DVD = MPEG-2.
Apple uses H.264, which is like the 2nd revision of MPEG-4.
You can't compare bitrates.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
New Apple TV Offers 8 GB of Internal Storage, 256 MB RAM
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
DVD = MPEG-2.
Apple uses H.264, which is like the 2nd revision of MPEG-4.
You can't compare bitrates.
PLEASE APPLE...add more internal storage. I don't want to go upstairs, turn on my computer, go back downstairs to watch a movie or listen to music!!!
I have netflix...my PS3 and TV stream netflix, it is great your device is a streaming device, but I want to sit down at with my TV, open up my iphone, and scroll through my movies from my iPhone without burning the extra energy and time running my iMac! I do love the new footprint of the device!
Ideal:
Apple TV 250GB Internal Storage with the current footprint or a little bigger!!!
I will stick with my old apple tv until then.
I have netflix...my PS3 and TV stream netflix, it is great your device is a streaming device, but I want to sit down at with my TV, open up my iphone, and scroll through my movies from my iPhone without burning the extra energy and time running my iMac! I do love the new footprint of the device!
Ideal:
Apple TV 250GB Internal Storage with the current footprint or a little bigger!!!
I will stick with my old apple tv until then.
Actually AVC (AKA H.264) is MPEG-4 part 10.
And actually, you can compare bitrates. As bitrates increase, the differences between codecs lessens. (At 500 Kbps, an AVC video will be clearly better than MPEG-2. At 8,000 Kbps, the AVC video will be marginally better. At 40,000 Kbps (BD), nobody will be able to tell which is the MPEG-2 and which is AVC.)
_____________
Anyway, the first part of my post compared a BD (probably AVC or VC-1) with the download at one twentieth the bitrate - probably both with the AVC codec. That's a really huge bitrate difference. 2.2 Mbps for HD is sad - a typical 720p porn clip is 5 Mbps or so.
The second part was a quick question about a 307 Kpixel video compressed at 8 Mbps to a 922 Kpixel video at 2 Mbps. Three times the pixels, one quarter the bitrate - do the math.
Or, do you believe that Apple has a "magical" AVC codec that can produce miraculous videos at extremely low bitrates?
But, I'm only one of many here saying that Apple's "HD" downloads are disappointing.
On a related note, think you Apple for leaving the massive internal storage out (and the price increase it would have entailed). My iMac is on all of the time, and I do not want multiple copies of movies/TV/music across several devices.
I was referring to downloading FROM Apple and Netflix, NOT inside your own home WiFi. Downloading a 1080P movie with full surround would from ITMS or Netflix would be very taxing and would require a fast internet connection, otherwise the average user would be waiting even longer to download a rented movie from Apple or Netflix.
According to the Blu-ray Disc specification, 1x speed is defined as 36Mbps. However, as BD-ROM movies require a 54Mbps data transfer rate the minimum speed expected is 2x (72Mbps). Blu-ray has the potential for much higher speeds, as a result of the larger numerical aperture (NA) adopted by Blu-ray Disc. If we assume a maximum disc rotation speed of 10,000 RPM, then 12x at the outer diameter should be possible (about 400Mbps). This is why the Blu-ray Disc Association (BDA) already has plans to raise the speed to 8x (288Mbps) or more in the future.
Imagine that streaming via the internet...
Currently, iTunes/Apple TV runs QuickTime H.264 at 1,280×720 with 4Mbps. Netflix is 5Mbps. True Blu-Ray 1080P requires at least 54Mbps. If your hard wired both to and from a gigabit router the speed in theory should be able to achieve 25mbps. This is assuming your nic is 10/100/1000 on your pc.
The numbers may be misleading, as you can get just as good a picture at lower bitrates when reencoding the movie with x264. However, it's not 100% 1080P...
Exactly. I once owned a then "amazing" Samsung DVD player that upscaled 720p to 1080P, it was not nearly as good as true 1080P. No arguments about it. 720P<1080P, PERIOD.
The issue is not whether the ATV CAN handle 1080P, it seems to be able to, the issue is that downloading 1080P content is very difficult for most people as true 1080P has double the size even when using x264. I ripped a Blu-Ray copy of "Gattaca" and streamed it to my ATV. I'm not sure what the Mbps was during the stream, the ripped copy I streamed was 1920x1080 with AAC H.264 at a total bit rate of 17,440 at about 14 total GB.
And again, why are you even referring to this ? No one is asking or wanting 1080p iTunes or Netflix downloads. We're discussing the output capabilities of the AppleTV, something that has absolutely nothing to do with the content's resolution.
Are you really reading the posts you're responding to ? Is this not clear yet ? 720p iTunes downloads are fine. Ok. Just dandy.
What people are discussing and wanting is 1080p output from the AppleTV to the TV.
Actually AVC (AKA H.264) is MPEG-4 part 10.
And actually, you can compare bitrates. As bitrates increase, the differences between codecs lessens. (At 500 Kbps, an AVC video will be clearly better than MPEG-2. At 8,000 Kbps, the AVC video will be marginally better. At 40,000 Kbps (BD), nobody will be able to tell which is the MPEG-2 and which is AVC.)
[...]
Or, do you believe that Apple has a "magical" AVC codec that can produce miraculous videos at extremely low bitrates?
But, I'm only one of many here saying that Apple's "HD" downloads are disappointing.
Yes of course if you use an insane bitrate the CODEC won't matter much. However, most people want the best quality for the smallest file size, which is why I said H.264 was better than MPEG-2.
I encode my DVDs with Handbrake in 480x208 pixels (or whatever the aspect ratio requires for the height) in H.264 at 512kbps, so there's no point in arguing about HD with me. I watch movies on my old 12" PowerBook.
As much as I understand the complaint re: 1080p output, it does not seem to make sense for Apple to build an AppleTV to support it.
First, even though iMovie can edit a movie filmed in 1080p, only a DVD-burner is built into a Mac. Thus the need would exist for an external BluRay burner to output 1080p.
Second, neither iTunes nor NetFlix nor Amazon stream 1080p.
Third, the only way to get 1080p into iTunes for streaming to an AppleTV (excluding home videos) is to rip it in from an external BluRay player or acquire it via BitTorrent.
Unless I'm missing something, I don't see anything in the current Apple eco-system that would warrant a 1080p ATV.
First, even though iMovie can edit a movie filmed in 1080p, only a DVD-burner is built into a Mac. Thus the need would exist for an external BluRay burner to output 1080p.
Second, neither iTunes nor NetFlix nor Amazon stream 1080p.
Third, the only way to get 1080p into iTunes for streaming to an AppleTV (excluding home videos) is to rip it in from an external BluRay player or acquire it via BitTorrent.
Unless I'm missing something, I don't see anything in the current Apple eco-system that would warrant a 1080p ATV.
Aye, I hardly even use the hard drive on my current model...I just stream it all. No idea why people bother to turn their Macs off, mine only ever get shut down when I go on holiday.
Sounds good.... except:
1) According to the marketing, the plan was to play rental content and streamed content. Not stream from your home NAS. Since the content expected is 720p, all you need is 720p. 1080p doesn't get you anything. To say otherwise is to akin to saying that my 6 megapixel camera can make 12 megapixel images, just scale it up.
2) It's $99 (pretty cheap), and built from existing parts used in existing products.
I don't know why 1080p isn't supported, but I'd assume it could have something to do with any number of scenerios. Let's go through the possibilities:
1) If the A4 can't decode all 1080p content, then if they claim to support 1080p, somebody somewhere's going to complain that "1080p support is a lie!" (and changing the abilities of the chip would require redesign; wouldn't cost $99 anymore)
2) If the GPU on the A4 can't output 1080p even though it can decode 1080p, it'd require a redesign. (wouldn't cost $99 anymore)
3) If Apple QA didn't spend the time and effort to do quality assurance testing for 1080p media playback, then they can't say it supports it. (even if it does) (to do testing would delay launch for something it wasn't advertised to do)
4) Maybe QA did try to do 1080p and found that in some rare case, it doesn't work, and that there's not enough time to fix it. So don't fix it, and just say it supports 720p. (to fix it would delay launch for something the normal user of the device wouldn't gain from)
In short, the Apple TV is stated to support 720p. It doesn't make any guarantees about 1080p. And given the intended purpose of the device, it doesn't need 1080p. Saying that it'd be awesome if it supported 1080p doesn't change the fact that its intended use doesn't benefit from 1080p, despite the added awesomeness.
I'm not the intended audience for this device, but at $99, I'm tempted to buy one just to jailbreak and use as a home server despite its relatively tiny 8GB of storage. And it wouldn't be attached to a TV.
1) According to the marketing, the plan was to play rental content and streamed content. Not stream from your home NAS. Since the content expected is 720p, all you need is 720p. 1080p doesn't get you anything. To say otherwise is to akin to saying that my 6 megapixel camera can make 12 megapixel images, just scale it up.
2) It's $99 (pretty cheap), and built from existing parts used in existing products.
I don't know why 1080p isn't supported, but I'd assume it could have something to do with any number of scenerios. Let's go through the possibilities:
1) If the A4 can't decode all 1080p content, then if they claim to support 1080p, somebody somewhere's going to complain that "1080p support is a lie!" (and changing the abilities of the chip would require redesign; wouldn't cost $99 anymore)
2) If the GPU on the A4 can't output 1080p even though it can decode 1080p, it'd require a redesign. (wouldn't cost $99 anymore)
3) If Apple QA didn't spend the time and effort to do quality assurance testing for 1080p media playback, then they can't say it supports it. (even if it does) (to do testing would delay launch for something it wasn't advertised to do)
4) Maybe QA did try to do 1080p and found that in some rare case, it doesn't work, and that there's not enough time to fix it. So don't fix it, and just say it supports 720p. (to fix it would delay launch for something the normal user of the device wouldn't gain from)
In short, the Apple TV is stated to support 720p. It doesn't make any guarantees about 1080p. And given the intended purpose of the device, it doesn't need 1080p. Saying that it'd be awesome if it supported 1080p doesn't change the fact that its intended use doesn't benefit from 1080p, despite the added awesomeness.
I'm not the intended audience for this device, but at $99, I'm tempted to buy one just to jailbreak and use as a home server despite its relatively tiny 8GB of storage. And it wouldn't be attached to a TV.
He's not saying anything about scaling up at all. So let's try to simplify.
If thisTV had 1080p playback...
Everything that is in place now would still be in place, meaning those wanting to use this as a rental device, could still choose the 720p or SD file in the iTunes store to rent. They would be downloading the exact same file size in the exact same bandwidth. Because better hardware can play lessor software to the fullest, the end result is that any 720p30fps you rent would play to it's fullest quality, every bit as good as it will play on an
For those with any 1080p content- which can come from many sources including BD & HD-DVD rips, 1080HD Camcorder home video, Vudu, YouTube, some Vodcasts, Movie Trailers, etc, this hypothetical version would also be able to play this kind of content. So these people could choose to rent 720p or SD content from the iTunes store too, AND they could also play their 1080p content. Apple gives us all the tools for creating and storing 1080p content. For example, my own desire is to take 1080HD Camcorder home movies I've been shooting since 2006 and have them available to play at full 1080 on my 1080HDTV. iMovie will let me edit and render them in 1080- no problem at all. iTunes will database those movies just like they are 720p or SD- no problem at all. They'll play in iTunes just like a 720p or SD movie- no problem at all. How can I push them from there to my 1080HDTV. There's the problem. Here's that chain...
1080HD Camcorder -> iMovie -> iTunes -> __________ -> 1080HDTV
All the links in that chain support keeping the home movies in 1080HD. What can I put in that blank? As is, the choice is to hook my computer to the HDTV, but that's a temp solution at best. A 1080p
Bandwidth-fixated people should understand that content already on your home hard drive will play on
So very simply, a 1080p version of
In a nutshell, a 1080p
- would not require your Internet bandwidth to improve at all
- would not require all video content in the iTunes store be available only in 1080p
- would not require you to buy bigger hard drives to store massive files
- would not require those happy with the "720p is good enough" arguments to concede some kind of defeat, nor in any way have their vision of how this thing will serve them be impacted- everything would be exactly the same as it is with this hardware "as is"
- would not be a waste for those that can see the difference- or think they can see the difference (they would still buy something to do what they want it to do)
- would not necessarily cost any more, as evidenced by an abundance of competing boxes WITH 1080p hardware priced <$100. However, I would bet the "1080p or bust" crowd would be willing to pay more for this ONE benefit in some kind of "pro" version anyway, so the affect on the price target psychology is probably not that big of a deal to those seeking MAX HD quality (we probably paid more than the "low price target" when we bought our 1080p sets too).
This wouldn't force all content in the iTunes store to become 1080p content, big downloads, massive files, etc. All the content in the iTunes store could still be 720p and SD. Someone with even slower internet connection- where a 720p file might be too big/slow to download- might choose the SD version to fit their situation (bandwidth). Someone else with more bandwidth- or patience- who would want to go for a 1080p download should some Studio decide to test 1080p content in the iTunes store, could still choose the file type best suited for our own situations: SD, 720p or 1080p in that test. Thus, everyone could go with whatever is best for their own needs... which seems much preferable to having Apple- or some of you- arbitrarily decide that one thing is best for all people.
For years, we've had iPods with the hardware to play lossless audio. What has it been, maybe 5+ years? Did that force all music in the iTunes store to only be available as much bigger lossless files? We had tethering built into our iphones long before it could be supported by software. We've got all kinds of hardware & software advances built into new Macs that are not yet fully exploited by available software- even Apple's own mainstream software. This is no different.
What makes no sense is that the "720p is good enough" believers still get every bit of the experience they want in either scenario, but they still want to argue against the idea of others wanting anything more, like it in some way would harm them, damage their experience, etc. It wouldn't. Had this one rolled out with 1080p playback capabilities:
Who loses in this scenario? Who gets hurt? Nobody. It's win:win:win for all 3 parties. Yet, there's this crowd who seems to only see things exactly as Apple chooses to serve them, so anything else- including INDIVIDUAL WANTS- can't possibly make any sense. That's sad.
- the 720p files sizes, bandwidth usage, rentals, and consumption experience would have been EXACTLY THE SAME as it will be now
- the "1080p or bust" crowd would have also found what they wanted in this device
- Apple would have sold more units to both camps, instead of just satisfying one camp
All that said, this device "as is" is great. If you've never owned an
Yes, it'd be nice if it supported 1080p.
But there is an advantage of 720p: Cheaper to make/buy.
Afterall, it's not like decoding H264 at 1080p is that easy.
Hum...
The marketing material does include DAAP streaming. Hence, your point is wrong.
But it's been proven that this thing does decode and then downscales 1080p without any problem. Hence, your argument does not stand.
No to mention under-100$ boxes with 1080p output capabilities exist. Cost is not a factor.
Even Jailbroken, it would not make much of a home server. Try to find a Pogoplug device if you want a cheap home server to play around with. Some guys at my work recently found some Seagate branded ones for 30$. The best part of pogoplug is that you can plug in USB storage into it and then serve it up over the network without having to jailbreak anything.
Netflix does stream some content in 1080p, and adding more all the time.
Currently I watch TV shows and movies in 1080P, via DirecTV. I apparently am not Apple's target, since why would I switch from the 1080P content I enjoy now to renting content only in 720P?
I have a 2010 Mac Mini I use for web work that uses less than 10 watts at idle. My Directv DVR I got rid of last month used over 30 watts at idle and DVRs never turn off. Needless to say I have no problem leaving my mac Mini on all the time. I don't even sleep it.
Directv's 1080p content is very low bitrate. Apple's 720p HD looks better than Directv's 1080p. I know because I have tried both.
It's not a factor for THEIR operating system and equipment. You don't know what kind of hardware and software expense it would take to make it work with ATV and have an Apple level of experience.
I find it hard to believe that Apple made ATV2 720p on a whim. There had to be a damn good reason, given the fact that they are competing with 1080 boxes out there AND knowing Apple people tend to have higher expectations than most people and this sort of consternation would result.
Wow. Just... WOW. Take a valium. This board was discussing many various topics. Yes hardware being one of them. The other being the hardware is IRRELEVANT at this point as TRUE 1080P at 54Mbps downloads aren't possible with current consumer availability making the output capabilities of the ATV irrelevant at this time. This is related. Ok so ouput from the ATV... right..the ATV apparently can take 1080P content and downscale it to 720P output? Why would you want that? A ripped 1080P movie is downscaled to 720P or 1080P mp4 codec. How is output not related to my comment that it doesn't MATTER? Output or not, streaming full 1080P with 5.1/7.1 isnt possible based on current Internet speeds, and ripping blu ray on a Mac or pc with an x.264 codec just downscales the quality and defeats the purpose of it. So who CARES whether the ATV can output 1080P as full 1080P content isn't even mainstream if even available to download??? Further 720P to 1080P upscaling from the possible ATV 1080P output ISN'T true 1080P! It never will be. It's a cheapened 1080i output if that as true 1080P content is at least out-putting at 54Mbps. This is a pissing contest. It's like saying my car CAN run on piss but piss isnt available to fuel it, and some lower grade piss can be out-putted to higher grade piss if the car can do it but its not true high grade piss so let's debate these irrelevancies... Move on.
Again, please refrain from acting so insulting and rude. Why do you talk to people like a child on here? I've seen many postsby you that are so demeaning it makes me wonder why you seem to be such an angry individual. You may feel powerful behind that computer. It doesn't give you the right to treat others improperly because YOU want the discussion to go YOUR way.
Actually, given that they talk specifically about streaming "those movies and TV shows you bought on iTunes" I'd say you're supporting my point.
Decoding 1080p at one bitrate without proving that it can at all expected bitrates means that yes it can decode SOME 1080p. But nobody's proven it supports the full range of 1080p content, nor qualify its constraints. How's decoding 54mbit/sec 1080p, hmm? Hence, "without any problem" isn't proven true.
Besides, just because other $100 boxes with 1080p exist doesn't matter. It's the fact that Apple decided to use their existing A4 chip to build the ATV. If they raise the cost of the A4 chip by adding more hardware, that increases the costs for the iPhone 4, iPad, etc. as well even if the hardware isn't used.
Now, one could ask "why not use a different chip?" Probably because leveraging R&D you've already put into a platform makes a lot of sense.
And finally, we still don't know why it downscales to 720p. Is it because it can't output 1080p? Is it because that's all they tested and validated before ship? Is there a switch to flip to change the output resolution? Or is the output drivers just not capable of outputting 1080p?
While I was aware of the PogoPlug and Sheevaplug units, if the DockStar can be made available for $30, I'm interested in finding out where.
No, I'm not. They specifically state it supports local network streaming, including PHOTOS.
Photos that are probably higher res than 1280x720 or 1366x768...
Not to mention that while they are pushing their purchases off iTunes, local streaming from iTunes is much larger, and the marketing makes it clear it's possible. The user can infer his iTunes based movies will work.
What makes you think the handbrake guys tried only 1 bitrate ? You're making stuff up... 54 mbps required now before 1080p is justified ? What a load of crock.
And we should accept it without saying a word because "hey, let's trust Apple to have done the right thing".
Yeah, works with governments after all... oh wait... Sorry, I'm not drunk on kool-aid enough to just "accept things from Apple willy-nilly".
Argh, again. Look. Stop replying to my post if you're going to mention downloads. I don't care about downloads. As I have stated, AppleTV supports local streaming of media, which can include 1080p media, which while it might not be at 54 Mbps (where did this number suddenly come from anyway ?) is still available to the user either from his own backups or home made movies with a camcorder.
So really, again, for the 100th time, the download argument is tired and non-relevant. This thing can do more than stream and download, which makes limiting the output to 720p ridiculous.
And again, what do you care if it did have 1080p ? You'd both still get your nice 720p downloads and they would work perfectly fine. You wouldn't be impacted at all.
You need to calm down. If YOU read my posts and understood it, I addressed your CONCERNS.
Wow, talk about having a tantrum over something as silly as this.
Apparently you don't know ANYTHING about 1080P and high def if you don't know that Mbps bit-rate is hugely significant (hence my comment re: streaming and decoding/upscaling). Go study a bit and return when you know what you're fighting about, talk about "rebel without a clue."
You need to calm down. If YOU read my posts and understood it, I addressed your CONCERNS.
Wow, talk about having a tantrum over something as silly as this.
I am calm. Why do you keep asking to be calm ? A tantrum ? Next you'll be telling us you're a master at detecting sarcasm in written posts ?
Maybe you're stressing out over this, but if you would read and understand my posts, you'd know that there's nothing for you to even argue here. You say 720p is fine. That's perfect! A 1080p output capable AppleTV does not impact you since it plays 720p perfectly.
I know it's "hugely" significant, I didn't say it wasn't. I questionned the 54 Mbps number. That number in particular, not any kind of bitrate.
You should really work on your reading comprehension. First you come in with downloads, then downloads again and now this. You turn "Where did 54 Mbps come from ?" into "Bitrates are insignificant...".
Seriously. Either read and understand my posts or don't respond. And stop feeling threatened because someone questions Apple's decision.
You missed the biggest and most likely reason it is not supported. It is so Apple can release an "upgrade" Apple TV next year that will support it. Cost to apple for that upgrade next to nothing. Profit gained by ripping off the mindless Apple Zombies. Millions.