Anyone else uninterested in a 4K Apple TV at this point?

[boltjames]

The ATV4 doesn't support HDR...

Also, anyone who happens to be in the market for a TV is going to be getting a 4K model or a low-end budget piece of junk. 4K TVs are the standard now, regardless of how much or how little the benefit over 1080p. Technology and the market have moved on.

The benefits of 4K are negligible to the average viewer whereas HDR will be visible and benefit everyone. And in order to be a panel that supports HDR it has to have throaty set of specs to begin with. My point is that no one should be fighting for a 4K Apple TV, it's the wrong battle. HDR, different story.

And short term with so little 4K or HDR content available and all of it on services free and bundled with all new TV's, a 1080 ATV4 is all anyone needs right now. I understand why Apple must update the product to keep up appearances but in reality it isn't going to change anyone's life right now unless they sit 3 feet away from a 65 inch TV purchased within the last year. It's not a rational use case.

 

[vipergts2207]

The benefits of 4K are negligible to the average viewer whereas HDR will be visible and benefit everyone. And in order to be a panel that supports HDR it has to have throaty set of specs to begin with. My point is that no one should be fighting for a 4K Apple TV, it's the wrong battle. HDR, different story.

And short term with so little 4K or HDR content available and all of it on services free and bundled with all new TV's, a 1080 ATV4 is all anyone needs right now. I understand why Apple must update the product to keep up appearances but in reality it isn't going to change anyone's life right now unless they sit 3 feet away from a 65 inch TV purchased within the last year. It's not a rational use case.

Exactly, HDR is a different story. It just so happens that a 4K Apple TV is also going to be an HDR Apple TV. You're not getting one without the other.

Also many people, including myself, would rather use Apple's software than whatever happened to come on our TV. I bought mine based on the panel, not the Android TV software that came on it. And in my case I have a receiver that does the input switching as opposed to my TV so an external device is the more elegant solution.

 

[jerwin]

The benefits of 4K are negligible to the average viewer whereas HDR will be visible and benefit everyone.

Doesn't this depend on having a 4k display (with hdcp 2 point something)?

 

[nevjets]

4K is a sham unless you sit 3 feet away from a 75" screen. HDR is what's happening in HDTV now, and a 1080p Apple TV will look stellar on a HDR panel.

Is there such a thing as a new 1080p TV with HDR? I think only 4K TVs have HDR. So it's pointless to argue against 4K and for HDR. Your not getting HDR without 4K. Unless I missed something.

 

[vipergts2207]

Is there such a thing as a new 1080p TV with HDR? I think only 4K TVs have HDR. So it's pointless to argue against 4K and for HDR. Your not getting HDR without 4K. Unless I missed something.

That's another good point because 4K came along before HDR, so pretty much all HDR TVs are also 4K. I don't know of any 1080p HDR TVs personally, and if they exist they're few and far in between.

 

[jerwin]

. So it's pointless to argue against 4K and for HDR. Your not getting HDR without 4K

It's sort of an argument to be made in favor of upgrading to 4k, even if your budget/space put an upper limit on screen size.

 

[boltjames]

Doesn't this depend on having a 4k display (with hdcp 2 point something)?

With 4K it's that old discussion of picture size versus viewing distance and in order to see the benefit that a 4K display offers you literally need to be 4 feet from a screen that's in excess of 55 inches. These things look great when you're standing that close to the wall at Best Buy but your eyes can't see that detail at a typical living room couch distance of 10-15 feet. Truth be told, your eyes can't tell the difference between 1080 and 720 at that distance and screen size either.

HDR, different story, your eyes can see and appreciate the deep blacks and the shadow detail that non-HDR panels and content struggled to deliver. It's HDR that people should be excited about, not 4K. To get HDR you wind up with a 4K panel so it's not a matter of buying one versus the other, but it's a matter of understanding what your eye can or cannot see.
[doublepost=1504902370][/doublepost]

Is there such a thing as a new 1080p TV with HDR? I think only 4K TVs have HDR. So it's pointless to argue against 4K and for HDR. Your not getting HDR without 4K. Unless I missed something.

HDR does exist on 1080 panels but that's not the point, it's not relevant.

What's paramount here is that a) the human eye cannot differentiate 4K quality from a typical living room distance and b) there is very little HDR content available as well as a format war between Dolby and open source, so those who act like Apple is way behind the tech curve are being ridiculous and anyone excited about upgrading strictly on 4K/HDR grounds should really rethink that at this time.

Your 1080p Apple TV is all you need in 2017's reality.

 

[400]

I can see 4k 7ft away from a 55 OK, I can discriminate HD and 4K. It really is that good on a good set when it is done well. HDR is the icing on the cake.

 

[vipergts2207]

HDR does exist on 1080 panels but that's not the point, it's not relevant.

What's paramount here is that a) the human eye cannot differentiate 4K quality from a typical living room distance and b) there is very little HDR content available as well as a format war between Dolby and open source, so those who act like Apple is way behind the tech curve are being ridiculous and anyone excited about upgrading strictly on 4K/HDR grounds should really rethink that at this time.

Your 1080p Apple TV is all you need in 2017's reality.

This format war is far less serious than those of the past. Manufacturers can and do support multiple HDR formats. It's not like the days of Blu-Ray vs. HD-DVD, where if you picked the wrong one you're SOL. It already looks like Apple will be supporting the two big ones right off the bat, DV and HDR10. The third biggest one, HLG, doesn't require any special hardware and can easily be supported via software update if Apple so chooses.

I'm still happily using my ATV3 and have been for the past 5+ years. Like you, I realized the jump to 4K wasn't all it was cracked up to be and the real deal was going to be HDR. That's why I waited to buy a new TV until this year, when 4K HDR TV prices entered the mainstream. Anyone who buys the ATV4 today, expecting to get years of use out of it like I have my ATV3, is going to be way behind the curve in a year as 4K HDR content continues to become more and more commonplace.

 

[cynics]

There's a huge difference between the two if you start to push data not just small packets. Wifi is subject to noise and much more interference from other electronic devices. Streaming a 1080P moving from your mac to the ATV will show this.

I run 6 ATVs and it's just not possible to do that over wifi, so I ended up with a 10Gbe backbone and 1Gbe to each room for local distribution.

Try moving 2 or 3 large BR rips at the same time over wifi then try the same on Ethernet...

I'm not going back to wifi stutters.
More devices more you see it.

I'm not disagreeing that wifi has its limitations. I wasn't even saying wifi is better, matter of fact I preferred ethernet.

Only reason I currently use it for my ATV is because the AE only has 3 ethernet ports and I use 1 for my PS4, 1 for my NAS and the other for my Philips Hue hub (obnoxiously).

 

[2010mini]

4k is a gimmick IMHO for the ATV at this point. If they don’t spend time developing tvOS, nothing they throw at it will matter. tvOS has so much missing potential it’s sad. Right now the TVapp should be gathering all the live feeds on the individual apps. So you can browse without going from app to app. And that’s for starters.

 

[D.T.]

I'm not disagreeing that wifi has its limitations. I wasn't even saying wifi is better, matter of fact I preferred ethernet.

Only reason I currently use it for my ATV is because the AE only has 3 ethernet ports and I use 1 for my PS4, 1 for my NAS and the other for my Philips Hue hub (obnoxiously).

Just pick up a little 4-5 port switch, a decent one for a home network you can score for $20-25. They're very small, will disappear in what sounds like your AV setup.

I try to avoid WiFi when possible - we have a LOT of equipment, some is WiFi only, but anything with an ethernet port, I've got wired up (dropped a connection down to the AV rack, 8 port switch, no WiFi for the PS4, AVR, Smart TV, ATV4 ... also added an AP off the same switch for better WiFi downstairs)

 

[jerwin]

there is very little HDR content available

I was thinking of a favorite director of mine (Joe Wright) and how his visual style would fit in with HDR, if his films were to be released with that feature.

 

[AFEPPL]

I'm not disagreeing that wifi has its limitations. I wasn't even saying wifi is better, matter of fact I preferred ethernet.

Only reason I currently use it for my ATV is because the AE only has 3 ethernet ports and I use 1 for my PS4, 1 for my NAS and the other for my Philips Hue hub (obnoxiously).

My only point was running ATVs over wifi with high bps means buffering which sucks.
This gets even worse if you try to airplay from your mac to the ATV as you have to move x2 the data.

 

[cynics]

My only point was running ATVs over wifi with high bps means buffering which sucks.
This gets even worse if you try to airplay from your mac to the ATV as you have to move x2 the data.

For me the circumstances involved in hogging all the wifi bandwidth are unrealistic.

I'm on wifi AC so channels are plentiful and currently not being shared.

Using two computers to transfer large files (MKV) to my NAS uses a lot a bandwidth however since they are HDDs randomly writing I can only get about 50 MB/s (400mbs) into it.

Even if I transfer a large file to the NAS from my Mac, and a large file between 2 PCs, AirPlay Mirror my iPad to my ATV3 and then watch home shared movie from my iMac it buffers out ahead of playback albeit not as fast but never catches up.

I'm sure with a house full of a modern techy family in a crowded wifi area it could be an issue but for me its not.

Again though I would rather use ethernet due to its proximity to my router. I'll probably look into a switch (I incorrectly said bridge earlier) like @D.T. mentioned.

 

[Rigby]

This format war is far less serious than those of the past. Manufacturers can and do support multiple HDR formats. It's not like the days of Blu-Ray vs. HD-DVD, where if you picked the wrong one you're SOL. It already looks like Apple will be supporting the two big ones right off the bat, DV and HDR10.

There is a new one, HDR10+, which adds dynamic metadata to HDR10 to catch up to DV. HDR10 without dynamic metadata can look very dark on many TVs due to physical limitations of the display. HDR10+ is license-free like HDR10 and may very well make it obsolete before the market has really started.

Personally, I'm in no hurry to upgrade to 4k, particularly since there are no projectors with real 4K panels and full HDR support in my price range yet. I'd rather watch movies in 1080p on a 120" projector screen than 4K on a tiny 65" TV.

 

[garglebutt]

I might be interested in an upgrade if the new one finally has gigabit ethernet. A faster processor would also be nice, my Apple TV3's have a fair amount of latency even though I have a Mini as an iTunes server that can saturate my gigabit network.

But since the update will no doubt be expensive and packed with features I don't need, I'll probably pass.

There’s no way a gigabit network is a constraint unless you have a very busy network. By far the biggest constraint is read performance of your storage. Even 100Mb networks are fine.

 

[Boyd01]

By far the biggest constraint is read performance of your storage. Even 100Mb networks are fine.

I have a Mini as a server and can read 100Mbytes/sec from it. The AppleTV 3 and 4 only have 100mbit/sec ethernet. As I said, there is a very noticeable performance difference accessing the same iTunes library via homesharing on my Macs vs doing it on the AppleTV. Takes longer for a movie to start playing and if I try to "rewind" it fast, the screen just goes black on the AppleTV. When I do the same thing on my Mac this doesn't happen.

Anyway, it's not a big deal. I just wish it didn't show so much latency. Certainly will not be worth hundreds of dollars to replace two AppleTV's just to improve that.

 

[nevjets]

Any new Smart TV will give you apps for all the 4K providers for free. So buy a new 1080p Apple TV today and stop depriving yourself of the rest of the benefits like iTunes, AirPlay, Playlists, etc. 4K is a sham unless you sit 3 feet away from a 75" screen. HDR is what's happening in HDTV now, and a 1080p Apple TV will look stellar on a HDR panel.

With 4K it's that old discussion of picture size versus viewing distance and in order to see the benefit that a 4K display offers you literally need to be 4 feet from a screen that's in excess of 55 inches. These things look great when you're standing that close to the wall at Best Buy but your eyes can't see that detail at a typical living room couch distance of 10-15 feet. Truth be told, your eyes can't tell the difference between 1080 and 720 at that distance and screen size either.

HDR, different story, your eyes can see and appreciate the deep blacks and the shadow detail that non-HDR panels and content struggled to deliver. It's HDR that people should be excited about, not 4K. To get HDR you wind up with a 4K panel so it's not a matter of buying one versus the other, but it's a matter of understanding what your eye can or cannot see.
[doublepost=1504902370][/doublepost]

HDR does exist on 1080 panels but that's not the point, it's not relevant.

What's paramount here is that a) the human eye cannot differentiate 4K quality from a typical living room distance and b) there is very little HDR content available as well as a format war between Dolby and open source, so those who act like Apple is way behind the tech curve are being ridiculous and anyone excited about upgrading strictly on 4K/HDR grounds should really rethink that at this time.

Your 1080p Apple TV is all you need in 2017's reality.

Yeah, but your original point was to poopoo 4K and praise HDR. But you can't get HDR without 4K. So it seems like a pointless argument to say 4K is a sham and HDR is where it's at. Unless you can provide a link to a 1080p TV with HDR (that has both formats like many 4K TVs do) so that I can buy it and save some money by not getting 4K tv just to get HDR.

 

[danny842003]

Apple has always been smart and avoided overhyped technology on several occasions. 4K is a waste of time unless someone is in a small bedroom with a gigantic TV. For most of us sitting 10 to 15 feet away from a 55 inch panel you can't see the quality of 4K, your eyes can't even differentiate 720 from 1080 at that average distance.

So your principal is what, Apple should support a technology that no one needs simply because CE makers are desperately trying to sell TV's that no one needs just like they did with 3D?

This is just your opinion though. I think there's a massive difference with 4k and I won't encourage Apple by spending my money on a device which I feel should the standard in 2017.
Why do people keep on saying there's limited content in 4k and HDR when there's heaps of it around?

 

[boltjames]

This is just your opinion though. I think there's a massive difference with 4k and I won't encourage Apple by spending my money on a device which I feel should the standard in 2017.

No, this isn't an opinion, it's fact.

https://carltonbale.com/does-4k-resolution-matter/

Quote from this article: "What the chart shows is that, for a 84-inch screen, 4k resolution isn’t fully apparent until you are at least 5.5 feet or closer to the screen. For a “tiny” 55-inch screen, you’ll need to be 3.5 feet or closer. Needless to say, most consumers aren’t going to sit close enough to see any of extra resolution 4k offers."

So you're punishing Apple because you think that 4K matters. And it doesn't. And, perhaps, you should instead be praising Apple for resisting a bogus technology that is really just marketing hype designed to turn around a slumping HDTV sector.
[doublepost=1504924683][/doublepost]

I was thinking of a favorite director of mine (Joe Wright) and how his visual style would fit in with HDR, if his films were to be released with that feature.

My point of view is that 1080p for movies looks great be they live action or CGI. There really isn't much need for improvement there.

My biggest issue with the current state of HDTV from a quality standpoint is live sports, particularly 720p broadcasts needing upscaling and cable companies throttling bandwidth and compromising the presentation. Blocking, smearing, pixelation, that's what really needs fixing. 4K doesn't help in this regard. Live sports is what needs help the most and it's not available.

 

[Yebubbleman]

So long as tvOS doesn't start running like crap on A8 based AppleTV boxes, I won't find myself needing a newer 4K one running on a newer SoC.

 

[boltjames]

Yeah, but your original point was to poopoo 4K and praise HDR. But you can't get HDR without 4K. So it seems like a pointless argument to say 4K is a sham and HDR is where it's at. Unless you can provide a link to a 1080p TV with HDR (that has both formats like many 4K TVs do) so that I can buy it and save some money by not getting 4K tv just to get HDR.

I have no idea what you're trying to say.

4K and HDR are two different technologies. 4K is bogus. HDR is encouraging. To support both technologies the TV companies have stepped up their game in terms of construction and materials for which the greatest win for the typical consumer is that it makes things markedly better for good ol' 1080p content. I've seen the 4K shuffle. I know where it ends. You get your new 4K TV, you show it off to your family and friends by pulling down some YouTube glass blowing footage, everyone is standing 3 feet from the screen and goes "ooh", and then 10 minutes later you're watching the Yankees in 1080p and after two weeks you don't even bother with the 4K HDR stuff available in dribs and drabs via streaming.

This argument isn't about Apple being slow or TV companies trying to take advantage of consumers or saving money. It's about consumers with blinders on coming to grips with the limitations of what their eyes can't see and a forced, realistic look at how little content is available in the new formats. The current Apple TV is just fine for 2017 and 2018, and the reason the thread title asks "anyone else uninterested in 4K Apple TV" is because a lot of us get this.

 

[vipergts2207]

I have no idea what you're trying to say.

4K and HDR are two different technologies. 4K is bogus. HDR is encouraging. To support both technologies the TV companies have stepped up their game in terms of construction and materials for which the greatest win for the typical consumer is that it makes things markedly better for good ol' 1080p content. I've seen the 4K shuffle. I know where it ends. You get your new 4K TV, you show it off to your family and friends by pulling down some YouTube glass blowing footage, everyone is standing 3 feet from the screen and goes "ooh", and then 10 minutes later you're watching the Yankees in 1080p and after two weeks you don't even bother with the 4K HDR stuff available in dribs and drabs via streaming.

This argument isn't about Apple being slow or TV companies trying to take advantage of consumers or saving money. It's about consumers with blinders on coming to grips with the limitations of what their eyes can't see and a forced, realistic look at how little content is available in the new formats. The current Apple TV is just fine for 2017 and 2018, and the reason the thread title asks "anyone else uninterested in 4K Apple TV" is because a lot of us get this.

Not sure what you don't understand, as it's a pretty simple concept. His point was that 4K and HDR go hand in hand. Yes, they're completely different technologies, but available products generally include both of them. If you want HDR, you're all but guaranteed to get 4K along with it, though not necessarily the other way around as HDR is still somewhat of a premium feature. It's really not that confusing a concept.

Another point I'd like to make is that 4K can actually help with upscaling lower resolution content, including the 720p content you hate so much. 720 goes to into 2160 (4K) at an integer value of 3. It does not do so with a 1080p panel. If 8K ever comes along in the distant future 480, 720, 1080 and 2160 will all go into it at integer values which will allow for the best possible performance of upscaling.

 

[nevjets]

I have no idea what you're trying to say.

4K and HDR are two different technologies. 4K is bogus. HDR is encouraging. To support both technologies the TV companies have stepped up their game in terms of construction and materials for which the greatest win for the typical consumer is that it makes things markedly better for good ol' 1080p content. I've seen the 4K shuffle. I know where it ends. You get your new 4K TV, you show it off to your family and friends by pulling down some YouTube glass blowing footage, everyone is standing 3 feet from the screen and goes "ooh", and then 10 minutes later you're watching the Yankees in 1080p and after two weeks you don't even bother with the 4K HDR stuff available in dribs and drabs via streaming.

This argument isn't about Apple being slow or TV companies trying to take advantage of consumers or saving money. It's about consumers with blinders on coming to grips with the limitations of what their eyes can't see and a forced, realistic look at how little content is available in the new formats. The current Apple TV is just fine for 2017 and 2018, and the reason the thread title asks "anyone else uninterested in 4K Apple TV" is because a lot of us get this.

Vipergts explained it well. You can't get one without the other. But if you do fine a 1080p HDR tv, please provide a link. I'd probably buy it.