+1
I also think an update to MLB.tv on the apple tv would be great timing with the All-star game next week. Being able to watch condensed games just like you can on website or skip to innings would be a big hit!
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 to Debut 'HD+' 1080p iTunes Movie Services Later This Year?
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
+1
I also think an update to MLB.tv on the apple tv would be great timing with the All-star game next week. Being able to watch condensed games just like you can on website or skip to innings would be a big hit!
I've seen motion too. They're CLEAN.
I guess BD sucks then.
I think most theaters suck (my setup looks and sounds better than most), so I guess you are aiming low.
You've just proven you don't have a fracking clue WTF you're talking about. Seriously. I've got a 93" screen here and it's perfect looking. I mean PERFECT. If you are seeing problems it means you (like most other whiners that complain about it) have a CHEAP AND CRAPPY SCALER in your 1080p set. This has bee explained many times on here, but apparently people don't read the threads and bring up the same BS over and over again.
In other words, if you watch 720p on a 1080p native display and it has a crap scaler in it (like most flat-panel sets do that are sold at places like Best Buy), you end up with a blurry picture or other artifacts. You can see this really easily on a PC by playing a game on a monitor at less than native resolution. Heck, look at text on a lower resolution setting. It will be blurry and crappy looking. But try that on a monitor or tv or projector with a high quality scaler. It's night and day. I have two 24" LG monitors in my den and one was $600 and other the $280. Suffice to say, the $280 looks like crap on any resolution other than native. The $600 one looks quite good at all resolutions (still not perfect except at native, but MUCH better). It's the quality of the scaler.
So if you watch 720p on a crappy retail 1080p TV, of course it's going to look bad. Try watching 720p on a 720p display. It's perfectly clear. In fact, most HD content out there except for Blu-Ray is NOT 1080p so you're going to get the opposite problem on a 1080p set. 720p broadcasts are going to look vastly inferior on a 1080p set with a cheap scaler than they will on a 720p set. That even applies to 1080i as well (without 3:2 pulldown).
Whatever you THINK you're seeing with ATV is due to your set, guaranteed because it looks clear as a bell here on my high-end 720P projector (one of the top-rated projectors of its day with a quality scaler (the reviews raved about how perfect 480p was on it despite it not being native), native 720p and an excellent conversion of 1080i and 1080p down to 720p. NOTHING looks 'bad' on this projector except what is bad to begin with. I have never seen an ATV movie with any kind of noticeable visual distortion. I have seen TV shows with issues, though and their SD content usually sucks hard. But 720p movies have been top-notch. I've watched cable HD movies that have been HORRIBLY distorted with blocky-ness and other issues and I've never seen that on a 720p iTunes movie yet.
Excuses for an outdated/outmoded system. I guarantee if you lived with a hard drive system where quality wasn't a factor for a few weeks, you'd never want to go back. Those that say it doesn't matter haven't really tried it.
Call it whatever you want. I love my setup. I hate discs now. Don't worry. You don't have to watch it.
I can easily see the difference on a 70 inch screen. The propaganda is that a digital download, even at 1080p, is an equivalent to blu-ray streaming data at at least 3 times the bit rate of a download, and normally much higher. And if you can't see the difference in a 1 million pixel image and a 2 million pixel image (720P V. 1080P), well then, I agree, don't waste your money on a 1080P projector. But that doesn't mean the difference isn't there. And where you actually notice the difference in download versus blu-ray is in a complex picture structure. A slow pan across an open blue sky and green field will look similar. Take a scene from "Animal Planet" with 30,000 birds swooping through the scene and the compression in a download falls apart. The digital blocking gets so bad it looks like a rerun of "Hollywood Squares"
The funny thing is, there are people on here that say there is no difference in 720P and 1080P, but flame Apple for not having a 8 MP camera instead of the 5 MP on the iPhone, or want a doubled up resolution iPad.
Nobody is saying that there isn't a real resolution improvement of 1080p over 720p, for goodness sake. I'm sure a good 1080p BD movie on my 93" screen with a 1080p projector would definitely look sharper/clearer for that reason (there's a very real size versus distance ratio for whether your eye can tell resolve it or not and my 93" screen at 9 feet is definitely in the 1080p can make a real difference range).
I'm saying the claims like above that 720p from Apple is only good for no larger than a 24" set is complete and utter BS. That is clearly a scaler issue there since ATV 720p looks perfectly beautiful on my 720p projector at 9 feet from a 93" screen. I have seen digital blocking effects (especially on cable tv and even cable tv 1080i movie rentals; the bit-rate and encoding suck). I have NOT seen blocking problems on an iTunes 720p MOVIE rental YET. I'm not saying there might not be one with a problem, but I've rented over 100 HD movies from iTunes and I have YET to see a blocking problem with a movie. I've only ever gotten Doctor Who in HD for TV Shows from Apple and so I cannot comment on overall TV content.
I have yet to see that happen on a MOVIE from iTunes on my Apple TV. I have seen it on cable often enough. But cable isn't Apple TV.
I'm all for Apple offering 1080p capable AppleTV. Even if their services aren't up to par, I can always encode my own movies.
But the idea that 720p in general is crap is just nonsense. Most people that think it's crap have 1080p sets with bad scaling. It can/will look bad with a lousy scaler and that's purely due to flat-screen technology. My mother's old 57-inch CRT HDTV does true 1080i AND 720p and 480p and 480i (switches sync modes) and everything looks natural on it. Anyone who has an LCD/LED monitor knows that anything less (or more) than the NATIVE resolution of that monitor looks like CRAP. It's the SAME thing with HDTVs unless you have a high quality scaler (most do not). This leads to ignorant and bad impressions/opinions of things. It's not really their fault. They THINK what they are seeing is 720p. They don't understand it's badly SCALED 1080p from 720p they're looking at. And a bad scaler can REALLY make things look awful. Cheap de-interlacers (progressive DVD players) really looked AWFUL on their progressive output compared to good ones. People don't know better.
Not really. I'm basing this on the quality I've seen at, arguably, the best quality theater in the world: ArcLight Cinemas in Los Angeles. What I've seen there blows everything else out of the water (unless you've got an ISF calibrated Runco projector at home).
And I'm basing my views of Apple's iTunes "HD" quality on what I've seen on my colorimeter calibrated CRT monitor and plasma. The quality is lacking and I can clearly tell between iTunes HD and Blu-ray. Hell, DVD is better quality than what Apple passes off as HD.
Also, you're right, I don't have to watch your setup--but you started this by saying that I shouldn't be speaking for everyone. I was speaking for videophiles. And videophiles put image quality first.
You're putting convenience first--so don't parade around pretending Blu-ray is antiquated. It isn't. It's the best home theater has. And videophiles will walk 5-20 feet to change a disc. It's worth that marginal effort.
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_2 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Mobile/8H7)
I believe the term is 'Full HD', nice to see Apple join the party!
I believe the term is 'Full HD', nice to see Apple join the party!
But, "its day" is long past - 1080p is mainstream.
See previous comment. 720p? Really?
However, you are spot on on the scaler issue. My receiver has a pair of Faroudja scalers (one for each HDMI output). I can definitely see the difference between letting a peripheral do the 1080p conversion and telling the peripheral to send raw to the receiver so that the Faroudja chips do the scaling.
Unless you've talked to "most people," you are just making stuff up.
10mbps is not equal to blu-ray. If you can't see the difference, then perhaps you are like some people who can't hear a difference between a CD redbook audio track and an itunes compressed song. You are blissfully unaware and nobody can fault you for the limits of your senses. My own hearing has gaps in it now, which I know colors my impression of what speakers/mixes sound good to me.
I think it's not really about Blu-ray vs. streamed/downloaded content here. It's clear Blu-ray is superior quality-wise. The issue I have is that by calling 1080 streams "HD+" (if that is indeed what they plan to do), they're selling the notion that the quality goes above and beyond HD. They'd be barely catching up in the resolution game and would still be left in the dust when it comes to bitrate, audio capability, extras and more. There's nothing "+" about it.
What does that have to do with anything? I'm aware there are ways to encode BDs at high bitrates... that's entirely the point. Whether you then rip them and put them on a server is irrelevant; as a source they have far higher bitrates than the content on iTunes, which is what we're discussing. And yes, I'm aware you claim some 720p Apple download looks "great" on your alleged 93" screen... and I say you're just trolling.
We're not discussing the advantages of downloads to Blu-ray when it comes to convenience, we're discussing quality. For some, convenience trumps quality - I will gladly give you that. But for those who place a higher importance on what the picture looks like to how you get there, there's just no comparison.
Since you seem to be a little confused on the topic, let me show you a chart:
You can see here (or if you can't, you can do the math) that 720p is closer to standard def than it is to 1080p. There are plenty of people who claim different things about how close or far you have to be to an image to see the difference resolution makes, but with a 93" screen even the most conservative estimations would call your bluff. You should be taking your frustration away from MacRumors and back to the salesperson who sold you a 720p projector.
I don't think Apple calling it a "+" is that big a deal. That is pretty standard to differentiate the two, very different, HD products. 720P is legit HD, but it is pretty common to call the doubled pixel count of 1080P "Full" HD, or as even VUDU delineates;
HD (720p) requires 2.25 Mbps
HDX (1080p) requires 4.5 Mbps
And they have a different price point too. So I think it is standard and reasonable for Apple to do the same. It just isn't a big deal, because VUDU as offered the same service for quite some time now. And I don't need an additional piece of hardware to do it really. It's available on many TV's and most blu-ray players now. If Apple made an "all-in-one" with optical drive, then I would consider it. But they don't, because it undermines their intent to sell you downloads. Samsung doesn't care about selling you movies, so they offer you blu-ray, VUDU, HULU, Netflix . . . etc, in one box. Apple TV seems utterly pointless to me.
And when comparing data between download 1080P and blu-ray, 4.5 Mbps (VUDU) amounts to about 2.5 GB for a 90 minute movie or 3.3 GB for 2 hours. Compare that to X-Men 3 on blu-ray is a 21.5 GB file and The Dark Knight is 35 GB. And the blu-ray data rate can average around 30 Mbps. The argument about difference in quality is elementary.
HD (720p) requires 2.25 Mbps
HDX (1080p) requires 4.5 Mbps
And they have a different price point too. So I think it is standard and reasonable for Apple to do the same. It just isn't a big deal, because VUDU as offered the same service for quite some time now. And I don't need an additional piece of hardware to do it really. It's available on many TV's and most blu-ray players now. If Apple made an "all-in-one" with optical drive, then I would consider it. But they don't, because it undermines their intent to sell you downloads. Samsung doesn't care about selling you movies, so they offer you blu-ray, VUDU, HULU, Netflix . . . etc, in one box. Apple TV seems utterly pointless to me.
And when comparing data between download 1080P and blu-ray, 4.5 Mbps (VUDU) amounts to about 2.5 GB for a 90 minute movie or 3.3 GB for 2 hours. Compare that to X-Men 3 on blu-ray is a 21.5 GB file and The Dark Knight is 35 GB. And the blu-ray data rate can average around 30 Mbps. The argument about difference in quality is elementary.
Anyone claiming they can't see a difference between 720p and 1080p on smaller TV screens is bunk.
It's like saying they can't see any difference between an iPhone 3G and an iPhone 4's retina display - you CAN see the difference. In fact your eyes are good enough to JUST make out the pixels on an retina display.
The same argument is going to be had for 4K video when it arrives in mainstream TVs at the same sizes as current 1080p sets. People will say you can't see the difference and that 1080p is adequate... until you put two side by side and realise your eyes are far better at discerning quality than you think.
Im really hoping 1080p comes soon to iTunes, worldwide, along with some sort of enhanced audio - probably won't be uncompressed Dolby True HD / DTS Master Audio, but maybe we'll get something part way there?
I'd happily wait for the file to download for a while rather than stream quickly if it meant I could have nearer to Blu-ray quality.
My home cinema has a 130" screen so every bit of quality helps otherwise you can start to see the artefacts. I know I'm not representing the average consumer here - people with my type of set up are still going to mostly opt for Bluray for the time being, but I can definitely see myself using iTunes from time to time for less important movies for my kids to watch etc.. I'll still save the big, epic blockbusters for Bluray.
BUT we ARE coming to a point of parity in terms of disc media and downloadable media. Give it a few more years, so that 100Mbit connections are more standard. Australia is just beginning to roll out their 100Mbit lines to all homes.. that's enough bandwith to stream 3 - 4 average quality Bluerays simultaneously!
Scottie
It's like saying they can't see any difference between an iPhone 3G and an iPhone 4's retina display - you CAN see the difference. In fact your eyes are good enough to JUST make out the pixels on an retina display.
The same argument is going to be had for 4K video when it arrives in mainstream TVs at the same sizes as current 1080p sets. People will say you can't see the difference and that 1080p is adequate... until you put two side by side and realise your eyes are far better at discerning quality than you think.
Im really hoping 1080p comes soon to iTunes, worldwide, along with some sort of enhanced audio - probably won't be uncompressed Dolby True HD / DTS Master Audio, but maybe we'll get something part way there?
I'd happily wait for the file to download for a while rather than stream quickly if it meant I could have nearer to Blu-ray quality.
My home cinema has a 130" screen so every bit of quality helps otherwise you can start to see the artefacts. I know I'm not representing the average consumer here - people with my type of set up are still going to mostly opt for Bluray for the time being, but I can definitely see myself using iTunes from time to time for less important movies for my kids to watch etc.. I'll still save the big, epic blockbusters for Bluray.
BUT we ARE coming to a point of parity in terms of disc media and downloadable media. Give it a few more years, so that 100Mbit connections are more standard. Australia is just beginning to roll out their 100Mbit lines to all homes.. that's enough bandwith to stream 3 - 4 average quality Bluerays simultaneously!
Scottie
They are cheap as hell in the US as well (just look at Amazon, BB or Walmart) but people here still think the BRs cost $40.
Why do people still live in 2005?
I know these are not the top movies but still:
Amazon: Red Riding Hood [Blu-ray], Hall Pass [Blu-ray], The Rite [Blu-ray] for $9.99 each FSSS
I have to say, that with time passing the exact opposite of what the iTunes evangelists are saying; I see more and more BD players in use, people use them, are aware of them and buy disks - and conversely, purchasing/renting on-line content has gained no momentum and is mostly embraced by geeks and Apple fans, while normal people have been using cable VOD rentals for years and are already pretty bored with the service.
BD has won. Not just HD-DVD, but downloaded purchased/rented content as well as the "de facto" standard for distributing movies.
BD has won. Not just HD-DVD, but downloaded purchased/rented content as well as the "de facto" standard for distributing movies.
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_3 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8J2 Safari/6533.18.5)
at least 1080p??
you guys are a laugh
do you actually watch the movie or do you want to see the nostril hairs of the star?
Susan Sarandon hates high def tv
she says it's like watching a movie on the jumbo tron at a baseball stadium
I agree
with bluray you can see the makeup on the men actors. it feels like your on the set of a movie not watching one
portishead said:
at least 1080p??
you guys are a laugh
do you actually watch the movie or do you want to see the nostril hairs of the star?
Susan Sarandon hates high def tv
she says it's like watching a movie on the jumbo tron at a baseball stadium
I agree
with bluray you can see the makeup on the men actors. it feels like your on the set of a movie not watching one
Here it's 20 Mbps down/ 5 up (250 GB monthly cap), for not much cheaper (if getting it without a cable package). There's one company that provides it (the alternative is 1.5 Mbps DSL) and it's not that much cheaper then a HD cable bill, particularly with the content that is not provided on Netflix and Hulu plus. It rather sucks.
Additionally I live 20 minutes from the downtown of a city of approximately 200,000, it's not exactly rural.
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_3 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8J2 Safari/6533.18.5)
right
downloading movies with vuze
converting to appletv friendly format
adding it to iTunes
so that it can be automatically uploaded to your appletv
to be watched in better resolution than apple offers and with no ridiculously strict 24 hour rental restrictions
and then deleted the next day
would not only be illegal but just plain wrong
don't do it
Vuze is convenient but wrong
did I mention how good the quality is
wrong wrong wrong
just say no
right
downloading movies with vuze
converting to appletv friendly format
adding it to iTunes
so that it can be automatically uploaded to your appletv
to be watched in better resolution than apple offers and with no ridiculously strict 24 hour rental restrictions
and then deleted the next day
would not only be illegal but just plain wrong
don't do it
Vuze is convenient but wrong
did I mention how good the quality is
wrong wrong wrong
just say no
You're the laugh.
Most movies are shot and projected on 35mm film, which is estimated to be 4 times as detailed as 1080p.
You're saying I'll see more makeup and detail at home on Blu-ray than I would at the movie theater?
It's not like "being on the set." Blu-rays are made from the exact same source as the 35mm print or digital intermediate (i.e., just as the director and cinematographer intended). Blu-rays show as much detail as the source material--nothing more.
Last edited:
Would you care to tell us all which company is legally streaming 1080 video currently? I think you'll find the answer is NONE. There is plenty of 1080 content that can be played on Apple's stunning displays, but there is no legal source of streaming video at 1080, the telecoms infrastructures and archaic bandwidth limits make this impractical for most people.
Can we get slower downloads?
So will this take me 4x longer to download a rental? As it is if I want to watch a 720 hd movie on my apple tv I have to stRt downloading it at lunch time to be ready for after dinner. Well it's not that bad but close. I have fast connection too. I actually switched back to standard mode because I couldn't take it. Honestly I don't miss the hd either so I could care less about this.
So will this take me 4x longer to download a rental? As it is if I want to watch a 720 hd movie on my apple tv I have to stRt downloading it at lunch time to be ready for after dinner. Well it's not that bad but close. I have fast connection too. I actually switched back to standard mode because I couldn't take it. Honestly I don't miss the hd either so I could care less about this.
VUDU - 3rd paragraph - HDX. Plus others as mentioned above. Where have you been?
So will this take me 4x longer to download a rental? As it is if I want to watch a 720 hd movie on my apple tv I have to stRt downloading it at lunch time to be ready for after dinner. Well it's not that bad but close. I have fast connection too. I actually switched back to standard mode because I couldn't take it. Honestly I don't miss the hd either so I could care less about this.
You can't have that fast of a connection then. VUDU doesn't load, it streams the full 1080P movie as you watch it with a minimum broadband connection of 4.5 Mbps required. Obviously a little buffering goes on, but a VUDU flick in HDX starts to play within about 5 to 10 seconds of you confirming your rental. And the new Apple TV is hard drive free as well.
Last edited by a moderator: