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.
Next-Generation Apple TV Renamed 'iTV', Utilizes Apps, Lacks 1080p?
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
It's easy to see how iTV could be a great casual/social gaming platform. But nothing that could hold a candle to Wii or PS3/Xbox
Of course, same as iPhone and iPod Touch and iPad. The gaming segment of the App Store is their biggest section. With Gamecenter coming, if this thing does sport iOS and App Store access, gaming on it could well be one of its biggest selling points.
And why not ? There's really no limit to what games you can make with the APIs shipped in the iOS SDK. With proper controllers, this thing could be an Apple entry into the game console market.
The iTV will be as grand fail asTV.
And weirdest part is the reason,which one is content.
Or more specifially,the total lack of it.
It has been,what,few years since iTunes movies launched,and THERE IS NO MOVIES AVIABLE OUTSIDE US!
* Well,ok just being a bit drama queen here,there is couple in german and uk stores,rest of europe...nothing...and the situation is equally grim around the world.
So basically,apple launced
And the situation wont get better either when the iTV comes out,because what has changed? Nothing.
That's why I think Apple will be moving to the the AppStore Model.
That way they don't have to negotiate content deals all over the world with so many different players so many long standing deals. Too many people worried by what Apple have done in music,apps and worried about market influence to do deals.
Apple needs content to drive sales, they don't need to deliver it themselves just need to make sure it can be delivered to the eco-system of devices.
So with Apps it falls back on the content producers heads to keep themselves relevant in the new marketplace.
Or risk someone (like Tivo) sideloading the content to those devices without the chance to make money out of it.
Plus it opens the chance for new market to emerge (like iPodTouchGames) to open and make them money.
For those reasons I can't see them not supporting 1080p if the hardware is capable.
Plus
TV already supports HDMI which is the neatest way to connect to a capable TV better still if it means they might be able to piggy back the TV remote and not provide one. I can see at least two models one in the same league as the current with both digital and Analogue connections, harddrive. Then one in the rumours a nano with just HDMI and a ethernet port basically an upgraded Airport Express for use on satellite TV or in the lounge room with a computer as your server.
IF this a Roku box with streaming from pc and apps without restricting iTunes store competitors at $99 then game over. Apple is going to sell a ton of these.
To really take off as a tv viewing platform though they need to get more content and get content pricing lowered.
An alternative would be to integrate with cable/sat signals but that's too messy especially for Apple.
To really take off as a tv viewing platform though they need to get more content and get content pricing lowered.
An alternative would be to integrate with cable/sat signals but that's too messy especially for Apple.
Have you looked at this recently? The 2 sat companies are doing very well, actually. It's what is nagging me about dropping DirecTV for Netflix/Hulu/etc.
Some shows don't look very HD, though. Burn Notice is probably the summer's most popular show, and it looks like 16mm or equivalent digital. I can't seem to find what they actually shoot. But regardless, that is "artistic intent" or whatever, not networks/providers bitrate issues.
If I could get everything I want to watch on a screen delivered to me on Bluray via something like Netflix, I'd love it. But reality is a little different.
Erm, not to get into weird technical details, but 16mm holds enough resolution to be high definition. I think I remember reading that 16mm had the equivalent of 4k resolution, while 35mm has 8k (or there about.)
I think that is what he is saying, that the shows he has seen lately look pretty good - as if shot in 16mm.
JAT,
here is a 4month old forum thread on dish's bitrates:
http://www.satelliteguys.us/dish-network-forum/209424-bit-rate-hd-channels.html
scroll down and you will see a chart that shows bitrate vs transponder.
all bit rates are below 6Mbps - about 60% of DVD.
the Psycho-visual tricks of H.264 _may_ be getting so good that the perceived image quality of 6Mbps is nearing ATSC (broadcast HD: 20Mbps)
but I doubt it.
My suspicions: the distributors (dish/directv/comcast) over compress the regular channels - so that when you switch over to the "HD" channels - they look real good.
Try this: compare OTA to the local HD channels provided by Directv/Dish - it _should_ be an obvious difference, and a good way to calibrate your eyes.
Ultimately, if you like the picture - and feel it is worth it - then GREAT! And remember, good movies are defined more by the acting/directing/writing than by things like bitrate/resolution. - IMHO.
j
Why wouldn't you want to get into tech details? I would say your memory is just off a level. 35mm is similar to 4K, 16mm does not do well even into 1080 digital. Scrubs refused to go HD because of this. Make sure you are comparing film for films, not for photos, which is a bit different.
Fraid not. 16mm shows generally are grainier when transferred to digital. It barely covers HD resolutions. Keep in mind the smaller lenses on a smaller camera are also an issue.
Well, they certainly over compress channels. But MPEG4 used by the sat companies is not just "tricks", they really do generally deliver the same content at less than half the bitrate of MPEG2. But I was really comparing to 3 years ago (or to Comcast now, which is crap), when they were still shipping out 12Mbps 1280x1080 crap instead of the proper ~19.4Mbps 1920x1080.
I believe DirecTV's bitrates are higher. Also, they don't say whether those channels in the chart were 1080 or 720. 6Mbps MPEG4 would be pretty good for 720, although not great for 1080, you'd definitely want closer to 8.5Mbps.
let me just clarify some things on the OTA bit rate - the max allotted is 19.8Mbps but most stations have sub-channels and use some of the bitrate-bandwidth for them - so in practice you should see 12Mbps OTA.
also: definition of "tricks": lossy assumptions made by the compressor when it thinks you won't notice macroblocks: fast panning / rapid motion (think a whole scene explosion)
OTOH: there has been _some_ improvement on the lossless side of the image compression effort - but for the most part we are stuck with what we have right now for the foreseeable future.
thanks for the clarification on 16mm. very interesting.
j