iTunes 1080p Content Comes Close to Blu-ray Quality, But Can't Quite Match

[slffl]

I gotta say I will be renting movies from iTunes all the time. I've always thought h.264 had the best compression, and iTunes videos always look great. I won't notice the difference in quality. Now I can get rid of my paperweight PS3.

 

[ArcaneDevice]

This is one valid reason that Bluray are not going to go anywhere soon. Some hardcore fanboys would vote me down because they really believe content with any rounded physical media called disc, is dead .. just because Steve told us so

Man, I miss CDs. Do you remember when you could still buy those? If they were around today that simplest of optical media would be 30 years old.

It's a pity optical media liked CD and DVD dies out so quickly.

 

[MythicFrost]

Waiting for 1080p movies and the ability to re-download them to come to Australia!

 

[AppleScruff1]

All fun and games until your internet goes out - or slows down. Now you have no access to anything you "own."

Meanwhile, I'll enjoy popping in my much better quality audio and video experience into my player and watch a movie I paid for.

Nothing to "get" LTD. You might want to only live in the cloud. I don't.

Of course if it was the other way around and Apple had invented Blu-ray then almost wouldn't be good enough coming from a competitor. Compressed 1080p content would be a lame attempt to match the perfection of Blu-ray. See how that works?

 

[faroZ06]

Can't even get up to Blu Ray quality? Looks like I'll be using DVDs for a loooooooooooong time.

 

[AidenShaw]

Plain and simple. Don't watch BD on 11" MBA or even 13" MBP. You need something like 50"+ display to appreciate the difference.

Even if the new iPad had the ability to playback BD, you can even appreciate BD quality even more, remember it has more than 1080p, so any fullHD videos would be scaled up. iTunes 1080p will even noticeably looks crappier than the original BD master. All compression artifacts would exposed even more on super high resolution display.

These statements are directly contradictory.

Don't use an 11" or 13" display - use a 50" or a 9.7" display.


Also, note that 1080p BD movies are 1920 pixels wide, only 128 pixels less than "The New Ipad" screen. I think that it would be better to leave a 64-pixel letterbox on the left and right edges than to introduce scaling artifacts for a tiny (6%) increase in picture size.

As someone else mentioned above, the BR spec is over 5 years old. A better compression can do more with less- so even though BRs bitrate is in the 45Mbps range, a lot of that could just be wasted using an old, inefficient codec.

Yes, the H.264 codec used in the BD (not BR) spec is old and obsolete, and has been replaced by a new miracle codec named ????? - the Unicorn codec?

The simple fact is that H.264 and VC-1 are pretty good, and that most GPUs have hardware-assisted decoding built in.

If you went with the Unicorn codec - you'd have a chicken and egg problem until a large percentage of endpoints had built-in hardware decoding for Unicorn. And, if the history of modern codecs is any guide, the Unicorn codec would get its storage efficiency at the expense of far greater computational load.

Of course if it was the other way around and Apple had invented Blu-ray then almost wouldn't be good enough coming from a competitor. Compressed 1080p content would be a lame attempt to match the perfection of Blu-ray. See how that works?

LOL. In my view, however, until downloads include lossless 8 channel 96kHz 24-bit audio - I'll buy BDs for feature movies, and leave the Youtube quality downloads for clips of cute cats.

"Near DVD quality" video and compressed 6 channel (or less) sound don't cut it.

 

[drjsway]

Of course if it was the other way around and Apple had invented Blu-ray then almost wouldn't be good enough coming from a competitor. Compressed 1080p content would be a lame attempt to match the perfection of Blu-ray. See how that works?

Blu-ray is also heavily heavily compressed, is not perfect, and much lower quality than 2k digital projection at a theater.

An uncompressed 1080p movie would take more than 1TB of space. The fact that Apple comes close to blu-ray with even more aggressive compression is a win for Apple, and an embarrassment for blu-ray.

Digital video has always been about compression, not bit rate. And it won't be long before full blu-ray quality is achieved at those sizes.

 

[AppleScruff1]

Blu-ray is also heavily heavily compressed, is not perfect, and much lower quality than 2k digital projection at a theater.

An uncompressed 1080p movie would take more than 1TB of space. The fact that Apple comes close to blu-ray with even more aggressive compression is a win for Apple, and an embarrassment for blu-ray.

Digital video has always been about compression, not bit rate. And it won't be long before full blu-ray quality is achieved at those sizes.

Thanks for proving my point.

 

[iSayuSay]

These statements are directly contradictory.

Don't use an 11" or 13" display - use a 50" or a 9.7" display.


Also, note that 1080p BD movies are 1920 pixels wide, only 128 pixels less than "The New Ipad" screen. I think that it would be better to leave a 64-pixel letterbox on the left and right edges than to introduce scaling artifacts for a tiny (6%) increase

Hmm maybe I wrote it wrong. I mean 11"MBA and 13"MBP has less than 1080p plus they use TN panel instead of IPS on iPad. That's why you won't find BD master content as appreciable as it should. While iPad has better color saturation, viewing angles and resolution high enough to show you off the best quality you can get from a BD.

Of course I'd go with 50" plasma for any serious movie session.

 

[MadeTheSwitch]

<shrug> For most movies, no loss. Watched once, "right now" paramount, no interest in spending additional time on tangential material (got better things to do). Don't want to commit cubic yards to stuff I won't ever see again. Don't want to commit additional distribution costs to what won't improve the content (few romantic comedies would benefit from 30Mbps 1080p space-consuming formats; "watch X _now_" in streaming lossy 720p is sufficient).

Doesn't mean we won't go all-out on something worthwhile. Multi-disc accessory-laden editions of Blade Runner, Watchmen, Lord of the Rings, etc. are worth all the additional material and premium high-bitrate media. Those are fascinating with worthwhile extras, and satisfy a sense of owning something worth owning.

But that's just it. You won't HAVE the extras to go "all-out on" if everyone abandons disc for digital formats.

 

[AidenShaw]

Hmm maybe I wrote it wrong. I mean 11"MBA and 13"MBP has less than 1080p plus they use TN panel instead of IPS on iPad. That's why you won't find BD master content as appreciable as it should. While iPad has better color saturation, viewing angles and resolution high enough to show you off the best quality you can get from a BD.

Of course I'd go with 50" plasma for any serious movie session.

OK, that makes sense, and explains what I perceived to be a contradiction.

I was hoping that you weren't repeating the fallacy that "you can't tell the difference between 720p and 1080p if your screen is less than 51.3872 inches".

So many people fail to understand that viewing distance is part of the equation. (Many of these people also think that "retina display" is a certain DPI - not a combination of DPI and typical viewing distance.)

 

[D.T.]

LOL. In my view, however, until downloads include lossless 8 channel 96kHz 24-bit audio - I'll buy BDs for feature movies, and leave the Youtube quality downloads for clips of cute cats.

"Near DVD quality" video and compressed 6 channel (or less) sound don't cut it.

Yeah, there’s some films where I don’t want _any_ compromise in PQ or SQ, and they’re must have on BD for me. These are movies I’ll watch several times or more (Godfather I/II, Full Metal Jacket, etc.) and I want the optimum experience every time.

I’ll go with lower quality for one off watching/rentals, some TV series, an occasional “convenience” purchase where a slightly lower PQ isn’t a huge deal and we want it immediately. We’ve made a few VOD purchases through DTV and the PQ was pretty outstanding, though I don’t recall what kind of audio (probably 5.1?)

It’s nice to have different delivery options.

 

[drjsway]

Thanks for proving my point.

My point is that it has nothing to do with Apple making it. I am a filmmaker and I believe better compression = better product. Blu Ray is better but not 5x better, but it is 5x the file size.

Remember that DVD is 4-8GB at 720x480, larger file size than Apple's 1080p.

I have no doubt that, in the future, 1080p will be even smaller in size and surpass the quality of blu-ray (including hd audio). Remember that blu-ray compression codecs are at least 6 years old.

3 years ago, Red claimed it could compress 4k video down to 10Mbps with minimal loss in quality.


http://www.zdnet.com/blog/home-theater/could-red-rays-4k-compression-codec-revolutionize-video-playback/731

Edit: Maybe this is wishful thinking but Apple could completely dominate TV if they released the first 4k consumer television and announced iTunes 4k streaming at 10mbps using technology similar to red ray.

http://www.engadget.com/2009/04/25/red-blows-away-small-room-of-videophiles-with-4k-red-ray-footage

 

[AidenShaw]

An uncompressed 1080p movie would take more than 1TB of space. The fact that Apple comes close to blu-ray with even more aggressive compression is a win for Apple, and an embarrassment for blu-ray.

Let's reserve judgement on this for now - I don't believe that we can say "Apple comes close to blu-ray" based on two jpegs of a static logo. (And the fact that Apple hasn't done anything but re-encode using an H.264 profile that was defined ages ago hardly makes it a "win" for Apple.)

And, BTW, "An uncompressed 1080p movie would take more than 1TB of space" is only true if the movie is converted to 24-bit RGB colorspace. The movies are not RGB on the BD discs, because RGB is a tragically inefficient method of storing video.

Digital video has always been about compression, not bit rate. And it won't be long before full blu-ray quality is achieved at those sizes.

Or "good enough" quality. The history of MP3 downloads shows us that "good enough" is good enough for the masses - even Apple got away with implying that 128 kbps is "CD-quality".

 

[iSayuSay]

My point is that it has nothing to do with Apple making it. I am a filmmaker and I believe better compression = better product. Blu Ray is better but not 5x better, but it is 5x the file size.

Remember that DVD is 4-8GB at 720x480, larger file size than Apple's 1080p.

I have no doubt that, in the future, 1080p will be even smaller in size and surpass the quality of blu-ray (including hd audio). Remember that blu-ray compression codecs are at least 6 years old.
.....

Sure BD filesize does not compensate the quality in linear trend, but how about price? iTunes HD download cost you averagely $20 (or $5 to rent) while BD could cost me $25 - $30, sometimes I can even get it for $15 on sale or preowned, mint condition.

With BD I have the physical copy, printed material, feels real in my hand, and I get the best quality as possible on my screen, guaranteed.
And if I'm so inclined to bring it with me on iPad, I can always encode it myself to MP4, for free and I can adjust the quality and fully control the final size, matching iTunes movies flexibility over my iOS devices.

For me, the price is still too high for iTunes download, ironically like your argument. Bluray might have 5x the file size, but cost you much less than that, or even can be equal/less than iTunes. Plus I dont need to worry about iCloud or internet to enjoy it.

 

[drjsway]

Let's reserve judgement on this for now - I don't believe that we can say "Apple comes close to blu-ray" based on two jpegs of a static logo. (And the fact that Apple hasn't done anything but re-encode using an H.264 profile that was defined ages ago hardly makes it a "win" for Apple.)

True, Apple did nothing new and I will reserve judgment. I just don't think people should get hung up on file size as compression is getting better

And, BTW, "An uncompressed 1080p movie would take more than 1TB of space" is only true if the movie is converted to 24-bit RGB colorspace. The movies are not RGB on the BD discs, because RGB is a tragically inefficient method of storing video.

So how big is a blu-ray movie uncompressed?

 

[AidenShaw]

Maybe this is wishful thinking but Apple could completely dominate TV if they released the first 4k consumer television and announced iTunes 4k streaming at 10mbps using technology similar to red ray.

...and Apple would sell a lot of Mac Pros, because you'd need 12 cores to decode red ray in software!

Hyperbole, but the chicken and egg problem is still there....

And, I haven't seen any post (I may have missed them) bringing up the issue of bandwidth caps (GB/month) from your friendly neighborhood ISP.

All of these high-bandwidth video streaming/download discussions are hostage to the ISPs' policies. 10 mbps is 9 GB per movie.

 

[drjsway]

Sure BD filesize does not compensate the quality in linear trend, but how about price? iTunes HD download cost you averagely $20 (or $5 to rent) while BD could cost me $25 - $30, sometimes I can even get it for $15 on sale or preowned, mint condition.

With BD I have the physical copy, printed material, feels real in my hand, and I get the best quality as possible on my screen, guaranteed.
And if I'm so inclined to bring it with me on iPad, I can always encode it myself to MP4, for free and I can adjust the quality and fully control the final size, matching iTunes movies flexibility over my iOS devices.

Two reasons I'm for streaming.

1. I tend not to be careful with optical media and half of my DVDs and Blu-Rays are already unplayable.
2. The ability to watch ANYTHING I want (assuming streaming library gets bigger) at a moments notice. It's like having a video store in your house.

----------

And, I haven't seen any post (I may have missed them) bringing up the issue of bandwidth caps (GB/month) from your friendly neighborhood ISP.

All of these high-bandwidth video streaming/download discussions are hostage to the ISPs' policies. 10 mbps is 9 GB per movie.

Wasn't aware most people were still capped. I'm on u-verse and before I moved, fios. Before that (2003-2007), I had time Warner cable. Never had a cap but I understand that could be a problem.

 

[D.T.]

1. I tend not to be careful with optical media and half of my DVDs and Blu-Rays are already unplayable.

Holy heck, remind me not to loan you any movies

 

[AppleScruff1]

My point is that it has nothing to do with Apple making it. I am a filmmaker and I believe better compression = better product. Blu Ray is better but not 5x better, but it is 5x the file size.

Remember that DVD is 4-8GB at 720x480, larger file size than Apple's 1080p.

I have no doubt that, in the future, 1080p will be even smaller in size and surpass the quality of blu-ray (including hd audio). Remember that blu-ray compression codecs are at least 6 years old.

3 years ago, Red claimed it could compress 4k video down to 10Mbps with minimal loss in quality.


http://www.zdnet.com/blog/home-theater/could-red-rays-4k-compression-codec-revolutionize-video-playback/731

Edit: Maybe this is wishful thinking but Apple could completely dominate TV if they released the first 4k consumer television and announced iTunes 4k streaming at 10mbps using technology similar to red ray.

http://www.engadget.com/2009/04/25/red-blows-away-small-room-of-videophiles-with-4k-red-ray-footage

How many years away from 4K home use do you think we are? The article on Red Ray is from two years ago. How much closer have we gotten since then?

 

[AidenShaw]

Two reasons I'm for streaming.

1. I tend not to be careful with optical media and half of my DVDs and Blu-Rays are already unplayable.

You're aware that "coaster" is a slang term to refer to a writable disc that's had a failed burn?

It doesn't mean that you should use BD/DVDs as coasters.

Wasn't aware most people were still capped. I'm on u-verse and before I moved, fios. Before that (2003-2007), I had time Warner cable. Never had a cap but I understand that could be a problem.

You must not be checking the fine print on your contracts then....

How much data is included in my AT&T Internet service?

Residential AT&T High Speed Internet service includes 150 gigabytes (GB) of data each billing period, and residential AT&T U-verse High Speed Internet service includes 250 Gigabytes (GB) of data each billing period. The data you send and receive each month contributes to your monthly data plan.

http://www.att.com/esupport/article.jsp?sid=KB409045#fbid=c8eVNIOqObw

AT&T hit me with $30 of "excess usage" charges one month (when they started to enforce this rule - I was far over the 150 GB/month cap most of the time before then without any penalty).

By the next month, I'd dropped AT&T's <quote>high-speed</quote> 1.7 Mbps DSL service for Comcast 22Mbps service (with "turbo" peaks up to 120 Mbps) and no caps for the same price as AT&T plus the overage charges.

At this point I'm "AT&T free". Dropped the DSL line, and dropped the voice line for Ooma (http://www.ooma.com) - get far more on the voice line (e.g. the Ooma answering machine records voicemails, and emails them to my husband and me as .mp3 files).

AT&T free! Yes!

 

[AbSoluTc]

Sorry but a lot of you all need to go watch a Blu-ray movie on a decent setup before you start posting that Apple has "nearly matched" blu-ray in terms of quality.

Nothing right now matches blu-ray in quality or sound. Nothing. You might think Apples 1080p will look good, but wait for those dark/bright scenes and watch how bad they are. All around they might look ok to most people but when I watch 1080p, I want QUALITY, not some super compressed file that mimics TRUE HD. Which as it turns out, Apple is doing.

Sadly, all the sheep will eat it up and not think twice about it.

 

[nateo200]

LOL. In my view, however, until downloads include lossless 8 channel 96kHz 24-bit audio - I'll buy BDs for feature movies, and leave the Youtube quality downloads for clips of cute cats.

"Near DVD quality" video and compressed 6 channel (or less) sound don't cut it.

Amen to that! First time I heard TrueHD and Master Audio I never thought I could get more emerged and I did! Lossless or at minimum higher bit rate is so much better...audio is half the movie so they need to chuck this crappy 160kbps 2ch pro logic rubbish and the standard DD for something with legs.

I think Apples 1080p is doing as good as any other 1080p stream, but its still not Bluray period. Furthermore, nobody ever seems to mention the audio side of things. Apple and others are still stuck in 640k Dolby 5.1 land. Bluray comes bearing TruHD, Uncompressed PCM, and DTS-HD-MA lossless audio..... and yes, they utterly destroy AC3 or AAC dolby 5.1.

I posted about this in another thread but I can't find it...anyways Dolby Digital Plus which is what Netflix uses is a compressed audio format that supports 2-8channels of audio ranging 256kbps-6000kbps....Netflix supposedly can go as low as 256kbps with 7.1...I'd love to see Apple implement this along with maybe DTS-ES Discrete 6.1 (which CAN pass over optical contrary to popular belief)

Ever heard of HDMI? You know - that useless standardised port that you can get a shiny dongle for?

even works with Thunderbolt

And don't forget 'the majority of people' using HDMI to connect their Mac minis or AppleTVs.

Yes, DTS-Master is a valid reason to have Blu-Ray - and if you have no output for that don't assume that 'the majority of Mac users' doesn't have that.

Exactly. Software decoding of lossless audio and passing of PCM multichannel has been included in the HDMI specs since almost the beginning....its just not been implemented because all the companies and their copyright protection BS makes lossless audio difficult to decode on a standard computer GPU that doesn't have the specific drivers and all that other HDCP crap

----------

So how big is a blu-ray movie uncompressed?

http://www.digitalrebellion.com/webapps/video_calc.html

Select the appropriate uncompressed or lossless codec and you shall find out.

 

[Mad Mac]

Looking at static screenshots doesn't tell much. Has anyone compared fast motion with this new compression? Any weird blocking or artifacts? Also, is this codec available for personal use?

 

[iSayuSay]

If it is that near to Blu Ray quality with only 1/10 of the size - okay with me.

If Bluray is 10x the filesize to ensure the maximum PQ/AQ (even if it's just incremental) and can be bought for nearly the same price as iTunes download, it's muuucch more than okay with me.

Not to mention I can always rip it for free by myself to mp4 and use it for mobility purpose, and preserving the original disc.