[People_Eater]

@ randombob:

I'm curious as to what benefit you believe you are getting by watching films in 1080p, rather than 1080i. After all, films are shot at 24 frames per second. 1080i is 30 fps, more than adequate. With 1080p at 60 fps, all it's going to be doing is showing the same frames repeated.

As for 720p being dead, that's ridiculous. It is a very popular format for sports broadcasts in particular. Most people's HDTVs don't even support full 1080i, they have a weird 1366 x 768 resolution. I think you might be jumping the gun just a little. Plenty of people are still perfectly happy with SD, let alone 720p.

You also commented earlier that 1080p is "twice the quality" of 720p. It most certainly is not. It's not even twice the resolution. And of course, resolution is far from the only factor in quality. 1080p is slightly higher quality (technically, visually) than 720p. Not twice as good.

In any case, most people judge the quality of a film or TV show by the quality of the writing, the acting, directing and cinematography. Resolution has very little to do with how good a piece of entertainment is.

Add to this the restrictions on Blu-Ray, the expense, and the hoops consumers have to jump through, and you're going to be seeing standard definition DVDs dominating the market for quite some time. I don't think Blu-Ray is the future, I think it's a dead-end. Whatever happens, the future will eventually come, and I doubt 1080p will be more than a small part of it. Most people just buy products for today. After all, to do otherwise, you are taking a risky bet on unknown outcomes.

[rugar8]

Ok - my issue with the ATV was the sound quality. Today, I had my ATV back in the box, ready to return at the Apple store later today. I want to return it because I discovered that I couldn't get true Dolby DIGITAL sound - even with through the optical cable! I was simply getting straight Dolby Pro Logic II sound which if anyone knows, it's pretty much stereo --- which of course my Dolby Digital receiver wasn't picking up. All movies that you download from iTunes were simply encoded with Dolby Pro Logic II which is perfect for most applications (ipods, iphones, laptops, etc). But not the ATV because - DUH - some of us HAVE a nice home theater system and paid the bucks to be able to LISTEN to quality theater sound. So now I'm hesitant in returning my ATV with simply a software update on the horizon that should be fixing this. Another note - it's cheaper now...so does that mean I get a $70 credit??? What do you guys (or gals) think?!

[AlanStall]

I've had the AppleTV since it first came out and have loved it even with its limitations. The one thing for me that is still missing from the new AppleTV is some functionality for the USB port which as far as I call tell still has no use. I have a 500GB iTunes library (Apple Lossless) that I would like to hook directly to the AppleTV. I don't like having to switch back and forth between syncing and streaming. This is especially true now that the AppleTV can stand-alone from the Mac. How many HD movies can you fit on a 40GB drive.
Is there anyway to use the new TimeCapsule to act as a drive for the AppleTV

[mdawson]

While randombob’s argument is a little off base given that bandwidth is still and issue in terms of providing content over the Internet, let us not confuse scanning technology with frame rate. The difference between interlaced (-i) and progressive (-p) scanning has nothing to do with the frame rate for television broadcasts, which is 30 fps standard regardless of resolution or scan technique. I think you are confusing frame rate with scanning frequency, as most LCD displays operate at 60Hz and not 60 fps.
Interlaced scanning is the staple method by which analog television produced a picture on screen. Analog televisions operated by exiting the phosphors for every other line on the screen then reset to the top to excite the lines in between filing in the frame. Thus, each half of the picture is drawn at no less than 60 Hz to achieve a full picture at the required 30 fps. Analog television is 480i.
In progressive scanning, the method that has always been used on computer displays, the entire picture is drawn in one shot from top to bottom. Progressive scanning results in a sharper image, as half of the lines are not beginning to lose excitation while the intermittent lines are traced by the CRT. I witnessed this for myself back in the very early-1990s when one of my fraternity brothers used the amber display from his PC for watching television one Saturday night.
Despite having a black and white picture—well, black and amber—the picture was ultra sharp despite the display’s maximum resolution of 640x480. At 480p, the computer display generated a much crisper image than a 480i analog television with image quality that would perhaps rival that of HD minus the color and aspect ratio.
I would also agree that randombob’s assessment of 720p being dead is patently false. The vast majority of video content in existence is 480i (4:3). Most generic television programming will most likely go no further than 720p once digital broadcasting becomes the norm next year. High-resolution 1080p will be reserved for cinematic releases and big budget programming. For instance, the typical network sitcom, reality bilge, news broadcasts, etc., will most likely be broadcast in 720p, while movies on premium channels, shows such as Heroes, major sporting events, etc., will be broadcast in 1080i/p.
The digital broadcast spectrum has also been set up to allow local feeds to broadcast on more than one channel. So a network can show their prime time programming in 1080p for regular programming, but reduce to 720p to simulcast different programs on separate channels within their band; such as, continuing to show regular programming on an alternate channel during pre-emption by a State of the Union address or local team broadcast.

[jkross22]

Apple bungled the introduction by pricing Apple TV too high, and they paid the price through lack of interest/sales. Dropping the price $70 is not that motivating. Want to get people interested? How about $149. At that price point, people will take the risk.
Gotta wonder if Google is eyeing this segment.

[Atariboy]

this must happen + releases 30 BEFORE release to DVD not after!

[wardoggie]

randombob said:

PS:
I currently HAVE a 720p 52" tv. But like I said, I'm looking to the future. which will be something along the lines of 65" 1080p.

Well, maybe that's the problem: resolution vs. screen size. When I was shopping for my HDTV, I was concerned about whether 1080p was worth the extra cost. I found a few "HDTV buying guides" that said 1080p was worth it for screens over 42 inches. I needed something smaller, so I went with 720p. My PS3 downsamples the BD content just fine, upsamples regular DVDs just fine, and both sources look great (although, coming from my 20-inch CRT TV, there's no wonder why). However, if the articles I read are correct, you could be justified in being disappointed in 720p content on a 52-inch screen. It's just that not everyone wants a billboard-sized TV in their living room, just like not everyone wants to drive an Escalade. So, IMO, 720p is still viable, not "dying tech."

Personally, I think Apple went with 720p because consumer bandwidth limitations could support it now, not because they weren't aware or didn't care that 1080p is "the future."

[randombob]

People_Eater said:

@ randombob:

I'm curious as to what benefit you believe you are getting by watching films in 1080p, rather than 1080i. After all, films are shot at 24 frames per second. 1080i is 30 fps, more than adequate. With 1080p at 60 fps, all it's going to be doing is showing the same frames repeated.

Not the case. with interlaced, you only see half a scene at a time (odd lines then even), whereas with progressive you get the full screen refreshed at once. Before BD and HD-DVD, there was lots of debate over whether 720p or 1080i were better, most eventually settling that the added pixels of 1080 were kinda lost in the interlaced shuffle, making 720p about on par with a 1080i broadcast.

However, 1080p? Now we're talking the added benefits of the higher definition PLUS the added clarity of a progressive picture. You get the best of both. it IS better.

Quote

As for 720p being dead, that's ridiculous. It is a very popular format for sports broadcasts in particular. Most people's HDTVs don't even support full 1080i, they have a weird 1366 x 768 resolution. I think you might be jumping the gun just a little. Plenty of people are still perfectly happy with SD, let alone 720p.

but I stated 1080"p", which is NOT "i," and therefore has the benefits of progressive scan AND the higher definition, and is in fact MORE THAN TWICE as many pixels (720p= 1280x720=921,600 pixels; 1080p=1920x1080=2,073,600 pixels). BD movies are all 1080p at about the same fps, which is most definitely an improvement. Granted you have have both the capable player & TV, as the 1080p player won't show any improvement on a 720p TV like my current one, but what about the next one, a 65"1080p machine? Then it's a matter of lost potential.

Quote

You also commented earlier that 1080p is "twice the quality" of 720p. It most certainly is not. It's not even twice the resolution. And of course, resolution is far from the only factor in quality. 1080p is slightly higher quality (technically, visually) than 720p. Not twice as good.

Actually, it's MORE THAN twice the resolution. it's about 2 1/3x the resolution (did math above).

Quote

In any case, most people judge the quality of a film or TV show by the quality of the writing, the acting, directing and cinematography. Resolution has very little to do with how good a piece of entertainment is.

If that were the case, people wouldn't be lambasting "I Am Legend" for it's laughable CGI. Oh, and we'd all still be using cathode tube TV's that are 13" B&W, and using computers with green typeface on black backgrounds. It most definitely affects the quality of the entertainment. I love watching Lost. Last season where I lived i got it over the air in HD. Not anymore where I currently reside. Watched a rerun in SD? Man, it's almost unbearable. I'm contemplating waiting until the season's over and available on BD to watch. Seriously. Yes, seriously.

I'm not saying writing, etc is not important. I agree with you it's the meat of the meal, but to say that the other stuff is unimportant? We're basically telling the same stories now as we were yester-year, just dressed up for a new generation. Apparently the dressing seems to matter too, right?

Quote

Add to this the restrictions on Blu-Ray, the expense, and the hoops consumers have to jump through, and you're going to be seeing standard definition DVDs dominating the market for quite some time. I don't think Blu-Ray is the future, I think it's a dead-end. Whatever happens, the future will eventually come, and I doubt 1080p will be more than a small part of it. Most people just buy products for today. After all, to do otherwise, you are taking a risky bet on unknown outcomes.

Well I guess i better fire up my VHS recorder then? Remember, we're on DVD now because it knocked the king from his throne. BD is poised to do that. Yes it's early, but no one said "better watch out for this DVD thing, I don't think it's going to work out." they waited for the prices to drop. The format war is soon over, prices will drop, people will be there to invest. And when they do, they'll be consuming 1080p content. Maybe not today, maybe not tomorrow, but it will be the DVD replacement, much the way DVD replaced VHS.

Make no mistake, 1080p is curren top-of-the-line t right now, and will be either the standard or the bottom-end later. 720p is already on the low-end of the spectrum; go by any retailer, and see how many new boxes are 720p as opposed to 1080p. I say new because They're sure to have lots of 720 sets left over, and those are all going to be on great sales soon, if you want to pick one up.

But when there's a fire sale, there's usually a fire. So I stay away.




Look, I'm REALLY not trying to start some flame war, but the facts are as they are. 720 is the current low end of HD, and will fall off. All I'm saying is that I'd have preferred it ? and would have laid cash down TODAY ? if Apple had gone and future-proofed the concept as much as is possible right now. Right now, that's 1080p, there's little question of that.

We can debate whether You or I can tell a difference between the formats. But that's personal. I can tell the difference. Maybe you can't, maybe others can't. But I guarantee the tech will only move forward, and as such 720p will fall out of what favor it currently has, and 1080p will replace it at the low end someday. I'd rather invest my tech $$ into something that's not ALREADY the low end.

[flybynight]

chrisjtaylor said:

One thing I didn't understand about the previous model and with this model am even more curious about: Can Apple TV be used as a DVR?

No, this is not a DVR. It is not meant to compete with TiVo or the cable/satellite DVR boxes in that regard. The Apple TV is a way to get your iTunes stuff onto your big screen - with this update, you can now bypass the computer and browse/buy/rent right from your couch.
Remember, the Apple TV has no inputs (other than Ethernet/Wifi), so there is no way for it to record an incoming video signal. This is a software update, so the hardware hasn't changed any ports.

[randombob]

OK, before anyone gets offended or anything:

Again it's not about a flame war or anything, alright?

I understand the bandwidth limitations as they are. I understand that a lot of content right now is 720p. I understand this. But it's not my job to innovate ways around these hurdles. Hey it wasn't that long ago that H.264 didn't exist, remember?

I also understand that at some point we had B&W TV's and carburetored vehicles. Things progress. What I'm saddened about is that we're staring at the doorstep of progress in HDTV, yet we're being thrown what's essentially going to be first on the chopping block.

Good enough right now will not stand up to the future. Yes it would do for most right now, INCLUDING ME, but I don't want to spend money for right now on something that will be replaced when the first thing on the HD chopping block is what's being sold as the "High-end option" on apple's box. When I spend money, I want it to last as long as possible. I don't buy a new laptop every year. I put my money down when something comes out that I think has all the pieces to last me into the future quite a while.

And to me, and I think others, the limitations are too many. It's simply not worth the expenditure.

720p exists and is in use right now. How many of you have a VHS player? Rent many VHS movies recently? Didn't think so. Especially at the $200 price point, I'd like to have a box that will serve up what I'm sure to be getting in a year or two. Instead of paying another $200 to get the NEW box that does that in 2009 (the same year, btw, that TV is mandated to go all-digital)

At $200+ to buy the box, then $4 to rent a movie in 720p.... you could damn near have a BD player (picked up my sony for $300 - thanks spidey for sucking so bad they had to discount the special promotion packages!), and I can rent the "Full HD" quality for the same cost Apple wants me to pony up (especially when you consider the sound enhancements available in the "uncompressed" soundtracks for BD, HD-DVD). Or if I netflixed them, I'd pay even less over the course of a year, and in fact have saved money, even with the initial $100 price burden I put on myself by buying the more expensive Hardware.

When I look at it, I'm paying too much and getting not enough. I could pay less and get the same, or pay more and get better quality, all with fewer restrictions, or I could pay more and get less with ATV. I'm just pointing out that other HD rental options (not just limiting it to d/l's, but all 'RENTALS' as that's the actual space it's competing in) offer more for less.

I think everyone should know that. And if it's still a great option for you, then by all means. But I'll pass.

[flybynight]

Quote

...and is in fact MORE THAN TWICE as many pixels...

And therefore, twice the file size, or twice the bandwidth needed to download the movie in the same time. Sure, I'd love 1080p too. I have a speedy cable internet connection that could probably handle it just fine, but not everyone does. Apple has a lot of needs to balance and if someone has a low-end DSL connection, it's going to take them a while to download a HD movie, and they are going to get frustrated.

I'm just glad they are moving in the right direction. Actually 5.1 sound was nearly a bigger deal to me than the picture, but I'm glad we get them both. And this solution also will please the people who already own an Apple TV. To go to 1080p, would have required new hardware as I understand.

Now, I just have to wonder if we will be able to purchase HD versions of the movies and if TV shows will be available in HD and/or for rent. I have even less reason to own a TV show than a movie, so a rental system makes even more sense there. If the price were right, this thing could replace cable TV service for a lot of people. Just subscribe to the shows you want, rather than pay for 327 channels that you can't watch simultaneously.

[flybynight]

Quote

When I look at it, I'm paying too much and getting not enough. I could pay less and get the same, or pay more and get better quality, all with fewer restrictions, or I could pay more and get less with ATV. I'm just pointing out that other HD rental options (not just limiting it to d/l's, but all 'RENTALS' as that's the actual space it's competing in) offer more for less.

Understood, but also understand that you can do more than just rent movies with the ATV. You have access to whatever you have in your iTunes library (without having to go put a different disc in the player), plus the photos with .Mac and Flickr (instant HUGE digital photo frame with online updates for the grandparents), movie trailers, YouTube and Podcasts - this one could be a big deal. There is a lot of free HD content out there in Podcast-land.

If renting movies is the only goal, and you want the best resolution possible, then Bluray is the way to go. If you want the Apple slick interface for downloadable rentals a way to browse your iTunes library from your couch, plus all the extras mentioned above, then Apple TV becomes very compelling. I can't wait!

[randombob]

Actually I was thinking kinda EXACTLY what you said in the previous post: HD TV show rentals..

I can't see myself ponying up for Cable for the two shows I actually want to watch in HD. But then again I didn't want to have to sacrifice quality for it, either. I wanted apple to solve my dilemma all in one fell swoop, as opposed to bits & pieces over the course of 5 years.

All I need is Lost in 1080p, and hell I'll even buy the damn episodes, though as you say I'd rather rent them. I mean, it'd be the perfect Cable/DVR replacement, really!

I just think it sucks that we have to pay full-price but compromise the quality. That's my only complaint and the one that I think will keep my from splurging on an ATV (the 65" 1080p is categorized "Mandatory" :-) ) I'd pay even more for a box that gives me both movies AND TV in HD when I want it. And I wanted it bad. I don't want to have to pay a ridiculous recurring expense for cable/satellite monthly, when I watch maybe 3 hours a week of TV if I'm being extra lazy. But I do like movies, and I want the highest quality I can afford. and yes, Blu-Ray offers that and I'm already on board. Was really just sort of looking to Apple to innovate past the limitations of BD, and combine everything (movies, TV, DVR, etc) into one sleek option.

Maybe next time.

[IwantanIponey]

you mentioned the sound on the atv. do hd movies come in in 5.1 and is the sound quality at least as good as dvd quality?