Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Apple Reportedly Talking to LG About 55-65 Inch Ultra HD TV Panels

since apple is phasing out the optical drive so as not to compete in part with their itunes, they're going to have to raise the resolution of their media to make something like this worthwhile. in so far of course that it apple provides it with content
 
Meh. I'd rather see a 4K Apple TV set-top box that can be used with any 4K TV on the market. But then I'm biased towards image quality so I'd still watch Blu-rays even if I had the option to stream video out here in rural teabagger land.
 
ctdonath said:
:apple:TV recommends 8 Mbps for 1080p content. 4x that is 32 Mbps. H.265 halves that need to 16 Mbps. My consistent (not peak) data rate is about half that now, and will quadruple to more than enough for $40/mo when I get around to dropping a couple grand on a 4K display.
Click to expand...

The issue here is that the baseline for your math is iTunes' 1080p bitrate. iTunes' 1080p is not representative of optimal 1080p.

See for yourself with those 100% crops:
iTunes :
01_iTsm.jpg

Blu-Ray:
01_BDsm.jpg


This means the image quality of iTunes 1080p movies could be significantly improved without upping the resolution by upping the bitrate or the compression's efficiency alone.

So if you use iTunes' suboptimal 1080p as a baseline for your math, you'll also end up with suboptimal 4K at the end of your calculation. The difference between pretty optimal 1080p (for example Blu-Ray) and suboptimal 4K will then be even less noticeable.

It's unclear if with a similar bitrate and video compression standard, 4K resolution would offer any significant advantage over 1080p considering there is still much room for improvement with 1080p, and that bitrate would have to stay pretty low in both cases to work with most people's Internet bandwidth. Of course price of 4K TVs will go down with years, but they'll remain significantly more expensive than 1080p sets for a good while.

In short, my point is:

Why not exploit 1080p fully before upgrading our hardware?
iTunes content isn't even fully exploiting 1080p TVs which have been commonly available for almost a decade now.
 
RightMACatU said:
Who's broacasting in 4K? Can I even buy 4K movies?
Click to expand...

Nobody and just a handful,provided you buy a new player of course.Too bad they aren't putting the research and money spent on 3D and 4K into improving 1080 sets.Lots of room for that,especially in contrast.
 
pgiguere1 said:
Nope, not happening.

The very vast majority of people can't stream 4K at a worthwhile bandwidth. Heck, most people can't even stream 1080p without heavy compression. Apple has only just started offering 1080p streaming and it's nowhere near Blu-ray quality, but that was to be expected if they wanted people to be able to stream it. Now people should be able to stream 4x the pixels while the average Internet bandwidth has stayed the same?

The effect of 4K on a movie is more subtle than the jump from SD from HD was, and also more subtle than the jump from a regular display to a Retina display (considering you're displaying a lot of high-contrast vector graphics like text and other sharp UI elements on a computer/phone). In a movie, contrast is never as high and sharpness is often ultimately limited by the lens used to capture footage. You'll often notice several elements in a scene are slightly out of focus because of the depth of field.

Having seen 4K TVs in person, they look awesome but the resolution part isn't mind-blowing. You really have to get into big TVs (60"+) to notice it at average distance. The sharpness gain you get from the resolution would totally be negated by heavy compression artifacts if you were to compress 4K movies to the point they can be streamed by most (10-15Mbps). For reference, a 1080p Blu-ray movie is around 35Mbps, so obviously quadrupling the number of pixels while reducing the bandwidth significantly isn't going to look to good.

So yeah, who's willing to drop $5k+ on a 4K TV which's image quality wouldn't be better than a much cheaper 1080p set because there's no proper way no distribute 4K yet? If Apple had a plan to instantly become a high-speed ISP like Google Fiber it could work, but I highly doubt they're willing to make such an investment.

After all, we're talking about the same company who sells songs in 256kbps in 2013, and dare call them "CD quality". Even if people were ready for 4K (they're not), Apple would probably be too cheap on bandwidth anyway.
Click to expand...

I would bet a lot of cash that less than 1% of people could distinguish between lossless and 256 Kbps VBR AAC, including myself and I'm pretty obsessive. Possibly less than 0.1%. I wouldn't be surprised if this changes sometime soon and your whole library of purchased tracks will be available fully losslessly.

And who said movies had to be streaming? This could launch as a premium product like the original iPhone with movie downloads sizing 20 GB. Also with the new H265 standard you have about double the efficiency, remember.

I'm not saying this is all likely. But things in this industry change at an amazing pace.
 
Elephant in the Room: No 4k Content

So you go out and buy that whizbang new 4k tv. Then what? Cable companies don't broadcast in 4k, there are no 4k discs to rent, no satellite 4k to pick up and nothing off air in 4k. So where does it come from? Oh yeah, the internet. Brought to you by the same US Cable companies that think you should lick their b@lls for "upgrading" you to 5Mbs. Call me cynical, but this is one cool technology that has nowhere to go.
 
Simple. Don't live stream. Store-forward stream with 8gb cache. Per content stream with 2-4 screens accessible.

Rocketman
 
Yawns still no content for 4k, there is no hurry I am waiting this one out until a disc format is introduced Itunes embraces Ultra HD content and new codecs become available in av. receivers. Until than my future playstation 4 will work great with my Sony HX850, and all my Apple gear can still work well iTunes hd content.
 
My content better be uncompressed, because there will be plenty of places that have 4K video up for download.
 
I'm not interested at 65"

I bought a 70" TV in late 2011, and upgraded to an 80" in early 2013. My whole family LOVES our huge screen, and while I'd be chomping at the bit for the better resolution, I'm not going to take a step backwards 3 years to do so.

----------
xNYMetsx said:
Honestly I think Apple should stop trying to get into the TV business. Seriously how often do we watch TV anymore? I watch NetFlix on the iPad way more than TV. Not to mention, I don't have to wait for other people to stop watching their shows to watch mine. Get into that business.
Click to expand...

Apple's TV plans make me nervous, in the sense that sometimes it seems they're reaching for something I just won't be interested in and/or able to use. I'd love to see an Apple TV + TiVO type marriage, but with Apple's brilliance and improvements all over it. Whatever it is, allow me to connect it to whatever TV I want, because (as stated before) I'm not giving up my 80" tV for some 65" Apple thing... won't happen.
 
iPadPublisher said:
I'm not interested at 65"

I bought a 70" TV in late 2011, and upgraded to an 80" in early 2013. My whole family LOVES our huge screen, and while I'd be chomping at the bit for the better resolution, I'm not going to take a step backwards 3 years to do so.

----------



Apple's TV plans make me nervous, in the sense that sometimes it seems they're reaching for something I just won't be interested in and/or able to use. I'd love to see an Apple TV + TiVO type marriage, but with Apple's brilliance and improvements all over it. Whatever it is, allow me to connect it to whatever TV I want, because (as stated before) I'm not giving up my 80" tV for some 65" Apple thing... won't happen.
Click to expand...
Most people don't have over 50". A home theater enthusiast a iTV will go in the bedroom or game room
 
itr81 said:
I think you're thinking about 4K thats just has been scaled up from 1080p. Content from Sony mastered blu ray or from their own media server in 4K is very noticeable.
Click to expand...

Yes! I recently made a rare trip to Best Buy to buy a new remote and they had a Sony 4K set w/ media server on display. First time I ever saw a 4K in person.

The difference between true 4K and 1080p is every bit as stunning and stark as was 720p broadcast when first eyeballed next to the then videophile standard 480p DVD. In both cases after watching the higher resolution media the visual defects in lower res standard are much more acute when watching it.
 
Too expensive, when including the new apartment I'd need to put that thing at a proper viewing distance. I hope they also include something around 40 inches or smaller (at 1080p for all I care).
 
pgiguere1 said:
Nope, not happening.

The very vast majority of people can't stream 4K at a worthwhile bandwidth. Heck, most people can't even stream 1080p without heavy compression. Apple has only just started offering 1080p streaming and it's nowhere near Blu-ray quality, but that was to be expected if they wanted people to be able to stream it. Now people should be able to stream 4x the pixels while the average Internet bandwidth has stayed the same?

The effect of 4K on a movie is more subtle than the jump from SD from HD was, and also more subtle than the jump from a regular display to a Retina display (considering you're displaying a lot of high-contrast vector graphics like text and other sharp UI elements on a computer/phone). In a movie, contrast is never as high and sharpness is often ultimately limited by the lens used to capture footage. You'll often notice several elements in a scene are slightly out of focus because of the depth of field.

Having seen 4K TVs in person, they look awesome but the resolution part isn't mind-blowing. You really have to get into big TVs (60"+) to notice it at average distance. The sharpness gain you get from the resolution would totally be negated by heavy compression artifacts if you were to compress 4K movies to the point they can be streamed by most (10-15Mbps). For reference, a 1080p Blu-ray movie is around 35Mbps, so obviously quadrupling the number of pixels while reducing the bandwidth significantly isn't going to look to good.

So yeah, who's willing to drop $5k+ on a 4K TV which's image quality wouldn't be better than a much cheaper 1080p set because there's no proper way no distribute 4K yet? If Apple had a plan to instantly become a high-speed ISP like Google Fiber it could work, but I highly doubt they're willing to make such an investment.

After all, we're talking about the same company who sells songs in 256kbps in 2013, and dare call them "CD quality". Even if people were ready for 4K (they're not), Apple would probably be too cheap on bandwidth anyway.
Click to expand...

Totally agree with just about everything you write and especially the part about Apple selling 256kbps songs claiming them as CD quality, actually thinking of passing that to the Trading Standards here in the UK as it is so blatantly not CD quality, prices are almost identical though!

----------
moxin said:
you never know, people will soon realize 4k is amazing as soon as they see it.
Just like people adopted Blu-ray and stuff.
Click to expand...
Precisely just like they adopted blu ray, patently people haven't adopted blu ray because it's easier and cheaper to just stream. my blu ray player and 3 blu ray discs just sit and gather dust only my audio blu ray of Tom Petty's "Damn the torpedoes" gets any real use and that is because it is heads and shoulders better than the CD. Unfortunately there is very little real interest in high quality audio and the lack of blu ray audio titles bears this out.
 
Why assume streaming?

pgiguere1 said:
Nope, not happening.

The very vast majority of people can't stream 4K at a worthwhile bandwidth.
Click to expand...

I totally agree with you that over compressed 4K is meaningless. But I never count on streaming for things I want to see in quality. That's why I buy BluRay disks for the movies that are worth the resolution, and old fashioned DVDs for the ones that don't. (Which still have 4x the quality of iTunes.)

4K TV IMO will live or die based on how quickly Sony can get out 200 GB 4K Blu-Ray disks. 🙂 Note the SAME situation was true for people who bought Full-HD sets years ago - apart from BluRay disks, no one had Full-HD content - maybe a few 1280x720 shows at best...

That being said, people who don't mind the low quality of streaming, e.g., 20 megabits/second for HDTV = 150x compression, could get similar 4K quality at 80 megabits/second, which isn't so outlandish for upcoming next generation wireless video.
 
Because a television is hardware...

pgiguere1 said:
This means the image quality of iTunes 1080p movies could be significantly improved without upping the resolution by upping the bitrate or the compression's efficiency alone.

In short, my point is:

Why not exploit 1080p fully before upgrading our hardware?
iTunes content isn't even fully exploiting 1080p TVs which have been commonly available for almost a decade now.
Click to expand...

Totally true - it would be awesome if they made an option to pay for higher bitrates, just as you pay for higher resolution.

But to answer your question:
-> A television is HARDWARE, not software. It can't be upgraded, and it is expected to last a LONG time - a decade is not unreasonable.
-> A 4K television with GOOD interpolation software can make Full-HD or even DVD content look as good or better than the original. (Like when I watch a DVD on my laptop.) But it's future proof - if at any point, higher resolution content becomes available, a 4K television can display it, while standard Full-HD sets can't.

Apple wants to start at the leading edge of the TV market, and Full-HD has almost reached the bottom edge of display hardware, despite the fact that most digital content hasn't broken 1280 and media hasn't broken Full-HD.
 
I hope Apple sticks with an add on box.

55" and 65" screens are just not large enough for 4k. The viewer will have to sit at about 5.5 feet from the 65" screen to be able to discern any resolution benefit over 1080p.

At anything less than 100" 4 k is simply a marketing ploy to get the stupid to upgrade their relatively new 1080p screens.

http://s3.carltonbale.com/resolution_chart.html

Within a few years, 100" glass will be a reality at more reasonable prices, but for now, 4k is is just a marketing scam, since 3D is fading as a marketing buzzword.
 
There you go. Apple shopping around for the cheapest panels.

I still have flickering on my iMac (LG Screen!).

Adios iTV or whatever you call it.
 
4K (UHD) is a gimmick. You sit more than 5 feet from tv and you won't notice the difference. Plus a lot more has to go into a quality picture other than 4K, such as black levels, which will make the picture really pop when calibrated. Other than a few tv's such as the former Pioneer Elites and Kuros, and the current Panasonic ZT series, there are no others out there that produce a great picture. Unless you get an OLED tv where the picture is unbelievable because the black level is impressive. If Apple truly wanted to impress, they would dump 4K and produce an OLED tv. OLED is by far the best out there, with no 4K tv even coming close to that picture quality. Of course at $10,000 to $15,000 in price, it likely will fade away as people buy the cheap junk.
 
Who cares about TV?

This is the monitor for my next Desktop. At the moment I have two 30" HP displays and I find the resolution a little grainy next to my MacBook Retina.

I upgraded the TV to LED backed LCD a few years back, not planning an upgrade for some time. But Apple might persuade me if they could deliver 3D and 4K at an acceptable price.

3D is not enough on its own to upgrade and certainly not with 4K round the corner. The only downside to my existing TV is that it has a rather large bezel being about 5 years old now.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back