iTunes Video Vs. Pirated Video Guess which wins? One blogger compares (via digg) the overall quality of a video purchased via the iTunes store to a pirated copy of the same program. Aside from the expected DRM difference, the iTunes copy actually shows less screen real estate of the actual program and is of a lower quality, leading the would-be customer to wonder why he isn't just pirating. It's hard enough for content providers to compete with free -- but it's made even more difficult when the product they're offering isn't even of the same quality.
|
 |  | openbox9Premium
join:2004-01-26
japan
kudos:2 | Re: This is why This isn't really about the DRM, it's about the quality of the video. It is possible to have high-quality, HD content, while using DRM. Unfortunately, it seems that the online purveyors of content, don't want high quality HD content available on the Internet because it's a paradoxical change that their marketing/manufacturing machines aren't ready for. | |
| | |  tiger72SexaT duorPPremium
join:2001-03-28
Saint Louis, MO
kudos:1 | Re: This is why said by openbox9:This isn't really about the DRM, it's about the quality of the video. It is possible to have high-quality, HD content, while using DRM. Unfortunately, it seems that the online purveyors of content, don't want high quality HD content available on the Internet because it's a paradoxical change that their marketing/manufacturing machines aren't ready for. I think DRM and poor quality go hand in hand in most circumstances. It's obvious that the content producers and distributors don't value quality, as almost all DRM content sacrifices quality for no apparent reason. The only high quality DRM content (which people pay for!) is on porn sites. For everything else, DRM is analogous with poor quality crap.
--
|- The LP »www.lp.org/issues/issues.shtml -|
|- Cato @ Liberty »www.cato-at-liberty.org -| | |
| | | |  brandonSome truth included in this post.Premium
join:2003-03-31
Hurley, MS
1 edit | Re: This is why said by tiger72:The only high quality DRM content (which people pay for!) is on porn sites.
Thanks for admitting that this has nothing to do with DRM. | |
| | | | openbox9Premium
join:2004-01-26
japan
kudos:2 | said by tiger72:I think DRM and poor quality go hand in hand in most circumstances. But there's no technical relationship between DRM and audio/video quality of the content.said by tiger72:The only high quality DRM content (which people pay for!) is on porn sites. And DVD, and HD-DVD, and Blue-Ray, and etc..... Once again, high quality and DRM are not dependent upon each other. Rather, I hypothesize that the lower quality digital content is an attempt for the content producers to squash the new distribution mechanism in favor of their traditional, tangible goods, model. | |
| | | | | tiger72SexaT duorPPremium
join:2001-03-28
Saint Louis, MO
kudos:1 | Re: This is why said by openbox9:said by tiger72:I think DRM and poor quality go hand in hand in most circumstances. But there's no technical relationship between DRM and audio/video quality of the content. I never said it was a technical relationship. It's just a working relationship.
DRM (over the internet) -> shitty quality.
Of course, old, physical media with DRM is the preferred method of delivery by the antiquated movie and television industry. DVDs have DRM, as do all future media proposed and preferred by the studies. That doesn't change the fact that when it comes to the internet, DRM is pretty synonymous with crappy quality. I don't see the studios changing their mind on using DRM, just like I don't see them changing their mind on using 400x300 video (or whatever other low-res, low-bitrate video they choose to use).
--
|- The LP »www.lp.org/issues/issues.shtml -|
|- Cato @ Liberty »www.cato-at-liberty.org -| | |
|
| |  MaxoYour tax dollars at work.Premium,VIP
join:2002-11-04
Tallahassee, FL | said by openbox9:This isn't really about the DRM, it's about the quality of the video. That's the first thing I thought. This has nothing to do with DRM. | |
|
|  60632649Premium
join:2003-09-29
New York, NY | Well said.
Fact is people are getting wise.
This means that people don't want 500 channels of crap for some base price, they'd and I would rather pay a specific amount for channels that are chosen.
Get with it executive types.
Fact is, people will DL stuff to avoid commercials, it doesn't have to be the day of broadcast, that BS is done.
Oh gee, it's so Uuuuuurrrrrrgeeeent, watch now!
NO! | |
|
| | I think Itunes only gives you downloads at 128k, and in mp3 format which isn't cd quality. If they wanted to give out 256k in Wave format, now you're talking quality songs worth $1. | |
| | | |  Re: I think Itunes
iTunes audio is an encrypted format of AAC audio, not MP3.
It's the very same version and bitrate of AAC that you'll find on a DVD, just a two-channel stereo variant. | |
| | |  rawWar EaglePremium
join:2001-01-17
Madison, AL | Re: I think Itunes Not quite.
DVDs use either Dolby Digital or DTS (and even if they use DTS, they're required to have a DD track to satisfy DVD logo requirements). Dolby Digital uses the AC-3 codec (at a maximum of 448 kbps, although the original Xbox and PS3 can output at 640 kbps), which is nowhere near the same thing as Advanced Audio Coding (AAC), which is supported by a bunch of media players, including iTunes and the PS3. To make things slightly confusing, Dolby Labs was part of the group that developed the AAC standard.
--
[BBR]raw
America's Army
BBR Enemy Territory clan founder | |
| | | | m critz
join:2007-02-20
Brookline, MA |  Re: I think Itunes
However, DVDs don't need to be authored in 5.1 Dolby or DTS.
Your claim that AC-3 is "nowhere near" AAC is a point I would debate. AC-3 is Dolby-specific. DTS is Sony-specific. However, DVDs authored in stereo without the DD or DTS logos on the package are usually AAC. | |
| | | | | rawWar EaglePremium
join:2001-01-17
Madison, AL | Re: I think Itunes First things first, welcome to the site. 
Second of all, maybe I'm just missing it, but I don't recall having seen a DVD player that will support AAC, especially since the DVD spec was finalized a full two years before AAC was accepted by MPEG.
--
[BBR]raw
America's Army
BBR Enemy Territory clan founder | |
| | | | | | m critz
join:2007-02-20
Brookline, MA | Re: I think Itunes Thanks for the welcome.
Also, you're probably right about AAC not being the defacto standard of DVDs.
When I get the wherewithal to do some research, I'll try to find who first claimed that AAC = DVD audio format. | |
| | | | | | | rawWar EaglePremium
join:2001-01-17
Madison, AL |  Re: I think Itunes
| |
| | | | | | | | m critz
join:2007-02-20
Brookline, MA | Re: I think Itunes Well, I'm still working on who made the DVD-audio = AAC claim. It's possible I misunderstood a statement regarding how AAC was made by Dolby, the makers of AC-3.
Regardless, I came across an interesting read at this web site regarding the digital preservation planning for Library of Congress:
»www.digitalpreservation.gov/form···09.shtml
To save you the trip, it says:
"AAC outperforms AC-3 at any bitrate, but is more complex. The advantages of AAC become clearly audible at less than 400 kbit/s for 5.1 channels, and at less than 180 kbit/s for 2.0 channels."
So, I was wrong. AAC is better than DVD-quality sound. My appologies.
A click away from that page is the following comment:
"All commentators state that at a given data rate, the quality of AAC_MP4 surpasses AAC_MP2 and is significantly better than MP3_ENC."
Quoted from:
»www.digitalpreservation.gov/form···14.shtml
Which basically means that the people in charge of preserving American history have concluded that the type of format Apple uses for it's iTunes store is better than mp3.
I happen to share the opinion. | |
| | | | | | | | | rawWar EaglePremium
join:2001-01-17
Madison, AL | Re: I think Itunes said by m critz:So, I was wrong. AAC is better than DVD-quality sound. My appologies. No need to apologize. I agree wholeheartedly.
said by m critz:Which basically means that the people in charge of preserving American history have concluded that the type of format Apple uses for it's iTunes store is better than mp3. I happen to share the opinion. As do I, at least from a purely technological perspective, although I'd rather have a lossless codec such as FLAC for archival purposes. It's all about how much space you want to occupy, and for something as big as the LoC, space shouldn't be an issue.
--
[BBR]raw
America's Army
BBR Enemy Territory clan founder | |
|
| | | | | | DVDs need to be authored in Dolby Digital (AC3) or MPEG audio to meet DVD specs. (Sad thing is, my home theatre receiver won't decode RAW MPEG audio - I have to switch the DVD player to PCM, though one of my players has a separate RAW/PCM setting for MPEG audio so MPEG can be PCM and DD/DTS are still sent RAW). | |
|
| | | | I was talking about music, but thanks for showing me your superior knowledge. | |
|
|  JohnnyPremium
join:2001-06-27
Atlanta, GA
kudos:2 | said by xerxes3642:only gives you downloads at 128k, and in mp3 format which isn't cd quality. If they wanted to give out 256k in Wave format, now you're talking quality songs worth $1. Never checked out the iTunes Store, I see. Just make stuff up and post it. | |
| | |  MchartFirst There.
join:2004-01-21
Gurnee, IL | Re: I think Itunes said by Johnny:said by xerxes3642:only gives you downloads at 128k, and in mp3 format which isn't cd quality. If they wanted to give out 256k in Wave format, now you're talking quality songs worth $1. Never checked out the iTunes Store, I see. Just make stuff up and post it. So what? He said mp3 instead of mp4/aac. The fact is iTunes music downloads are 128kb AAC's. While it is true that a 128kbps AAC /may/ sound as good as a 192kbps mp3, the fact of the matter is - That still sucks. | |
| | | | | |  Re: I think Itunes
said by Mchart:So what? He said MP3 instead of MP4/AAC. The fact is iTunes music downloads are 128 kbps AAC's. While it is true that a 128 kbps AAC may sound as good as a 192 kbps MP3, the fact of the matter is - that still sucks. 128 kbps AAC doesn't sound better than 192 kbps MP3 to me. If anything, it does sound slightly better than 128 kbps MP3, but not by much.
--
Ask me no questions, and I'll tell you no lies...
A MESSAGE to the RIAA and the MPAA: You shouldn't wound what you can't kill... | |
| | | | JohnnyPremium
join:2001-06-27
Atlanta, GA
kudos:2 | said by Mchart:So what? He said mp3 instead of mp4/aac. The fact is iTunes music downloads are 128kb AAC's. While it is true that a 128kbps AAC /may/ sound as good as a 192kbps mp3, the fact of the matter is - That still sucks. No, he said that iTunes "only gives you downloads at 128k, and in mp3 format".
It isn't mp3 format. Anyone who knew anything about the iTS would know that. | |
| | | | | | | Re: I think Itunes yes, sorry mp4, which is useless untill you transcode it to something else. Not much better than mp3. Point is, without areguing unimportant techie points... that the paid for downloads are of lower quality than any uncompressed format you would buy at the store on a cd. | |
| | | | | | JohnnyPremium
join:2001-06-27
Atlanta, GA
kudos:2 | Re: I think Itunes said by xerxes3642:yes, sorry mp4, which is useless untill you transcode it to something else. Useless? They play on the iPod and on iTunes just fine.
Not much better than mp3. Point is, without areguing unimportant techie points... that the paid for downloads are of lower quality than any uncompressed format you would buy at the store on a cd.
Compressed is better quality than uncompressed? Who knew? | |
| | | | | | | MchartFirst There.
join:2004-01-21
Gurnee, IL
1 edit | Re: I think Itunes You would have to be deaf to think that a 128kbps AAC sounds as good as the same song on a CD.
To expand on this -
For the purpose of seeing if iTunes were any good or not, I downloaded Comfortably Numb using the service. I have the song on many various CD's, DVD's, tapes, 8-Tracks, and LP's.
I listened to the iTunes download of it once, and was disgusted. I deleted the thing without a second thought. I would rather listen to comfortably numb using my 26 year old LP as the source. Thats how bad it was. | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: I think Itunes you can make a wave file as big as you want | |
| | | | | | | | m critz
join:2007-02-20
Brookline, MA | Eagle ears! Dead-on.
Not to get too-far off-topic, but I love the Floyd. I think it's fair to say that music you absolutely cherish should be bought from a store and come with one of those shiny things for backup purposes. Also, you'd probably love to have the liner notes and in-hand album art.
I like iTunes for convenience, though. If I was the type of HEATHEN who only liked Comfortably Numb, then I'd buy it from iTunes. Heresy, yes, but it's too easy not to do. | |
|
| | | | | |  RadioDocYeah, like it matters.Premium,ExMod 2000-03
join:2000-05-11
La Grange, IL
kudos:2
 ·AT&T Midwest
| said by Johnny:said by xerxes3642: Not much better than mp3. Point is, without areguing unimportant techie points... that the paid for downloads are of lower quality than any uncompressed format you would buy at the store on a cd. Compressed is better quality than uncompressed? Who knew? If you had read before posting you'd see that he said that uncompressed is better quality than any compressed format.
And even with iPods and iTunes around, they still are the minority when it comes to players. If you want to actually use the files you *bought* you need to transcode them into something else, and since they are already compressed on iTunes you just make a bad situation worse.
CD files are uncompressed 1,440 kbps, 16 bit stereo PCM. That blows the doors off anything on iTunes.
--
Toolmaster of La Grange. | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | RadioDocYeah, like it matters.Premium,ExMod 2000-03
join:2000-05-11
La Grange, IL
kudos:2 Reviews:
·AT&T Midwest
| Re: I think Itunes There is far more to music playing than an iPod and iTunes. Every computer made in the last, oh, 10-15 years can play mp3 and most can even manage AAC. Even a lowly 166 MHz Pentium MMX can function swimmingly as a music player. I would also posit that the number of CD players far outnumbers iPods.
I am currently listening to a 128 kbps AAC Internet radio stream and guess what? No iPod or iTunes involved, just an PIII/550 and Winamp.
Widen your horizon.
--
Toolmaster of La Grange. | |
|
| | | | | said by Mchart:said by Johnny:said by xerxes3642:only gives you downloads at 128k, and in mp3 format which isn't cd quality. If they wanted to give out 256k in Wave format, now you're talking quality songs worth $1. Never checked out the iTunes Store, I see. Just make stuff up and post it. So what? He said mp3 instead of mp4/aac. The fact is iTunes music downloads are 128kb AAC's. While it is true that a 128kbps AAC /may/ sound as good as a 192kbps mp3, the fact of the matter is - That still sucks. Well 128 AAC sounds great to me. Glad I'm not cursed with your hearing. I enjoy my music just fine.
--
Got a V3 or a V3i or an L7? Want to get the most out of them? Check out my sites »hacktheV3.com and »hacktheV3i.com and »hacktheL7.com
| |
| | | | |  Count ZeroObama-Biden 2012Premium
join:2007-01-18
Winston Salem, NC | Re: I think Itunes The mind hears what it wants to hear. I had a friend that made the same claim about iTunes versus CD and you know what -- he couldn't tell the difference when listening to a CD I burnt off of iTunes versus the store-bought CD in his car or through the headphones of the iPod. Sure we could tell when we hooked it up to the home stereo and turned it up a little, but the iTunes quality was still very acceptable and only people who are looking to pick on it really can find a reason to.
--
»web.mac.com/jwsmiths/ | |
| | | | | | | Do any knowledgeable folks here know why iTunes only sells songs in 128 kbps bitrate? Why not 160 or 192? | |
| | | | | | MchartFirst There.
join:2004-01-21
Gurnee, IL | Re: I think Itunes said by kryptonian:Do any knowledgeable folks here know why iTunes only sells songs in 128 kbps bitrate? Why not 160 or 192? They don't have to pay for as much storage or bandwidth. Thats about the only reason. If they offered all the content also in lossless format, it would cost them a great deal more since they would need more servers, and more bandwidth. However, for the amount of money they charge per song, not having lossless downloads is a rip. | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: I think Itunes said by Mchart:said by kryptonian:Do any knowledgeable folks here know why iTunes only sells songs in 128 kbps bitrate? Why not 160 or 192? They don't have to pay for as much storage or bandwidth. Thats about the only reason. If they offered all the content also in lossless format, it would cost them a great deal more since they would need more servers, and more bandwidth. However, for the amount of money they charge per song, not having lossless downloads is a rip. The 2 billion plus downloaders from iTunes would appear to disagree with you.
--
Got a V3 or a V3i or an L7? Want to get the most out of them? Check out my sites »hacktheV3.com and »hacktheV3i.com and »hacktheL7.com
| |
| | | | | | | | MchartFirst There.
join:2004-01-21
Gurnee, IL
1 edit | Re: I think Itunes Thats because there isn't a better online service. If I didn't care about quality very much, and didn't want to own a physical CD, then yes, I would use iTunes. I'm sure they would agree with me if they discovered the DRM restrictions behind the m4p files. I'm also sure they would agree with me if they were to listen to the same song on a good speaker system.
One must understand that the average user purchasing from iTunes is most likely listening to the songs on a crappy set of computer speakers, car stereo, or crap earphones. Not to mention if you have never heard the song on a good setup w/ a CD as the source then I imagine you would not know there is a difference if you only ever heard Comfortably Numb (For example) on the radio, and on iTunes. | |
|
| | | | said by Johnny:said by xerxes3642:only gives you downloads at 128k, and in mp3 format which isn't cd quality. If they wanted to give out 256k in Wave format, now you're talking quality songs worth $1. Never checked out the iTunes Store, I see. Just make stuff up and post it. There's also no such thing as a 256k wave file...
--Matt | |
| | | | | | Re: I think Itunes said by SimbaTLK1:said by Johnny:said by xerxes3642:only gives you downloads at 128k, and in mp3 format which isn't cd quality. If they wanted to give out 256k in Wave format, now you're talking quality songs worth $1. Never checked out the iTunes Store, I see. Just make stuff up and post it. There's also no such thing as a 256k wave file... --Matt sure there is, it's just 8kHz 16 bit stereo and sounds like crap.
.. or 16khz 8 bit stereo, or 16khz 16 bit mono, or... well, any other combination where the sampling rate * sample size * number of channels is 256k...
Of course, none of it sounds very good, but it exists. | |
|
| | Another strike! | |
| | | just my .02 cents I remember when pirated tvshows were VERY poor in quality. Captured from video tape with a 50 dollar tv tuner card or something. They have come a long way in finding top sources to perfecting file sizes and encoding options. Itunes should definetly continue to improve and should be able to do so much faster than it took for pirated versions. | |
| | m critz
join:2007-02-20
Brookline, MA | Re: just my .02 cents I couldn't agree more. I think Apple needs to keep up with technology. HDTV is the future.
Apple TV (the hardware product that connects to your HDTV) is an example of technology that would be so much better if Apple's iTunes video were HDTV sized. | |
| | 60632649Premium
join:2003-09-29
New York, NY | I remember when advertisers weren't so annoying.
Hey now, can you ad people flash the screen more or what?
It's pretty annoying, the volume stuff too, they generally raise the volume for the commercials.
It's plain offensive.
And you people wonder why folks who know better use JunkBuster and other tech to punt commercials. | |
| | | | I have some a dreambox satelite system in my house... I can in real time stream movies from the air onto my hard drive in .ts format ... can convert and have on dvd within an hour of fist showing on tv | |
|
approval from:
Linklist 
| iTunes is better because... There are several advantages of actually buying a show versus pirating:
1) No commercials.
2) None of that overlay junk the TV networks put in the corners of the screens.
3) No malware, viruses, or adware. Malware in piracy is "rare but there". And you only need one devastating attack.
4) Consistent quality. Pirated shows vary greatly in quality from the HD represented in this post and unwatchable garbage.
5) Consistent speed. Say what you want about iTunes, it's consistently fast.
6) Ease-of-use. iTunes shows are neatly organized and readily searchable.
7) iTunes shows are guarenteed to play on the #1 portable video player in the known universe: iPod.
I'm not saying that a select set of pathetic nerds won't pay $2 for the same show they'll eventually convert to iPod format anyway.
I actually appreciate these lovable geeks. They provide an incentive for TV executives to sell their shows through iTunes. | |
| |
See 42 replies to this post | |
kaila
join:2000-10-11
Lincolnshire, IL | A plausable alternative for some (free vs broken), but...... things will get very, very interesting when (if) the MPAA goes nuclear and starts demanding HDCP enforcement and hardware/software key revocations, etc, leaving crippled content, disabled players, and their own low-bitrate DRM'd content. | |
| |  CPUYODA
join:2003-01-25
Johnson City, TN | Re: A plausable alternative for some (free vs broken), but...... Yeah,and people with HDware player,with no internet connections........who cant get firmware "updates"...
Are gonne just love that.
I WILL NOT BUY A PLAYER SOMEONE CAN CRIPPLE! | |
| | |  elios
join:2005-11-15
Springfield, MO | Re: A plausable alternative for some (free vs broken), but...... thay wont have to worry
when thay go to watch the new Movie or what ever in that player its going to say some thing like
"Your player is being updated to view this content"
and itll just force it off the disk
heh | |
|
|  HangmnDon't Fight It...It's InevitablePremium
join:2000-04-08
Philadelphia, PA | said by kaila:things will get very, very interesting when (if) the MPAA goes nuclear and starts demanding HDCP enforcement and hardware/software key revocations, etc, leaving crippled content, disabled players, and their own low-bitrate DRM'd content. They can't there is no digital standard agreed to..HDMI is not fully matured.....
--
»davescustompc.com | |
|
| | Well Honestly.. who the hell wants to pay $12 - $15 for a iTunes Video download when you can get the DVD at the same freakin price?
As for music, I really don't mind the iTunes store..I'm not too picky when it comes to sound quality and 128kbps AAC is good enough and better than using those crappy P2P programs that get you either piss poor quality or they are fake.
If I REALLY like the music that much I find myself going to the store and purchasing the CD and ripping it myself for better quality. | |
| | | The way I figure it... I pay for cable TV. I pay a lot for cable TV. Since some of my money is already going to the networks, I have a right to watch their programming commercial free. Most of the time I DVR it, but when I miss a DVR I download the TV show. I don't feel bad about it. After all, Comedy Central gets money from me every month.
The day the networks demand a broadcast flag to control how I skip through commercials or how long I can keep a program on my DVR is the day I drop cable and pirate 100%. | |
| | | | Re: The way I figure it... said by texans20:I pay for cable TV. I pay a lot for cable TV. Since some of my money is already going to the networks, I have a right to watch their programming commercial free. Most of the time I DVR it, but when I miss a DVR I download the TV show. I don't feel bad about it. After all, Comedy Central gets money from me every month. The day the networks demand a broadcast flag to control how I skip through commercials or how long I can keep a program on my DVR is the day I drop cable and pirate 100%. Amen brother. You are preaching to the Choir!
--
The meek shall inherit the earth but don't forget the poor are the ones who inherit the debt. | |
|
 NY8
@mindspring.com | Yes! Now, about iTunes, yet 128 Kbps is not worth spending a dollar on, I aggree, what makes it even worse is the DRM crap. This makes DJing harder for me as I use an external program to actually "mix" songs together and well, seeing how that program doesn't decode DRM crapped out content, I can't use iTunes files in that program.  Yes I know that you can just put in a blank CD into the drive and burn it to the CD and then Rip it back converted into a format you want but I mean come on, who really wants to waste time doing that?  Not too mention trying the press play and record using a program like GoldWave, that doesn't work too bad but that's even worse then the burning method. Who wants to sit there recording their for the entire length of the song just to get full quality. Not too mention if I'm not mistaken, as iTunes is burning the song to the disc it lowers the bitrate even more....which basically means by the time you convert it to CD and then to another format....you have a 64 Kbps file in reality (despise what the program says it is). I mean seriously, it's bogus. Maybe DRM shouldn't be removed but it should leave some more slots open for freedom.  That's why I just by CD's for the music I really like and just use a CD player....not MP3 crap. No offensve to anyone that uses devices like that, it can be quite useful to some people which is fine, but for me, I like RAW unprotected audio (The Compact Digital Audio Disc!) iTunes would do better if there was more bandwidth as well. Figure about anywhere from 10-40 MB per WAV file (RAW Audio) downloading on a 10 Mbps or even 20, 30, or 40 Mbps connection in some cases would be no problem, but it's going to be a loooooooooooooooooooooooooonnnnnnnggggg time before we get speeds like that. So as you see....a lot raps into this Pirating stuff and legal stuff.  Anyway, that's all I got to say. | |
| amungusPremium
join:2004-11-26
America Reviews:
 ·KCH Cable
·AT&T DSL Service
| why? Why even bother with iTunes video at this point?
I don't know if they've improved since I last tried it, but I doubt it.
Downloaded a Battlestar Galactica episode once because I missed the show and it was TERRIBLE quality.
I'd rather have copied a copy of a VHS recording in mono sound from a friend's 2-head VCR. At least it would've looked something like TV 
Seriously, why do they even bother making this "video" "content" "available" to us? It's the most wretched attempt at video I've seen online next to early Real Player stuff.
I wasted $2 on an hour (well, 45min.) long episode that, unbeknownst to me, was ONLY intended for playback on a camcorder viewfinder sized screen (2.5").
Now, I don't go for bootleg copies online, I'm not that desperate, but I have seen a couple xvid/divx/whatever files that look amazingly good for being all cropped and re-encoded. Not just sort of good, or halfway watchable, I mean amazingly freaking good.
If there is no way to buy quality like this (even with DRM) then why even bother??? It's not like I'm going to watch ANY show, or movie, on a puny little screen. It better look as close to or better than standard NTSC or it's not worth the trouble in my mind. HD would be even better.
Until there is real, quality media (video in this case) available for a reasonable price (even $2 is steep for ONE episode of a television show...) then I'm not even going to bother with legal or illegal stuff online. They can all keep it. I'll either wait for the rerun, go to a friend's house who used their DVR, or borrow a VHS tape from someone who may have taped the show.
There are zero "compelling" reasons to even consider iTunes video for anything. Bootlegged stuff, while better quality, is still being watched by the thought police.
In response to the anon "m criz" post that TCH so lovingly thumbs upped:
1) No kidding. That's amazing.
2) Who cares about the "overlay junk" if you taped it or used a DVR, it's higher quality, and doesn't look like something from a 1995 bonus .avi (quicktime) on a music cd.
3) Do you even have a virus scanner? "Rare but there" ..Give me a break. You only need common sense to avoid any such chance at a so called "devastating attack." Which, grammatically speaking, wouldn't even be an "attack" if you sought the problem in the 1st place... Nice hyperbole on the paranoia factor though...
4) Consistently HORRIBLE quality. There, fixed that for you.
5) Speed? Yeah, the internet is faster nowadays than back in 1995 when postage stamp sized video was all the rage
6) Glad you like their organization. I don't much care for it myself. I find it somewhat cluttered.
7) ...How that is an advantage to watching what should be at least NTSC broadcast quality video media is beyond me. I prefer to watch video on screens that are a little bit bigger than 2.5"
In summary, iTunes video needs a SERIOUS overhaul if they think they're going to really sell people on this notion. | |
| | |
| | Serendipity Consumers only want things such as enhanced quality and increased portability because they are not fully informed about the benefits of digital rights management. With increased law enforcement and better education people will learn to love that which has been generously provided to them.
Think Sony will give me that job now? | |
| |  FiLPremium
join:2005-08-16
Silver Spring, MD | Re: Serendipity "I wasted $2 on an hour (well, 45min.) long episode that, unbeknownst to me, was ONLY intended for playback on a camcorder viewfinder sized screen (2.5")"
hahaha, and that my friends is why you should NOT buy DRM enabled crap. Don't care if you guys think they don't go hand in hand, because clearly in this example they do.
But then again...
DRM enables content providers to better pay their multi-million dollar actors, helps in combating crime from online iThuggery and iHooliganz, and above all else, helps pay for the education of hungry Kenyan children.
(Im applying for a Apple job.  ) | |
|
1 edit | iTunes still Sucks I wouldn't buy anything from Steve Jobs. | |
| openbox9Premium
join:2004-01-26
japan
kudos:2 | DRM Confusion DRM != Poor Quality
Just because content is laden with DRM does not necessarily mean that the quality is poor. People need to get over that mis-association because it's simply not true. Case in point, YouTube. Low quality, no DRM. You can have 1080p content (or its successor) with DRM so restrictive that you can only play it on your toaster, but the quality is awesome.
Poor quality is the result of bass-ackwards logic from a lethargic industry that doesn't want to cater to its customers, not from DRM. | |
| m critz
join:2007-02-20
Brookline, MA | Change of heart? Well, I've read a lot and thought about it.
(I'm still slacking off at work... *cringe*)
I think a lot of people are dead-right about some things.
First, I appreciate that over-the-air TV is free and that most of us spend a lot of money going above and beyond that to get cable service. As such, we have a right to watch TV in the way we like. We have a right to record TV on my VCR, Tivo, or computer. I don't think I disagreed with that in my previous posts, but I just wanted to get that out there to help increase the amicability aura of this thread.
Next, I don't disagree, per-se, with downloading TV from a "pirate" site. (I don't think I used that term, but others have.) It's a little sketching posting HBO or other pay TV shows. Generally speaking, if you're watching HBO on the computer, you'd rather watch it on TV, and if you watch it on HDTV, you probably already subscribe to HBO. Even if you don't subscribe to HBO, I don't blame you for telling the cable company to f***-off at the rates they charge for their premium packages. (That being said, I feel it is morally wrong to steal movies/DVD rips.)
Additionally, I think iTunes service is better for most people because most people aren't on your private tv-swapping sites. Those that are... well, you're geeky. And, it's a good thing. I would rather have iTunes video in HD at higher bitrates. TV-swapping sites encourage broadcasters to offer a competitive product. (I'll freely admit I have a stereotypical view of geeks. As a group, I'm not saying you're fat, but you could probably stand to lose a few pounds.)
Finally, I think something we can all agree on is that cable companies suck. They need to give us pay-per-channel pricing. They need to provide more flexibility with the content we pay for. Cable box PVRs aren't as flexible or useful as computer-based PVRs. Want to catch up on "Battlestar" while you're on that flight to South America? iTunes is good for most people. But if you don't like iTunes (which isn't perfect, but at $2 an episode isn't enough for me to cry over) then you're forced to use a "pirate" site.
The industry has created this monster. They could fix it by allowing more freedom with their content instead of fighting to monetize their entire distribution. | |
| | openbox9Premium
join:2004-01-26
japan
kudos:2 | Re: Change of heart? I'll bite.
I download TV shows off of the net for my personal viewing. I subscribe to a digital TV package through my cable provider so I'm already "paying" for the content. The shows that I download are all available through the level of TV service that I subscribe to. There are three main reasons that I download shows.
- Quality. As already mentioned, I can get shows at 720p whereas HDTV is extremely limited from my cable provider.
- Commercial-less. I don't want to watch commercials. Even if I watch the shows real-time, I don't watch the commercials.
- Watch TV on my schedule. I watch a week's worth of shows (5 +2 for my wife) on the weekend with my wife. I don't want to, nor have the time, to watch shows during their regular schedule. | |
|
| | Foreign TV The thing that iTunes won't give you is the foreign, less popular shows. Shows like Torchwood in the UK, or Corner Gas & Trailer Park Boys in Canada. Until they are prepared to provide a global coverage of all TV video to American consumers, then the pirate networks will be a better choice. | |
| | | | Re: Foreign TV And being the fact that this is the "digital age" it is easy .. it is common sense that every show produced today is probably edited on some high end multimedia system and the final copy - before it ever even hit the waves was sent via some "digital" form. Making EVERYTHING produced available the small, the unpopular, the tacky, the obscene. It really at the end of the day shouldn't be that hard. They are scared that they as the distributor will be circumvented... which at the moment does happen because of the slow place at which they have adapted. | |
|
 ctceoPremium
join:2001-04-26
South Bend, IN
 ·magicjack.com
 ·AT&T U-Verse
| MPAA One of the reasons they don't make the screen as big, is they don't want you to have an exact duplicate of the original work. Why? Who Knows. Then again the Mafia doesn't want you to have what is theirs either. {Sarcasm on}Anybody suspicious? lol {off} | |
|
1 edit | 4:3 is so last century. Come on, 4:3? All Apple computers which they sell are in widescreen format (except for the eMac), and I'm sure a large majority of people have widescreen monitors and TVs.
What was apple thinking releasing crippled/cropped videos? It's like releasing a Movie in 4:3.
If I pay I expect it to be of the highest quality. Come on at least DVD quality. 1080p won't happen anytime soon, I dont think.
I am sure they have the bandwidth (look at all those free HD trailers) but I guessing its that they have to comply with some rules of their partners for this to work in the first place.
--
Keeping up with technology is like trying to find the pot of gold at the end of a rainbow... | |
| | m critz
join:2007-02-20
Brookline, MA | Re: 4:3 is so last century. iTunes TV shows and movies are sold in their original aspect ratio.
TV shows with HDTV versions are sold in the widescreen version. Video iPods will play the iTunes TV shows in widescreen or 4:3 aspect radio. It's a setting in the "Video" menu of your iPod. Playing back a video from my iPod hooked up to my HDTV with the iPod's "widescreen" setting on looks as good as watching mpeg-2 compressed video (such as DVDs or digital cable). | |
|
 thender2Glamour ProfessionPremium
join:2004-05-16
Staten Island, NY
1 edit | Do a demo of iTunes vs pirated 720p x264 And everyone uneducated in why people hate legal video/audio venues will think "wow.. the iTunes one is so much better, the other one looks like crap on an HDTV by comparison, or even a normal monitor! Why would anyone bother downloading pirated copies when the good one is so cheap?"
Then tell them which is which. Tell them the iTunes one is the other one. Short of being blind they'll immediately understand. | |
| | thender2Glamour ProfessionPremium
join:2004-05-16
Staten Island, NY | Re: Do a demo of iTunes vs pirated 720p x264  | |
|
| |
|
|
