4K will be delivered in h.265 format which is nominally 2x better compression, and with a good encoder can drop the highest frequency textures in a such a way as to fit the 4K stream into the bandwidth of a 1080p stream while still looking substantially crisper. Then, over time, the bit rate can ramp up, allowing the textures to be even crisper. We went through all this already with 1080p h.264 video.
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
4K will be delivered in h.265 format which is nominally 2x better compression, and with a good encoder can drop the highest frequency textures in a such a way as to fit the 4K stream into the bandwidth of a 1080p stream while still looking substantially crisper. Then, over time, the bit rate can ramp up, allowing the textures to be even crisper. We went through all this already with 1080p h.264 video.
I agree with you 100%. It's sad that we're talking about 4K when 1080p is not yet standard in over-the-air (and even some cable channels). We're still at 720p and 1080i.
The guy I quoted said "no one is buying 4K TVs". So I proved that people are buying them with a cite. Perhaps I'm a no one too? Changing the subject doesn't lessen the point. If the standard is that they have to outsell 1080p before we should consider them selling to someone, iPhones are not yet outselling dumb phones, so apparently no one is buying iPhones.
4K TVs could work out like 3D TVs or they could work out like 1080p TVs vs. SD TVs. I can certainly appreciate the pessimism for a new technology. Can you appreciate the optimism?
If Apple wants to promote 4K, a cinema display is not the "start". Instead, they would probably follow the lead of what they did in embracing 1080p. First, make a new iPhone and then iPad capable of shooting 4K, then roll out anTV so that that video can get to a 4K TV from those iDevices. Cinema Displays while cool and great are far from mainstream. If they want to push 4K, iPhone will lead the way.
But Apple doesn't want to promote 4K, they just want to sell a lot of hardware. A brand new
I'm not so sure we'll be seeing smart phones capable of shooting in 4K anytime soon. It certainly sounds simple but it's not. My 4K GoPro has very sophisticated 4K circuitry in it and it still gets hot shooting in 4K after just a few minutes. Sony's new lineup of 4K Full Frame "DSLR's" have only one model that will shoot in 4K internally and it lasts for only 5 minutes. The rest of their models shoot in 4K but a 4K external recorder is required. It takes up a lot of resources to produce 4K video.
Don't count on Apple being the first to do this in their iPhones.
Not saying that some day, in the future, that 4K won't be more prevalent, but just reading all the posts here about the obstacles of 4K (need 80"+ screens, ISP bandwidth delivery issues, caps on ISP service, camera's not 4K ready, delivery of media issues, etc.), it sure seems more like bragging rights now than a practical technology.
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
http://heavy.com/tech/2015/05/best-4k-video-recording-smartphone-camera-review/
Maybe you mean Apple smart phones? If so, I won't be surprised if even the 6S might bring it but I'd bet on the 7. If I'm right that's either this year or next year. If I'm wrong, more and more of the Android crowd will be able to do something we Apple people can't... which of course, will keep 4K video as a gimmick, useless, stupid, etc around here until an iPhone can shoot 4K.
Last edited:
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
These posts are by Apple fans. Apple doesn't currently embrace 4K so we can build quite a case against it. We made similarly passionate cases against NFC before Apple rolled it out as Apple Pay. We made VERY PASSIONATE cases against phones with screens bigger than 4" until Apple rolled out iPhone 6. 720p was good enough for everyone and 1080p was a gimmick while Apple clung to 720p as their max HD standard. This is what we do here. Then, Apple will roll out 4K and we'll pretty much forget everything we used to say so negatively against it and instead praise it to no end. If you want objectivity on a subject like this, you need to also look elsewhere. Else, snapshot this thread and then come back to an "Apple announces a 4K
TV" thread in the future and compare the group sentiment to see this effect for yourself. We're nothing if not consistent.
Last edited:
mmmm interesting. I have a Panasonic 4k 50" TV and 4k is much better than HD on my old TV. Even HD on the 4K tv is better than my old TV due to upscalling.
Maybe you didn't look at a good TV?
4k... funny. Networks still broadcast in 720 and the ones that are 1080 are usually 1080i. And what will 4k look like when they compress and reduce the quality all to keep the "4k" moniker? Also, how many cable companies are still using 480 interfaces when it comes to their guides/menus? Ever see a Charter menu? How about give me 1080p and perfect that first. Then we can worry about 4k, and start with movies and on-demand, then once you master 1080p, then think about doubling it.
It's like saving money for college when your kid hasn't even graduated from high school.
Don't be the ant; Be the grasshopper. Don't ever think of the next step.
God i just hate people who don't like 3 versions of the home shopping network bundled with 75 spanish language channels and, of course my personal go to station, OWN!
Wait, what? I doubt broadcast will skip the 1080p step. How could they ever do 4K if they can't even do 1080p?
And I'm sure many people start saving for their kid's college fund since they're little (not saying all people do).
I think most people don't realize that Over the Air broadcast has very stringent fixed bandwidth. Unlike internet where we can add a bigger pipe, or more pipes to add bandwidth, over the air has a pretty solid physical limit as to how much data we can send. 1080p just doesn't fit at the current compression levels so it isn't used. OTA will likely not see 4K until the right compression technology comes along to squeeze the broadcast into the available bandwidth, which could be many years away yet.
Well I actually did forget about the Samsung S6. I would have to test it out to see how it performs to be honest because if a dedicated stand-alone camera's resources are eaten up from recording 4K I can't see a smartphone doing better or even the same as the optics and image sensor are not even close to being the same.
I will say a BIG THANKS for posting that link. After checking out the S6 on Samsung's website I'm further convinced that even having a 4K recording option it's not enough to outsell the iPhone 6 because Samsung shows an iPhone 6 on their website comparing it to their S6 phones. Apple doesn't do that on their website.
I always find it irritating when people mention 1080p or 4K is only worth it for X sized screens.
This is NOT true. NOT true at all. They always miss one important factor, distance from the screen. I have a 24" 1080p monitor that I used to use for blu-ray playback, and it was a million times better than my 50" TV.
Likewise a 32" 4K monitor displays 4K content a lot better than it looks at 1080p.
Also, 4K is not just about resolution. Resolution is not all that matters here. I can create a 8K video, but make it horrible quality and it will look bad.
This is NOT true. NOT true at all. They always miss one important factor, distance from the screen. I have a 24" 1080p monitor that I used to use for blu-ray playback, and it was a million times better than my 50" TV.
Likewise a 32" 4K monitor displays 4K content a lot better than it looks at 1080p.
Also, 4K is not just about resolution. Resolution is not all that matters here. I can create a 8K video, but make it horrible quality and it will look bad.
Most feature films now are finished in 4k. The pathway from the 4k Digital Intermediate to a QuickTime file on iTunes is not a difficult thing. There just hasn't been a profitable enough platform for studios to start distributing their catalogs.
Meh, who cares. Apple has floundered with Apple TV and is years behind their competition. By the end of the year if Apple doesn't have a 4K capable Apple TV out they will be most likely be one of the only companies not offering a 4K set-top box and related services. I really don't care if they dabbled with it 2 years ago. Obviously nothing is coming out of the Apple TV division as this past WWDC proved. Apple is too busy struggling to find out how to get obscene profit from your living room rather then innovating your living room. Apple is too focused on locking up licencing and distribution deals rather then giving us something better. They can go on all about fueling a "Smart" home but its all vaporware without a hub. Everyone else is already doing all the features the new Apple TV is supposed to do, apps, games, voice search, even integration with Nest and Hue products. In this Apple has failed their consumers in every way possible.
Apple can claim about how TV is stuck in the 70's but without offering us even a glimpse at the future it's just empty talk. I'm enjoying the future now with other products like Fire TV so when Apple wants to join the future they can be evaluated for what they do, not what they thought about years ago.
I will be the first to acknowledge Apple as leader once again in set-top boxes, but they have to demonstrate a willingness to innovate and improve, not get stale and blow hot air about how everyone else sucks while they do nothing except behind locked doors in some lab where they obviously can't bring a product to market after years of trying.
Apple can claim about how TV is stuck in the 70's but without offering us even a glimpse at the future it's just empty talk. I'm enjoying the future now with other products like Fire TV so when Apple wants to join the future they can be evaluated for what they do, not what they thought about years ago.
I will be the first to acknowledge Apple as leader once again in set-top boxes, but they have to demonstrate a willingness to innovate and improve, not get stale and blow hot air about how everyone else sucks while they do nothing except behind locked doors in some lab where they obviously can't bring a product to market after years of trying.
Most of that argument was based on eye perception and the monitor's ability to show that many pixels at a smaller size. A video pixel is a finite size and quality. The smaller the monitor, the closer the pixels get to each other and less you might be able to see. 1080p will look great on a smaller monitor but you may not see all of the detail.
Take an image in photoshop that's 1920x1080 at 72 dpi. View it at 100% size and then shrink it down to 33%. Still looks good but you're not seeing everything as clearly because you are compacting the pixels a bit. The resolution is built to withstand certain sized screens where you can get the maximum balance of size and clarity. Smaller monitors are usually below that balance.
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
I didn't post that to suggest Samsung > Apple, just in answer to "no phones shoot 4K". Obviously some phones can shoot 4K... and more than just that one. It probably does not yield 4K as good as a dedicated camcorder but all it has to be is better than 1080p shot on other phones for it's owner to feel like it's an advantage. I doubt phones that shoot 1080p can shoot better 1080p than dedicated 1080p camcorders too, so if we make a subjective thing like picture quality a factor of "to 4K or not to 4K" than we might as well start faulting existing phones for shooting 1080p at lower quality than some 1080p camcorder. But we don't.
And seeing that it can be done means Apple could do it, yesterday, soon or in the next year or two. The obstacles to Apple embracing 4K are not huge, nor forced to be way off in the future. It's more a matter of Apple choosing to make it happen. When they do, so much of this anti-4K sentiment will evaporate, just like anti-1080p sentiment evaporated when Apple finally decided to embrace 1080p.
Last edited:
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
Exactly. Wouldn't it be nice if Apple decided to be one of the first to open that door instead of waiting around for all of the obstacles spun in this thread to be dealt with BEFORE they go 4K? Apple can certainly make the hardware work and they already have a well established store that can already offer various resolution format option to fit various user's wants or needs. What's one more option for those that want 4K?
Not sure about that. There is still quite a bit of Anti Watch. Anti iPhone 5C and Anti Beats. TV wasn't even taken seriously until competitors began making set top streaming boxes.
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
I'm basing my opinion on how it went with 720p to 1080p- the falloff in negative 1080p sentiment was dramatic as soon as Apple embraced it. It was as if many of these very same arguments- applied to 1080p then- just ceased to be important. That crowd did not dare bash Apple for going with the "gimmick" of 1080p back then and casting all of these same reasons why Apple was stupid for embracing it. Instead, it was as if all that passion was just forgotten.
I'm not noticing so much anti-watch, though there is still a fair amount of that. I've practically forgotten about the 5C. But Beats does seem to be having the hardest time slipping inside the halo. I had expected that to go from "junk" to "but then I tried them myself" and "kinda growing on me" to "best headphones available" within weeks of official word. That was the ONE- IMO- exception to what seems to be the general rule.
I think the key difference here vs.- say- watch is that a 4KTV is actually inconsequential to the anti-4K crowd... unless it is priced much higher so that we feel like we're having to pay up for 4K hardware. Otherwise, it will output 1080p and 720p and SD videos just like a 1080p TV outputs 720p and SD now. A chunk of the anti-4K crowd in this thread are actually railing against the idea of having to buy a new 4K TV, which would not be a requirement to use a 4K TV just like those who owned 720p HDTVs did NOT have to buy new 1080p HDTV to use the new 1080p TV.
Similarly, they don't have to get their Internet connection upgrade, pay up for a higher data cap or invest in much greater hard drive storage if they are happy with 1080p or 720p or SD content now. They can keep downloading whatever they download now and play it back on more robust hardware, while still sitting the exact same "typical" distance from their own set.
This business of "I can't see the difference" or even better "YOU can't see the difference" at whatever "typical seating distances" means is a blanket anti-4K argument (also very commonly used when we wanted a 1080pTV before Apple endorsed one) that doesn't matter whatsoever on an individual level. The consumer who believes they can "beat" the system by never bothering with the 4K video file option can opt to not download 4K files, while the consumer who feels differently can get what they want too. Whether the latter can see the difference or not doesn't affect anyone other than themselves. However, if we collectively wish away the option of 4K hardware because some of us don't want it, another chunk of us can't get what we want too. Since Apple is mostly about hardware sales, that kind of thinking is bad for Apple too.
I'm not noticing so much anti-watch, though there is still a fair amount of that. I've practically forgotten about the 5C. But Beats does seem to be having the hardest time slipping inside the halo. I had expected that to go from "junk" to "but then I tried them myself" and "kinda growing on me" to "best headphones available" within weeks of official word. That was the ONE- IMO- exception to what seems to be the general rule.
I think the key difference here vs.- say- watch is that a 4K
TV is actually inconsequential to the anti-4K crowd... unless it is priced much higher so that we feel like we're having to pay up for 4K hardware. Otherwise, it will output 1080p and 720p and SD videos just like a 1080p TV outputs 720p and SD now. A chunk of the anti-4K crowd in this thread are actually railing against the idea of having to buy a new 4K TV, which would not be a requirement to use a 4K TV just like those who owned 720p HDTVs did NOT have to buy new 1080p HDTV to use the new 1080p TV.Similarly, they don't have to get their Internet connection upgrade, pay up for a higher data cap or invest in much greater hard drive storage if they are happy with 1080p or 720p or SD content now. They can keep downloading whatever they download now and play it back on more robust hardware, while still sitting the exact same "typical" distance from their own set.
This business of "I can't see the difference" or even better "YOU can't see the difference" at whatever "typical seating distances" means is a blanket anti-4K argument (also very commonly used when we wanted a 1080p
TV before Apple endorsed one) that doesn't matter whatsoever on an individual level. The consumer who believes they can "beat" the system by never bothering with the 4K video file option can opt to not download 4K files, while the consumer who feels differently can get what they want too. Whether the latter can see the difference or not doesn't affect anyone other than themselves. However, if we collectively wish away the option of 4K hardware because some of us don't want it, another chunk of us can't get what we want too. Since Apple is mostly about hardware sales, that kind of thinking is bad for Apple too.
Well, I see that you are talking about over-the-air broadcasts. I was talking about the devices that display broadcasts from many sources (and over-the-air is just a small part of them). I plan to buy a UHD display very soon, and I'm not at all concerned about whether I'll be able to pick up 4K broadcasts using rabbit ears.
Whether "they" can do 1080p is highly dependent on who "they" is. I have more faith in my "they" than you do in yours.