Register FAQ / Rules Forum Spy Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
Go Back   MacRumors Forums > News and Article Discussion > Mac Blog Discussion

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old Jul 21, 2013, 02:32 PM   #51
darster
macrumors 68000
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
4K (UHD) is a gimmick. You sit more than 5 feet from tv and you won't notice the difference. Plus a lot more has to go into a quality picture other than 4K, such as black levels, which will make the picture really pop when calibrated. Other than a few tv's such as the former Pioneer Elites and Kuros, and the current Panasonic ZT series, there are no others out there that produce a great picture. Unless you get an OLED tv where the picture is unbelievable because the black level is impressive. If Apple truly wanted to impress, they would dump 4K and produce an OLED tv. OLED is by far the best out there, with no 4K tv even coming close to that picture quality. Of course at $10,000 to $15,000 in price, it likely will fade away as people buy the cheap junk.
darster is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jul 21, 2013, 09:44 PM   #52
hallam
macrumors newbie
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Who cares about TV?

This is the monitor for my next Desktop. At the moment I have two 30" HP displays and I find the resolution a little grainy next to my MacBook Retina.

I upgraded the TV to LED backed LCD a few years back, not planning an upgrade for some time. But Apple might persuade me if they could deliver 3D and 4K at an acceptable price.

3D is not enough on its own to upgrade and certainly not with 4K round the corner. The only downside to my existing TV is that it has a rather large bezel being about 5 years old now.
hallam is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jul 21, 2013, 11:39 PM   #53
Sigspd
macrumors newbie
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: Jacksonville FLorida
LG Screen is beautiful

The screen on those ultra HD TV's are awesome. They are second to none. I know I will probably need a new one when apple brings their unit out in 2020. My 65" Mitsubishi DLP 1080p will work for me till it dies. It is nice to watch but nothing like what keeps coming out.

Next thing to get will be the Apple TV since I don't have it yet.
Sigspd is offline   0 Reply With Quote
Old Jul 23, 2013, 08:36 AM   #54
RobNYC
macrumors regular
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: New York, NY
Quote:
Originally Posted by pgiguere1 View Post
Nope, not happening.

The very vast majority of people can't stream 4K at a worthwhile bandwidth. Heck, most people can't even stream 1080p without heavy compression. Apple has only just started offering 1080p streaming and it's nowhere near Blu-ray quality, but that was to be expected if they wanted people to be able to stream it. Now people should be able to stream 4x the pixels while the average Internet bandwidth has stayed the same?

The effect of 4K on a movie is more subtle than the jump from SD from HD was, and also more subtle than the jump from a regular display to a Retina display (considering you're displaying a lot of high-contrast vector graphics like text and other sharp UI elements on a computer/phone). In a movie, contrast is never as high and sharpness is often ultimately limited by the lens used to capture footage. You'll often notice several elements in a scene are slightly out of focus because of the depth of field.

Having seen 4K TVs in person, they look awesome but the resolution part isn't mind-blowing. You really have to get into big TVs (60"+) to notice it at average distance. The sharpness gain you get from the resolution would totally be negated by heavy compression artifacts if you were to compress 4K movies to the point they can be streamed by most (10-15Mbps). For reference, a 1080p Blu-ray movie is around 35Mbps, so obviously quadrupling the number of pixels while reducing the bandwidth significantly isn't going to look to good.

So yeah, who's willing to drop $5k+ on a 4K TV which's image quality wouldn't be better than a much cheaper 1080p set because there's no proper way no distribute 4K yet? If Apple had a plan to instantly become a high-speed ISP like Google Fiber it could work, but I highly doubt they're willing to make such an investment.

After all, we're talking about the same company who sells songs in 256kbps in 2013, and dare call them "CD quality". Even if people were ready for 4K (they're not), Apple would probably be too cheap on bandwidth anyway.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought 4K was really only beneficial on very large screens anyway? I suppose 55 and 65 inch TV's are pretty huge for the average home but if you're in the market for say a 42inch TV you're not really going to see the benefits of 4K that much.
RobNYC is offline   0 Reply With Quote

Reply
MacRumors Forums > News and Article Discussion > Mac Blog Discussion

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:08 PM.

Mac Rumors | Mac | iPhone | iPhone Game Reviews | iPhone Apps

Mobile Version | Fixed | Fluid | Fluid HD
Copyright 2002-2013, MacRumors.com, LLC