Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Don't forget that DVDs are 480i anamorphic, where as Apple's HD will be 720p square pixels.

Even with the bit rate being lower than DVD, it will still contain many more pixels and will appear much crisper on your HDTV. DVDs will always look slightly blurry due to the fact that the image is stretched horizontally to make it widescreen.

Not all DVDs are anamorphic, and the aspect ratio varies from movie to movie (1.85 to 2.35 is the common range).

As far as pixels and crispness, a high quality upscaled crisp DVD image can preserve much of the crispness - since the signal processing logic in the upscaling circuitry can do edge detection and "invent" a straight line in the upscaled image. These upscalers aren't like QUicktime player, where you press Ctrl-2 and every pixel becomes four - they are high performance image processing engines with a lot of intelligence.

Starting with a fuzzy over-compressed (but larger) image like Apple TV, it's hard to create upscaled straight lines that are missing from the original.


"So the *only* way to get a 1080p picture on a 1080p set is to buy a high-def DVD player (Blu-ray or HD DVD)."

And I did buy a Blu-ray player. Three, in fact, if you count the Blu-rays in the computers. And I rent or buy Blu-ray movies and documentaries (some amazing BBC and National Geographic stuff is out there). And I watched the demos at Macworld Expo - and they looked worse than upscaled DVDs.

Anyway, enough for now - enjoy your Apple TVs.
 
Not all DVDs are anamorphic, and the aspect ratio varies from movie to movie (1.85 to 2.35 is the common range).

Actually all widescreen movies on dvd are anamorphic. The image is always contained within 720x480 (NTSC) or 720x576 (PAL) pixels then stretched to 864x480 or 1024x576 for playback.

The aspect ratio has nothing to do with how widescreen movies are stored on the disc, they are usually just matted up the top and bottom. In other words, wasted pixels (as they just show black).
 
Actually all widescreen movies on dvd are anamorphic. The image is always contained within 720x480 (NTSC) or 720x576 (PAL) pixels then stretched to 864x480 or 1024x576 for playback.

The aspect ratio has nothing to do with how widescreen movies are stored on the disc, they are usually just matted up the top and bottom. In other words, wasted pixels (as they just show black).

Not all widescreen movies on dvd are anamorphic. Many early releases were non-anamorphic (the encoded video was interpreted as 4:3, and the black bars were part of the video signal). There's also not a set output size, it depends on the dvd player's capabilities. A 1080p upscaling dvd player will scale a 720x480 anamorphic signal to 1920x1080, for instance. There will be no wasted pixels in the original dvd signal, unless the movie is not exactly 16:9.
 
Happy Apple TV owner (as of yesterday) and new MacRumors poster. Although I have been reading for almost a year.:D

Anyway, I have been worrying about the quality of the 720p HD rentals and have been looking all over the internet for some official sample or at least a review from someone at Macworld saying it looked great. I have had no luck but I have taken peace of mind from the following:

1) Apple TV supports 5Mbps 720p not 4Mbps (I don't know why people are throwing the number 4 around in this thread.)

2) Go watch 720p trailers on apple.com. I watched the new Chronicles of Narnia trailer and looked great. I then clicked "Show movie info". It said "Bitrate: 5.5Mbps" and "Resolution:1280x544" (It's clearly a 2.35:1 movie)
 
As far as pixels and crispness, a high quality upscaled crisp DVD image can preserve much of the crispness - since the signal processing logic in the upscaling circuitry can do edge detection and "invent" a straight line in the upscaled image. These upscalers aren't like QUicktime player, where you press Ctrl-2 and every pixel becomes four - they are high performance image processing engines with a lot of intelligence.

Starting with a fuzzy over-compressed (but larger) image like Apple TV, it's hard to create upscaled straight lines that are missing from the original.

Why do you think DVD is inherently crisper than 720p rentals on Apple TV? Video scalers can apply the same techniques to Apple TV output, as a DVD player's output. At the same bitrate, H.264/AVC clearly wins over MPEG-2 (just look at the early reviews of Blu-Ray MPEG-2 release, compared to their HD-DVD counterparts using AVC). 720p rentals will be 4mbps, most DVD's run 3-7mpbs, that's not a whole lot more.

I've watched several movies extensively already, both the iTunes rental and the DVD version, upscaled to 720p from a DLP projector, and while the DVD versions are still better, its not by much of a margin. Most of the issues are around color compression, high motion artifacts, and noise reduction, but to a level that I'd say 90% of viewers aren't going to notice. Even for me, 70-80% of the movie is not distinguishable from a DVD. CGI movies (like the Simpsons), its practically impossible to tell the difference. (Btw, I should mention I'm using Quicktime Player to view the rental movies, and its upscaling capabilities are quite up to snuff.)

So, I don't think we'll really know how good/bad the 720p rentals will be until they're available. They won't be anywhere near blu-ray quality, but saying their worse than upscaled DVD's is pulling the trigger a bit early...
 
:)

You know, that was totally unfair. Pre-digital I had a Sony PL A/V I loved, for years. I have a Sony center and two surrounds. (I had two Sony full-size fronts, but in small cabinets, and they were on the floor; I had to get them up off the floor and had no place to put them. So I went shopping for a couple stands. All the stands these days are made for the little micro-size surround-kit loudspeakers. To get top platforms big enough for the fronts, it was $100 for the pair of stands. The audio store where I went for the stands had a few discontinued $250 a pop Polks in cabinets the perfect height, on get-rid-of-them-now clearance for $40 apiece, cheaper than the freaking stands. Plus these Polks have a bit more presence than the Sonys; you know, not *louder*, I just think I get a little more "detail" listening to music, especially LPs -- movies, nyah, I can't tell, but for a lot of music, a bit better.)

The "blech" came from one analog Sony PLII my wife had, still have around here somewhere. Sounded fine, really, it was just that it was like a damn desert on available inputs. It wasn't marketed to people who were going to connect more than a VCR and a CD deck, which was perfectly my wife before I married her. But that thing hassled me, though there was nothing wrong with it one bit for its target market. My Blu-ray players are Sony. I'm cool with Sony, I just have this bizarre hangover resentment against that Sony PLII receiver and its input shortage. The "blech" was just a personal thing; Sony isn't junk.

I like my clearance-price Onkyo 5.1 -- God bless HDMI for knocking the price of models without HDMI pass-through down into the dirt. Any comparable Sony I'd like just as much.

You'd like this: I was in one of these consumer electronics chains, Best Buy or Circuit City, some place like that, struck up a conversation with the "audio expert". He had what he swore was a 100 watts/channel, not 100 watts aggregate, receiver -- I mean I asked for clarification on that, and he swore *per channel* and no tomfoolery on the specs. He didn't like it so much because it was "a little underpowered". I asked him how much he was paying in rent to live on the field in the Astrodome. I don't think he got it, though.

Speaking of Sid Harman, I gotta admit Bob Carver and his Sunfire rap drive me bonkers, too. Sure his gear *looks* nice. Sure, a machine may tell the difference, but a human being? I mean today we have guys with the knack -- no, not the band, people -- producing major-label records in freaking GarageBand, and then lying about it and *no one can even tell*. At the same time you gotta drop two grand on an A/V receiver, minimum, or you won't get "the full audio experience today's technology brings you." Uh, yeah.

I never understand why people worry about receivers so much, and forget one of the most important components in a home theater system: the speakers. I get more improvements/changes out of swapping speakers in my system than any other component. I swear that all these new HD digital audio formats are a scheme to wring more money out of unwitting consumers. The advantages offered by many of these formats don't really become interesting until you've sunk about 50-100k into your home theater IMO (and that's not including the video side).

Besides, whatever HDMI receiver you buy today, it'll probably be obsolete in 6 months when they announce HDMI 1.3c or 1.4 or whatever... :rolleyes:
 
Why do you think DVD is inherently crisper than 720p rentals on Apple TV?

...because I've watched the 720p Apple TV rentals. Fuzzy, with noticeable motion artifacts.


Video scalers can apply the same techniques to Apple TV output, as a DVD player's output.

You say "scalers", when in fact the upscaling engines are complex signal processors. Any fuzziness in the source limits the ability of the scaler to enhance the output. A crisp 720x480 input can scale to 1920x1080 better than a fuzzy 1280x720 source.


So, I don't think we'll really know how good/bad the 720p rentals will be until they're available. They won't be anywhere near blu-ray quality, but saying their worse than upscaled DVD's is pulling the trigger a bit early...

If you haven't had an upscaling Blu-ray player and a 46" 1080p LCD for a year or so, and you didn't go to Macworld - a reasonable position.

Me - yes, yes and yes. And IMO the Apple TV is definitely "Fake HD" compared to what is available.
 
...because I've watched the 720p Apple TV rentals. Fuzzy, with noticeable motion artifacts.

How and where did you watch the 720p rentals? At MacWorld? I also see blu-ray setups at Best Buy or Circuit City all the time that look like total crap, doesn't prove a thing. And just because you see fuzzy video, doesn't mean everyone else will have the same objections. This service is being marketed to consumers, not videophiles (who will be using HD players anyway), so it might be good no to try to scare everybody before 720p rentals have even been released.

You say "scalers", when in fact the upscaling engines are complex signal processors. Any fuzziness in the source limits the ability of the scaler to enhance the output. A crisp 720x480 input can scale to 1920x1080 better than a fuzzy 1280x720 source.

<rant>I call them scalers, because that's what most video-people call them still. Hang out on AVS Forum for a bit, you'd learn this, and a lot more... Anyway, there's no measure of "fuzziness" in video. There's a notion of "lines of resolution" which is a common measure of detail (not to be confused with sharpness, that's something else). A scaler can't increase detail (and a good one won't decrease it either). What a scaler can do, however, is reduce aliasing and pixelation effects. Certain edge reconstruction algorithms, like Lanczos convolution kernels, have this effect, of reducing stairstepping artifacts, but they aren't increasing detail, not one bit. Really, what your claim is, is that the detail in a 4mbps h264-encoded 720p signal, is lower than in a DVD. It really has nothing to do with the scaler, or "fuzziness". Compression artifacts may lower detail, and 4mbps h264 will have more compression artifacts than 8mbps MPEG-2, for sure, but then the 720p video is starting with 720 lines of resolution, whereas the DVD started with 480. So, whether your claim is actually true or not, is unlikely, but also not provable until the rentals are available for people to watch and decide themselves. The compression artifacts might be more noticeable on the 720p than the DVD, because the bitrate is so low, and that might be a turn-off for some people, but it's a pretty good bet that the detail level will actually be higher on the 720p. Time will tell.</rant>

If you haven't had an upscaling Blu-ray player and a 46" 1080p LCD for a year or so, and you didn't go to Macworld - a reasonable position.

Me - yes, yes and yes. And IMO the Apple TV is definitely "Fake HD" compared to what is available.

You're entitled to your opinion, just don't parade it around as fact or universal for the rest of us. I don't need an upscaling blu-ray player or to have been at MacWorld. All I (or anybody) needs to do is wait for 720p rentals to become available, and for people to compare them side-by-side with DVD on the same type of setup. You haven't done this yet. You could at least start with maybe comparing 480p rentals and DVD, I don't know, take some screenshots or something showing us the horrible fuzziness of "Fake HD". Btw, just because 720p or 1080p is compressed doesn't mean it's "fake HD", what the heck do you think Blu-Ray is, uncompressed??
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.