I'd take a progressive signal (720p) over an interlaced one (1080i) any day, but that's just my opinion. There is a substantial difference in processing power needed to decode a 1080i versus a 1080p signal.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple TV - FULL HD version??
- Thread starter christian2006
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I'd take a progressive signal (720p) over an interlaced one (1080i) any day, but that's just my opinion. There is a substantial difference in processing power needed to decode a 1080i versus a 1080p signal.
Lets get a few things straight. The Apple TV can output at both 1080i (since 1.x) and even 1080p (since 2.x) on supported displays. However, playback is limited to 720p.
There's a big difference between outputting at a certain resolution and playing back content at a certain resolution.
That's exactly what the Apple TV is capable of doing. It's upscaling content just like your DVD player.
The Apple TV just cannot playback files that are greater than 720p, just like your upscaling DVD player cannot playback files that are greater than 480p/576p (PAL).
1080p content is a long ways off from being mainstream. In fact, the only place you can get 1080p content at the moment is Blu-ray.
I do think 720p @ 30 fps support would be nice. They should also update the processor and RAM so it can support 1080i @ 24/30 fps just for kicks (less compression time on my part from EyeTV recordings).
There's a big difference between outputting at a certain resolution and playing back content at a certain resolution.
That's exactly what the Apple TV is capable of doing. It's upscaling content just like your DVD player.
The Apple TV just cannot playback files that are greater than 720p, just like your upscaling DVD player cannot playback files that are greater than 480p/576p (PAL).
1080p content is a long ways off from being mainstream. In fact, the only place you can get 1080p content at the moment is Blu-ray.
I do think 720p @ 30 fps support would be nice. They should also update the processor and RAM so it can support 1080i @ 24/30 fps just for kicks (less compression time on my part from EyeTV recordings).
Attachments
Future proof for how long? TV technology is changing so rapidly. Few years ago in the UK, people splashed out on some Freeview boxes (some paid £100+ for hard drive ones) and couple months ago, Freeview got updated/something changed and all of a sudden half the Freeview boxes out there stopped working and they got told to buy new ones.
Especially that Blu-Ray only just won the HD war, and it is still uncertain whether Blu-Ray is here to stay or whether it'll be a distant memory in 5 years time.
I'm not sticking up for Apple here - I'm just saying that there is no use for 1080p (yet*) on the Apple TV. *and if Apple did offer 1080p stuff on iTunes, it won't be for another 5 years anyway when bandwidth is no longer an issue.
Maybe one day we'll see 1080p movies being available by other means than Blu-Ray - going to a shop with a USB stick and purchasing it that way. But nothing is certain.
If Apple put 1080p into the Apple TV now, people would moan and moan that there is no 1080p content they can actually put on it.
"Even $80 upconverting DVD players output 1080P"
As was pointed out before, they will *upconvert* to 1080p, not play 1080p since all sd dvd's are 480p (okay, not totally true since pal is actually 576p or whatever, but you get my point). Whereas the atv can actually *play* a 720p source and can upconvert to 1080p as well.
There seems to be some misunderstanding as to what devices can *play* and what they can *upconvert* to as was accurately pointed out previously.
Afaik, the only true playback device capable of truly playing 1080p content (read:sans upconverting) is a Blu-Ray player.
As was pointed out before, they will *upconvert* to 1080p, not play 1080p since all sd dvd's are 480p (okay, not totally true since pal is actually 576p or whatever, but you get my point). Whereas the atv can actually *play* a 720p source and can upconvert to 1080p as well.
There seems to be some misunderstanding as to what devices can *play* and what they can *upconvert* to as was accurately pointed out previously.
Afaik, the only true playback device capable of truly playing 1080p content (read:sans upconverting) is a Blu-Ray player.
The notion that 1080p is the "standard" is just plain silly. Standards are set by markets. And by any avg market figures you can find, a very small minority < 15% of the tv sets in use in the US are capable of 1080p. An even smaller number of playback devices (< 5% -- blue ray players only) are capable of playing 1080p content.
Right now, 1080p is nothing more than marketing hype that TV vendors use to try to differentiate their screens from those they commonly sold 2-3 years ago. As a practical matter that vast majority of both displays and play back devices on the market are entirely incapable of anything remotely approaching 1080p.
On top of that we're in a poor economy where people are increasingly being more cautious about new discretionary expenditures. I think it's safe to say you're not going to see 1080p playback become common place for at least 3-5 years.
The rest of it is just fodder for internet discussion. Out there in the real world of parents, grandparents, families with 2-3 kids .. 1080p simply doesn't matter.
And until it does matter to those people, it won't matter to Apple.
Right now, 1080p is nothing more than marketing hype that TV vendors use to try to differentiate their screens from those they commonly sold 2-3 years ago. As a practical matter that vast majority of both displays and play back devices on the market are entirely incapable of anything remotely approaching 1080p.
On top of that we're in a poor economy where people are increasingly being more cautious about new discretionary expenditures. I think it's safe to say you're not going to see 1080p playback become common place for at least 3-5 years.
The rest of it is just fodder for internet discussion. Out there in the real world of parents, grandparents, families with 2-3 kids .. 1080p simply doesn't matter.
And until it does matter to those people, it won't matter to Apple.
I agree with you Kilamite on the whole reasoning for not making a 1080p atv just yet. The only people that would benefit from it would be those who could rip a Blue-Ray or acquire a ripped copy. That's a very small percentage right now and the file size would be substantial. Sure all the hype with TV's now is 1080P/120hz but once again, only a Blue-Ray can take full advantage of that (the 1080p at least). They need some new gimmick to sell TVs, damn if it isn't working.
I'm completely happy with my atv at the moment. I acquired a high bitrate Blue-Ray rip of a certain new Pixar robot flick and it looks great on my 52" 1080p display. My buddy brought his Blue-Ray DVD player over to compare the 2 images of the same movie. There were 5 of us observing, 2 cinema employees and 3 Circuit City employees. 2 couldn't really tell the difference and the other 3 said they could make out very minor differences but certainly not enough to warrant spending the extra money to buy a Blue-Ray player and have to pay the high cost of the media. In the end the Blue-Ray owner was left upset shaking his head looking at his player while 3 others were looking up prices for the atv ... especially after I showed them the Boxee hack
In my opinion the disc is dead ... at least in my household it is!!
I'm completely happy with my atv at the moment. I acquired a high bitrate Blue-Ray rip of a certain new Pixar robot flick and it looks great on my 52" 1080p display. My buddy brought his Blue-Ray DVD player over to compare the 2 images of the same movie. There were 5 of us observing, 2 cinema employees and 3 Circuit City employees. 2 couldn't really tell the difference and the other 3 said they could make out very minor differences but certainly not enough to warrant spending the extra money to buy a Blue-Ray player and have to pay the high cost of the media. In the end the Blue-Ray owner was left upset shaking his head looking at his player while 3 others were looking up prices for the atv ... especially after I showed them the Boxee hack
In my opinion the disc is dead ... at least in my household it is!!
Agree with VTMac about 1080p. Pure commercial fodder. I'm better off with a 720p and some insane contrast ratio than these **** 1080p TVs they are putting out. As mentioned, the companies had to find some way to keep people interested in the newest thing and 1080p was too easy to pass up.
One of my good friends actually upgraded his HDTV due to a 30,000:1 ratio and not 1080p. I told him to go plasma this time around, but he has issues.
Anyway, what the Apple TV needs (and what Apple needs, really) is to open up the USB port and to also let us buy the HD movies as they are now. Renting is fine, my wife and I rent movies all the time but there are some I want to buy. And I am not buying a blu-ray player after getting sodded by hd-dvd.
One of my good friends actually upgraded his HDTV due to a 30,000:1 ratio and not 1080p. I told him to go plasma this time around, but he has issues
.Anyway, what the Apple TV needs (and what Apple needs, really) is to open up the USB port and to also let us buy the HD movies as they are now. Renting is fine, my wife and I rent movies all the time but there are some I want to buy. And I am not buying a blu-ray player after getting sodded by hd-dvd.
I'll be keeping my 40" 720p ATV system and my 110" 1080p system, thank you very much. There is a difference on the latter, for sure.
I agree with you Kilamite on the whole reasoning for not making a 1080p atv just yet. The only people that would benefit from it would be those who could rip a Blue-Ray or acquire a ripped copy. That's a very small percentage right now and the file size would be substantial. Sure all the hype with TV's now is 1080P/120hz but once again, only a Blue-Ray can take full advantage of that (the 1080p at least). They need some new gimmick to sell TVs, damn if it isn't working.
I'm completely happy with my atv at the moment. I acquired a high bitrate Blue-Ray rip of a certain new Pixar robot flick and it looks great on my 52" 1080p display. My buddy brought his Blue-Ray DVD player over to compare the 2 images of the same movie. There were 5 of us observing, 2 cinema employees and 3 Circuit City employees. 2 couldn't really tell the difference and the other 3 said they could make out very minor differences but certainly not enough to warrant spending the extra money to buy a Blue-Ray player and have to pay the high cost of the media. In the end the Blue-Ray owner was left upset shaking his head looking at his player while 3 others were looking up prices for the atv ... especially after I showed them the Boxee hack
In my opinion the disc is dead ... at least in my household it is!!
1) How valid are opinions of people that don't know it's called Blu-ray? It's not Blue Ray, and there is no DVD in it (just as DVDs aren't DVCDs).
2) So Blu-ray is dead because you can steal HD videos from elsewhere and, well, that's cheaper? Forget all that. You fail to count that HD downloads will start to suck up hard drive space. You eventually will need to buy extra hard drives, and that will cost you about $120 for 500GB. If the HD movie downloads cost $25 each, you're maybe saving $5 for a lower-quality video with no ability to play without an ATV, iPod or computer. Oh yeah, no special features either. You have to fork out $230 for the ATV, which is more than a bunch of BD players were this weekend.
3) I'll say this again: The idiot Blu-ray owner sulked at owning a BD player and then looked at a $230 device? This held water a year ago, but BD players are comparably priced. A Samsung unit that I would buy if I didn't have one already is $200 most places. Samsung and LG models with Netflix streaming are $300. Some POS Wal-Mart offbrand unit was $130 on Black Friday. No HD movies are available for download, so where is the frickin' advantage?
I own both a BD player and an Apple TV, but I'm not about to tout the ATV as some magic box that will sink Blu-ray Disc or even DVD. Apple still can't manage a decent UI for ATV even though iTunes is the perfect model. No, I still can't easily get to playlists or reliably play video without it telling me it's in the wrong format (5 minutes after playing the same video). You may love living disc-free in your house, and I don't think you should change your ways. But the majority of people (VAST majority) aren't going to give up discs in the next decade. Bank on it.
I think your information is a bit outdated. Still reading the distances suggested for standard definition NTSC CRT displays per chance? I've got a 93" screen and I sit 8 feet away. It STILL doesn't look anywhere near as big as a typical movie theater in terms of how much of my peripheral vision it encompasses. So no, it's not too big. As for how close you sit, even standard definition distances don't apply if you are using a scan-doubler and any modern LCD or DLP or plasma display have scan-doublers (if not quadruplers) in them. Hence, the old numbers no longer apply.
The real issues I've noticed is that sitting any closer than 6-7 feet you start getting eye strain from focal length issues. That is to say you need to sit far enough away that your eyes are focused on infinity or your eyes can feel tired. My eyes bothered me far more with a 57" CRT HDTV that was so deep that I ended up sitting 5.5 feet away from the edge of the screen than having a 93" screen that is 8 feet away from my eyes. The larger screen is not an issue. I could easily go to a 120" 2.35:1 ratio screen (using a Panavision lens) to increase the width of the picture to the sides of the room practically and eye strain would be no worse nor would resolving distances. The key for me is to sit over 7 feet away and my eyes are comfortable.
The problem with older standard definition displays were that you could see scan lines if you sat too close and like "screen door" issues with some LCD displays, it's simply unacceptable to look at for most people. Scan doublers halved (and quadruplers halve yet again) the old distances, though and pretty much eliminated the problem. Newer LCD projectors (mine is a Panasonic PT-AX100U) don't have screen door issues unless you sit closer than 4 feet away or thereabouts, so again, sitting close is not an issue. 8 feet for a 93" 16:9 screen feels fine to me. I'd prefer a 2.35:1 screen with the same height, though for movies like Star Wars so I'd have no bars. Sitting halfway up at one of my favorite movie theaters, the screen is still much larger in size relative to my peripheral vision than I can attain with a 93" 16x9 screen at that distance.
That is tantamount to an old wives tale. Ask any competent eye doctor and they will tell you that temporary eye strain does NOT lead to permanently worse vision. At worst, it will result in a slight blurring from tired eye muscles. It will not permanently harm your vision. True vision changes are the result of the natural changes in eyeball length and shape, not muscle strain on the focusing lens muscles.
Why not? As I have a 40" FullHD LCD TV since a few weeks, I'm addicted to FullHD movies. I've seen SD TV on it, normal DVD, 720P and 1080P on it. And to be honest... 720P looks great,... but 1080p looks much better... so to answer your question on why? Why look 720p if you can look 1080p?
Very good discussion indeed!
I think you're wrong, imho. Well, you're right about the Apple TV, for sure.
But saying that 1080p is a long way off from being mainstream, doesn't mean that Apple doesn't have to make a 1080p player (Apple TV). Just because the fastest Mac Pro isn't mainstream, doesn't mean that it shouldn't excist
I'm about to buy a mediacenter, and to be honest, Apple TV was my first choice, but because of the limitation (720p), I don't think it's worth it ($299), while a HDX-1000 costs about $219 (without hdd, but that aint the costs).
So if Apple do bring out a 1080p version, I'll be very interested, else... the HDX1000 wins.
Just throwin in my 2 cents here I dont see a reason why Apple couldnt have enabled the aTV to play higher resolution files. Im sure the price premium wouldnt have been that great - and certainly isnt now. Ive already modded the aTV to play other formats, just wish it could play better quality.
IMO I think this is one case where the simple is better motto isnt quite working out so well... but who am I?
I dont see a reason why Apple couldnt have enabled the aTV to play higher resolution files. Im sure the price premium wouldnt have been that great - and certainly isnt now. Ive already modded the aTV to play other formats, just wish it could play better quality.IMO I think this is one case where the simple is better motto isnt quite working out so well... but who am I?
well I was going to build a media Centre PC, I have Mac's for my music work but PC's for my games and office, in the end I promted for an ATV as an interim as to be honest it is so cheap & easy compared to building a Media PC, I have a 50" plasma and have downloaded and ripped tons of movies now 135 movies filling 500GB so a lot of HD ones, which I stream via my old G5 (new Mac Pro in studio) and I must admit it looks amazing, having all the kids films etc all organised is fantastic. Compared to the PS3 I have is negligable you really have to A/B them, which your just not going to do when you want to sit and browse to a movie, the other main selling point is we can sift through our synced photo's this alone means we can see the photo's taken that day rather than huddled around a computer screen, plus the peace that I know my photo's are backup not just by my computer 's backup but by ATV. You can expand it now to 350Gb for less than £50!
The plan was always to build a Media PC but seeing as that was over 6 months ago, now I'm not sure if I can be bothered.
Everyone that comes round and see's the little Apple box wants one
1080p is no more hype than a nail gun. In the right application it's the right tool. Now I suspect you would not hang a picture with a nail gun, you'd use a hammer, just as you wouldn't frame a house with a hammer, you you'd a nail gun. Same goes with 1080p. It looks great on a large (52"+) screen, but on a smaller screen it's overkill. But there is a difference between "hype," and "overkill."
i think the more "stuff" you currently use and have on tv's and such...the less "useful" apple TV would be....
For me...I have about 8 dvds...dont watch any of them....dont have any tv shows/movies outside of itunes....so i use the 40gb ATV to rent HD movies..youtube..probably will try this hulu thing down the road...and it works fine....but if i was dealing with converting dvd files and such..i can see hassle and what not....
I think of apple products as a ecosystem...they usually will work fine with each other...and apple likes it like that...i have no problem just buying apple products for entertainment purposes hence why i didnt bother with the whole netflix or x-box movie rental systems..
this whole issue of 1080i and such...does anyone have a video or site that can show the difference between the two because i am still skeptical it will make such a different. kinda reminds me of a fictious argument like which is better? HD or HD++ or HD plus premium or HD Ultra premium...etc..
For me...I have about 8 dvds...dont watch any of them....dont have any tv shows/movies outside of itunes....so i use the 40gb ATV to rent HD movies..youtube..probably will try this hulu thing down the road...and it works fine....but if i was dealing with converting dvd files and such..i can see hassle and what not....
I think of apple products as a ecosystem...they usually will work fine with each other...and apple likes it like that...i have no problem just buying apple products for entertainment purposes hence why i didnt bother with the whole netflix or x-box movie rental systems..
this whole issue of 1080i and such...does anyone have a video or site that can show the difference between the two because i am still skeptical it will make such a different. kinda reminds me of a fictious argument like which is better? HD or HD++ or HD plus premium or HD Ultra premium...etc..
No, it looks no different than a 52" 720p screen if you're sitting too far from it. My point was that salespeople/consumers give no thought to their actual room and seating arrangements, and just buy it because 1080 > 720 so it must be what they need. I have a sneaking suspicion that 720p is more than enough for the majority of living rooms in the United States.
Thank you for posting this. I was going to write a reply to his comment last night when I got home from work and completely forgot.
Here's a chart about proper distance....seems like you are sitting too close for comfort..
Attachments
You do realize this likely has about as much to do your HDTV's internal scaler than it does the resolution bump from 720p to 1080p on 40" TV, right?
For example, one of my HDTVs is 720p (actually 1366x768p). You would think that a 1080i source would look just as good as a 720p source (progressive vs. interlaced aside).
However, my specific HDTV scales 1080i sources particuarly poor. Therefore, if I'm watching a 1080i source on my 720p HDTV---it looks worse than when I watch a 720p source.
Well at least you now understand that the Apple TV can "output" 1080p, correct? Just like your $80 DVD player. At least we've furthered the discussion to 1080p playback instead of 1080p output.
But saying that 1080p is a long way off from being mainstream, doesn't mean that Apple doesn't have to make a 1080p player (Apple TV). Just because the fastest Mac Pro isn't mainstream, doesn't mean that it shouldn't excist
I'm not against 1080p. I just think 1080p source material is hard to come by, and the technology right now requires a substantial jump in hardware compared to just 720p. For example, the Apple TV's processor would likely have to be bumped up to a Core 2 Duo from a single-core Pentium M to properly play back 1080p files.
This would likely lead to a price hike for a price sensitive device. A price hike is the last thing the Apple TV needs at the moment. If Apple can upgrade manage to upgrade the Apple TV to support 1080p and not jack up the price I'm all for it.
How's the user interface on that device?
If. Exactly...if.
Blu-Ray is the only source of 1080p movies, and you can't rip them very easily, plus the storage size if you did rip them.
So why do you want the Apple TV to do 1080p if there is no media available that is 1080p for it? Do you want it to be a Blu-Ray player as well? If so, then I understand your argument, but not agree with it, since the idea of the Apple TV is to eliminate the need to get off your backside and put a disc in.
Unless Apple use the nVidia 9400M chipset from the macbooks - 1080p decoding on a chip allowing a cooler CPU to be used. I've already got a 160 Gb ATV, but a 1080p unit with 3.5" disk would make me upgrade just for future-proofing.
If you say so. No one that's watched it has complained one bit yet and it's perfectly comfortable to me. 18 feet is a far cry from 8 feet yet 1080P is only 11 feet on your chart? The reviews of the Panasonic quoted no aberrations at 4 feet even. The old method was where the eye could discern scan lines. What is it now? Something someone made up? You can't see screen door or scan lines at 8 feet and it doesn't cause eye strain and YET it's still not as "big" looking as a movie theater so I can't agree with that chart at all.
In fact, not a day after I made this comment, look at what's coming out
http://www.engadget.com/2008/12/03/asus-eee-box-b204-b206-grows-an-hdmi-port-handles-high-def-ma/
1080p HD material from a 20 W box with an Atom cpu.
Would be nice. Of course the current atv already hands off a good chunk of its h.264 decoding to the existing Nvidia 7300 GeForce Go GPU likely via nvidia's TrueVideo API. Its one of the reasons newer rev's of the atv can play back higher quality content than the older versions imho as the atv software is modified to better interact with the nvidia chip.
http://www.anandtech.com/mac/showdoc.aspx?i=2951&p=6
http://www.nvidia.com/page/go_7300.html
A side note: Evidence of this is found on the boxee forums as the devs have been having issues getting boxee to properly utilize the full potential of the video gpu in the atv. Hence poorer playback capabilities than the stock atv software.
We can properly assume that apple's atv engineers have full access to the nvidia's decoding api and can/have taken better advantage of it.
That would seem to also explain why XBMC, which solely relies on cpu, also sucks on the ATV.