[veggiedude]

If you hold one at arms length, it is about the same 'size' as one of those monitors they have on many commercial airliners when viewed from 10 feet away (the ones that hang down from the ceiling). The only difference is that the iPod will be more crisp and clearer, the TV screen on airplanes are always lousy quality.
Plus they never have the content I want.
/forums/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/tongue.gif

[Gatesbasher]

Quote:

---

I'm fascinated with the near-dichotomy of video today: At the same time we're bulking up home screens to sizes once unimagined to accommodate the most spectacular line-up of pixels ever, we're settling in to miniscule viewings of movies, TV shows and other video entrees that were manufactured for much larger display. Guess it's like having lunch at MacDonald's and dinner at Spago.
Or is there a techie way of explaining this condition?

---

Video is going to go the same way as audio did. I was eagerly awaiting the outcome of the format war between DVD-Audio and SACD to invest in a whole new audio experience. Unfortunately, they both bit the big one in favor of online downloads of 128,000 bps noise. I didn't predict that! Now, I'm not even watching the format war between Blu-Ray and HD-DVD. I know it will be won by 240 x 320 downloads on 2-inch screens. It's a different world: I'll be called nothing but an old fart for criticizing it, so..."Never Mind!"
On a different note, when I saw the leaked photographs of the new iPod Nano, I couldn't believe that's how they would look, but they do. You put a wide screen on them, and you put it on crosswise?! That's just...demented. Why wouldn't you put the screen on lengthwise and put the clickwheel on the back? All the Nano had going for it (other than price) is that it was narrower than the regular iPod. Oh, well...

[Schneb]

I took a picture of the iPod touch and nano from the Apple site. Resized it to the specs of each unit. Then printed it out on a color printer. I cut them out with scissors and held each in my hand. For watching widescreen movies, I prefer the touch. For 4:3, the Nano will do the job. Still thinking and waiting.
I think Apple, as a promotion, should send out cardboard "to size" versions of their iPods to those who request more information. The back of the card can have all the specs and marketing blah, blah, while the front will have exactly what the unit would look like in your hand. With an image from Ratatouille of course.

[Gatesbasher]

Quote:

---

Just to clarify: Standard def tv, vhs and dvd are all 720x480. This is what's either called 480i (interlaced) or 480p (progressive).

---

Just to clarify further.... Standard def (composite video) TV and VHS are 525 x maybe 350 (if you're lucky.) The first DVDs, like all digital feeds, got rid of the guard bands and decided on 480 lines as the height, and actually increased the horizontal resolution so it was more than the vertical at 720 lines. Recent DVDs, however, have gone back to 640 lines horizontal, figuring nobody can tell the difference, and on their old TVs, they're probably right. Still, it's annoying.

[moose_n_squirrel]

Quote:

---

So what happens when I sit really close to my 42-inch HD screen? Is this Nirvana?

---

Well, that is a very interesting and good question. It depends. It's all relative, the resolution of the content vs. the size of the screen vs. the distance to your eyes. To boil it down to any less than those three variables is to oversimplify how it works.
I hear that many large screen TVs are being returned because the customer did not have content that did justice to the screen, so they were sorely disappointed, and they did not understand why. If you buy a 42" screen and you feed it VHS, you might almost want to throw up if you see it close on a screen that big because the VHS resolution is so low. DVDs, well, not that great, unless you have a line doubler, which makes it almost high def. Analog broadcast, again, will look terrible, and much more terrible if you are sitting close. HD broadcast, HD-DVD, Blu-Ray, yessss, that's what it was built for, it will look spectacular, but a 42" TV is designed for viewing not so close.
Schneb has a good point. My earlier post was referring to 4:3 TVs. I probably wouldn't stand watching widescreen on a nano.
As for where audio and video will go, it will to in both directions up and down. You can now master at like 96 bits or something, you can get the highest digital quality ever, but where is all the growth in audio? MP3. AAC. Lossless audio. Quality dropped for convenience. This is why the nano will work, and why I didn't care if my stated numbers for DVD res were accurate. In the end, we are going to consume as much or more intentionally lowered-quality content (coughYouTubecough) as high-def content. To say every one needs a massive high def screen is to miss the point of the iPod's success in audio and video both. The iPod built an empire on the back of severely lossy content...and we love it.

[lwdesign]

Quote:

---

On a different note, when I saw the leaked photographs of the new iPod Nano, I couldn't believe that's how they would look, but they do. You put a wide screen on them, and you put it on crosswise?! That's just...demented. Why wouldn't you put the screen on lengthwise and put the clickwheel on the back? All the Nano had going for it (other than price) is that it was narrower than the regular iPod. Oh, well...

---

I know exactly what you mean, which is why I spent some time and put my alternate version of the "nano slim" together in Photoshop. You can see the image at my iPod nano slim page. If my calculations are correct, the new 2" screen fits just fine within the confines of the earlier slim nano body. I'd buy one of these in a heartbeat!

[Ronald_Schoedel]

For me, the value of the video screen is in its ability to show photos. Watching video might be a bit of a stretch for me, but being able to quickly show friends and colleagues photos on my iPod is incredible. It is a high-tech version of carrying photos of your kids in your wallet, but with slideshow ability!
Ronald Schoedel

[mrbach]

I have a 53 inch screen and watch DVD's nicely, thank you very much. This nonsense about having to have HD on a 42 inch screen is crap. Line doubler? Maybe 20 years ago when they started making big screen TV's.
I am puzzled by the want to watch tiny video on tiny screens. Still, I don't buy iTunes either. I use my iPod for much higher quality rips. My wife has an iPod video and just uses it for music.
I find todays digital downloads are poorer quality than the stuff I used to put on Chromium Dioxide tapes in the 80's. Come to think of it, my first video camera had a tiny little screen in the eyepiece for watching video as well. To me, Apple has great technology but sells media that is 20 years old.
Now that I have the money, I buy big screen TV, high quality stereo equipment and nice speakers. Yet, here we have Apple making a ton selling low end music files and tiny video pictures. I too see that the world has regressed somewhat. I have a Radio Shack portable TV from the early 90's that has a 2 inch screen on it. It was cool back then. Now, not so much.

[Dan Frakes]

Quote:

---

I'm fascinated with the near-dichotomy of video today: At the same time we're bulking up home screens to sizes once unimagined to accommodate the most spectacular line-up of pixels ever, we're settling in to miniscule viewings of movies, TV shows and other video entrees that were manufactured for much larger display. Guess it's like having lunch at MacDonald's and dinner at Spago.
Or is there a techie way of explaining this condition?

---

Quite simply: You can't carry your flat-panel TV in the coin pocket of your jeans /forums/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif

[Ronald_Schoedel]

Quote:

---

Quite simply: You can't carry your flat-panel TV in the coin pocket of your jeans

---

Precisely. And don't even TRY to set one on your tray table in coach class. It seems to annoy seatmates to no end.

[shadownight]

Quote:

---

Dan Miller was skeptical that a 2-inch display would be worth watching. But a few days with the latest iPod nano changed his mind. <a href="http://www.macworld.com/weblogs/editors/2007/09/ipodnano/index.php">[more]</a>

---

Yeah, it sure is beautiful. Mine just arrived today, and the screen is incredibly smooth and sharp and rich. Curved letters look perfect, even at tiny type.
Oh, and that nano is really small. Really.

[Dan Frakes]

Quote:

---

I think the Nano was a superior no compromise iPod in its previous incarnations.

---

Eh? The previous nano couldn't play video, couldn't output video, couldn't play iPod games, had a tiny screen... It was a great iPod -- probably my favorite ever up until last week -- but it was definitely a compromise between functionality and size.
The new nano, $50 cheaper than its predecessor, is almost exactly the same size overall but offers a much larger screen along with every feature of the iPod classic. It's only real drawbacks compared to the classic are related to size: a smaller screen, less storage capacity, and a slightly smaller Click Wheel.

Quote:

---

This current one compromises the gorgeous form of the previous models to show you compromised video.

---

Maybe I'm crazy, but after using this one for almost a week, I like the shorter, wider design. My big complaint, looks-wise, is that I liked the full-anodized-metal body of the previous nano better than the shiny-metal back of the new one. But the new one looks much better in person than in does in pictures and I think it feels more comfortable in your hand than the last one.

Quote:

---

While I think it's cool that you can watch video on a nano, I am not sure the Nano-market was clamouring for this feature.

---

From what I've heard, that was one of the most-requested features -- and that was with the smaller screen of the older model /forums/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/wink.gif

Quote:

---

I think Apple should have introduced the iPod Touch with hard drive capacity akin to the iPod classic and then dropped the iPod classic all together. It just makes no sense to position the classic between the current Nano and the iPod touch.

---

As I've said in a couple other threads, I think Apple would have loved to offer the touch with lots of storage, but large-capacity flash-memory chips are very expensive right now, and adding a hard drive to the touch wasn't in the cards (for various reasons relating to size, battery life, and production). Once those chips come down in price -- which will likely happen in the next year or so -- we'll see 32GB, 64GB, 128GB in the iPod touch, and the classic will be unceremoniously put to rest.

[Ronald_Schoedel]

Quote:

---

I have a Radio Shack portable TV from the early 90's that has a 2 inch screen on it. It was cool back then. Now, not so much.

---

I think the comparison is tempting, but is one of apples to oranges. Your 2" Radio Shack TV could not be used in flight, because a) there's a ban on RF devices on airplanes and b) you'd have a hard time keeping a signal more than a few minutes on a VHF TV in an airplane that travels hundreds of miles an hour.
Your 2" Radio Shack TV cannot show you what you want to watch, only what the VHF stations within 10-20 miles of your location want to show you. I suppose maybe you could hook it up to a VCR, but then, portabkle VCRs aren't exactly pocket-sized either, and require 120 VAC (maybe there is a battery operated VCR, who knows).
I personally never saw the appeal of handheld TVs, which could tune in snow-filled VHF stations that you'd lose if you turned your TV an inch to the side. I thought they were a clever gimmick, but practically useless (even though I sold quite a few when I worked at Radio Shack as a youngster).
OTOH, I see Apple's video iPods as being functional devices that do seem to meet a market demand for portable entertainment. My video iPod can make my young children happy in the car when nothing else will console them. I can put "Cars" or "Postman Pat" or "Bob the Builder" on the iPod and let my four year old watch it when he's a bit stir-crazy from sitting in his child seat for a couple hundred miles.
A Radio Shack 2" handheld TV with viewing choices of Rosie O'Donnel, General Hospital, or the People's Court would not cut it with a four year old;)

[kill953]

Quote:

---

Dan Miller was skeptical that a 2-inch display would be worth watching. But a few days with the latest iPod nano changed his mind. <a href="http://www.macworld.com/weblogs/editors/2007/09/ipodnano/index.php">[more]</a>

---

Can't comment on the nano, but I did acquire an iPod Video (5.5G) as a birthday present. As others have said, if you haven't watched anything on one prepare to be surprised. I use it on flights when the films the airline is showing are lousy (almost always, unless they have the 40+ choose your own selection available) and it has passed the foreign film test - yes, you can even read the subtitles. Would it be better with a larger screen such as those on the Zune, iPod touch or iPhone? Undoubtedly... but that doesn't prevent it from being very watchable on the iPod video/classic.