2013: Year of 4K?

Discussion in 'Mac mini' started by hleewell, Apr 21, 2013.

  1. hleewell macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2009
    #1
    This selection of 4K You Tube videos convinces me that the time for 4K video processing could be nearer than you think :
    https://www.youtube.com/results?cli...ube+videos&oe=UTF-8&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=w1


    From a recent article by Legitreviews.com:
    ".. The good news is that the upcoming Intel Haswell based processors will support 4K through a single DP output or a normal HDMI connector and the CPU usage will also be less!..
    http://www.legitreviews.com/news/14116/

    And 4K videos will also look better on your 3 year old 1080p display, better than your crappy pixellated, low bit rate 1080p videos.
     
  2. blanka macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2012
    #2
    I have a 4K computer from 2002 (uses 4 display cards to drive the 22 inck 4K monitor, but it is 4K). Thought 4K was already hot back then :D.
     
  3. Tsuchiya macrumors 68020

    Tsuchiya

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2008
    #3
    4K is amazing, my Mac Mini struggles with 1080p video though, I'll have to upgrade just to see those YouTube clips :eek:
     
  4. hleewell thread starter macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2009
    #4
    Check your internet connection
     
  5. NutsNGum macrumors 68030

    NutsNGum

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2010
    Location:
    Glasgow, Scotland
    #5
    Given that most people are not yet even set up to receive 1080p content into their living rooms. I think 4K this year is a bit of a leap.
     
  6. hleewell thread starter macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2009
    #6
    Probably turn out as iMac Retina
     
  7. Tsuchiya macrumors 68020

    Tsuchiya

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2008
    #8
    Pretty sure it's my Mini. Then again it's only a 2.3GHz Dual Core i5 with HD3000 graphics.

    [​IMG]

    *sigh* it's time to upgrade.
     
  8. Mr. Retrofire macrumors 601

    Mr. Retrofire

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2010
    Location:
    www.emiliana.cl/en
    #9
    Where do you need 4K? Professionals use already 4K displays, and 95 percent of all consumers do not need this resolution, not even on a 27" display.
     
  9. Mr. Retrofire macrumors 601

    Mr. Retrofire

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2010
    Location:
    www.emiliana.cl/en
    #10
    Unlikely with the 1st generation 4K (i.e. Haswell IGP) support.
     
  10. Nyy8 macrumors 6502a

    Nyy8

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2011
    Location:
    New England
    #11
    Could just barley run it on my base model iMac, 26% of CPU to spare. [​IMG]

    I'm all for 4k when prices come down, but for now the hardware can barley handle it. (think about all the people who are running Intel core 2 duos still) and the displays are wayyyy to expensive.
     
  11. opinio macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2013
    #12
    Nice speeds... I'm jealous :(
     
  12. RoastingPig macrumors 68000

    RoastingPig

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2012
    Location:
    SoCal
    #13
    the year of cheap 1440p i say...4k next year but this year for 4k for the ballers
     
  13. TennisandMusic

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2008
    #14
    This is a bummer. 4k runs so well on my Windows machines. Wish Apple could get their stuff together, though I know this is basically flash related. But why does Flash run so perfectly on Windows and Linux but so horribly on OS X?
     
  14. Treq, Apr 22, 2013
    Last edited: Apr 22, 2013

    Treq macrumors 6502a

    Treq

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2009
    Location:
    Santa Monica, CA
    #15
    It ran fine on my late 2011 MBP... after I let it buffer enough. Though the fan kicked in to blast-off mode. I'll have to try it on my late 2012 quad core mini. Though I don't expect it to have any problems.

    Edit: Yup, after it buffered, it ran fine.
     
  15. AQUADock macrumors 65816

    AQUADock

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2011
    #16
    Thats more to do with flash being crappy on OS X then the computer not being fast enough.
     
  16. chaosbunny macrumors 68000

    chaosbunny

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2005
    Location:
    down to earth, far away from any clouds
    #17
    Very cool while sitting in front of my 30" display. From my normal viewing distance to my TV - about 5 meters - I don't even really notice the difference between SD and HD though. That's why I keep buying DVDs - plus they are cheaper.

    Download/Streaming speeds are also just getting fast enough for HD here in Europe. I don't want to wait ages to watch a youtube video again like I had to 8 years ago. So, no thanks.
     
  17. T'hain Esh Kelch macrumors 601

    T'hain Esh Kelch

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2001
    Location:
    Denmark
    #18
    Erh, a 1080p movie will look better at the same bitrate as a 4K movie, on a 1080p monitor.
     
  18. hleewell thread starter macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2009
    #19
    I have seen those unaffordable 4K displays that measures 80" -105" ay Harvey Norman, and the video quality destroys BluRay at close range. For normal living room viewing, 1080p still has it, and the difference is not that significant. But for desktop viewing, 4K displays is a must for those demand Retina-level quality.

    ----------

    For close-range desktop viewing. I agree the contents (internet, youtube) are not there yet
     
  19. blanka macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2012
    #20
    My 2011 i5 Radeon mini can play it without hiccups. Thing is, you need to put it on your disk first. Having Flashplayer in between makes things a bit complicated.
     
  20. CausticPuppy macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    May 1, 2012
    #21

    Sheesh, the videos looked incredible even on my 13" rMBP. About 30% CPU usage which isn't too bad, probably would be even less if it didn't have to scale the video for my display. I can only do 1800p, not 2160p!
     
  21. ipsychedelic macrumors 6502a

    ipsychedelic

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2012
    #22
    Calling it the year of 4K is an overstatement.

    More like The year where 4K became of public knowledge to the masses of non-geeks that never even realized youtube has been playing with it since 2010..

    Seriously speaking, 4K should be not that much of a deal to play fine (on my old Core 2 Duo pre-Apple times I could play those 4k from youtube just fine... after the half an hour caching times haha) on the coming generations (and even current ones).
    The biggest issue should be loading times, like chaosbunny mentioned (be glad you live in Europe, not South America :D).
    I imagine a full fledge "dual layer 4k Bluray" should be along the 120 GB mark.

    And of course then we have the "problem" of proper 4k-res screens. The ones unveiled this year at CES (I think?) costed 40k USD... hmmm.. what? It will be some time before the price will drop to be affordable to people other than Dubai's sheiks.
     
  22. Treq macrumors 6502a

    Treq

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2009
    Location:
    Santa Monica, CA
    #23
    Just a few days ago there was 50" 4k tv on sale for $1200. $200 less than I spent on my 1080p 40" sony a few years back.
     
  23. hleewell thread starter macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2009
    #24
    I am talking about iMac Retina. For 27" to go retina, it needs to even go beyond 4K. But it will be quite a while before it happens. However a 21" retina iMac with super efficient graphic card is achieve-able..now.
    :)
     

Share This Page