Did The New iPod Just Get Less Compelling?


mkubal

macrumors 6502a
Jul 22, 2002
557
0
Tampa
Agreed. To sum up for those who come and read the comments before the article....like me: :)

Oh no the iPod video won't let you play video on your TV, just slideshows. Oh wait, I was wrong. You can play videos, but the resolutions sucks.
 

xtbfx

macrumors regular
Nov 18, 2003
221
0
MacBytes said:
Did The New iPod Just Get Less Compelling?
That title should read: "Did we just write this article to get hits to our website?"
 

2GMario

macrumors regular
Mar 11, 2004
184
0
i downloaded wed. episode of Lost last night and watched it on my G5 at 1280 x 1024 and it looked perfectly fine to me

what kind of crap tv do these people have ?

-Mario
 

Lacero

macrumors 604
Jan 20, 2005
6,639
2
Does anyone wonder why Apple calls the new iPod, an iPod and not an iPod video or whatever?

Throw away the video portion, and you got yourself a kick-ass iPod with a large color screen, 10GB extra HD space, new features previously only available on the nano, 31% thinner and more photo capabilities.

Ah well, there'll always be complainers.
 

nagromme

macrumors G5
May 2, 2002
12,551
1,186
It may be OK--and I'd watch it rather than miss an episode (if, say Battlestar Galactica were offered), but 640x480 would be noticeably better.

Is 480x480 a typo at Apple? Can the iPod deliver 640x480 to TV (from your own clips) even if that's not the format of what you buy? That would be promising.
 

Einherjar

macrumors regular
Jan 6, 2003
115
0
I'm inclined to agree with this guy--I bought Thriller on the video store, and playing it fullscreen at 1024x768 on a CRT was basically an artifact-fest. Now, most videos aren't as dark as Thriller, so it might not be quite as bad on other videos since most digital compression schemes have trouble with lots of moving black, but the fullscreen quality on these things is generally terrible, IMO. They look perfectly fine at their default resolution or on the iPod's screen.

(On Thriller: if by the next Stevenote he doesn't freak about that video selling a bajillion copies more than any other, I will be disappointed in humanity) :p
 

Yvan256

macrumors 603
Jul 5, 2004
5,032
886
Canada
http://www.apple.com/ipod/specs.html

H.264 video:
- up to 768 Kbps
- 320 x 240, 30 frames per sec.
- Baseline Profile up to Level 1.3 with AAC-LC up to 160 Kbps, 48 Khz, stereo audio in .m4v, .mp4 and .mov file formats

MPEG-4 video:
- up to 2.5 mbps
- 480 x 480, 30 frames per sec.
- Simple Profile with AAC-LC up to 160 Kbps, 48 Khz, stereo audio in .m4v, .mp4 and .mov file formats

Seems to me you can use those DivX and Xvid files with the new iPod (unless those DivX/Xvid files aren't MPEG-4 compliant or use non-AAC audio, which is most of them).

I should've bought shares the morning and sold at the end of the day... Could've bought a 20" iMac and 60GB iPod. :(
 

jholzner

macrumors 65816
Jul 24, 2002
1,384
0
Champaign, IL
Einherjar said:
I'm inclined to agree with this guy--I bought Thriller on the video store, and playing it fullscreen at 1024x768 on a CRT was basically an artifact-fest. Now, most videos aren't as dark as Thriller, so it might not be quite as bad on other videos since most digital compression schemes have trouble with lots of moving black, but the fullscreen quality on these things is generally terrible, IMO. They look perfectly fine at their default resolution or on the iPod's screen.

(On Thriller: if by the next Stevenote he doesn't freak about that video selling a bajillion copies more than any other, I will be disappointed in humanity) :p
I also bought Thriller and there were a lot of arifacts but I've also bought a few other videos that looks fine. I think it's just all the black space in Thriller that make it look like that.

In response to this article...does no one do ANY research anymore? I mean it states right on Apples site that the new iPod "plays video or photo slideshows on TV via the optional Dock." How hard is that to fact check? And instead the reference a CNN article. It's on the product page! Imagine that.
 

hulugu

macrumors 68000
Aug 13, 2003
1,819
10,235
quae tangit perit Trump
Lacero said:
Does anyone wonder why Apple calls the new iPod, an iPod and not an iPod video or whatever?

Throw away the video portion, and you got yourself a kick-ass iPod with a large color screen, 10GB extra HD space, new features previously only available on the nano, 31% thinner and more photo capabilities.

Ah well, there'll always be complainers.
Bingo. It's last week's iPod, but thinner, with a better battery, the ability to record. And it plays video.
 

ariza910

macrumors regular
Oct 19, 2002
192
1
So Cal
What I want to know is when you plug the iPod into a TV if it will show the same lame iPod animation skin that came up on the projection screen when Jobs demoed it.

If so it would be a huge waste of space, just so that those low res TV shows look decent on TV...
 

mainstreetmark

macrumors 68020
May 7, 2003
2,229
293
Saint Augustine, FL
ariza910 said:
What I want to know is when you plug the iPod into a TV if it will show the same lame iPod animation skin that came up on the projection screen when Jobs demoed it.

If so it would be a huge waste of space, just so that those low res TV shows look decent on TV...

I don't think he was using the video-out thing. It sounded like he had that particular iPod hotwired, pixel-for-pixel to the projector, so he could show people what videos looked like on the ipod, not what videos looked like when the ipod played them on a TV.
 

redAPPLE

macrumors 68030
May 7, 2002
2,614
2
2 Much Infinite Loops
hulugu said:
Bingo. It's last week's iPod, but thinner, with a better battery, the ability to record. And it plays video.
ability to record? is there something i missed? anyone care to explain? did you mean record sounds with iTalk?
 

Phatpat

macrumors 6502a
Jun 15, 2003
903
2
Cambridge, MA
I know spec-wise 320x240 sounds useless, but I tried the latest episode of Lost on my iMac G5, and it looks just fine fullscreen.
 

winmacguy

macrumors 68020
Nov 8, 2003
2,237
0
New Zealand
Some_Big_Spoon said:
This "article" is utterly pointless. It's a brain fart that we got linked to fo some reason. What a waste of bandwidth.
Well the title is actually a question based on the writters opinion.
 

Mr.Hey

macrumors 6502
Jul 17, 2002
370
0
Some_Big_Spoon said:
This "article" is utterly pointless. It's a brain fart that we got linked to fo some reason. What a waste of bandwidth.
Bingo! No wait......nevermind. Can I change my answer back to the pervious....no I think I'm correct, yes, yes, I know now...

You got to love them for trying tho. :X


Did The New iPod Just Get Less Compelling?

Did this article? lol ;)
 

sjk

macrumors 6502a
May 2, 2003
826
0
Eugene
Phatpat said:
I know spec-wise 320x240 sounds useless, but I tried the latest episode of Lost on my iMac G5, and it looks just fine fullscreen.
What playback resolution? It would be "watchable" quality on my 20" 2GHz at 1400x1200 but the glitches during playback are too distracting. It's a better using QuickTime directly instead of going through iTunes (and pause/resume are more responsive) but I can't get smooth playback at that resolution. It even happens occasionally at 640x480.

I thought the iMac G5 could do better H.264 decoding. I'll try it later on my 1.25GHz eMac for comparison.
 

sjk

macrumors 6502a
May 2, 2003
826
0
Eugene
jholzner said:
In response to this article...does no one do ANY research anymore? I mean it states right on Apples site that the new iPod "plays video or photo slideshows on TV via the optional Dock." How hard is that to fact check? And instead the reference a CNN article. It's on the product page! Imagine that.
Yeah, and the same goes for people who fill forums like this with redundant questions that are explicitly answered on product/spec pages. Then other people cater to them by answering instead of referring them to where they can find the answers. It's the same tired ritual with every product announcement. Oh well.
 

iMeowbot

macrumors G3
Aug 30, 2003
8,643
0
Einherjar said:
I'm inclined to agree with this guy--I bought Thriller on the video store, and playing it fullscreen at 1024x768 on a CRT was basically an artifact-fest.
That's no surprise. The old free iTMS videos ("large" versions) were encoded at about 1500-1600 kbps with so-so quality, and the new $2 videos are in the 600-700 range. (Yes, I've seen the H.264 hype. It's hype.) It won't matter. The RDF will prevent many from noticing how truly awful the quality is, and Apple will sell billions upon billions of downloads.