Gem�tlichkeit
Apr 22, 02:02 PM
Woot Woot! Its a little sad though, about the SB IGP :(
Buy a gaming laptop instead.
SB was meant for machines like the Air.
Buy a gaming laptop instead.
SB was meant for machines like the Air.
DJMastaWes
Aug 28, 12:11 PM
This Tuesday! This Tuesday!
x2! Danm it! if they annouce it tomorrow, im gonna be in school (first day) from untill like 3:00PM. Unless they are annouced by 10AM Eastern.
x2! Danm it! if they annouce it tomorrow, im gonna be in school (first day) from untill like 3:00PM. Unless they are annouced by 10AM Eastern.
HecubusPro
Sep 14, 11:46 AM
It could be no other thing.
It could be many other things--Aperture, iSight, Cinema Displays, updated laptops, etc.
What it won't be is an iPhone.
It could be many other things--Aperture, iSight, Cinema Displays, updated laptops, etc.
What it won't be is an iPhone.
stoid
Sep 19, 01:31 PM
So, new movies this week? or do we have to wait until next?
Mattsasa
Apr 30, 08:36 PM
Sorry, but you're totally wrong.
Play(load a level under medium settings), and PLAY are two different things;) There is NO MAC (much less the mGPU blessed iMac) that can max Crysis (@ native res) at livable frame rates(>30)...especially not at 2560x1440.
2011 New york knicks 7 Carmelo
NBA Jerseys New York Knicks
New York @ New Jersey
new york knicks jersey.
Team: New York Knicks
New York Knicks Revolution
new york knicks jersey.
Kim Kardashian New York Nets
Kim Kardashian New York Nets
Kim Kardashian New York Nets
Kim Kardashian New York Nets
New+jersey+nets+2011
New York Knicks Amar#39;e
in New York Knicks jersey
Play(load a level under medium settings), and PLAY are two different things;) There is NO MAC (much less the mGPU blessed iMac) that can max Crysis (@ native res) at livable frame rates(>30)...especially not at 2560x1440.
MacBram
Apr 29, 03:13 AM
Apple has done extremely well with mobile devices, but I don't know what Microsoft has to do with that. As far as I know, Windows still has about 90% of the market, and Apple still has a very small share. It looks to me like Apple isn't a huge player in the pc market, but they are the dominant one in the mobile market. Let's not forget that 50% of that $5.99 billion profit came from the iPhone and iPad.
Very true.
yes, 50% or so came from iPhone and iPad. So what's your point? These run on iOS which is a scaled-down version of the actual OS X operating system.
As far as "PC" marketshare: Apple has shown most of the growth in industry YoY for about 30 quarters in a row. Yes, it is easy to say that it is easy to double Market share when you are talking about a couple of percentage points. But we can still put it in perspective:
-- Apple has about 90% marketshare of computers at 1000 dollars and above.
-- Apples sells computers to consumers who vote with their dollars. PC 90% is due to large corporate buys and lock-ins and also counts anything that runs some version of Windows, possibly including cash registers and petrol pumps.
-- Apple is either about 3rd or about 5th largest PC maker by unit in the world, depending on how you count it: a lot of studies do not count iPads in the total because of some arbitrary metric or because they are paid by MS or another big company to exclude it.
-- consumers are, in fact, buying iPads in place of net books, which were oh so popular a couple of years ago, when it was said Apple could not compete and Apple should build an entry level netbook. Since then, PC makers have lost a lot of value trying to compete for the bottom, at the same time MS continues to generate serial numbers for exorbitant amounts.
-- Apple completely dominates mobile and portable -- MacBook Air and MacBook Pro at high end, and iPad at low end.
-- Apple's revenue this past quarter is about as much as Dell's whole Market cap! Maybe Mikey should just sell the company and give the money back to the shareholders (but who would want it). He did innovate BTO and online shop distribution chain back in the day. But he hasn't innovated products, production methods, materials, batteries, SoCs, supply chain, retail, customer support and satisfacton, etc.. Etc., in the way Apple so handily has.
Steve Jobs said years ago that he did concede the PC desktop "war", but the battlefield has moved on and new territories have opened up for exploration and colonizing. There isn't a single MS explorer or settler on the horizon. Unless you count their beloved interactive multi-camera tracking system -- and only then has it become worthwhile when they finally came up with the idea to put it in front of the TV for entertainment instead of sticking it in a bathtub. Meanwhile, Apple is working on SDKs that will allow every developer to create immersive 3D interfaces because face recognition technology with the one FaceTime camera will allow the device to calculate angle and distance of face from screen.
What it has to do with MS is that they have an aging dinosaur of an OS that is still DOS based and that they can't properly scale, and this becomes ever more evident by the day. They can only add lipstick to their old products and many of their customers still prefer Windows XP! They need to start again and reengineer an OS from scratch as Apple did when it bought Jobs' NEXT.
But can MS do it? Highly doubtful. DOS was bought in and they made the deal of the century with it. They put Windows UI over it, finally, because they had access to Apple source code for ten years. they absolutely wreck anything they get their hands on, ala Danger. Now the SalesGuy is running the company... fastest path to irrelevance.
MS' immediate existence is not in jeopardy -- they will continue to print their undeserved money for years to come. But their future relevance grows ever more questionable by the day. In short, Apple has plenty of headroom for Mac OS to grow into, while Windows at 90% can only go down.
Very true.
yes, 50% or so came from iPhone and iPad. So what's your point? These run on iOS which is a scaled-down version of the actual OS X operating system.
As far as "PC" marketshare: Apple has shown most of the growth in industry YoY for about 30 quarters in a row. Yes, it is easy to say that it is easy to double Market share when you are talking about a couple of percentage points. But we can still put it in perspective:
-- Apple has about 90% marketshare of computers at 1000 dollars and above.
-- Apples sells computers to consumers who vote with their dollars. PC 90% is due to large corporate buys and lock-ins and also counts anything that runs some version of Windows, possibly including cash registers and petrol pumps.
-- Apple is either about 3rd or about 5th largest PC maker by unit in the world, depending on how you count it: a lot of studies do not count iPads in the total because of some arbitrary metric or because they are paid by MS or another big company to exclude it.
-- consumers are, in fact, buying iPads in place of net books, which were oh so popular a couple of years ago, when it was said Apple could not compete and Apple should build an entry level netbook. Since then, PC makers have lost a lot of value trying to compete for the bottom, at the same time MS continues to generate serial numbers for exorbitant amounts.
-- Apple completely dominates mobile and portable -- MacBook Air and MacBook Pro at high end, and iPad at low end.
-- Apple's revenue this past quarter is about as much as Dell's whole Market cap! Maybe Mikey should just sell the company and give the money back to the shareholders (but who would want it). He did innovate BTO and online shop distribution chain back in the day. But he hasn't innovated products, production methods, materials, batteries, SoCs, supply chain, retail, customer support and satisfacton, etc.. Etc., in the way Apple so handily has.
Steve Jobs said years ago that he did concede the PC desktop "war", but the battlefield has moved on and new territories have opened up for exploration and colonizing. There isn't a single MS explorer or settler on the horizon. Unless you count their beloved interactive multi-camera tracking system -- and only then has it become worthwhile when they finally came up with the idea to put it in front of the TV for entertainment instead of sticking it in a bathtub. Meanwhile, Apple is working on SDKs that will allow every developer to create immersive 3D interfaces because face recognition technology with the one FaceTime camera will allow the device to calculate angle and distance of face from screen.
What it has to do with MS is that they have an aging dinosaur of an OS that is still DOS based and that they can't properly scale, and this becomes ever more evident by the day. They can only add lipstick to their old products and many of their customers still prefer Windows XP! They need to start again and reengineer an OS from scratch as Apple did when it bought Jobs' NEXT.
But can MS do it? Highly doubtful. DOS was bought in and they made the deal of the century with it. They put Windows UI over it, finally, because they had access to Apple source code for ten years. they absolutely wreck anything they get their hands on, ala Danger. Now the SalesGuy is running the company... fastest path to irrelevance.
MS' immediate existence is not in jeopardy -- they will continue to print their undeserved money for years to come. But their future relevance grows ever more questionable by the day. In short, Apple has plenty of headroom for Mac OS to grow into, while Windows at 90% can only go down.
apfhex
Nov 13, 03:22 PM
In a sense, yes. The rules for iPhone development are different than for Mac OS X.
Except in this case, they still didn't break the rules. Nothing in the SDK prohibits what they did. (Gruber's reply (http://daringfireball.net/2009/11/airfoil_touch_situation) to Jeff LaMarche sums it up very nicely — I know it's already been linked to be I think it needs repeating)
YES, Apple can reject an app for any reason they see fit. But this is getting ridiculous. I haven't cared about any of the apps made by developers that have so far jumped ship, but one of these days it is going to be one of the ones I care about, and I'm not looking forward to it.
Except in this case, they still didn't break the rules. Nothing in the SDK prohibits what they did. (Gruber's reply (http://daringfireball.net/2009/11/airfoil_touch_situation) to Jeff LaMarche sums it up very nicely — I know it's already been linked to be I think it needs repeating)
YES, Apple can reject an app for any reason they see fit. But this is getting ridiculous. I haven't cared about any of the apps made by developers that have so far jumped ship, but one of these days it is going to be one of the ones I care about, and I'm not looking forward to it.
Lesser Evets
Apr 30, 02:13 PM
:eek: How in the world can you make that statement? My 50gb Blu-Ray discs would disagree with you.
I understand where you are coming from. With your feet planted in set in concrete, unable to fathom future developments based on the experimental or high-end tech of the day, the Blu-Ray seems endlessly of value. Much like the tape reels of the 60s.
The BluRay is going away for one very specific reason: mechanical. By 2016 the flash memory chips for 50gb will probably be so everyday and cheap that bulky, mechanical BluRay will seem awkward. By 2019 I'd bet you can store several times more than a BluRay on medium-priced thumb-drive.
Proof? Look back 6 years when a 1gb thumb-drive was a huge chunk of cash. Look back 10 years when a 512MB thumb-drive was almost prohibitive to buy. The future is non-mechanical.
I understand where you are coming from. With your feet planted in set in concrete, unable to fathom future developments based on the experimental or high-end tech of the day, the Blu-Ray seems endlessly of value. Much like the tape reels of the 60s.
The BluRay is going away for one very specific reason: mechanical. By 2016 the flash memory chips for 50gb will probably be so everyday and cheap that bulky, mechanical BluRay will seem awkward. By 2019 I'd bet you can store several times more than a BluRay on medium-priced thumb-drive.
Proof? Look back 6 years when a 1gb thumb-drive was a huge chunk of cash. Look back 10 years when a 512MB thumb-drive was almost prohibitive to buy. The future is non-mechanical.
zhenya
Apr 11, 10:14 AM
I agree with the guy who wants any iOS device to be the receiver of AirTunes music.
I hear all the comments about Home Sharing and Airfoil, but both are only partial solutions that work in specific cases. I, personally, nt my old iPod Touch to function as a battery powered airport express - with some battery powered speakers attached, I can stream music anywhere (including the garden, etc) at the same time - perfect for parties. I could do that with AirFoil, but that means when I want to stream from my iPad to my Apple TV or Airport Express speakers in the living room I need a different solution. Plus i'm not sure the Apple Remote app will allow me to switch AirFoil sources on and off, which means I have to go back to my Mac to change them, it's not properly integrated, so not a great solution. Acceptable, sure, but far from ideal.
With home sharing, your old iPod Touch already does this. It's just that you get to 'pull' the music from your library to your Touch, rather than pushing it from the computer to the Touch. Really, what more do you want?
In reality, this is a much better solution than acting as an Airport Express, which only allows you to play one music stream to any or all devices. With home sharing, different devices can listen to different music at the same time.
I hear all the comments about Home Sharing and Airfoil, but both are only partial solutions that work in specific cases. I, personally, nt my old iPod Touch to function as a battery powered airport express - with some battery powered speakers attached, I can stream music anywhere (including the garden, etc) at the same time - perfect for parties. I could do that with AirFoil, but that means when I want to stream from my iPad to my Apple TV or Airport Express speakers in the living room I need a different solution. Plus i'm not sure the Apple Remote app will allow me to switch AirFoil sources on and off, which means I have to go back to my Mac to change them, it's not properly integrated, so not a great solution. Acceptable, sure, but far from ideal.
With home sharing, your old iPod Touch already does this. It's just that you get to 'pull' the music from your library to your Touch, rather than pushing it from the computer to the Touch. Really, what more do you want?
In reality, this is a much better solution than acting as an Airport Express, which only allows you to play one music stream to any or all devices. With home sharing, different devices can listen to different music at the same time.
aiqw9182
Apr 25, 03:26 PM
You mean this one, a single card, running FarCry at 3840 X 2160 almost two years ago. Since this was almost two years ago, I'm sure its a little dated. :)
http://gizmodo.com/#!5277116/asus-mars-gtx-295-smoothly-running-far-cry-at-3840-x-2160-pixels
Single card? Do you even know what SLI is? Did you even read the article? :rolleyes:
I'm still waiting.
http://gizmodo.com/#!5277116/asus-mars-gtx-295-smoothly-running-far-cry-at-3840-x-2160-pixels
Single card? Do you even know what SLI is? Did you even read the article? :rolleyes:
I'm still waiting.
oneighturbo
Sep 14, 01:15 PM
If the new one is announced before your order ships, it will be automatically upgraded. Otherwise, you should return the unopened product within 2 weeks of purchase for a free upgrade.
so far its 24hr shipping..
that will mean living with a MBP unopened for 11 days and then some... :eek: :D
so far its 24hr shipping..
that will mean living with a MBP unopened for 11 days and then some... :eek: :D
globalhemp
Mar 30, 11:54 AM
I believe Microsoft's #1 problem is that they are the king of generic names for products:
Word for word processing.
Windows for a graphical user interface that has content stores in windows.
Perhaps the only "cool" names Microsoft has are Excel and Xbox?
Damit! They want App Store for selling apps and Apple's already taken it.
Perhaps their argument will be, "How come Apple did not just name their online store the iApp Store, geez...."
Perhaps Microsoft will be left with no alternative but to use the mokier, "Microsoft Store," "Software Store," or "Soft Store?" They could even just call their store "M$ Store."
Word for word processing.
Windows for a graphical user interface that has content stores in windows.
Perhaps the only "cool" names Microsoft has are Excel and Xbox?
Damit! They want App Store for selling apps and Apple's already taken it.
Perhaps their argument will be, "How come Apple did not just name their online store the iApp Store, geez...."
Perhaps Microsoft will be left with no alternative but to use the mokier, "Microsoft Store," "Software Store," or "Soft Store?" They could even just call their store "M$ Store."
AidenShaw
Sep 9, 11:14 AM
Napa is the hardware-platform, composed of Yonah, Intel Mobile 945-chipset and Intel Pro Wireless. AKA third generation Centrino. And since the CPU used in that platform is 32bits, the platfom can be called a 32bit platfom. Note: this has nothing to do with the bitness of the logic-board. Napa64 (or rather: Santa Rosa) is Fourth generation Centrino that uses Merom and new chipset.
http://www.cdrinfo.com/Forum/tm.asp?m=126194&mpage=1&key=𞳲
"Santa Rosa is currently developed by Intel as successor of the current "Napa" platform. Napa will receive a 64-bit refresh in September of this year ("Napa64") to support the launch of the Merom processor. Napa64 will be replaced by Santa Rosa in the first or second quarter of 2007.
Compared to Napa and its Calistoga chipset, Santa Rosa and the Crestline chipset will not be just an evolutionary update, but bring several new features to the user."
There is no "Napa chipset". Like I said, Napa is a hardware-platfom...
My bad, thanks for the correction. Obviously I've been talking about the 945 (Calistoga) chip.
However, isn't Napa a "set of chips"? There's no "Napa chip", but there is a Napa chipset. Since Apple isn't using the Centrino brand, it's probably not a Napa platform per se.
http://www.cdrinfo.com/Forum/tm.asp?m=126194&mpage=1&key=𞳲
"Santa Rosa is currently developed by Intel as successor of the current "Napa" platform. Napa will receive a 64-bit refresh in September of this year ("Napa64") to support the launch of the Merom processor. Napa64 will be replaced by Santa Rosa in the first or second quarter of 2007.
Compared to Napa and its Calistoga chipset, Santa Rosa and the Crestline chipset will not be just an evolutionary update, but bring several new features to the user."
There is no "Napa chipset". Like I said, Napa is a hardware-platfom...
My bad, thanks for the correction. Obviously I've been talking about the 945 (Calistoga) chip.
However, isn't Napa a "set of chips"? There's no "Napa chip", but there is a Napa chipset. Since Apple isn't using the Centrino brand, it's probably not a Napa platform per se.
Multimedia
Sep 11, 06:16 PM
The benchmarks on Tom's Hardware are up.
Intel's Core 2 Quadro Kentsfield: Four Cores on a Rampage (http://www.tomshardware.com/2006/09/10/four_cores_on_the_rampage/)
An up to 100% performance increase over the Core 2 Duo. Goodness me.
I was surprised to see that it's the same form factor chunkywise (same pin setup as Core 2 Duo and compatible with those MBs) - I thought it would be thicker.Great catch Law Guy. Congratulations and thanks!
This is huge news. Where is everybody?!? :confused:
It appears that Conroe motherboards or logic boards, as some like to call them, are Core 2 Quadro ready. Oops! No wonder Apple hasn't released an early Conroe Mac. They's obviously waiting for these Core 2 Quadros to ship - dropping a bomb on everyone who bought a Mac Pro. :eek:
Am I the only one here who thinks this is gigantic news? I can hear a pin drop. The stunned silence is deafening. :eek: ;)
Maybe an early Christmas Present Is In The Works For November Shipping from Apple. :)
So Kentsfield is dubbed Core 2 Quadro or C2Q for short. And it looks like this - last pic is pin view with Core 2 Duo on left Core 2 Quadro on right:
Intel's Core 2 Quadro Kentsfield: Four Cores on a Rampage (http://www.tomshardware.com/2006/09/10/four_cores_on_the_rampage/)
An up to 100% performance increase over the Core 2 Duo. Goodness me.
I was surprised to see that it's the same form factor chunkywise (same pin setup as Core 2 Duo and compatible with those MBs) - I thought it would be thicker.Great catch Law Guy. Congratulations and thanks!
This is huge news. Where is everybody?!? :confused:
It appears that Conroe motherboards or logic boards, as some like to call them, are Core 2 Quadro ready. Oops! No wonder Apple hasn't released an early Conroe Mac. They's obviously waiting for these Core 2 Quadros to ship - dropping a bomb on everyone who bought a Mac Pro. :eek:
Am I the only one here who thinks this is gigantic news? I can hear a pin drop. The stunned silence is deafening. :eek: ;)
Maybe an early Christmas Present Is In The Works For November Shipping from Apple. :)
So Kentsfield is dubbed Core 2 Quadro or C2Q for short. And it looks like this - last pic is pin view with Core 2 Duo on left Core 2 Quadro on right:
flopticalcube
Sep 9, 11:06 AM
Just like the "good" old days all over again.
68000 32-bits inside, 24-bits (16MB) address outside.
8088 16-bits inside, 20-bits (1MB) address outside.
Software (excepting some parts of the OS) doesn't care. Merom is somewhat of a milestone in its 64-bit internals. Down the road there will be an OS release that will not support a 32-bit CPU like Yonah. Of course, 18 months later the next release probably won't support Merom (or Woodcrest) either. :rolleyes:
68000 32-bits inside, 24-bits (16MB) address outside.
8088 16-bits inside, 20-bits (1MB) address outside.
Software (excepting some parts of the OS) doesn't care. Merom is somewhat of a milestone in its 64-bit internals. Down the road there will be an OS release that will not support a 32-bit CPU like Yonah. Of course, 18 months later the next release probably won't support Merom (or Woodcrest) either. :rolleyes:
KnightWRX
Apr 22, 01:22 PM
Because part of releasing a new, backwards approaching, IGP in the 13" MBP required saving face for both its MacBook "PRO" name and Intel's IGP capabilities itself.
If the resolution is upgraded to 1440x900, the IGP is going to perform worse in comparison to the prior 13" MBP...
Hum... that's the point, you wouldn't even notice that in regular desktop usage, only in gaming and then only if you usually game on the internal display.
The framebuffer resolutions required for desktop usage have been pushed by GPUs much less than the SB graphics. Again, my Matrox G200 could power a 1600x1200 monitor with ease with about 1% of the processing power of a 9400M, much less that of the 320M or the Intel 3000HD.
These GPUs can power 30" monitors at 2560x1600 and their internal display on the laptops without breaking a sweat, at the same time. You wouldn't notice a degradation in performance. I'm writing this right now with my MBA connected to a 2048x1156 monitor and it's also powering its own 1440x900 display where iTunes is displayed. I'm not seeing this "degradation" you speak of.
This, again, only applies to 3D gaming. We don't know why the MBP didn't get the resolution upgrade and I can garantee you it has nothing to do with the GPU.
If the resolution is upgraded to 1440x900, the IGP is going to perform worse in comparison to the prior 13" MBP...
Hum... that's the point, you wouldn't even notice that in regular desktop usage, only in gaming and then only if you usually game on the internal display.
The framebuffer resolutions required for desktop usage have been pushed by GPUs much less than the SB graphics. Again, my Matrox G200 could power a 1600x1200 monitor with ease with about 1% of the processing power of a 9400M, much less that of the 320M or the Intel 3000HD.
These GPUs can power 30" monitors at 2560x1600 and their internal display on the laptops without breaking a sweat, at the same time. You wouldn't notice a degradation in performance. I'm writing this right now with my MBA connected to a 2048x1156 monitor and it's also powering its own 1440x900 display where iTunes is displayed. I'm not seeing this "degradation" you speak of.
This, again, only applies to 3D gaming. We don't know why the MBP didn't get the resolution upgrade and I can garantee you it has nothing to do with the GPU.
LagunaSol
Apr 19, 09:21 AM
You must be a barrel of laughs on a shopping trip:
You didn't answer the question.
You didn't answer the question.
Porchland
Sep 19, 05:07 PM
Looking at some financials, I think Disney sells on the order of 100M DVD units per quarter, which comes out to about 7-10M units per week? 125k units through the online channel in one week isn't so bad. :) If they hit their $50M revenue target, that means they will see sales on the order of 1% of total home video sales? That's a fair start.
And undoubtedly a better margin. I have not seen any concrete numbers, but I had read an article months ago speculating that a studio's margin on digitally distributed movies would be about twice the margin it receives on DVDs.
Plus, for catalog sales, the is almost NO marginal cost; the films just sit on a server until someone buys them.
And undoubtedly a better margin. I have not seen any concrete numbers, but I had read an article months ago speculating that a studio's margin on digitally distributed movies would be about twice the margin it receives on DVDs.
Plus, for catalog sales, the is almost NO marginal cost; the films just sit on a server until someone buys them.
DrFrankTM
Sep 12, 05:02 AM
Does anyone think a slightly bigger version of this would be a fantastic desktop?
I, for one, would be happy to spread the Word to the ignorant masses if Apple came out with a cute little white tower to match everyone's cute little white iPod. :P The Mini's nice, and the new iMac is nice too, but I think this thing could help Apple a lot in the desktop segment. I'd say something like that's bound to come out at some point, but when is the big question.
Also, it's probably been mentioned earlier in the thread, but does anyone know how long after Kentsfield Clovertown is supposed to come out? I heard "early 2007" a while ago, but with Kentsfield coming out so early, I would think Clovertown won't take that long.
P.S. Is it my connection, or is the Mac web starting to slow down as it struggles to handle all the traffic generated by the upcoming Apple event?
I, for one, would be happy to spread the Word to the ignorant masses if Apple came out with a cute little white tower to match everyone's cute little white iPod. :P The Mini's nice, and the new iMac is nice too, but I think this thing could help Apple a lot in the desktop segment. I'd say something like that's bound to come out at some point, but when is the big question.
Also, it's probably been mentioned earlier in the thread, but does anyone know how long after Kentsfield Clovertown is supposed to come out? I heard "early 2007" a while ago, but with Kentsfield coming out so early, I would think Clovertown won't take that long.
P.S. Is it my connection, or is the Mac web starting to slow down as it struggles to handle all the traffic generated by the upcoming Apple event?
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?
aristobrat
Sep 19, 03:25 PM
The only downside to the bumped up resolution is the increased download time. Last year, I was able to download Battlestar Galactica eps in about 20 minutes... the other night I downloaded a higher res episode and it took nearly an hour... granted, my DSL isn't the best in the land and the quality was noticably better, although the previous resolution was still fine (I have my iMac hooked via DVI to a 46" Samsung DLP HDTV... front row lets me select and play the shows from my couch) but the extra time caused my wife to say "well, lets just download it overnight and watch it tomorrow"... not a huge deal or anything, but a slight step backwards from the convenience angle. It's too bad you can't choose the resolution you want to download at.
Maybe they could make iTunes let you start playing your TV show download before it's finished, like they let you do with movies?
Maybe they could make iTunes let you start playing your TV show download before it's finished, like they let you do with movies?
KnightWRX
Apr 23, 07:18 AM
I still don't get why there is still no mention of built-in 3G support. For a device as mobile as the MBA, it's beyond me why it's still missing.
But maybe I'm missing something here :-)
Yes, built-in 3G is more costly to buy, usually locked into a particular carrier (what do you mean I can't switch my 1500$ laptop to a new carrier ?) and with the Rev D's 2nd USB port being next to a display port, the "extension" cable is moot.
So you are quite missing tons of things. The current scheme of "get a stick from your carrier" is the best as far as costs and carrier non-attachment go. I tether to my iPhone using Bluetooth anyhow, making the USB thing even more moot.
Built-in 3G is overrated.
But maybe I'm missing something here :-)
Yes, built-in 3G is more costly to buy, usually locked into a particular carrier (what do you mean I can't switch my 1500$ laptop to a new carrier ?) and with the Rev D's 2nd USB port being next to a display port, the "extension" cable is moot.
So you are quite missing tons of things. The current scheme of "get a stick from your carrier" is the best as far as costs and carrier non-attachment go. I tether to my iPhone using Bluetooth anyhow, making the USB thing even more moot.
Built-in 3G is overrated.
ezekielrage_99
Sep 5, 05:20 PM
I'm more interested in the 23" iMac Core 2 Duos and new metal iPods, I hope Apple does release them on the 12th of September.
GimmeSlack12
Apr 28, 06:36 PM
Wow, what a fail for Micro$oft, no no I mean MicroSoft (you don't get an $ in your name anymore).
Instead of making: $5,990,000,000.00
They only made: $5,230,000,000.00
What a bunch of losers. :\
Instead of making: $5,990,000,000.00
They only made: $5,230,000,000.00
What a bunch of losers. :\