Why 4K mattered on ATV4...

[Uofmtiger]

That's because there are many variables to picture quality. Pixel resolution is just one, and it doesn't automatically, or magically, make picture better despite marketing claim.
You said your TV are within the chart so it's likely 4K will benefit you more than other enthusiastic people. Still, it's debatable, for example, what is better between a great 1080p plasma set which has superior black level viewing a proper authored Blu-Ray disc, or 4K set viewing 4K content streamed from website, since each side gains something and lose something. "Better" in this case will be very subjective.
It isn't as weird as you think it is since we still never believe that camera that have more pixel will be automatically better.

He is actually outside the chart. According to the website (they have a handy calculator), you have to be 4 feet or closer to see all available detail on a 65 inch TV with 4k. By putting the seating back to 7 feet, he is losing benefits of the 4k resolution.

As you indicated, it may very well be a better TV which has added benefits, but he may be able to get many (not all) of those benefits by upscaling 1080p to 4k (depending on the upscaler). Even when they have affordable projectors, my max screen size (100 inches) will still put my seating position out of the optimum of 6 feet. So, it will be a typical "problem" for many of us. How long before people make their 8x8 rooms into media rooms? I am glad my 4k monitor is on an arm so I can put it in the perfect spot when I want to watch 4k content on my Roku 4.

All that being said, I was still surprised and disappointed that Apple didn't include 4k given the price of the new AppleTV. I still bought one because I love Airplay and was curious about the speed and apps, but I would have been happier to have some future-proofing in there, especially since iPhones already record in 4k.

 

[2010mini]

OK, and if Apple rolls out a 4K TV tomorrow, I'd buy at least one. So we cancel each other out.

And 1080p is not "fully baked" either. Some of the possible improvements to 4K could be applied to 1080p too... and 720p. But you've already embraced one of those anyway, haven't you?

I hope Apple does roll out a 4KTV tomorrow (and I just bought a "4" a few weeks ago). Much like the day they finally rolled out a 1080p version, the vast majority of the anti-1080p sentiment just evaporated. I expect the same in the anti-4K sentiment as soon as Apple endorses it in a "5"... except apparently from you... though I will be watching for you to show up in those threads finding fault with Apple for embracing 4K (even though I don't expect that to happen).

[doublepost=1452795144][/doublepost]

If I was a betting man, I'd look at what preceded the launch of the "3". iPhone could record 1080p but had no Apple "just works" way to push that 1080p to a 1080p TV. Then iPad inherited iPhone's 1080p cameras so it too could shoot 1080p but had no "just works" path to a 1080p TV. THEN we got the TV3 "now with 1080p."

iPhones just got the ability to shoot 4K. Next Fall, iPads will probably inherit iPhone's 4K camera. At that event or soon thereafter, I expect TV5 "now with 4K."

1 iteration does not make a pattern but I'd bet that way anyway. It's hard for me to imagine Apple clinging to 1080p for 3-4 more years when almost everything else that is comparable has already gone 4K... and their most important product can already shoot 4K but has no "just works" way to flow that video to anyone's 4K TV.

1080p is not fully baked? Now you are reaching. The standard of what constitutes 1080p has been around for long time UNLIKE 4K.

BTW I have a 4K TV. My wife went out and purchased it because she was wooed by the demo video. I told her she would never get that quality at home.... but hey... her money.

 

[HobeSoundDarryl]

Name the elements of 4K that are not "fully baked." What I've seen- maybe from you in other threads??? or maybe not from you- is stuff like a wider color gamut, HDR, etc. Could 1080p benefit from a wider color gamut? HDR? etc?

4K is here. Visit Best Buy like your wife did and note how many TVs are 4K vs. 1080p. Hit the camera/camcorder isle and note the shift in focus there. Look around Apple itself:

• iPhones shoot 4K
• iMovie & FCPx edits it
• iMac 5K is "perfect for 4K editing with room for controls"
• iPad Pro can "edit 3 4K streams at the same time"

Apple is even touting 4K in their own marketing of this stuff.

• Roku is 4K
• Amazon Fire is 4K
• 4K Blu Ray is arriving
• Netflix/Amazon/YouTube are streaming some stuff in 4K
• Satt & Cable are touting it too

Some more fully-baked standard is not going to make all that obsolete- just refine it... exactly as 1080p could be further refined too. Is 1080p more of a standard than 4K? Sure, it's been around a lot longer. But then again, SD has been around way longer than 1080p. Yet you don't take such a stand for SD.

The "next big thing" in video is 4K. You don't have to embrace it (even though your wife was wowed enough to do so) but that doesn't mean everyone else should see it as you see it. And everyone doesn't have to see it as I see it either but a 4KTV works for all the "me" people and all the "you" people (it will play 1080p or 720p or even SD just fine). However, your way screens out the 4K crowd for nothing, as it doesn't affect you one bit no matter what Apple would do with 4K.

The standard of what constitutes an iPhone 7 isn't around at all. But I'm glad Apple is working on it anyway and I'm glad they'll bring it to market. The standards of what constitutes future Macs isn't around at all. But (the same). OS X beyond El Capitan? iOS beyond 9? Nobody has any of that yet at all but I'm glad Apple is working on it anyway. If they have to wait for perfection, we get nothing else from Apple. March forward or stand still (or even cling to the past)... but the world marches forward anyway.

 

[2010mini]

Name the elements of 4K that are not "fully baked." What I've seen- maybe from you in other threads??? or maybe not from you- is stuff like a wider color gamut, HDR, etc. Could 1080p benefit from a wider color gamut? HDR? etc?

4K is here. Visit Best Buy like your wife did and note how many TVs are 4K vs. 1080p. Hit the camera/camcorder isle and note the shift in focus there. Look around Apple itself:

• iPhones shoot 4K
• iMovie & FCPx edits it
• iMac 5K is "perfect for 4K editing with room for controls"
• iPad Pro can "edit 3 4K streams at the same time"

Apple is even touting 4K in their own marketing of this stuff.

• Roku is 4K
• Amazon Fire is 4K
• 4K Blu Ray is arriving
• Netflix/Amazon/YouTube are streaming some stuff in 4K
• Satt & Cable are touting it too

Some more fully-baked standard is not going to make all that obsolete- just refine it... exactly as 1080p could be further refined too. Is 1080p more of a standard than 4K? Sure, it's been around a lot longer. But then again, SD has been around way longer than 1080p. Yet you don't take such a stand for SD.

The "next big thing" in video is 4K. You don't have to embrace it (even though your wife was wowed enough to do so) but that doesn't mean everyone else should see it as you see it. And everyone doesn't have to see it as I see it either but a 4KTV works for all the "me" people and all the "you" people (it will play 1080p or 720p or even SD just fine). However, your way screens out the 4K crowd for nothing, as it doesn't affect you one bit no matter what Apple would do with 4K.

The standard of what constitutes an iPhone 7 isn't around at all. But I'm glad Apple is working on it anyway and I'm glad they'll bring it to market. The standards of what constitutes future Macs isn't around at all. But (the same). OS X beyond El Capitan? iOS beyond 9? Nobody has any of that yet at all but I'm glad Apple is working on it anyway. If they have to wait for perfection, we get nothing else from Apple. March forward or stand still (or even cling to the past)... but the world marches forward anyway.

The stores being full of 4K electronics is all about manufactures wanting to push the "next big thing" a couple years ago it was 3D TV...... We know how that turned out.

Unlike Digital and HD TV, there is no mandate from the FCC to implement 4K. No networks are being forced to upgrade to broadcast in 4K by a certain date.

A decade before the first DTV, EDTV, HDTV broadcast was transmitted, the standard was completed and the roadmap from analog to digital/HD was layed out.

4K right now is being pushed by the Manufactures. There is no roadmap to how/when our infrastructure is going to be upgraded to handle 4K.

 

[HobeSoundDarryl]

And there wasn't much of that for 1080p either.

Again, I don't get why you care. A 4KTV wouldn't affect you at all. You wouldn't have to:

• buy any 4K videos-you could keep downloading/watching whatever you consider "good enough"
• throw out a perfectly good TV- you could hook it right up to that 4K TV you already have
• upgrade anyone's infrastructure
• convince the FCC to mandate it
• convince networks to broadcast it
• Etc.

And there was no FCC mandate for 1080p either. That was 1080i. 1080p just took a step beyond the mandate... just like 4K is taking another step beyond that one. That mandate didn't spec h.264 or AAC either but I'm glad some of our HD video is packaged that way than at the mandated standard for digital video. Again, glad companies like Apple could step forward instead of being locked into something the FCC mandated long before there was MPEG4.

So why do you keep hitting these threads? I'm in them because I'd absolutely love to see Apple deliver the one missing link in an entire (all-Apple) 4K chain from shooting it on Apple devices to playing it on a 4KTV. You on the other hand, seem to be here because you don't see the point per your own views so you don't think anyone else should be interested either. I'm not trying to push anything on you.

Personally, I don't care that there is no FCC mandate, nor if the networks EVER broadcast in 4K. We don't need a repeat of the HD transition to be interested in stepping ahead. If anything, the mandate and the networks just give us a baseline, so that our 4K TVs can play a standard that does not quite max it out but still looks great. Meanwhile, those of us shooting our own 4K can enjoy it at 4K. Or those interested in 4K via various streaming sources, can watch that too... all without affecting you one single bit.

 

[Irishman]

Google is your friend: [Why the curve?]

I meant for YOU, why the curve? Not for the internet.

 

[Snoopy4]

So, how many of your blu-ray movies have you downloaded the digital copies for?

If it came with a digital copy sheet it's been redeemed. They all sit in the cloud. I've bought a couple of Fox titles through their movie of the day app if it's something we own on BD that didn't come with a digital copy. Maybe a dozen or so that I paid $3.99 or $4.99 for. iTunes leads 316 to UV 241 (we use Vudu as the preferred service due to its quality over the other UV streamers). Probably 180 or so are on both, mostly Disney. Some came with iTunes and UV, most are now one or the other so I'm stock piling slips hoping for a UV app on ATV. If it happens they all go to iTunes as ATV will be a singular device for all our needs. They don't expire for quite some time. If not, it will cost me about $1800 to duplicate my iTunes collection in Vudu/UV between disc to digital and outright purchases. Anything in the future would be UV redemption, but at least Vudu is agnostic where iTunes is not. I just have to decide if I want to pull the trigger. It's a one time hit to the wallet,,but manageable at this stage. Nearly everyone plays nice with VUDU plus something like Roku gives the Amazon option. We have Prime, but don't really use except on the iPads because like Vudu, no ATV app. I'm giving it until summer before I pull the trigger.
[doublepost=1452831387][/doublepost]

1080p is not fully baked? Now you are reaching. The standard of what constitutes 1080p has been around for long time UNLIKE 4K.

BTW I have a 4K TV. My wife went out and purchased it because she was wooed by the demo video. I told her she would never get that quality at home.... but hey... her money.

Get it calibrated.
[doublepost=1452831592][/doublepost]

I'm a photographer with clients and a deeper understanding of imaging than probably anyone in this thread. I'm also not arrogant enough to believe that the general public gives a **** because they've proven they don't in the past. I understand that my reality isn't the reality. I understand that most people barely register the difference between SRGB and P3 (see new iMac). I understand that most people at the cinema don't care about 2K or 4K and don't even know what it means. I understand that for most people, especially in the United States, ignorance is bliss.

The facts are on my side. I've posted them in this thread before. You continue to go on like your reality is the only one. I'll repeat it again, physical sales continue to drop YOY while digital (streaming and downloads) go up by double digits YOY. You say there is no relation. You're a fool. ✌

Resorting to name calling. Spiffy.

The facts are that content delivery systems are insufficient to deliver your world view and they will remain that way for the vast majority of your life. The inability to deliver digital content will prevent physical media from becoming niche, regardless what people are spending their money on at this particular moment. It is abundantly clear that you are incapable of understanding the impacts of said bandwidth constraint.

 

[off_piste]

Yes and no. The HDMI hardware in it can theoretically support 4K resolution, so the Apple TV 4 could be updated to do so. However, the movie/TV studios are requiring HDCP 2.2 for all 4K transmission of their material over HDMI. HDCP 2.2 is only available in HDMI 2.0, which the Apple TV does not have.

So do you really think that Apple would bother updating the Apple TV 4 to output 4K resolution for just home videos, the home screen, apps, and games? I do not think they will bother. They will wait until they are ready to add 4K movies to the app store, and then release the Apple TV 5 with HDMI 2.0/HDCP 2.2 hardware. I think now that there is an actual "ULTRA HD PREMIUM" specification and certification process we might see them do that later this year/early next year.

As for iTunes copies/UV copies, I personally enter all the codes in now. I found that quite a few of my early ones expired and I decided if I was paying extra for them I might as well enter the codes and get them before they expire. I very seldom use any of them though. I don't think I have ever streamed or downloaded any of my UV movies. I have used more of my iTunes copies for when I go on trips, but that's about it. If I'm at home, or going to a friends/relatives house to watch a movie I bring my Blu-Ray copy. Heck I still pack up a blu-ray player and bring 20 or so discs with me to the hunting cabin every year for deer season, rather than messing with UV/iTunes copies. We don't have internet service there at all so streaming is useless.

I keep all of mine in MKV and MP4 format on a HDD hooked up to my AirPort Extreme.

 

[off_piste]

The stores being full of 4K electronics is all about manufactures wanting to push the "next big thing" a couple years ago it was 3D TV...... We know how that turned out.

The 3D fad is nothing like 4K.

 

[benjitek]

I meant for YOU, why the curve? Not for the internet.

Same reasons as 'the internet'...

 

[Irishman]

Same reasons as 'the internet'...

It's kinda hard to discuss and dig deep into a Google search. Is there one aspect of a curved screen that is especially compelling to you?

 

[Uofmtiger]

The 3D fad is nothing like 4K.

I agree that it is nothing like 3D. 3D could not be applied to every movie. Personally, I don't want to see Casablanca or most dramas in 3D. However, the upside, is that I don't have to be sitting unusually close to the TV to get the benefits, I just need to wear goofy glasses. However, I agree with your point that it is nothing like 4k.

I am not sure 3D is a "fad". It still works nicely for some movies...especially Pixar and more "unrealistic" films.

 

[Rigby]

I am not sure 3D is a "fad". It still works nicely for some movies...especially Pixar and more "unrealistic" films.

I like 3D. I think the enjoyment you get out of it also depends on the screen size. I watch 3D Blu-rays on a projector and it's great. Recently watching "The Martian" in 3D I felt like I was standing on the surface of Mars. If done well, it provides a higher degree of immersion.

I'm actually a little less convinced of the benefits of 4K, but that may change once 4K projectors become available for reasonable prices, since with really large screens the benefit should be more obvious. Of course it will require that the studios put effort into mastering; many movies today don't even fully utilize the potential of 1080 resolution.

 

[danpass]

ATV5 should have it.

Wasn't Apple holding out due to some issue(s) with standards?
[doublepost=1452885871][/doublepost]One interesting factor are data caps. Right now my xfinity is capped at 300gb per month, no rollover.

Three seasons of House of Cards at 1080p was ~75gbs. (I binged watched this past week lol)

 

[HobeSoundDarryl]

Anyone worried about data caps could keep downloading whatever they download now. Hardware capable of more than now wouldn't force anyone to choose only 4K files for downloading, just as the "3" didn't force anyone to download only 1080p files.

 

[benjitek]

It's kinda hard to discuss and dig deep...

I find Google searches to be invaluable when researching products, no digging -- just clicking -- 5 minutes tops. As an alternative, maybe just take a look at some next time you're in a shop, research the different ones that may be of interest. Consumer Reports online (and print) has a recent well-done and informative article. Good luck!

 

[Uofmtiger]

I like 3D. I think the enjoyment you get out of it also depends on the screen size. I watch 3D Blu-rays on a projector and it's great. Recently watching "The Martian" in 3D I felt like I was standing on the surface of Mars. If done well, it provides a higher degree of immersion.

I'm actually a little less convinced of the benefits of 4K, but that may change once 4K projectors become available for reasonable prices, since with really large screens the benefit should be more obvious. Of course it will require that the studios put effort into mastering; many movies today don't even fully utilize the potential of 1080 resolution.

I agree.

I think we are really talking about two (or more) things. The first is whether 4k is going to be worthwhile for everyone. I think that answer is no.

The second is whether Apple should have included 4k capabilities in the AppleTV4. I believe they should have included it. Apple is supposed to be ahead of the curve, not behind it. Roku, Nvidia, and Amazon are all ahead of Apple in this one area, which means those that care about being ahead of the curve have to look elsewhere. I just don't think limiting their box to 1080p is forward thinking...especially since you can't watch those crisp 4k videos you shot on your iPhone 6s in 4k resolution in your home theater. As mentioned above, the box would still be backward compatible with 1080p, so those with older TVs or that are worried about data caps will still be able to watch on their TVs without an issue.

The other issue is that the AppleTV4 is priced like it is on the cutting edge...it is more expensive than the Roku 4. It doesn't have the same features as the Roku, so I find it disappointing when comparing them side by side.

 

[off_piste]

I like 3D. I think the enjoyment you get out of it also depends on the screen size. I watch 3D Blu-rays on a projector and it's great. Recently watching "The Martian" in 3D I felt like I was standing on the surface of Mars. If done well, it provides a higher degree of immersion.

I'm actually a little less convinced of the benefits of 4K, but that may change once 4K projectors become available for reasonable prices, since with really large screens the benefit should be more obvious. Of course it will require that the studios put effort into mastering; many movies today don't even fully utilize the potential of 1080 resolution.

We have a great tv that came with 3D mode and have watched a few animated movies in 3D (all near the original purchase) but I couldn't even tell you the last time we used it. Not even sure where the glasses are at the moment.

4K on the other hand you don't have to enable or use special hardware. Unlike 3D you're not going to find people who prefer to watch something in the alternative (lower resolution vs 2d). We went to watch Star Wars in 3D and other than the Star Destroyer appearing like it was going to crater in my skull I didn't see a benefit to the 3D. In fact, it made the picture dimmer, the action less clear, and the glasses were uncomfortable. I would have rather paid extra and seen the movie at a local theater that has HD projectors. And I used to really enjoy 3D.

4K also benefits 3D viewing, wider color gamut and much larger bit depth among other positives. It also doesn't require anyone to upgrade, just keep using the same tech at a lower resolution. Many may not find it enough of an upgrade to warrant switching out a viable 1080p tv but if they're in the market for a new tv I'm pretty sure it will be a deciding factor, particularly with the price drops we've seen the past two years.

 

[Uofmtiger]

We have a great tv that came with 3D mode and have watched a few animated movies in 3D (all near the original purchase) but I couldn't even tell you the last time we used it. Not even sure where the glasses are at the moment.

As he mentioned, it helps to have a projector. I have a 100 inch screen available and we love watching 3D content on it. My projector is very bright, so that isn't an issue.

I will say that wearing the glasses is not ideal, but it is worthwhile for a lot of movies. The great thing is that if you buy a Blu-ray, you often get both versions of the movies. To be honest, if I am watching Pixar/Disney, I don't bother ever watching the 2D version.

What 4k offers, if you sit close enough, is a window type picture that is compelling with certain films (especially nature). For a lot of movies, it just gives you a better look at facial pores, blemishes, and nose hairs, so it isn't always something that adds to the experience. There is a reason some actors choose to be shot slightly out of focus or through special filters (Cybill Shepherd was famous for it)....I have a feeling 4k will have more actors requiring soft focus filters, which may actually be a good thing.

 

[mellofello]

I agree.

I think we are really talking about two (or more) things. The first is whether 4k is going to be worthwhile for everyone. I think that answer is no.

The second is whether Apple should have included 4k capabilities in the AppleTV4. I believe they should have included it. Apple is supposed to be ahead of the curve, not behind it. Roku, Nvidia, and Amazon are all ahead of Apple in this one area, which means those that care about being ahead of the curve have to look elsewhere. I just don't think limiting their box to 1080p is forward thinking...especially since you can't watch those crisp 4k videos you shot on your iPhone 6s in 4k resolution in your home theater. As mentioned above, the box would still be backward compatible with 1080p, so those with older TVs or that are worried about data caps will still be able to watch on their TVs without an issue.

The other issue is that the AppleTV4 is priced like it is on the cutting edge...it is more expensive than the Roku 4. It doesn't have the same features as the Roku, so I find it disappointing when comparing them side by side.

This is a very concise summary of my feelings on the matter. It bugs me that I would have to choose between better picture quality or better UI if I chose the Apple TV. All arguments over the benefits of 4K aside you have to admit that Apple was behind the times releasing a clean sheet media streamer that only does 1080p, just as the industry is transitioning to a 4K world.

 

[BSben]

After many years of HDTV, many programmes are still produced in SD. In the UK the vast majority of HDTV channels are NOT part of your standard Cable TV bundle, and again most content is pre-hdtv (repeats of pathetic old comedy ****). On German TV the situation is different, you get loads of HD channels for free, and another lot for a small fee. Unfortunately not much of that lives up to the hype, many of the programmes on those HD channels are produced in SD. To me it seems that 4K is currently just a way to get people buying new TVs, there will be benefits for people willing to pay through the nose, but it is years (long enough for Apple to wait) away from being actually mainstream in the majority of the world.
And if you wonder why a lot of live tv is not in 4K, ask the presenters who are over 30.
[doublepost=1452898447][/doublepost]

I find Google searches to be invaluable when researching products, no digging -- just clicking -- 5 minutes tops. As an alternative, maybe just take a look at some next time you're in a shop, research the different ones that may be of interest. Consumer Reports online (and print) has a recent well-done and informative article. Good luck!

View attachment 610704​

Who or what is Google? Will try to find out later with the help of DuckDuckGo.
However, you did a good job at explaining the word 'patronising'.

 

[benjitek]

And if you wonder why a lot of live tv is not in 4K, ask the presenters who are over 30.

That's one take I guess, if you want to promote ageism. Also the same sort of comments made when HD came out. More likely it has to do with the huge capital expenditure required to record and transmit 4K video. Many providers having only fairly recently upgraded to 1080i. Early days yet, it'll come.

 

[off_piste]

That's one take I guess, if you want to promote ageism. Also the same sort of comments made when HD came out. More likely it has to do with the huge capital expenditure required to record and transmit 4K video. Many providers having only fairly recently upgraded to 1080i. Early days yet, it'll come.

Both providers and consumers will adopt it over time due to costs. The well to do fund the initial movement and others will catch on as prices fall.

Personally, I still find a 4K tv useful even if I can only fully utilize it's capabilities watching newer movies and some Netflix content on it. Just waiting for the right OLED and I'm pulling the trigger.

 

[Snoopy4]

I like 3D. I think the enjoyment you get out of it also depends on the screen size. I watch 3D Blu-rays on a projector and it's great. Recently watching "The Martian" in 3D I felt like I was standing on the surface of Mars. If done well, it provides a higher degree of immersion.

I'm actually a little less convinced of the benefits of 4K, but that may change once 4K projectors become available for reasonable prices, since with really large screens the benefit should be more obvious. Of course it will require that the studios put effort into mastering; many movies today don't even fully utilize the potential of 1080 resolution.

While there is no UHD 3D standard, this would have been provided a benefit by allowing each field to be provided at 2K resolution. Doesn't sound like a big deal until you consider most film has been mastered in 2K with 4K being new to the scene.

As far as streaming goes, if you have the bandwidth 4K is the way to go. It gets things pretty even with BD. Which tells you all you need to know about streaming bit starvation.
[doublepost=1452909598][/doublepost]

This is a very concise summary of my feelings on the matter. It bugs me that I would have to choose between better picture quality or better UI if I chose the Apple TV. All arguments over the benefits of 4K aside you have to admit that Apple was behind the times releasing a clean sheet media streamer that only does 1080p, just as the industry is transitioning to a 4K world.

What's even more irritating is the guts can probably do it, but they are limited by having a dated HDMI 1.4 spec. It is possible it can be done with an update, Sony says their 1.4 devices can, but Apple has given no indication theirs can. If it can't then they were being stupid given the release time.
[doublepost=1452910550][/doublepost]

ATV5 should have it.

Wasn't Apple holding out due to some issue(s) with standards?
[doublepost=1452885871][/doublepost]One interesting factor are data caps. Right now my xfinity is capped at 300gb per month, no rollover.

Three seasons of House of Cards at 1080p was ~75gbs. (I binged watched this past week lol)

Caps are killers. Imagine if you had to rely on satellite with a peak cap of 100GB a month, where half of that has to come off peak between 2am and 8am. Cost is $80 a month. We have unlimited data with 300mbps speed and no cap for that price.

 

[matrix07]

He is actually outside the chart. According to the website (they have a handy calculator), you have to be 4 feet or closer to see all available detail on a 65 inch TV with 4k. By putting the seating back to 7 feet, he is losing benefits of the 4k resolution.

Ah.. Thank you for clarification.