HD For Indies

This does sound weird. Camera companies are supposed to put out their best product for the low-end market.

Um, and Apple does this themselves?

Why doesn't an iMac work like a G5!

Martin

MCT Images Blog
 

"So would it not be fair to complain AppleTV can only make less than full res video from 1920x1080 sources?" - MC

No, not really.

The AppleTV isn't really being billed as a High Definition device - even though it supports up to 720p24. I think the only mention of High-Def on the AppleTV site is in reference to connecting it to an HDTV.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that they don't allude to or imply HD with the AppleTV, but Apple seems to be quite honest with AppleTV's specs and clearly state the various formats it's capable of playing.

Aside from that, the AppleTV is ultimately a delivery medium and like the million other delivery possibilities, it's the end of the chain and reliant upon the quality coming out of those cameras.

Image quality/resolution at acqusition is fairly important, considering it is the basis for image quality/resolution in every other phase of production.

PS - I realize all the various pros/cons of pixelshifting, upsampling, imagesquishin, etc... and I'm not trying to be argumentative. I just feel that the comments Jobs made regarding the camcorder industry are perfectly valid.

PPS - The pot/kettle/black analogy doesn't really apply here (imho), but I understand your point, Mike.

PPPS - I had a point when I started typing this, buut that was a few beers ago...



Oh... I don't think anyone is saying that they should provide their best product for the low-end market, Martin.

They should however provide the best product they can for each of their markets, and that is something that most assuredly isn't being done.

Providing higher quality in pro/consumer camcorders (be it by full-res imagers, better codecs, etc..) would not cannibalize the sales of their higher-end products.

I hope all that makes sense... anyway. take care all, hope you're well.

ciao,

harlan
 

I believe that there's an important point here that does makes for a compelling discussion.

Mike's comment of Apple TV was very valid. Indeed, it seemed to me that Steve Jobs was justifying Apple TV's output with the "need of full HD", since current consumer cameras cannot capture or produce images at this capacity.

Of course, I believe that Apple TV should be a product that delivers the best HD, beyond 720p24. The Playstation 3 is capable of this, at 1080p and at datarates superior to 18mbps (h264).

I believe that these type of devices should be able to output at the best quality possible.

Can someone tell me what's the defined spec for HD broadcast? If I understand correctly, due to bandwith limitations, HD broadcasts will either be 1080i or 720p.

This means current HD aquisition gear and material is perfectly broadcastable. The switch to HD will be something that will last decades (speculation, of course).

These type of devices are going to be the new distribution channel of content. And its in picture quality that they can shine. Apple has the Itunes store, and the videos they sell are encoded underspec. If the other manufacturers come with better encoded videos, I would switch to them.

So the lament of "underspec" HD is, in my view, merely a justification of the lack of HD capabilities of Apple TV, a device that's becoming obsolete, even in such a limited time of its release ...