Skip to Content

Newly resized iTS video content just a bad upsample?



It seems like not all larger iTunes Store videos are actually worth their new dimensions. Reader Paul did some investigating on the newly resized videos (i.e. - ones that were 320 x 240 before the new store, and are now 640 x 480), as a few seemed suspiciously like bad upsamples, rather than truly re-encoded masterpieces of H264 quality.

Unfortunately, for this investigation Paul had to reveal he is an Anastacia fan, but that isn't important right now (just kiddin' with you Paul). Engadget has put together a good post with example screenshots (like the one above) of upsampled content that looks worse than its smaller predecessors. Some of the videos look great - like Paul's Anastacia examples, but others like Madonna's and Elton John's vids ultimately take the more jagged route.

The thing I'm wondering is: who does the encoding? Apple, or the studios? This page at Apple's site for music labels interested in getting onto the store offers software called iTunes Producer to allow them to do the encoding, which makes me suspect this video upsampling issue could be the fault of the labels mistakenly assigning the video encoding and re-encoding work to some rookie intern.

This is about all we know for now; Apple I'm sure is unavailable for comment, but check out Engadget's post for more screenshots and details of what's going on here.

Categories

iTS Video

It seems like not all larger iTunes Store videos are actually worth their new dimensions. Reader Paul did some investigating on the newly...
 

Add a Comment

*0 / 3000 Character Maximum

14 Comments

Filter by:
jh

Apple has never offered the shows in widescreen, nor would the studios allow that. They want to make their money on the DVD sets, not the downloadable content. Typically, the dl content is just so you run out and buy the DVD set.

October 01 2006 at 8:14 PM Report abuse rate up rate down Reply
stormko

Speaking of video at the iTunes Store, I just downloaded my first TV show from iTunes--Battlestar Galactica--and the episodes are full-screen, instead of widescreen (which is how they are broadcasted on Sci-Fi Channel). I've noticed that the sample of "Lost" is also full-screen. Is there a reason why iTunes is not offering the shows in widescreen?

October 01 2006 at 5:48 PM Report abuse rate up rate down Reply
the1bigboy

This proves my theory, madonna is a robot.

October 01 2006 at 5:11 PM Report abuse rate up rate down Reply
Matt

TUAW is a top Mac news site but some of the ads have driven me off within seconds (particularly the ZAP the mosquito one!). Much as I want to support TUAW and similar sites I've installed Pith Helmet. What a change... Browsing is now soooo much more peacefuland relaxing and my G5 imac isn't constantly revving up the fans to deal with all that Flash rubbish.

October 01 2006 at 3:45 PM Report abuse rate up rate down Reply
Dry County

David -- thanks so much for your quick response!

And before we get into a p**sing contest over what browser is better/faster/blocks more ads, I feel the need to claify my original complaint to those who might not know what the hell I'm talking about.

I'm using both Firefox 1.5.7 and the latest 2 beta. Occasionally, VERY occasionally there is an ad that literally moves across the screen, over the content of the stories, and stays there until you press "close".

Sometimes as well, the "close" button is so small (or over some similar-looking content) that it makes it even more annoying to close.

Thanks again, David!

October 01 2006 at 11:39 AM Report abuse rate up rate down Reply
Sir Not Appearing in this Blog

I don't care why YOU use safari, Liam. I really don't. It's okay, but I prefer the way Firefox works.

And Colin, what's the point of having content if it's got to compete for your attention with the ads?

September 30 2006 at 8:44 PM Report abuse rate up rate down Reply
Jon DunB

Try Pithhelmet http://www.culater.net/software/PithHelmet/PithHelmet.php.

And Sir,

Hahaha. What is the point of ads if they don't compete for your attention?

September 30 2006 at 4:00 PM Report abuse rate up rate down Reply
Liam Parkinson

Well about the ads, im not willing to "upgrade" to firefox (personally i class it as a downgrade" for the sake of one website. I will always use safari as it loads alot quicker as a app and seems to load webpages abit quicker in my honest opinion. And before you start bashing me saying its proven firefox is quicker etc... thats on that one persons machine.... To my naked eye safari is snappier. And i don't find the adds all that intrusive. Being a graphic designer and currently study digital media im used to training my eyes to just focus on what i want them to. Its simple to not let the little things bother you :) Also in TUAW defence, they just post a code on there page, that ads dont come from TUAW they come for the provider.

September 30 2006 at 3:44 PM Report abuse rate up rate down Reply
David Chartier

For what it's worth guys, I apologize for the annoying ads. Thanks for letting us know, as we report these to the powers that be who can work their magic and take care of the issue. Please know that we don't pick and chose every ad that displays; we work with ad networks who funnel the ad content to our pages, so we honestly aren't *trying* to apply annoying stuff like that.

September 30 2006 at 3:41 PM Report abuse rate up rate down Reply
Dry County

Sir

I am Firefox, and have uninstalled AdBlock because it's filters were overzealous on way too many sites. Sure I could customize it but WHY???

I'm on a mac and things should "just work" right? Believe me, if you could have seen the ad you'd be right there with me voicing your concern.

Again -- I have absolutely nothing against making a buck, and I don't mind ads -- but come on! -- the ad that literally skits across the screen is so 1999 intrusive it makes me sick.

September 30 2006 at 3:30 PM Report abuse rate up rate down Reply
Buy an ad here

Hot Apps on TUAW

Tweets

© 2012 AOL Inc. All Rights Reserved.