1440p TV from Apple

Since broadcast television has not switched to more than 1920 x 1080 pixel yet, and not that much content is distributed in more than 1080p, I am confused by the new 4K television sets, since acquisition formats are still stuck at 1080p in most cases, some use 2K and 2.5K (Arri Alexa) and some use 3K, 4K and 5K (Red cameras), but then again, those get down converted to 1080p for television use.

kenitox said:

A 1440p TV would be a more sensible resolution, much cheaper to manufacture than a 4K display, and consumers would instantly be able to take advantage of the higher resolution. That would make them more desirable than any other TV including 4K ones. If Apples iTV sell like any other Apple product it would not take long before we would see TV broadcast in 1440p. 4K on the other hand is simply too far away.

Click to expand...

This is utterly ridiculous. It's hard enough to get content producers and distributors to any sort of standard, much less adding yet another "standard". Right now, we've got some channels in 720p, some in 1080i, and some PPV channels and downloads in 1080p. To make matters worse, there's no standard for framerate either. You have 24p for cinema and TV capture, but then it's all converted to 60p or 60i for broadcast. Some TV manufacturers offer true 24p displays, but to use that, the consumer has to have a BD player and have everything properly configured for the correct frame rate. Not to mention differences in resolution and frame rates between NTSC and PAL countries.

And then if all that isn't convoluted enough, you want to introduce yet another display format?!?!?!

To make it even more confusing, probably less than 1% of the population can even see the difference in 1080p vs 720p in their normal viewing environments, so an even higher resolution wouldn't accomplish much of anything for the rest of the population except for separating them from more of their money by buying more expensive gadgets to view that content.

Utterly ridiculous.

4k tv is currently where HD TV was in the mid 90s.

if you remember it wasn't that long ago (maybe 5 years), that while shows might have been in HD, all the commercials were still in SD.
blu-ray players just hit the market 7 years ago. (10 years after the first HD TVs hit the market).

it's currently a novelty, not a money maker. in 5-10 years, it will be closer to mainstream, but still at the highend.

kenitox said:

Something is needed to kick off any new high resolution trend for consumers. Its not going to be a few expensive 4K displays. Its not going to be the next generation game consoles from sony and Microsoft, because there is no hardware at the moment that can handle movies or games with 4K resolution at an affordable price.

With a 1440p TV, Apple would have a huge advantage over the 1080p and the 4k competition. Apple has iTunes. They could make deals with production companies to convert films to their own resolution to match their own series of 1440p TV´s. A 1440p TV would be a more sensible resolution, much cheaper to manufacture than a 4K display, and consumers would instantly be able to take advantage of the higher resolution. That would make them more desirable than any other TV including 4K ones. If Apples iTV sell like any other Apple product it would not take long before we would see TV broadcast in 1440p. 4K on the other hand is simply too far away.

Click to expand...

Why?Do you own TV manufacturer stock or something?
4k is worthless for TVs(projectors,yes).No human at a normal viewing distance can see the difference.
MUCH better to improve contrast,color accuracy and a whole host of other picture parameters.It's the stupid megapixel wars all over again.

What's the percentage of people who now own an HDTV?

4K isn't as stupid as some make out. Most films are shot or converted from film at 4K so it should be fairly quick to get a new BluRay format based on h.265 using 4K which would give a plentiful supply of films in the format. Broadcast TV on the other hand isn't going to shift for probably a decade. Likewise there isn't much point in 4K sets under 50" but for high end if the studios/manufacturers don't expect the mass market to move to the new format no one will end up disappointed.

kiranmk2 said:

4K isn't as stupid as some make out. Most films are shot or converted from film at 4K so it should be fairly quick to get a new BluRay format based on h.265 using 4K which would give a plentiful supply of films in the format. Broadcast TV on the other hand isn't going to shift for probably a decade. Likewise there isn't much point in 4K sets under 50" but for high end if the studios/manufacturers don't expect the mass market to move to the new format no one will end up disappointed.

Click to expand...

The point isn't a technical one, but rather that human biology is simply not able to take advantage of such high specs.

It's the same argument I make against a retina Thunderbolt Display any time soon. It's almost exactly half the ppi of a 13" rMBP, at the same native resolution, and just over twice the screen size. The rMBP, "retina" being an undefined marketing term referring to some threshold where pixels become undistinguishable at the usage distance, is used more than twice as close to your face as you would a Thunderbolt display.

Hence, in practice, a Thunderbolt display, at 2560x1440 is already retina. Using arbitrary but probably representative #s, you might use a rMBP 13 about a foot away from your face (226.98 PPI), but since you sit about least two feet away from the screen of a TB display (111.81 PPI), the effective PPI would be equivalent to 223.62. This is the general idea behind how an iPad can be considered "retina" when it is substantially lower PPI than an iPhone, as an iPhone in theory will be used closer to one's face.

Now let's extrapolate this basic mathematics analysis to the living room. Screens are much larger and the resolutions are generally lower (720p and 1080p), but the viewing distances are many, many times farther away. Ultimately, unless you are very, very, very close to the screen (or your screen is preposterously large, and I mean for most living rooms, 80"+), you will not be able to distinguish between 1080p and 1440p or 4K.

This is the limitation of the human retina. Your eyes are only so good. I can cram a 12960p 16:9 screen into an iPhone (if it existed), but it'll still only look as good as the current one because my eyes just can't resolve the pixels anyway. And neither can yours, unless you're sporting a MIT Media Lab bionic eye.

ybz90 said:

unless you're sporting a MIT Media Lab bionic eye.

Click to expand...

No comment.

GarrettL1979 said:

No comment.

Click to expand...

Touché.