gekko513
Aug 23, 05:27 PM
What exactly was this patent for? Why doesn't it affect other players and music services besides iPod+iTunes?
Lightivity
Oct 5, 03:16 AM
Being 16x9 encoded is not the same thing as being anaporphically encoded.
Being 16x9 encoded just means that the video is meant to be viewed at a 16x9 ratio. Yes, the movies (that I have bought, anyway,) are 16x9. Specifically, Good Will Hunting is 640x344.
Anamorphically encoded refers to the act of 'stretching' 16x9 source to the height of 4x3; so that you effectively get 33% more 'vertical' data than horizontal. The TV is then supposed to 'squish' the video back to 16x9. So, for example, if you tell your DVD player that you have a '16x9 anamorphic' TV, it will output the widescreen video to fill the entire 720x480 resolution. If you tell it you have a '16x9 non-anamorphic', it will still be outputting 720x480, but will add black bars on the top and bottom, to achive a 'video' resolution of 720x405.
My TV, for example, has a special '16x9 anamorphic' mode where it actually re-aims its electron beam so that it's only drawing in the 16x9 area, but at a higher vertical density than it normally would. Meaning that I no longer have square pixels. Instead, I have pixels that are 1.33 times wider than tall. (More data packed in height-wise.)
If iTunes movies were sold as anamorphic, then Good Will Hunting would be 640x372, and rely on the TV to 'squish' the 372 high into the height that 344 should be. Thereby displaying more vertical information in the same space.
I know exactly what 'anamorphic' means, and it was precisely what I meant when saying "16x9-encoded", with the exception that 'anamorphic' is a totally confusing and natively incorrect term.
Why? Because nothing is ever stretched or squashed in digital video. The anamorphic concept has unfortunately been transfered from the celluloid world where light truly is pressed together on a 35-mm film frame only to be expanded in the theater. Now, maybe I should have added the word "enhanced for widescreen" after "16x9-encoded" but it doesn't matter: All 16x9-videomaterial is encoded so that all 720x480 pixels carry the approximate dimension of 16x9 with the aim of fitting a television that holds a display with 1.78:1 proportions. That is the very definition of 16x9. It is not anamorphical. It is not sqeezed. It is just 16x9 pixels spread across a compatible display.
Ehurtley, what I think you thought I meant, was aspect ratio. But that is something completely else. The aspect ratio is the proportions of the frame the director intended the action to be shown in, and there are several. One is 2.35:1, but the most common is 1.85:1, which most closely resembles the 1.78:1 frame that 16x9-encoded video fits right into. The only ones using the 1:78:1 aspect ratio is tv-productions. Film productions rarely use it (they stick to conventional 2.35:1 and 1.85:1).
Don't confuse the 1.78:1 aspect ratio which -- together with 1.85:1 and 2.35:1 -- is the artistic concept of framing action, with 16x9-encoding which is the technical solution of using a standard pixel resolution in a widescreen setup.
So, my question remains: is there any 16x9-encoded film content on iTunes Store?
Being 16x9 encoded just means that the video is meant to be viewed at a 16x9 ratio. Yes, the movies (that I have bought, anyway,) are 16x9. Specifically, Good Will Hunting is 640x344.
Anamorphically encoded refers to the act of 'stretching' 16x9 source to the height of 4x3; so that you effectively get 33% more 'vertical' data than horizontal. The TV is then supposed to 'squish' the video back to 16x9. So, for example, if you tell your DVD player that you have a '16x9 anamorphic' TV, it will output the widescreen video to fill the entire 720x480 resolution. If you tell it you have a '16x9 non-anamorphic', it will still be outputting 720x480, but will add black bars on the top and bottom, to achive a 'video' resolution of 720x405.
My TV, for example, has a special '16x9 anamorphic' mode where it actually re-aims its electron beam so that it's only drawing in the 16x9 area, but at a higher vertical density than it normally would. Meaning that I no longer have square pixels. Instead, I have pixels that are 1.33 times wider than tall. (More data packed in height-wise.)
If iTunes movies were sold as anamorphic, then Good Will Hunting would be 640x372, and rely on the TV to 'squish' the 372 high into the height that 344 should be. Thereby displaying more vertical information in the same space.
I know exactly what 'anamorphic' means, and it was precisely what I meant when saying "16x9-encoded", with the exception that 'anamorphic' is a totally confusing and natively incorrect term.
Why? Because nothing is ever stretched or squashed in digital video. The anamorphic concept has unfortunately been transfered from the celluloid world where light truly is pressed together on a 35-mm film frame only to be expanded in the theater. Now, maybe I should have added the word "enhanced for widescreen" after "16x9-encoded" but it doesn't matter: All 16x9-videomaterial is encoded so that all 720x480 pixels carry the approximate dimension of 16x9 with the aim of fitting a television that holds a display with 1.78:1 proportions. That is the very definition of 16x9. It is not anamorphical. It is not sqeezed. It is just 16x9 pixels spread across a compatible display.
Ehurtley, what I think you thought I meant, was aspect ratio. But that is something completely else. The aspect ratio is the proportions of the frame the director intended the action to be shown in, and there are several. One is 2.35:1, but the most common is 1.85:1, which most closely resembles the 1.78:1 frame that 16x9-encoded video fits right into. The only ones using the 1:78:1 aspect ratio is tv-productions. Film productions rarely use it (they stick to conventional 2.35:1 and 1.85:1).
Don't confuse the 1.78:1 aspect ratio which -- together with 1.85:1 and 2.35:1 -- is the artistic concept of framing action, with 16x9-encoding which is the technical solution of using a standard pixel resolution in a widescreen setup.
So, my question remains: is there any 16x9-encoded film content on iTunes Store?
whooleytoo
Mar 30, 12:45 PM
If Apple wins this argument, obviously that would prevent MS from calling theirs the "App Store" - but can they still use the phrase descriptively? I.e. "Welcome to App Market, Microsoft's app store."
If they can't (and Microsoft, Google, Blackberry etc. all trademark the others, App Shop, App Market etc.), then how do you describe what the App Store/App Shop is? I can't think of a more generic variant which could be used to describe it. "Windows" is an OS. "Internet Explorer" is a browser. "Office" is an application suite. "App Store" is...errr... an app store.
If they can't (and Microsoft, Google, Blackberry etc. all trademark the others, App Shop, App Market etc.), then how do you describe what the App Store/App Shop is? I can't think of a more generic variant which could be used to describe it. "Windows" is an OS. "Internet Explorer" is a browser. "Office" is an application suite. "App Store" is...errr... an app store.
Dustman
Apr 15, 07:40 AM
LOL, and yet you still haven't given any examples.
Right, and no where was this specified at this point in the conversation. You are simply fitting it in for your argument. FireWire was not mentioned in the original post.
I knew what article I posted and I knew what it contained and it served its purpose perfectly fine. I don't need to show you who's going to use it because it's going to be native in Ivy Bridge ALONGSIDE USB 3 as the title would suggest. There's no reason NOT to use it as the superior IO and it's already there. This isn't rocket science.
Wow, what a surprise. The OP decided to choose the route that served him better for the discussion. :rolleyes:
I explained why ThunderBolt wouldn't be another FireWire. You weren't having it and decided to pull strawman attacks.
Pointing out spelling errors and telling someone that they belong on the short bus are two different things. :rolleyes: Sounds like you have some self-esteem issues if you feel the need to tell someone they're mentally retarded over an IO discussion.
Dude, take a chill pill. Your arrogance is making you seem like a 12 year old throwing a temper tantrum.
I see Thunderbolt starting off strong, but USB 3 taking over and likely showing up on more devices than TB. USB 3 will likely become more popular, but TB is always going to be there as an option. I do not see it being built in to every PC on the market though like USB 3 will.
Right, and no where was this specified at this point in the conversation. You are simply fitting it in for your argument. FireWire was not mentioned in the original post.
I knew what article I posted and I knew what it contained and it served its purpose perfectly fine. I don't need to show you who's going to use it because it's going to be native in Ivy Bridge ALONGSIDE USB 3 as the title would suggest. There's no reason NOT to use it as the superior IO and it's already there. This isn't rocket science.
Wow, what a surprise. The OP decided to choose the route that served him better for the discussion. :rolleyes:
I explained why ThunderBolt wouldn't be another FireWire. You weren't having it and decided to pull strawman attacks.
Pointing out spelling errors and telling someone that they belong on the short bus are two different things. :rolleyes: Sounds like you have some self-esteem issues if you feel the need to tell someone they're mentally retarded over an IO discussion.
Dude, take a chill pill. Your arrogance is making you seem like a 12 year old throwing a temper tantrum.
I see Thunderbolt starting off strong, but USB 3 taking over and likely showing up on more devices than TB. USB 3 will likely become more popular, but TB is always going to be there as an option. I do not see it being built in to every PC on the market though like USB 3 will.
cube
Apr 22, 11:52 AM
then why did apple cripple the 13" macbook pro's with ****** resolution then?
Why did they cripple all MBPs having discrete graphics with Thunderbolt, instead of having a DisplayPort 1.2 port?
Why did they cripple all MBPs having discrete graphics with Thunderbolt, instead of having a DisplayPort 1.2 port?
jjhny
Mar 23, 06:23 PM
Drunk people aren't gonna be coherent enough to check their phones for check points. Let's the other sane people avoid the added traffic.
Exactly correct. I am actually more afraid of someone texting while driving. Now that actually scares me more... and how do we stop that? Make handheld devices illegal! There, more lives saved. Outlaw the iphone, android, etc.
I would say outlaw all cell phones that have text capability (/sarc).
Exactly correct. I am actually more afraid of someone texting while driving. Now that actually scares me more... and how do we stop that? Make handheld devices illegal! There, more lives saved. Outlaw the iphone, android, etc.
I would say outlaw all cell phones that have text capability (/sarc).
evilgEEk
Sep 4, 08:04 PM
This device is precisely why I haven't replaced my Airport Express (see sig). I sure hope this turns out to be true because this is exactly what I've been waiting for!
New nano and 23" iMac would be sweet too, although I don't need a new computer so it doesn't really affect me much.
New nano and 23" iMac would be sweet too, although I don't need a new computer so it doesn't really affect me much.
dime21
Feb 9, 02:10 PM
it's a nice gesture, but anti-virus software on osx is about as useful as tits on a boar.
RollTide
Apr 30, 01:36 PM
Love your Avatar. Sad day though for Michael Scott.
JimMacFan
Mar 22, 10:21 PM
Support for 32gb RAM?
fastlane1588
Aug 29, 08:36 AM
great, nothing....
mrkramer
Apr 25, 01:33 AM
Is the story even plausible?
sadly yes it is, I know some people who act similarly to the OP.
sadly yes it is, I know some people who act similarly to the OP.
WildCowboy
Aug 23, 10:04 PM
If apple paid 100 million, they should then sue their lawyers for fraud. This suit would not even come close to 100 million.
Do you mean the cost of litigation or the potential award had Apple lost the case? It does seem like Apple wasn't very confident that they could win the case...after all Creative did file the patent before Apple, Creative was awarded the patent, and Apple was denied their patent. The iPod has brought Apple billions of dollars in revenue...a judgment against them could easily have cost them much more than $100 million.
Do you mean the cost of litigation or the potential award had Apple lost the case? It does seem like Apple wasn't very confident that they could win the case...after all Creative did file the patent before Apple, Creative was awarded the patent, and Apple was denied their patent. The iPod has brought Apple billions of dollars in revenue...a judgment against them could easily have cost them much more than $100 million.
DHagan4755
Sep 14, 03:29 PM
You guys are forgetting that last year, at a photography-related event, Apple bumped the PowerBooks. That was the event where they introduced Aperture. If it happened before, it could happen again!
cirus
Apr 29, 09:53 PM
Apple's market share is growing but the fact that they supposedly (according to other posts) sell 90% of the computers that cost more than $1000 indicates that they are never going to really own the market. If they want to achieve true market dominance they need to lower their prices to attract the "I ain't paying over $800 for a fricking computer" crowd (the vast majority of people). Until they make their products affordable to the majority, they will never have a majority of the market share. Windows will always be around unless they make their products so that everyone can buy one.
They can still make record profits though.
However, if you exclude revenue that did not come from computers (ipods, itunes, etc.) and only look at products that are directly comparable (both companies sell a similar product) Microsoft has decidedly more revenue. For example there are two stores: Store 1 (pharmacy and other things including non perishable food) and Store 2 (food only). Only a small portion of store 1 's revenue comes from food. Store 1 is bigger than store 2 but it would be wrong to assume that store 1 is a bigger player in the food market as only a small portion of its revenue comes from food. It actually has less market penetration than store 2.
They can still make record profits though.
However, if you exclude revenue that did not come from computers (ipods, itunes, etc.) and only look at products that are directly comparable (both companies sell a similar product) Microsoft has decidedly more revenue. For example there are two stores: Store 1 (pharmacy and other things including non perishable food) and Store 2 (food only). Only a small portion of store 1 's revenue comes from food. Store 1 is bigger than store 2 but it would be wrong to assume that store 1 is a bigger player in the food market as only a small portion of its revenue comes from food. It actually has less market penetration than store 2.
rmhop81
Apr 22, 09:54 AM
Key things said in your statement. First, believe it or not, people do spend a lot of time out, people have lives. I'm not saying you don't necessarily but, not everyone sits at home. When the time comes when its obvious physical media is actually dead, internet connectivity sure will be more reliable at that point. Its hard to say what data charges and such will be like at that point. Also, not everyone has or is able to get unlimited data so quit acting basing your arguments on that people do. Also, I'm assuming you have AT&T. In case you didn't know AT&T is already sending out messages to people with abnormally high data usage...even to people on unlimited plans saying stop it or we will change your plan to one our current higher end plans....i.e. 4GB. So until, cellular data is stable, reliable and the carriers do NOT want to gouge the customer on data....I want my local storage. One more point, physical media is one thing and local storage in terms of what we're discussing is not exactly the same thing. You're talking about CDs, blu rays and such. I'm talking about digital storage of .mp3/.aac/.mp4 and such. Not exactly the same.
hence why i have unlimited data....when i am on the go i am not limited. do you know how much data it takes to stream something like pandora? not a lot. you are all acting like ur going to be hitting 50gb data usage by streaming something. I don't have abnormally high data usage at all. It's actually less most months than 2gb's but it's not worth it to me to give up unlimited data to save $5/month.
You still don't get it. Look at where the future is going. Look at the storage on iPads, MBA's etc. There is not a need for massive local storage like there was in the past. Heck i have a 64gb MBA and have over 40gb's free bc nothing is locally stored. I can access everything at anytime from any device. Local storage is not necessary and just makes things more difficult when wanting to get music on multiple devices. Physical media is slowly going away bc it's old technology and there are better ways to do things. Local storage is the same thing man.
hence why i have unlimited data....when i am on the go i am not limited. do you know how much data it takes to stream something like pandora? not a lot. you are all acting like ur going to be hitting 50gb data usage by streaming something. I don't have abnormally high data usage at all. It's actually less most months than 2gb's but it's not worth it to me to give up unlimited data to save $5/month.
You still don't get it. Look at where the future is going. Look at the storage on iPads, MBA's etc. There is not a need for massive local storage like there was in the past. Heck i have a 64gb MBA and have over 40gb's free bc nothing is locally stored. I can access everything at anytime from any device. Local storage is not necessary and just makes things more difficult when wanting to get music on multiple devices. Physical media is slowly going away bc it's old technology and there are better ways to do things. Local storage is the same thing man.
evilgEEk
Sep 5, 10:18 PM
My Guess:
Just think if that Data Center Apple bought was acctually a place to store alll the studios movies. Then you pay 9.99 for the rights to what ever movie and it is streamed Slingbox style to your Airport Extreme that has HDMI, Component, Composite etc outlets for your TV. Then you have your movie you bought anytime all the time but never have to take storage of your own, and never have to deal with downloading or anything.
You heard it hear first!
Actually, that idea has been pitched before. ;)
I'm not sure if I would care for that sort of service though. I'm thinking I would most likely just burn off a purchased movie to DVD, as long as it's possible of course.
Having it remotely hosted would be nice if you're going somewhere else to watch the movie, but that's dependant upon the fact that this "somewhere else" would most likely need this device as well.
It's a solid idea, I just don't see Apple doing it.
Just think if that Data Center Apple bought was acctually a place to store alll the studios movies. Then you pay 9.99 for the rights to what ever movie and it is streamed Slingbox style to your Airport Extreme that has HDMI, Component, Composite etc outlets for your TV. Then you have your movie you bought anytime all the time but never have to take storage of your own, and never have to deal with downloading or anything.
You heard it hear first!
Actually, that idea has been pitched before. ;)
I'm not sure if I would care for that sort of service though. I'm thinking I would most likely just burn off a purchased movie to DVD, as long as it's possible of course.
Having it remotely hosted would be nice if you're going somewhere else to watch the movie, but that's dependant upon the fact that this "somewhere else" would most likely need this device as well.
It's a solid idea, I just don't see Apple doing it.
asdf542
Apr 14, 01:44 PM
I was asking you what I thought would be an easy question for you to answer. I'll ask again, it will work with any USB device, do you think that is an incentive for drive vendors to invest in it? I'll wait.
Yeah, it is. USB 3.0 is not that big of a step up from USB 2.0 so those that really need the extra bandwidth will not bother with it and go straight to Thunderbolt. Simple as that. Leave your rinky dink Toys R Us low bandwidth peripherals to USB and leave the big boy peripherals to Thunderbolt.
And I've posted no strawman arguments. I didn't insult you either. It was an observation. Reading difficulty is a problem, sure, but it is a a challenge that many people face. I am hopeful that those with this limitation can better themselves perhaps by taking some courses. Dialog is always better with someone that understands and can follow the discussion.Sure you have, you've completely ignored my other post then changed the subject to reading comprehension to smokescreen the topic at hand. Oh and give me a break with your non-insult ********. You have been making jabs about short buses and taking comprehension classes over a Thunderbolt and USB discussion. If anything you are the one that needs to take some classes, maybe not on comprehension but I'm sure you get the idea.
To properly recap, I believe it could be a repeat of FW and it could end up being considered 'Mac only'. I know it is subtle that a claim it will be DOA (well, subtle like a baseball bat, I guess), but it shouldn't be this difficult for you to understand. You are really, truly, picking the wrong fight. I think we actually agree on a lot of points. I'd like it to succeed, but can see things that might be obstacles. You don't see those as obstacles or perhaps don't see them at all. But, really, stop arguing against things I never said.Actually let's do a real recap:
You agree with a claim that Thunderbolt will be Mac only
I respond with an article that simply states it won't be
You respond with the reason it won't take off as manufacturers will have to add it separately
Econgeek tells you it's a completely different scenario because they don't need a license through Apple
I tell you Intel will be supporting both
You then start with your strawman argument and ignore a portion of what I stated
You also follow that up with some insults
I respond with video proof of why Thunderbolt will be popular with many devices
You ignore then respond with more insults
Yeah, it is. USB 3.0 is not that big of a step up from USB 2.0 so those that really need the extra bandwidth will not bother with it and go straight to Thunderbolt. Simple as that. Leave your rinky dink Toys R Us low bandwidth peripherals to USB and leave the big boy peripherals to Thunderbolt.
And I've posted no strawman arguments. I didn't insult you either. It was an observation. Reading difficulty is a problem, sure, but it is a a challenge that many people face. I am hopeful that those with this limitation can better themselves perhaps by taking some courses. Dialog is always better with someone that understands and can follow the discussion.Sure you have, you've completely ignored my other post then changed the subject to reading comprehension to smokescreen the topic at hand. Oh and give me a break with your non-insult ********. You have been making jabs about short buses and taking comprehension classes over a Thunderbolt and USB discussion. If anything you are the one that needs to take some classes, maybe not on comprehension but I'm sure you get the idea.
To properly recap, I believe it could be a repeat of FW and it could end up being considered 'Mac only'. I know it is subtle that a claim it will be DOA (well, subtle like a baseball bat, I guess), but it shouldn't be this difficult for you to understand. You are really, truly, picking the wrong fight. I think we actually agree on a lot of points. I'd like it to succeed, but can see things that might be obstacles. You don't see those as obstacles or perhaps don't see them at all. But, really, stop arguing against things I never said.Actually let's do a real recap:
You agree with a claim that Thunderbolt will be Mac only
I respond with an article that simply states it won't be
You respond with the reason it won't take off as manufacturers will have to add it separately
Econgeek tells you it's a completely different scenario because they don't need a license through Apple
I tell you Intel will be supporting both
You then start with your strawman argument and ignore a portion of what I stated
You also follow that up with some insults
I respond with video proof of why Thunderbolt will be popular with many devices
You ignore then respond with more insults
Stridder44
Sep 9, 04:57 AM
I am moving up from an eMac 1 gigahertz G4. So I'm sure it will seem very fast to me. Probably more than I need.
Im still stuck on my 800 mhz G4 with it's crappy 2X Graphics card. 2X!! Oh how I wait for the day when...
Im still stuck on my 800 mhz G4 with it's crappy 2X Graphics card. 2X!! Oh how I wait for the day when...
TC400
Apr 30, 02:11 PM
Isn't this iMac design from fall of 2009? That's less than two years.
I seen it as more of a mid model refresh.
TECHNICALLY been the same since 2008.
I seen it as more of a mid model refresh.
TECHNICALLY been the same since 2008.
spine
Sep 14, 06:54 AM
I think its very telling that Jobs closed the Showtime event by saying:
"Apple is in your den, living room, car, pocket. I think you see where we are going with this."
Is he saying that Apple's plan is to be everywhere?
Probably, and a cell phone certainly completes that plan.
"Apple is in your den, living room, car, pocket. I think you see where we are going with this."
Is he saying that Apple's plan is to be everywhere?
Probably, and a cell phone certainly completes that plan.
MacRumors
Mar 30, 11:18 AM
http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com/2011/03/30/microsoft-hires-linguist-to-oppose-apples-app-store-trademark/)
http://images.macrumors.com/article/2011/03/01/135003-app_store_icon.jpg
http://images.macrumors.com/article/2011/03/01/135003-app_store_icon.jpg
Lollypop
Sep 10, 09:50 AM
Not if you transcode multiple files simultaneously - which is what I do with multiple instances of Toast 7 and Handbrake..
Plus that will probably be fixed in QuickTime 8 which is likely to come with Leopard.
Its nice to say multiple instances of everything, but thats not really ideal... do I really want to run 3 copies of final cut and 2 copies of handbrake and and and and to efficiently use my machine? doesnt running multiple copies of something also come with a bit of a memory overhead? The core wars will also run into problems, just like the Mhz war did, Mhz doesnt always mean performance, nor does core count.
Apple now has a entire lineup with dual cores, they will have to think ahead, and make their software run effectively on 4 or 8 cpu's.
The problem with the xMac as a product for Apple is two fold. Firstly, it has to be agressively priced, because, of all the Macs, it's the one that will be facing the most head-to-head competition from other vendors, and it will have the fewest Apple-only features to justify significant price differences. Secondly, it will have to be easily expandable to be competitive, and consequently, it will suffer from 3rd-party hardware and software quality issues.
I dont see how cheap hardware wil be a problem for a xMac, it isnt really a problem for the mac pro??? With 2 pci express slots people wont have to much choices (but at least they will have a choice), and its very very rare to have PC hardware that will even work on a mac, rom issues are normally to blame. But I agree apple needs to compete, and will have to be very very inovative if they go xMac classed machine.
Plus that will probably be fixed in QuickTime 8 which is likely to come with Leopard.
Its nice to say multiple instances of everything, but thats not really ideal... do I really want to run 3 copies of final cut and 2 copies of handbrake and and and and to efficiently use my machine? doesnt running multiple copies of something also come with a bit of a memory overhead? The core wars will also run into problems, just like the Mhz war did, Mhz doesnt always mean performance, nor does core count.
Apple now has a entire lineup with dual cores, they will have to think ahead, and make their software run effectively on 4 or 8 cpu's.
The problem with the xMac as a product for Apple is two fold. Firstly, it has to be agressively priced, because, of all the Macs, it's the one that will be facing the most head-to-head competition from other vendors, and it will have the fewest Apple-only features to justify significant price differences. Secondly, it will have to be easily expandable to be competitive, and consequently, it will suffer from 3rd-party hardware and software quality issues.
I dont see how cheap hardware wil be a problem for a xMac, it isnt really a problem for the mac pro??? With 2 pci express slots people wont have to much choices (but at least they will have a choice), and its very very rare to have PC hardware that will even work on a mac, rom issues are normally to blame. But I agree apple needs to compete, and will have to be very very inovative if they go xMac classed machine.
ChazUK
Apr 20, 12:14 PM
If Apple see this as an issue and fix it, do you think iPhone 3g users will see an update or are they left with their phones collecting data like this forever?
Hiç yorum yok:
Yorum Gönder