![]() |
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||
![]() |
|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread | Display Modes | |
|
|
||||
|
|
#1 |
|
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 10
|
One of the big drawbacks of HD pay per view movies with a company like Shaw is the fact that they use compression (and lots of it) to squeeze as much content into the pipeline as possible. I'm wondering whether anyone know's whether donwloading HD movies onto an Apple TV will give better picture quality?
|
|
|
| Sponsored Links | |||
Advertisement | |||
|
|
#2 |
|
Moderator
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Gatineau and Ottawa
Posts: 10,185
|
All HDTV formats are compressed. That includes Apple. Since Shaw is using MPEG2 compression they are at a disadvantage because newer video formats are better at the same bitrate. So a 12Mbps MPEG2 movie will not look as good as a 12Mbps H.264 movie. However, you may find that the downloadable movies are at a lower bitrate or at 720P and then you may find the quality suffers.
Someone who has downloaded these products may be able to tell you what the typical resolution and bitrate is. I have not. Edit: I just checked and iTunes movies are capped at 5Mbps and 720P. I would say they will not be as good as Shaw. But others may disagree.
__________________
Tip: See an offending post? Don't reply, report it by clicking on the 'Report Post' icon. |
|
|
|
|
#3 |
|
Moderator
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Vancouver, BC
Posts: 4,645
|
Considering the general lack of horsepower of the ATV's CPU/GPU combination, I suspect the bitrate of an HD download is significantly lower than one might find in a typical 720p or 1080p .mkv file. My ATV chokes on 720p or 1080p content that my PS3 handles with ease.
That said, the material I've downloaded on my ATV doesn't look appreciably worse than Shaw HD, but it's not remotely Blu-ray quality and it doesn't compare to a high profile .mkv/h.264 file. |
|
|
|
|
#4 |
|
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 10
|
That's good to know. I almost made the mistake of assuming that because Apple TV downloads the movie in about an hour that it meant better quality. Then I remembered, NEVER assume anything these days. Companies will ALLWAYS try and give you the very least that they can get away with and assuming/hoping otherwise is usually a mistake.
|
|
|
|
|
#5 |
|
Moderator
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Vancouver, BC
Posts: 4,645
|
In fairness to Apple, I think they deliver the best quality they can. The limitation is the AppleTV hardware. Apple ensures the iTunes downloads are capable of playing on an ATV and encode them accordingly.
|
|
|
|
|
#6 |
|
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Toronto, Canada
Posts: 672
|
Here's a comparason of AppleTV HD vs...
http://www.ilounge.com/index.php/art...he-comparison/ |
|
|
|
|
#7 |
|
Moderator
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Vancouver, BC
Posts: 4,645
|
There's a couple of issues with that comparison as it relates to the original post. First, the STB is an SA8300. Different box, but also completely different headend. There are significant differences in cable systems and there's no way to say that Shaw is better or worse than the one reviewed. Also, that particular movie was slightly zoomed by the cableco which would affect the comparison.
|
|
|
|
|
#8 |
|
Member #1
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Toronto
Posts: 47,492
|
One man's experience of video quality from poorest to best on 1080p projector
__________________
As of January 2012, I am no longer the owner of the Digital Home website. If you have questions about the operation of the site, please contact VSAdmin. For personal inquiries contact me at the Hugh Thompson website. |
|
|
|
|
#9 |
|
Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: /dev/null
Posts: 2,667
|
I would support hugh's ranking, perhaps with the exception that cable On Demand HD (versus regular HD channels) is worse than AppleTV.
|
|
|
![]() |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|