Advertisement: The new AppleTV. The simplest way to watch your favorite HD movies and TV shows on your HD TV. Just $99. Buy Now.
However, “the reality is that higher resolution doesn’t necessarily mean better image quality,” Moskovciak writes. “The fact that the Apple TV doesn’t support 1080p video doesn’t matter.”
Moskovciak writes, “When it comes to streaming video, bit rate is much more important than resolution. Video bit rate basically states how much information is being used to create the video, and in general, the more information the better… The difference between 720p and 1080p content just isn’t that noticeable on a standard-sized HDTV (50 inches or less) at a regular seating distance… We won’t be able to tell how good the Apple TV’s streaming video quality is until we do a hands-on review, but nobody should shy away from the new Apple TV because it’s ‘just’ 720p.”
Read more in the full article here.
MacDailyNews Take: This much we know: The current Apple TV’s streaming HD movies and TV shows are gorgeous. We would expect the new Apple TV to be at least as high quality.
So why even bother with Apple TV? Just download the “crappy network television” torrent from places like BitMeTV and stick it on your home LAN’s NAS (e.g. Buffalo TeraStation).
@Brau
You wrote:
“Apple is guilty of lying when they term 780P “HD”. It’s not. HD is 1080P, nothing less.”
From wikipedia:
“The FCC process, led by the Advanced Television Systems Committee (ATSC) adopted a range of standards from interlaced 1,080 line video (a technical descendant of the original analog NHK 1125/30 Hz system) with a maximum frame rate of 30 Hz, and 720 line video, progressively scanned, with a maximum frame rate of 60 Hz.
In the end however the DVB standard of resolutions (1080, 720, 480) and frame rates (24, 25, 30) were adopted in conjunction with the Europeans that were also involved in the same standardization process. The FCC officially adopted the ATSC transmission standard (which included both HD and SD video standards) in 1996, with the first broadcasts on October 28, 1998.”
Apple is not lying. HDTV is a standard, agreed upon by standards commitees, and 720p is one of the accepted HDTV resolutions.
The best quality 720p on my new top-of-the-line Panasonic 65 inch plasma is inferior to an high quality encoded 1080p source. I have seen both and can tell the difference. Apple does offer a solution – the new Mac Mini with HDMI output. I suppose they decided that if you have a very large flat screen, you can spring for the extra money to get the appropriate source. $700-$1000 on a Mac Mini relative to a $10,000 media center is not out of line, compared to a $99 new Apple TV paired with a sub $1,000 TV.
For all of you whining assholes that are so mortified by the lack of 1080p on the Apple TV, please check out VUDU. It is available through compatible TVs, BD players and surround sound systems. You can buy or rent for prices comparable to the other services. http://www.vudu.com/
If Apple’s products don’t fit your needs, then go somewhere else and stfu. Idiots.
Who’s whining? Just explaining with FACTS that Apple is not the “revolutionary” company people like you think it is…
The 720p video that sells as HD on the iTunes store is pretty much the video equivalent of 256kbps songs sold as iTunes “Plus” on the music side.
As 256kbps music is much better than 128k, so is 720p video at around 4mbps compared to 480p at around 1.5mbps.
Given what Apple has already sold and committed to thru hardware design, these must all be good enough. As are videos on YouTube when the content is compelling.
Convenience beat quality in music as shown by the surge of iTunes sales (and popularity of iPods) over the last years compared to, say, SACD and DVD-Audio and is probably about to happen again (and already has been) here with video.
For some reference, the bare minimum most HD broadcasters will allow for a primary acquisition device (camera) is 50mbps (with some exceptions down to 35mbps). The bit rate on BluRay is about half that and OTA b’cast a little less than that.
The “pipes” will have a lot of catching up to do (as has been mentioned) before we can get anywhere close for commercial downloads, much less streaming. I for one can’t wait.
Nyulak, if the highest possible resolution and picture quality were the defining characteristics of a good movie, I’d have to give up most of my favorite movies. When I watch a movie I focus on the plot, the characters and the acting.
99% of the movies and TV shows I’ve watched are, for me, a one-time experience. I’ve decided that the cost of a Blue-Ray disc isn’t worth it, and I’d rather pay a fifth or sixth of the disc cost to see it whenever I wish as an AppleTV rental.
Apple isn’t cheating us. The simple fact is that there’s not enough “pipeline” available to supply millions of people in the U.S. with low-compression 1080p streaming of video content today. ISPs are beginning to put caps on data use for that reason.
I’ve ordered an AppleTV and expect to enjoy using it.
You might not enjoy using one, so don’t buy it. One of these days, the pipeline will grow and you might buy a streaming device at that time.
Is 1080p “better” than 720p? Yes. But that’s not the real question. The real question… Is Blu-ray at 1080p better than Apple TV at 720p? And that’s an entirely different question.
I’ll argue that Apple TV is better (for me). On a still image projected on the screen, I can tell the difference between 1080p and 720p. With a video (which blurs the actual sharpness with motion), they are both equally appealing and whatever actual difference exists in the experience is ignored by my brain.
I don’t like collecting discs. I typically watch movies once and never again. If I really like the movie, I might watch it a second time immediately, to catch things I missed the first time. I don’t own very many DVD’s (and most of the ones I have were gifts), and I’m not going to start buying Blu-ray discs.
But do I want to rent Blu-rays discs? Not really. I’d have to buy a Blu-ray player. I’d have to exchange discs at a store or by mail. Occasionally, the disc is damaged (or it’s the wrong disc). Call me lazy when I’m watching TV, but there are more “steps” to watching a movie using a Blu-ray disc, for acquiring it to putting it into a player. If I sign up for a monthly rental service, I always feel “stress” from feeling like I have to watch the movie I currently have, or I’m not getting my money’s worth. What if I’m busy this week (or this month) and I don’t have time to watch much of anything?
So this Apple TV seems like a nice option to have, for just $99. Once I buy it, it can just sit there and not cost any more money. When I want to use it to play new content, the cost is per item and reasonable. It is a lot more convenient (no pre-planning required), and I don’t even have to get up out of my comfy seat to put a physical disc into the player. And for me, the experience is not noticeably different from 1080p.
Therefore, I think Apple TV at 720p is “better” than Blu-ray at 1080p.
Wow there are a lot of idiots commenting on this subject.
I thought the article was rather obvious, but apparently not only isn’t it obvious, but it swooshes over the heads of many of you.
Look, nobody is arguing that 1080p with an unlimited data rate and highest quality source and encoding isn’t going to look better than the same variables but with 720p.
However, when streaming over the internet, you don’t have unlimited data rates. In fact, 5mbps is really pushing it for a significant number of people.
So given a data rate that is acceptable to the amount of people you’re going to include in the pool of potential customers, the question becomes how do you produce the best quality given the data rate of X?
The other variables you can include are codec, frame resolution and frame rate. It turns out, if you doing any playing around with this at all, it’s clear to see that 720p with H.264 encoding is the way to go, and that’s why Apple chose it.
Apple *could* offer 14mbps 1080p, but then few customers would have the connectivity to support it.
If you value absolute quality over convenience, go with a Blu-Ray player and wait for the discs to arrive…or in the case of TV shows, wait months for the season to end and become available on disc.
Eventually though, bandwidth will catch up, and we can expect to see 1080p with high enough data rates to support it adequately.
I’m definitely getting the Apple TV. I really don’t watch TV at all and just rent movies 2~4 times a month at the most. The local Blockbuster went out of business, so this will be perfect for my very modest needs on my 46″ TV. I couldn’t care less about this whole 720p vs. 1080p argument.
@ungarelli
> With a 1080p video projector beaming onto a 3 meter wide screen you *CAN* distinctly tell the difference between 720p and 1080p
I don’t think that anyone has argued that on large screens you can’t tell the difference between 720p and 1080p for the same video source.
As usual for an Apple product, the geeks will whine and moan that it doesn’t do this or that edge case. But the masses will shrug, reach for their wallets, and enjoy what it does do, because it’s better than what they have, easy to implement, and cost-effective for what it does.
Aside from the debate about 720p vs 1080p, the larger disappointment for me is that Apple *could have* made the device 1080p on the output side, even if their iTunes store content max out at 720p.
My “home” movies have been at 1080p since mid 2006. It would be nice to “living room share” them to the big screen with the version made for the computer at 1080 versus having to make a second version to the Apple TV spec’ at 720. This is part of the reason why I am one of those with a Mac Mini hooked up to the TV rather than an Apple TV, as well as the still-needed optical drive.
The same more or less goes for photos which are shared through Apple TV at a lower resolution even though their native resolution is WAY more than 1080. Full HD 1080p video is *only* 2 mega pixels in camera lingo. It has been a long time since even point and shoot cameras have been that small. 720p video is only about 0.91 mega pixels. It would have been nice to see twice as many photo dots be able to be pushed and shared through the new ATV version.
Of course, what has gotten a lot of other non-spec’ attention is the $99 price point and these sacrifices are surely what was needed to achieve that or help achieve it.
The original Apple TV was not only about streaming TV shows. It provided an elegant interface to organize and view HD-quality 1080p home movies and high-quality rips from various media formats on a large display (65″). The new Apple TV would limit all sources to 720p, which misses the point of high quality 1080p home movies. The new apple TV forces a reduction in quality if you stream such sources to your TV via Apple TV. Other interfaces such as WD Live Plus are inferior in both file management, stability and overall interface, although it can handle the full HD files. I had hoped that Apple would open up the iTunes LP concept to allow for a DVD-like collection of related files and media types to be presented to the viewer.
@Mike in Daytona
Mike is correct-all broadcasts are only in 720p-no one broadcasts in 1080p.
kdemz4
You can stream 1080p right now with no wait time. Check out vudu. I have it on my lg blu Ray and it’s quite nice. So far I think they are the only ones who do.
I know netflix HD is still not great but it works.
I would assume 1080p could be a software upgrade on ATV though.
If 1080p doesn’t matter then neither does the iPhone 4s retina display. The thing is Steve hasn’t said it doesn’t matter because it does matter. However 720p is tfe limits of Internet streaming.
jesus craps kids. Apple will save a heep of money with this 720p over 1080p business. That should be reward enough without you giving them a good arse fingering while blowing their horn.
“It provided an elegant interface to organize and view HD-quality 1080p home movies and high-quality rips from various media formats on a large display (65″)”
I didn’t know it did 1080p, only up to 1080i
“Mike is correct-all broadcasts are only in 720p-no one broadcasts in 1080p.”
No, but some do in 1080i.
“If 1080p doesn’t matter then neither does the iPhone 4s retina display”
Nobody said it doesn’t matter. It just isn’t feasible in this business model.
“but like the old model, Apple’s streaming video box is still limited to 720p content”
Am I missing something. My AppleTV is set to 1080p. Why does everyone say it only does 720p?
http://www.nbc.com/Footer/HDTV/
“Am I missing something. My AppleTV is set to 1080p. Why does everyone say it only does 720p?”
It is upscaling to 1080p.
You shouldn’t care that it’s only 720p, because the video bitrate is most likely always going to be substandard anyhow. Better to buy the DVD or BlueRay, if it’s anything you care about, otherwise for TV and one-offs, meh. Your call. Not for me tho.
I don’t know…. I can sure see a HUGE difference between 720p and 1080p on my 52″ XBR9! The file size difference is a huge consideration though and a 1080p movie doesn’t do you much good if the hardware is constantly buffering and pausing your action which usually happens right in the middle of a critical portion of the film! ;o)
I am a heavy Netflix streaming user and the connection issue is a major consideration. I sure wish that Netflix and all these other sites that are offering video streaming provided more user control how the file is handled. Netflix provides no options for buffer size or resolution.
If my internet connection is working well when I start to play a movie or TV show, I get the HD feed, but just the slightest drop in speed will drop that down to a lower quality feed which usually never recovers unless I stop the playback and hit play again. Same thing happens… I start with HD, but often it drops down to something lower.
I would much prefer to have the option to wait 3-5 minutes while the system fills up a large buffer so that I can watch the HD feed through the entire movie and not have to put up with the constant jumping back and forth between HD and non HD feeds.
With Netflix on XBOX 360 at least, it seems to hardly ever go back UP to HD once it drops down, but stopping and starting playback almost always gives me an HD feed again.
If Apple TV provided more control over buffer size and stuff like that, I would be willing to spend the 100 bucks for the device just to get more control over my Netflix playback.
My SONY Bravia XBR offers even less control and info for Netflix than the 360 does. Apple should take advantage of that fact and give users more control over how their streaming content is delivered!
@LeftCoastDude
Try streaming (or just downloading) a BluRay movie – it is not practical in most of the U.S. Most people are willing to compromise for convenience. I only get about 1GB per hour download on my DSL. I am going to step up to the next level (double the theoretical max download data rate), but even 2GB per hour is not much when you are talking BluRay.
Another factor that must be considered is compression artifacts. Increasing compression to squeeze a 1080p video through a limited data pipe may very well result in a worse viewing experience than a 720p video with less compression. This effect has been noted between broadcast HDTV and cable or satellite signals carrying the same show. I see a lot of edge artifacts on satellite HDTV.
@Brau
“Of course bitrate is paramount to streaming, but that doesn’t mean 480P is better because it streams faster or more reliably. 480P streams better because the quality is poorer, less information = less bandwidth needed. Same follows with 780P. It streams better than 1080P because there’s less information and less picture quality.”
A lot has already been made of Apple’s decision to go with 720p — whether for the price point of the new Apple TV, or to best meet the needs of the most people regarding internet connection and the TV’s that most people have. There will be trade-offs.
However, what you seem to be saying is not always true. As others are arguing, it does depend greatly on the method of compression and the variables chosen to do the compressing. Certainly you are correct if you are comparing the same video using the same compression methods to produce 1080p, 720p or 480p versions, ALL else being equal (were you to even have the capability of streaming and playing high quality 1080p naturally).
I would not agree with you if you are implying that a 480p version could never be better than a 720p version, and a 720p version could never be better than a 1080p version. Starting with a 1080p source, you can actually “lose more information” through poor compression, than you would lose if you were to use a superior method of compression and reduce the resolution.
The “information” retained in a well compressed file at a lower resolution can be superior to the “information” retained in a file which remains at the original resolution but is compressed poorly for online streaming. In fact, the higher resolution only compounds and accentuates the poor compression, because the “pixellation” you often see is not, in fact, pixellation: it is not due to low resolution or to streaming and buffering issues; it is compression artefacts, blocks that appear because graduated areas of similar colors have been reduced to one color.
Apple has chosen to use H.264 for good reason. When it comes to compressing video you CAN achieve smaller file sizes/bit rates with much better visual results. That’s a fact.