<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: iTunes vs. Pirating Followup</title>
	<atom:link href="http://the-ish.com/blog/?feed=rss2&#038;p=19" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://the-ish.com/blog/?p=19</link>
	<description>waxing technologic / philosophic</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 18 Aug 2008 03:56:23 -0400</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Michael</title>
		<link>http://the-ish.com/blog/?p=19&#038;cpage=1#comment-1629</link>
		<dc:creator>Michael</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 22 Feb 2007 06:48:02 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://the-ish.com/blog/?p=19#comment-1629</guid>
		<description>I haven&#039;t downloaded much from the iTunes store for video, but what I have leads me (a professional video editor) to a different aspect (**cough**) of this question. When we get &quot;Lost&quot; on iTunes, they give us an image that is 640 x 480 in size. When we get something in widescreen (like the &quot;Return to Jericho&quot; catch-up episode from CBS, which I snagged because it was free) they give us an image that is 640 x 360. You are entirely correct to point out that if a show is widescreen and they cut off the sides, then they aren&#039;t giving us the full experience.
But how much they have shrunk the picture? A widescreen show that is originally 720 pixels tall is shrunk to half of its original resolution. But a 4:3 version of that show is only shrunk to two-thirds size (once the sides are amputated) so although the sides are cropped, the remaining image will have a lot more detail.
When we get a 4:3 show, we pay $1.99 and get 307,200 pixels in each frame. When we pay the same amount for a 16:9 show we only get 230,400 pixels per frame.
Another thing to consider is that although many TV shows are now created in HD, they are shot to &quot;protect the 4:3&quot;, meaning that nothing crucial is put in the sides of the shot (which is understandable since the vast majority of TVs are still 4x3, but it is still a bummer for those of us who love widescreen and want to see that screen real estate get used properly).
One solution that I wish iTunes would embrace: Anamorphic. But that&#039;s a subject for another time. Thanks, Michael</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I haven&#8217;t downloaded much from the iTunes store for video, but what I have leads me (a professional video editor) to a different aspect (**cough**) of this question. When we get &#8220;Lost&#8221; on iTunes, they give us an image that is 640 x 480 in size. When we get something in widescreen (like the &#8220;Return to Jericho&#8221; catch-up episode from CBS, which I snagged because it was free) they give us an image that is 640 x 360. You are entirely correct to point out that if a show is widescreen and they cut off the sides, then they aren&#8217;t giving us the full experience.<br />
But how much they have shrunk the picture? A widescreen show that is originally 720 pixels tall is shrunk to half of its original resolution. But a 4:3 version of that show is only shrunk to two-thirds size (once the sides are amputated) so although the sides are cropped, the remaining image will have a lot more detail.<br />
When we get a 4:3 show, we pay $1.99 and get 307,200 pixels in each frame. When we pay the same amount for a 16:9 show we only get 230,400 pixels per frame.<br />
Another thing to consider is that although many TV shows are now created in HD, they are shot to &#8220;protect the 4:3&#8243;, meaning that nothing crucial is put in the sides of the shot (which is understandable since the vast majority of TVs are still 4&#215;3, but it is still a bummer for those of us who love widescreen and want to see that screen real estate get used properly).<br />
One solution that I wish iTunes would embrace: Anamorphic. But that&#8217;s a subject for another time. Thanks, Michael</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: the-ish.com/blog &#187; iTunes versus Pirating</title>
		<link>http://the-ish.com/blog/?p=19&#038;cpage=1#comment-1625</link>
		<dc:creator>the-ish.com/blog &#187; iTunes versus Pirating</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 21 Feb 2007 20:48:37 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://the-ish.com/blog/?p=19#comment-1625</guid>
		<description>[...] I&#8217;ve purchased a number of things from the iTunes Store. Music and TV shows primarily, and I&#8217;ve been pretty happy with the ease of use and quality of my purchases&#8230; The problem i have, though, is that television shows such as Lost, which are broadcast in a 16&#215;9 aspect ration HD, when purchased from the iTunes Store, are only 4&#215;3.  EDIT: this apparently only applies to ABC shows. this is an important distinction, and i apologize it was not originally noted. For more info, please read the followup. [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] I&#8217;ve purchased a number of things from the iTunes Store. Music and TV shows primarily, and I&#8217;ve been pretty happy with the ease of use and quality of my purchases&#8230; The problem i have, though, is that television shows such as Lost, which are broadcast in a 16&#215;9 aspect ration HD, when purchased from the iTunes Store, are only 4&#215;3.  EDIT: this apparently only applies to ABC shows. this is an important distinction, and i apologize it was not originally noted. For more info, please read the followup. [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
