Which is better quality for watching a pre downloaded movie airplay or HMDI?

I have the new Retnia. I have an apple tv and high quality HDMI cable. If I want watch a 900P movie from my laptop to my up to 1080p tv which would be more reliable/better quality? BTW the movie is predownloaded so it WOULD NOT be streamming.
Thanks!

My guess is the HDMI cable will yield better quality than AirPlay. Since you already have an HDMI cable and a Mac that supports AirPlay, why not try both for yourself then report back here with your results?

Similar Messages

What gets better quality for watching video.. airplay mirroring or HDMI cable

I have the new Retnia. I have a apple tv and high quality HDMI cable. If I want watch a 900P movie from my laptop to my up to 1080p tv which would be more reliable/better quality? BTW the movie is predownloaded so it WOULD NOT be streamming.
Thanks!

My guess is the HDMI cable will yield better quality than AirPlay. Since you already have an HDMI cable and a Mac that supports AirPlay, why not try both for yourself then report back here with your results?

Which yields better quality images?

Which yields better quality images?
If I "send" my slideshow from iPhoto to iDVD? Or if I start in iDVD and import a slideshow from iPhoto?

That’s the same thing.
The problem is that iPhoto needs to make a movie of the slideshow to export. This inevitably involves compression. Then, when iDVD prepares the movie for burning, it also compresses. Many folks find the quality drop off too great when the material is doubly compressd.
One solution is to create the Slideshow in iDVD, though that has limitations too - no Ken Burns effect, fo instance. But there’s only one layer of compression.
Another way is to create the Movie in +as high a quality as possible+. Some ways to do this: Export the slideshow from iPhoto using the new high quality options. Alternatively, use another app that has more export options - PhotoToMovie, Final Cut Express, perhaps even iMovie HD - to get a high quality movie, and so minimise the impact of the compression.
Regards
TD

H.264 vs. MPEG-4 video, which is better quality?

Which is better quality? H.264 or MPEG-4? Is one more compressed than the other? I'm putting video on my iPod and also may want to output to television from the iPod, so I'd also like to know which is better for that as well in addition to which is better in general.

H.264 is significantly more compressed than typical MPEG-4. MPEG-4 naturally would be better quality to the discerning eye, and is not as dependent on the speed of your processor and the strength of your GPU as H.264 is. I managed to get a 320 x 240 video of H.264 compressed to be 200 Megabytes for a 2.5 hour video. On a G5 iMac 1.8 Ghz the playback was fine. Trying the same video on a slower Mac there was significant amount of stuttering of the video itself. Experiment with some one minute shorts and measure the file size and see which has better quality on what you are playing it back on. If you can tell the difference, then go with the higher quality format. Certainly keep a higher quality format burnt to DVD in case you need to recreate from the original.

Which is better software for brochures and PDF forms ? Photoshop or InDesign ?

Which is better software for brochures and PDF forms ? Photoshop or InDesign ? and why ?

If you are going to be making a lot of brochures, with photos, you probably want both. Photoshop to edit the photos, and InDesign to assemble and layout images with text.

HT204370 I watch my iTunes downloaded movies on Apple TV but the subtitles is driving me crazy - how do I turn it off PLEASE?

I watch my iTunes downloaded movies on Apple TV and these subtitles are killing me - how do I turn it off PLEASE?

Id the subtitles aren't set to always show then you should be able to turn them off : http://support.apple.com/kb/HT5562

MPEG-2 vs. mini DV - Which is better quality?

I want to transfer video from VHS tapes into iMovie. Which is going to give me better quality?:
A) Copy VHS to mini DV tape on my camcorder and then import into iMovie.
or
B) Copy VHS to DVD with my VHS/DVD recorder combo player and then transfer the DVD to iMovie using Apple MPEG-2 Player.
Thanks!
David

Hi Greg,
VERY good question! I think, we have three groups:
* the poor guys who have bought a "dvd camcorder"...- I don't have a clue, why I should record on a mini-dvd instead of a cheap tape...- the compression codec used on such machines is by definition! no editable format, so you allways need workarounds...
there should be a warning on that boxes "for playback only!"
(besides: the mpeg2-format allows to store video that way, you can edit it later, has to do with i-Frames etc... but that is not the way, Sony & Co goes...)
* using "older" homebrewn dvds...- ok, maybe somewhere are the old tapes... but where? and on that tape where do I find THAT scene? isn't it easier, to throw the DVD I made and copy that into iM?..... again: people see the fantastic pic quality of a DVD made with iDVD and think, "press play and record!".. THAT would be nice
* re-edit commercial DVDs... you made your personal version of StarWars, Episode XVII, and you are not that good in CGI as ILM... so, you want to copy a few frames from the disc on your shelf...- or, "forget all that plot, I want all Bruce Lee fighting scenes on ONE disc!" (<< ... "favorites", as we do in iTunes with playlist!)
you could make BIG Bucks with a 49$ tiny, shiny white box, analogue-in >> firewire out, which is recognized by iM....- ;-))

Touch or Classic? Which is better (quality)?

Which is better in terms of sound quality?

Classics. The Older 5.5 gens and Older series Ipods. The Newer 5.5 gens and the 6th Gens use a new sound chip. Same as for the Ipod Touches but Im not 100% sure with the Iphones.
Be careful though, The Ipods with that use the old style sound chip, which is far superior in quality of sound, wasn't soldered well and the chip can seperate with The constant temperature change and unobserved pressure applied to the unit when its in your pocket, book bag... ect.
Now Im not going to say that is 100% positive. Its just from experience owning a few new and older Ipods/Iphones.
Besides, How many older Mp3 plays can literally blow out your Earbuds{quality earbuds} if played too loud. I owned Bose Series{IE 2} in ear headphones and klipsch In ear Headphones{S5I Rugged series}.... The Key word is "Owned" lol.
Find an Older model that works great and compare it to the newer models. You will Hear the DIfference... or make you deaf in the process LOL.

Which is better ? for loop or iterator ??

Hi,
I have one array list having more than 100 objects in it.
I have two way to ietrator.
1.
for(int i=0; i<list.size(); i++)
Object o = list.get(i);
2.
Iterator i = list.getIterator()
while(i.hasNext())
Object o ...
which is better in performance ??

Well okay. It's an easy optimization but I guess Sun
doesn't want to "bail out" people who don't know
their data structures.It won't always be optimal, though. If you use
iterators and don't iterate the whole way through
every time, it would degrade performance. It's hard
for them to make assumptions about how you will
access the data. So you punish people who do use it
properly if you do that.I don't know. The optimization I suggested is isolated to random accesses in the linked list only. Say you access index 5. The node pointer corresponding to 5 is stored and if the next access is index 6 the node pointer you're looking for is pointer.next. There's no need to walk the list from the beginning.

Better quality for youtube!

Well I post videos up to youtube and usually they are pretty bad in quality. I use iMovie 08 to edit them. I was wondering if maybe there is any possible way that I can get it to become better quality. I use Gameplay clips. I record them with Elgato and export into iMovie using DV settings.

I did a lot of tests, but never satisfied with results, my recommendation:
http://karsten.schluter.googlepages.com/youtubeuploadsettings
(YT now offers 'HiDef' content , which results in better/less blocky replay in moving parts...)
if you want a better quality, use other free services as vimeo.com ...
or, upload to your me.com account ..

Which is better graphic for iMac 2007 or MacBook Air 2012

iMac use ATI Radeon HD 2600 Pro 256 MB and MacBook Air use intel graphic 5000m so which is better?

Without knowing how you intend to use the computer it's impossible to say, also you are comparing apples and oranges.

How do I get a better quality for my image?

Hi,
I have created a logo for a business online and I now need to use it for letter heads, business cards etc and when i copy it straight from the internet into a word document it looks very blurry and unproffesional. What can i do to make this better?
Thanks
Chloe

Hi Chloe -
Did you create the logo using Photoshop CS6? When you place an image on a website and then copy it staight from the website, you risk losing some of the quality of the original file. Outside of placing the logo directly into your word document using the original file, you can maximize the quality of the logo you're placing on your website by using the Save for Web function of Photoshop.
You can access this function by going to File > Save for Web...
This will allow you to adjust settings so that you can get an image with a small file size suitable for using on your website while still maintaining a high quality image.
Here is a short tutorial from Lynda.com on using the Save for Web functions of Photoshop CS6:
I believe that the blurriness that you are describing is an issue with Microsoft Word, which we probably won't be able to help you much with. However, if you have access to it, Adobe InDesign is an alternative to creating documents that intregrates better with high-quality graphics.
Good luck!

Which MAC better suited for Aperture ?

I've a budget around 1900-2000 euro (more or less the same price in US dollars for the US market)
The choice would be either one of the new iMac or a MacBookPro ...
In both cases there is some level of choice whether to invest money on:
1) either go for the model with more performing video card
2) either the model with more performing CPU or more RAM or (even) a solid-state disk
Just to make it clear: I'm not a pro, I've been able to use Aperture, till now, on a 2007 MacBook
and I didn't feel so bad as regards managing previews, while I'd like some more horsepower
while editing single images (as soon as the list of adjustments applied gets long, the spinning
beach ball takes home on my screen and I have to wait more and more time !)
... The time needed to zoom in at 100% is annoying to ...
So the question is: are these operations (adjustments, zooming into the image) demanding more
on CPU, or on GPU or ... what else ?
To make an example: would a MacBookPro be performing more fast than an iMac
(I don't care of the smaller screen size, since I'm used to adjust images at 100% zoom) ?
Is it worth going to the MacBookPro with Radeon HD 6750M and 1GB memory, or would
a Radeon HD 6490M with 256MB perform as well, investing the saved money in more
RAM ?
Speaking of photo applications I'd naively suppose it's better to go with a more performing GPU,
but probably most of the GPU power is reserved for film encoding/decoding, not for photo adjustments ...
Thank you for your help

Whatever you get you want an SSD. That makes iMacs relatively very expensive.
Mobility is a HUGE benefit. iMacs lack mobility.
Top 2011 MBPs with SSD are true desktop replacement boxes. Very strong performance and Thunderbolt removes the achilles heel of past laptops, i/o. Previously I had a Mac Pro plus Macbook Pro workflow and it worked. Now I have a desktop-replacement 2011 MBP and it is way better. If you sell your current laptop and apply the money to a new MBP + external display the MBP comparison price gets very attractive as compared to MBP plus iMac.
Aperture runs well on 8 GB RAM, and in any event 2011 MBPs will take 16 GB RAM. Currently prices are unacceptably high for the required 8 GB DIMMs but the capability is there when prices fall, which they will. As you do your analyses include RAM to 8 GB (post-purchase via third party, much cheaper).
iMacs have glossy-only displays. Many image pros including me find those displays unacceptable. MBPs have matte displays available. New Macbook Airs (MBAs) are glossy too, but seem to present less glare than iMacs do. Each individual needs to visually compare displays before purchasing.
MBAs are the low end for heavy graphics apps like Aperture, not recommended.
I own a 17" 2011 MBP with SSD and 8 GB RAM and Aperture flies on it. Adding SSD to a top 2011 MBP costs only +$100, and the optical drive can inexpensively be replaced with a third-party hard drive of up to 1000 GB (1 TB) when necessary. IMO an SSD is a necessity, not an option.
During desktop use fast external hard drives like Promise Thunderbolt RAID arrays can be added, as can quality non-glossy displays like the $300 Viewsonic VP2365wb or the better NEC 2490. I have the Viewsonic aligned above a 17" MBP and it is a nice combination. Two displays IMO is much preferable for graphics work.
SSD is a huge boost. I put OS, apps, Library and Referenced Masters on the SSD, then relocate the Masters to external drives when editing is complete. Aperture performance is essentially instant.
BareFeats.com has relative graphics performance tests up at:
http://barefeats.com/mba11_02.html
Insights from Rob Art Morgan at Barefeats:
"Though more than adequate for mere mortal tasks (Safari, Mail, etc.), the 2011 MacBook Air remains at the bottom of the Mac "food chain" when running apps that stress the CPU, GPU, and memory. This will be further illustrated with soon-to-be posted tests using After Effects, Aperture, Final Cut Pro, etc."
From an earlier post of mine regarding Aperture hardware:
Aperture is a hardware hog: GPU, CPU, i/o, RAM. Although many Macs will run Aperture, those intending Aperture as an important app will do far better with the strongest available hardware in a given category.
All new Macs have Thunderbolt, so as of 2011 we can scratch i/o as a performance limiter (except see SSD comments below).
Aperture (3.1.2, OS 10.6.8) seems to like about 4 GB of RAM all to itself. On 2011 boxes 8 GB RAM generally works well with multiple concurrent apps. From the standpoint of cost-effective upgrading, adding third party RAM to achieve 8 GB or more is something every Aperture user should do. By the time we reach v4 Aperture I would bet that having more than 8 GB RAM on board will be useful; it may be already with Lion, but I have not been running Lion due to known issues with Adobe apps.
Graphics in 2011 Macs vary widely, so IMO the graphics processing unit (GPU) may be the most important variable for comparing new Aperture boxes in 2011 . The GPU itself is important, but even more importantly evaluating the GPU strength turns out to be a pretty good way to compare 2011 Mac Aperture performance.
Relatively real-world 2011 graphics hardware test results on pro applications have been performed by well-respected testers, see below. I have not yet seen meaningful Aperture-specific tests, however experience since v1 Aperture has been that Aperture performance has been keenly dependent upon the strength of the graphics processor. E.g. a Mac Pro with lame graphics card will underperform on Aperture.
In my experience (2011 17" MBP) the benefits of SSDs are huge. I consider the fastest Aperture workflow to have both Library and Referenced Masters on SSD, then when work on a Project is complete the Referenced Masters are relocated to hard drives. I am doing that now and everything on the box is essentially instant.
Comparative Final Cut Pro test results for the 2011 MBPs vs. others are up at barefeats.com:
http://barefeats.com/fcpx01.html
Comparative Motion test results for the 2011 MBPs vs. others also are up at barefeats.com:
http://barefeats.com/wst10g12.html
Comparative 2011 MBP Graphics test results at barefeats.com:
http://barefeats.com/mbps04.html
INSIGHTS from BareFeats.com:
"1. The 2011 2.2GHz and 2.3GHz MacBook Pro with Radeon 6750M graphics (1GB GDDR5) is a 'different animal' from the 2011 2.0GHz MacBook Pro with the Radeon 6490M graphics (256MB GDDR5). Is it worth $300 more (comparably equipped). Yes, when you consider you are getting a faster CPU and much faster GPU.
2. The 2011 2.7GHz MacBook Pro with Intel HD 3000 integrated graphics does little or nothing to improve the 3D graphics performance compared to the GeForce 320M integrated graphics in the 2010 MacBook Air and 13" MacBook Pro."
HTH
-Allen Wicks

Which is better datatype for storing Images in 11gr2 Database ?

Can anyone tell me which datatype should be maintained for storing images in database in terms of
1. Space
2. Speed.
And, Is there another way for storing images instead of database ?
Thanks/Regards in advacne.

982164 wrote:
Which one have better speed, database system or file system ?Database is better all around. It is not just a question of speed. It is a question of storage, security, flexibility, scalability, robustness and so on.
If you use ASM and raw devices from a storage array or SAN, how do you get o/s files onto that? (requires a file system on the SAN/array LUNs)
If it is inside the database, database security, concurrency and consistency apply to the image. Outside the database? How do you control who has access? Prevent someone with slippery fingers from accidentally deleting/renaming/moving images files? How do you backup up the image data with the image attribute data in the database?
Having all this inside the database, part of the database, managed by the database, provides you with more flexibility, robustness, and security. After all a RDBMS is a data management system - it is designed for managing data. And that includes managing binary data.
As for speed. Reading a 24MB image is reading 24MB worth of data. Whether that data is read by process A from disk1, or process B from disk2 - the amount of data is the same. So if you want faster I/O, then use faster disks. If disk1 is faster, process A will perform better reading the image than process B. If disk2 is faster, the roles are reversed.
So I/O speed is not a direct function of process A or process B. It is a direct function of the I/O storage and fabric layer. Yes, a process's method of I/O can make a difference (e.g. using block reads not aligned with the physical blocks on disk). But this is more a configuration issue than process doing badly designed I/O calls.
So the speed question is a bit loaded as it has more to do with the architecture and design of the I/O system - and less to do with the process doing that I/O. You can have a highly optimised I/O process doing poorly using an old and slow I/O layer, and poorly written I/O process doing pretty well on a SSD I/O layer.
Databases like Oracle is designed for dealing with data - and thus effectively dealing with I/O. Lots of it. For lots of data. So I/O process design is not a consideration. The database processes will use the I/O layer as optimally as possible and as configured.

Slow burn vs Fast burn (which is better quality) fact or fiction

Ok again I would like to know the official answer to this question because from the response last time, I'm not really confidence with the answer.
IS IT FACT THAT IF YOU USE WAV BURNER AND BURN AT A SLOWER SPEED COMPARED TO FASTER SPEED THE QUALITY BECOMES BETTER BY PROOF?
IF THIS FACT OR FICTION.
SOMEONE PLEASE PROVIDE SOME LONG YEARS EXPERIENCE PROOF.

Sorry, can't wait until someone clocks what I've said, 'cos I might be going out soon, so thought I'd write it up first...
The difference between the HHB and the Mac burner is... nothing much. The actual tray and laser workings are probably the same in both units. The extra dosh for the HHB covers the casing, functionality and the convertors - it's basically a hardware version of WaveBurner, and we all know hardware versions cost more than software versions.
Therefore, in my alleged test there should only be one of the four that shows any difference, and that's the real time recording via analogue. The other three, all remaining in the digital domain, irrespective of speed, should give the same results, because data is encoded in the same way, no matter how you do it. It would be interesting to see if there is any difference, but I doubt the equipment I've got would be sensitive enough to monitor it (or would allow me to zoom in and see the difference enough to post here). With that in mind, the human ear isn't going to hear it.
The only REAL difference the speed option gives you is reliability of burning. The faster you get, the more prone it is of making an error in the burning process, but this can sometimes come down to the quality of the disc itself. Not all discs are the same, as I guess most people have realised to their horror at some point (data).
Just a final note. I'm working with a voice-over artist for TV and radio, and the stations are happy to receive the files as MP3's via email. Who'd have thought that would happen when MP3 came out?!? Just goes to show people are putting a perspective on the quality standard for final use. But I'm still sending AIFF files though, MP3 makes me shudder as an original! And here we are worrying about CD quality...

Which is better quality for watching a pre downloaded movie airplay or HMDI?

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for