320x320 is 320 pixels tall, and 320 pixels wide. It is a square screen with an aspect ratio of 1:1 320x240 is 240 pixels tall, and 320 pixels wide.
I apologize if this was already dealt with, but could not find it using the search engine. My little Canon pocket camera is able to record very good quality movies at 640x480, and 30 fps. I can watch those movies, with sound, on its 2' screen.
I can connect the camera to a tv and watch it almost full screen, also with good quality. I can also import it into iMovie, and then burn a DVD that plays beautifully on the tv.
So then, why is the iPod limited to only 320x240? Is it so that movie studios will come aboard, not threatened by the possibility that it can be used to 'improperly' move their content to other platforms? If so, then how about an option to allow us to record our own movie content at 640x480, or better.Just my need to rant a little before buying one. 20 G5 iMac (Rev A); Mac OS X (10.3.9).
Hi, i read a post on here i think, but it read like this: Quote: Okay, let me put this to rest. At 320 x 240, any video whether it's h.264 or MPEG4 is going to look like crap over a composite connection on a TV (especially if the source video was already compressed to begin with). This goes extra for HDTVs. The amazing thing about the iPod is that it actually allows for higher resolutions than 320x240. You can obtain very nice 480P like resolutions if you are using MPEG4 (versus h.264).
I encoded one of my DVD movies using Handbrake at a resolution of 720x304 at a bitrate of 2500 kbits/sec (combined audio/video) and it looks absolutely gougeous on both my analog and HDTV. The average person would not be able to tell that it isn't a DVD. The trick with setting resolutions is to stay under a certain pixel total. Credit for the information below goes to the people at macosxhints.com: For mpeg4, '480x480 = 230,400 pixels. So 720x304, keeping the aspect ratio, comes to 218,880, which is less.
Keeping inside that maximum I believe is the only restriction' A good formula to calculate bitrate is: 'width = pixel width of the picture height = pixel height of the picture FPS = source DVD's frames per second Q = bits per pixel quality for the codec. A good setting for MPEG4 is.23, and a good setting for H.264 is.15. You can change those to suit your tastes. For a 720 x 304 widescreen movie at 24 FPS, the equation looks like this: (720. 304.
24.15) / 1024 = 770' Unquote: i havent had time to try this, but i'd suggest giving it a go with a chapter from a dvd, put it in you iPod then try it on the tv by what he says it should look awesome, hope it helps - Mike. The iPod shows 320x240 320x180 Wide screen letterboxed.
Why question it? It's here, that's the deal. KInd of like Spinal Tap, 'why not make 10 louder? This goes to 11.'
![320 X 240 Resolution 320 X 240 Resolution](/uploads/1/2/5/6/125627773/833456246.png)
You camera does what it does, did you question the retailer after purchasing why other cameras can take better video than the one you bought? Geezz, more excuses. Are you trying to justify paying $300+?
Actually to be technically accurate, ViPod's specs are as follows (taken from the following URL ): H.264 video: up to 768 Kbps, 320 x 240, 30 frames per sec., Baseline Profile up to Level 1.3 with AAC-LC up to 160 Kbps, 48 Khz, stereo audio in.m4v,.mp4 and.mov file formats MPEG-4 video: up to 2.5 mbps, 480 x 480, 30 frames per sec., Simple Profile with AAC-LC up to 160 Kbps, 48 Khz, stereo audio in.m4v,.mp4 and.mov file formats. Since the iPod screen is so small, what sense would it make recording in much higher quality?
It would be nice to watch videos full screen on your computer in HQ, but that would only limit the amount of video stored on the iPod, thus not making it attractive as a video device if it could only hold 20 hours of videos. I just sold my iPod, but will be getting another one in the future.
I only want it for music. If I can play a video or two, that's ok, and is really more of a gimmick for me at this point.
Someday when Apple produces the 8' widescreen video player, that will be fun to watch movies on. Until then the iPod is a music player first and foremost for me. Hi, i read a post on here i think, but it read like this: Quote: Okay, let me put this to rest.
At 320 x 240, any video whether it's h.264 or MPEG4 is going to look like crap over a composite connection on a TV (especially if the source video was already compressed to begin with). This goes extra for HDTVs. The amazing thing about the iPod is that it actually allows for higher resolutions than 320x240. You can obtain very nice 480P like resolutions if you are using MPEG4 (versus h.264). I encoded one of my DVD movies using Handbrake at a resolution of 720x304 at a bitrate of 2500 kbits/sec (combined audio/video) and it looks absolutely gougeous on both my analog and HDTV. The average person would not be able to tell that it isn't a DVD.
The trick with setting resolutions is to stay under a certain pixel total. Credit for the information below goes to the people at macosxhints.com: For mpeg4, '480x480 = 230,400 pixels.
So 720x304, keeping the aspect ratio, comes to 218,880, which is less. Keeping inside that maximum I believe is the only restriction' A good formula to calculate bitrate is: 'width = pixel width of the picture height = pixel height of the picture FPS = source DVD's frames per second Q = bits per pixel quality for the codec. A good setting for MPEG4 is.23, and a good setting for H.264 is.15. You can change those to suit your tastes.
For a 720 x 304 widescreen movie at 24 FPS, the equation looks like this: (720. 304. 24.15) / 1024 = 770' Unquote: i havent had time to try this, but i'd suggest giving it a go with a chapter from a dvd, put it in you iPod then try it on the tv by what he says it should look awesome, hope it helps - Mike. Thank you Mike and Michael.
I am sorry that 'mcarr' got so upset about my asking why the iPod doesn't perhaps do more than it was designed to do. Some people seem to take it personally when people question their beloved object. I think that the two of you understood what I was getting at. Yes, I do know that the iPod does not record videos. My interest is in being able to put a video on it to watch while travelling, or perhaps hook up to a TV to watch when I get there.
At 320x240 the picture on the TV might not be very pleasant to look at. So it just seemed, to naive me, that if my little camera could display 640x480 video on its screen, as well as on the TV, why not the iPod. But it sounds as though you guys are saying that it can, which would be great.
20 G5 iMac (Rev A); Mac OS X (10.3.9). Do you know the application iSquint?
It gives some options: optimize for iPod or TV when you hook it up (which is a nice size - even on my laptop if I make it twice the size, it's pretty comfortable viewing), and also conserve size or make it best quality. I was hoping to load bigger videos for the iPod, so that I can show off my home videos to my family by hooking it to a TV. I was a bit confused by the detailed settings the iPod can take, so it's nice that iSquint does it for you. I like optimizing the size for TV very much. 'The amazing thing about the iPod is that it actually allows for higher resolutions than 320x240. You can obtain very nice 480P like resolutions if you are using MPEG4 (versus h.264).
I encoded one of my DVD movies using Handbrake at a resolution of 720x304 at a bitrate of 2500 kbits/sec (combined audio/video) and it looks absolutely gougeous on both my analog and HDTV. The average person would not be able to tell that it isn't a DVD.' Mike, What does this look like when you play it on the iPod? I guess I am asking whether you can have your cake & eat it, too? Let me see if I understand this. Are you guys saying that when converting video, whether using Handbrake or iSquint, instead of converting it to iPod size (320x240) I can/should convert it to say, 640x480. Then, if I play it on the iPod it will automatically scale to the correct size for the iPod, and if I connect the iPod to a TV, it will play more or less full screen on the TV, and at better quality than had I converted to 320x240?
Or to put it in simpler terms, if I use iSquint and convert for TV, then it will it play equally well on either the iPod or a TV? I don't mean to belabor this, but if that is the case, IMHO it is very important for people to know as it increases the iPod's usefulness quite a bit.
Apple states that display should be limited to 320x240 for the H.264/AAC format and 480x480 (or 230,400 pixels) for the MPEG4/AAC format. However, people have reportedly used other dimensons and claimed they were iPod compatible. The iLounge confirmed this information and added that other, non-standard dimensions would work if, and only if, they conformed to a 16 pixel macro block limit of 900. (E.g., a 480x480 screen contains 30x30 16-pixel macro blocks.) Since if I wish to watch DVD content on my TV, I would do so from the original DVD using the DVD palyer, this is not a major isue with me. I bought the iPod as a portable device for watching material on the iPod's own screen. And, yes, if the iPod's CPU is not overdriven, it will automatically scale the oversized material down for display on the iPod screen. However, if overdriven, the display may begin to stutter, drop frames, skip and playback may become very 'jerky' or freeze altogether.
2.0GHZ G5/533MHz G4 DeskTop/400MHz G4 PB Mac OS X (10.4.3). Apple Footer. This site contains user submitted content, comments and opinions and is for informational purposes only. Apple may provide or recommend responses as a possible solution based on the information provided; every potential issue may involve several factors not detailed in the conversations captured in an electronic forum and Apple can therefore provide no guarantee as to the efficacy of any proposed solutions on the community forums. Apple disclaims any and all liability for the acts, omissions and conduct of any third parties in connection with or related to your use of the site. All postings and use of the content on this site are subject to the.