How about 1080p which is almost standard on HDTV now with most Apple screens capable of at least 1920 X 1080.
This statement makes no sense. What is an almost standard? Where is 1080P used on ANY broadcast HD station? Anywhere??? 1080P is not an HD broadcast standard. It is used *ONLY* and I repeat **ONLY** on Blu-Ray and some limited on-demand applications and consumer devices like camcorders.
The sheer ignorance regarding all things "HD" never ceases to astound me. And it matters now how many times people present the correct information. It never ever sinks in to the general public who is easily fooled by catch phrases and advertising nonsense by people trying to sell them something to pad their pockets. 720P and 1080i are the only formats found on broadcast television or cable. The resolution differences and superiority between the two are highly debatable. 720P is clearly the superior format for high-speed motion like sports as its resolution is in fact 100% REAL resolution in time whereas 1080i is INTERLACED, which means its resolution is a trick of the mind ONLY. It's ACTUAL resolution in time (any given moment) is 1/2 of that, namely 540P inter-woven 1/30 of a second later with the previous image as are all interlaced formats. It is only the human brain that connects these two fields together to try and form a 1080 line image and it is clearly more successful on images containing little to no motion than those with a lot of motion.
The very idea that it is somehow "superior" to 720p is completely and irrevocably SUBJECTIVE at *best*. These are the only two real broadcast available "HD" resolutions available PERIOD. So the very idea that somehow "1080p" is becoming the "standard" for "HD" is just plain absurd. You will generally only find it on a BD disc. The fact that most people are not even SEEING 1080 lines of resolution on their generally smallish sets makes the whole situation even more laughable. For example, you CANNOT see more than 720P worth of resolution on a 48" screen at a mere distance of 9 feet. This is due to human limitations of resolving distances (
http://www.engadgethd.com/2006/12/09/1080p-charted-viewing-distance-to-screen-size/ ). I can readily say that the average person out there with a 32-60 inch type set is not sitting at the distances required to actually SEE 1080 lines of resolution. For example, the aforementioned 48" screen would require you to sit a mere 6.5 feet or closer to your screen to get the full benefit of 1080p resolution. How many people do you know that sit that close to their televisions? I have a 93" screen and sit around 10 feet from it. That is close enough to actually see 1080P worth of resolution. Anything beyond what that chart indicates on the link above is pure IMAGINATION or you are not actually WATCHING it at those distances (i.e. stepping forward to briefly examine it 3 feet from the screen doesn't count).
Thus, I conclude that all the snobbery surrounding 1080p being REQUIRED to be "HD" is just that, snobbery because 95% of the people spouting it aren't even seeing what they claim to see and have absolutely no idea about resolving distances or anything else. They simply like bigger numbers.
If 1080i isn't there there is no reason to purchase something. 1080p is where they need to go. With the iMac going 16:9 ot seems as of Apple is
Your first sentence is so irrational I won't even comment further on it. HD isn't about sitting 2 feet in front of a computer monitor, at least not at my house. It's about sitting in my family room with a 6.1 surround sound system and watching a movie on a large screen with a proper projector. And yet even though I sit 10 feet from a 93" screen and I could see the full 1080P of resolution at that distance, I still say 720P looks FABULOUS compared to even the best looking DVDs.
I was one that waited for the Apple TV but has been so under satisfied by its capabilities that I have cancelled all plans to purchase one. It seems as if Apple wants to keep it that way.
As I thought, you do not own one, have never seen one in operation on a proper screen and are basing all your comments on "numbers" that mean little to nothing to you other than bigger must be better so anything less than the highest number out there must be worthless. I'll be the first to admit that Apple is a greedy company selling outdated, overpriced hardware, but that does not make the equipment worthless in any sense of the word. It does what it sets out to do. If that's not what you need then there are other playback devices out there to look into such as the Popcorn A110 or C-200.
>>Originally Posted by tcoleman
>>1080i is not higher quality than 720p.
Try reading above. Comparing an interlaced format to a progressive one without regard the differences between the two is not a smart idea because there are advantages and drawbacks to each one and thus one is not necessarily superior to the other. As I said, 1080i is just two mashed together 540P signals with time offset that means they will not make a congruent "1080" resolution picture UNLESS there is absolutely NO MOTION in the picture. Beyond that, it is going to be distorted by changes in motion from field to field and thus the picture is in ERROR of the original signal.
Please explain how a distortion can be "higher quality" than a non-distortion? It cannot except in your psychological subjective interpretation thereof. You are trading a slight perceived resolution increase (which isn't even "real" since it only occurs in your brain) for distortion of motion. That isn't a trade which I would personally make, but like I said, it's subjective and thus statements about it should be treated as such, not stated matter of a fact when it's anything but which only makes one appear ignorant of the actual subject matter.
Blu-Ray is a high-end playback medium. Most people will never realize its full potential. I dare say most of the people arguing how awful Apple TV is probably do not have systems that even come close to showcasing the full potential of Blu-Ray or 1080P in general and thus I find many of the arguments to lack logical substance in that regard. For the few that do have good use for 1080P worth of resolution, there are products out there for playback, but most lack quality interfaces, IMO. Even XBMC lacks the simplicity it should have compared to Apple and it ignores all tagging for videos, which is just a total waste. Updated hardware for Apple TV and support for standard formats would enable it to easily beat all the competition. Unfortunately, Apple is pretty near-sighted when it comes to doing things that don't fit into its master plan to dominate all vertical markets.
TV is a better option than PS3 @$299? The new PS3 is slimmer, uses less energy, and it includes NetFlix streaming and a Blu-Ray player...
