Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Apple Explored 4K Video Distribution in 2013
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Was this all before or after the messive terabyte-sized North Korea/China hack of Sony Pictures Studios??
Apple has a knack for embracing things close to the point where the public does. Because of this, you get the perception that Apple's adoption of the trend is what is responsible for the shift in attitude, rather than the other way around.Very same thing said whenTV was limited to 720p and some of us wanted it to go 1080p. Funny how before Apple embraces something it doesn't make much sense... but after they move, it makes great sense (go back and look at 1080p wish threads when 720p was Apple's max, or bigger screen phone threads, or NFC, or even front-facing "iSight" cameras when iPad 1 was launched, etc).
I think the deal lately is Apple has been setting industry-changing trends like dropping optical drives and making iCloud the golden standard, and even going as far as to make the new MacBook a 1-port computer. Apple makes these kind of game-changing moves, and the public continues to buy the products in droves, while adapting to function under the new "set" standards. Apple's gain in popularity over the past 15 years since the Jobs era has led to a more open public mindset overall towards change with the products, since Steve started shifting things forward with the floppy-less USB iMac in 1998 and then the iPod, which revolutionized the way we listen to, and consume music. Apple's been setting the trends...the public has been adapting, and adopting too (and for the most part, the trends catch on pretty quickly - - when Apple sets them)
(Emphasis mine)
"From a distance" is totally vague. Personally when I watch a movie I want to be enveloped by the screen. 4K makes it possible to sit closer to a larger screen, making for a more cinematic experience. I don't want to sit 8 feet from a 40 inch 4K screen. No benefit in that. I want to sit 6 feet from a 60" 4K screen.
I would agree that the hype is premature until 4K sources are far more available, but when 4K blu ray is here, it's game on for me and 4K.
Oh, and the curved thing seems less gimmicky when you're sitting closer.
No, not really. A 'free' market doesn't mean 'anything goes.' A free market would be one in which there is competition (see any of that?), and informed rational consumers (see many of those?)... not lobbying of the government to permit unfair practices and monopolistic behaviors, and armies of lawyers to prevent competition, etc.
In other words, a true free market would be one that was fair, which allowed economic principals to properly play out. We're not even close to having anything like that today.
There are three key aspects to UHD, the resolution, HDR and extended color palette. The cheaper 4k panels may support the resolution, but they don't support the latter two components of UHD.
Apple USED to be renewing, under Steve, always progressive, first with everything.
In the mean time people can buy a 4K tv for under 1000 euro, other companies (and even youtube and netflix) sending in 4K.
Video, and even photocameras, making 4K movies. Final Cut Pro edits in 4K.
And what does Apple do? Rejecting the idear and continue with 1080P.
The same when the rest of the world adapted 1080P as THE standard, our apple tv's were still only 720P.
What happend? A WWDC with only "old news" we seen at the WWDC before already.
In the mean time updating and updating buggy software. Am i back at Windows??
In the mean time people can buy a 4K tv for under 1000 euro, other companies (and even youtube and netflix) sending in 4K.
Video, and even photocameras, making 4K movies. Final Cut Pro edits in 4K.
And what does Apple do? Rejecting the idear and continue with 1080P.
The same when the rest of the world adapted 1080P as THE standard, our apple tv's were still only 720P.
What happend? A WWDC with only "old news" we seen at the WWDC before already.
In the mean time updating and updating buggy software. Am i back at Windows??
I'm always surprised when people are surprised about Company X researching Y...
Especially Apple, they probably research all kinds of things before we have even though of it.
Of course Apple has been exploring 4k video distribution... they're probably even been looking at 8k already just to have a leg up, even if they never use it, or don't use it for 10 years.
Especially Apple, they probably research all kinds of things before we have even though of it.
Of course Apple has been exploring 4k video distribution... they're probably even been looking at 8k already just to have a leg up, even if they never use it, or don't use it for 10 years.
What?!?
Apple has never been first. Their entire model is taking what's already there and making it simpler and user friendly. iPod wasn't the first MP3 player. iPhone wasn't the first smartphone. iPad wasn't the first tablet. Need I go on?
If you have viewed REAL uncompressed 4k content on a 65inch TV you would understand the difference. It's amazing. What people are getting with Netflix and Amazon is crap. There's a fundamental problem to overcome, which is bandwidth. Looking forward to 4k on disc for the time being.
The bigger the TV, the more noticeable the difference between HD and 4K.
I definitely would not put 3D and 4K in the same comparison of items that are desperate attempts. 4K is an evolution (for the better), while 3D and curved screens are truly desperate attempts to add features to a relatively bland electronic device.
MacBook Air wasn't the first subnotebook...Apple watch wasn't the first smartwarch. But the Macintosh was the first computer to use PostScript and had scalable fonts, proportional fonts. Typography was big on the Macintosh and Steve wanted to make an industry-first with typography on the Mac, something that had never been done on a personal computer.
I do care about sports but ditched cable anyway 3 months ago....use my dads Netflix, he uses my Hulu plus and if I have to see something (walking dead) I buy it. I haven't missed cable one bit. Helps I have 110 mps internet! My bill went from 1200 a year to just over 600...if I gotta see a game cable is free at the bar...just gotta pay for the booze ....and now I have the cash to upgrade to a new Apple TV whenever it's released....
Very same thing said when
No. 4K is literally something you cannot see at the distances people ordinarily sit from a 50-80 inch television. Apple can't make you see it just because they are Apple.
Because you can tell the difference at the distances you use a computer or smartphone. It's a huge difference.
Pretty much. There are a segment of home-theatre folks who are talking like 80"+ screens who would benefit from 4K. But, for the average consumer (i.e.: probably the target of the Apple TV), 4K is just a marketing ploy to sell a new set.
You can especially notice this because they are selling 4K displays in much smaller sizes. Unless rooms have gotten *really* small, people buying those, based on that feature, are just being duped.
I think the trick for Apple... is that if enough people get duped into such sets, and then start demanding content and 4K on the spec list... Apple might lose a sale or public perception. Just because Apple's right (i.e.: lack of standards yet, and it being a mostly useless feature) doesn't mean they won't eventually have to do it or be damaged in the market.
Very same thing said when
Why bother with a 5K iMac since we sit the same distance from the non-5K iMac screen? Why bother with retina-screens at all when we look at them from the same distance as non-retina screens?
4K is the next big thing in screens. If it can't make sense to us today, it shouldn't make sense when Apple embraces it either. BUT, like bigger screen phones or 1080p or 5K iMac or NFC or Retina screens on anything or FaceTime cameras on iPads, our collective sentiment will "evolve with the times" as soon as Apple decides to go there.
That said, I'm much encouraged by this rumor. The hardware must lead; it never makes sense for the software to come first. Personally, I don't really care if there is ever 4K content in the iTunes store; 4K playback means sharper pictures on 4K screens, our own 4K content shot on 4K camcorders will play back that much sharper, and so on. Eventually a Studio would be tempted to test 4K movie profitability; it they make a profit, they'll do more. And competition will want to compete.
There's no downside. The "1080p is good enough" (or the "no one will be able to see a difference") crowd could still enjoy their 1080p to the fullest, as better hardware can always player lighter software to it's MAX. Even the "720p is good enough" crowd could still enjoy their 720p video to it's fullest too... just like older software written for Macs several years ago will run just fine on brand new Mac hardware just made. My current
re: same thing said of 720p
I don't recall much of that, but I'll take your word for it. But, if so, here's the thing... on many of the screen sizes at the time and due to compression used, etc., you actually couldn't tell much difference in the majority of cases (I'm pretty sure Consumer's Report did a bunch of testing). That said, I don't think anyone was arguing no difference between the two in the sense of 'why go to 1080p,' it was more about the *necessity* to get there right then.
In some ways, we're kind of saying the same thing now. Clearly, 5K is better than 1080p. The problem is we're dealing with a reality of lack of standards and the fact that few people have TVs over 80" in size (or sit close enough to smaller screens to make a difference). Then, we're also dealing with an Internet infrastructure that just can't handle such transmission (without killing the benefit).
So, like the 720p/1080p debate, there's no reason for Apple to rush into it. But, unlike it, I don't see the majority of people going to 80"+ displays. If anything, a bad economy will probably drive things in the opposite direction... smaller homes and smaller or at least stagnant screen sizes. And, since more and more people watch video on their phones and tablets, there is even less need for 5K.
re: bigger screen phones
It doesn't make any more sense today than it did back then... FOR THE REASONS APPLE GAVE! What pushed them to bigger screens, is a world-market where the smart-phone is the sole computing device for a household and consumer demand based on what the competition was doing. Their argument about the optimal size for a phone still stands, IMO. They have developed technologies to help with the deficiencies of a bigger screen (both physical and UI), but the deficiencies still exist. Aside from staying current on the hardware, the optimal size is probably the 5s. The 6 is even too big, IMO.
re: NFC, or even front-facing "iSight" cameras
What? I seriously don't recall these. Maybe I'm just getting too old, having followed Apple news for over 25 years now.
What were the objections?re: 5k iMac
Well, when you're sitting that close, people with good eyes can actually see the difference. And, since video pros often work with higher-rez source material, it makes sense to have a machine at that rez. And, the other retina devices are similar, especially phones.
I was one of those objecting to Retina on the iPad and laptops... BECAUSE of the tradeoffs Apple was making on the initial models to pull it off. Obviously at close viewing distances, Retina will be noticeably better. I just didn't want to lose performance and battery life, as IMO, it's not *that* big of a deal (enough to lose those things over).
re: "4K is the next big thing in screens."
Why? Just because? And then 8K? Then 16K? I think there needs to be some point to it besides just being the next mathematical step in quantity of pixels. Are you waiting for the Retina-x2 displays before you buy your next iPad too?
re: 4K, just one more option
Sure, I agree. There are some home-theater people who would be very happy with that. But, the question is whether there is a compelling enough reason for Apple to jump on it now (pre-standards, bandwidth limitations, really-niche-market), vs waiting another year or two. And even then, as I argued above, this isn't like the SD to 720p or 1080p jump... it just simply isn't as necessary.
Heh, me either. I guess we're just part of the 99.9% who don't have theatre rooms in our homes, huh?
Actually, I suppose if I replace my current screen someday (it's from like 2005 or 2006 I think), I might be forced to buy a 5K display if that is all they are selling in the screen size I'd want (50-60").
Very same thing said when
.......There's no downside. The "1080p is good enough" (or the "no one will be able to see a difference") crowd could still enjoy their 1080p to the fullest, as better hardware can always player lighter software to it's MAX. Even the "720p is good enough" crowd could still enjoy their 720p video to it's fullest too... just like older software written for Macs several years ago will run just fine on brand new Mac hardware just made. My current
I am a compression technician for a film distributor and this is all "resolution lust" without true understanding of visual acuity or the science behind video. 720p was transitionary and was never good enough--it was used to sell TVs in the early 2000s. Films had been mastered at 2K as far back as Batman Forever, which was color graded at 2K in 1995.
Resolution is only a portion of video quality. 4K will only noticeably improve on 1080p if companies add 4:2:2 chroma-subsampling and wider color gamuts. Next generation of Blu-ray is the only thing offering that. And I doubt Netflix is going to upgrade House of Cards to 35GBs per episode in 4K.
I will be very disappointed if it doesn't end up supporting 4K. Currently though I am still using a 50" 720p plasma and running an ATV2, but I am looking into upgrading everything to 4K capable soonish. I will probably not bother buying the new ATV if it doesn't support 4K.
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
Believe what you wish. My experience in settings where 4K sets are positioned next to 1080p sets is that the former looks sharper than the latter. There's a number of possibilities why but perception that something is better- whether it actually is or not- sells a lot of tech. When retina first hit, it was spun as the maximum that human eyes can resolve. More recently when better-than-retina was rolled out, conceptually those same human eyes shouldn't be able to see any difference. But, we either did see a difference or fooled ourselves into thinking we could. Either way, we bought it, as many consumers are buying 4K sets, 4K camcorders, 4K-capable DSLRs and so on.
I appreciate the anti-4K sentiment. But all of the arguments against it were also slung when Apple was clinging to 720p max while the bulk of the rest of the CE world had embraced 1080p. Once Apple embraced 1080p, all that naysaying just evaporated. Once Apple embraces 4K, let's see how many fault them for it.
What an utterly stupid and asinine comment. You actually just compared our media to the outright fascist propaganda that comes from North Korea. So ignorant.