…and we Europeans get again ripped off from Apple by paying $148 for an Apple TV. As much as I'd love to have an Apple TV, I rather go with Plex on my Mini. I guess I can't use Netflix anyways.
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 Introduces Updated Apple TV with Netflix Integration, TV Show Rentals
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Can new AppleTV stream from my NAS?
So there's no more syncing of content with an iTunes library on your computer, but the new AppleTV can discover and stream content from your computer.
Does this mean I can finally stream content from my NAS to the new AppleTV using Firefly to announce the content? That would be a win for me
So there's no more syncing of content with an iTunes library on your computer, but the new AppleTV can discover and stream content from your computer.
Does this mean I can finally stream content from my NAS to the new AppleTV using Firefly to announce the content? That would be a win for me
With that logic the ipod shouldn't be able to play mp3s but just AACs because AAC is the format used by the itunes store and mp3 is a format used by pirates
Why do I need to buy a BD device when I don't own any BD material? Why do I need a larger bulkier more power hungry device wen I wont use half the devce?
The apple TV will sit neatly in the entertainment unit and I wont have to explain to mrss1m how to get the files she wants through the Xbox. She will be able to control it through her iPhone.
This will be a neat and cheap device.
Chuck in a FLPR adapter and everything is controlled from the iPhone.
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
So again, are we being selective to bias the win to 720p? Why not choose 60fps for 1080p too? Or why not choose 24 or 30 for 720p?
I can make this kind of math make 320 x 200 look better than your 720p calculations if we want to just choose a big enough frame rate for it.
1920 x 1080 = a picture with a little more than 2 million pixels in it (not scaled up).
1280 x 720 = a picture with a little more than 921 thousand pixels in it.
If you want to compare frame rates for each format, you should compare both of them at 24, 30 or 60, not the highest one in support of "720p is better" vs. the lowest one applied to 1080p. Multiply 24 or 30 or 60 by the above calculations and EVERY TIME 1080p will win, by a big amount of pixels per minute.
If you're doing it to try to justify why Apple (again
) chose 720p max for this new 
TV, you might consider that it can't even do 720p60: http://www.apple.com/appletv/specs.html as part of the eval.
No, Sony says he lies because Sony is a movie company. Sony Pictures. They have some lesser known movies such as Spider-Man and Spider-Man 2. Oh and that other obscure thing : Spider-Man 3.
LG, Samsung, Vizio don't have movie studio tie-ins. But it's ok. Sony is enough to debunk his crap about Apple not wanting studios pissed at them. Apple just wants to lock you into their stuff, it has nothing to do with the studios.
Well, if you like paying the same price for less functionality, go right ahead. Personally, if I'm to get less, I'd rather pay less too.
If you're doing it to try to justify why Apple (again
720p30, guy spoke through his hat. Apple defense squad is out in full force tonight, spouting nonsense after nonsense to try to appease the crowds after yet another lackluster showing by Apple (actually, the new Nano is way awesome).
Let me get this right...
You're complaining that $148 is too much for an AppleTV, so instead you'll use a Mac Mini. That's right, Mac Minis are way cheaper than $148.
Let me get this right...
You're complaining that $148 is too much for an AppleTV, so instead you'll use a Mac Mini. That's right, Mac Minis are way cheaper than $148.
It's cheaper if he already has it.
The REAL question I have not seen answered yet is whether the hardware in this new Apple TV is capable of handling 1080p. That and a USB port to hack the thing is all that really matters as to whether I want to replace my current ATV (as in move it to another room) or not. The ONLY thing I store on my current ATV are photos (so they come up instantly instead of a delay with high-resolution masters sometimes taking a couple of seconds to transmit over the air). Everything else is already being streamed and so it makes no difference in that regard. But if I can run XBMC and play any 1080p or high bit-rate 720p with total aplomb, it's worth getting one just for that. What kind of video card chipset is in this thing, for instance?
I think you're halfway there, but using terms like "appropriate distance" is besides the point. There's no such thing as an appropriate distance. The issue is the eye's resolving power at a given distance and this is typically rated at 20/20 vision or corrective equivalent. How far you sit from the TV is purely an individual comfort thing. I personally find that as long as my eyes are focused essentially on infinity (not sure of the exact distance for the human eye, but it feels around 6 to 7 feet; I sit 9 feet from my 93" screen), there is no problem. Less than that and my eyes start to get tired fairly quickly.
What the average person doesn't understand is the eye's resolving power at a given distance for a given TV size. If you sit 9 feet from a 48" set, you CANNOT see more than 720P worth of resolution so a 1080p set is pretty much pointless at that distance. With a 93" projector/screen combo, you CAN see 1080p worth and so it is significant. I would hazard to say most people probably sit between 8-20 feet from their TVs and most people have sets under 60" and so for the vast majority of people, 1080p isn't being realized in day-to-day use. All the posts in the world in this thread about "math" and "pixels" for 1080 over 720 are NOT taking into account the human eye watching those pixels at various distances AT ALL. And THAT is where they fail.
Thus, in that regard, I do agree that 1080p is WAY over-hyped. Many people who think they need 1080p simply do not need it. That doesn't excuse hardware from supporting it (Apple is doing that for their own selfish purposes; let's be clear on that). But it does mean that SOME of the smug arrogant types on here don't really know what they're talking about when they say they can "see the difference". Yes, if you walk towards your set and are a few feet away the differences start to become obvious, but if you don't watch TV from that distance, it's moot. Obviously, SOME do have huge screens and CAN see actual real improvements with 1080p.
Furthermore, there's the issue of native resolution and the quality of the scaler being used. If you have a crappy/cheap scaler even in a smaller set, there's a chance that the 720p signal being converted to 1080p is going to be corrupted and will look worse than it SHOULD or would on a native 720p or one with a high quality scaler. Similarly, 1080i or 1080p can look worse on a 720P set with a poor scaler than it would on one with a high quality scaler. This is OFTEN seen with monitors showing less than native resolutions. I have two 24" LG monitors here, for example and the $600 one clearly has a WAY better scaler than the $350 one. Lower resolutions (e.g. sometimes needed to get smooth rates when gaming) are MUCH sharper on the more expensive monitor. Native resolution (1920x1440) looks pretty much identical on BOTH units.
720p does NOT look the same as 1080i. You might argue that they are "equivalent" in overall usefulness, but differ in the details. 1080i is actually inter-woven 540p and uses a timing trick of the brain to fool it into thinking it is seeing 1080p. All flat-screen 1080 sets convert to 1080p regardless. The problem there is similar to the scaler thing but this one is not ever going to be "perfect" except with 3:2 pulldown of 24fps movies. The problem is that time delay the brain doesn't really see very well translates into motion error in the converted 1080p signal. As motion on the screen increases, jagged/distorted image frames are the result. Whether lack of resolution or distortion of actual resolution, the result is still ERROR. 720P has less resolution than a distorted 1080p, but it's not distorted in time at all. There are no jagged edges or other distortion present. It's a clean signal. Thus, this is where the idea that for OTA broadcast HD (where no 1080p even exists as an option, although 3:2 pulldown will function for movies being converted to non-interlaced from film sources at 24fps), 720p is superior for high-motion imagery (e.g. sports) while 1080i is superior for less motion events (news, some tv shows, etc.) where it'll look sharper some of the time than 720p can possibly look, but will become distorted as motion increases.
Personally, I think someone who just bothers to tell people they're wrong but offers no explanation or proof is just as flawed as someone presenting information with error in it. I can conclude that either you know little to nothing about the topic since you've shown nothing or you're too darn lazy to contribute to the thread by backing up your comments with actual information instead of just telling someone they're wrong (which in no way helps anyone else in the thread that may be confused on the issue to learn anything new) and come across little more than an attack on that post. In short, your post sucks.
I think you're halfway there, but using terms like "appropriate distance" is besides the point. There's no such thing as an appropriate distance. The issue is the eye's resolving power at a given distance and this is typically rated at 20/20 vision or corrective equivalent. How far you sit from the TV is purely an individual comfort thing. I personally find that as long as my eyes are focused essentially on infinity (not sure of the exact distance for the human eye, but it feels around 6 to 7 feet; I sit 9 feet from my 93" screen), there is no problem. Less than that and my eyes start to get tired fairly quickly.
What the average person doesn't understand is the eye's resolving power at a given distance for a given TV size. If you sit 9 feet from a 48" set, you CANNOT see more than 720P worth of resolution so a 1080p set is pretty much pointless at that distance. With a 93" projector/screen combo, you CAN see 1080p worth and so it is significant. I would hazard to say most people probably sit between 8-20 feet from their TVs and most people have sets under 60" and so for the vast majority of people, 1080p isn't being realized in day-to-day use. All the posts in the world in this thread about "math" and "pixels" for 1080 over 720 are NOT taking into account the human eye watching those pixels at various distances AT ALL. And THAT is where they fail.
Thus, in that regard, I do agree that 1080p is WAY over-hyped. Many people who think they need 1080p simply do not need it. That doesn't excuse hardware from supporting it (Apple is doing that for their own selfish purposes; let's be clear on that). But it does mean that SOME of the smug arrogant types on here don't really know what they're talking about when they say they can "see the difference". Yes, if you walk towards your set and are a few feet away the differences start to become obvious, but if you don't watch TV from that distance, it's moot. Obviously, SOME do have huge screens and CAN see actual real improvements with 1080p.
Furthermore, there's the issue of native resolution and the quality of the scaler being used. If you have a crappy/cheap scaler even in a smaller set, there's a chance that the 720p signal being converted to 1080p is going to be corrupted and will look worse than it SHOULD or would on a native 720p or one with a high quality scaler. Similarly, 1080i or 1080p can look worse on a 720P set with a poor scaler than it would on one with a high quality scaler. This is OFTEN seen with monitors showing less than native resolutions. I have two 24" LG monitors here, for example and the $600 one clearly has a WAY better scaler than the $350 one. Lower resolutions (e.g. sometimes needed to get smooth rates when gaming) are MUCH sharper on the more expensive monitor. Native resolution (1920x1440) looks pretty much identical on BOTH units.
720p does NOT look the same as 1080i. You might argue that they are "equivalent" in overall usefulness, but differ in the details. 1080i is actually inter-woven 540p and uses a timing trick of the brain to fool it into thinking it is seeing 1080p. All flat-screen 1080 sets convert to 1080p regardless. The problem there is similar to the scaler thing but this one is not ever going to be "perfect" except with 3:2 pulldown of 24fps movies. The problem is that time delay the brain doesn't really see very well translates into motion error in the converted 1080p signal. As motion on the screen increases, jagged/distorted image frames are the result. Whether lack of resolution or distortion of actual resolution, the result is still ERROR. 720P has less resolution than a distorted 1080p, but it's not distorted in time at all. There are no jagged edges or other distortion present. It's a clean signal. Thus, this is where the idea that for OTA broadcast HD (where no 1080p even exists as an option, although 3:2 pulldown will function for movies being converted to non-interlaced from film sources at 24fps), 720p is superior for high-motion imagery (e.g. sports) while 1080i is superior for less motion events (news, some tv shows, etc.) where it'll look sharper some of the time than 720p can possibly look, but will become distorted as motion increases.
Personally, I think someone who just bothers to tell people they're wrong but offers no explanation or proof is just as flawed as someone presenting information with error in it. I can conclude that either you know little to nothing about the topic since you've shown nothing or you're too darn lazy to contribute to the thread by backing up your comments with actual information instead of just telling someone they're wrong (which in no way helps anyone else in the thread that may be confused on the issue to learn anything new) and come across little more than an attack on that post. In short, your post sucks.
So there's no more syncing of content with an iTunes library on your computer, but the new AppleTV can discover and stream content from your computer.
Does this mean I can finally stream content from my NAS to the new AppleTV using Firefly to announce the content? That would be a win for me
What computer are you using and what is Firefly? Thanks.
its a possibility....
I can't side with the die hard spec complainers because i agree this really isn't targeted at that level of consumer. I wish it were but i see that its really not. I own a Sony Blu-Ray that does wireless, netflix, amazon, etc.. so at first glance this would seem redundant. but... the DLNA on the Sony is really problematic with many formats as well. Sony with all its proprietary history really isn't one to be pointing fingers at Apple. I might drop $99 just to not have to deal with the hassle of the sony/mac/DLNA/format issues to be honest. I have no problem using Handbrake etc. to make .mkv files work with itunes. I'm dying to watch Sherlock on my HDTV, which brings me finally to my question...I see Doctor Who, Torchwood, etc. in various preview pics. Does that mean some BBC shows will be available for purchase here in the US?
I can't side with the die hard spec complainers because i agree this really isn't targeted at that level of consumer. I wish it were but i see that its really not. I own a Sony Blu-Ray that does wireless, netflix, amazon, etc.. so at first glance this would seem redundant. but... the DLNA on the Sony is really problematic with many formats as well. Sony with all its proprietary history really isn't one to be pointing fingers at Apple. I might drop $99 just to not have to deal with the hassle of the sony/mac/DLNA/format issues to be honest. I have no problem using Handbrake etc. to make .mkv files work with itunes. I'm dying to watch Sherlock on my HDTV, which brings me finally to my question...I see Doctor Who, Torchwood, etc. in various preview pics. Does that mean some BBC shows will be available for purchase here in the US?
Cheapest BD player I could find was $A175 which is more than the apple TV. Didnt look to have that much functionality either....
http://www.binglee.com.au/tv-video/.../sharp-bdhp22x-bluray-player-with-bd-live-417
Be interesting to see how I stream my existing content from the iMac to this BD player easily compared to steaming it from my iMac to the ATV.
I personally don't to buy blu-ray discs and a blu-ray player so the ATV works for me.
Also in Oz the WD HD Live player is more expensive than the ATV.
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
Yep, every time... the same old cheerleading... the same old justifications.
What's really funny though is that a lot of the very same people post lots of comments about how much they look forward to new Mac's or iDevices with hardware features beyond what they'll be able to use. And some of them gripe & complain when new Macs don't have the latest & greatest graphics cards. Why they choose to see this Apple product so differently, I never understand- reality distortion field or not.
Note: I have a couple of 720p MAX
TV circa 2006. I like them very much. They are great. But I'm not so quick to drink the koolaid that I can't see shortcomings in such obvious options for a "new" version. It's 2010 after all. I've had a 1080HDTV for about 8 years now. I've had a 1080HD camcorder for about 4 years now. iMovie HD launched in the "year of HD" in 2006 and it could render that camcorder content into a Quicktime file that would store and play in iTunes. Yet we still have no TV to make the last connection between our iTunes 1080i/p content and our 1080HDTVs. Somebody bring up the chart to tell me that I can't see the difference, or that "until there's 1080p content in the iTunes store, it makes no sense", or that "until all the broadband pipes in the U.S. are expanded, it makes no sense" or that "9X% can't tell the difference", or that "they know some people who bought a HDTV played DVDs on it and claimed it was HD video", etc. That's all fine & good. But it sure would have been nice for Apple to roll out an upgrade that would directly compete with the "bag of hurt" head-to-head where it really counts (picture quality & sound). My money was ready. But now it waits. Hopefully NOT for 4 more years for the 2014
TV nano.
Which codec does your Sony not support that AppleTV does precisely ? Because the AppleTV seems rather limited in stock form, unless you're planning on hacking it and getting Boxee on there.
Who's to say he doesn't need the Mac Mini ? Are you seriously even thinking things through ?
My money was ready. But now it waits. Hopefully NOT for 4 more years for the
Actually, my money was ready to. I needed a streamer for my upstairs bedroom. But this is way too lackluster. And then BB showed up with a LG BD560C at 119$, the same price. So now the bedroom is getting a new Blu-ray player and a streamer with better codec support.
(And don't tell anyone, but it's getting plugged into a 720p TV).
On the whole 1080p vs 720p thing, you can definatly scale down without noticing a different.
When asked if one should resize when ripping a blu-ray here's what one of the main developers of x264 had to say:
http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?t=152213
So really if one of the leading devs of x264 downscales most of his blu-rays things aren't as clearcut as "1080p>>>>>>>>720p"
Though do note that that thread was about backing up blu-rays with x264 which doesn't have much to do with streaming on apple tv.
When asked if one should resize when ripping a blu-ray here's what one of the main developers of x264 had to say:
http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?t=152213
So really if one of the leading devs of x264 downscales most of his blu-rays things aren't as clearcut as "1080p>>>>>>>>720p"
Though do note that that thread was about backing up blu-rays with x264 which doesn't have much to do with streaming on apple tv.
Yep, every time... the same old cheerleading... the same old justifications.
What's really funny though is that a lot of the very same people post lots of comments about how much they look forward to new Mac's or iDevices with hardware features beyond what they'll be able to use. And some of them gripe & complain when new Macs don't have the latest & greatest graphics cards. Why they choose to see this Apple product so differently, I never understand- reality distortion field or not.
Note: I have a couple of 720p MAX
Somebody bring up the chart to tell me that I can't see the difference, or that "until there's 1080p content in the iTunes store, it makes no sense", or that "until all the broadband pipes in the U.S. are expanded, it makes no sense" or that "9X% can't tell the difference", or that "they know some people who bought a HDTV played DVDs on it and claimed it was HD video", etc. That's all fine & good. But it sure would have been nice for Apple to roll out an upgrade that would directly compete with the "bag of hurt" head-to-head where it really counts (picture quality & sound). My money was ready. But now it waits. Hopefully NOT for 4 more years for the 2014
I agreed it's disappointing the lack of 1080p.
Maybe I will end up buying a MacMini and use it as HTPC without the hassle of transcoding all my videos and blu-ray to a format AppleTV accepts.
Maybe at the end of the day is the best way around, too bad I have to fork the cash for it but I am sure Apple will be happy about that.
My only gripe is that front row UI is lame and I wished AppleTV UI could be applied to MacMini. Plex is nice but I am afraid my kids and wife will be too overwhelmed by it.
Oh wow, obscure geek-only device made by a company that just happens to also be a movie company supports MKV. Yeah, that's totally the same thing. Sony doesn't have to negotiate with the MPAA; Sony IS the MPAA. Sony selling a device that supports MKV doesn't threaten the whole movie industry, but Apple selling one does. You don't think it's escaped the notice of the MPAA that Apple came to dominate the music industry precisely by supporting the file format (MP3) that was most often used for piracy, do you?
Look, I'm making no value judgements about MKV files or how anyone got them. I have a ton of them myself. But I can't help but notice that there isn't one of them that doesn't run afoul of the DMCA somewhere. For Apple to support MKV would be as counterproductive in their negotiations with the content industry as if they had made it easy to copy songs off the iPod when it first came out.
All of this -- Apple's inability to negotiate a subscription model, the narrow range of DRM-encumbered file formats that the Apple TV supports, probably even the inability for you to just plug a hard drive into the USB port on the back of the device and play movies off of that -- is part of the same thing. It's all about the movie industry having seen how dominant Apple became in the music industry, and being determined not to let the same thing happen to them.
Look, I'm making no value judgements about MKV files or how anyone got them. I have a ton of them myself. But I can't help but notice that there isn't one of them that doesn't run afoul of the DMCA somewhere. For Apple to support MKV would be as counterproductive in their negotiations with the content industry as if they had made it easy to copy songs off the iPod when it first came out.
All of this -- Apple's inability to negotiate a subscription model, the narrow range of DRM-encumbered file formats that the Apple TV supports, probably even the inability for you to just plug a hard drive into the USB port on the back of the device and play movies off of that -- is part of the same thing. It's all about the movie industry having seen how dominant Apple became in the music industry, and being determined not to let the same thing happen to them.