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

[danny842003]

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]

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.

'Full benefit' that doesn't mean if you're not sat at the optimum distance there is no benefit.
Come back on Tuesday and tell me if I should still be praising apple for resisting such crappy tech.

 

[boltjames]

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.

I have nothing to say on that subject as 99% of all TV's available with HDR are 4K. I'm not sure why you keep bringing this point up. My only point here is that even though you get both, it's only the HDR that is worth anything to anyone from a standpoint of what your eyes can see from a practical viewing distance. If you sit 2 feet away from a 55" panel, knock yourself out, enjoy all the clarity of 4K.

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.

The only reason I'm dumping my 7 year old 55" Sony NX810 and am getting a new 65" Sony 900E is because of the upscaling performance brought by a panel optimized for 4K and HDR. So even though there is no meaningful content in those formats for what I actually watch (broadcast TV and broadcast live sports) it means that I can get away with a panel that is 39% larger at the same viewing distance and won't see any artifacts. Again, I think that's the big win for the average consumer that no one talks about- it's not about 4K and it's not so much about HDR. It's about the fact that by optimizing the panels for those two mostly useless features, the TV companies have accidentally made things significantly better for good ol' 1080p users. They would be wise to market that fact which is otherwise lost in a pile of technical mumbo-jumbo.

Back to the Apple TV, same rules apply. Stick with the 1080p model. The Smart features on your current 4K HDR TV can give you all the goofy show off 4K videos of drones flying over Mexico. No need to have an Apple TV to do the same thing, at least not for a few years.

 

[danny842003]

I have nothing to say on that subject as 99% of all TV's available with HDR are 4K. I'm not sure why you keep bringing this point up. My only point here is that even though you get both, it's only the HDR that is worth anything to anyone from a standpoint of what your eyes can see from a practical viewing distance. If you sit 2 feet away from a 55" panel, knock yourself out, enjoy all the clarity of 4K.



The only reason I'm dumping my 7 year old 55" Sony NX810 and am getting a new 65" Sony 900E is because of the upscaling performance brought by a panel optimized for 4K and HDR. So even though there is no meaningful content in those formats for what I actually watch (broadcast TV and broadcast live sports) it means that I can get away with a panel that is 39% larger at the same viewing distance and won't see any artifacts. Again, I think that's the big win for the average consumer that no one talks about- it's not about 4K and it's not so much about HDR. It's about the fact that by optimizing the panels for those two mostly useless features, the TV companies have accidentally made things significantly better for good ol' 1080p users. They would be wise to market that fact which is otherwise lost in a pile of technical mumbo-jumbo.

Back to the Apple TV, same rules apply. Stick with the 1080p model. The Smart features on your current 4K HDR TV can give you all the goofy show off 4K videos of drones flying over Mexico. No need to have an Apple TV to do the same thing, at least not for a few years.

Why would you need it in a few years time?

 

[boltjames]

'Full benefit' that doesn't mean if you're not sat at the optimum distance there is no benefit.
Come back on Tuesday and tell me if I should still be praising apple for resisting such crappy tech.

If you want to sit 15 feet away from your TV and pretend you are seeing the benefit of 4K go ahead. Sometimes my son runs around in his underwear pretending he's Superman and I don't tell him he's not.

I was not predicting that Apple will eschew 4K HDR on Tuesday, Danny. Nice try. What I said was that instead of whining for the past two years that Apple lost their way with the ATV4, you should recognize that they actually did a good thing for their consumers by not introducing them to a technology with no worthwhile content. Apple is right on time, again.
[doublepost=1504962972][/doublepost]

Why would you need it in a few years time?

When the major networks and local cable networks in the US start broadcasting every NFL, NHL, and MLB game in 4K HDR I'll get excited about 4K HDR. Until then, who cares? A homebrew 4K YouTube video of a drone flying over Mexico doesn't cut it.

Content, Danny. Content.

 

[jerwin]

http://www.techradar.com/news/sony-is-bringing-hdr-to-its-1080p-tvs-but-only-ps4-owners-will-benefit


netflic supports it too.

 

[nevjets]

http://www.techradar.com/news/sony-is-bringing-hdr-to-its-1080p-tvs-but-only-ps4-owners-will-benefit


netflic supports it too.

Thanks for that link. So it seems Sony is the only one who makes them. Although I still don't find any of those models for sale.

 

[AFEPPL]

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.

Disagree, running AC with no noise/contention and AirPlaying a true 1080P to a ATV3 sucks.
Airplay is the issue, 1080p will need around 20000kps x 2 (in and out). Oh and its over a TimeMaching as the router.

AC has a huge overhead, you wont get close to the theoretical thoughtput (about half)
You then have the issue of wave length - the higher the Ghz, the smaller the waves which means more are lost as it passes though walls etc.

regardless - if you are happy.. it doesn't matter..

 

[iamaydo]

I've never had an ATV before and am looking to get the ATV5 when it launches, but I'm not interested in 4K - am I right in assuming watching 4K content is not necessary, I can still buy and watch 1080 HD content with a 4K option in the background?

Yes that is correct. You are capable of watching 4K content but you can certainly choose what content you would like to watch

 

[danny842003]

If you want to sit 15 feet away from your TV and pretend you are seeing the benefit of 4K go ahead. Sometimes my son runs around in his underwear pretending he's Superman and I don't tell him he's not.

I was not predicting that Apple will eschew 4K HDR on Tuesday, Danny. Nice try. What I said was that instead of whining for the past two years that Apple lost their way with the ATV4, you should recognize that they actually did a good thing for their consumers by not introducing them to a technology with no worthwhile content. Apple is right on time, again.
[doublepost=1504962972][/doublepost]

When the major networks and local cable networks in the US start broadcasting every NFL, NHL, and MLB game in 4K HDR I'll get excited about 4K HDR. Until then, who cares? A homebrew 4K YouTube video of a drone flying over Mexico doesn't cut it.

Content, Danny. Content.

Why would I care about what's on in the US or if those utterly tedious sports were in 4K?
There's heaps of 4k content already available.

 

[boltjames]

There's heaps of 4k content already available.

No, there isn't. There's heaps of 4K demo videos.

Hey, if you like standing 2 feet in front of a 55" panel and watching snakes in Costa Rica and drone video of Hawaii, that's cool, but it's not entertainment.

 

[danny842003]

No, there isn't. There's heaps of 4K demo videos.

Hey, if you like standing 2 feet in front of a 55" panel and watching snakes in Costa Rica and drone video of Hawaii, that's cool, but it's not entertainment.

But there is plenty of of 4K content. Sport is being broadcast in 4k in certain regions. Plenty of streaming services are offering 4K. There's only so much TV i can watch and For the time I have there's enough content for me to never to watch sub 4k if I chose.
I concede the Super Bowl isn't in 4k, but as gridiron isn't my thing I don't care.

 

[off_piste]

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]

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.

It's not a fact as it's different for different people. I can perceive resolution increases much farther away than some other people. Beyond where I can tell the increased resolution I perceive it as a better picture meaning there's still benefits to having it. I have tested this with numerous sets and conditions.


I agree with your transmission gripes. I prefer OTA if at all possible. I can't tell you how many times my 75Mbps internet drops out or slows causing pixelation. F-in Comcast.

 

[Commentist]

The benefits of a TV with built in functionality/apps becomes even more clear when it's wall mounted and extra boxes just don't look cool.

The recommended solution is apparently velcro (or you can pay £10 for a back of TV/wall mount for the ATV).

4K doesn't bother me (my wife doesn't like large panels...), and we never use the builtin Smart TV features (we have a satellite box). My main use of the ATV is to airplay music. So I'm also not in the market for an ATV5 (or 4).

 

[ErikGrim]

Stop posting that stupid viewing distance graph as if it is fact, when it has long been debunked:

https://www.wifihifi.ca/LatestNewsHeadlines/DebunkingtheMisconceptionsof4K.html

 

[boltjames]

Stop posting that stupid viewing distance graph as if it is fact, when it has long been debunked

Debunked? Did you read that article? Some dude asked his friends in his living room if they could see 4K quality on his 4K TV, hardly scientific.

 

[danny842003]

Whereas you are using something which is talking about full benefit and saying if you don't adhere to the same conditions there is no benefit.

 

[400]

It's not a fact as it's different for different people. I can perceive resolution increases much farther away than some other people. Beyond where I can tell the increased resolution I perceive it as a better picture meaning there's still benefits to having it. I have tested this with numerous sets and conditions.


I agree with your transmission gripes. I prefer OTA if at all possible. I can't tell you how many times my 75Mbps internet drops out or slows causing pixelation. F-in Comcast.

Yep. Agree there.
I pretty much used the charts (there are more than this one) as a guide to set up where I sit and where the panel would be then mimic that distance at the shops to see what the differences when I bought my panel. The final deciding factor is the person doing the watching, this last bit is the most vital part of any equation and to do it objectively. At the very least the charts should alert someone not knowing the limitations, that there are limitations and to look for them.

No, there isn't. There's heaps of 4K demo videos.

Hey, if you like standing 2 feet in front of a 55" panel and watching snakes in Costa Rica and drone video of Hawaii, that's cool, but it's not entertainment.

Using a 55" 4k panel. I have various sources excluding satellite (BT VDSL for me in the UK, I do not have the Sky satellite service). I have on tap, streaming 4k both TV shows/films and live sport, the sport is better than Netflix in my own opinion (bit rates are higher I think). The 4k rugby for example is pin sharp compared to the 1080i version they transmit at the same time. And the 1080i version is sharp. Flick channels and check. I did compare my panel to a HD only version and it does upscale exceedingly well.

I have a 4K player, OK, some arguments on some films being 2k intermediary etc. but get Planet Earth II and it will blow your socks off. Done well, it is very good and very noticeable, even the 2K intermediary if done well is noticeable especially with HDR.

There are a stack of old films about to get the 4k treatment, Netflix is pushing a lot of "Netflix Originals" in 4K, not a huge fan of what they are doing but the content is there and it is growing. I do not have Amazon tv so not sure what is on that in 4K.
http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/searc...ideoresolutionid=2683&sortby=releasetimestamp

Wonder if Star Wars is about to get the uplift?

Future looks good for content. If Apple get the right goodies with this new box and integrate with other options then they could be on a winner for 4K.

However, each to their own, I think it is superb.

 

[danny842003]

Yep. Agree there.
I pretty much used the charts (there are more than this one) as a guide to set up where I sit and where the panel would be then mimic that distance at the shops to see what the differences when I bought my panel. The final deciding factor is the person doing the watching, this last bit is the most vital part of any equation and to do it objectively. At the very least the charts should alert someone not knowing the limitations, that there are limitations and to look for them.


Using a 55" 4k panel. I have various sources excluding satellite (BT VDSL for me in the UK, I do not have the Sky satellite service). I have on tap, streaming 4k both TV shows/films and live sport, the sport is better than Netflix in my own opinion (bit rates are higher I think). The 4k rugby for example is pin sharp compared to the 1080i version they transmit at the same time. And the 1080i version is sharp. Flick channels and check. I did compare my panel to a HD only version and it does upscale exceedingly well.

I have a 4K player, OK, some arguments on some films being 2k intermediary etc. but get Planet Earth II and it will blow your socks off. Done well, it is very good and very noticeable, even the 2K intermediary if done well is noticeable especially with HDR.

There are a stack of old films about to get the 4k treatment, Netflix is pushing a lot of "Netflix Originals" in 4K, not a huge fan of what they are doing but the content is there and it is growing. I do not have Amazon tv so not sure what is on that in 4K.
http://www.blu-ray.com/movies/searc...ideoresolutionid=2683&sortby=releasetimestamp

Wonder if Star Wars is about to get the uplift?

Future looks good for content. If Apple get the right goodies with this new box and integrate with other options then they could be on a winner for 4K.

However, each to their own, I think it is superb.

But, but, but America and sports that nobody else cares about aren't in 4k so it's pointless and you can only watch drone footage.

 

[400]

I don't know what the situation is like in the US with regards data caps or distribution. It may be a big issue for many that really makes this an issue. I believe my ISP pegs the rate at 22mb/s minimum (??) but ask for a minimum overall speed of 44mb/s for 4K. They do not charge IF I use their content box for streaming.

 

[kingtj]

Count me among people who aren't excited for this product announcement.

Currently, we don't own any 4K televisions -- although we do own 3 different TVs that are all no more than a year or two old, and 2 of the 3 have "smart" capabilities in them.

I think some of the 4K movie content looks great when I see it demoed in stores, but it's nothing I care about enough to spend hundreds or even thousands of dollars upgrading to get at home. My eyesight isn't what it used to be anyway, so I'd probably do better to go get myself a pair of glasses than a higher resolution TV.

The other consideration is the fact that there are real advantages to having digital content stored in compressed formats that don't take up huge amounts of space. I run a Plex server here with a copy of quite a few TV episodes and movies on it. Replacing each of those files with one holding enough data to make 4K look good would mean more than doubling the size of each one. That means hard drive upgrades on the Plex server, AND the fact that all of that additional data won't stream over wi-fi very well. No point getting high resolution but choppy playback....

 

[archer75]

I have an OLED 4K tv, but Apple TV 4 disappointed me so much, i think I’m done investing in apple set top boxes.

They mostly collect dust aside from HBO, I just use built in apps on my LG if anything and my xb1s for 4K blu rays

This isnt a very informative post, but I think apple blew it dragging their feet on the tv scene, and hyping up a set top box with decent hardware, and potential, but never any pay out since the 2015 model came out

I too have a LG OLED and the apple tv is my most used device. Simply because it has more of the channels we'd watch than any other device.
I do switch over to my shield if the content i'm watching is 4k/HDR. Also when i'm playing a rip with a HD audio track. The only time I use the built in apps on the LG is when I really want to see Dolby Vision. But then I have to feed the audio back over ARC and then you only get dolby digital. I'm picky about audio.

If the new apple tv also supports passthrough of HD audio it would be able to replace my shield and would be a perfect all in one device.
[doublepost=1505160857][/doublepost]

I think some of the 4K movie content looks great when I see it demoed in stores, but it's nothing I care about enough to spend hundreds or even thousands of dollars upgrading to get at home. My eyesight isn't what it used to be anyway, so I'd probably do better to go get myself a pair of glasses than a higher resolution TV.

The other consideration is the fact that there are real advantages to having digital content stored in compressed formats that don't take up huge amounts of space. I run a Plex server here with a copy of quite a few TV episodes and movies on it. Replacing each of those files with one holding enough data to make 4K look good would mean more than doubling the size of each one. That means hard drive upgrades on the Plex server, AND the fact that all of that additional data won't stream over wi-fi very well. No point getting high resolution but choppy playback....

It's not the 4k you should be interested in. It's the HDR. That is by far the greater impact. I too run a plex server and can tell you you don't need 4k rips to look good on a 4k tv. The TV will upconvert and the image will look damn good. Depending on viewing distance you probably won't be able to tell a difference between a 4k source and a upconverted 1080p file. But with h.265 and the right settings you can get the file sizes down and still look just as good as the original.
Wifi can certainly be an issue which is why I recommend anyone streaming video use wired connections.

 

[boltjames]

But, but, but America and sports that nobody else cares about aren't in 4k so it's pointless and you can only watch drone footage.

If you don't live in America then my comments don't apply to you. This is an international forum. In the US, there is no 4K programming for those interested in live major league sports, that's only about 90% of the buyers of 4K panels.

If you like watching snakes in Costa Rica and drones flying over Hawaii from 2 feet in front of your TV, enjoy.

 

[vipergts2207]

If you don't live in America then my comments don't apply to you. This is an international forum. In the US, there is no 4K programming for those interested in live major league sports, that's only about 90% of the buyers of 4K panels.

If you like watching snakes in Costa Rica and drones flying over Hawaii from 2 feet in front of your TV, enjoy.

This is so false it's not even funny.

http://www.avsforum.com/forum/465-h...ailable-4k-hdr-titles-will-updated-often.html

 

[Mac 128]

This is so false it's not even funny.

http://www.avsforum.com/forum/465-h...ailable-4k-hdr-titles-will-updated-often.html

He knows:

http://www.avsforum.com/forum/166-l...rs-thread-no-price-talk-161.html#post54758300

 

[vipergts2207]

He knows:

http://www.avsforum.com/forum/166-l...rs-thread-no-price-talk-161.html#post54758300

Yeah from that it's clear he doesn't understand that buying a 1080p panel in 2017 gets you a low-end junk TV. 4K is here and if you want decent equipment it's the only thing to get anymore because that's where manufacturers are putting their best panels, image processing, software, SoC's, etc. Not saying someone with a nice 1080p panel from 2015 should rush out and replace it, but if you're in the market, it's 4K or garbage.