Filed under: Analysis / Opinion, iTS, Video, Apple TV
When is HD not HD?
ZDNet's George Ou doesn't exactly have a great record when it comes to Apple related analysis, but even the stopped clock is right twice a day, and he's got an interesting article up about the forthcoming HD movies that Apple is planning to offer with Apple TV Take Two. His central point is this: high definition video is about more than resolution (whether 720p or 1080i/p); it also matters significantly how much the video is compressed. So his complaint is that the HD download services (both Xbox Live and the forthcoming Apple TV) offer video compressed so highly that even if it has the requisite number of pixels it "is simply not HD by any respectable definition." He's got another post illustrating the point.Having become a bit of a HD video buff myself, I think his central claim is true. The highly-compressed video from the download services does not hold a candle to Blu-ray or HD DVD on a large 1080p display. If you think about the files' relative sizes, how could it possibly? By the same token, however, it's not entirely clear that this is what matters most to consumers. The obvious comparison is to audio; 128kb AAC files sound significantly worse than CDs with complex music and yet Apple has sold literally billions of them. So it may turn out that the convenience of the HD downloads ends up trumping video quality except for the videophiles. However, if that's so it's nonetheless true that average consumers make up the fat part of the curve where the real money is to be made. So even if Ou is right about the technical issues, it's not entirely clear that it'll matter in the long run. What do you think?
[via Engadget HD]
![TUAW [Cafepress]](http://www.blogsmithmedia.com/www.tuaw.com/media/tuaw-cafepress-promo.png)
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 4)
Gordon Werner said 10:15PM on 1-29-2008
Same could be said for Comcast Digital Cable ... sure thye have content that is 1080i or 720p ... but they too compress the frak out of it ... just look at the artifacting in any movie or tv show ..
Reply
Michael Rose said 12:00AM on 1-30-2008
Isn't it a bit off-base to compare the Apple TV (which has a maximum output resolution of 720p) with Blu-ray and HD DVD on 1080i/p? You're hardware-limited, no matter what the downloadable files look like.
As for me, my TV is 720p, and I may not know what I'm missing -- but it looks pretty awesome.
Joe V said 10:25PM on 1-29-2008
I've seen a lot of lossy, overcompressed h.264 footage in my days, but I've never seen anything as bad as the MPEG2 dreck on every single one of my cable channels, both SD & HD.
If Apple's movies can beat that (and there's no way they can't) they'll be fine.
Reply
DJCarbon43 said 10:19PM on 1-29-2008
I agree with your post. Well said.
That out of the way, it doesnt change the fact that the fellow over at ZDNet is a total and complete CrOCK...I can't stand his M$ BS...
On a related note, it really is high time Apple incorporated bit-torrent technologies into its distribution methods...if it did that, we'd be a lot closer to streaming 1080...even if it were only at 30 (or to be funky 24) fps.
Reply
Joe V said 10:26PM on 1-29-2008
Movies are shot 24p. "Funky" it ain't.
DJCarbon43 said 10:51PM on 1-29-2008
right on, but most content is displayed at 30 or 60 fps...what I meant is that not only would it be more appropriate for movies, which (correct me if I'm wrong) are streamed to the apple tv at 30fps...
edit: after looking it up it looks like the VGA content is streamed at 30fps, but the 720 content is actuallt already at 24 fps...
nonetheless, FUNKY ^_^
DJCarbon43 said 10:53PM on 1-29-2008
and yes, I know that movies are shot in 24 fps, which is why I made that comment in the first place....
thanks though
Joe V said 12:59AM on 1-30-2008
Still not quite right. Movies are converted to 30fps (er, 29.997fps) for TV via a 3:2 pulldown, but DVDs and digital content (as in iTunes) are delivered at the original framerate -- i.e., 24fps for movies.
robogobo said 7:12AM on 1-30-2008
Here in Europe they're only converted to 25fps, that's only a 4% increase rather than a 25% with NTSC. But I'm not sure the facts are straight about digital streaming. Can't the frame rate stay at 24fps? Why would it be necessary to convert?
DJCarbon43 said 12:14AM on 1-31-2008
"Still not quite right..."
Joe, I am. Those figures are taken from Apple.
It's not very nice trying to twist other folks words into meaning something other than what they meant, and I was trying to let you off easy, but for realz, go pound sand...
I've run enough soundboards and worked with enough video in post to know a grade a bull****er when I see one.... you obviously haven't got the slightest clue what it is you are talking about, you are just regurgitating what you've read on wikipedia...
Thanks again though. Better luck next time.
I believe Best Buy just called, they wanted their know nothing know it all back... You might try avsforum...you'll fit in much better...course you still don't have half a clue what the wikipedia statistics you are spouting mean...and that'll get you laughed outta there...
Regards,
DJ
Aaron said 10:36PM on 1-29-2008
I'd like my AppleTV 2.0 update so I can find out firsthand... :(
Reply
jb said 10:38PM on 1-29-2008
it's all relative. a 90 minute 720p movie compressed with DVCProHD would be around 50GB, so when comparing HDDVD or BD to that, it's also highly compressed. And when comparing 1080p HD to 35mm film, it doesn't even come close to the quality, but it's about what people are happy with. The vast majority of people renting these movies will not notice notice the difference at all. And honestly, most if everyone here was told that they were watching an uncompressed HD movie when it was from iTunes, they probably wouldn't know. a lot of people here need to stop wishing the for the latest and greatest for the sake of it, take a look at what's actually being offered here.
Reply
matt said 11:11AM on 1-30-2008
seeing that 75% of the 50,000,000 or so HDTVs that were sold in the last 3-4 years are NOT 1080p, it doesn't make a lot of sense for Apple, MS or Vudu to invest to much sweat into pumping out that level of content at THIS time.
Bender Bending Rodriguez said 10:46PM on 1-29-2008
The blocking artifacts you get from cable and satellite company HD channels isn't because of the compression, it's because of the lack of enough bandwidth or correct data to create the image.
Ou's "so highly compressed" argument is BS as stated because both HD-DVD and Blu-ray use the same "highly compressed" H.264 compression. MS and these HD optical formats also use VC-1.
It doesn't get any more compressed. The algorithm is the algorithm. What Ou should have discussed is the possibility that Apple and MS may remove so much data from their lossy formats to lower the file size—and subsequently the quality—that the picture will look poor even if it is technically over 720p.
Reply
Joe V said 10:56PM on 1-29-2008
They use the same h.264 codec, yes, but the bitrate can vary greatly. That's where the difference comes from.
Marcos said 1:54AM on 1-30-2008
It's the same algorithm, but it's a lossy algoritghm. The level of compression is in how much you "lose" hence the lossy. Higher bitrate, less lossy-ness.
Bender Bending Rodriguez said 10:19AM on 1-30-2008
The lack of comprehensive reading here is amazing! I didn't use the words "bit rate" so I received two posts about bit rate despite the distant and obvious implication to it.
Ian said 1:19PM on 1-30-2008
You're right that the cable companies don't have enough bandwidth to go around, but that directly corresponds to bitrate. The less bandwidth, the less available bitrate for their HD streams. So to use less bitrate, they have to increase the level of compression on whatever codec they use. Yes, the algorithm is the algorithm, but one of the inputs to the algorithm is the amount of data to be thrown away (there are several ways to do this, such as specifying a desired bitrate or quantization factor). This, to most people, would be considered "increasing the compression."
Larson said 10:49PM on 1-29-2008
I personally don't expect downloaded HD video to be as good as normal physical media. I think if it's regarding downloads then this stuff qualifies. I don't think it would really be possible to make full HD video available massively at this particular point in time anyways.
Reply
kcogs said 10:59PM on 1-29-2008
flash 9 supports h.264
http://www.adobe.com/products/flashplayer/
http://www.adobe.com/products/hdvideo/hdgallery/
when will we see a great compression for 1080p content?
Reply