Filed under: Analysis / Opinion, iTS, Video, Blogs
320px Video Isn't Too Small
Some of you will decry me for being a fool when I tell you that I just bought every Lost episode available on the iTMS. Some of you will say that I am supporting DRM. I say, I'm just buying some TV shows. If there were an agenda in the purchase beyond that, I'd say I'm supporting a new emerging type of broadcasting television that I want to see flourish. And then I'd add, that if I bought them legally on DVDs, I'd still be supporting DRM. Just because it is easy to get around, doesn't mean that the copy-protection baked into DVDs isn't DRM. Others among you will say that it's ridiculous for me to spend $1.99 per episode when I could get it for free over bittorrent or for less on DVD, both of which are better quality video. Perhaps, but I couldn't do so so easily as I can by clicking 'Purchase.' 10-15 minutes later I have a full show to watch. As for the quality, I tend to agree with what Eric Rice posted recently to his blog in a post (PG-13) entitled The falsehood of "No one wants to watch 320px video". It's a good read and cuts through a lot of the noise surrounding the quality of the video in the iTMS: "We subscribe to content, not format. There are valid points about surrounding technologies being good or bad: from DRM to BitTorrent. . . . No one wants to watch video sized at 320 pixels, you'll say. To that, I'll just tell you to keep it down. I'm watching."
![TUAW [Cafepress]](http://www.blogsmithmedia.com/www.tuaw.com/media/tuaw-cafepress-promo.png)
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
Michael said 11:30AM on 10-17-2005
You're ignorantly supporting DRM.
Reply
Nick said 6:03PM on 10-15-2005
You're right!
I DO think you're a fool!
I see your point, but I think that if I am going to be shelling out $1.99, it better damnwell look good. I have commented before that I just don't have the means to buy a video iPod, therefore I am going to watch it on my 1024*768 monitor. Why would I want to watch a pixelated episode of Lost? I should be able to spend the same amount, and get a bigger version, or two versions in one download.
Reply
Tim Dorr said 7:52PM on 10-15-2005
Apparently, you haven't heard of newzbin.com :) Buy a newsgroups subscription for $15 per month (can be cheaper if you don't download that much) and spend $2 per month for Newzbin. It's just as easy as downloading via iTunes and just as fast (no crazy network setup needed).
http://www.newzbin.com/browse/post/1490023/
If you have any account, there's a "Get Message IDs" button you can click that automatically loads into Unison and starts downloading your video. The only additional step on top of that is extracting the video file from a compressed archive. But unless you have some problem with double clicking, that's really not an extra step at all.
Frankly, sites like Newzbin and newsgroups make piracy incredibly easy (and fast!).
Reply
iFelix said 6:44PM on 10-15-2005
320px might look okay on a TV, but I would be interested to see what it did look like.
I agree with CK about the convenience and speed of downloading from the the iTMS, which is in many ways why this may be a success.
Reply
jonathan Wilson Jr. said 3:25AM on 10-16-2005
i love the internet, everyone hates everything, you can do no good, but in 2 months everyone will be on apples dick, i still remember when the original iPod being released...my how times have changed.
Reply
Jacques Lema said 8:19PM on 10-15-2005
I pretty much agree with the author of this post. Actually the problem with 320x240 video is not really that you don't see enough detail. Most of the time I don't mind. On a normal (old-style) TV you don't get much detail either. What's annoying is the pixellation effect and the artifacts due to bad compression.
I just looked at the Lost videos on iTunes they seem pretty fine. Maybe the interpolation routine in quicktime could be better but I really could watch and entire show like this. I know a lot of people who don't listen to an mp3 below 320 kbits. I am not part of them.
The quality you get at 320x240 on iTunes is indeed very decent in comparison to what you can torrent. Some torrents are very high quality other really sucks. At least you purchase it legally and you have a perfectly watchable quality most people would be satisfied with. If given the choice between waiting one hour to get the next episode in hi-def and getting it in 10 minutes in lower def I'll certainly chose the latter. Of course it would be nice if users just had the choice. If you have an excellent connection you might want to get the big thingie. Hi-def is really cool. Having watched the trailes on apple.com is nice, however I care much more about the story than the quality of the pixels in the background.
Reply
John Connuck said 7:39PM on 10-15-2005
I couldn't agree more. I don't need a really high resolution video. Correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't higher resolution make it a much longer download? If so, I'm perfectly happy with the current 320. So it's not the highest quality, but it is definately watchable, and for the convenience I'll keep downloading.
Reply
jimmie said 7:40PM on 10-15-2005
I thought the same thing about the 320px being too small to watch. The other day at work I downloaded Desperate Housewives (don't laugh) I missed last weeks episode. I watched it on my work pc and watched it full scren, it looked GREAT. I doesn't look pixelated, it looks like I am watching it off a video taped I recorded myself. Not bad at all, actually quite good.
Reply
Jack said 8:15PM on 10-15-2005
Here's some real world perspective. On most set top DVD recorders, the equivalent of LP recording is usually MPEG-1 @ 320x240. I often record TV shows and events that I simply want to watch, but aren't to picky about the quality.
And I'm quite happy. Yes, it's not as clear as true 720x480 anamorphic widescreen, etc, etc. But for most daily use, it's fine. VHS quality for most people is fine. As long as you can watch it and make it out without being distracted by distortion artifacts, people will--and have--tolerated it for years.
And to give some perspective on all of this, do most TUAW readers realize that the golden age of television was dominated by 'substandard' video and mono audio? Ditto with the golden age of radio. In the 1950s and 1960s, most people listened to radio via AM radio stations and on mono transitor radios that sounded about as good as most cell phone speakers nowadays.
Most people do not need to see every little detail of every piece of image in a TV show. In fact, most TV shows nowadays are simply talking head shows anyway so the images don't mean too much either.
While people are whining about quality, they don't learn from history and realize that the quality of the medium has never driven sales. Enrico Caruso's first 78rpm albums sounded terrible. And thousands of people bought them.
Also regarding USENET and P2P services. They all tend to have only what is popular at that moment. For example, a Gwen Stefani album comes out and it's all over USENET and P2P. But try to find older material and it's a crapshoot. Maybe you'll find it. Maybe you won't. P2P and USENET are not consistent and not reliable.
What's great about Apple's service is that unless something catastrophic happens, I am practically assure that I can simple click, buy and download without a hassle.
Now that's worth $1.99 an episode!
Reply
Jacques Lema said 8:41PM on 10-15-2005
And please Apple, for some of us that are not in the US (like me) please sign more content with everyone else out there. Not only would I like to see others (European) shows but also access some US content that I can't get on TV here no matter what I do.
Damn, I am just tired of bittorrenting the Daily Show each month (don't want to search for it every day). I'd gladly play to watch that every day. Even if it's 24 hours after the show airs.
Another detail I think Apple and content providers should agree with: make the first episode of a series fully downloadable for free. How am I supposed to get hooked on Lost if I only see a 20 second clip from the first episode. Get some inspiration from people who have good business sense: drug dealers! Always give out the first dose and they'll come begging for more :-)
Reply
Mark said 9:29PM on 10-15-2005
$90 per month for cable...and I actually watch how many shows? That includes HBO, which would likely charge a premium for its shows, but still, based on the current iTMS model, that's 45 shows per month I could own, watch whenever I want, in front of the computer, TV, or on the train during my commute AND...
they're commercial-free.
Reply
djones said 10:09PM on 10-15-2005
320px is not "horrible", but if I'm paying, I want at least the quality that the already FREE broadcast version is at. What resolution is that, you ask? That's limited by your cable type. Standard Coax (basic cable, air antenna) is capable of sending about 250 lines, RCAs 330, and S-Video 400-ish.
So, for television viewing, as most of us, i.e. 98% of us, don't own HD capable devices, the issue is NOT resolution. It is bandwidth. 320px doesn't tell you crap about quality. People watch TV just fine with 250 lines of resolution from their basic cable and don't know any better. But it's relatively high bandwidth. NTSC video is 30 interlaced frames per second, 60 half-frames.
If it's not encoded to play like that _it_will_not_look_right_on_your_television_, I don't care if it's an HD version you downloaded from a torrent.
Until the internet in general is transformed to the next generation of bandwidth speeds, this is about all we can realistically hope for. Let's just all be encouraged that it's happening, and that networks are seriously investigating digital delivery.
Me personally? You won't catch me paying for any of this yet. I have a DVR with my DishNetwork service, and happily record and watch shows as I want, and have absolutely no desire for portability of my television entertainment. The market I am waiting to emerge is direct content delivery by the networks for shows on demand, intended to watch on your television, via whatever hardware / software combination they dream up.
IOW: I'm still waiting for VideoAirport.
Reply
horatio said 10:18PM on 10-15-2005
I don't believe you when you say you bought all the Lost episodes. I bet you bought That's So Raven instead. I know I did.
Reply
Debbie said 10:52PM on 10-15-2005
I encouraged this is going to be BIG. I have a few iPod in the family. I have almost 120 gigs of mp3's, mostly music but many audiobooks. I've ripped a few CD's but mostly found my music elsewhere. I've never downloaded from iTunes....until yesterday. I was curious and excited. Ok...so what should I try? I downloaded a show my daughter chose (The Suite Life of Zach and Cody). Honest it was for her. She sat next to me and watched about 1/2 screen size on my 30" Cinema display while I watched with her and also browsed the internet a bit. It was good. The picture wasn't HD. It was fine. She enjoyed it and promptly asked me to download more. I declined, but only because I'm a mean mom. Actually it was just to let me see what it was like. I may buy more. I already have the DVD set of Season 1 LOST. I was kindda surprised my selection was limited but I'm hoping it will broaden. My husband would also be upgrading his 3G iPod if Star Trek was offered. Or at least he'd be downloading new airings of those Sci Fi shows he misses.
I'm getting lazy and don't want to find these episodes on the newsgroups and then reformat them. It's worth $1.99 for time and ease. But for most folks I think it goes deeper. They are not computer geeks and don't have a clue how to even go about finding these things on Bit Torrent or newsgroups, combine the files, change them into the proper format, etc. Sure it can be done and it can be done for FREE. I've got gazillions of these downloads to proove it. But that's not the point. Joe consumer is still learning how to navigate his computer. It's still a challenge to figure out the simple iPod and what it can do....
I think this video and especially TV, movie downloading is going to explode. People are excited, but wait until word reaches the general public. You know who I mean? The very large % of the population who doesn't follow Apples every new piece of equipment or stock value. The guy who only understands convenience. The teen agers who will marvel and introduce it to their folks. The consumer checking out mp3 players and Best Buy and sees that cool looking iPod. Oh really? It can also play video?? How much does it hold?? WOW -- let's give this a try. Oh look...iTunes has video category...hmmm...let's see what's there. This will be big...
Reply
Jonathan Lochamy said 3:33AM on 10-16-2005
Well, 320x240 is good enough for me as far as portable video and when watching it on my pc (which is hooked up to my standard TV) the video quality is just as good as what I get from bittorrent. Now fullscreen on my pc it is not so good but it is no different than any ipTV that I download. I bought one episode from itunes just to see what it was like along with 3 music videos. As far a the new ipod, I have already ordered one only because my 3G is slowly starting to die and it is time to upgrade anyway. I will just have to wait to see about how I feel watching it on the ipod when it gets here. I feel if the sales of the new iPod and the content on the itunes store do well there will be an ipod with a larger screen not far down the road.
Reply
systemsboy said 11:22PM on 10-15-2005
I think what Apple is doing with downloadable shows is quite ingenius, and done very well. The $2 price tag is a convenience fee. Don't feel like paying? Fine. Go use BitTorrent. It's a pain in the ass, but you save your two bucks. Not happy with the quality? Fine. Go buy the DVDs. Or record it when it airs on your brand new DVD recorder. But if you missed last week's "Lost," and ya gots ta have yer fix, like now, you'll likely be more than happy to shell out the two clams for the show. It's two dollars, for Christ's sake (anyone flashing back to "Better Off Dead?"), for a 40 minute episode. I think the real crime is the $1 price tag for a four minute song. But no one seems to complain about that.
Except me. Here's my remaining two cents worth:
http://systemsboy.blogspot.com/2005/10/apples-latest-product-announcements.html
Reply
Jeff Atwood said 11:38PM on 10-15-2005
> Lost episode available on the iTMS. Some of you will say that I am supporting DRM. I say, I'm just buying some TV shows.
Some of will say your nose is so far up Apple's butt that your opinions on this topic are highly suspect.
Reply
Rachel said 11:38PM on 10-15-2005
To go off what Jack said,
A lot of the sitcoms I watch are encoded into .rm. It's not SUPER DUPER high quality, but when you're dealing with sitcoms here, it comes down to the "talking heads" aspect. As long as I can see what my characters are doing, ESPECIALLY on a small screen, I'm content.
The Itunes video store for the computer tv watcher is bad, as people can just bittorent. But for the portable ipod junkie, it's perfect. And the latter is who we're dealing with here, not the former.
Also, I'm sure if you polled people they would SAY they would pay $2 for a higher quality episode, but the truth is a lot of people still would not pay no matter how much quality it was. For some people, free will always win out. If it can be pirated and at good quality, most will take that over paying. Sometimes the hassle for others is worth the "2 bucks" saved.
Reply
Mur said 12:47AM on 10-16-2005
How is it that the MPEG-4 content when formatted for the iPod from quicktime pro is deinterlaced, while any other MPEG-4 exported from quicktime pro is not deinterlaced? I am looking for a way to export MPEG-4 from DV at a larger size for playing in iTunes and not on the iPod, but I can see no option in the export settings to deinterlace the video. Can anyone help me? please?
Mur
Reply
John said 1:15AM on 10-16-2005
if you really wanted to support this new form of broadcasting, you'd demand higher quality video - because that's what it's going to take.
at this point you're just swallowing what is given to you.
320 is great for say, an ipod screen, but for anything else? the dvds are a better buy.
Reply