# Blu-Ray vs. AppleTV



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

We just got a 46" 1080p HDTV along with a digital cable box (quite liking the HDTV broadcasts, making it the old NTSC broadcasts look quite blurry by comparison). We've also had an TV for a year and a half now, which we make extensive use of for both TV shows (via EyeTV Hybrid) and now renting movies. 

I noticed that with a 1080p TV, the option to output the TV at 1080p exists as well as the lower resolution options (our other TV could go as high as 720p or 1080i). Even the HD movie trailers look great with the TV.

So my question is: what advantage does Blu-Ray really have over TV, apart from access to DVD extras and such? Does the ability to rent 1080p videos directly off the net not make Blu-ray redundant? I'll likely buy a Blu-ray player at some point anyway, but I'm not sure why.


----------



## phuviano (Sep 14, 2005)

Here's a good comparison.

Apple TV 2.0 vs. Blu-Ray, DVD & HD Cable: The Comparison [updated] | iLounge Article

Do you live in Canada? If so, the content vs. the usa content on apple tv is different. I look up my favourite show "Heroes". You can't download season 1 or 2, but its available on blu-ray. Also looked up "kill bill", nothing was found. So I assume I can't download that through apple tv as well.

So my point here is that you are limited to what you can download if you live in Canada.

Ignore the above if you live in the US.


----------



## chas_m (Dec 2, 2007)

phuviano said:


> Ignore the above if you live in the US.


Or have -- and one can easily get -- a US iTunes account in addition to one's Canadian one.


----------



## phuviano (Sep 14, 2005)

chas_m said:


> Or have -- and one can easily get -- a US iTunes account in addition to one's Canadian one.


I didn't know you could do that. I just did a google search on how to do it. Thanks for the info.


----------



## polywog (Aug 9, 2007)

fjnmusic said:


> So my question is: what advantage does Blu-Ray really have over TV, apart from access to DVD extras and such? Does the ability to rent 1080p videos directly off the net not make Blu-ray redundant? I'll likely buy a Blu-ray player at some point anyway, but I'm not sure why.


Keep in mind 1080p is just the resolution, it doesn't speak to how heavily compressed that image is. Blu-ray will likely be better than rented movies on Apple TV, or downloaded movies, since they aren't likely as heavily compressed. 

But the huge advantage is Audio - you only get one audio track with Apple TV rentals, DD5.1. Blu-ray on the other hand has many more, and much higher quality audio tracks; Dolby TrueHD and DTS HD Master for instance are both losslessly compressed, and LPCM multitrack is not compressed at all.


----------



## smellybook (Aug 31, 2006)

*I personally have both an ATV & Blu-ray and*

I myself cannot see the difference between 1080i and 1080p, and I've also read that the human eye cannot detect the difference.


I use both equally,,,


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

smellybook said:


> I myself cannot see the difference between 1080i and 1080p, and I've also read that the human eye cannot detect the difference.
> 
> 
> I use both equally,,,


Ditto.

And I have to say that far, FAR, too many people claimed there was significant differences between the two. There is NONE; I've yet to see any interlacing anomalies from my 1080i LCD TV.

I've heard a few people state that 1080i is not good for watching sports or gaming, but let me tell you it's a load of bullspit. Unless your TV has a refresh rate of 30Hz or less (which doesn't even exist), there is no way one will notice.

So if you're looking for a decent HDTV for a good price, check out the 1080i models and save yourself a couple of hundred bucks.


----------



## jeepguy (Apr 4, 2008)

MannyP Design said:


> Ditto.
> 
> And I have to say that far, FAR, too many people claimed there was significant differences between the two. There is NONE; I've yet to see any interlacing anomalies from my 1080i LCD TV.
> 
> ...


If the tv can deinterlace 1080i properly, you can't tell the difference, but what happens with some LCD/Plasma/projectors, is that they incorrectly De interlace 1080i and instead you get the same 540 field twice, and this is very noticeable. This was a common problem with *early* 1080i and 1080p TV


----------



## satchmo (May 26, 2005)

The way I understand it, is that Blu-ray is the only true 1080p signal you're going to get. So you'll get pixel for pixel w/o scaling.

Everything else is SENT as 720p given the limitations of bandwidth. It may start out as higher, but compressed to 720p. That's why 1080p sets are over-rated unless you're a Blu-ray user.


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

Except that AppleTv can also output at 1080p (or 1080i or 720p--take your pick) and the result is pretty amazing. Is a 1080p source not a 1080p source?


----------



## Macified (Sep 18, 2003)

fjnmusic said:


> Except that AppleTv can also output at 1080p (or 1080i or 720p--take your pick) and the result is pretty amazing. Is a 1080p source not a 1080p source?


No, it isn't. If the file is really only encoded at 720 and the Apple TV is upscaling to 1080, it will be missing real information and only be providing it's own approximation of what it thinks should be there.

If the file is truly 1080 then there will be no upscaling.

You can get DVD players that will upscale the signal for 1080 sets but the disc itself doesn't have the actual 1080 content, just best guess.


----------



## crawford (Oct 8, 2005)

fjnmusic said:


> Is a 1080p source not a 1080p source?


But the AppleTV is not outputting a 1080p source from its rentals. 
Still, the HD rentals look pretty good on my 720p TV.


----------



## genexxa (Jun 10, 2006)

1080p is amazing if your all watching 1080p content on a very large tv.. I have a 50 inch plasma and I can't see the difference... I have found a very good link about TV resolution and distance between the viewer and the TV... have fun!

Chart: 1080P Does Matter - CarltonBale.com


So considering I'm using a 50 inch:

720p full benefits is at 10 feet
1080p full benefits is at 6-7 feet which is pretty close for a tv that big...


----------



## polywog (Aug 9, 2007)

MannyP Design said:


> Ditto.
> 
> And I have to say that far, FAR, too many people claimed there was significant differences between the two. There is NONE; I've yet to see any interlacing anomalies from my 1080i LCD TV.


If it's an LCD, it's not 1080i - it's either 1080p or 720p. If you're playing back a 1080i source, the end result is either 1080p, or 720p, depending which TV you have.

The difference between 1080i and 720p on a CRT HDTV is pretty phenomenal.


----------



## johnnyspade (Aug 24, 2007)

In my experience, the quality of the picture is related to the size of the TV and how far you sit from it. To my eye, the movies I watch on BluRay are a little better than the upconverted 1080p HD movies I rent and watch on the Apple TV. The BluRay movies also look nicer if I move closer to the TV.


----------



## i-rui (Sep 13, 2006)

kind of repeating what others have said but....

1080p is just the resolution. blue-ray will have MUCH less compression than a streaming video (or even a ripped and compressed video). If you you were to compare files sizes between the original blue-ray vid and the file used for streaming I'm guessing the blue-ray video file would be 4 or 5 times bigger. Many people don't notice the compression artifacts, but i constantly notice them (even on my startchoice HD signal)

Also the advantages of 1080p is only truly noticeable on 50" plus TVs.


----------



## Griller (Jan 17, 2002)

AppleTV is good but Blu-ray is the best.

Plain and simple. Blu-ray uses far less compression since the Blu-ray discs can hold 25GB (50GB or more on dual-layer), thus the files can be larger and are more "pure" (aka 'less compression'). AppleTV uses more compression so that the files are small and so they can be downloaded in a tolerable time.

AppleTV files are what, 1 to 2 GBs? You're definitely losing quality when compared to a natural Blu-ray.



i-rui said:


> Also the advantages of 1080p is only truly noticeable on 50" plus TVs.


"Truly"? Personally, even if you have 42" HDTV LCD you'll still be amazed.


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

polywog said:


> *If it's an LCD, it's not 1080i* - it's either 1080p or 720p. If you're playing back a 1080i source, the end result is either 1080p, or 720p, depending which TV you have.
> 
> The difference between 1080i and 720p on a CRT HDTV is pretty phenomenal.


I'm not sure what you're trying to say. Because the television in question _is_ a Sony Bravia 40" LCD 1080i (KDL40S2010 if I recall; which is spec'd for 480i/480p 540p/960i 720p/1080i); it's counterpart was a 1080p for an extra $200±.


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

genexxa said:


> 1080p is amazing if your all watching 1080p content on a very large tv.. I have a 50 inch plasma and I can't see the difference... I have found a very good link about TV resolution and distance between the viewer and the TV... have fun!
> 
> Chart: 1080P Does Matter - CarltonBale.com
> 
> ...


Of course, without my contacts or glasses, it's all a blur to me.


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

i-rui said:


> kind of repeating what others have said but....
> 
> 1080p is just the resolution. blue-ray will have MUCH less compression than a streaming video (or even a ripped and compressed video). If you you were to compare files sizes between the original blue-ray vid and the file used for streaming I'm guessing the blue-ray video file would be 4 or 5 times bigger. Many people don't notice the compression artifacts, but i constantly notice them (even on my startchoice HD signal)
> 
> Also the advantages of 1080p is only truly noticeable on 50" plus TVs.


Aha. Now this I think I understand. It's like an MP3 ripped at 160kbps will sound pretty good, almost flawless, depending on your ears, but is still a fraction of the size of the original recording on the CD, which are usually at least 320kbps and often ten times the file size.


----------



## polywog (Aug 9, 2007)

MannyP Design said:


> I'm not sure what you're trying to say. Because the television in question _is_ a Sony Bravia 40" LCD 1080i (KDL40S2010 if I recall; which is spec'd for 480i/480p 540p/960i 720p/1080i); it's counterpart was a 1080p for an extra $200±.


The specs describe the source that can be displayed, but not what is actually being displayed.

LCDs are both fixed resolution and progressive scan by nature. Your particular TV has a native screen resolution of 720p. It cannot display 1080 lines, and it cannot (directly) display an interlaced image, it has to be processed first.

In simplest terms - any source that is less than 720p will be upscaled before being displayed. A 1080i source will be scaled down to display in 720p. There is of course more to the process, but you get the idea. The end result is that everything your eye sees on your particular TV is "in" 720p, although the upscaled images will look muddier, and the downscaled images may not look as crisp,or at least as accurate, as a native resolution source because of the processing required to display it.

Back to your original statement, you save a couple of hundred dollars buying a 1080i LCD, but you also drop 300+ lines of resolution.


----------



## polywog (Aug 9, 2007)

i-rui said:


> Also the advantages of 1080p is only truly noticeable on 50" plus TVs.


It's much more a function of viewing distance than screen size


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

I don't think you can buy HD material from the iTMS - you can only rent it. Another potential advantage of BluRay is that some more recent discs have profile 2.0 which enables BDplus which is extra interactive material you can download over the internet. Current extra BD+ content is pretty uninspiring but this may change (some older BluRay players don't support this, some can be updated via firmware and addition of a USB memory stick). Older players are also more limited in their ability to output certain audio codecs but if you have a good receiver, its probably best to let it do the processing anyway.

The advantages of the ATV are really its convenience - not having to go out to rent/buy content. Most films aren't really worth owning and those that are, you don't lose much by renting. I would expect Apple to increase the image quality of HD content over time. Current limitations are really more to do with bandwidth and download time.

BluRay players are now available for around the same price as DVD players ($200-300) were a few years ago. They upscale DVDs so if you have an HDTV your DVD collection will look better. The PS3 is also a great BluRay player and has been updated to the 2.0 profile by Sony. It's only downside is that its fan tends to come on as it warms up and is noisy.

I think the two technologies are currently complementary but I doubt BluRay will be around as long as DVDs since downloading is so much more convenient.


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

It's really almost a point of diminishing returns, isn't it? I'm quite impressed by the visual clarity of HD broadcasts, but at the moment, HD means 720p (which is actually higher than 1080i, or its equivalent 540p, as I understand it). If 720p looks smoking hot when I view it on any source, and the AppleTV compresses enough to make the film downloadable and watchable in under a minute, without sacrificing too much in terms of picture or sound, then, at least for now, for me the choice is obvious. Buy a Blu-Ray player if I want to go to the video store, or use the AppleTV if I want to order from home.


----------



## Macified (Sep 18, 2003)

fjnmusic said:


> It's really almost a point of diminishing returns, isn't it? I'm quite impressed by the visual clarity of HD broadcasts, but at the moment, HD means 720p (which is actually higher than 1080i, or its equivalent 540p, as I understand it). If 720p looks smoking hot when I view it on any source, and the AppleTV compresses enough to make the film downloadable and watchable in under a minute, without sacrificing too much in terms of picture or sound, then, at least for now, for me the choice is obvious. Buy a Blu-Ray player if I want to go to the video store, or use the AppleTV if I want to order from home.


I agree. I was recently asked by a family member why I haven't installed BluRay yet and my answer was that download quality/convenience popped up right when the BluRay vs. (whatever the loser was) was in full swing. While the two top quality contenders duked it out, downloads filled the void. Even though BluRay won, I still won't install it yet (but I'm getting close just for the sake of doing it). The real value to me in BluRay is when I have a BluRay writer in my computer to fit 50GB of data on a platter. Then I'll start buying BluRay movies and ripping to computer (for convenience). We live in the age of convenience and, I have to say, that the quality is nearly on par so I am not missing much.

In all honesty though, I have neither an AppleTV nor a BluRay player. My comments are based purely on my own speculation, analysis and review of what I have seen in-store and in demonstrations. While I'm not on-board with BluRay, I am not happy with the AppleTV yet and don't know if I ever will be.


----------



## Vexel (Jan 30, 2005)

I have both. Blu-ray quality is nothing short of spectacular on a 1080p TV. But, as others have mentioned.. the AppleTV displaying at 720p is pretty spectacular as well. 

I'm not one that likes to keep a movie collection in hard form. The AppleTV has been great for that. All of my purchases stay on my computer and thus the AppleTV as well. Even the standard def movie purchases are easily watchable on my 1080p TV. Tho, the quality is nothing compared to the same movie in Blu-Ray.

They're different leagues.. but, both are absolutely watchable.


----------



## chas_m (Dec 2, 2007)

If we're ONLY talking about picture quality, then I concede the argument to Blu-Ray (at least with well-mastered titles; not all BR discs are).

But the AppleTV imho offers a whole hell of a lot more than Blu-Ray ever will: playing photo slideshows direct from iTunes, screensaver of your own photos (looks AMAZING!) etc, video rental store right on your TV, even for HD; music videos and converted "web finds," movie trailers, music with album art, PODCASTS up to and including HD quality; YouTube and much more -- all with nary a commercial in sight!


----------



## shonline (Nov 9, 2007)

fjnmusic said:


> but at the moment, HD means 720p (which is actually higher than 1080i, or its equivalent 540p, as I understand it).


I'm confused - are you saying that all HD broadcast TV is 720P... or are correctly noting that the Apple TV HD content is 720P.

If you are saying that Tv is only 720P, then that would be incorrect as a number of broadcasters - including CBC use 1080i.


----------



## polywog (Aug 9, 2007)

chas_m said:


> If we're ONLY talking about picture quality, then I concede the argument to Blu-Ray (at least with well-mastered titles; not all BR discs are).


Sound quality far, FAR surpasses what can be had on AppleTV. Poor mastering is poor mastering - not all AppleTV titles are well mastered either...



chas_m said:


> But the AppleTV imho offers a whole hell of a lot more than Blu-Ray ever will: playing photo slideshows direct from iTunes, screensaver of your own photos (looks AMAZING!) etc, video rental store right on your TV, even for HD; music videos and converted "web finds," movie trailers, music with album art, PODCASTS up to and including HD quality; YouTube and much more -- all with nary a commercial in sight!


Don't get me wrong, I love my apple TV too, but the lion's share of Blu-ray players in consumer's hands can do all of that, directly interface with various media types including playing DVDs without having to burn cycles and waste space ripping them, play "web finds" without having to convert them, plus surf the web, voice and video chat and play games.


----------



## RunTheWorldOnMac (Apr 23, 2006)

Some US broadcasters use 720p, others use 1080i; by the time they hit your eyes, they are very similar. The only signal that produces 1080p is Blu-Ray. 1080p will be a while before it is available on iTunes, or your television due to the amount of data it requires. Bell Express Vu apparently has the ability to receive a 1080p signal with it's receivers.

As an example of how much data we're talking about; a friend tried to download a compressed Blu-Ray movie; it was 13G.


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

As I understand it, 720p is about the maximum signal current internet bandwidth will allow. Don't forget, 720p is actually a higher resolution than 1080i (equivalent to 540p). You'll notice this right away in the hierarchical rankings on your Apple TV settings. Even 1080p is ranked lower, presumably because there are no actual 1080p sources too show just yet.

In due time, Tattoo, in due time.


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

No. 1080i is NOT the equivalent of 540p. 1080 lines of picture information is still being conveyed, just not as a progressive image.

This is a common misconception.


----------



## jtmac (Apr 23, 2003)

Thanks for clearing that up MannyP

I'm going to get a 1080p monitor soon.
Right now, I have a 720p plasma.
I haven't got a Blu-Ray player yet, but I'm quite happy with my 720p AppleTV output.
I have my ExpressVu set to 720p output. I wonder if I should try it at 1080i?


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

Try this for a decent explanation of the difference between 720p and 1080i.

YouTube - 720p vs 1080i HD Explained


----------



## wcg (Oct 13, 2007)

Let's not forget that if so inclined, you can install extras on your Apple TV like Boxee and XMBC. Boxee adds all sorts of goodies for playing back digital media - it doesn't give you better quality but gives you lots of choices for content. I love my Apple TV, I'll get a Blu Ray player when they're cheap and rentals and discs are not exorbitant.


----------



## jtmac (Apr 23, 2003)

fjnmusic said:


> Try this for a decent explanation of the difference between 720p and 1080i.
> 
> YouTube - 720p vs 1080i HD Explained


Thanks for that YouTube link fjnmusic
I'll keep my Expressvu set to 720p


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

fjnmusic said:


> Try this for a decent explanation of the difference between 720p and 1080i.
> 
> YouTube - 720p vs 1080i HD Explained


1080i still has 1080 lines of detail vs. 720.

That URL only explains why 720p offers a better viewing experience--if your TV is spec'd at *60 Hz*. If your TV has a refresh rate of 120Hz, the gap closes and 1080i looks pretty frick'n good.


----------



## polywog (Aug 9, 2007)

MannyP Design said:


> 1080i still has 1080 lines of detail vs. 720.
> 
> That URL only explains why 720p offers a better viewing experience--if your TV is spec'd at *60 Hz*. If your TV has a refresh rate of 120Hz, the gap closes and 1080i looks pretty frick'n good.


Unless your TV can display 1080 lines, 1080i makes no bit of difference at any refresh rate. The image still has to be de-interlaced AND scaled down otherwise.


----------



## mc3251 (Sep 28, 2007)

> I have both. Blu-ray quality is nothing short of spectacular on a 1080p TV. But, as others have mentioned.. the AppleTV displaying at 720p is pretty spectacular as well.


To say there is no diff between 1080i and 1080p is just wrong. Take a look at broadcast 1080i movies and compare them to a well mastered BR version of the movie and the difference is significant. At it's best, BR is jawdropping.
The audio is a whole 'nother story as well......


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

mc3251 said:


> To say there is no diff between 1080i and 1080p is just wrong. Take a look at broadcast 1080i movies and compare them to a well mastered BR version of the movie and the difference is significant. At it's best, BR is jawdropping.
> The audio is a whole 'nother story as well......


Agreed, however the viewing experience is theoretically better with 1080p than 1080i if your refresh rate is 60hz: 1080p will refresh the picture 60 times per second, whereas 1080i refreshes 540 lines of picture 30 times per second per field.


----------



## BluFan (Jan 16, 2009)

Firstly fjnmusic, the main point sorrounding blu-ray is that it's the first true 1080p source. If you're referring to the fact that movies aren't shot in 1080p, keep in mind that film stock has a considerably higher overall resolution than 1080p so when converted to blu-ray, you're getting a full 1080p signal.

There is a very real difference between the level of quality from Blu-ray than streaming HD content. Especially as prices continue to plummet, it's absolutely worth it if you already have an HDTV. I've been working with Warner Home Video on some blu-ray projects and have spent a lot of time watching blu-rays. Going back to DVD just isn't the same.


----------



## lindmar (Nov 13, 2003)

I just wanted to add my two cents.

I struggled with the decision of buying an ATV or Blu-ray before Christmas.
Then on my bday I was given an ATV. I thought I'd then end up buying a bluray.

I still haven't. I think ATV is awesome and the quality is really nice.
THe HD rentals are fun and I don't mind paying for stuff this way. They download and play quick and the quality is awesome. I dont know. AV Geeks would notice slight imperfections in picture but I think it looks pretty darn good. IN fact it looks as good as most TV's and blurays I've seen and in some cases better.

Next - HD Podcasts and VIdeo Podcasts rock. Enough HD podcasts to keep me going for a while.

Regular video podcasts are great too with Global news getting the National and province news up every night by about 8pm.

Integration with my ilife rocks. Over Christmas we had Christmas music and streaming photos on the big screen. 

ALso, you learn to love your music again. Nothing like sitting down to the 5.1 and throwing on a great album, closing your eyes and relaxing.

All in all, very happy with ATV.


----------



## fjnmusic (Oct 29, 2006)

And in case anybody cares, you too can spell it TV using the option-shift-K buttons.


----------



## Amiga2000HD (Jan 23, 2007)

Ouch! Sounds like too many people have been listening to too many Future Shop salesmen!

Let's keep it simple and limit it to North American system timing and avoid the whole 50 Hz PAL issue entirely:

480i/29.97 - standard definition interlaced TV broadcasts. Same stuff you've been watching for years.

480p - never really went anywhere, so let's skip it.

720p/29.97 - I think Fox and a few others broadcast using this standard in the US.

1080i/29.97 - most common over the air broadcast format for HD. Notice something interesting - the frame (and field, by extension) rate is the same as 480i. This was critical when standards were being established years ago - made it far easier for equipment manufacturers to make equipment at affordable prices to perform standards conversions between SD and HD by changing resolution and aspect ratio only. Dealing with the number of pixels is easy. Dealing with timing changes to accommodate different frame and field rates is more complicated and expensive. You can read about that sort of thing in books like "The Art Of Digital Video". I think it's by John Watkinson but I'd have to check my bookshelf to make sure. None of this is of any interest to your average home viewer, but it's very important in the broadcasting industry and that's the reason why things are the way they are.

1080p/29.97 - when you see this, it's usually 1080i that's been delaced so that the two interlaced fields that are displayed sequentially to make a frame are merged into a single progressively scanned frame.

1080p/24 - now here's something else that's interesting. 24 frames per second - that's movie film and film by nature is a progressive format. When everything's present and set up correctly, playing a properly encoded BR disc through an HDMI cable into an HDTV that's capable of showing it, you get 24 frames per second with 1080 lines of resolution. You get to watch the movie as if it's being shown on a theatre screen using a film projector with the correct scan and frame rate. This is also why movies shown in 1080p look better than 1080i - the 1080i version has to go through the same 3:2 pulldown telecine process to fit the 24 frames per second into the 29.97 NTSC colour compatible system timing used for 1080i in North America and you're seeing the artifacts of this conversion process on screen. The 1080p/24 looks better because it preserves the integrity of the original format.

...and it gets more complicated from there.


----------



## spoonie (Nov 25, 2007)

and that is where 120hz screens shine. no filled/generated frames to fill.


----------

