. Your own chart demonstrates that you won't be able to see any improvement any closer than 8 feet--and sitting closer will rapidly degrade quality by the appearance of individual pixels and color blending. It shows that 1080p is a noticeable improvement at 13 feet.
Recreating viewing angles based on a movie theater plan is not consistent with how a television is meant to be used in the typical home. Unless you're deaf and live alone, the absolute optimum HDTV distance is not the room's actual best configuration.
Only as long as is necessary to get you to stop the ludicrous notion that home environment should be a scale replica of a movie theater or that if your face isn't planted firmly in the display panel, you're doing it wrong.
Which just illustrates how you are arguing for the sake of argument. As you KNOW from your googling about this you know that 1.5x the diagonal width of the screen is the low 'sweet' spot. Trying to say its 3x the width in the face of this knowledge shows you are just trying to sound right without being right.
Look at how you launch into hyperbole since your arguments don't have any merit - who is talking about '2 feet from your TV' other than you? Why is talking about a face being 'smashed into the screen' other than you? I agree if you are close enough to see the structure of the picture you are too close. But the simple fact is I'm not and so again why bring it up?
And of course you can put 7.1 audio 'in a box that small' - I have it right now. And according to my receiver's diagnostics its perfectly set up.
And lets go back to the beginning of this discussion - it was about someone calling someone else a technology moron and in doing so revealing they themselves were the one who didn't know what they were talking about. You seem committed to the same goal and the question is 'why'?
You want more people than can view your current set with the best view angle/distance/ whatever. Ok that's great - then what is so hard about saying your priorities are not about the best view and let it go at that? Because regardless as the sites I have cited and more that you can easily find everything I've said is correct. No matter where you have your TV if you want to view a THX movie with the recommended THX view angle then the distance you should be viewing at is the distance you should be viewing at and that's it. You try and argue it and you can't other than with lots of handwaving and red herrings because its simply a fact you can figure out with a tape measure and a bit of trigonometry.
The simple truth is most people sit way too far away from their screens - as screen resolutions increase the viewing distance is supposed to decrease until you reach the distance where the image appears the size it was designed to appear, like the THX distance, etc. In the past we couldn't get that close - the screens weren't big enough and the resolution was too coarse. Those days are gone.
I hope you can some day get a TV big enough to view properly AND still accommodate all those non-TV related needs. But being mad at me because I can just makes no real sense.
There you go, continually twisting out information into misapplication after misapplication. It's not a sweet spot, it's an absolute minimum viewing distance. The horizontal, not diagonal, dimension is the width figure in this calculator. Let's go back to that calculator:
" Based on data from Electrohome, which suggests a viewing distance of three to six screen widths for video. This corresponds to the point at which most people will begin having trouble picking out details and reading the screen. Probably too far away to be effective for home theater, OK for everyday TV viewing. Most people are comfortable watching TV between this distance and half this distance."
Pretty straightforward. Starts with a conclusion--three to six widths. Then it explains how it got there--the maximum viewing distance (6 widths, as reported by the calculator directly below that) to half that distance (3 widths). "Three to six" isn't a point, nor does your interpretation mesh with the math presented in the calculator.
Receiver "diagnostics" don't tell you anything about your setup. Yet again, you're just relying on more numbers without really understanding what they mean or how to use them.
Was that the discussion in which someone was called a moron for trying to say that 720p wasn't HD? Because that was an inaccurate statement, just like saying 1080p was the basic standard, and just like saying maximizing for THX guidelines gives you the best experience.
Your level of information is that dangerous "power user" zone. Your reliance on a calculator's raw output and maximizing for a single value based on a number of unfortunate assumptions is simply not good. The optimum THX distance isn't directly applicable to a home. The optimum ocular resolution point isn't directly applicable to placement, either, apart from establishing a minimum practical distance.
Both of those figures are built on movie theaters and are relevant only to recreating the cinema. They do not directly translate to home viewing as you keep insisting. Your viewing distance of 6.5 feet is too close even based on movie theater scales. That may well be your preference, but you've not made a case for why a 43˚ field should be pursued.
The best experience is a combination of a great many factors, and it is foolhardy to maximize to a single element of a single factor and call it "best" for anything but that one calculation. You get three different numbers for HDTV, SMPTE, and THX calculations--none of which has been optimized for the home environment.
I don't accept the premise. Maximizing for a single value of anything doesn't produce the best experience. Your blind fixation on a theater-derived figure is curious.
Again, a faulty assumption. The best you can do with these numbers is a scale replica of a THX experience. Why? Because THX films are meant to be seen in theaters and you can't just scale linearly.
Oddly enough, THX and SMPTE theater guidelines aren't TV related, either. The best home theater setup is not the best television setup, nor is it the best HD television setup. Non-motion-picture, non-1080 content blows those calculations hopelessly out of the water.
A few numbers is a dangerous place to be. It creates remarkable boneheadedness and pedanticism without an appreciation to the flaws of those holy numbers of yours.
matticus said:
Ha! How much hand waving can you do?
This of course isn't about a 'single factor', of course the THX experience is for a THX filmed movie regardless where it is seen, and on and on.
Is misstating what multiple sources confirm really make you feel like you are right? And yes, my receiver has a great little microphone wand that analyses your sound balance and adjusts it accordingly - it really is more than just about numbers but lets face it, its obvious you aren't really concerned about anything but seeming right even when you aren't.
Recommended for THX is 36º a bit bigger won't break any bank, a bit further back won't either but the goal is to get there if you can. We as the buying public now can.
And you can't be bothered to even research when the information is right in this thread? ::sigh:: The comment was about how no one would would sit closer than 10 feet to a 50" tv when recommended THX distance is 5.6!
The key is my messages get shorter and yours get more hysterical, nonfactual and longer. I can't remember the name for that specific subtype of flamer but its obvious this conversations going no where and I'm almost beginning to feel sorry for you so its time to end
No, it's not. It's a replication of what theatres need to do to be THX-certified. THX mastering on the content side is for audio. On the theater side, it is a set of requirements for establishing a quality film environment. This has to do with background noise, architectural installations, and the sound system. In order to balance the sound system properly, there are reference requirements to where the picture will be (to measure physical offsets for the speakers).
The THX guidelines create consistency to build a high-quality overall experience. That means that theaters falling outside the 26-36˚ viewing angles will not match the audio mixing. It does not mean that the THX distance produces the best possible picture--which is not a priority. Once again, if you knew how to interpret the numbers, you'd be in a better position. I'm sure your TV looks great at 6 feet. That's an unreasonable "standard" to set for homes, though.
The SMPTE 30˚ standard is at the heart of this, and that is simply for creating what it considers an optimal field of vision--much like 16:9 mimics the proportions of the human visual field.
But that THX number is gospel to you...so now you're saying that 7˚ more is okay...but 7˚ less, which would be in that 3-6w range is somehow inappropriate? They are both equally suboptimal, if that magic THX distance is the perfect picture, which underlies your entire argument.
Actually, the comment was: "unless you're sitting closer than 8 feet to a 50" screen you couldn't tell the difference anyway." [720p v. 1080p] I set you up--because you went on a march against that one, but if you'll refer back to that chart you linked, you'll see that that statement was essentially correct, give or take a foot.
Just more of the same from you, I guess. The bottom line is that a 65" TV is not in practice meant to have a sofa placed 3-4 feet in front of it. That's the width of a hallway and not even enough room for a coffee table. People can enjoy the picture from a sane distance just as well, even if our inferior human eyes can't pick out individual pixels.
Kids, I'd quiet down before the moderators start deleting your posts
matticus008, I agree with you that BobVB is sitting too close.
People forget with those recommendations that when you're in a theatre you're watching projection movies vs LCD/Plasma TV's which transmit light. It's the same thing with looking at photo prints vs slides.
Salesman love to convince you how you can sit comfortably in front of a big TV because they earn more from the sale - and they're trying to make you feel better about your small living room.
You know what I think when I walk into somebody's place with a big 50"+ TV and they have seating 5ft away, I'm thinking this frat boy needs to move out of his parent's basement and get a job and get a real place to live
matticus008, I agree with you that BobVB is sitting too close.
People forget with those recommendations that when you're in a theatre you're watching projection movies vs LCD/Plasma TV's which transmit light. It's the same thing with looking at photo prints vs slides.
Salesman love to convince you how you can sit comfortably in front of a big TV because they earn more from the sale - and they're trying to make you feel better about your small living room.
You know what I think when I walk into somebody's place with a big 50"+ TV and they have seating 5ft away, I'm thinking this frat boy needs to move out of his parent's basement and get a job and get a real place to live
Urgh.
Looking at some of those sites that contain calculators and viewing charts, and then browsing around them, it looks like videophilia - the video equivalent of audiophilia - is truly coming into being now that TVs with resolutions far, far, higher than the content they're showing are becoming widely available. One site even talks approvingly of "1440p". Good luck finding any content on that. Are we going to be need players that upconvert HD DVD, Blu-ray, and HD ATSC now? Oh, and I love it how marketing has made that little "p" or "i" on the end important, to the point that sites now throw out "1080p" as if they, by themselves, have any meaning. 1080p compared to what? 1080i? 1080i60 vs 1080p24? On a CRT or LCD? But now it's entered the lexicon as "the line count", it suddenly makes the no-difference important. To the point I've heard of people refusing to buy a cheaper Blu-ray or HD DVD player "because it only outputs 1080i".
And what about contrast ratio? Given you're unlikely to be sitting in the sweetspot from the TV where 1080 line pixels aren't distinguishable but 768 line pixels are clearly individually visible, wouldn't you expect contrast ratio to be at least mentioned on "Sit this far back to see this resolution on this size screen" charts?
I understand why it's going on. LCD panels are still expensive to make - we had a brief moment last year where 32" LCDs dropped below $500 if you knew where to look, but even that reversed itself after a month or so. So TV manufacturers are having to come up with ways to sell TVs that generally need four digit price tags to make a decent profit on, and salespeople are having to try to push them on people who are used to living-room oriented TVs being in the $500 range, and suddenly it becomes a richard-waving contest with resolution and size being the easiest metrics to use. And then people who have spent a few thousand on 60" 1080p60 TVs to replace the 30" CRT in their living room see (a) the massive improvement in quality compared to NTSC CRTs (because the latter *suck*, boy, do they suck. I'm glad they're finally going away, and I was so glad to finally upgrade to an LCD screen, but no, I didn't pay four digits...) and (b) do not want to believe they spent disproportionately more than they had to. Add that to the handful that genuinely want to build dedicated home theaters, and you have a large group of people finding justifications for spending $7,500 on a 60" Plasma screen with 1080p60 (or even $2,000 on an awful rear-projection unit with the same size and resolution/frame rate) rather than $1,200 for a 42" LCD with 768 lines but a 10,000:1 contrast ratio.
The good news for Apple is that's still a very small group of people. 720p24 will be absolutely fine for now as long as the encoding's good and the colour space is deep enough. Especially given the "rental model" of the movie download service. It's not like you're buying the things for watching ten years from now on your whole-wall 4320i240 100,000:1 positronic screen.
Looking at some of those sites that contain calculators and viewing charts, and then browsing around them, it looks like videophilia - the video equivalent of audiophilia - is truly coming into being now that TVs with resolutions far, far, higher than the content they're showing are becoming widely available. One site even talks approvingly of "1440p". Good luck finding any content on that. Are we going to be need players that upconvert HD DVD, Blu-ray, and HD ATSC now? Oh, and I love it how marketing has made that little "p" or "i" on the end important, to the point that sites now throw out "1080p" as if they, by themselves, have any meaning. 1080p compared to what? 1080i? 1080i60 vs 1080p24? On a CRT or LCD? But now it's entered the lexicon as "the line count", it suddenly makes the no-difference important. To the point I've heard of people refusing to buy a cheaper Blu-ray or HD DVD player "because it only outputs 1080i".
And what about contrast ratio? Given you're unlikely to be sitting in the sweetspot from the TV where 1080 line pixels aren't distinguishable but 768 line pixels are clearly individually visible, wouldn't you expect contrast ratio to be at least mentioned on "Sit this far back to see this resolution on this size screen" charts?
I understand why it's going on. LCD panels are still expensive to make - we had a brief moment last year where 32" LCDs dropped below $500 if you knew where to look, but even that reversed itself after a month or so. So TV manufacturers are having to come up with ways to sell TVs that generally need four digit price tags to make a decent profit on, and salespeople are having to try to push them on people who are used to living-room oriented TVs being in the $500 range, and suddenly it becomes a richard-waving contest with resolution and size being the easiest metrics to use. And then people who have spent a few thousand on 60" 1080p60 TVs to replace the 30" CRT in their living room see (a) the massive improvement in quality compared to NTSC CRTs (because the latter *suck*, boy, do they suck. I'm glad they're finally going away, and I was so glad to finally upgrade to an LCD screen, but no, I didn't pay four digits...) and (b) do not want to believe they spent disproportionately more than they had to. Add that to the handful that genuinely want to build dedicated home theaters, and you have a large group of people finding justifications for spending $7,500 on a 60" Plasma screen with 1080p60 (or even $2,000 on an awful rear-projection unit with the same size and resolution/frame rate) rather than $1,200 for a 42" LCD with 768 lines but a 10,000:1 contrast ratio.
The good news for Apple is that's still a very small group of people. 720p24 will be absolutely fine for now as long as the encoding's good and the colour space is deep enough. Especially given the "rental model" of the movie download service. It's not like you're buying the things for watching ten years from now on your whole-wall 4320i240 100,000:1 positronic screen.
Yes yes, I'm lying.
With my set up the recommended THX is 7.3 feet, the MAXIMUM SMPTE is 8.8 feet MAXIMUM HDTV 1080 is 8.5 feet meaning, of course, that what's best is less than that.
And not to worry, when I lay back in my recliner I am at an optimum smidge less than 7.5 feet away from the screen. See, I like my viewing experience and after spending the money on a 65" I want my money's worth by having the best viewing experience possible.
And the rest of your comments show the inherent problem of your complaints: the 'focal point is impractical' for YOU. It is 'absurd' for YOU. Of course a living room is not a cinema but who has the TV as the center piece of their living room outside 'All in the Family'? Who even considers that everyone who could sit in the living room must be able to see the TV? I guess you do since assume a 12 foot recommended viewing distance from a 107" HDTV means the room is 12 feet to you. Rest assured there are those that have one part of the living room for TV viewing and leave some of it for people to do other things or actually move the TV out of the living room al together so it doesn't interfere with other important activities.
And again no matter how much you complain common sense (as well as the expert recommendations) is against you - Sitting outside the optimal viewing range sort of negates the whole point of bothering with HD to begin with. For someone with viewing needs like yourself of course 760 1080 heck 480 is all pretty much the same because you sit so far back they all munge into pretty much the same image - great for you but what does that have to do with proper HD viewing? That YOU don't care what quality of view you have is pretty evident but then why is it so important for you to comment about something you don't care about? No matter how much you complain the recommended viewing distances will still be the same - they haven't changed in years - best viewing distance is just after loss of horizontal scan line resolution. TVs got bigger and higher resolution not so we could sit further away but so we could sit close enough to have the intended immersive experience just as they were intended to provide.
Sounds like you have your living room set up like a sports bar - again fine for you but what does it have to do with the topic at hand?
I may have been a bit snide with you too. Sorry.
Anyway, you continue to ignore the basis for those ratios. I have to think your setup looks very silly but to each his own.
I think the air has been sucked out of this debate so I'll be on my way after remaking a couple of points and we'll have to agree to disagree.
1. My initial comment, not directed to you, was addressing the 720P issue. The assertion that it was NOT a broadcast HD standard was wrong and we all know that. So someone spouting that may not be a "moron," but certainly doesn't understand HT.
Additionally,
2. 720P will be "useable" for direct view monitors in my view. I have to think Apple has also beta tested this aspect. I will not be throwing away my Blu-Ray player, but will likely buy an iTunes movie before I go to a video store.
3. While I had like higher resolution viewing and can see the difference on a 60 inch set at 10 feet, I'm glad others concur that a 1080P download just isn't reasonable right now. I have a super fast FIOS connection and I can't imagine trying that on a DSL connection. Even an iTunes movie takes too long.
For now I will celebrate what Apple managed to accomplish not demean what they opted not to do.
Amen. Excellent points. Sadly, we're far from digesting 100 percent HD these days either.
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
This too is not justification for NOT delivering a 1080p AppleTV. A very simple adjustment to the timing of when the movie starts (something probably already in the AppleTV firmware) would just wait a little longer before starting the film (while it buffers up enough (to the AppleTV harddrive if necessary) so that the 1080p movie could play through without interruption.
Highly compressed 1080p films weigh in at 30-45GB+. Uncompressed 1080p video, by comparison is about 210MB per second (~750GB per hour). There's not a wireless network in existence (including 802.11n) that can keep up with this in the real world, even allowing a generous buffer (say, 5 minutes).
Apart from the substantial cost of delivering 30GB+ files to millions of customers, the download times would be substantial--15 hours on a typical 6mbps cable connection, which is faster than the majority of Internet users have in the US.
The only way to do this adequately is (a) wired gigabit or (b) locally stored content. It's not feasible. Even 720p is a challenge for Internet distribution.