iPad Pro 4K HDR is all the rage when Will Apple catch up ?

Discussion in 'iPad' started by TheRealAlex, May 1, 2017.

  1. TheRealAlex macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2015
    #1
    I feel like Apple is in a time warp. When 4K TVs are below $999 or less and they are releasing devices that can't really take advantage of that resolution.

    The iPad is the second most used device I have to watch movies sometimes I watch them first on iPad and if they are very good again on my big screen.

    And in short movies in 4K And HDR are revolutionary. Enjoying colors and depth previously unseen.

    So Apple has an opportunity with the iPad Pro line to really make it that must have movie watching device by launching an updated version with 4K and HDR. I would buy it a second. So would millions of consumers.

    But there's also a huge secondary market, which are professional Hollywood production monitors used when movies are filmed and in medical settings.

    I feel like Apple can dominate this aging sector with a high quality iPad Pro 4K HDR Display that color accurate or adjustable. And possible offer some adapters for camera equipment used by doctors and or film crews.

    https://pro.sony.com/bbsc/ssr/cat-medicalproducts/cat-medicalmonitors/

    https://pro.sony.com/bbsc/ssr/cat-monitors/cat-videoproduction/

    In any case even if the sizes need to be bigger I feel like this is the sector Steve Jobs had his eyes on taking over with an Apple made Televsion Monitor powered by Apple TV brains, before his passing. Except now no one has the guts or manhood, to take a bold step.
     
  2. Gav2k macrumors G3

    Gav2k

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2009
    #2
    At that size the difference is negligible for a start. Not to mention driving massive amounts of pixels requires more computing power which then reduces battery life.

    To put it simple 4K is designed for the big screen.
     
  3. T'hain Esh Kelch macrumors 601

    T'hain Esh Kelch

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2001
    Location:
    Denmark
  4. rui no onna macrumors 601

    rui no onna

    Joined:
    Oct 25, 2013
    #4
    Doesn't the 9.7" iPad Pro feature a DCI-P3 display already?

    Caveat, switching to higher 4K display resolution would require larger assets and bigger storage. I don't think having entry level at 32GB is gonna pass muster anymore even for primarily streaming usage.
     
  5. AceFernalld macrumors 65816

    AceFernalld

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2008
    Location:
    Massachusetts
    #5
    'All the rage' != necessarily the best thing for all devices
     
  6. Newtons Apple macrumors P6

    Newtons Apple

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2014
    Location:
    Jacksonville, Florida
    #6
    4K on an iPad would be a HUGE hog of resources.

    Please, not on my new iPad Pro!
     
  7. Sparky2012 macrumors 6502

    Sparky2012

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2012
    Location:
    United Kingdom
    #7
    I agree with others here that 4K would be a waste on the size of an iPad display. Although, HDR would be a revelation and I'd love it to be on the iPad.
     
  8. jonnyb098 macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2010
    Location:
    Michigan
    #8
    How exactly is it " all the rage"? 3D was "all the rage" 5 years ago and NO ONE GAVE A CRAP. This is going to wind up the same way. Theres barely Any 4K content let alone HDR.

    So lets say Apple gets up on stage and says "the iPad now has a 4K screen" What exactly can you do with it??? They already paraded the iPad Pro being able to edit two streams of 4K video but that was met with luke warm responses.

    Also when you get into viewing distances 4K on a tablet offers very little noticeable difference unless you are less than a foot from the screen. Human vision has its limits. Even for regular viewing distances in a living room at around 10 ft, you'd need a 100+ inch 4K tv to see that much detail.
     
  9. DaveOP macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    May 29, 2011
    Location:
    Portland, OR
    #9
    I disagree with the first part of what you said. There is a substantial amount of 4k content on Amazon and Netflix. Enough that, for me (I don't watch a whole lot, and definitely not daily) everything I seem to watch there is 4k. Youtube has a lot of content in 4k as well. I do agree that 4k on a TV does not always look entirely different than 1080p, but HDR does look WAY better.
     
  10. jonnyb098 macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2010
    Location:
    Michigan
    #10
    Fair enough. But I still think the content wont ever be there and even if it is not enough for people to care. Most people cant accomodate more than a 50-60 inch TV in their homes which is no where near the size needed to even see a difference. People wont be flocking to pick up 80, 90, 100 inch TV's to put above their fireplaces at $3-5k a pop.
     
  11. TheRealAlex thread starter macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2015
    #11
    Best Buy Amazon.com
     
  12. AceFernalld macrumors 65816

    AceFernalld

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2008
    Location:
    Massachusetts
    #12
    The Blu-Ray discs? Good luck viewing those on your iPad
     
  13. bopajuice macrumors 6502a

    bopajuice

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2016
    #13
    "Except now no one has the guts or manhood, to take a bold step."

    What would need to happen if a woman were CEO?
    --- Post Merged, May 1, 2017 ---
    I think he meant Amazon Prime. You can rent shows that are Ultra-HD TV" or "Ultra-HD Movies.
     
  14. Skika macrumors 68030

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2009
    #14
    4K is 16:9, how would that even work on 4:3 iPad? What resolution exactly are we talking about here?
     
  15. Aditya_S macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jan 25, 2016
    #15
    I guess it would have to be 4096x3072 because that is 4 times the resolution on a normal retina iPad now and is a higher than 4K just like the 2048x1536 is also high enough for 1080p
     
  16. darkarn macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2017
    Location:
    Singapore
    #16
    I don't think Android devices have these 4K HDR screens either (the upcoming Sony Xperia XZ Premium being the first to do so); why should iOS devices have them?
     
  17. T'hain Esh Kelch macrumors 601

    T'hain Esh Kelch

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2001
    Location:
    Denmark
    #17
    There are no Best Buys on this continent, and Amazon.com had 8 (!) 4K HDR movies. I think I get why Apple hasn't released any 4K HDR content yet.

    Where "All the rage" comes from I have no idea. TV sales guys likely?
     
  18. apolkowski macrumors member

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2012
    Location:
    Poland, Warsaw and Masurian Lake District
    #18
    Netflix. Plenty. The same continent.
     
  19. Unami, May 2, 2017
    Last edited: May 2, 2017

    Unami macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jul 27, 2010
    Location:
    Austria
    #19
    nah, it would just use a little more space. (which could be somewhat compensated by hardware h.2.65 decoding). the ipad already plays back 4k content, it only scales it down (which takes more ressources). if you can't discern single pixels on an ipad, it won't make much of a difference if it's in a higher resolution. also, the ipad got a p3 color display, with a wide color gamut, so it's halfway there to hdr. now it just needs brighter display for the high dynamic range, but that's going to use more power...

    there's not much hdr/wide color gamut-content out there (you can probably count everything amazon offers with your fingers, and there's netflix with a little hdr content, just in another standard), and there won't be in the foreseeable future, because it'll be hard to make a profit with it. bt.2020 is not really backwards compatible right now. maybe when the (more backwards compatible) BT.1886 standard gains some popularity, big companies will start to produce more wide-gamut content. there's also no accepted standard to how much nits your display has to have for hdr content (and it won't work well, if your footage is not color-graded to a certain dynamic range). it won't pay off for the studios to master a hdr/wide color gamut version (you probably have to re-color-grade every single shot, using the original files) for a niche within a niche market. that's why you only get movies like the lord of the rings in hdr. in short: there are not really established standards apart from 4k resolution. if you buy a uhd/hdr tv now, you can only hope that it will be compatible with future standards, chances are good, that the best you'll get is some hd-ready-equivalent.

    it's very much theory in the post-production world as well, apart from some major players experimenting with it. sure, the cameras can do it, but most companies have not invested in a hdr-workflow yet - too many unknown variables. so, don't hold your breath just yet.
     
  20. T'hain Esh Kelch macrumors 601

    T'hain Esh Kelch

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2001
    Location:
    Denmark
    #20
    I am not interested in streaming, and my original post also said "buy".
     
  21. Newtons Apple macrumors P6

    Newtons Apple

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2014
    Location:
    Jacksonville, Florida
    #21
    You post hurt my eyes and quit reading about half way through it.
     
  22. alexgowers macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jun 3, 2012
    #22
    For myself the issue with content lies not in the resolution but other intangible factors. Such as re-encodes/transcoding issues with streaming content or televised content. Heavy use of built in TV processing, unmanaged colour profiles and input lag! Newly formed ports and standards, HDMI and Display Port have only just been finalised and we need to be displaying at 60Hz minimums or it's not worth it. Content Compression is variable, too high and even 4k looks worse than good 1080p! Streaming bandwidth is just not there along with WiFi speeds and hard drive speeds, compressed 4k is still huge but good 4k is HUGE and at the limits of older tech provided by third parties like your router etc.

    I want to say you're right 4k is now, but it just isn't. I enjoy 1440p on youtube on my MacBook but 4k is just beyond needs unless you are 2ft from a massive screen! We all enjoyed VHS for many many more years than we have had with 1080p so far. I don't think the desire is there when 1080p looks so damn good. Apple isn't going to burden the user with a bad experience and massive data hits when NO ONE is complaining. Over time we'll get 4k and maybe HDR with it but I don't think it'll change anyones lives for the better until everything else catches up.
     
  23. JPack macrumors 6502a

    JPack

    Joined:
    Mar 27, 2017
    #23
    Two words: Power consumption.

    Apple switched to low refresh IGZO display technology with the iPad Air to reduce increase power efficiency. All those gains allow iPad Pro 12.9 to get barely 10 hours of battery life.

    Processing power isn't a problem. It's the power required for the actual pixels and backplane.

    Of course Apple wants a 4K high PPI display in their iPad Pro. What manufacturer wouldn't? But it takes away from the power budget especially since a tablet display is big. OLED is the next milestone if Apple wants high PPI and large displays. We need to wait until Samsung, Sharp, BOE, JDI, and LG scale up manufacturing before it will be in iPad.
     
  24. JeffyTheQuik macrumors 68020

    JeffyTheQuik

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2014
    Location:
    Charleston, SC and Everett, WA
    #24
    I understand how 3D didn't catch fire.. It's trying to simulate reality but has only the eyes and ears involved. Even the Oculus type stuff is a bit painful (makes me a bit sick after about 5 minutes), and the main thing is that it doesn't address the inner ear (balance) problem. When I ride a roller coaster, my inner ear knows that I am going up/down/round and round, and reports to my brain that what my eyes are seeing makes sense. On a 3D type display, it just doesn't work. Plus, for the last 60 years, all of the 3D movies have been "splat in your face/roller coaster" thrill rides.

    OTOH, higher resolution is a better investment. I know that Retina was supposed to be the end of that, as the eye could not see dots smaller than the pixels on the retina display, but I (uneducated in the eyes, but have a scientific mind) in that I know I'm looking at a screen, and can tell the difference between a screen and paper. There are plusses and minuses to both, but the one thing that I know (even on my 5K iMac and 2 4K screens attached) is that you're right, the hardware hasn't caught up to it to render it more naturally.

    I guess that's the whole point about this essay: We can mimic natural things, or things made from basic natural components (i.e. paper and pencil), but our minds know the difference, and that is the solution that needs to be solved.
     
  25. sparksd macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2015
    Location:
    Seattle WA
    #25
    Of course, a big question for Apple on this is what is the return on investment? Would implementing 4K create enough increased demand and sales to cover development costs and potentially higher unit costs? For myself, I would not pay a higher price for 4K support.
     

Share This Page