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.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)
Bingo. It's last week's iPod, but thinner, with a better battery, the ability to record. And it plays video.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.
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...
ability to record? is there something i missed? anyone care to explain? did you mean record sounds with iTalk?hulugu said:Bingo. It's last week's iPod, but thinner, with a better battery, the ability to record. And it plays video.
Bingo! No wait......nevermind. Can I change my answer back to the pervious....no I think I'm correct, yes, yes, I know now...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.
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.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.
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.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.
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.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.