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
Apple's next device will support 4k. Not even a question. It's the "other" stuff that is holding up the device, and we may not have the full scoop on what that "other" stuff is. Apple isn't rejecting 4k, they are trying to make sure that the newest product they release is compelling enough to drive adoption of the hardware and (likely) a content ecosystem.
If Apple doesn't support 4K then Google Chromecast and Roku certainly will. The competition will eat them for lunch and launch all sorts of negative ad campaigns.
If you have ever played an Apple TV 3 even on an upscaled 4K screen, you will know it looks better than on a standard 1080p set. Perhaps different manufacturers have better/worse scalers, but I'll say its damn impressive.
Native 4K will look even better.
If you have ever played an Apple TV 3 even on an upscaled 4K screen, you will know it looks better than on a standard 1080p set. Perhaps different manufacturers have better/worse scalers, but I'll say its damn impressive.
Native 4K will look even better.
Don't get me wrong: I'm not against the 4K technology. I think it's great and will be standard in the future. And the 5K iMac is a beauty!
But it makes no sense to buy a 4K tv today: you pay a premium and will not have content to use it now. If I needed a new TV now, I would buy a larger (and less expensive) screen over a 4K tv.
Prices will continue to go down; buy it cheaper later and when content is available.
But it makes no sense to buy a 4K tv today: you pay a premium and will not have content to use it now. If I needed a new TV now, I would buy a larger (and less expensive) screen over a 4K tv.
Prices will continue to go down; buy it cheaper later and when content is available.
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).
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
Exactly. 4K on a 40" or even 50" TV doesn't make sense. Eventually, 4K will be a standard feature on any 40" or 50" you can buy, but that won't mean your eyes are actually benefiting from it, unless you're an eagle. Now, if you own a 75" 4K TV, that's a different story. As for the next ATV, it would probably be somewhat foolish to leave 4K out, unless Apple plans to replace the 4th gen ATV faster than the 3rd gen ATV.
Ah Apple since the death of Steve Jobs.... always playing catch up to everyone else instead of being FIRST with new technology. It's why Apple will fall again in the end. They don't innovate anymore. They just FOLLOW...from WAY BEHIND. Samsung now has standard wireless induction charging in their new phone. Apple? Not so much. But we learned Apple purposely held back things like a camera for the first generation "Apple Watch" (I guess the i-name thing is going by the way side with the GUI) so they could tell people still waiting to get their watch it's already obsolete. Jolly good show Apple!
How about we focus on less compressed 1080p streaming before we move on to 4k?
You can download my movie on iTunes in a file that is something like 3gb for 1080p
The ProRes HQ file provided was around 150gb.
The bluray file of the movie without the extra features is over 20gb.
The iTunes compression is DAMN good for 3gb but it certainly isn't perfect.
You can download my movie on iTunes in a file that is something like 3gb for 1080p
The ProRes HQ file provided was around 150gb.
The bluray file of the movie without the extra features is over 20gb.
The iTunes compression is DAMN good for 3gb but it certainly isn't perfect.
At my normal viewing distance (~15 feet) there is a very discernible distinction between HD and 4K content on my 50-inch 4K TV. While it is true that I do not receive 4K content streams at maximum frame rates (24-30Hz seems perfectly satisfactory), they are at full 4K x 2K resolution. My intent was to also use the TV as a monitor for my Mac Pro, as I'd really like to use the full capability of the Radeon 7950 that I recently installed. Alas, a non-scaleable system font makes Yosemite virtually impossible to use at 3840x2160 on a 50" screen at an 8 foot distance.
Correct. I tried out a couple 4K TVs in my home and ended up returning every one of them after a week or so. Why? Because despite all of the pixels they shoved into these things the fact remains that LCD technology still blows and is riddled with unfixed issues. Like poor black levels, uneven backlighting, limited viewing angles, motion handling problems, flash lighting, and whatever else. Sure, with pristine content and a perfect environment a 4K signal does look good but it doesn't nearly make up for all of the faults I listed. I ended up with a plasma for about half the price in the same screen size and it craps all over these overpriced and gimmicky "smart" 4K TVs when it comes to image quality.
Best of luck to the mfgers getting average Joe to rebuy all their stuff again to support this new resolution that hardly anyone will even be able to benefit from at normal viewing distances. Oh, and yeah....the content is also a big problem.
Only the absolute highest end, super expensive 4K sets with full array backlighting are actually decent performers but then you have to spend a boatload of money which makes them a terrible value. Whatever.
I'm glad the tech keeps evolving, but I'm not going to purchase a new television until my current one dies. At that time, I'll buy whatever tech is then current/evolving.
Used to be, you kept your television for 15 years, taking it to a repair shop when needed. Now, they try and convince you to throw yours away and purchase new every 2 years. Ex: digital 16x9, plasma, lcd, 720p, 1080p, led, 3D, 4k...
Sorry manufacturers, this all sounds great but I'll see you when my current set reaches the end of its life.
Used to be, you kept your television for 15 years, taking it to a repair shop when needed. Now, they try and convince you to throw yours away and purchase new every 2 years. Ex: digital 16x9, plasma, lcd, 720p, 1080p, led, 3D, 4k...
Sorry manufacturers, this all sounds great but I'll see you when my current set reaches the end of its life.
Good points, until you got to NFC, which by itself, sucks. Well, it's actually worse than that, since it worked, but without Apple Pay is/was a security nightmare. You have to remember that like the news business, being first is only good for advertising (not marketing). Sure, it's nice if you can make the claim, and maybe it will get you a few extra sales initially, but long term it's bound to hurt your credibility. Better to wait until you've got all your ducks in a row. NFC is the perfect example: Apple waited until they could do tokenized transactions and now they're the gold standard. The tortoise wins the race!Very same thing said when
4K, 5K, really don't care? What about sound quality? Still offering dolby digital which was released in 1992.
What about Dolby Tru HD or DTS Master Audio which is standard in bluray? For now I'll continue buying bluray which has better quality sound until Apple or any other company decide to upgrade the sound of their content.
What about Dolby Tru HD or DTS Master Audio which is standard in bluray? For now I'll continue buying bluray which has better quality sound until Apple or any other company decide to upgrade the sound of their content.
Also, while not 4k but a higher resolution, movies such as Guardians of the Galaxy 2 is being shot entirely in IMAX format. Higher resolutions are coming and will become more common place.
Yeah, I don't believe you at all. I sit about 11 feet from a 48" HD set in my living room and I cannot tell 720p from 1080p, let alone 4K (which I've tried at stores). I have a 93" screen at 12 feet in my home theater room and I would just be able to barely tell 4k from 1080p at that size and distance.
THIS is an accurate eye resolving depth chart. A person with 20/20 vision with a 50" set at 15 feet could barely tell 720p from 480p (DVD) let alone 1080p or 4k. It's an absurd assertion, IMO unless you have vision closer to that of a hawk than a human. (http://i.i.cbsi.com/cnwk.1d/i/tim/2013/01/27/resolution_chart.jpg)
Those are mostly worthless, IMO since their biggest difference is audio compression (rather than the lack thereof) and with most sound effects, so big deal. Dolby Atmos on the other hand IS a big improvement particularly for setting up a home theater any way you want (more channels can mean more positional accuracy).
Well if you look at the broadcast standards for 4k there are several good things: 1 evrything is progressive scan
2: far biggercolor gamout
For details compare EBU BT.2020 (4k) and BT.709 (in the us the ar often reffered to Rec 709/rec 2020 but as far as I have been abke ti check the are the same ( caveat I'm no expert so corrections ar aoreciated).
So while resolution is the big sales head line there are other benifits but try to eklplain Interlace vs progresive or gamout to the everage person/ sails assistant, this is why we onky ever hear about res, it's easy "look this number is 2x that number this tv is way better". while the preceding argument will not be accepted here most people will swollow it hook line an sinker and walk out of the shop with a more expensive tv even though they do not have a 4k source at home
Cute that people mention that "over the air" won't have the bandwidth. Guess what? In five years there won't even be an "over the air". Analog broadcasts have been shut down over most of the world already. Norway has even shut down its entire FM band.
I'll just repeat this one more time. Most, if not all 4K TVs automatically upscale your content to 4K, right now, today. Its all automatic and you don't need to do anything. And it looks extremely good. To say there is no content today or no benefit to getting these TVs today is totally false. Also if Apple adds 4K content to iTunes, then this whole argument is immediately blown out of the water.
I feel there are really good deals for 1080p tvs at the budget levels, however if you can afford a little bit more then I suggest to get a 4K set as you will be primed for the future.
Streaming 4k content is pointless until the ISP's catch up and actually provide decent bandwidth and internet speeds and at affordable prices too. Even if 4k was an option on iTunes, most people would not have the internet plans to be able to access it.
Yes, keep saying it. That will somehow make it true.
If you ever looked into up-scaling you would find that NO NEW INFORMATION IS ADDED in the process. The only thing is does is fill in scan-lines on CRTs and make sure the pixels are doing something on everything else (it would look weird to have black lines or a smaller picture in a box if they didn't upscale which is what it would have to do). In other words, UP-SCALING DOES NOT INCREASE RESOLUTION ONE TINY BIT.
Personally, I'd call that "nothing". Given the distances required to see 4k resolutions with the average set size being sold out there (like having to sit 3-5 feet away to see the difference, which is fine in a Best Buy to "ooh and ah", but absurd at home) it's about as useful as 3D is most people. Most people don't want to wear glasses to see 3D. Most people don't want to sit 3 feet from their TV set to see a difference with 4K. It's that simple. It's great for a 200" screen at 15 feet, though. How many people do you know who have that setup, though?