More Widescreen Content on iTunes?

[tk421]

Nothing new here.

If you ask me, this is nothing new at all. Some of the very first content, the Pixar shorts, was in widescreen.

 

[Anonymous Freak]

This may look promising, buy there is a good chance that it's not. There is a new law that all TV programming has to be HD by 2009, this means that it will all be 16:9. Many shows right now are already 16:9, probably gearing up for a HD version.

Sorry, you're mis-interpreting the law.

It's that by 2009, all over-the-air stations must move to digital broadcasting. There is NOTHING in the law about high definition. The fact that high definition is being pushed at the same time is just the industry taking advantage of government regulations.

Basically, the industry wanted to move to HD, but sending it over analog would require a new standard. Creating digital TV also is something they wanted to do; but creating a new standard is expensive, and nobody wanted to foot the bill. So the government came into the picture and said "Well, you've got to create a new standard by 2006* anyway, so go to it." So they developed ATSC, the new TV broadcast standard. With it comes three basic resolutions: 480p, which is basically the same resolution we have now, only digital, 720p, which is 'Enhanced Definition' and is wide-screen, and 1080, which is 'High Definition', and is wide-screen.

Broadcasters can choose to broadcast only 'standard definition', 4x3 aspect ratio 480p if they feel like it. In fact, the new law only specifies that over-the-air broadcasters offer one stream of 'NTSC-equivalent quality' digital TV for free. They can charge for higher quailty, or for multiple streams. (DTV can have up to 6 different 'streams' on one 'channel'. Basically, PBS could show kids shows on one stream, home improvement on another, 'cultural' programming on another, etc. 6 streams is at standard definition, down to 2 at high definition. They can even have one HD and a couple SD, if they feel like it.)

This doesn't even cover the fact that the digital broadcast standard doesn't apply to cable or satellite. So they use completely different encoding schemes. But, for easy compatibility, they adopted the same set of resolutions as ATSC.

*Yes, originally, old-fashioned analog signals were set to go away on Jan 1 of this year. It has been bumped later and later because the law says that analog will only go away if 85% of the population can view digital TV. That means both having local channels in place, and having equipment in customers' hands. Last I heard, we were nowhere near 85%, so I doubt even 2009 will happen.

 

[Diatribe]

Also, higher-res quality entails more bandwidth. It WILL come, but it's less practical for most people now. There's a good REASON to go low-res for now. I look forward to that changing. Cheaper and more widely-available broadband, coupled with more people doing more things with their computers (something Apple makes happen) will bring the demand that will make higher res successful. Right now, LOW res has proven amazingly successful.

Still they should have the option for both. Offer DVD quality videos alongside small iPod size videos. And offer Lossless alongside 128kbps. Each to their own.
Yes this will cost Apple server space but it's not that over the top considering they have access to the cheapest mass storage out there.

 

[mrgreen4242]

So let's agree for now that 320x176 can work (a 2 hour movie at 750 kbps would be about 650 MB), and it's probably worth say $2.99 for a full-length movie. Now we can examine where Apple could be going...

Go to the Quicktime trailers page and download the 480p version of Benchwarmers. The quality that I'm seeing is nearly UNBELIEVABLE, as it has almost depth perception to it. It is 848x448 with a data rate of 2751 kbps, meaning a 2 hour movie would be around 2.4 GB. While this is impractical for downloading, if Apple can afford the bandwidth, it might work for streaming! Meaning give it a few minute head start and you can likely watch this movie "on demand", like recording and watching a show on a DVR in real time. For this exceptional quality, what could Apple charge? $4.99? $7.99?

480p is (basically) DVD resolution... It's not amazing quality. It's good for streaming internet video, but nothing to write home about for a movie. For a RENTAL (I'm assuming a streamed video system would a rental) there is absolutely I (nor I think many others) would pay $5+ for DVD quality. If it was true HD, sure maybe.

I don't think we are going to see much in the way of feature films from Apple anytime soon, basically for the reasons you lay out. A DVD quality 2 hour movie is going to come in at 2+ gb, not an easy or cheap (for Apple) download - though if iTMS7 has a built in BT client...

Even then, who it going to pay more a couple bucks for it (assuming it's a streamed rental) when they can rent it for $3-4 (or get it from Netflix for even less, all said and done)? If they are actually selling them, well, OK that could be doable, but how much would Apple have to charge to cover bandwidth, server load, their profit, plus whatever the movie studio wants for their cut? Will it be worth it for the customer?

I think what we will see is more TV shows, only in their HD formats. 22 minutes (half hour US show) or 43 minutes (hour long program) will be a managable download, and people, I think, would pay an extra 50 cents or a dollar for the HD version.

That is assuming, of course, they come up with an easy way to watch it on your HDTV that DOESN'T COST $400 (iPod + AV Kit)... I don't need, nor do I want a new iPod (I REALLY REALLY like my nano).

 

[mrgreen4242]

With it comes three basic resolutions: 480p, which is basically the same resolution we have now, only digital, 720p, which is 'Enhanced Definition' and is wide-screen, and 1080, which is 'High Definition', and is wide-screen.

You've hit pretty much everything on the head except the above... 720p IS considered HD. EDTV is the 480p signal, SDTV is 480i or more accurately 525i (the extra 45 lines are used for picture timing)... the 480i spec is TECHNICALLY a digital resolution, and the 525i is what analog SD broadcasts are in, but people use 480i for both.

FYI, Fox and, uh, CBS (I think) broadcast their HD feeds in 720p, NBC, ABC, and PBS are in 1080i. People will argue all day long about which looks better, and it pretty much boils down to 1) what the actual bitrate of the stream is, 2) what the "native" resolution of the device you are watching on is (is it a 720p Plasma, a 1080i CRT, or a 1080p LCD, for example), and 3) how good the scaler in the TV or receiver is that is turning the original signal into whatever resolution your TV can handle.

 

[nagromme]

Still they should have the option for both. Offer DVD quality videos alongside small iPod size videos. And offer Lossless alongside 128kbps. Each to their own.
Yes this will cost Apple server space but it's not that over the top considering they have access to the cheapest mass storage out there.

That's a good idea, and I'd like to see it happen.

I can see it being a problem though, in a way that might drive consumers away: Apple could either charge LESS for the current res (and they may be close to break-even already), or they could charge MORE for the higher res--and consumers would avoid both the higher price AND the current version which would suddenly seem all the more substandard. Or Apple could charge the same for both, frustrating people who chose the lower version, and even making some people not buy at all: they'd think "I can get the better version for the same price" but then they'd face the download times and lose interest.

One compromise: let people download BOTH versions, with no time limit. Get the small one if you want, but you know you can always get the other one in 2 years and not feel cheated. But still, people would think "I just want the big one" and then not want the download time. There would still be the "grass is always greener" effect. Just like I have a bunch of shareware games bookmarked that I want to download... but do I make the time? Not as much as I would if they were smaller.

So I can see how the time to go high-res might be when they can just switch it over for the same price, and when broadband is faster/more common. Fewer dilemmas or decisions placed on the consumer.

 

[Diatribe]

That's a good idea, and I'd like to see it happen.

I can see it being a problem though, in a way that might drive consumers away: Apple could either charge LESS for the current res (and they may be close to break-even already), or they could charge MORE for the higher res--and consumers would avoid both the higher price AND the current version which would suddenly seem all the more substandard. Or Apple could charge the same for both, frustrating people who chose the lower version, and even making some people not buy at all: they'd think "I can get the better version for the same price" but then they'd face the download times and lose interest.

One compromise: let people download BOTH versions, with no time limit. Get the small one if you want, but you know you can always get the other one in 2 years and not feel cheated. But still, people would think "I just want the big one" and then not want the download time. There would still be the "grass is always greener" effect. Just like I have a bunch of shareware games bookmarked that I want to download... but do I make the time? Not as much as I would if they were smaller.

So I can see how the time to go high-res might be when they can just switch it over for the same price, and when broadband is faster/more common. Fewer dilemmas or decisions placed on the consumer.

True. Good point. I think in 2-3 years HD capacities, even in notebooks, will have enough space to never ever have to be thinking about anything but Lossless again. That at least would be the point where they could start doing that. Of course this would mean an iPod with 128MB RAM. But I think they could afford that too in 2-3 years. We'll see I guess.

 

[artifex]

For those of you complaining about resolution, keep an open mind and try it out for real.

So let's agree for now that 320x176 can work (a 2 hour movie at 750 kbps would be about 650 MB), and it's probably worth say $2.99 for a full-length movie. Now we can examine where Apple could be going...

Test encode of a 1hr 34 minute movie at 704x384, 2 pass h.264, aac sound = 700.3 MB. No artifacts, and it's natively a decent resolution. By my guess, your 2 hour 320x176 movie is bloated in size.

 

[LosJackal]

Test encode of a 1hr 34 minute movie at 704x384, 2 pass h.264, aac sound = 700.3 MB. No artifacts, and it's natively a decent resolution. By my guess, your 2 hour 320x176 movie is bloated in size.

What bitrate did you use?

Perhaps the trailer is bloated, since it's a lot of scenes chopped together. A 2 hour movie would have longer scenes, thus compress better.

 

[LosJackal]

480p is (basically) DVD resolution... It's not amazing quality. It's good for streaming internet video, but nothing to write home about for a movie. For a RENTAL (I'm assuming a streamed video system would a rental) there is absolutely I (nor I think many others) would pay $5+ for DVD quality. If it was true HD, sure maybe.

Did you look at the Benchwarmers trailer? I'd respectfully disagree. Yes, 480p is basically DVD's size, but H.264 MPEG-4 is better quality than DVD's MPEG-2. All I can say is, view the trailer. It looked incredibly lifelike to me.

 

[mrgreen4242]

Did you look at the Benchwarmers trailer? I'd respectfully disagree. Yes, 480p is basically DVD's size, but H.264 MPEG-4 is better quality than DVD's MPEG-2. All I can say is, view the trailer. It looked incredibly lifelike to me.

Yes, I have watched lots of Apple HD trailers. When talking about resolution, 480p IS DVD sized. Period. At a given bitrate, MPEG4 will of course outperform MPREG2 (DVD). The difference you are seeing is almost certainly due improved color reproduction.

What kind of TV do you have? What kind of monitor? Your monitor is almost certainly calibrated better than your TV (especially if you are using a Mac and have an LCD with a default calibrated profile). NTSC TVs have lousy color reproduction, for the most part.

Also, since DVDs are mastered to play on NTSC sets, the color levels are pretty drab, compared to a video that is mastered for HD (say ATSC, or an HD download from Apples site).

A good DVD player on a nice TV (which has been properly calibrated) set looks that good.

 

[sartinsauce]

FYI, Fox and, uh, CBS (I think) broadcast their HD feeds in 720p, NBC, ABC, and PBS are in 1080i.

For the record, CBS transmits a 1080i HD signal, as does the UPN and our new sister network the WB.

Sorry, I took that "CBS broadcast... in 720p" kind of personally...

 

[mrgreen4242]

For the record, CBS transmits a 1080i HD signal, as does the UPN and our new sister network the WB.

Sorry, I took that "CBS broadcast... in 720p" kind of personally...

Whoops, my mistake. It's ABC (and the other HD stations it owns - mainly ESPN) and Fox that do 720p. CBS, NBC, and PBS are the 1080i over the air stations.

That's why I said "CBS (I think) broadcast(s) ... in 720p". I knew it was 2 and 2 for the "big 4" and PBS was in 1080i, and Fox definately used 720p, but wasn't 100% if it was CBS or ABC that was also 720p.

Anyways, my mistake. Nothing wrong with a 720p signal, though. Assuming you are watching the 720p on a nice plasma or LCD with that native resolution, and a CRT or rear proctection TV with 1080i as it's highest native resolution, they both look really really good. A bad scaler can make either look like crap when converted to the other, though.

 

[milo]

Will we ever see any content in 1080p? Is there a broadcast standard for it? Are any of the upcoming HD DVD standards supporting it? Do any available HDTV's support it?

 

[mrgreen4242]

Will we ever see any content in 1080p? Is there a broadcast standard for it? Are any of the upcoming HD DVD standards supporting it? Do any available HDTV's support it?

I'm pretty sure that the new DVD formats will support it (how many titles will actually have it ... who knows). There is no broadcast standard for 1080p as far as I know. You can buy TVs that will display a 1080p signal, but they are pretty pricey at the moment. Much more so than your average pricey HD flat screen TV.

 

[sartinsauce]

Yeah, I wasn't trying to put you down, I saw the disclaimer regarding CBS' HD resolution.


You know, all this talk about iTMS bandwidth seems to be an arguement for a DVR. I don't know much about I(nformation)T(echnology), but it seems to me that all these bandwidth/resolution/content concerns that people are expressing would be quickly and easily solved with a DVR that could transmit a digital signal into your Mac for iTunes and Quicktime purposes.

I don't know anything about DVRs either, I expect they fit into a gray area in terms of DRM. I've never used a DVR, do they come with digital outputs? Are they all RCA/SVideo/Component output?

Could Apple produce a DVR that fit into their iTMS/Quicktime/iPod model? Would such a device piss off their digital content partners?

 

[mrgreen4242]

Yeah, I wasn't trying to put you down, I saw the disclaimer regarding CBS' HD resolution.


You know, all this talk about iTMS bandwidth seems to be an arguement for a DVR. I don't know much about I(nformation)T(echnology), but it seems to me that all these bandwidth/resolution/content concerns that people are expressing would be quickly and easily solved with a DVR that could transmit a digital signal into your Mac for iTunes and Quicktime purposes.

I don't know anything about DVRs either, I expect they fit into a gray area in terms of DRM. I've never used a DVR, do they come with digital outputs? Are they all RCA/SVideo/Component output?

Could Apple produce a DVR that fit into their iTMS/Quicktime/iPod model? Would such a device piss off their digital content partners?

Well, some DVRs have digital outs and most don't. The more popular TiVo units do not have a digital output (and when they get them, I suspect it will be HDMI which has built in protection against copying). I've seen DVRs from cable companies that have FireWire outputs on them (some TVs use FW, I suppose, but mostly it is/was the HD/digital VCRs that had FW ports on them).

Anyways to get back to the point, lots of people keep speculating that Apple will make a DVR and I've never got that. Seems to me like they want to provide content to people, and with what seems success with selling TV shows online, why make something to let people bypass iTMS all together and get the same thing free?

Personally, I think that if/when Apple moves into feature length films and HD content they will (or at least should) build BitTorrent into iTunes. With Apple seeding over a very fast and the massive popularity of iTunes they should be able to make an effective swarm for just about any sized file.

Apple has done well with the SELLING of music as opposed to renting it, and they haven't shown any sign of changing that paradigm... why would they start renting for movies? I think that if they can manage to beat the HDDVD/BlueRay players and discs to market with an HD movie distrubution and playback system that is not only available first but cheaper and less confusing than to work with (compared to the mess BR and HDVD are shaping up to be) they may be able to establish a very strong market share in the next generation of movie sales.

People may not jump at the chance to get an iPod sized full length movie for $4 or 5, but I think they might very easily be willing to poney up $13 or more to OWN an HD copy of a movie, that they can play over a $150 AirPort Express A/V.

 

[sartinsauce]

People may not jump at the chance to get an iPod sized full length movie for $4 or 5, but I think they might very easily be willing to poney up $13 or more to OWN an HD copy of a movie, that they can play over a $150 AirPort Express A/V.

Yeah, that's a nice model you've contructed. $15-$20 for a HD Resolution Feature Film would be killer. Hell, I might even pay that much for an SD download (after all, I pay $10-$30 for a DVD).

Like you said, I don't really see Apple moving into the DVR market, it subverts their iTMS Video sales. That being said, an Apple solution similar to Airtunes that let's me stream video to my TV at 29.97fps would be super cool. That way, I won't need a D/A and long cable runs to get from my Mac to my TV.

What kind of data rate can the Current Airport Express handle? Could 802.11g handle 648x480 video streams? How would we encode it so they could? H.264?

 

[ezekielrage_99]

320x176 is unacceptable. Period.

I agree, 320x176 is unwatchable, I ripped a few DVDs the same size and it's really crappy.

 

[artifex]

What bitrate did you use?

Perhaps the trailer is bloated, since it's a lot of scenes chopped together. A 2 hour movie would have longer scenes, thus compress better.

I targeted 700M So I didn't pay attention to the bitrate.
Handbrake can do that.

 

[kntgsp]

I started noticing this lately how more stuff is widescreen. There has to be some kind of widescreen ipod somewhere in development.

 

[artifex]

I started noticing this lately how more stuff is widescreen. There has to be some kind of widescreen ipod somewhere in development.

16:9 would be 320x180. So that's messed up.

 

[StokeLee]

But when do iTMS stores outside of the US benefit? I want tv shows in the uk. PLEASE.

We've got Pixar so far, fantastic.... not. At this rate the trials the BBC are doing are going to come in to the mainstream, and im going to have to make a decision when apple does eventually expand the tv shows to the other iTMS

 

[Coopertino]

I've noticed that my iPod can scale down video that is larger than 320x240 (up to 480x480, or any ratio resulting in the same number of pixels), but only when encoded in MPEG-4. Why can't the iPod scale down H.264 compressed video?

 

[rickvanr]

I've noticed that my iPod can scale down video that is larger than 320x240 (up to 480x480, or any ratio resulting in the same number of pixels), but only when encoded in MPEG-4. Why can't the iPod scale down H.264 compressed video?

Do you mean like a HD trailer in H.264?

The iPod is not a computer. It doesn't have that much power under the hood.