iOS 5 Opens Door to True 1080p Apple TV

[German]

If you are happy with 720p (or less), it should be no issue for you either, as 1080p hardware will play 720p to the fullest. But it doesn't work the other way.

Resolution is not everything.
A good 720p video (high profile with Cabac and a good encoder, etc.) will look better than a very modest 1080p video.

The 720p video from the iTunes Store should not be taken as a reference. They have poor quality.
Apple makes absolutely no use many features such as Cabac. In addition, the H.264 Quicktime seems to be bad. Maybe "hazardous waste" compared to x264.

Take a BluRay with good quality and use Handbrake (x264) to make a 720p Video (HighProfile etc.). The quality will be much better than what Apple sells on the iTunes Store the people.

 

[newagemac]

Resolution is not everything.
A good 720p video (high profile with Cabac and a good encoder, etc.) will look better than a very modest 1080p video.

The 720p video from the iTunes Store should not be taken as a reference. They have poor quality.
Apple makes absolutely no use many features such as Cabac. In addition, the H.264 Quicktime encoder is really bad. Hazardous waste compared to x264.

Take a BluRay with good quality and use Handbrake (x264) to make a 720p Video (HighProfile etc.). The quality will be much better than what Apple sells on the iTunes Store the people.

You're quite wrong on this. First of all, Apple doesn't use Blu Ray as a source for its files. Blu Ray is a compression of the original. The movie studios don't hand Apple TV a Blu Ray, they give them a copy of the original recording which means Apple sends you a file that has only been compressed once. Blu Ray has already been compressed once and then when you compress it again with Handbrake you are compressing it a second time.

The quality of the iTunes Store 720p is usually better than for a similar file size from an 720p encoding you might do with Handbrake from a Blu Ray for those reasons. With that being said, they both produce outstanding quality.

 

[HobeSoundDarryl]

On the other hand, Netflix seems to work pretty well on my AT&T 2.5Mbps DSL connection so obviously there are a complex set of interactions that determine whether Netflix will stream or not. On DSL I don't get HD content and thus it may be the HD streaming that is the real problem with the Cox cable/ATV2 setup.

Something else I would add to the "expert" menu wishes: an option to set our own buffer space. If the system can't figure it out for us, it would be nice to go in and allocate a bigger buffer for streaming functions rather than having just one such choice chosen for us.

 

[HobeSoundDarryl]

Resolution is not everything.
A good 720p video (high profile with Cabac and a good encoder, etc.) will look better than a very modest 1080p video.

duh. What kind of comparison is that? I might suggest: a good 480p video (encoded well) will look better than a very modest[ly] encoded 720p video too. We could probably work that down to VCR quality video as long as the lower res one is encoded well and the higher res one gets poor encoding.

Those hungry for 1080p TV are never arguing for "modest encoding." The hunger is for delivering a picture to the max- about as good as their 1080p HDTV can show. If the "cost" of a 1080p TV version 3 would be that it has to involve poor quality encodes, what's the point?

Ideally, Apple gets it completely right on the next try: 1080p with enough horsepower to go toe-to-toe with BD players in terms of resolution, (up to) 60 fps, and up to whatever BD players can play in Mbps. If BD is still a "bag of hurt" how about delivering something that at least matches what it can do in it's most fundamental benefit: brilliant picture quality?

 

[German]

The quality of the iTunes Store 720p is usually better than for a similar file size from an 720p encoding you might do with Handbrake from a Blu Ray for those reasons. With that being said, they both produce outstanding quality.

That is totally wrong.
Some people did it in a german forum (x264) and the iTunes Movies look much worse (similiar file size).
You seems to be a noob; so you don't know the H.264 features like CABAC.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H.264/MPEG-4_AVC

German magazine c't did a test with some video stores in gemany. itunes was in last place (in terms of quality).

 

[German]

duh. What kind of comparison is that? I might suggest: a good 480p video (encoded well) will look better than a very modest[ly] encoded 720p video too. We could probably work that down to VCR quality video as long as the lower res one is encoded well and the higher res one gets poor encoding.

Those hungry for 1080p TV are never arguing for "modest encoding." The hunger is for delivering a picture to the max- about as good as their 1080p HDTV can show. If the "cost" of a 1080p TV version 3 would be that it has to involve poor quality encodes, what's the point?

Ideally, Apple gets it completely right on the next try: 1080p with enough horsepower to go toe-to-toe with BD players in terms of resolution, (up to) 60 fps, and up to whatever BD players can play in Mbps. If BD is still a "bag of hurt" how about delivering something that at least matches what it can do in it's most fundamental benefit: brilliant picture quality?

You need good encoders and H.264 HighProfile with all "quality features" to get good quality and acceptable file size.

Diary Of An x264 Developer (*)
"“Professional” tools for Blu-ray video encoding can cost as much as $100,000 and are often utter garbage."

"With x264′s powerful compression, as demonstrated by the incredibly popular BD-Rebuilder Blu-ray backup software, it’s quite possible to author Blu-ray disks on DVD9s (dual-layer DVDs) or even DVD5s (single-layer DVDs) with a reasonable level of quality."
http://x264dev.multimedia.cx/archives/328



(*)
"According to Apple Insider, the Messaianic chief Macolyte was asked what he thought of the VP8 WebM video in an email, to which Steve simply replied with a link to a posting on Jason Garret-Glaser's Diary Of An x264 Developer blog."

 

[Soura2112]

Good timing

I almost purchased a 2nd apple tv recently because my new receiver has 5 HDMI inputs. Had to replace my old recover due to bad HDMI ports, so I picked a new one up and now have the ability to use HDMI again.
My experience with the current AppleTV has been great. I don't rent or buy from I tunes, just lots of digital copies and handbreak. On my 50" the picture is pretty good fr a stream, it's not blu ray but very good.
Love the iPhonr connection, makes sharing nice.
Also my Mac Pro had about 30,000 pics and about 25,000 songs, they sound and look great.
For 99.99 it's really a no brainer if you have a port open.
So I hope 1080 comes out looking great, though for me it will mostly be for videos I shoot in 1080 or 720.
Be cool if they add even more features....just keep it at 99.99!

 

[fpnc]

Apple A4 = ARM Cortex A8 + SGX 535 + VXD 375

The VXD 375 is the Video-Decoder.

I guess that has been reported by some sources (i.e. VXD 375) but I really don't think we know with certainty all of the internal details about the A4 and A5. In any case, I'll stand corrected by your post. The reports, however, about the Tegra 2's problems with high-quality 1080p source video do seem fairly well established (at least with the generation of chip that was planned for the Boxee Box).

Imagination Technologies video decoders seem to have a range of abilities depending upon their core clock speeds and specific families and without full knowledge about such things I'm not sure we can estimate what the capabilities should be for HD decode on the existing iPhone 4 and original iPad (using Apple's A4 SoC). In any case, it would be kind of odd if it could be shown that Apple's A4 actually had a more capable video decoder than NVIDIA's Tegra 2. The A5 is a different matter, I think just about everyone concedes that the A5 is a better graphics performer than the Tegra 2 (for both 3D graphics and video).

 

[xlii]

Wish it were true but Apple probably won't update the AppleTV for another 2 more years.

 

[Mattsasa]

Wish it were true but Apple probably won't update the AppleTV for another 2 more years.

false

 

[ipedro]

All I want is Mail, Safari, iTunes along with Bluetooth support for keyboard+trackpad.

Instant 99$ living room Mac.

Not enough on-board storage, you say? iCloud.

It does. iOS5's Airplay Mirroring will do that for you. Your iPod, iPhone or iPad has all those apps (and the tens of thousands more on the App Store), and the picture will show up on your TV.

 

[MacFly123]

would anyone that actually has the tv 2 go out and buy the tv3, just because it offers slightly better picture?

ABSOLUTELY! Especially since it will almost definitely have some new software features as well such as an app store or maybe more likely, AirPlay for apps like the new mirroring! It's only $99 dude! I'll upgrade every time a new one comes out!

 

[fpnc]

The quality of the iTunes Store 720p is usually better than for a similar file size from an 720p encoding you might do with Handbrake from a Blu Ray for those reasons. With that being said, they both produce outstanding quality.

That is totally wrong.
Some people did it in a german forum (x264) and the iTunes Movies look much worse (similiar file size).
You seems to be a noob; so you don't know the H.264 features like CABAC.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H.264/MPEG-4_AVC

German magazine c't did a test with some video stores in gemany. itunes was in last place (in terms of quality).

I would tend to agree with German on this point (except the comment about being a "noob"). I've never been that impressed with the video quality from the iTunes Store. Some of the content is okay or even better than okay but it's often not top quality. However, in comparison to many of the so-called HD sources on the internet the iTunes Store is probably no worse nor better than middle-of-the-pack.

The QuickTime H.264 encoder is also pretty bad, at bit rates that are likely to be used for streaming content Handbrake does a much, much better job. The flip side, however, is that some of the higher "profile" encodings produced by Handbrake are not compatible with Apple's products (i.e. early iPod touch and iPhones).

Lastly, I don't believe that Apple actually does the encodings for the iTunes Store (I'm not sure about this, does anyone know with absolute certainty?). I suspect that Apple provides the tools for the encodings (or maybe they just provide the specs) but I'm pretty certain that the movie and TV studios themselves control the workflow for the final content. Thus, they -- the studios and content owners -- can choose whatever source they want (quality wise) and they control the final quality (or lack thereof, given restrictions that may be imposed by Apple's devices). Anyway, that's my GUESS, but if anyone can point to a reputable source that shows otherwise then please comment.

 

[kuwisdelu]

Anyone know if Apple implemented support for more H.264 high profile features in iOS 5, or did they just remove the 1080p limitation?

 

[djransom]

would anyone that actually has the tv 2 go out and buy the tv3, just because it offers slightly better picture?

Unless there are some major upgrades to ATV then no I wouldn't honestly. 1080P is not enough alone to have me run out and buy another ATV. I'm good with what I have.

 

[Yvan256]

Which computer does Apple sell for $249?

Some people want a desktop, not a portable. I'm not buying another Mac portable - going to use a desktop/iPad combo instead..

The competition isn't only between Apple products. If Apple sells a living room computer apple:TV) at the same price as a Windows netbook, some people will choose the netbook because it's portable.

No matter who makes it, a lot of people only see the price tag, especially if they never used anything else but Windows.

That's why a 99$ living room computer, the TV, is such an interesting idea. All it's missing is basically software.

 

[Avatar74]

i don't get the obsession with HD TVs and such. my monitor had higher resolution back in 2004

I am not sure I understand the point of this comparison. Computer user interfaces are rendered graphics generated in realtime, the interaction with which is generated by user input. Therefore, display monitors can encompass a variety of dynamic resolutions according to whatever the graphics card will support.

In the case of video, however, there is no graphics card generating the output in realtime. The video signal is of a fixed resolution dependent upon the source recording. Increasing the resolution past 1920x1080 isn't going to give you a more detailed image. It's going to give you an image that occupies less physical space on the same display screen.

The other difference is that computer graphics of high resolution are typically generated locally, as opposed to being broadcast or distributed over a wired/wireless medium with a throughput ceiling... You don't want, as a provider or a customer, to be beset by all kinds of random sources as opposed to one ITU-R standard that keeps signal uniform across the board. Otherwise, it'd be a giant headache for providers and customers alike.

So, yes, you can spend hundreds or thousands of dollars on a better graphics card to give you unimaginably high resolutions for an interactive user interface... and this is meaningful to compare to video how?

Maybe some day there'll be a magical ability to display more video than was actually pre-recorded but I'm going to guess not before we have warp drive, transporters, and Johnny Five come alive...

But, I will add that Ultra-High Definition is coming... 7680 x 4320. Currently in the testing stages in Japan, and likely to deploy in 15 years. I'd like to see the pricetag on a graphics card that can support that kind of UI resolution... (as well as the practicality of it since mobile computing devices are becoming smaller, not larger; and any detail beyond 300dpi is indiscernible to the human eye).

 

[Yvan256]

It does. iOS5's Airplay Mirroring will do that for you. Your iPod, iPhone or iPad has all those apps (and the tens of thousands more on the App Store), and the picture will show up on your TV.

Great, so instead of a 99$ Apple computer attached to my TV, it becomes a 99$ TV + 250$ iPod touch...

Not everyone has all those gadgets. I'm talking about households with no computers or iDevices whatsoever, where the TV would be the only computer in the house.

 

[fpnc]

It does. iOS5's Airplay Mirroring will do that for you. Your iPod, iPhone or iPad has all those apps (and the tens of thousands more on the App Store), and the picture will show up on your TV.

Except that Airplay mirroring only works with the iPad 2. So, the existing iPods and iPhones will not do that for you. But, of course, maybe we'll have A5-based updates to the iPod touch and iPhone at just about the same time that iOS 5 ships.

Also, from what I've seen Airplay mirroring doesn't work that well for games (not that games were mentioned in the original post). Maybe it will work better by the time it actually ships but I've seen demos online that indicate a noticeable delay between the action on the iPad and the video on the TV which could make action games a little difficult to play. Also, I've seen AirPlay mirroring demos where the game video stutters very noticeably. Frankly, for some games you will need native code running directly on the Apple TV and that's why we need an iTunes app store for the Apple TV.

 

[cmaier]

Wish it were true but Apple probably won't update the AppleTV for another 2 more years.

Wanna bet?

 

[smdc76]

Truth be told, you probably won't see much of a difference between 720 and 1080 unless you have a big-ass TV (like over 50 inches). All this talk about 1080p sounds more hype than anything.

 

[Aragornii]

Personally, I'd also like to see an analog audio out for the many receivers that have "Zone 2" options that only work with an analog feed.

The TOSLINK out will give you your multi-zone output.

 

[DaveN]

would anyone that actually has the tv 2 go out and buy the tv3, just because it offers slightly better picture?

No need for an upgrade for me. My tv 2 is in a bedroom and the tv in there is a 32 inch 720p.

 

[AgentElliot007]

Except that Airplay mirroring only works with the iPad 2. So, the existing iPods and iPhones will not do that for you. But, of course, maybe we'll have A5-based updates to the iPod touch and iPhone at just about the same time that iOS 5 ships.

Also, from what I've seen Airplay mirroring doesn't work that well for games (not that games were mentioned in the original post). Maybe it will work better by the time it actually ships but I've seen demos online that indicate a noticeable delay between the action on the iPad and the video on the TV which could make action games a little difficult to play. Also, I've seen AirPlay mirroring demos where the game video stutters very noticeably. Frankly, for some games you will need native code running directly on the Apple TV and that's why we need an iTunes app store for the Apple TV.

I've wondered how AirPlay mirroring would function, at least initially, as even just sending audio to Apple TV via AirPlay yields a significant delay. I didn't notice until I randomly sent audio from a metronome app that featured a graphic representation that accompanied the audio…they were way out of sync!

I've got to imagine that it's something that they can improve upon very quickly though. At least I hope they can, because if the delay remains the same, it'll be useless for most games. The Real Racing HD 2 folks seem confident that they'll have a great product out featuring full AirPlay support when iOS 5 drops, so we'll see. They nailed their HDMI out support with full 1080p gaming, I'll tell you that much.

 

[afireintonto]

would anyone go out and buy a next iPad because it has twice the pixels packed into the same physical space?

that's A LOT different, than an upgrade from 720p to 1080p.
the difference between 720 and 1080 is so marginal that unless your sitting like 5 feet away from your tv you won't be able to see the difference.

plus, a retina display is actually 4 times the number of pixels of what the current ipad has.