Is Apple cheating on some "HD" TV content?

[jaw04005]

That's the key to this issue. Apple really should state the encoded resolution for the "HD" content that they sell on the iTunes Store. I suspect that Apple isn't alone in this situation because if everyone else (Amazon, Microsoft, Vudu) was actually selling HDTV shows at 1280x720 or full 1080i/p then I'd suspect that Apple could be setting themselves up for a class action lawsuit.

You’re assuming that 1280x720p is the minimum resolution required for HD, and as we’ve shown you above it’s not. There’s not even a set definition for what constitutes HD.

Maybe Apple should stop calling everything “Widescreen” on the iTunes Store and post the actual aspect ratio or resolution, but I doubt enough people care for it to matter.

We live in world where people stretch 4:3 SD broadcast to fill their 16:9 HDTV screens and call that HD.

In your specific case, there may have been an encoding problem with Top Gear. However, there is no getting around the fact that aspect ratios are different.

Movies and TV shows that were shot in the 1.33:1 aspect ratio are always going to be below 1280 in terms of horizontal pixels when encoded for 720p, but they’re no less HD than any 1280x720p content.

Wikipedia is hardly a definitive source. Anyway, when I checked that article (maybe someone changed it, who knows), it indicated that when the frame rate was doubled to 50, it was considered EDTV -- enhanced, not high definition. The equivalent of our 480p.

The article I posted from, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/576p

Said this:

"With doubled temporal resolution, 576p50 is considered enhanced-definition television (EDTV). In some countries, such as Australia, the 576p resolution standard is technically considered High Definition and was in use by the Special Broadcasting Service (SBS TV) and was previously used by the Seven Network, which has recently begun 1080i broadcasts.”

Which is what I posted above.

 

[fpnc]

You’re assuming that 1280x720p is the minimum resolution required for HD, and as we’ve shown you above it’s not. There’s not even a set definition for what constitutes HD...

No, I'm not assuming that 1280x720 is the minimum resolution for all HD. If you read my posts I have always been careful to point out that I'm talking about widescreen 16:9 HDTV content. And there I do assume that the minimum horizontal resolution for encoded content should be 1280 pixels. Specifically, "Top Gear" is a widescreen 16:9 HDTV show and it is not a 4:3 aspect ratio (and as already noted, and which I do not dispute, if it were 4:3 then 960x720 would be perfectly fine).

In any case, the real "problem" is that it appears that the Apple TV is limited to a maximum of 24fps when the horizontal resolution of the encoding exceeds 960 pixels (or perhaps the 24fps limit kicks in at some value of NxN that is below 1280x720). If they didn't have that limit then I'm sure that essentially all of the widescreen 16:9 HDTV content on the iTunes Store would be encoded with a horizontal resolution of 1280 pixels.

As I've previously noted the "Top Gear" episodes are 25fps (probably from 720p50) and thus I'm fairly certain that is why the resolution was dropped to 960x720. I also found one other iTunes-purchased, 16:9 HDTV show that was encoded at 960x720 and that happens to be at 30fps. Every other 16:9 HDTV show that I checked had a framerate of 23.98 and an encoding resolution of 1280x720.

 

[LethalWolfe]

If Apple takes an HD source from the content provider, down rezzes it and transmits a lower resolution version of the source material to save bandwidth, then Apple is cheating the consumer. It might be technically necessary due to the limitations of the AppleTV, but that is no excuse for not disclosing the reduction of resolution to the consumer before the purchase.

But if the TV show was shot on DVCPro HD 720p there would be no reduction because DVCPro HD 720p is natively 960x720 w/un-square pixels. Is Apple using a non-full raster image really that much different than a cable or satellite provider taking a 1920x1080, 440Mb/s source tape and crushing it down into a 15Mb/s MPEG2 signal?


Lethal

 

[tommylotto]

But if the TV show was shot on DVCPro HD 720p there would be no reduction because DVCPro HD 720p is natively 960x720 w/un-square pixels. Is Apple using a non-full raster image really that much different than a cable or satellite provider taking a 1920x1080, 440Mb/s source tape and crushing it down into a 15Mb/s MPEG2 signal?


Lethal

Even under your hypothetical there is damage. The DVCPro 960x720p image would be upscaled by the content provider to 1280x720p to provide the material in a conforming format. Then the service provider would scale it back down to 960x720p to conserve bandwidth. Now your signal went through two lossy conversions. One where non-existant resolution was created and one where actual resolution was lost. I agree that if acquisition, mastering, and transmission are in the same format you get the best quality, but that is not what happens.

BTW the crushing of MPEG-2 was far worse. DirecTV would turn 1920x1080i into 1280x1080i and then crush it down to 7.4Mb/s. And since when does two wrongs make a right.

But of course all this controversy could be avoided by posting the resolution to inform the consumer. Those who do not care, would be no worse off. Those who do, will be able to make an informed consumer choice. Information is power.

 

[LethalWolfe]

Even under your hypothetical there is damage.
.
.
.
But of course all this controversy could be avoided by posting the resolution to inform the consumer. Those who do not care, would be no worse off. Those who do, will be able to make an informed consumer choice. Information is power.

What controversy? There always has been damage and there always will be damage. What people saw on their B&W TVs in the 50's certainly didn't match the original film negative or one of the prints they'd see in a theater. So, again, why single Apple out? Why not make everyone from Netflix to Hulu to broadcasters to DVD/Blu-ray creators have disclaimers saying the content they are distributing doesn't match the quality of the source material?


Lethal

 

[dynaflash]

But how are you getting these 25fps 720p movies to your Apple TV? Do you transfer them using iTunes or have you hacked your Apple TV to allow you to transfer content using FTP or some other non-iTunes method?

I've seen reports where people have used FTP to transfer 25fps 720p movies over to the Apple TV and these users report that the Apple TV will play that content. However, that's different than using a completely unhacked Apple TV where it appears that the iTunes application itself limits 720p movies to 24fps (maximum).

Itunes. no problem. Now realize if at is an announced fps of 25 you are right on the edge. If you use same as source in fact you could get an actual final fps of slightly > 25 due to most sources actually being variable framerate, in which case its a no go. My 25 fps sources are all true 25 fps and transfer fine with stock atv software via iTunes.

 

[tommylotto]

What controversy? There always has been damage and there always will be damage. What people saw on their B&W TVs in the 50's certainly didn't match the original film negative or one of the prints they'd see in a theater. So, again, why single Apple out? Why not make everyone from Netflix to Hulu to broadcasters to DVD/Blu-ray creators have disclaimers saying the content they are distributing doesn't match the quality of the source material?


Lethal

Back in the fifties they were not marketing their service with a promise of HD. In fact, customers today are paying an extra $1.00 for "HD" when they can get SD for a buck cheaper. HD must mean something if they are charging more for it. If they are getting an HD source from the content provider and reducing the resolution to save bandwidth or meet the weak specifications of AppleTV -- without notifying the consumer -- and still labeling it as HD and charging extra for that label, we have a controversy. However, it seems that the effected downloads are limited to those shows with frame rates higher than 24 fps.

 

[Scarpad]

Yes, but "Top Gear" is in 16:9 format, as I mentioned in my original post.

In fact, I just checked several more "HD" TV shows that I've gotten off of iTunes and it seems that many are encoded at only 960x720. Seems like only the TV shows that are produced at 24fps are done at full 720p (1280x720). Anything done at 25fps or 30fps is encoded at 960x720 (and this content is in widescreen, 16:9 aspect ratios, it's stretched to 1280 on "actual size" playback).

As for the comment about the Apple TV doing 720p at 25fps, that's not what Apple says in their literature about the Apple TV. Also, I recently tried to encode a 1280x720 video at 25fps and iTunes wouldn't allow that video to be transferred to the Apple TV (complained that it wasn't in the correct format). I then encoded that same clip at 24fps 720p and it transferred and played on the Apple TV.

As for who does the encoding, I don't think that Apple does any of it, it's done by the content providers but that still doesn't let Apple off the hook. In my opinion Apple shouldn't market these as "HD" if they aren't at least encoded at full 720p (1280x720 for 16:9 content).

I know ATV had skipping issues if you encoded in 720p at anything other than 24fps, the Ipad specs say they can handle 720 up to 30fps and this seems to be a change. Maybe a Update can come out for the ATV so for those, like myself that own both, don't have to encode two types of files.

 

[LethalWolfe]

Back in the fifties they were not marketing their service with a promise of HD. In fact, customers today are paying an extra $1.00 for "HD" when they can get SD for a buck cheaper. HD must mean something if they are charging more for it. If they are getting an HD source from the content provider and reducing the resolution to save bandwidth or meet the weak specifications of AppleTV -- without notifying the consumer -- and still labeling it as HD and charging extra for that label, we have a controversy. However, it seems that the effected downloads are limited to those shows with frame rates higher than 24 fps.

But, again, DVCPro HD 720p (960x720, un-square pixels) is a very popular HD acquisition format. Should everything that is acquired in a non-full raster format come w/a disclaimer saying such? Should Star Wars: Attack of the Clones come w/an asterisk next to it that says it was acquired using a 1440x1080 3:1:1 codec and not a 1920x1080 4:4:4 codec? Should everything that is destined for TV, DVD/BR, web streaming, etc., come w/an asterisk that says the image quality has been significantly reduced compared to the original master?

And, as it's been stated before, you have to account for the level of compression used on the signal. A native DVCPro HD 720p signal is going to look significantly better than a 1920x1080 signal that's using a lower bit rate and crappy compression.

So, again, why is Apple getting singled out? Why not say you think everyone should be required to disclose their compression methods and settings?


Lethal

 

[trip1ex]

The question is, does it look good and are you getting your money's worth?

If the answer is no don't buy. If it yes then buy. I wouldn't get too hung up on the specs.

 

[tommylotto]

But, again, DVCPro HD 720p (960x720, un-square pixels) is a very popular HD acquisition format. Should everything that is acquired in a non-full raster format come w/a disclaimer saying such? Should Star Wars: Attack of the Clones come w/an asterisk next to it that says it was acquired using a 1440x1080 3:1:1 codec and not a 1920x1080 4:4:4 codec? Should everything that is destined for TV, DVD/BR, web streaming, etc., come w/an asterisk that says the image quality has been significantly reduced compared to the original master?

And, as it's been stated before, you have to account for the level of compression used on the signal. A native DVCPro HD 720p signal is going to look significantly better than a 1920x1080 signal that's using a lower bit rate and crappy compression.

I keep talking about service providers and transmission only and you keep bringing up other links in the chain. The consumer buys his product from Apple or Comcast or DirecTV. That is the only transaction that I am talking about here. The content provider gets the material from innumerable sources but ultimately masters the material in one of the recognized HD formats -- 1280x720p, 1920x1080i, and 1920x1080 and provides that master to the service provider. If the service provider reduces the resolution of the HD master but nevertheless passes the product off as HD and charges more for the product because it is purportedly HD (remember the "D" stands for definition, which means resolution), then a misrepresentation has taken place.

So, again, why is Apple getting singled out? Why not say you think everyone should be required to disclose their compression methods and settings?

No one is picking on Apple. I think all service providers should disclose the resolution of their service that they represent as HD -- particularly if they deviate from the recognized formats of 1280x720p, 1920x1080i, and 1920x1080. HD means something to consumers. Are consumers getting what they bargained for when they got 1280x1080i at 10Mb/s? I do not think so.

 

[tommylotto]

The question is, does it look good and are you getting your money's worth?

If the answer is no don't buy. If it yes then buy. I wouldn't get too hung up on the specs.

That is great, but unfortunately all the consumer knows is that Apple represents the product to be HD. The consumer does not know its real resolution is nor what it looks like until AFTER he has purchased it and downloaded it. You do not know if you are getting your money's worth until AFTER you are parted with it.

 

[TxP]

I just downloaded the newly released "HD" version of "Top Gear, Season 14" and although the video quality is quite good I noticed that the encoding size on the first episode is 960x720 (playback is stretched to 1280x720 to maintain the correct 16:9 aspect ratio).

The original BBC broadcast format is 1440x1080 Anamorphic, so 960x720 is exactly the same 4:3 ratio just at a smaller size.

Main question - how does it look? I'll buy it if it's better than the crappy SD I get on BBC America.

 

[rayward]

Not true, otherwise all of my PAL DVD (720x576) encodes would be flagged as HD

OK, maybe my example was a poor choice. I do know that I send files to my ATV tagged as HD, but some are SD only (the HD tag being used to fool iTunes into making one library entry for two versions of an SD DVD rip), and ATV knows the difference. It only shows the HD flag for stuff that actually is HD.

 

[GermanSuplex]

When you watch the show, is it playing back in 16:9 without any defects? No people who are tall and stretched out like Gumby? Because as mentioned, 960x720 is a 4:3 aspect ratio and the iTunes store has been known to occasionally have movies that play in the wrong aspect ratio. I've had 640x480 anamorphic encodes display at 4:3 instead of 16:9, I've had 640x352 16:9 music videos display in 4:3....

 

[LethalWolfe]

I keep talking about service providers and transmission only and you keep bringing up other links in the chain. The consumer buys his product from Apple or Comcast or DirecTV. That is the only transaction that I am talking about here. The content provider gets the material from innumerable sources but ultimately masters the material in one of the recognized HD formats -- 1280x720p, 1920x1080i, and 1920x1080 and provides that master to the service provider. If the service provider reduces the resolution of the HD master but nevertheless passes the product off as HD and charges more for the product because it is purportedly HD (remember the "D" stands for definition, which means resolution), then a misrepresentation has taken place.

I keep talking about other links in the chain because they are all relevant to your complaint. You are complaining that Apple is ripping people off w/960x720 even though 960x720 is 'good enough' for a lot of HD acquisition including the BBC's "Planet Earth". You are calling it a disservice if HD is presented to the consumer at anything less than full raster even though very little HD content is acquired at full raster. The image loss that can come from going from anamorphic to full raster and back to anamorphic is miniscule compared to the difference between going from a professional codec to a consumer/distribution codec.

Once again, this has been going on since the beginning so why are you not also complaining about VHS, DVD, SD TV, and streaming SD video not being anywhere near the quality of DigiBeta?

No one is picking on Apple. I think all service providers should disclose the resolution of their service that they represent as HD -- particularly if they deviate from the recognized formats of 1280x720p, 1920x1080i, and 1920x1080. HD means something to consumers. Are consumers getting what they bargained for when they got 1280x1080i at 10Mb/s? I do not think so.

So what is your cut off? Does everything have to be at HDCAM SR quality (1920x1080 4:4:4 @ 880Mb/s)? What frame size, codec, and bit rate is good enough in your opinion? I ask about all three because all three are important. 1920x1080i60 MPEG2 at 10Mb/s is going to look worse than 1280x1080i60 H.264 at 10Mb/s (H.264 is generally believed to be twice as efficient as MPEG2 up until about 25Mb/s). DVCPro HD 720p60 (960x720, 100Mb/s, 4:2:2 color sampling, intra-frame encoding) is going to look better than AVCHD 720p60 (1280x720, 25Mb/s, 4:2:0 color sampling, inter-frame encoding) even though the DVCPro HD is not full raster. Given todays current technology I don't see sending out 100Mb/s video over the airwaves and internet all that viable though so compression has to happen and it's all a trade off. Spacial resolution and color resolution are usually the first to go when it comes to compression because the human eye is more sensitive to motion (temporal resolution) and contrast. If you want more quality buy it on Blu-ray just like if you want better than AAC or MP3 quality music buy it on CD or vinyl.

I spend my days (and nights, and weekends) working w/video only to see it pretty much killed by every distribution format out there so I probably know better than most how much is lost between acquisition and final distribution.

That is great, but unfortunately all the consumer knows is that Apple represents the product to be HD. The consumer does not know its real resolution is nor what it looks like until AFTER he has purchased it and downloaded it. You do not know if you are getting your money's worth until AFTER you are parted with it.

The same goes for almost everything. Do you know if you are getting your money's worth before you eat at a restaurant, go to the theater or buy a video game?


Lethal

 

[fpnc]

The original BBC broadcast format is 1440x1080 Anamorphic, so 960x720 is exactly the same 4:3 ratio just at a smaller size.

Main question - how does it look? I'll buy it if it's better than the crappy SD I get on BBC America.

When you watch the show, is it playing back in 16:9 without any defects? No people who are tall and stretched out like Gumby? Because as mentioned, 960x720 is a 4:3 aspect ratio and the iTunes store has been known to occasionally have movies that play in the wrong aspect ratio. I've had 640x480 anamorphic encodes display at 4:3 instead of 16:9, I've had 640x352 16:9 music videos display in 4:3....

While the encoding may have a 4:3 aspect ratio the playback is done at 16:9 (QuickTime reports that the playback size is 1280x720). Also, it looks correct at 16:9 and 1280x720 during playback (circles and wheels remain round). If you play the show back at the encoded size (960x720) everything looks ridiculously distorted and squashed (everything looks too tall and thin).

The quality if pretty good, it's notably better than the standard definition version that is included with the download and it's obvious when they switch between the HD and the SD cameras when out on location (the car interior shots while they are driving are still in SD).

 

[jaw04005]

As I've previously noted the "Top Gear" episodes are 25fps (probably from 720p50) and thus I'm fairly certain that is why the resolution was dropped to 960x720. I also found one other iTunes-purchased, 16:9 HDTV show that was encoded at 960x720 and that happens to be at 30fps. Every other 16:9 HDTV show that I checked had a framerate of 23.98 and an encoding resolution of 1280x720.

Your assessment is probably right. I went through all my iTunes HD TV Shows and they’re all 1280x720 at 23.98 FPS, so I can’t check here.

I’ve never understood how the iTunes Store makes the FPS conversion anyway. In the United States, NBC, ABC and FOX broadcast at 1280x720p60. Yet, when you download House, Modern Family or 30 Rock from iTunes it’s 1280x720p24.

Is the source material for these shows shot at 24 FPS?

 

[GermanSuplex]

Your assessment is probably right. I went through all my iTunes HD TV Shows and they’re all 1280x720 at 23.98 FPS, so I can’t check here.

I’ve never understood how the iTunes Store makes the FPS conversion anyway. In the United States, NBC, ABC and FOX broadcast at 1280x720p60. Yet, when you download House, Modern Family or 30 Rock from iTunes it’s 1280x720p24.

Is the source material for these shows shot at 24 FPS?

It's probably interlaced material at 30fps, maybe? So you're getting 60 half-fields.

 

[fpnc]

Your assessment is probably right. I went through all my iTunes HD TV Shows and they’re all 1280x720 at 23.98 FPS, so I can’t check here.

I’ve never understood how the iTunes Store makes the FPS conversion anyway. In the United States, NBC, ABC and FOX broadcast at 1280x720p60. Yet, when you download House, Modern Family or 30 Rock from iTunes it’s 1280x720p24.

Is the source material for these shows shot at 24 FPS?

Actually, I think a good number of these shows are being shot on film or with HD cameras at 24/23.98fps. If you single step the video using the QuickTime Player you will see that there are no obvious signs of frame-rate conversion. I suspect that the broadcasts at 30fps are done after the source has been telecined. Broadcast 1080i is interlaced anyway, so they probably don't care that the telecine process itself introduces field-based artifacts.

I've also seen what appear to be film-based artifacts in some of the TV shows (dust and lint which appear for only a single frame -- you need to single step to see these types of defects).

Speaking of video quality, there is a free, full-length HDTV show this week that is called "Justified" which I think has some of the highest quality I've ever seen from the iTunes Store. For 720p it seems pretty sharp and well detailed but the more notable point is that even in the darkly lit interior and exterior shots there is very little compression noise or artifacting.

 

[Phantom Gremlin]

Speaking of video quality, there is a free, full-length HDTV show this week that is called "Justified" which I think has some of the highest quality I've ever seen from the iTunes Store. For 720p it seems pretty sharp and well detailed but the more notable point is that even in the darkly lit interior and exterior shots there is very little compression noise or artifacting.

Thanks for the pointer. I'm downloading now. I want to check out the quality for myself. Maybe I'll even enjoy the show.

 

[belvdr]

Does everything have to be at HDCAM SR quality (1920x1080 4:4:4 @ 880Mb/s)?

Yes it does! I've overclocked my iPod and it's ready to rock and roll.

To be honest, I have no idea what you just said (except for resolution), but it looks cool on paper.

 

[trip1ex]

That is great, but unfortunately all the consumer knows is that Apple represents the product to be HD. The consumer does not know its real resolution is nor what it looks like until AFTER he has purchased it and downloaded it. You do not know if you are getting your money's worth until AFTER you are parted with it.

Well this isn't an Apple problem. YOu can't buy a BluRay off the shelf and return it because you didn't think the picture was up to snuff.

So, until we are able to preview the content before you buy, the way I see it is... you trust the source or you don't trust the source. Buy or don't buy from Apple.

But discussing specs is ...meh. Believe it or not, many consumers just use their own eyes to determine whether a picture is of good quality or not. Much better indicator of quality than specs. Companies can easily distort and mislead with specs. The real proof is in the pudding.

Anyway I think all this thread shows us is some folks enjoy their movie format specs more than they do the movies themselves.

 

[tommylotto]

All that I have proposed is that if Apple is going to label something "HD" that deviates from the standard HD formats, then they should list the resolution of the show on the screen before you buy it. All that would require from Apple is to put seven or eight characters on the download page: for example "1280x720" or "670x481" This would give the consumer valuable information to help them make the decision whether to pay the extra buck for the HD version, but my modest suggestion gets roundly criticized by the Apple fanboys as if I just blasted the mothership. SAD.

 

[trip1ex]

All that I have proposed is that if Apple is going to label something "HD" that deviates from the standard HD formats, then they should list the resolution of the show on the screen before you buy it. All that would require from Apple is to put seven or eight characters on the download page: for example "1280x720" or "670x481" This would give the consumer valuable information to help them make the decision whether to pay the extra buck for the HD version, but my modest suggestion gets roundly criticized by the Apple fanboys as if I just blasted the mothership. SAD.

It doesn't give the consumer squat. Go look at BluRay. HOw many ****** BR's are out there? And yet they are all 1080p.

Studios can easily just upconvert their crap to a higher resolution and call it hd even though it ain't..... so resolution means squat.

It's pretty inexpensive to compare the quality of SD and HD content on iTunes. If you're going to buy the SD version of a TV show anyway then it only costs you an extra $1 to see if the HD content is worth it or not.