Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Yea, but if you've seen what Apple can do with 720p, DDS5.1, and all under 5Gigs with HD on iTunes, then you'd know why they've "overlooked" high-def discs so far... :eek:

I don't understand why people believe and expects that 720p24 fps (4:2:0) is HD, when in reality it only contains less than 40% information of a real HD stream, 1920x1080p24 is HD, 1920x1080i59.97 is HD, 1280x720p60 is HD; The funny part is that even 720p60 is only "deployed" on the USA by very few broadcasters, where the main content they broadcast is fast-motion video.

Dear GKarris, the reason that files are around 5GB is because the stream only contains less than 40% of a HD DVD/BluRay version. True HD content is not only really heavy to download but also really hard to decode by most of the machines produced in the last 4 years. I'm positive that an Apple TV will not be able to play 1920x1080 H.264 High Profile 4:2:2 @ 15~35Mbps as that little intel box has not H.264 hardware to support it...
 
The studios like downloads because there's no physical media to deliver and, of course, has a lot of DRM.

I've often felt that the studios would like to do away with hard media completely. Then they would realize their lifelong dream of being paid every time a movie was watched.

:cool:
 
I don't understand why people believe and expects that 720p24 fps (4:2:0) is HD, when in reality it only contains less than 40% information of a real HD stream, 1920x1080p24 is HD, 1920x1080i59.97 is HD, 1280x720p60 is HD; The funny part is that even 720p60 is only "deployed" on the USA by very few broadcasters, where the main content they broadcast is fast-motion video.

Dear GKarris, the reason that files are around 5GB is because the stream only contains less than 40% of a HD DVD/BluRay version. True HD content is not only really heavy to download but also really hard to decode by most of the machines produced in the last 4 years. I'm positive that an Apple TV will not be able to play 1920x1080 H.264 High Profile 4:2:2 @ 15~35Mbps as that little intel box has not H.264 hardware to support it...

HD has nothing to do with framerate. I can make a 1080p video that runs at 2fps and it would still be HD or "full HD" as the term invented by Sony to fool consumers. HD is determined by resolution alone. Colorspace and compression just vary by the codecs and compression used in different applications of HD from cable to HDV to AVC to DVCPROHD.
 
I don't understand why people believe and expects that 720p24 fps (4:2:0) is HD
Because it is. ATSC and DVB-T, along with ITUR-BT.709, defines high definition resolution, frame rate, and color space. It explicitly includes 1280x720 @24fps (or even 23.97fps) and includes 4:2:0.
Dear GKarris, the reason that files are around 5GB is because the stream only contains less than 40% of a HD DVD/BluRay version.
A Blu-ray film is upwards of 25GB. Even taking your 40% figure at face value, the file size should be at least double what it is.

The quality they are achieving at DVD sizes is really quite impressive and better than I expected. It's not a replacement for BD; it's not supposed to be. There's no replacement or alternative for Blu-ray if that's your water mark. Broadcast TV, cable sources, on demand, and all legitimate online content are inferior to Blu-ray and that's just the way it goes. Blu-ray is designed and targeted for exactly that reason.
 
I've often felt that the studios would like to do away with hard media completely. Then they would realize their lifelong dream of being paid every time a movie was watched.

:cool:

DIVX (the circuit city one) Part 2. With iTunes they will get their way, and a lot of people here are happy with that. I am really referring to those that feel digital downloads are the future.
 
HD has nothing to do with framerate. I can make a 1080p video that runs at 2fps and it would still be HD or "full HD" as the term invented by Sony to fool consumers. HD is determined by resolution alone. Colorspace and compression just vary by the codecs and compression used in different applications of HD from cable to HDV to AVC to DVCPROHD.

I don't believe that scaling and saving a DVD or a YouTube video to "HD resolution" will make it HD video, right? (well maybe in a perversive way... like many "HD" camcorders). On the other hand temporal resolution matters; a 2fps cannot be considered video, right? (probably you can called it a "motion picture" but for most of the people this is not really "video" --although... you may be right if we talk about computer "video" and we don't move anything on the screen on a sample-and-hold display)
 
Because it is. ATSC and DVB-T, along with ITUR-BT.709, defines high definition resolution, frame rate, and color space. It explicitly includes 1280x720 @24fps (or even 23.97fps) and includes 4:2:0.

A Blu-ray film is upwards of 25GB. Even taking your 40% figure at face value, the file size should be at least double what it is.

The quality they are achieving at DVD sizes is really quite impressive and better than I expected. It's not a replacement for BD; it's not supposed to be. There's no replacement or alternative for Blu-ray if that's your water mark. Broadcast TV, cable sources, on demand, and all legitimate online content are inferior to Blu-ray and that's just the way it goes. Blu-ray is designed and targeted for exactly that reason.

Agree that the parameters for MPEG2 in the ATSC spec. enables you to support 1280x720p24. However in reality for most of the countries (other than USA) HD is deployed as 1080.

Regarding the size of the BR media, I believe you want to say that the "great quality" of HD video is because BlueRay can allow you to deploy HD MPEG2 @ 19/39Mbps, or H.264 @15Mbps/25Mbps or VC1 @9/22Mbps to achieve a good image.

Please don't feel offended but it looks like you have never seen a true HD video, ones you see true HD (uncompressed, from a true-HD source and in a true HD-monitor) believe me; no even 1920x1080p30 H.264@30Mbps will longer impress you... and you will not longer accept that 1280x720p24 can be considered as "High-Definition Video"
 
I don't believe that scaling and saving a DVD or a YouTube video to "HD resolution" will make it HD video, right? (well maybe in a perversive way... like many "HD" camcorders). On the other hand temporal resolution matters; a 2fps cannot be considered video, right? (probably you can called it a "motion picture" but for most of the people this is not really "video" --although... you may be right if we talk about computer "video" and we don't move anything on the screen on a sample-and-hold display)

Video format is independent from the content you put in it. Quality will never exceed your source, obviously. You can lay any framerate of video within another video standard by adding duplicate frames or removing some. We seem to be talking about different things. Basically anything that displays natively at 720p or 1080i/p is considered HD, regardless of compression or quality.

Please don't feel offended but it looks like you have never seen a true HD video, ones you see true HD (uncompressed, from a true-HD source and in a true HD-monitor) believe me; no even 1920x1080p30 H.264@30Mbps will longer impress you... and you will not longer accept that 1280x720p24 can be considered as "High-Definition Video"

There is great uncompressed HD and there is crap compressed HD...but it's still HD. You're definition of HD is based on what you feel it should look like not what it actually means.
 
There is great uncompressed HD and there is crap compressed HD...but it's still HD. You're definition of HD is based on what you feel it should look like not what it actually means.

No really.. I'm more a technical guy than a marketing fellow... "To me" and most of the professional broadcaster I work (outside USA); to have HD you need a real HD camera (Including the right lens), the right archiving/ delivering, an a real HD monitor. Per example in Japan HD is transmitted from the source to the studio using H.264 @ 270Mbps... it sounds excessive and unpractical for USA, but this is what it takes for NHK to handle HD betwen studios. For them and many others I know 720p24 is an "American invention" to market "HD". (--it may work for some time as ATSC transmissions, since most of the American people just have a "HD ready TV" which can't display a true HD image, or maybe it does as 40 inches display at 3m can be assumed to have the same quality on 720 as 1080)

Don't forget that the goal of HD was to have at least 4 times more quality than SD (no just the double as it looks to be the case of Apple TV).
 
Please don't feel offended but it looks like you have never seen a true HD video, ones you see true HD (uncompressed, from a true-HD source and in a true HD-monitor) believe me; no even 1920x1080p30 H.264@30Mbps will longer impress you... and you will not longer accept that 1280x720p24 can be considered as "High-Definition Video"
Due respect, but HDTV is defined in the specs mentioned. Everything in it is high definition by, well, definition. What you consider it to be is wholly irrelevant. What is most impressive is irrelevant.

How you were able to deduce the kind of HD content anyone has seen in a discussion about what HD is remains a mystery.

It's not subjective judgment. It's a set of standards. A rather clearly and explicitly defined set, at that. Please don't be offended, but you're just full of it.
 
Well I was a pretty big HD DVD supporter and I still think for the consumers that it had some advantages with pricing and region codes, but as I always say if you can't beat them, join them.

My HD DVD's are for sale on eBay and I replaced my Toshiba HD A3 HD DVD player with a Panasonic DMP-BD30 BD player. It seems to be a great player after using it last night. I looked at a PS3, but I would never use it to game with because I don't really get gaming except for the Wii which I own and love. The guy that helped me at Best Buy said that if I don't want to play any games then I would be better off with a standalone. I had a Reward Zone 10% off coupon to help with the price. They don't really have sales on Blu-ray anymore.

As far as picture quality goes I would say that Blu-ray appears a tiny bit better then HD DVD. However I don't think it is the format doing that. There are 2 reasons. 1) The Blu-ray player I bought is comparable to a higher end HD DVD then the one I had. 2) Even though I have a 768p Vizio LCD HDTV it can still accept a 1080p signal. My Toshiba output 1080i and not only did the TV have to down convert the signal it also had to de-interlace it. Now the TV only has to down convert so it helps a little on smoothness, etc.

I took a hit on HD DVD. I still love the format, however I agree that we are better off with just one. Now I don't have to feel scare when I buy a movie. Well I hope so anyhow. I just hope that Blu-ray doesn't die next because I am going to be pretty upset with all the people that said how great it was and the future is blu and all of that!

Also a lot of my favorite movies are Universal movies so it might take a long time to re-build my collection, but I guess that is life.
 
My HD DVD's are for sale on eBay and I replaced my Toshiba HD A3 HD DVD player with a Panasonic DMP-BD30 BD player. It seems to be a great player after using it last night. I looked at a PS3, but I would never use it to game with because I don't really get gaming except for the Wii which I own and love. The guy that helped me at Best Buy said that if I don't want to play any games then I would be better off with a standalone. I had a Reward Zone 10% off coupon to help with the price. They don't really have sales on Blu-ray anymore.

Yea, it's kinda hard using the PS3 remote to watch movies with. Yes, Sony's got (unfortunately, special Bluetooth) the remote, but then I'm back to having a controller AND a remote, like my 360 for HD DVD's. To many things to keep track of...

Standalones are better if you are using them for just movies....
 
I love the "doesn't matter anyway, optical media is doomed!" brigade. (often oddly overlaps with people who bought into HD-DVD..)

Yeah, right.. in 5 to 10 years maybe, which is a long time for any format. Every format is "doomed" if you look that far forward.

What do you do at christmas when movies and music are 100% digital distribution? vouchers? Great! Never mind the fact that currently digital downloads are a minute fraction of the market, and a lot of people would rather be using physical media. (whether because of habit, technophobia or preference) There will *always* be a physical format, and for the next 10 years it looks like it's going to be bluray.

For environmental reasons I'd rather things were digitally distributed, but for practical reasons I prefer something solid. The media-less future is pie-in-the-sky wishful thinking; BD isn't exactly doomed to fail.

HDTV is standard, everyone will end up with HDtvs relatively soon, DVD players will go off the mainstream market as BD players drop in price. No biggie, BD players still play DVDs. People have big DVD collections, they aren't going to want to throw them away, or re-download everything. :rolleyes:
 
It's The Man Sticking It To Us

I'm actually surprised that third parties have not stepped in and sold Blu-ray movie watching kits for Macs. I suspect it's because the only mac you can install an additional optical drive into is the Mac Pro, making the potential market smaller.

It's not hard to do; Bluray player plus movie playing software in a box. They did this back in the days before all systems came with DVD-ROM drives, afterall.

The problem here is that the studios want all sorts of crazy protection on everything to keep "piracy" down. There are news sites claiming that the studios were requesting specific kernels and coding in OS X and Apple said No.

The Apple TV is relatively inexpensive compared to Blu-Ray players and is relatively more versatile. Apple is intentionally not providing support for Blu-Ray, so don't hold your breath. Apple is entrenching it's box by not providing the drives or software in its computers and now, with the studios behind iTunes, it won't be long before Apple TV becomes the next iPod.
 
I kinda wish Microsoft had put and HD DVD player in there xbox 360, that way when blue-ray finally won, the 360 would be ****ed. the 360 is only good for halo, and even that has gotten boring. hell games are useless.
 
I kinda wish Microsoft had put and HD DVD player in there xbox 360, that way when blue-ray finally won, the 360 would be ****ed. the 360 is only good for halo, and even that has gotten boring. hell games are useless.

Yeah the Xbox 360 is so weak it's sad. Once again 3rd place for Microsoft. They really should get out of the gaming business. Sony and Nintendo will destroy Redmond.
 
I just feel sorry for those who were tricked by jobs into assuming since iMovieHD supports HD cameras, they'd be able to make HD discs playable in setup players.
"Tricked by Jobs"? Please.

It should be eminently clear to anyone making discs or purchasing HD camcorders that you need an HD-DVD burner or a Blu-ray burner to deliver HD content to "setup" (perhaps you mean set top?) players. You can shell out for one, or you can watch the HD footage on your computer/AppleTV.

It simply does not follow that editing HD footage means that it magically makes HD discs out of thin air.
 
yeh but come on, what is the main point of editing HD - to deliver it in the most natural format, which in 2008 is probably disc.

still i agree in principle with what you say
 
Due respect, but HDTV is defined in the specs mentioned. Everything in it is high definition by, well, definition. What you consider it to be is wholly irrelevant. What is most impressive is irrelevant.

How you were able to deduce the kind of HD content anyone has seen in a discussion about what HD is remains a mystery.

It's not subjective judgment. It's a set of standards. A rather clearly and explicitly defined set, at that. Please don't be offended, but you're just full of it.

You cannot avoid the subjectiveness of HDTV; The ITU-R BT.709-5 (latest version -2002-) defines: "A high-definition system is a system designed to allow viewing at about three times the picture height, such that the system is virtually, or nearly, transparent to the quality of portrayal that would have been perceived in the original scene or performance by a discerning viewer with normal visual acuity.” (vague, yet another very subjective definition)

The ATSC standard defines: "High-definition television has a resolution of approximately twice that of conventional television in both the horizontal (H) and vertical (V) dimensions and a picture aspect ratio (H × V) of 16:9. ITU-R Recommendation 1125 further defines “HDTV quality” as the delivery of a television picture which is subjectively identical with the interlaced HDTV studio standard." (another subjective definition)

Ironically and according to the ATSC definition; 1280x720 should not be even be considered HD! i.e. conventional TV =SDTV (as defined by ATSC) = BT.601= 960(16:9)/720(4:3) X 480 4:2:2 @ >50 fields therefore: HD=1440~1920 x 960 4:2:2 @ >50 fields)

Take a look of this old controversy: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m3169/is_23_39/ai_54827393

Currents status of HD: USA the only country to "deploy" 720p HD (in a few channels to be fair like CBS, ABC & ESPN) Apple and Adobe Flash (On2) the only ones to define HD=720p24 4:2:0). ATSC (Advance TV spec, covering SDTV, EDTV and HDTV a spec that may be valid to reference if Apple TV has at least a Digital ATSC Tuner) uses SMTP 296M-2001 as a normative reference and SMTP 296M-2001; which by it self; uses BT.709 as a normative reference. BT.709-5 = 1920x1080 4:2:2/ 4:4:4. Also in europe the DVB standard (ETSI TR 102 154 V1.1.1 (2001-04)) = 1920x1080 4:2:2. and in Japan ARIB B24=1920x1080 4:2:2.

In addition consider that HDMI (High Definition Multimedia Interface) doesn't have such thing as 720p24 but 720p/50/59.97/60, EIA 770.3 also doesn't support 720p24 (i.e. there is no way to connect a 720p24 analog source to a HDTV with component inputs) but 720p59.97/60. (Yes you can argue that people have the freedom to encode a film into a 720p60 --a format developed to portray fast action well, but that doesn't mean that 720p24 is HDTV because 1920x1080p24 was designed for that specific scenario) --Yes, The ATSC have a table that defined 28 different MPEG 2 compression "constraints" "allowing 720p24 MPEG-2 encoding" But this is more considered to be enhanced TV rather than HD (like 480p60).

(http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m3169/is_23_39/ai_54827393 )

Please don't consider my respond a personal offense, if you find something else on this technical HD puzzle, I will be more than happy to learn about it... So far what I found interpreting all those documents is that 720p24 is no HD an Apple HD movies doesn't look like HD
 
Too bad you need a PC to do this!

Come on, why is this thread even on Mac Rumors? We all know Apple does not want to support Blu-Ray, especially having it competing against their movie download store.

I just feel sorry for those who were tricked by jobs into assuming since iMovieHD supports HD cameras, they'd be able to make HD discs playable in setup players.

Actually, you can author HD-DVDs on your Mac using DVD studio Pro 3 or 4. The disc will be playable on your mac and on a HD-DVD player (at least my Toshiba and XBOX360 do it)
 
Actually, you can author HD-DVDs on your Mac using DVD studio Pro 3 or 4. The disc will be playable on your mac and on a HD-DVD player (at least my Toshiba and XBOX360 do it)

Just to add on to what you are saying, you can actually put it on a regular DVD. It was an advantage of HD DVD that no one really touted, which is also why you don't see combo BD.
 
You cannot avoid the subjectiveness of HDTV; The ITU-R BT.709-5 (latest version -2002-) defines:
The executive summary is not a definition, nor is, as the iteration you quote, a footnote in a section on color space a definition to resolution.

HDTV is a set of standards. It is not subjective. To address any concerns that 720p is a uniquely American phenomenon, I refer you to the EBU (*European* Broadcasting Union) Technical Committee: "a minimum of 720 vertical lines(PDF)"

I'll also refer you to the (groan) Wikipedia article on HDTV, which has a very clear chart that accurately reflects the embodiment of international standards: here

Finally, I'll refer to Samsung's excellent guide for beginners: here

ATSC and DVB both define SDTV and HDTV standards (there is no such thing as EDTV except in marketing), and all 720 vertical-line formats and higher are classified as HDTV per A/53.
Actually, if you were following the controversy, you should remember that the issue wasn't that 720p wasn't 'high definition', it was that they objected to the inclusion of multiple resolutions and formats in the standard. In other words, they urged "HDTV" to be defined as 1920x1080 progressive and nothing else. 720p would have to be called something else, as would 2160p, as would 1080i. As history has played out, that view did not prevail (for better or worse). They objected to 1080i being called HDTV for about a decade before revising their position to "just 1920x1080"--but within a few years, they'd lost that argument, too.
But this is more considered to be enhanced TV rather than HD (like 480p60).
Considering that neither ATSC nor DVB, let alone ITU-R, EBU, ISDB, or the FCC, have any idea what "enhanced TV" is, I think we all can move on. "EDTV" is marketing and nothing else. SDTV and HDTV are the only two officially recognized kinds of DTV worldwide.

The distinction is clean and intuitive as it actually exists. 480/576 formats are SDTV; 720p and higher are HDTV. Splitting the resolutions around a convoluted scheme of framerate and color space, including some but not others is needlessly complex and detracts from the central and immediate difference between HD and other content: resolution. Since 720p and 1080i share the same approximate effective vertical resolution (due to idiosyncrasies in the production of most 1080i), it would be odd to separate them in that way. I can see how you would come away from reading on ITU-R BT.709 with that impression, since it is dominated by issues of colorspace reproduction (i.e. predominantly sRGB), not by broadcasting (ATSC/DVB) or image production.
yeh but come on, what is the main point of editing HD - to deliver it in the most natural format, which in 2008 is probably disc.

still i agree in principle with what you say
I think it's more accurate to say that the point of editing HD is to preserve as much of the original content as possible so that when moving to final production, your final encoding is the only source of quality loss. Delivery in the "most natural format" as of today would still be DVD, so encoding for DVD would entail a loss of HD. As has been said, however, HD-DVD players can play back properly encoded HD video from a DVD.
 
You cannot avoid the subjectiveness of HDTV; The ITU-R BT.709-5 (latest version -2002-) defines: "A high-definition system is a system designed to allow viewing at about three times the picture height, such that the system is virtually, or nearly, transparent to the quality of portrayal that would have been perceived in the original scene or performance by a discerning viewer with normal visual acuity.” (vague, yet another very subjective definition)

The ATSC standard defines: "High-definition television has a resolution of approximately twice that of conventional television in both the horizontal (H) and vertical (V) dimensions and a picture aspect ratio (H × V) of 16:9. ITU-R Recommendation 1125 further defines “HDTV quality” as the delivery of a television picture which is subjectively identical with the interlaced HDTV studio standard." (another subjective definition)

Ironically and according to the ATSC definition; 1280x720 should not be even be considered HD! i.e. conventional TV =SDTV (as defined by ATSC) = BT.601= 960(16:9)/720(4:3) X 480 4:2:2 @ >50 fields therefore: HD=1440~1920 x 960 4:2:2 @ >50 fields)

Take a look of this old controversy: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m3169/is_23_39/ai_54827393

Currents status of HD: USA the only country to "deploy" 720p HD (in a few channels to be fair like CBS, ABC & ESPN) Apple and Adobe Flash (On2) the only ones to define HD=720p24 4:2:0). ATSC (Advance TV spec, covering SDTV, EDTV and HDTV a spec that may be valid to reference if Apple TV has at least a Digital ATSC Tuner) uses SMTP 296M-2001 as a normative reference and SMTP 296M-2001; which by it self; uses BT.709 as a normative reference. BT.709-5 = 1920x1080 4:2:2/ 4:4:4. Also in europe the DVB standard (ETSI TR 102 154 V1.1.1 (2001-04)) = 1920x1080 4:2:2. and in Japan ARIB B24=1920x1080 4:2:2.

In addition consider that HDMI (High Definition Multimedia Interface) doesn't have such thing as 720p24 but 720p/50/59.97/60, EIA 770.3 also doesn't support 720p24 (i.e. there is no way to connect a 720p24 analog source to a HDTV with component inputs) but 720p59.97/60. (Yes you can argue that people have the freedom to encode a film into a 720p60 --a format developed to portray fast action well, but that doesn't mean that 720p24 is HDTV because 1920x1080p24 was designed for that specific scenario) --Yes, The ATSC have a table that defined 28 different MPEG 2 compression "constraints" "allowing 720p24 MPEG-2 encoding" But this is more considered to be enhanced TV rather than HD (like 480p60).

(http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m3169/is_23_39/ai_54827393 )

Please don't consider my respond a personal offense, if you find something else on this technical HD puzzle, I will be more than happy to learn about it... So far what I found interpreting all those documents is that 720p24 is no HD an Apple HD movies doesn't look like HD

You like to talk a lot. Yet all you do is confuse people. All you do is contradict yourself and act like you know what you're talking about when you clearly don't know the entire picture here...no pun intended.

720p IS twice the 16:9 equivalent of SD. While much of SD is transmitted in a frame size of 720x480, the actual square pixel resolution is 640x480. The 16x9 frame size is 640x360, which times two is what? Oh yeah...1280x720.

Back to the 24p topic. The current HDTV runs in a couple flavors...1080i @60i or 720p @60p...all framerates can "fit" or "run" within those two formats. Current 24p DVDs playback in 60i on SD tv's. Pulldown is added to the frames to conform 24p into 60i so it can run at 29.97. HD works basically the same way. A 720p 24p movie will be played back at 60p with extra frames added in. It's still HD. The resolution is there, the native framerate doesn't matter. It will all come out as 60p when broadcast the same way all 1080i/p will be broadcast as 1080i.

Oh and I playback 720p 24p material through component outputs all the time. It just gets conformed on the fly to 60p. 720p, regardless of initial framerate is most definitely HD.

I really don't get why you're on this anti-720p-24p crusade here. It's how all movies look in the 720p format.
 
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.