Sunday, April 22, 2007, 11:15:47 PM, Steve Watkins wrote: > The jump from 320x240 t 640x480 is quite significant, I know Apple > mailed people advising everyone to change, but theres certainly merit > in considering still offering a 320x240 version at this time. You > could for example keep the ipod feed at 320x240 and offer the 640x480 > version specifically for apple TV. Because Im not sure how many ipod > people use the TV out, and they might hate the increased filesizze > more than they appreciate the higher res they may never get to see.
The bit I don't really understand is why people are making such a fuss over this. A large proportion of web and vlog video viewers have always watched video on a computer screen capable of much more than 320x240. I can't see why Apple's offering might be any more popular than any of the other IP-TV offerings we have seen so far. There are no signs I have seen that Apple TV is having much take-up. Does anyone here know any different? A viewer who is more concerned with image quality than content is probably aiming for broadcast HD (and/or one or both of the HD disc systems). Apple TV at 640x480 is no better (and likely worse) than existing broadcast and DVD. Why bother? If the content is compelling, it's compelling at 320x240. The cynic in me feels that this whole thing is an attempt by Apple to try and convince everyone that Apple TV is significant. I reckon we can all afford to wait for a while and see how it pans out. Or have I missed the point? -- Frank Carver http://www.makevideo.org.uk
