Indeed. I believe the Amazon Fire TV 2 is only HDMI 1.4 yet does 4K, 24p at least.
Perhaps it may be possible for Apple to update Apple TV 4 to 4K too, and the New 5 is faster, HDR, can do 60p etc.
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
Indeed. I believe the Amazon Fire TV 2 is only HDMI 1.4 yet does 4K, 24p at least.
Perhaps it may be possible for Apple to update Apple TV 4 to 4K too, and the New 5 is faster, HDR, can do 60p etc.
> Implying anyone will remember (or care) that it was you to start with.
Oh, wait. You'll probably remind us, repeatedly, of the fact when it happens.
It's worth noting that content on iTunes is owned by a large number of studios and they all have separate licensing deals with Apple. "Most" is a great wiggle word to use when you have no idea how the end result will turn out. How much of the content on iTMS even has a 4K version in existence to start with?
Maybe you should get a job as an analyst.
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
What kind of comparison are you making? Of course, unnamed streaming services are potentially going to over-compress 4K vs. what might be considered the reference quality of 1080p Disc. But that's not apples to apples at all. How about either 4K UHD Blu Ray vs. 1080p Blu Ray or compressed-to-over-compressed 4K streaming service vs. the same compressed-to-over-compressed 1080p streaming service? Or flip the mismatch comparison if we want to inject obvious bias: how about 4K HDR Blu Ray vs. over-compressed 1080p streaming service?
Why do we play that word game where 4K seems to have to be "overly compressed" but we want to compare it to an optimal version of 1080p? Overly-compressed 4K AND overly-compressed 1080p may look worse than DVD quality if there's enough compression. So is 1080p worse than DVD? Compress 4K, 1080p & DVD enough and VHS might be able to win the visual appeal battle. So go back to VHS?
Similarly, if we are going to suggest that Apple video quality is better than other streamers and/or comparable-to-better-than disc, great... but then let's make the same assumption about Apple 4K video quality. In other words, I'm not imagining Apple rolling our 4K hardware with over-compressed iTunes 4K video that is visibly inferior to 1080p iTunes video. If we want to believe Apple streaming quality is best, we should leap of faith that Apple 4K streaming quality will also be best. Or compare disc quality vs disc quality. Or streaming service quality vs. (same) streaming service quality.
Last edited:
4K streaming is not going to work for many of us.
AT&T caps internet data monthly. How do you expect to stream 4K movies from apple or netflix daily then? I am having to watch my limit daily so i don't pass my 1024gb. Even downloading this 4K movies will start to chew on my cap.
How are you all dealing with this ?
AT&T caps internet data monthly. How do you expect to stream 4K movies from apple or netflix daily then? I am having to watch my limit daily so i don't pass my 1024gb. Even downloading this 4K movies will start to chew on my cap.
How are you all dealing with this ?
Yeah, sometimes I get the digital downloads from a blu ray (from someone who doesn't use them).
I prefer iTunes because it works easily across apple devices, but I have other digital platforms as well.
It will be interesting to see how 4K UHD Blu Ray does...
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
I'm with you but don't bet on it. Might as well argue the next iPhone must have a headphone jack. Apple kicked the analog jack out of both devices, got away with it and was rewarded with record profits. Apple has succeeded at being able to eject consumer utility out to dongles (often sold separately at a good premium) and have it's base pretty much roll with it... even argue the genius of it to those that dare whine for the very same utility that used to be built INSIDE Apple tech.
Being able to innovate by subtraction while keeping the prices the same- or raising them- is a great way for a very rich corporation to make even more money. And a great way to keep claiming "thinner" and "lighter" is ejecting almost must-have utility out to dongles but not counting the height or weight of the dongles in the marketing spin. I wonder how long until the camera & battery is ejected out to separate purchases.
To get what you want, you have to buy a "dongle" for
TV that basically splits analog audio out of the HDMI out jack. Sounds like you've tried that with mixed success. But that is the way to do it. Route the analog to a good receiver or amp and it resurrects a very nice benefit that used to come built in... in TVs offered at lower prices.[doublepost=1501282445][/doublepost]
Many of us here are obviously passionate about technologies like 4K, HDR, surround sound, etc.
Yet most of today's youth are happy to watch video on their mobile devices.
What will they be passionate about in the future?
We've already seen music devolve into a high-compressed medium... yet is considered "good enough" by the vast majority of people.
Today's youth are just poor. Think back to when you were their age. Were you able to buy the best quality formats available then and play them on high quality equipment? When I was young, analog cassettes were still a music playback media. And because we were young & poor the cool thing to do was to own a dual cassette deck where you could copy a cassette. Sometimes your media was a copy of a copy. Sometimes a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy, etc. In short: crappy, hiss loaded, multi-generational-copies, etc.
But it was "good enough" at the time. Then, later jobs yielded some money and we got turned on to the concept of quality. With the money we could actually afford better quality. Crappy but "good enough" cassettes gave way to better forms of music media. Today, I have speakers that cost way too much, powered by an expensive receiver, fed by high quality disc systems and ripped digital media at better than I can get from streaming services. I'm a long way for that poor youth with a dual cassette deck thinking I was beating the system in some way because the end result was "good enough."
The poor youth will not forever cling to watching & listening to everything on tiny mobile screens. They just don't have much money yet to own the latest & greatest phone AND build out a quality home theater. Many of them don't even have a home of their own yet so they can watch Mommy & Daddy's big screen and listen on the big speakers whenever they want for free. And many of them probably didn't even buy that mobile device themselves... but had it given to them as a gift or by cashing in a bunch of gift cards.
"Good enough" is relative. We gave our child an iPhone 5 when it was new and it was "the best phone ever" at the time. Now it's barely "good enough" and desire is building for an iPhone 8. Not many years have passed from when it was "best ever" to "barely." They are evolving... just as we did.
Last edited:
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
Those with this problem will continue downloading whatever format they download now. A new
TV capable of 4K doesn't force 4K as an only option on anyone, just as the "3" didn't force anyone in the same situation and seeing 1080p the very same way to only download 1080p. Those that have the capacity or the money to pay for cap busting can opt for 4K. Those that don't can opt to keep doing whatever they are doing now. If the latter group owns a 4KTV, they'll just have hardware capable of "more" than they are using... just like we all have iPhones able to connect to a variety of cellular bands we don't use.Furthermore the perception is that 4K is going to come with h.265 which is often spun as "the same quality in half the space". Conceptually, that could mean that 4K video files in h.265 won't necessarily be that much bigger than 1080p files in h.264.
But either way, the easy option is to choose the format that works for you. Right now, iTunes generally offers the options of an SD version, 720p or 1080p. Adding a 4K option is just an option. People in a situation like yours can just stick with what they're already doing for streaming files. However, if you shoot 4K on your iDevices, you'll be able to watch THAT 4K at 4K and not burn 1 byte. Pictures you take can look sharper. If you buy 4K discs and rip the movies into iTunes format, they won't burn 1 byte either. Etc.
TV apps will run faster/better (on newer hardware) too.
Last edited:
That's because Apple chose not to make it 4K capable, by gimping it out with A8 instead of A9.
I hope one comes soon. But watch out streaming iTunes movies if you got data caps. Ours currently averages between 500-800 gigs a month for iTunes alone by my reports from router. And that's just the current quality. (No cable and all kids movies are purchased and streamed through iTunes on appletv)
Data caps will put an end to this. In my area in the US, Cox is the provider and they just implemented a 1TB data cap per month on my internet. I use half that with regular HD, with 4K, I'll go over in a heartbeat. Unless they get rid of the cap, 4K will not be feasible in my area.
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
So you just keep opting for whatever works for you now. New hardware won't force everyone to only stream 4K video, just as the new TV3 didn't force everyone to stream only 1080p.
Or you just pay up for a higher tier, like you probably did with your smart phone when data-burning services "in the cloud" kept- and keep- demanding more and more data burn. If you want the higher data-eating services you pay up. If not, then you don't. Same here. If you want to stream 4K, you pay up. If you don't, you stick with 1080p or 720p or SD depending on whatever works for you.
And before someone tosses in the other "force me" argument, a 4KTV also doesn't force anyone to throw away a perfectly good TV to buy a 4K TV... just as the new TV3 didn't force people with 720p TVs to replace their sets.
TV3 didn't force everyone to stream only 1080p.Or you just pay up for a higher tier, like you probably did with your smart phone when data-burning services "in the cloud" kept- and keep- demanding more and more data burn. If you want the higher data-eating services you pay up. If not, then you don't. Same here. If you want to stream 4K, you pay up. If you don't, you stick with 1080p or 720p or SD depending on whatever works for you.
And before someone tosses in the other "force me" argument, a 4K
TV also doesn't force anyone to throw away a perfectly good TV to buy a 4K TV... just as the new TV3 didn't force people with 720p TVs to replace their sets.
So you just keep opting for whatever works for you now. New hardware won't force everyone to only stream 4K video, just as the new
Or you just pay up for a higher tier, like you probably did with your smart phone when data-burning services "in the cloud" kept- and keep- demanding more and more data burn. If you want the higher data-eating services you pay you. If not, then you don't. Same here. If you want to stream 4K, you pay up. If you don't, you stick with 1080p or 720p or SD depending on whatever works for you.
And before someone tosses in the other "force me" argument, a 4K
I was talking about my home internet. Data caps are here for my home service. 4K on a phone is kind of pointless.
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
I was too... but disagreeing that (home) broadband caps will "put an end to this." I have (home) broadband cap at 1TB too so I completely identify with what you are imagining. However, I don't want our concerns to stand in the way of the progress of technology.
In my case, I still get my television mostly from DISH, so I don't lean on broadband for much streaming video. BUT, if I was a cord cutter and I did NOT want to buy a higher tier from my broadband provider, I'd probably just keep doing what I'm doing in terms of streaming 1080p or 720p or SD, exactly as I do now. A 4KTV wouldn't force you or I to only stream 4K. It would simply be an option... just like the options for the current TV are generally 1080p, 720p or SD.
If I generally had some spare bandwidth under the cap, maybe big movie night would get to stream the 4K option instead of whatever I usually do.
And note: the companion rumor with 4K is h.265 instead of h.264. The oft-spun bit about h.265 is it requires about half the space of h.264 for the same video quality. Conceptually, that could mean that an h.265 4K movie might take up about the same amount of space as an h.264 1080p movie. Or if there's too much puffery in that claim, maybe the 4K movie would be only a little larger than a 1080p equivalent. The point is that even those of us with hard broadband caps might be able to enjoy more 4K than we expect with h.265 in the mix.
In my case, I still get my television mostly from DISH, so I don't lean on broadband for much streaming video. BUT, if I was a cord cutter and I did NOT want to buy a higher tier from my broadband provider, I'd probably just keep doing what I'm doing in terms of streaming 1080p or 720p or SD, exactly as I do now. A 4K
TV wouldn't force you or I to only stream 4K. It would simply be an option... just like the options for the current TV are generally 1080p, 720p or SD.If I generally had some spare bandwidth under the cap, maybe big movie night would get to stream the 4K option instead of whatever I usually do.
And note: the companion rumor with 4K is h.265 instead of h.264. The oft-spun bit about h.265 is it requires about half the space of h.264 for the same video quality. Conceptually, that could mean that an h.265 4K movie might take up about the same amount of space as an h.264 1080p movie. Or if there's too much puffery in that claim, maybe the 4K movie would be only a little larger than a 1080p equivalent. The point is that even those of us with hard broadband caps might be able to enjoy more 4K than we expect with h.265 in the mix.
Last edited:
home internet data cap is the thing that most providers are starting to implement. cord cutting is going to be very difficult. I can kiss the last 5 years of cord cutting good bye i guess at some point. I have had to set my netflix profile to a lower resolution and the same for my Apple TV and am watching my usage daily. 4K for most with data cap in place is going to be a hindrance to cord cutting. Damn ATT and the rest that cap.
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
I have it and don't mind. In the Apple product mix, it's dirt cheap... a whole Apple product for <$200 new. On a relative basis, I used to pay much more than the price of this for just a CD changer, DVD changer, video players, etc. Now I get all that in one box, with far superior features.
If you believe the 4K version is coming and you don't want to cough up probably < $200 again for a whole Apple product, put your current one up for sale now for maybe $80-$120 on craigs list or eBay. If you get $100 and this "5" costs $200, you get to buy a whole, latest & greatest 4K
TV for maybe another $50 or $100.
It was pretty clear they had to wait until they brought out High Sierra, which finally supports HVEC, and they could get 4K HDR versions of all the big hits. What's important is that the firmware of all the devices in the chain, be they iMacs or iPhones or Apple TVs or iPads, have support for the new codec in their firmware.
The fastest conversion I've ever made was taking a top-flight mkv, 1080p, of a feature film, and converting it using the firmware on my iPhone 6. With Quicktime, that conversion would be slower than real time. Using a pretty fast desktop converter, it took me an hour and 25 minutes, half an hour faster than real time. Using my iPhone's firmware routine by passing it through the app Waltr on the Mac, the entire movie was done in a little more than 10 minutes.
Now, could the old Apple TV be updated by having the old firmware updated? I don't know. Maybe there won't need to be a new Apple TV. On the other hand, that purchase only makes sense if I upgrade my 1080p plasma. So I won't run out and get a new Apple TV until I do that.
The fastest conversion I've ever made was taking a top-flight mkv, 1080p, of a feature film, and converting it using the firmware on my iPhone 6. With Quicktime, that conversion would be slower than real time. Using a pretty fast desktop converter, it took me an hour and 25 minutes, half an hour faster than real time. Using my iPhone's firmware routine by passing it through the app Waltr on the Mac, the entire movie was done in a little more than 10 minutes.
Now, could the old Apple TV be updated by having the old firmware updated? I don't know. Maybe there won't need to be a new Apple TV. On the other hand, that purchase only makes sense if I upgrade my 1080p plasma. So I won't run out and get a new Apple TV until I do that.
I'm just going to move the 64GB to another room to replace an o
The most recent appleTV I'm sure has a fast enough processor. It's the fact that it doesn't have HDMI 2.0 hardware that is the deal breaker for HDR or 4K at 60fps. I'd guess the new one will have HDMI 2.1 so that dynamic HDR is an option as well.
The most recent appleTV I'm sure has a fast enough processor. It's the fact that it doesn't have HDMI 2.0 hardware that is the deal breaker for HDR or 4K at 60fps. I'd guess the new one will have HDMI 2.1 so that dynamic HDR is an option as well.
My ISP doesn’t have data caps. In fact, I can’t recall the last time I had an ISP that did. It’s been many, many years (probably back into the mid 90’s or even earlier).
Still no proof... no title.
Why would Apple let u download an HD movie, but occasionally stick 4K in Purchase history when there no titles available in 4k ? Apple gearing users up in diss-belief ? Its working
heaps of us are falling for it.
Go for it Apple...
Why would Apple let u download an HD movie, but occasionally stick 4K in Purchase history when there no titles available in 4k ? Apple gearing users up in diss-belief ? Its working
heaps of us are falling for it.Go for it Apple...
Most of Hollywood's productions, specially the heavy VFX ones, are finished in 2k. The camera most productions shoots with is not capable of 4k.
Just saying...
Just saying...