janstett
Oct 18, 11:32 AM
For those who aren't intimately familiar with HD-DVD and Blu-Ray, I've really gotten into it in the past few months so here's a quick primer:
Discs will be replaced by downloads? Let me know when I can download a movie in 1080p with lossless 5.1 sound in a reasonable amount of time. Perhaps to the iToons generation that thinks 128kbps sound is good you can live with downloaded movies, but for me I don't think CD is good enough (I'm an SACD/DVD-A geek). Likewise I don't think DVD is good enough, why do I want to go backwards (downloadable movies) instead of forward (HD disc)?
Blu-Ray is the superior format, on paper. No doubt. However, there are a couple of wrenches in the works.
First, both formats are actually 90% the same. The physical storage medium is based on the same principles (blue laser) but different implementation (mostly depth of the reflective layer in the substrate). Blu-Ray is slightly denser and offers a higher total capacity (50GB vs 34GB, something like that). Blu-Ray is actually sort-of a superset of DVD from there, once you get to what's actually on the disc. HD-DVD has a new encryption layer (they learned from CSS), Blu-Ray uses this same scheme and then puts a 2nd layer of encryption on top of it. Both use the same codecs -- MPEG2, MPEG-4 H.262, and VC1 (Microsoft's codec), and Dolby Digital Plus, Dolby Pure HD, DTS Plus, etc.
I believe movie studio support determines who wins. The studios were split 50-50 pretty much. Then, something funny happened. Some HD-DVD studios announced they would ALSO support Blu-Ray. In my mind, that meant Blu-Ray wins.
The launch came, HD-DVD came out first and Toshiba led the way with a pair of chunky, heavy, PC-based players at $500 and $1000. Everyone hated the Toshiba players, they were slow, unwieldy, and have awful remotes. A few months later Blu-Ray launched with Samsung's $1000 player, and surprisingly this player was AWFUL, and the picture quality looks worse over HDMI than component because they forgot to turn off some video filtering. Worse, the Blu-Ray transfers thus far have been very poor quality. This seems to be because Blu-Ray is leaning towards old MPEG-2 HD transfers, while HD-DVD has embraced VC1 (which is the best of the 3 video codecs for quality and size) and gotten new encodings with Microsoft's attention. Then, Toshiba started putting out firmware updates for their HD-DVD players and suddenly their players didn't suck so bad.
So here we are; the only Blu-Ray player on the market is a Samsung, Sony has no presence. We're one month away from the launch of the PS3 (which will play Blu-Ray) and the X-Box 360 HD-DVD drive.
Right now, HD-DVD has all the momentum. The Blu-Ray titles are low quality, they have no $500 player, and HD-DVD is building a head of steam.
I know I'm the minority around here when I say this, but I don't own an iPod. :eek: Yeah, it's true... I personally don't care for the MP3 format and the lesser quality offerings of iTunes. If it isn't at least CD quality, uncompressed, I don't want it. And yes, I can hear the difference on my sound system which is a separate setup from my home theatre.
:) I love iPods but I know I'm trading off quality for convenience. Meanwhile, I'm re-ripping all of my hundreds of CDs into Apple lossless format and putting the CDs in storage. It's not SACD, but at least I'll be back to CD quality.
Discs will be replaced by downloads? Let me know when I can download a movie in 1080p with lossless 5.1 sound in a reasonable amount of time. Perhaps to the iToons generation that thinks 128kbps sound is good you can live with downloaded movies, but for me I don't think CD is good enough (I'm an SACD/DVD-A geek). Likewise I don't think DVD is good enough, why do I want to go backwards (downloadable movies) instead of forward (HD disc)?
Blu-Ray is the superior format, on paper. No doubt. However, there are a couple of wrenches in the works.
First, both formats are actually 90% the same. The physical storage medium is based on the same principles (blue laser) but different implementation (mostly depth of the reflective layer in the substrate). Blu-Ray is slightly denser and offers a higher total capacity (50GB vs 34GB, something like that). Blu-Ray is actually sort-of a superset of DVD from there, once you get to what's actually on the disc. HD-DVD has a new encryption layer (they learned from CSS), Blu-Ray uses this same scheme and then puts a 2nd layer of encryption on top of it. Both use the same codecs -- MPEG2, MPEG-4 H.262, and VC1 (Microsoft's codec), and Dolby Digital Plus, Dolby Pure HD, DTS Plus, etc.
I believe movie studio support determines who wins. The studios were split 50-50 pretty much. Then, something funny happened. Some HD-DVD studios announced they would ALSO support Blu-Ray. In my mind, that meant Blu-Ray wins.
The launch came, HD-DVD came out first and Toshiba led the way with a pair of chunky, heavy, PC-based players at $500 and $1000. Everyone hated the Toshiba players, they were slow, unwieldy, and have awful remotes. A few months later Blu-Ray launched with Samsung's $1000 player, and surprisingly this player was AWFUL, and the picture quality looks worse over HDMI than component because they forgot to turn off some video filtering. Worse, the Blu-Ray transfers thus far have been very poor quality. This seems to be because Blu-Ray is leaning towards old MPEG-2 HD transfers, while HD-DVD has embraced VC1 (which is the best of the 3 video codecs for quality and size) and gotten new encodings with Microsoft's attention. Then, Toshiba started putting out firmware updates for their HD-DVD players and suddenly their players didn't suck so bad.
So here we are; the only Blu-Ray player on the market is a Samsung, Sony has no presence. We're one month away from the launch of the PS3 (which will play Blu-Ray) and the X-Box 360 HD-DVD drive.
Right now, HD-DVD has all the momentum. The Blu-Ray titles are low quality, they have no $500 player, and HD-DVD is building a head of steam.
I know I'm the minority around here when I say this, but I don't own an iPod. :eek: Yeah, it's true... I personally don't care for the MP3 format and the lesser quality offerings of iTunes. If it isn't at least CD quality, uncompressed, I don't want it. And yes, I can hear the difference on my sound system which is a separate setup from my home theatre.
:) I love iPods but I know I'm trading off quality for convenience. Meanwhile, I'm re-ripping all of my hundreds of CDs into Apple lossless format and putting the CDs in storage. It's not SACD, but at least I'll be back to CD quality.
wigga69uk
Sep 12, 08:29 AM
http://www.apple.com/de/quicktime/win.html
bottom left of page
bottom left of page
marktwain
Nov 23, 07:25 PM
I hear Apple retail stores open as early as 7am!!
Actually, they all seem to have different opening times...you can check the hours here...
http://www.apple.com/retail/holidayhours/
Actually, they all seem to have different opening times...you can check the hours here...
http://www.apple.com/retail/holidayhours/
CaoCao
Apr 27, 10:38 PM
Newsflash, homo sapien sapien is just another species of mammal, like any other.
So what?
Most think they are wolves/dogs
So what?
Most think they are wolves/dogs
more...
dynamo22
Oct 6, 12:26 PM
wow first the Verizon network has the most 3G coverage, now they say that BlackBerry's run better on it too! I think big red is looking really good come December :p
jonnysods
Apr 15, 04:39 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_2 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Mobile/8H7)
Suckaz. Closed system works best.
Suckaz. Closed system works best.
more...
avkills
Sep 12, 06:58 AM
Apple would be stupid to make a branded portable projector. That market is already saturated by Epson, Eiki, InFocus, NEC, Sony, Panasonic, need I go on...
I think the wireless video streaming device makes more sense. Make the wireless part interchangeable for future upgrades. 720p H.264 could easily stream over 10mbit connections. Better include a HDMI connector, component video out, s-video out and optical/analog audio. If not, it is dead in the water.
-mark
I think the wireless video streaming device makes more sense. Make the wireless part interchangeable for future upgrades. 720p H.264 could easily stream over 10mbit connections. Better include a HDMI connector, component video out, s-video out and optical/analog audio. If not, it is dead in the water.
-mark
Mord
Apr 27, 01:53 PM
I really never meant to come across as having any sort of problem with or thinking anything less of transgendered people.... But I can understand how Mord would get that impression given some of the previous posts in the thread...
No hard feelings :)
No hard feelings :)
more...
3CCD
Aug 13, 02:32 PM
If they came out with new displays by the new year that would be wonderful. Looking to get a MBP with the new OSX when it comes out. If new displays come out, I'll be tempted to get one.
Mad Mac Maniac
May 3, 01:55 PM
And why is this on mac rumors.
Does it really matter what the competition does.
I was thinking the same thing. But you have a funny screen name for not wanting info about Android... :rolleyes:
Does it really matter what the competition does.
I was thinking the same thing. But you have a funny screen name for not wanting info about Android... :rolleyes:
more...
penter
Dec 25, 02:20 PM
Yes they do. BUT not when it means a crap ass experience for the customer. Because that just results in returns, complaints etc. LTE right now is only in a handful of major cities and not even perfect coverage there.
As for the whole "but android" argument, Apple doesn't do things just because everyone else does. Which is why we still don't have blu-ray in their computers despite every other computer (including even some so called netbooks) having had blu-ray drives for at least the last year. We also don't have Flash in the iphone etc despite every other smart phone having Flash and every other announced tablet saying it would.
I don't buy the flash argument. Thats actually a pretty complicated subject...
But I see what you mean.
Now, can anyone please explain what the difference between 'true 4G' and LTE?
Is LTE something else entirely? Something that bridges the CDMA and GSM technologies, allowing CDMA phones to use chips, and chip-based phones to be compatible with CDMA networks?
I've wikipediaed the whole deal, but i don't really get it...
It seems like there are *two* kinds of LTE as well. Is that where the difference between true 4G and fake 4G lies? One is LTE, and the other is TRUE LTE?
And how can a carrier say it has 4G, if its not *really* 4G? is it just a glorified 3G system?
On a different note, Christmas is here... any news on the Verizon iPhone release?
Sry for so many questions
As for the whole "but android" argument, Apple doesn't do things just because everyone else does. Which is why we still don't have blu-ray in their computers despite every other computer (including even some so called netbooks) having had blu-ray drives for at least the last year. We also don't have Flash in the iphone etc despite every other smart phone having Flash and every other announced tablet saying it would.
I don't buy the flash argument. Thats actually a pretty complicated subject...
But I see what you mean.
Now, can anyone please explain what the difference between 'true 4G' and LTE?
Is LTE something else entirely? Something that bridges the CDMA and GSM technologies, allowing CDMA phones to use chips, and chip-based phones to be compatible with CDMA networks?
I've wikipediaed the whole deal, but i don't really get it...
It seems like there are *two* kinds of LTE as well. Is that where the difference between true 4G and fake 4G lies? One is LTE, and the other is TRUE LTE?
And how can a carrier say it has 4G, if its not *really* 4G? is it just a glorified 3G system?
On a different note, Christmas is here... any news on the Verizon iPhone release?
Sry for so many questions
mr.steevo
Oct 3, 03:08 PM
Hi,
Your Widget.
http://www.apple.com/downloads/dashboard/status/macworldexpo2007countdown.html
s.
Your Widget.
http://www.apple.com/downloads/dashboard/status/macworldexpo2007countdown.html
s.
more...
storage
Oct 10, 06:09 PM
Wireless YouTubePod! ;)
jonnysods
Sep 30, 07:42 AM
Very modest house for a guy of his wealth. Very impressive.
more...
Rodimus Prime
Apr 22, 07:58 PM
What exactly (specifically) is your worry?
The fact that I can not opt out. That it tracking me no matter were I go and I do not get a choice in the matter.
On top of that the more services that do this the more likely that it will be stolen as it already been shown Apple way of doing it is craptature as it is not even encrypted compared to Googles which is.
This makes it very easy to steal. I know the cell phone company do it and when a hole was found in their system and it was reported to them they were very quick to plug it (got that little bit from NPR today) and I do not believe they are selling off the information to advertisers.
It more I want to know what info is collect and what is done with it and also the option to opt out. Now would I chances are no I would not opt out depending on what it is. I trust Google to be more honest and open than I trust Apple to do but not like I trust Google that much in that department biggest difference is Google will be more up front about it. Apple will not say a thing about it.
My guess Apple is collecting this information for iAd which seems to link up with when iAds was launched.
The fact that I can not opt out. That it tracking me no matter were I go and I do not get a choice in the matter.
On top of that the more services that do this the more likely that it will be stolen as it already been shown Apple way of doing it is craptature as it is not even encrypted compared to Googles which is.
This makes it very easy to steal. I know the cell phone company do it and when a hole was found in their system and it was reported to them they were very quick to plug it (got that little bit from NPR today) and I do not believe they are selling off the information to advertisers.
It more I want to know what info is collect and what is done with it and also the option to opt out. Now would I chances are no I would not opt out depending on what it is. I trust Google to be more honest and open than I trust Apple to do but not like I trust Google that much in that department biggest difference is Google will be more up front about it. Apple will not say a thing about it.
My guess Apple is collecting this information for iAd which seems to link up with when iAds was launched.
BiikeMike
Jan 9, 12:03 AM
Sweet, somthing to check out post work, pre gym!
How long is the keynote speech anyway?
How long is the keynote speech anyway?
more...
solvs
Jan 12, 11:34 PM
Bloggers are not professionals anyways.
Some of them are trying to be, but as most of the rest of the posters here are trying to say, things like this just make it harder for them to be taken as such.
Some of them are trying to be, but as most of the rest of the posters here are trying to say, things like this just make it harder for them to be taken as such.
arn
Apr 21, 10:51 AM
Good feature! The look doesn't match much of the rest of the forum theme, though.
Quick edit: what now? Can we filter a thread for only positive posts? Only posts above N points? Can we search for posts above a certain rating?
we'll be tweaking things and seeing about using the scores in more useful ways
arn
Quick edit: what now? Can we filter a thread for only positive posts? Only posts above N points? Can we search for posts above a certain rating?
we'll be tweaking things and seeing about using the scores in more useful ways
arn
Mac Marc
Apr 25, 12:08 PM
I seriously doubt Apple is going to change the screen size so slightly because it may require a lot of software re-writes (unless the apps are truly resolution independent).
Perhaps, the screen only appears bigger because the borders will relatively shrink in the next generation????
Perhaps, the screen only appears bigger because the borders will relatively shrink in the next generation????
Nekbeth
Apr 26, 10:41 PM
Nekbeth, you didn't thank Philip Endecott, who posted the solution to your problem on the Apple forum about three hours before wlh99 posted essentially the same solution here.
I did PhoneyDeveloper, it just that his explanation only stops the timer, if I press StartTimer again, the seconds continue where they left. e.g.
startTimer 59,58, cancel.. startTimer 57,56 and so on.
mmm.. I see where there might be problem (my fault, not Phillips).. I'll come back..
I did PhoneyDeveloper, it just that his explanation only stops the timer, if I press StartTimer again, the seconds continue where they left. e.g.
startTimer 59,58, cancel.. startTimer 57,56 and so on.
mmm.. I see where there might be problem (my fault, not Phillips).. I'll come back..
twoodcc
Jul 30, 10:08 PM
too bad osx cant utilise GPUs and whatnot. :( otherwise id let my 4850 have a crack - better then the CPU thats for sure!
yeah i wish they had gpu folding for mac os x. but really, there aren't that many mac video cards
yeah i wish they had gpu folding for mac os x. but really, there aren't that many mac video cards
Arkanok
Jul 21, 11:29 AM
Starting to get annoyed by Apple...who cares if other brands have a similar issue. The issue is with the iPhone4, which is their product, and should be taking responsibility for. This is such a childish thing to do. I really thought Apple would be better than this.
:(
Annoyed by Apple? I'm sure Apple is annoyed by all the people who are saying that Apple doesn't know how to make phones, especially when the problem they're getting flak from is also reproduced on other phones just as easilly, but no other companies are getting **** on by the public and media for also having this issue? Why is it ONLY Apple that gets dumped on?
:(
Annoyed by Apple? I'm sure Apple is annoyed by all the people who are saying that Apple doesn't know how to make phones, especially when the problem they're getting flak from is also reproduced on other phones just as easilly, but no other companies are getting **** on by the public and media for also having this issue? Why is it ONLY Apple that gets dumped on?
jrtc27
Apr 30, 12:59 PM
Do you mean you like the change, or the reverse of the change?
You only have to look at the second screen shot to see why the slider was potentially confusing�
Image (http://images.macrumors.com/article/2011/04/29/162642-lion_subpane_slider_old_500.jpg)
When there are only two options, the inactive option looks a lot like a depressed button.
Apple's always fiddling with this. You have to wonder why they didn't just stick with the old tabbed interface, which is arguably the most instantly recognisable way of switching window views. I guess there's a bit more flexibility in buttons, in terms of their placement� or maybe they're just trying to think different.
I mean I like the change away from the slider. The slider was confusing (I'm a techie, and I was confused at first when I saw videos and screenshots), and the squarer buttons look better than the old style in Snow Leopard, especially with the two shades of grey - they are much more modern and much subtler.
You only have to look at the second screen shot to see why the slider was potentially confusing�
Image (http://images.macrumors.com/article/2011/04/29/162642-lion_subpane_slider_old_500.jpg)
When there are only two options, the inactive option looks a lot like a depressed button.
Apple's always fiddling with this. You have to wonder why they didn't just stick with the old tabbed interface, which is arguably the most instantly recognisable way of switching window views. I guess there's a bit more flexibility in buttons, in terms of their placement� or maybe they're just trying to think different.
I mean I like the change away from the slider. The slider was confusing (I'm a techie, and I was confused at first when I saw videos and screenshots), and the squarer buttons look better than the old style in Snow Leopard, especially with the two shades of grey - they are much more modern and much subtler.
Wacker293
Apr 16, 04:49 AM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3 like Mac OS X; en-gb) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Mobile/8F190)
Looks to me that Google are thinking if Amazon arent breaking there backs to get record labels on board,then why the hell should we!! There just planting a seed in this article saying "talks are breaking down" to get us ready for music lockers rather than an iTunes competetor.
Looks to me that Google are thinking if Amazon arent breaking there backs to get record labels on board,then why the hell should we!! There just planting a seed in this article saying "talks are breaking down" to get us ready for music lockers rather than an iTunes competetor.
