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 Listing Select Movies as 4K and HDR in iTunes Purchase History
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Done arguing on here (have better things to do with my day) but here is a great little table for you I found after Googling for two minutes. As you can see aside from computer generated animation. The past few years (aside from the exception you pointed out) 3D has been all post. Pay attention to the Camera system column.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_3D_films_(2005_onwards)
I prefer Blu-ray over digital download or streaming as the quality is much better and once you buy it you own it. (Although I do have a Netflix subscription) As a minimalist I just prefer quality over quantity even if it means buying a physical thing instead of going digital only as some other minimalists prefer.
As far as 4K UHD Blu-ray is concerned, I'm really displeased with the system requirements as I prefer watching movies on my 27 inch iMac. In order to watch them on your computer (apart from having to buy a new 4K UHD Blu-ray drive) you need at least a latest generation Intel Kaby Lake processor as it's currently the only processor on the market that supports Intel's SGX DRM and it's only going to work while using the onboard graphics and your motherboard needs to be compatible as well. In addition to that, your entire setup (cables, display, computer hardware, ... everything) needs to support HDCP 2.2. Oh and Windows 10 is the only supported operating system and there's no playback software whatsoever other than CyberLink's PowerDVD 17 Ultra. Needless to say that's ridiculous, especially if you're a Mac user.
I'd be happy to buy 4K UHD Blu-ray discs (even considering the higher costs) but looks like they don't want me to. Thank you DRM.
As far as 4K UHD Blu-ray is concerned, I'm really displeased with the system requirements as I prefer watching movies on my 27 inch iMac. In order to watch them on your computer (apart from having to buy a new 4K UHD Blu-ray drive) you need at least a latest generation Intel Kaby Lake processor as it's currently the only processor on the market that supports Intel's SGX DRM and it's only going to work while using the onboard graphics and your motherboard needs to be compatible as well. In addition to that, your entire setup (cables, display, computer hardware, ... everything) needs to support HDCP 2.2. Oh and Windows 10 is the only supported operating system and there's no playback software whatsoever other than CyberLink's PowerDVD 17 Ultra. Needless to say that's ridiculous, especially if you're a Mac user.
I'd be happy to buy 4K UHD Blu-ray discs (even considering the higher costs) but looks like they don't want me to. Thank you DRM.
If you prefer quality why are you watching movies on a computer monitor rather than a home theater?
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
Yes.
Yes, as long as the content is in the format Apple uses for 4K, it should play fine. Many people have libraries of videos indexed in iTunes and readily available on their
TV right now. It's a terrific little box for video collection on demand.I've had every
TV generation since launch. It's always worked very well. The sole gripe I have is that Apple tends to cling to a max "HD" resolution longer than pretty much everyone else. For example, until the launch of TV3, Apple clung to 720p as the max HD resolution.And of course, many of the crowd here passionately argued that 1080p was a gimmick, "until the iTunes store was full of 1080p content for
TV", "1080p TVs are too expensive", "the chart", until bandwidth everywhere was expanded, file sizes, and the good old "I can't see the difference... (so you can't either), etc right up until Apple rolled out the "3" and then all such arguments evaporated.For the many years since, "1080p has been all anyone should want" and "4K is the gimmick", "until the iTunes store is full of 4K content for
TV", "4K TVs are too expensive", "the chart" until bandwidth everywhere is expanded, file sizes and the good old "I can't see the difference... (so you can't either)", etc. Prepare for all that to evaporate too as soon as Apple rolls out a 4K-capable TV5. Exact same movie... different resolution.3 or 4 years from now, recycle the very same arguments yet again for 8K while Apple is the last player still clinging to 4K only in this ONE Apple product.
Last edited:
Curious on what size tv you have. I have a 70" and can notice a difference, not a lot. What I've heard is that the HDR is where the difference is, the 4K is fine and all but the HDR is what is noticeable. Unfortunately I bought my 4K before I knew that and mine doesn't support HDR
I pay the extra fee for 4K Netflix content
And in the nordic countries ,Viaplay have just started offering 4K Premier League and Champions League football but as ATV4 lack support for 4K yet, a Chromecast Ultra is needed to watch it.
Yes.
Yes, as long as the content is in the format Apple uses for 4K, it should play fine. Many people have libraries of videos indexed in iTunes and readily available on their
I've had every
And of course, many of the crowd here passionately argued that 1080p was a gimmick, until the iTunes store was full of 1080p content for
For the many years since, 1080p has been all anyone should want and 4K is the gimmick, "until the iTunes store is full of 4K content for
3 or 4 years from now, recycle the very same arguments yet again for 8K.
Summed up the whine cycle so well.
Good to know that 4K HDR Apple TV is all I need to watch 4K HDR stuff from iTunes. Eliminating my MBP 2016 from the process is a good thing - very good thing.
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
You're moving the goal posts to try to be sort of right.
I responded to this post...
...by pointing out summer blockbusters I've watched in the last 2 weeks as 3D films. Apparently, it is not a "given up on" option. Then you chime in with this...
... which was not what StevieD was arguing and claiming "no more films are actually made that way" when, in fact, at least ONE very recent film was made that way.
That 3D is made with algorithms instead of camera is not the argument. But even so, the resulting product is arriving at theaters as a 3D option and people are buying tickets to see it that way. When they do, the illusion of 3D is what they see. Can they tell that it was or was not shot on 3D cameras? No, software has become good enough to create the effect without the cameras... just like a flying Superman or a talking raccoon or Peter Cushing (not) rising from the dead to make an appearance in Rogue One. That's all software fooling our eyes too.
You may not like it or think it looks terrible? Good for you. Again, I don't love 3D either but I went and saw 2 3D blockbusters in the last 2 weekends. My eyes couldn't tell if it was shot with 3D cameras or digitally created with good software. Still looked like typical 3D to me... such that I wasn't demanding my money back afterwards on some argument that the claim of 3D requires that it be shot with 3D cameras. In fact, I thought both films looked great in "post-processed" 3D.
Last edited:
It's probably a limitation of the wireless networks (and internet connection speeds) more than the hardware IMO.
Apple will probably have deduced from their telemetry data that most users were not capable of making use of 4K content due to the above limitations.
But now we have support for H265 in hardware and thus the bandwidth-needs are significantly reduced.
The stars have aligned, so to speak.
Apple will probably have deduced from their telemetry data that most users were not capable of making use of 4K content due to the above limitations.
But now we have support for H265 in hardware and thus the bandwidth-needs are significantly reduced.
The stars have aligned, so to speak.
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
Well let's hope that Apple actually rolls out a 4K
TV soon. You never know with Apple. At one point, there was enormous expectations of iPhones having Sapphire fronts instead of glass and that never came to pass. And it had the evidence of a well-publicized partnership and a very big pile of rumors instead of what could be a couple of typos on some E-reciepts from an English iTunes store.Since pretty much ALL of the rest of what Apple offers has 4K capabilities AND since Apple's software can import, edit, render, store and index 4K video, it seems highly likely that Apple will roll out a 4K-capable
TV. The (painful) question of "when?" is always an issue with this particular product.While this particular event plus the WWDC teaser statement provides some hope that it may be in the next 6-10 weeks, with
TV, it could also be next year or the year after too.
Last edited:
I think the stage is nicely set for 4K in Apple ecosystem. We have A9 and A10 with HEVC 10 bit, we have 2016 MBPs with HEVC 8 bit and 2017 with HEVC 10 bit HDR. They are also going to be launching an iMac Pro, obviously there will be support for 4K HEVC 10 bit HDR.
I think the stage is amply set for iTunes to transition to offering 4K HDR as well.
I think the stage is amply set for iTunes to transition to offering 4K HDR as well.
There are a lot of 4K blu rays out there. Now that there's codec support that makes downloading reasonable who is to say that all those movies etc won't be converted and put on iTunes, or amazon or Netflix or all of the above
Hopefully Apple is thinking ahead and the next ATV will not only be HDR10 capable, but also Dolby Vision HDR capable. DV HDR blows HDR10 out of the water and if you have a tv that can do DV HDR, you already know that. It's probably too much to ask that the new ATV will also be HLG HDR capable.
You are confusing pain-in-the-ass with costs-more-than-I-am-willing-to-pay.
That's cool. Yeah, I think you have to do with works best for you. I, personally, prefer the digital downloads. While Blu-Ray provides better quality, I prefer the connivence of digital (space saving & being able to access wherever I am)
In terms of owning it, I feel pretty comfortable with digital downloads. I understand the concern, but I guess I also look at it differently.
For me, tech is always changing. Who knows what media format may arrive 10 or 15 years down the road.
When I was a kid, my family had a large VHS collection (Ah, those 90's Disney movies in their soft plastic cases
). Although we "owned" those, we don't anymore. (My CD collection is gone now too, lol)Most tech (and clothes, shoes, & many other material items) have a shelf life anyway. I look at blu rays the same way in terms of owning them.
So although there's a chance I could "lose" the digital downloads, I'd also expect to replace blu rays at some point down the line, when the next format comes along.
I just went to Costco online and there was not a single new TV that had 3D as a feature. None that I could see anyway.
It absolutely blows my mind. They were pretty much pioneers in this market with iTunes. They were one of the first to be making “retina” displays. They have had 4k compatible macs for years.
And what makes you think there are 4ik transfers of these movies? There are NO 4k's of any Bond movies.
i hope they do - this would be a great advertising tool for promoting itunes content. buy once and anytime there is an update to the content or codec you automatically get it. DVD's and Blue rays can't compete with that.Agreed that bandwidth for 4K was prohibitive. HVEC will allow 4K to roll forward...
Personally, I'm more interested in HDR video. AND if Apple will upgrade previous HD purchases to 4K/HDR or if it will require a fee...