What? Component AV Cable only gives 480i???

[TheSpaz]

WHY? The Nano and Classic can play 480p using the SAME cable.

For those that don't know, I just got a nice HDTV and I'm still kinda confused about all these different terms. What I know so far is that p is better than i and obviously 1080p is the highest resolution.

So anyways... I thought the iPod touch and the iPhone had faster processors in it than the Classic and Nano... why can't we have 480p on our iPod touch???

That's ridiculous.

Also, how much different is 480i compared to 480p?

 

[Dustman]

WHY? The Nano and Classic can play 480p using the SAME cable.

For those that don't know, I just got a nice HDTV and I'm still kinda confused about all these different terms. What I know so far is that p is better than i and obviously 1080p is the highest resolution.

So anyways... I thought the iPod touch and the iPhone had faster processors in it than the Classic and Nano... why can't we have 480p on our iPod touch???

That's ridiculous.

Also, how much different is 480i compared to 480p?

It's pretty different. 480p is quite a bit sharper compared to 480i. As for why they don't have it acrossed the board, i have no idea.

 

[davidy]

Can't tell you why, only that Apple made it that way.

from Apple, "Note: Component video output to television is supported by iPod nano (third generation) and iPod classic at 480p or 576p resolution, and by iPod touch and iPhone at 480i or 576i resolution."

BTW, "p" and "i" refer to the way that the picture is presented on a TV set. The picture is made up of 525 individual lines which are drawn horizontally from the top to the bottom of the screen.

In 480i, every other line (1, 3, 5, etc) is drawn first. Then it goes back and draws the other lines (2, 4, 6, etc). Thus, the two sets of lines are interlaced (that's what the i in 480i means).

In 480p the lines are drawn progressively from top to bottom (1, 2, 3, 4, etc). The p in 480p means progressive.

The standard refresh rate is 30 frames per second, meaning that each scan, whether it is "i" or "p" happens 30 times each second. It was thought originally by TV engineers that the human eye/mind could not see any flickering when seeing 30 scans per second. Indeed, standard movie film is projected at 24 frames per second and very few people can detect any flicker. The phenomonon called "persistence of vision" blends the separate pictures into one smoothly moving picture. Anyway with the low resolution of early TVs, the interlacing of scans provided a fluid motion when viewing objects in motion.

Today, however, with higher resolution TVs, the interlacing of pictures in motion can be seen by some as slightly fuzzy when the half pictures are blended, especially when viewed on larger screens. On a screen up to 36" you probably won't see the difference. On screens over 52" you definately will see the difference. On the touch's screen, no one can tell the difference.

 

[mavis]

Wirelessly posted (iTouch 1.1.4 (pWN'd + JB'd): Mozilla/5.0 (iPod; U; CPU like Mac OS X; en) AppleWebKit/420.1 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/3.0 Mobile/4A102 Safari/419.3)

Yeah, the component out on the iTouch is a complete joke! I was sorely disappointed the first time I tried watching video on my 32" Aquos, even more so on my uncle's 52" Bravia. I know the files are good because I've watched them on my iMac - they're definitely not HD, but they're light years ahead of what the Touch outputs.

 

[TheSpaz]

Wirelessly posted (iTouch 1.1.4 (pWN'd + JB'd): Mozilla/5.0 (iPod; U; CPU like Mac OS X; en) AppleWebKit/420.1 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/3.0 Mobile/4A102 Safari/419.3)

Yeah, the component out on the iTouch is a complete joke! I was sorely disappointed the first time I tried watching video on my 32" Aquos, even more so on my uncle's 52" Bravia. I know the files are good because I've watched them on my iMac - they're definitely not HD, but they're light years ahead of what the Touch outputs.

I solved my problem: I bought an AppleTV. It's pretty much the best thing ever!

 

[mavis]

I solved my problem: I bought an AppleTV. It's pretty much the best thing ever!

Huh? How does that solve the problem of the Touch not being able to output decent video? I don't want to carry an AppleTV in my pocket, that's where I keep my Touch.

 

[Vigilante]

There really isn't much difference between 480i and 480p. There IS a big difference between 1080i and 1080p, though. And, well, Apple TVs are pretty much a box of suck. It's better to just get a HD-DVR and share an external HD, but that is much pricier.

 

[grooveattack]

hahahaha i work in a tv shop and have to stare at different HD screens all day and there is next to nothing between them. you cannot tell the difference between p and i apart from the price. you MIGHT be able to tell the difference between 480 and 1080 but only if you knew exactly what to look for. seriously its just there so you can spend more money on it.

 

[TheSpaz]

Huh? How does that solve the problem of the Touch not being able to output decent video? I don't want to carry an AppleTV in my pocket, that's where I keep my Touch.

Huh? Do you also carry your TV in your pocket? Seriously, the Apple TV does everything I used to wish my iPod would do. Also, the Apple TV is small and light enough to bring to a friends house. I rented my first HD movie last night and the picture was amazing! (movie sucked though)

Also, I said "I solved MY problem". I love my Apple TV!

 

[mavis]

Huh? Do you also carry your TV in your pocket?

No, but then again I have no need to connect my Touch to my TV ... the only TVs I need to connect to are either at work or at my family/friends' houses. And since I don't carry an AppleTV in my pocket, but I do have my Touch with me at all times, it would be nice to get better quality than 480i, especially since I use a custom Compressor preset to encode my H.264 MP4 files at a fixed 2,500Kb bitrate (IIRC) and I know for a fact that the video files I'm encoding look better than what the iPod is outputting.

I mean, I think it's fantastic that your AppleTV solves all your video problems. Seriously - good on you, mate! But it's not the answer for the rest of us.

 

[TheSpaz]

No, but then again I have no need to connect my Touch to my TV ... the only TVs I need to connect to are either at work or at my family/friends' houses. And since I don't carry an AppleTV in my pocket, but I do have my Touch with me at all times, it would be nice to get better quality than 480i, especially since I use a custom Compressor preset to encode my H.264 MP4 files at a fixed 2,500Kb bitrate (IIRC) and I know for a fact that the video files I'm encoding look better than what the iPod is outputting.

I mean, I think it's fantastic that your AppleTV solves all your video problems. Seriously - good on you, mate! But it's not the answer for the rest of us.

I agree. I can't see why the iPod touch would be less powerful at output than the other iPods... especially the Nano.

 

[henchosbandito]

this isnt the only thing that bothers me about this cable. Why does it have to be so expensive. In the UK its £35. Im not paying that for a cable (even though it would come in very handy) how much is it in the US (not necessarily from Apple direct. For example, HMV do sell it for £30 i think)

 

[Stampyhead]

Huh? How does that solve the problem of the Touch not being able to output decent video? I don't want to carry an AppleTV in my pocket, that's where I keep my Touch.

He solved HIS problem, not YOUR problem. Perhaps the next generation of iPhones will support progressive scan instead of interlaced scan. If so then the Touch wouldn't be too far behind.

 

[TheSpaz]

He solved HIS problem, not YOUR problem. Perhaps the next generation of iPhones will support progressive scan instead of interlaced scan. If so then the Touch wouldn't be too far behind.

The Apple TV really is a fine piece of hardware... I really, really, really, really, prefer it over my iPod touch ANY DAY.

 

[mavis]

He solved HIS problem, not YOUR problem. Perhaps the next generation of iPhones will support progressive scan instead of interlaced scan. If so then the Touch wouldn't be too far behind.

I guess I just don't see how buying another device solves the problem of the first device not working well. It's like posting a thread saying 'my computer sucks, it only uses half of its RAM' and then posting a reply two days later saying 'OK, problem solved - I just bought a new computer' ... The problem was never actually solved! Or am I missing something here?

Whatever. I'm glad the AppleTV is so amazing, but it doesn't change the fact that the TV out on the Touch sucks.

 

[goosnarrggh]

I guess I just don't see how buying another device solves the problem of the first device not working well. It's like posting a thread saying 'my computer sucks, it only uses half of its RAM' and then posting a reply two days later saying 'OK, problem solved - I just bought a new computer' ... The problem was never actually solved! Or am I missing something here?

Whatever. I'm glad the AppleTV is so amazing, but it doesn't change the fact that the TV out on the Touch sucks.

The poor resolution of the iPod Touch's video output was, for him, not a problem in itself, but rather a symptom of the iPod Touch's inadequacy to meet the requirements of the real problem.

His real problem, apparently, was that he simply needed the ability (he didn't care how) to play back high resolution digital video files on a fixed TV set.

The iPod Touch was simply one potential tool that might have been used as a solution to the real problem. That solution proved to be inadequate.

He found a different potential solution to his problem: use an Apple TV. That solution turned out to be adequate.

Your individual requirements (and thus the solution to your problem) may turn out to be different. For example, you may require portability as a paramount feature, thus a pocket-sized digital media player would be the ideal form factor, and the the Apple TV may be ruled out as a potential solution for you.

 

[Consultant]

I agree. I can't see why the iPod touch would be less powerful at output than the other iPods... especially the Nano.

Write to apple.com/feedback

 

[TheSpaz]

The poor resolution of the iPod Touch's video output was, for him, not a problem in itself, but rather a symptom of the iPod Touch's inadequacy to meet the requirements of the real problem.

His real problem, apparently, was that he simply needed the ability (he didn't care how) to play back high resolution digital video files on a fixed TV set.

The iPod Touch was simply one potential tool that might have been used as a solution to the real problem. That solution proved to be inadequate.

He found a different potential solution to his problem: use an Apple TV. That solution turned out to be adequate.

Your individual requirements (and thus the solution to your problem) may turn out to be different. For example, you may require portability as a paramount feature, thus a pocket-sized digital media player would be the ideal form factor, and the the Apple TV may be ruled out as a potential solution for you.

Well spoken. Yes, I was going to use my Touch for video-out to the TV and I have been using it for that purpose for a while now... but, after a while, I began to realize that the iPod touch just wasn't designed for my exact needs to get video onto my TV.

I'll explain. Since I've had an iPod touch, I've been using it for video-out and it worked quite well... that is, until I got an HDTV... now it just looks like crap. Also, I hated the fact that after watching a video, I couldn't use the remote to select a different video to watch. I had to get up, go over to my iPod touch, select a different video, hit the play on TV button and go sit back down. After a while of this... I started to realize that I was trying to use the iPod touch as a digital movie center and it just couldn't do the things that I wanted it to.

This is where the Apple TV came in handy since now I can USE an Apple TV because I have a new HDTV. Also, the HD movie rentals are a plus for me, as well as being able to stream movies wirelessly to my TV from my bed with the remote! I can browse through my collection, start, stop, watch YouTube videos, watch or download podcasts and listen to music without ever getting up. It's the all-in-one solution for me as well as an upgrade from the iPod touch's very limited video-out function.

One more thing. I have an EyeTV 250 Plus and I use it to record HD versions of my favorite shows. Before I had my HDTV and Apple TV, I had to first record the show in HD and then compress it down to Standard Def and then copy it to my iPod and then watch it on my HDTV (which looked rather bad). Now all I have to do is record the show, compress for HD resolution that the Apple TV can play and then just stream it to the TV... finally I can enjoy the full quality of my TV shows on my HDTV. Go me.

I just think the iPod touch is powerful enough to do the things I really wanted it to do.

 

[SMDrew]

Bit of a thread rez here.. with apologies.

According to Apple, 2nd Gen iPod Touch supports 480p. No word on iPhone 3GS, but all other touch screens are stuck in the wayback machine at 480i.