Only reason buying AT2 is Netflix but does any other device do better than 720p?

[HobeSoundDarryl]

...but what it really all boils down to in
my purchase decision....

The UI for Netflix is far better on Apple TV
than most other devices?

Most of the reviews I've seen say yes. I think it's pretty safe to say that TV has a great UI (my family & I use it just about every day on the gen 1 model). It's better than any I've used on other boxes. So if you are satisfied with the hardware tradeoff, it is the way to go for easy-to-use, polished UI. Reviews from many sources say it is the BEST incarnation of a UI for browsing the Netflix streaming library.

 

[filfortugno]

sell blu-ray player, buy ps3 and forget about atv2, enough said

 

[mdatwood]

Don't try to flip the argument. I'm not making a case that 1080p should be forced upon everyone. I'm all about choice in this matter. I'm negative on Apple making that choice for everyone. And I'm negative on arguments like "The human eye can't see the difference" being used to try to justify Apple's decision.

Had Apple used a 1080p chip, all the "720p is good enough for me" people (apparently, you are one of them) would still get 720p to it's fullest quality. And the "I want 1080p" crowd would have got what they wanted too. Instead, Apple chose to cap this off at 720p, which still gives the first crowd what they want, but completely fails the second crowd unless they comply.

720p is good enough for you? Great. Enjoy it. You got what you want. The OP was asking about 1080p though, because he/she, me and some others have interest in an TV-like solution that can actually max out the resolution potential of our 1080p HDTVs, not feed a 1920 x 1080 TV a 1280 x 720 signal in which pixels & color choices have to be invented to fill in the missing information.

The part that you're missing wrt streaming (and it certainly will change in the future) is 1080p is just the output. A less compressed 720p stream can end up looking better than a more compressed 1080p stream. Also, if I send you a 480p stream and use the PS3 to upconvert to 1080p that is not 1080p in any sense of the word.

For now, given the majority of people who lack a really fast internet connection, a 720p streaming device is fine with 1080p being mostly buzzword bingo. This is only about streaming though. I'm not arguing that 720p looks the same as 1080p with the proper source, BRD for example, because it doesn't. IMHO, when people think 720p and 1080p look the same they are usually looking at cable which has horrible compression and from what I can tell only getting worse as they try to squeeze in more HD channels.

 

[HobeSoundDarryl]

The part that you're missing wrt streaming (and it certainly will change in the future) is 1080p is just the output. A less compressed 720p stream can end up looking better than a more compressed 1080p stream. Also, if I send you a 480p stream and use the PS3 to upconvert to 1080p that is not 1080p in any sense of the word.

I'm not looking to fight the "720p is good enough" argument (again), been done over and over many times before. I didn’t appreciate "the human eye" argument which seemed to dismiss that 1080p matters at all... to anyone.

The above is a commonly used counter to the "I want 1080p" argument, as if to say that to have 1080p, one would automatically have to accept a "more compressed" video file. Why exactly? Is there a file size limit? I could counter saying that the about 320 lines of VHS mostly uncompressed will look better than a (sufficiently) "more" compressed 720p video and be right too. But that would also be mostly irrelevant, and in no way imply that I think we should be wanting only 320-line SD (VHS quality) because it has smaller file sizes than 720p, and it uses less bandwidth than 720p, and that "most people can't see the difference", etc.

The OP asked about Netflix streaming AND asked about alternatives for 1080p quality hardware. He wants a good Netflix UI and was hoping to get it on something that could also handle 1080 video. TV is probably the best for half of those 2 wants. It's up to him to decide which is more important for his own situation.

 

[alehel]

when people think 720p and 1080p look the same they are usually looking at cable which has horrible compression and from what I can tell only getting worse as they try to squeeze in more HD channels.

I can think of many other reasons as well. A friend has a laptop, HP I think, and he downloaded a movie trailer as 720p and 1080p. He then sat there complaining that there is no difference. I pointed out to him that his laptop has a resolution of 1280 x something (900 I think) which isn't much higher than 720p, and certainly not 1080p. He wouldn't believe that that should matter .

A lot of people have TV's that are HD-ready without being aware that this means they don't have full hd. I know three people who have blu-ray players and weren't aware untill recently that they didn't have 1080p tv's.

A lot of people I know, I'm a student, have small 24" tv's. They then buy a bd for to watch using their ps3, sitt something like 2 meters from the screen, and then bash bd because they can't see any difference.

 

[brentsg]

The above is a commonly used counter to the "I want 1080p" argument, as if to say that to have 1080p, one would automatically have to accept a "more compressed" video file. Why exactly? Is there a file size limit?

Effectively, yes there is. Broadband in most developed countries still can't facilitate streaming 1080p at acceptable bitrates. But since 1080p is such an awesome marketing tool, I fully expect that most providers will switch to bitrate starved 1080p just to make it fit into their advertising plans.

 

[brentsg]

What are you basing this on. There is no connection between file size and resolution. File size is a result of the video bitrate. If you have a 1080p and a 720p file, both with the same bitrate, they come out at the same file size. Resolution doesn't affect it.

Apple could have offered 1080p files without making them larger in file size.

This makes no sense. Resolution absolutely does affect this. If you crank up the resolution, then you need to correspondingly crank up the bitrate in order to maintain image quality.

Having a 1080p and 720p file with exactly the same bitrate will not yield the same image quality. The 1080p file will suffer significantly, assuming the bitrate being used is actually appropriate for the 720p file.

 

[richman555]

Don't try to flip the argument. I'm not making a case that 1080p should be forced upon everyone. I'm all about choice in this matter. I'm negative on Apple making that choice for everyone. And I'm negative on arguments like "The human eye can't see the difference" being used to try to justify Apple's decision.

Had Apple used a 1080p chip, all the "720p is good enough for me" people (apparently, you are one of them) would still get 720p to it's fullest quality. And the "I want 1080p" crowd would have got what they wanted too. Instead, Apple chose to cap this off at 720p, which still gives the first crowd what they want, but completely fails the second crowd unless they comply.

720p is good enough for you? Great. Enjoy it. You got what you want. The OP was asking about 1080p though, because he/she, me and some others have interest in an TV-like solution that can actually max out the resolution potential of our 1080p HDTVs, not feed a 1920 x 1080 TV a 1280 x 720 signal in which pixels & color choices have to be invented to fill in the missing information.

Lastly, the BD player option is fine, but what about home video content shot on a 1080 HD camcorder, edited in iMovie at 1080, able to be rendered as a 1080 Quicktime file, imported into iTunes, and it will play just fine there. If you value non-commercial HD footage like 1080HD home movies, what's the solution for that situation?

I hear your concerns, but I think Apple went after a $99 price point to get the device in as many hands as possible. They also are concerned about the viewing experience which is solid at 720p and good enough for most people. I don't think Apple is positioning this as a device to watch your home movie recordings. They want you to rent and stream movies and tv. In time, I am sure Apple will support 1080p, just not today.

 

[HobeSoundDarryl]

Effectively, yes there is. Broadband in most developed countries still can't facilitate streaming 1080p at acceptable bitrates. But since 1080p is such an awesome marketing tool, I fully expect that most providers will switch to bitrate starved 1080p just to make it fit into their advertising plans.

Again, same old arguments. What "most countries"? The TV and other streaming devices are smart enough to buffer enough before starting playback (so that there is a good chance at playing the movie uninterrupted). The "most countries" that have broadband faster than many Americans would experience a shorter delay before their 1080p movie starts. Those living in "most countries" with U.S. or slower average broadband could still choose the 720p or SD versions (both are readily available in iTunes now).

More simply, imagine it like this: you select your movie and instead of 2 choices (SD & 720p), you are presented with 3 choices (SD, 720p, 1080p). If this is the first streaming rental you've ever made with this TV, then Apple assumes you might not know that a 1080p download will take more time than a 720p download, as the latter will take more time than an SD download at YOUR OWN broadband speed. Someone with a slow connection chooses 1080p, their TV could present them with an estimate of how long it will take before the movie can start, as well as estimates for the 720p and SD versions. It presents them with an option to choose one of the others or go ahead and download the one with the longest wait. Then that person can wait for enough of the 1080p to download, or opt for the faster downloads of lower resolution options.

Meanwhile, those who happen to live in places with faster broadband could choose the bigger (1080p) file... which is exactly how it is now when we have the option of choosing a 720p version vs. the SD version. Those with slower broadband than American averages might decide the SD version is "good enough" and opt for the "smaller file size" and "less bandwidth hogging" SD file.

In this concept, everyone would get what they want per their own situation. To me, that seems better than Apple deciding that everyone should be happy with what Apple chose to serve... and then having followers make arguments why that choice should make sense to EVERYONE.

 

[brentsg]

Again, same old arguments.

Perhaps the reason that you keep coming up against the exact arguments is that you're simply wrong.

You're looking for an overhaul of broadband capabilities, and/or the distribution of bit starved 1080p content so you can "fill your screen".

I could care less what Apple is doing here. Nobody is distributing high quality 1080p content via broadband in any significant quantity. I doubt it's because they aren't as keen as you.

You come up against diminishing returns with both resolution and bitrate. The content providers are trying to hit the current sweet spot. Unfortunately, the sweet spot falls short of meeting the desires of those on the fringe, which is the point from where you're viewing the issue.

 

[sdv5]

It's not about broadband streaming

For some reason, you keep missing Darryl's point entirely over and over again. The point behind ATV2 1080p capability is not to stream 1080p content over broadband connection but to play your local iTunes 1080p content in it's full fidelity. For example, your home videos and ripped movies in 1080p. There is no 1080p standard for TV broadcasting. HDTV tops at 1080i. However, there are vast home collections of 1080 content (both interlaced and progressive) that ATV2 cannot display at native resolution.

As Darryl points out, once Apple releases ATV3 with 1080p support, all these debates will be forgotten, and everyone will accept the new capability as completely logical.

 

[mdatwood]

The above is a commonly used counter to the "I want 1080p" argument, as if to say that to have 1080p, one would automatically have to accept a "more compressed" video file. Why exactly? Is there a file size limit? I could counter saying that the about 320 lines of VHS mostly uncompressed will look better than a (sufficiently) "more" compressed 720p video and be right too. But that would also be mostly irrelevant, and in no way imply that I think we should be wanting only 320-line SD (VHS quality) because it has smaller file sizes than 720p, and it uses less bandwidth than 720p, and that "most people can't see the difference", etc.

There is absolutely are bandwidth concerns (just like there are with cable TV and satellite). Right now NF accounts for 20% of primetime bandwidth usage and that's with only 1.8% of NF subscribers doing streaming and NF only delivering 720p at the moment.

http://www.wired.com/epicenter/2010...unts-for-20-percent-of-peak-u-s-bandwith-use/

There also isn't just a bandwidth problem on the subscribers end, but potentially on NFs end as well if suddenly 25%-50% of their customers decide they want to start streaming.

No one is saying that they don't want 1080p. I would love full 1080p streaming (not compressed to hell), but like most people I don't have FiOS to my house and even if I did no one is delivering any 1080p streaming content (conflicting reports that NF is for very select movies). Right now having the ATV be 720p or the PS3 be 1080p makes very little difference when they appear to be receiving similar 720p feeds.

For some reason, you keep missing Darryl's point entirely over and over again. The point behind ATV2 1080p capability is not to stream 1080p content over broadband connection but to play your local iTunes 1080p content in it's full fidelity. For example, your home videos and ripped movies in 1080p. There is no 1080p standard for TV broadcasting. HDTV tops at 1080i. However, there are vast home collections of 1080 content (both interlaced and progressive) that ATV2 cannot display at native resolution.

The title of the thread is about NF and streaming and that's what the entire discussion has been about.

 

[Irishman]

Don't try to flip the argument. I'm not making a case that 1080p should be forced upon everyone. I'm all about choice in this matter. I'm negative on Apple making that choice for everyone. And I'm negative on arguments like "The human eye can't see the difference" being used to try to justify Apple's decision.

Had Apple used a 1080p chip, all the "720p is good enough for me" people (apparently, you are one of them) would still get 720p to it's fullest quality. And the "I want 1080p" crowd would have got what they wanted too. Instead, Apple chose to cap this off at 720p, which still gives the first crowd what they want, but completely fails the second crowd unless they comply.

720p is good enough for you? Great. Enjoy it. You got what you want. The OP was asking about 1080p though, because he/she, me and some others have interest in an TV-like solution that can actually max out the resolution potential of our 1080p HDTVs, not feed a 1920 x 1080 TV a 1280 x 720 signal in which pixels & color choices have to be invented to fill in the missing information.

Lastly, the BD player option is fine, but what about home video content shot on a 1080 HD camcorder, edited in iMovie at 1080, able to be rendered as a 1080 Quicktime file, imported into iTunes, and it will play just fine there. If you value non-commercial HD footage like 1080HD home movies, what's the solution for that situation?

On the AppleTV, let's assume it magically supported 1080p resolution, where are you going to get 1080p video to play on it? You want this for movie trailers and home movies? How many people want 1080p for home movies?

 

[lexvo]

On the AppleTV, let's assume it magically supported 1080p resolution, where are you going to get 1080p video to play on it? You want this for movie trailers and home movies? How many people want 1080p for home movies?

That is the same as saying 15 years ago:
"Why do you need more than 640 kilobyte in your PC? Where are you going to get programs as large as 640KB? How many people want programs larger than 640KB?"

 

[Gaelic2]

I bought my ATV to stream content from my computer to my TV. It works beautifully without any problems. I am trying NetFlix but the movies are old or ones I never heard of, or cared to see. Hollywood produces a lot of junk
these days for the DVD market. We used to call them "B" movies.
Different strokes for different folks!

 

[mdatwood]

That is the same as saying 15 years ago:
"Why do you need more than 640 kilobyte in your PC? Where are you going to get programs as large as 640KB? How many people want programs larger than 640KB?"

Which is fine, but would you have bought 4GB of ram then to future proof yourself? Eventually 1080p streaming from NF will become the norm and when it does there will be devices out there that are better than any device available today.

 

[spice weasel]

...but what it really all boils down to in
my purchase decision....

The UI for Netflix is far better on Apple TV
than most other devices?

I've used the Netflix interface on three devices: my Apple TV, my PS3, and my mother's LG Blu-ray player (I forget the exact model). I have the most experience with the first two, obviously.

I very much like the look of the Apple TV interface, but I actually prefer the Netflix UI on the PS3. There seems to be less clicking for me. However, I tend to keep the streaming shows/movies I most want to watch towards the top of my list. If you aren't that organized, then I think the Apple TV UI is a bit better.

Both are great. But they are two very different devices that happen to overlap in a few areas.

 

[Irishman]

That is the same as saying 15 years ago:
"Why do you need more than 640 kilobyte in your PC? Where are you going to get programs as large as 640KB? How many people want programs larger than 640KB?"

No it's not.

You will fill up storage space on any storage medium.

You will not "fill up" 720p.

Now, when HQ 1080p streaming becomes ready for prime time, THEN Apple will probably add it to the AppleTV.

Not likely until then.

 

[mstrze]

Point of fact: AppleTV does not "only do 720p output". It displays at 1080p on my HDTV at home. Video content streamed to it will not display above 720p by design, but I would have to say that any pictures I display on it should certainly be displayed at 1080 lines of resolution. (This is for the old ATV...I can only assume the output resolution choices on the new one are the same...I have the option of outputting a video signal from 480i to 1080p at various frequencies.)

I would imagine that Netflix could offer 1080p streaming on it, if it were feasible. And at this point...as others have said...it's not without waiting several minutes to several hours to buffer enough of the movie to allow dropout-free streaming.

Apple won't add this to the functionality to the iTunes store at least...as I have said many times in the past...because Apple wants users to have a fantastic experience with their products...having to wait several hours or days before starting to watch a streaming 1080p movie would not match that description. However, I would imagine that they could and should allow 1080p playback of content within iTunes/Airplay...just not make 1080p content available within the store. Lots of folk have 1080p home movies and the like.

I can't say I know how the Netflix App works as I am not a programmer, but reasonably speaking...couldn't they allow 1080p streaming in their App, or does Apple limit the video output to 720p within the underlying software?

 

[lexvo]

Which is fine, but would you have bought 4GB of ram then to future proof yourself? Eventually 1080p streaming from NF will become the norm and when it does there will be devices out there that are better than any device available today.

It won't take 15 years before 1080p streaming.
And the technology is already there: a lot of 1080p mediaplayers are available.

 

[ftaok]

Point of fact: AppleTV does not "only do 720p output". It displays at 1080p on my HDTV at home. Video content streamed to it will not display above 720p by design, but I would have to say that any pictures I display on it should certainly be displayed at 1080 lines of resolution. (This is for the old ATV...I can only assume the output resolution choices on the new one are the same...I have the option of outputting a video signal from 480i to 1080p at various frequencies.)

Actually, the aTV2 only outputs 720p. There is no way to change it (perhaps if you JB it) to 1080i/p or 480p.

The neat thing about the aTV2 is that it will absolutely play 1080p files right out of iTunes, but of course it will downscale them to 720p (via HDMI). Then my TV will upscale them back to 1080p.

 

[lexvo]

No it's not.

You will fill up storage space on any storage medium.

You will not "fill up" 720p.

Now, when HQ 1080p streaming becomes ready for prime time, THEN Apple will probably add it to the AppleTV.

Not likely until then.

My statement wasn't about storage, but about technology already available. There are already a lot of 1080p mediaplayers on the market available, only Apple choose not to.

Actually, 720p for video is OK for me. But the fact I can't display photo's with a vertical resolution of 1080 pixels is a deal breaker for me. Which is a pity, because I really would like to buy the new AppleTV.

 

[MacManTexas56]

Don't try to flip the argument. I'm not making a case that 1080p should be forced upon everyone. I'm all about choice in this matter. I'm negative on Apple making that choice for everyone. And I'm negative on arguments like "The human eye can't see the difference" being used to try to justify Apple's decision.

Had Apple used a 1080p chip, all the "720p is good enough for me" people (apparently, you are one of them) would still get 720p to it's fullest quality. And the "I want 1080p" crowd would have got what they wanted too. Instead, Apple chose to cap this off at 720p, which still gives the first crowd what they want, but completely fails the second crowd unless they comply.

720p is good enough for you? Great. Enjoy it. You got what you want. The OP was asking about 1080p though, because he/she, me and some others have interest in an TV-like solution that can actually max out the resolution potential of our 1080p HDTVs, not feed a 1920 x 1080 TV a 1280 x 720 signal in which pixels & color choices have to be invented to fill in the missing information.

Lastly, the BD player option is fine, but what about home video content shot on a 1080 HD camcorder, edited in iMovie at 1080, able to be rendered as a 1080 Quicktime file, imported into iTunes, and it will play just fine there. If you value non-commercial HD footage like 1080HD home movies, what's the solution for that situation?

then your gonna complain that your 1080P appletv doesn't display netflix in 1080P since the content isn't there.

the 720p vs. 1080p argument gets super old. very little content is in 1080p unless u play a blu ray etc. so to get a 1080p tv and only watch 720p content is a waste of money.

For apple to sell you a $99 apple tv they included 720p technology. Would u rather pay more for a device that has 1080p technology that can't actually display it since there isn't enough content?

How many people in masses get a 1080p video camcorder, edit in imovie and want to stream to appletv? NOT many.

1080p is way overrated at this point, bc the content is just not there yet.

 

[sbrage2000]

I have both PS3 and ATV running Netflix. Honestly, the interface on both is pretty good, can't say I prefer one over the other. Lately, I've been using the PS3 a little more though because I've been having issues with the ATV--pauses every minute or so to buffer. Not sure if this is an ATV thing or a Netflix thing, but it doesn't happen on my trusty PS3. Doubt it's an Internet thing since my ATV is wired directly to my router and all other ATV content streams fine.

 

[Irishman]

My statement wasn't about storage, but about technology already available. There are already a lot of 1080p mediaplayers on the market available, only Apple choose not to.

Actually, 720p for video is OK for me. But the fact I can't display photo's with a vertical resolution of 1080 pixels is a deal breaker for me. Which is a pity, because I really would like to buy the new AppleTV.

Well, you could've made a better analogy.