[tmedia1]

The holy grail of Apple TV would be to have the ability to record TV shows like Elgato EyeTV does, but have it all integrated in Apple TV. I would buy one in a heartbeat if they added this feature.

[lkanthatham]

Hi, Luck here from Apple TV Source (http://appletvsource.com). If you are looking to buy the new Apple TV, don't. It's the same hardware just cheaper and preloaded with new software.
Get a refurbished one for $199 from the Apple Store or look for one on eBay. Just wait a couple of weeks and you get yourself a brand new Apple TV with the software update. Same hardware, same software and same warranty as the new Apple TV Take 2.

[montgomery_burns]

Hard drive size is still the same as before.

[IwantanIponey]

What is the sound quality on hd movie rentals? DVD quality or blue ray?

[droidworx]

The hardware will support 1080p, the software doesn't.

[randombob]

well I was under the impression that the ATV box itself won't output above 720p. As in, there's not going to be a firmware update in the future to allow it, it's simply not powerful enough to do it the way it has to do it.

I hope you're right, I guess. I hope they do it soon, too. I like crow. I'd sure love a 1080p ATV w/ the companion iTunes content even more!

[People_Eater]

@mdawson

"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."

This is incorrect. It does have an effect on frame rates. Interlaced is 30 frames per second, and 60 fields per second. A whole frame is only updated every 30th of a second - but half the screen (one field) is refreshed every 60 seconds.

With progressive, the entire screen gets refreshed 60 times per second (at least with 720p and 1080p, it does). So that's a genuine 60 frames per second.

You could have skipped the whole lecture about interlacing when you get it wrong like that.

[randombob]

What was that, 1080p isn't twice the res of 720p? What what that? Are you sure? My meager math "skillz" tell me otherwise.
(720x1280 ~ 900,000 versus 1080x1920 ~ over 2 MILLION)

Correction is one thing, personal attacks are quite another. I know i don't mind being "corrected," but being personally attacked is not on my list of things I love. Let's debate not flame, huh? We're all mac users at the end of the day after all ;-)

Well, at least I think we are. Right? Right?
Message was edited by: Jason Snell

[People_Eater]

@ randombob:

"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"

Not strictly true. It is refreshed one field at a time, but you usually see both fields at the same time. On CRTs, this is due to persistence of vision and the decay of the phosphors. On older sets, the phosphors fade faster, so you may be only seeing one field at a time, or seeing a flicker. On newer CRTs, there is greater persistence. On LCD TVs, and projectors and the like, they are by nature progressive displays. So, unless you are simply discarding an entire field, then you will also see both frames, thanks to the deinterlacing.

"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."

But a movie is only shot at 24 frames per second. So you don't get any additional data. The two fields of interlaced output still make up an entire frame - because there is no movement in between the field refreshes. All you need is 30 frames per second to reconstruct the original data.

How is your 60 fps system giving you any additional data, when those frames were never there in the first place? People who understand video know it is perfectly possible to reconstruct 30 frames per second progressive scan from the interlaced data. That's why they have those "progressive" DVD players, marketed under various names like "Pure Cinema" for Pioneer.

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

But twice as many pixels is not going to double the effective, or perceived quality. At some point, it just becomes a waste. Few people in tests can actually tell the difference between 720p and 1080p. Heck, there's a significant number who can't tell the difference between SD and HD at all.

" It most definitely affects the quality of the entertainment."

In a very minor way. If you have a crap show, then no amount of HD resolution is going to make it enjoyable. If you have a good show, it will be just as enjoyable on a 13" monochrome TV.

" 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."

So, it doesn't sound like investing in HD was a very good idea if it had that affect on you. You most likely weren't complaining before, but now the HD experience has lowered the enjoyment of your shows. By the way, Lost is shot on film - so you won't be getting any benefit from 1080p over 1080i there, anyway.

"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"

But that was very different. DVD was a massively superior medium to VHS. In particular, people like that it is random access, and doesn't require rewinding. It is like CD compared to an audio cassette. No competition.

But Blu-Ray is just an incremental upgrade. It doesn't offer any convenience over DVD in the way that the convenience of DVD caused people to flock from VHS. In most ways, it is less convenient. For example - much stronger copy protection, and the enforcement of things like preventing the user from skipping trailers.

Blu-Ray just doesn't offer any compelling reason for most people to upgrade. Most people don't care about resolution - and everything else about the format is less convenient and more expensive. It's like SACD - it was a huge failure. It offered higher quality audio than a CD, but no more convenience. Most people did not buy CD for the audio quality, and they didn't buy DVD for video quality. Those just happened to be side benefits.

I think that Blu-Ray will have very limited acceptance, and at worst it could be like SACD. It's just too late. The future is online distribution and mass-storage units. By the time Blu-Ray comes down in price, I think people will be over optical discs.

"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."

I can tell the difference. I work in video professionally. But that's of little consequence. This stuff is shaped by the mass market - and the mass-market just doesn't care about resolution, and many can't tell the difference at all. It's a fact I have come to accept. I can't understand how people don't tell the difference, but I've been visually trained my whole life.

Seriously, it's all about convenience. If it were about quality, then why did SACD fail, but 128kbps MP3 files are the dominant audio format out there? Why did VHS succeed and Betamax fail?

[People_Eater]

@ randombob

"Holy FUNCK, you got MULTIPLICATION WRONG. What was that, 1080p isn't twice the res of 720p? What what that? Are you sure? My meager math "skillz" tell me otherwise."



It has more than twice the number of pixels but less than half the linear resolution, which is more important. Note that I never said it didn't have more pixels. I said that the effective/perceived resolution is not twice as much.

Riddle me this - is a JPEG image that is 200x200 pixels twice the resolution of one that is 100x100 pixels, or is it four times the resolution? I think most people would say it's twice the resolution. For example, in the graphic arts, 300dpi is generally considered to be twice the resolution of 150dpi.

I think you might be being misled by the way camera manufacturers use "megapixels" instead of linear resolution to artificially inflate the numbers for their cameras. Apart from the "megapixels" crap, resolution is generally measured linearly, not as total number of pixels.

"Correction is one thing, personal attacks are quite another. "

I am perplexed at this remark. What did you perceive as a personal attack in my post? There certainly wasn't any ill-will from my end.

[DisabledTrucker]

I've read all the complaints here about the content being only 720p, and I'm with the ones wanting more, especially with the announcement from Comcast that within the next two years they are effectively increasing their bandwidth by over 1000%. Going from 8 MB/s to over 100 MB/s is a drastic increase for sure, and should without any problems handle any h.264 content thrown it's way. Especially since I've been successful in streaming it now on the 8 MB/s at full 1920 x 1080p without much problems. Granted it's one stream going to one computer, but still.

In the case of what I said earlier about these units, being only 720p capable, this makes them less than stellar units considering an XBOX 360 can do 1080p now and as I mentioned, who cares about iTunes rentals, hell the downloads aren't selling at a cheaper price and now they want us to pay more to have the ability to stream it? I don't think so! I for one am not going to pay $4 to "rent" a movie to begin with, if it's worth me paying money for, I'm going to purchase it out right and I want all the content that goes with it as well, not just the movie and NOT the commercials they add to them but, the added features such as the behind the scenes and music videos, etc. Granted I may pay 4x more for that "privilege" but, it's what I and most people want. If I am going to "rent" a movie, 24 hours isn't by any means long enough for me to watch it, and just having it for 30 days may not be long enough either, so I'm going to continue using my Blockbuster and Netflix accounts. So what there's a convenience factor there, I happen to like going out to the store so I can see what I'm getting as well as to mingle amongst others, I'm not someone who cares to hide in my house from everyone, I like to be out and around others, even if it is just from time to time.

Should I not have time to watch the movie or need it portable so I can watch it on the go, I like to think I should have that opportunity to decide that, not someone else for me and at what quality I want to do so. Should that be on my iPod, Cell phone, Laptop, or in my "RV". While I'm out and about, I surely don't want to lose the original, so I generally make copies I can take with me of some form or another for this reason. Should I be busy one day and miss a broadcast I need a way to make a copy of that broadcast that I can watch at my convenience not someone else's.

Funny how easily people forget that Apple originally billed the Apple TV as their IPTV device, I still have yet to see anything even remotely close to IPTV service from it. Still the only true IPTV service you can get, assuming you are fortunate enough to live in an area that provides one of them, is through AT&T's U-Verse and Verizon's FIOS, (and Comcast if you happen to be a neighbor of Bill Gates,) the rest are just video on demand services and 90% of it is trash at best. (99.999% if your talking about You-Tube!) I don't know where everyone is getting their dictionaries at but the definition of IPTV is Internet Protocol Television, which is basically television that is streamed across the internet, renting "On-Demand" movies isn't IPTV, that's "Pay-Per-View"! I hate to burst Steve Job's bubble but, Pay Per View isn't the way of the future, it's a fad that still has yet to fade from view. Sure it's nice to have movies and the like available when we want it but, we still don't see paying extra for it. Do you think all those people who have Comcast's On Demand would be watching it as much if they were told they had to pay extra to watch everything that's on it. Sure the PPV section does well but, mostly that's because they are running movies that are still at the theaters and that is a plus where people like me who hate the theater can sit and watch first run movies in peace and quiet at a reasonable sound level in the comfort of our own homes. The other plus is the ability to watch movies on there that may not otherwise be available in our location for whatever stupid reason the conglomerate's dream up this week. (Which in my area is highly likely since we rarely get anything new here worth watching at the theaters.)

We don't pay to watch those movies once they are out on DVD, since they are usually also broadcast on at least one of the plethora of "Premium" channels that we are also getting with our services, once they are broadcast, we either watch them then or record them for later viewing or just go out and purchase the optical media they are on, not continue renting it. Even those that do, for the most part, are only paying $3.99 for each movie they rent, not $4.99+.

I for one make it a habit that I wait until the movie has been broadcast on one of the Premium channels before I even consider paying for a movie, unless it's something I'm really wanting to watch, then I may "rent" it but, only if it's a "first run" movie while it's at the theaters, never after it's made it to DVD, then if I want to "rent" it for one reason or another, I just go to Blockbuster or hop online and check it out at Netflix, where I can keep it as long as I need to and watch it as many times as I want. This is a rare occasion though, as the movie is generally out on one of the "Premium" channels shortly thereafter if not simultaneously or even rarely prior to. Then if I really like the movie and want it, I go and purchase it, most times the "Directors Cut" of it, not just the "Theatrical" version. Then that's generally after the prices have been reduced after the movie has been played out on the "Premium" channels.

With the costs of fuel and everything else on the sharp rise of late and my income seemingly going in the reverse, (or at least at a dead stop,) what I, (and people like me,) can afford for "entertainment" is less and less each day and this device does nothing to improve that, only take away from it more, which makes it even more worthless to me (and people like me, the poor people that actually have the time to purchase and make use of things such as this.) Give us something worth having and we will go out of our way to purchase it, even if it means not eating for a week, (we're all over weight anyways,) this is not it!

[seano1]

There a free program called Handbrake that can ripe DVDs into iTunes compatible formats that can then be played on an Apple TV

[Aristophanes]

From an opthamalogical and visual perception viewpoint (sic) beyond 720p is a resolution quality that the human eye at a normative distance cannot differentiate??nor can the mind??between it an 1080p. The "p" is much more important as a visual reference than the "i".

When we can differentiate is when we see artifacts, more likely to be seen at lower res than higher, so the input source is more important than the output screen.

That is why 720p will be the broadcast standard for decades to come and why 1080p is for superfine quality film and special effect distribution only.

Most people simply cannot tell the difference, and when 1080p sets with better quality components (materials, glazing, coatings) can downscale to 720p reliably, and the inputs get better (less lousy CGI) then the quality difference will only be noticeable on freeze frames with pixel peeping.

That's why the standard was set the way it was. The physics outdo the eye.

[DisabledTrucker]

I don't know about others, I can definitely tell the difference between media encoded at 720p and 1080p on my 60" monitor, especially after I've ripped my HD-DVD's to it and played them back on it. Granted not everyone is going to have a sweet 60" monitor to watch their media on, most of them are under the 32" size where it makes even less difference. My argument was that even the XBOX 360 is capable of 1080p and though we're talking about two different devices and for the most part content, they are still entertainment devices aimed at being able to transmit out on our "TV's", (or monitors as they are more commonly called these days, since the tuners are basically worthless in them unless you have a cable card capable set and will become even more so after Feb of this year unless they do, at least here in the U.S..) Again, this device was billed originally as an IPTV device, whereas XBOX was billed as a gaming console, the XBOX can do much more as well as everything the A-TV can do for about the price of a mini, which is only a couple hundred more than the A-TV. The A-TV is even less as worthy an appliance as my "Digital Tuner" from Motorolla, which has a DVR in it as well, for less than the cheapest of the A-TV units, (if I were to purchase it rather than "rent" it.) Granted I'm limited in what I can do with it as well but, in contrast, I can do much, much more with it, than I can with the A-TV. Sure for now the content being "rented" from Apple is only 720p but, like others have said, the device should have been made with the future in mind for when they do finally embrace 1080p content and the fact that there will always be some from of medium that media content will be available on, be it optical media in some form or some other sort of solid state device of the future such as a "USB key". Granted "downloaded" content will be there as well in some form or another, not everyone will embrace it enough to be more than a fad and that's why I say that the A-TV isn't worthy enough at this point to get my, (or anyone else's for that matter,) hard earned money.

Now if Apple were to add at least a way to play other mediums on it, such as HD-DVD's, and tuner capability that will "just work" with our cable systems, (or an actual IPTV service such AT&T's U-Verse, even if it's the online version,) then it will finally start to see people flocking to it. I could conceive someone watching a show on a channel being "broadcast" through it, then either recording it or purchasing a "directors cut" full version of it for download through iTunes, using a service similar to the online version of AT&T's U-Verse or similar, where actual broadcast content is received by the box through "channels" similar to the way we get "TV channels" now. I could even conceive AT&T partnering with Apple's iTunes service to do just this.

Go back in time a couple of years ago to Bill Gates keynote speech about IPTV and how it was the wave of the future, that's the way most envision getting our content or something similar to it, not through "PPV" and "YouTube". I'm sorry most people can't afford to "PPV" everything and even more wouldn't even if they could, especially after having it fed to them for so long now. Ever since the invention of TV people have embraced it because it could do one thing well and that was improved upon a few decades back with the invention of the VCR, now they are telling us we have to go backwards? Not too many are going to embrace that at all. Now we have to pay for the ability to get recordings of shows that we are already accustomed to doing ourselves for the cost of the medium to put it on? I don't see this being much more than a very bad dream! Don't get me wrong, PPV is a nice thing for those cases where it makes sense, such as when a movie is at the theater and you want to watch it but, won't bother with a noisy theater that isn't open when your available to "enjoy" it, amongst other reasons people quit going to them. Another is when you're busy most of the time with work and other things and want to be able to watch something at your convenience where the On-Demand comes in handy, but a device that is only capable of those items and at less quality than you're able to get for a lot less isn't something that most are going to embrace or even want.

What people are wanting most of all from Apple is something that can do it all, much like a "Media Center" that runs on Mac OS so that compatibility problems goes out with the rest of the trash. Okay so Steve is more interested in IPTV than just another "me too Media Center" that does cable, I and others say great, when are we going to see it. Okay he's looking for a way to capitalize on it too while using iTunes to do it. Great, then create something like he did with the "Radio" feature only instead do it similar to AT&T's online U-Verse service with more channels like a cable system would have. Okay granted the "defacto standard" for HD is 720p, fine but, I thought the idea was to NOT be another "me too" device? Basically all this does is remove the "gaming console" and ability to watch optical media from the XBOX 360 for not much less. Had the cost of this box been around say $50, I could say okay maybe someone may have a use for it's limited abilities, NO WAY is this reasonable for a unit costing not only 2x as much let alone 6-8x as much. The people that are going to purchase this unit as it is, are those that can afford to throw away ~$300 to hook it up to their 22" monitors hooked to their PC's or Macbooks, they are using as a TV where it would look just fine on and don't mind "renting" or "purchasing downloads" to view on it, as that's about all it's good for. For the rest of the majority of people, this isn't worth their hard earned money when they can do the same thing on their iMac or Mini without purchasing this to begin with. (Okay so the Mini is lacking wireless "N" capability it can do much more still.)

I'm sorry I was always brought up with the line of thinking that if you're going to do something, do it right the first time and not "half a$$ed", which is all that this is. Aside from the problems I've mentioned previously, this also doesn't hold nearly enough content either, with no way to back up the content we purchase on the unit, after we fill up the tiny space available on it, which can easily be done within a few short months, what are we supposed to do when we want more? Get rid of our purchases that we made with our hard earned money? I don't see that happening either!!!

With the 160GB HDD version, your effectively only getting about 152 GB to use, out of that you have to figure in the operating system, that's another 10GB give or take, so your down to 142 GB now. Okay now take and set aside say 100 GB for video and that leaves you with 42 GB to divide up with 40 GB to your music, (no way this will hold nearly all of it at lossless quality rips that you've created to use with your digital audio system,) and 2 GB for your photo collection. With each "HD" video costing you at least 2 GB a piece, that's only 50 videos before your system is full or 100 if that is evenly divided between HD movies and "primetime shows". I'm not sure about most people but, I already have well over 142 GB of music content alone, let alone my video collection, which has already filled a 1 TB drive by itself and is still growing. Like many I'm looking for an Apple device that will allow me to put all this in one place that is not only accessible by my iMacs but also my TV's in the house and all that HD content that I already have encoded at 1080p should be allowed to be played back as such as well. This is not something that the A-TV is even capable of, which is why it's not even worth another look until some major updates are made to it. The 780p limitation is only a minor complaint for this device and everyone seems to making it into some major issue this thing has, I have already listed a plethora of other reasons besides that that it's already made it insignificant an issue.