Apple Explored 4K Video Distribution in 2013

[HobeSoundDarryl]

re: same thing said of 720p

I don't recall much of that,

re: NFC, or even front-facing "iSight" cameras What?

This site has excellent search capabilities. Use them and hop back to when some of what I said was rumor (before Apple embraced them). That NFC bashing wasn't even that long ago. Then, Apple rolls out Apple Pay and we want to refuse to shop at stores that won't let us pay that way.

As to the rest of the post, I appreciate your points. But again, sub in 1080p for 4K back when Apple was endorsing 720p as a MAX in TV 1 & 2 and people were making the same case against 1080p. It was "a gimmick", "until the whole Internet is able to stream 1080p", "until everything in the iTunes store is available at 1080p", "bandwidth", "huge file size storage", "the chart", and so on.

And then Apple rolled out TV3 with 1080p and that whole crowd seemed to quickly fade. Almost no one dared fault Apple for embracing a "gimmick", the whole Internet hadn't been upgraded, everything in the iTunes store wasn't 1080p and so on.

Just like then, people seemed to perceive that if Apple rolled out hardware capable of more than what they had in a TV, they would have to buy a new TV. But that's not the case. A 4K TV for those content with 1080p or 720p will play 1080p or 720p to it's maximum ON THE SAME TV they already own. However, a 4K TV could also feed the 4K TVs purchased by people in the last couple of years some 4K content too. The 720p or 1080p people can get what they want on their TVs; the 4K people can get what they want. Apple can sell more units than cutting either group out. Everybody wins.

Don't like 4K? Don't think you can see any difference? Don't want to buy a new TV? You don't have to embrace 4K at all... just like those who felt "720p was good enough" could still be watching 720p HDTV with a 1080p-capable TV feeding their TVs 720p HD.

 

[HobeSoundDarryl]

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.

Flash forward to a few years after Apple has embraced 4K and someone will be posting this kind of stuff about 8K. I don't know how we can make such a passionate case against "retina" TV (actually something less than retina) but then gush love for retina Apple devices and iMac. We so easily rationalize retina in iDevices that have as little as 4" screens. We so easily rationalize a 5K iMac at 27". But, when it comes to our TVs, <Retina makes no sense and "here's 20 reasons why"...

Apple will go 4K. It's only a matter of time. Where will these arguments against it be when Apple rolls out a 4K TV? Why are we so passionately against something until Apple embraces it... and then we're gushing and "shut up and take my money" for it at that time?

It was not long ago that big-screen phones were abominations, "99% don't want", "one handed use", "need pants with bigger pockets", "resolution fragmentation", "man purses" and 10 other reasons why 4" screens was the one and only perfect size. Then Apple went big screen and it was "shut up and take my money", "best iPhones ever" and record sales. It's just the same old story every time: 4K is useless, stupid, "nobody can see the difference", etc until Apple embraces it, and then it will be "shut up and take my money".

 

[SteveW928]

My experience in settings where 4K sets are positioned next to 1080p sets is that the former looks sharper than the latter. ... Once Apple embraces 4K, let's see how many fault them for it.

Well, in many stores where you might see them both, you're probably *way* closer then you'd sit in a normal living room. So, I'd expect when you're just a few feet away, you really could tell the difference. But, also, in many stores, they put special images up on 4K sets to try and make them look especially impressive. You'd have to be sure it's the same content on both (apart from one being 1080p version and other 4K version).

And to be clear, I'm not against Apple going to 4K, once the standards are set and there is a good reason to do so. I'll still probably have little use for it, but to each their own.

 

[nutmac]

Apple TV 2 was released with 720p video playback and 1080p UI support. If Apple does release Apple TV 4 with only 1080p playback, which would be very disappointing to say the least, I only hope the UI would at least render in 4K resolution.

 

[SteveW928]

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.

I'm not sure I'd have said the USA is worse. But, if you don't think the USA's propaganda is prevalent and more sophisticated, I've got this bridge...

 

[tennisproha]

If only Steve Jobs was alive we would have 4K Apple TV.

lol okay I'll bite. Whatever happened to the rumor that Steve Jobs had finally cracked the TV problem? We've yet to see that come to fruition. Unless he kept that one to himself.

 

[HobeSoundDarryl]

Apple TV 2 was released with 720p video playback and 1080p UI support. If Apple does release Apple TV 4 with only 1080p playback, which would be very disappointing to say the least, I only hope the UI would at least render in 4K resolution.

I would fully expect a 4K TV to be able to feed 1080p or 720p to 1080p or 720p sets respectively, not forcing anyone happy with either to buy a new TV. Downscaling is relatively easy. It's upscaling where picture tends to suffer.

 

[MH01]

Not at all surprised , big companies have R&D budgets, though just because they investigate possibilities, in no way suggests that they will implement them. To be honest these reports say nothing. When it becomes profitable, the margins are right, we will have 4K Apple TVs. Tech is not holding back a 4K Apple TV service.

 

[SteveW928]

This site has excellent search capabilities. Use them and hop back to when some of what I said was rumor (before Apple embraced them). That NFC bashing wasn't even that long ago. Then, Apple rolls out Apple Pay and we want to refuse to shop at stores that won't let us pay that way.

As to the rest of the post, I appreciate your points. But again, sub in 1080p for 4K back when Apple was endorsing 720p as a MAX in TV 1 & 2 and people were making the same case against 1080p. It was "a gimmick", "until the whole Internet is able to stream 1080p", "until everything in the iTunes store is available at 1080p", "bandwidth", "huge file size storage", "the chart", and so on.

I suppose I could do that (search). I remember people being against NFC for privacy reasons, etc. I guess people have just given up on that these days. I guess I'll just take your word for it.

But, regarding 720p, 1080p, and 4K, actually I think a lot had changed between those times. While I often fault the telcos for their horrible service and Internet speed/capacity compared to the rest of the developed world, they have actually increased the speeds quite a bit over those years.

What I don't remember is the argument that the difference couldn't be seen on displays a typical person might practically own. Yes, most people those days were buying smaller screens than now, so most of them probably couldn't tell the difference from typical viewing distances. But, most of us also envied the bigger screens we just couldn't afford at the time. The difference today is that most people can't have, or wouldn't want, an 80"+ screen, even if they could afford it.

Or, to put it more simply... at 1080p we've maxed out the useful rez for like 90% of TV viewers.

So, Apple will probably wait until standards are solidified and there is more demand before they make the move.

 

[HobeSoundDarryl]

Well, in many stores where you might see them both, you're probably *way* closer then you'd sit in a normal living room. So, I'd expect when you're just a few feet away, you really could tell the difference. But, also, in many stores, they put special images up on 4K sets to try and make them look especially impressive. You'd have to be sure it's the same content on both (apart from one being 1080p version and other 4K version).

In many stores, the 4K demo is running on all of the sets (4K and 1080p). And it's easy to look at pictures both near and far. And yes, I understand showroom marketing (including manipulating settings to make some TVs look better than other TVs) but I encourage anyone with any doubts to put on their objective hat and go check out stores with lots of both kinds of TVs. Look from near and far and see if you can see the difference. A nice test would be to start far and make a few notes to yourself of which side-by-side sets have best picture. Then, step in closer where you can see which are 4K vs. 1080p. You might be surprised.

But again, this is not about making us buy new televisions when, whatever we have, is working perfectly fine now. This is about a little box that might cost <$100 (or maybe a little more than that) potentially coming with a hardware feature that makes it capable of displaying higher resolution video than the current little box that is now about 4 years old. A 4K version won't force anyone to buy a new television. It will work just fine with whatever HDTV one has now. Those who have a 4KTV or will soon buy one will simply be able to exploit the added hardware capabilities available within the new box. Apple sells one box to fit both markets. Everybody wins.

 

[nightcurse]

Flash forward to a few years after Apple has embraced 4K and someone will be posting this kind of stuff about 8K. I don't know how we can make such a passionate case against "retina" TV (actually something less than retina) but then gush love for retina Apple devices and iMac. We so easily rationalize retina in iDevices that have as little as 4" screens. We so easily rationalize a 5K iMac at 27". But, when it comes to our TVs, <Retina makes no sense and "here's 20 reasons why"...

Apple will go 4K. It's only a matter of time. Where will these arguments against it be when Apple rolls out a 4K TV? Why are we so passionately against something until Apple embraces it... and then we're gushing and "shut up and take my money" for it at that time?

It was not long ago that big-screen phones were abominations, "99% don't want", "one handed use", "need pants with bigger pockets", "resolution fragmentation", "man purses" and 10 other reasons why 4" screens was the one and only perfect size. Then Apple went big screen and it was "shut up and take my money", "best iPhones ever" and record sales. It's just the same old story every time: 4K is useless, stupid, "nobody can see the difference", etc until Apple embraces it, and then it will be "shut up and take my money".

Wait, you think I'm saying 4K is bad or a useless upgrade?

You really have no clue what I said in my former post.

If an android fanboy told you Apple was dumb for staying at 8mp for the iPhone camera, you'd defend the iPhone by saying, "the sensor is larger for better dynamic range and low-light."

Same choice happened here. Apple knows 4K isn't ready for prime-time. Resolution alone isn't going to make 4K worth the jump. It needs more bandwidth than internet can give yet. Are you willing to download a 90gb movie in 2015? Not many people are.

 

[SteveW928]

Flash forward to a few years after Apple has embraced 4K and someone will be posting this kind of stuff about 8K. I don't know how we can make such a passionate case against "retina" TV (actually something less than retina) but then gush love for retina Apple devices and iMac. We so easily rationalize retina in iDevices that have as little as 4" screens. We so easily rationalize a 5K iMac at 27". But, when it comes to our TVs, <Retina makes no sense and "here's 20 reasons why"...

Apple will go 4K. It's only a matter of time. Where will these arguments against it be when Apple rolls out a 4K TV? Why are we so passionately against something until Apple embraces it... and then we're gushing and "shut up and take my money" for it at that time?

It was not long ago that big-screen phones were abominations, "99% don't want", "one handed use", "need pants with bigger pockets", "resolution fragmentation", "man purses" and 10 other reasons why 4" screens was the one and only perfect size. Then Apple went big screen and it was "shut up and take my money", "best iPhones ever" and record sales. It's just the same old story every time: 4K is useless, stupid, "nobody can see the difference", etc until Apple embraces it, and then it will be "shut up and take my money".

I think you're missing our fundamental point... there is a maximum useful resolution for a given situation. A 'Retina' TV would be a complete waste of technology and money. Could we build one? Probably. But just because we can do something doesn't mean it's a good idea.

Will they eventually go 4K? Probably. Why? Because they can and it will fill a need for home theatre folks and possibly market demand. Will it be useful for the majority of people... today, in 5 years, or in 20 years? Likely not.

Retina phone displays, and even 5K iMacs make sense BECAUSE OF THE CONTEXT!

re: big phone screens

Apple's argument was about UI considerations. They are still correct in that, as far as I can see. But, the market was willing to make that trade-off for more screen real-estate. Also, in the global market (and increasingly in the depressed economies of the West), some use their phones as their primary connection to the Internet. They'll put up with the downsides to gain a bit of screen space.

And no, they don't fit as well in the hand, or in the pocket. I'd *much* rather have a 5s than a 6 if all the other hardware were equal. I'm still hoping the rumors are true about a smaller version coming back.

re: same old story

It's not just a story... it's reality. Most people can't see the difference unless you A) sit close enough, or B) have a big enough screen. That doesn't mean silly consumers won't buy 40" 4K TVs and then demand Apple make a 4K Apple TV... but that doesn't mean those people are right.

 

[HobeSoundDarryl]

What I don't remember is the argument that the difference couldn't be seen on displays a typical person might practically own.

Actually, that was one of the most common arguments against 1080p. "The Chart" was all about screen sizes and viewing distances, scientifically proving that human eyes could not resolve a difference between 1080p and 720p at "typical viewing distances" for various sizes of TV screens.

And then Apple rolled out 1080p TV, "shut up and take my money" and "the chart" has scarcely been referenced or seen since... and, of course, Apple was not bashed for ignoring the "facts" illustrated by that chart.

Nevertheless, someone should make "Chart 2" now that 4K vs. 1080p is becoming the new version of 1080p vs. 720p. We could sling Chart 2 around just as much as the original to prove why pretty much nobody needs 4K, pretty much nobody can see the difference of 4K and so on. Then, when Apple goes 4K in an TV, we can "shut up and take my money" and pretend like Chart 2 never existed.

 

[SteveW928]

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.

Just for HobeSoundDarryl's reference again... but also a question:

Do most of the consumer 4K sets even have those features? And, if so, would that make a substantial difference even if one couldn't notice the resolution difference (i.e. 50" display in a typical living room)?

 

[HobeSoundDarryl]

I bet you think a 20 megapixel camera phone is better than an 8 megapixel camera phone with a larger sensor too.

No I don't and that's a tired, TIRED counter. Why not just dust off the old "I'd much rather have a higher bitrate 720p (now 1080p) movie than a bitrate starved 1080p (now 4K)" as if those were/are the only choices.

What I do think is that since our iDevices can shoot higher resolution photos than we can display on 1080p screens, wouldn't it be nice if a new TV could show more of that photographic detail on 4K screens (much like we argue the merits of a 5K iMac for this very kind of thing)? A new 1080p-capped TV will still leave a lot of that iDevice photo detail out of the picture.

 

[SteveW928]

Actually, that was one of the most common arguments against 1080p. "The Chart" was all about screen sizes and viewing distances, scientifically proving that human eyes could not resolve a difference between 1080p and 720p at "typical viewing distances" for various sizes of TV screens.

But, these things don't scale forever. People did buy bigger screens than that cutoff point between 720p and 1080p on the charts. Most won't ever cross that 1080p and 4K point. I don't think Apple-fans are reinventing the charts.

 

[HobeSoundDarryl]

re: same old story

It's not just a story... it's reality. Most people can't see the difference unless you A) sit close enough, or B) have a big enough screen. That doesn't mean silly consumers won't buy 40" 4K TVs and then demand Apple make a 4K Apple TV... but that doesn't mean those people are right.

That is exactly what I meant by "same old story". That "most people" argument was slung to death when some of us coveted a 1080p TV while Apple still clung to 720p MAX.

I can appreciate the points you are making. I can even appreciate that there are limits in what human eyes can resolve at various distances. Then again, I can see kids playing 1080p video games on huge screen HDTVs while sitting right in front of them (at atypical sitting distances). I see people hooking computers up to HDTVs to browse the Internet (at atypical distances). I see people getting up from couches to walk closer to a TV to try to see more detail when some engaging photo is on screen.

I can make the same argument you are making which might be called "technical overkill" or "when is enough, enough" but then why not apply that to everything else Apple makes too? Why do we need new processors? Why do we need an A9 (no apps can use whatever is unique about it today)? Why do we need a 6S? Why do we need another streaming music service? USB-C? Thunderbolt 3? And so on.

4K is not a need thing, it's a want thing for those that want it. Who wants it? Probably anyone who has purchased a 4K set and is hungry for about anything that will max out the resolution of their set. Why did I so desire a 1080p TV back before it arrived? Because I already had a 1080p set, lots of 1080p camcorder movies, lots of photos shot on Apple iDevices at resolutions above 720p, etc. I wanted the last link in the chain to catch up to the rest of my CE hardware.

Nobody needs bleeding edge tech. But some tend to want it.

 

[JamesDo]

I don't really understand the hype around 4k... The difference in resolution (HD vs 4K) is not noticed from a distance... And streaming will not have full resolution and frame rate anyways!

3D, 4K and curved screens are desperate attempts to make people upgrade their TVs...

Keep your HD TV or buy a bigger screen instead!

You have to be blind if you can't see the difference, because the difference is huge on a 55" set, it looks amazing.

 

[HobeSoundDarryl]

But, these things don't scale forever. People did buy bigger screens than that cutoff point between 720p and 1080p on the charts. Most won't ever cross that 1080p and 4K point. I don't think Apple-fans are reinventing the charts.

Some people bought bigger screens.

It won't be that much longer until it's hard to find 1080p sets to buy. Already in my local stores, it seems like the 4K sets are as numerous if not more numerous than 1080p. And I can't even find any 720p sets on display anymore (mail order only and even there, selection is fairly scarce). Maybe I'm too optimistic but I'm guessing we're about 3 years from it being pretty hard to find much of a selection of 1080p TVs. Per Apple's TV upgrade cycle history, they "upgrade" the hardware about every 4 years. When they finally went 1080p, they were pretty late relative to the rest of the CE landscape. I wish they'd maybe be a step or two ahead this time... which is why I am encouraged by this rumor implying they were exploring 4K as far back as a few years ago. I'm hopeful something tangible comes of that soon rather than- say- 4 more years from soon.

 

[SteveW928]

That is exactly what I meant by "same old story". That "most people" argument was slung to death when some of us coveted a 1080p TV while Apple still clung to 720p MAX.

I can appreciate the points you are making. I can even appreciate that there are limits in what human eyes can resolve at various distances. Then again, I can see kids playing 1080p video games on huge screen HDTVs while sitting right in front of them (at atypical sitting distances). I see people hooking computers up to HDTVs to browse the Internet (at atypical distances). I see people getting up from couches to walk closer to a TV to try to see more detail when some engaging photo is on screen.

I can make the same argument you are making which might be called "technical overkill" or "when is enough, enough" but then why not apply that to everything else Apple makes too? Why do we need new processors? Why do we need an A9 (no apps can use whatever is unique about it today)? Why do we need a 6S? Why do we need another streaming music service? USB-C? Thunderbolt 3? And so on.

4K is not a need thing, it's a want thing for those that want it. Who wants it? Probably anyone who has purchased a 4K set and is hungry for about anything that will max out the resolution of their set. Why did I so desire a 1080p TV back before it arrived? Because I already had a 1080p set, lots of 1080p camcorder movies, lots of photos shot on Apple iDevices at resolutions above 720p, etc. I wanted the last link in the chain to catch up to the rest of my CE hardware.

Nobody needs bleeding edge tech. But some tend to want it.

I disagree. (surprise!)

The 'most people' wasn't something made-up by Apple-fans trying to cover for Apple. It's actually just a reality of the human eye. Of course, there are exceptions... hence the 'most' aspect. And, then yes, there are people who will use the technologies in non-typical ways.

The point is... when does it make most sense for Apple to move to 4K? Probably once the standards dust settles and/or there is enough consumer outcry.

re: technical overkill

Yes, and no. Most of these technologies do actually get pushed along by a natural progression of the developers using more resources and consumers feeling the slow-down. Data files have gotten bigger, so faster I/O is desired. And, heh, I don't think we need another music streaming service... but that's probably because I'm old.

re: need vs want

Yes, I agree. But, if the want is irrational, should Apple comply with it at (possibly) an inappropriate time? Apple is often cutting edge in such trends. They were handling 4K on the desktop early on. There must be some reason they seem unconcerned to bring it to TVs (and, I think I know why, as I've been arguing).

 

[SteveW928]

You have to be blind if you can't see the difference, because the difference is huge on a 55" set, it looks amazing.

Not at a typical viewing distance. Though, as HobeSoundDarryl has pointed out kids video-gaming - or as I said, people in stores comparing, are often far closer than typical viewing distances. So, there is some merit to that, I guess, if that's your situation.

 

[HobeSoundDarryl]

Apple is often cutting edge in such trends. They were handling 4K on the desktop early on. There must be some reason they seem unconcerned to bring it to TVs (and, I think I know why, as I've been arguing).

Apparently Apple is concerned about bringing 4K to market. That's the subject of this rumor. Apparently they were looking at 4K in 2013. Why were they allegedly working on it a few years ago if- as has been argued in this thread- "most people" can't see the difference and so on?

 

[SteveW928]

Some people bought bigger screens.

It won't be that much longer until it's hard to find 1080p sets to buy. Already in my local stores, it seems like the 4K sets are as numerous if not more numerous than 1080p. And I can't even find any 720p sets on display anymore (mail order only and even there, selection is fairly scarce). Maybe I'm too optimistic but I'm guessing we're about 3 years from it being pretty hard to find much of a selection of 1080p TVs. Per Apple's TV upgrade cycle history, they "upgrade" the hardware about every 4 years. When they finally went 1080p, they were pretty late relative to the rest of the CE landscape. I wish they'd maybe be a step or two ahead this time... which is why I am encouraged by this rumor implying they were exploring 4K as far back as a few years ago. I'm hopeful something tangible comes of that soon rather than- say- 4 more years from soon.

Two different points though... size and 4K availability. I'm saying that most people won't be buying bigger screens this time around. We've kind of maxed out on practical screen size (and, if so, that puts a max on screen rez as well... we can debate 1080p or 4K is that max). But regarding availability, I noted in one other response that I'd probably own a 4K set when my current set dies too... as that will probably be the only choice.

But, I guess unlike you, unless there is some actual difference to me visually, I won't give a rip if I have 1080p or 4K content. I'll pick the more convenient one (i.e.: the one that takes up less space on my storage or less of my data cap on the broadband).

And, I guess IMO, Apple would be wise in waiting until the standards are set and there is more consumer demand before jumping in to fulfill a want that isn't a need.

 

[SteveW928]

Apparently Apple is concerned about bringing 4K to market. That's the subject of this rumor. Apparently they were looking at 4K in 2013. Why were they allegedly working on it a few years ago if- as has been argued in this thread- "most people" can't see the difference and so on?

Probably because they recognize they will be going there someday. (But, as an aside, Apple does work on all kinds of things that never see the light of day.) And, I'm not doubting they will (even though most people won't benefit from it). I'm just saying they probably want to do it right, especially since it isn't that necessary for the majority.

 

[SgtPepper12]

Honestly, I'd rather have better quality 1080p than 4k. It's kind of a waste of resources to even go for 4k to cater the <1% that is enthusiastic enough about it to even have a television setup that shows a significant difference between 4k and 1080p. A huge problem I see with 4k (and 1080p, still) is that the compression of the streams is so low, that the stream has very variable quality (meaning dark/fast scenes are basically just a mess). So even today 1080p means "1080p is the best case, but effectively probably way less". Plus, most of the videos I've seen in 4k (mostly trailers) just don't have the necessary details. Like half of the scenes were slightly out of focus or shot at low iso anyway, so it just doesn't make any difference. So I absolutely don't see the cinematic value of this technology with the exception for rare cases (Like "Samsara", which looks absolutely amazing in 4k).