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 to Debut Apple TV With 4K HDR Support at September Event
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Well, no, but only because most people would confuse the aspect ratio for the resolution. If you could cut the one on the right to be 2560 pixels wide a reasonable person would say they were the same resolution. If you said that was because they essentially function at the same resolution but one is wider and has more pixels per device than you would be correct.
we could avoid a lot of confusion by keeping the same units/naming convention when discussing this stuff.
4K is a horizontal resolution (yes, the number of vertical lines). 2K is a horizontal resolution.
1080 is a vertical resolution (the number of horizontal lines). 2160 is a vertical resolution.
1080 is almost equal to 2K, and 2160 is almost equal to 4K. those are the equations. in the broadcast business things are referred to by their vertical resolution and scan scheme and frame rate, so:
1080p/24 (or 23.98/25/30/60) = standard HD resolution. there are usually 1920 horizontal pixels, or almost 2K. there are 2.07M pixels in this raster.
2160p/24 (or 23.98/25/30/60) = standard UHD resolution. there are usually 3840 horizontal pixels, or almost 4K. there are 8.29M pixels in this raster. 4x as many pixels as 2K/1080.
Last edited:
Just at the point when the devices are getting full functionality, every publisher is about to ask for their own $10/mo.
This is it. When talking about LCD screens resolution == number of pixels.
What they really need is an affordable subscription model to actually view the content. They need to compete with Netflix the same way Apple Music competes with Spotify.
Yup. It only has lightning output. Lightning to HDMI adapter will be supplied.
That will be the true courage!
[doublepost=1503626817][/doublepost]
That's what Tim Cook's ATV pipeline looks: ATV 5, 6 and 7.
Where are those people who say Apple will turn on all these features just by a mere software update!
Most sources, and the math, conflict with Shapton's blog post. The implicit math is that "resolution" is the total number of pixels and their aspect ratio as represented by an xy or xyz equation (the Z being for actual three dimensional displays - not to be confused with two dimensional stereoscopic displays). After all, an equation is merely a representation of a value.
Maybe visualizing will help:
(1920x1080)x2 ≠ (1920x2)x(1080x2)
and
(1920x2)x(1080x2) = (1920x1080)x4
With UHD, and as the blog post by the contradictory David Shapton even states, we are going twice the resolution IN TWO DIMENSIONS. This makes it 4 times the total resolution, or two 2x the horizontal resolution times 2x the vertical resolution. As this is a two dimensional display, the 3rd dimension's value is 1, and remains unchanged.
Think of it this way. Let's say my 2D screen has a total resolution of 100 pixels. It's written in the equation 10x10. It's not only cleaner when you get into high pixel counts, but communicates that the aspect ratio is 1:1, of which "megapixels" would not. We could say 10x10x1 since it's a 2D screen, but that's redundant. Another 2D screen has 400 pixels in a 1:4 aspect ratio - we write this as 10x40. In this instance we have 4 times the resolution of my original screen; it's exactly the same as having four 10x10 screens all lined up next to each other. Another screen has the same number of pixels at a resolution of 20x20 pixels. Is this twice the resolution of my original screen or four times? A screen with pixels at two depths has a resolution of 40x40x2. Is this double the resolution of the 20x20x1 screen? Four times? Eight times?
I don't know about now, but within the last few years, that was a highly YMMV prospect. TVs varied quite a bit in what they would output over optical for HDMI inputs.
You didn't get my point. The blu rays are perfect and that's the problem. Perfect 1080p and perfect 4K look virtually identical. Imperfect 1080p and imperfect 4K look drastically different with the 4K being noticeably superior. This is why streamed content 1080p vs. 4K will produce a massive enhanced experience.
Same. Although I can't use my airpods with the 3rd gen and now winter is coming I'd like to use the treadmill and watch the telly
So I’m theorty I can play all of my VUDU 4k Dolby Vision movies with no problem on this new Apple TV. It’s such a pain because my tv is a Samsung which doesn’t support Dolby Vision but instead supports hdr 10. Such a pain.
1920x1080 x2 = 3840x2160 which is 4k... Twice the resolution is correct. It's 4x the pixels since resolution is a combination of vertical and horizontal pixels,
No. You will need to buy a new TV that supports Dolby Vision. The ATV will likely output it, but your TV won't know what to do with it, and will fall back to HDR10, which all DV video is required to support.
In the Blu-Ray format, HDR10 is the standard for 4K with Dolby Vision being optional, and I think Netflix follows this too by dropping back to HDR10 if it doesn't detect Dolby Vision on Dolby Vision supported titles. My understanding is Vudu will be doing the same later this year. And who knows they could even add HDR10+ for your Samsung down the road.
Not surprising you didn’t see much of a difference because none of those movie were mastered in 4K except for Deadpool. Even though Deadpool was mastered in 4K, most of the footage was captured in 3.4K.
Blu-rays are still compressed, just way way less than streaming so you get a near visually lossless image. I wish Hollywood would start shelling out for 4K masters and stop releasing stuff in 4K bluray if it’s just an upconvert.
Believe me, it’s not TV makers. They want you to waste money on smaller 4K TVs all day because it’s just marketing hype. It’s just science and the fact that your retinas, even with perfect vision, cannot discern the pixels from that far at that size. What can they discern? Better color, contrast, and brightness. But not better sharpness. As a matter of fact, from 9ft away, a 55” TV isn’t even full 1080p. If those other features are important to you, then that’s fine. But most people would be better off getting a 1080p TV and saving they money and data usage (many home internet connections have caps now in the U.S.). In a few years large 4K TVs will be much more affordable. People like to argue with me a lot about this on the forums, often because they don’t want to admit that they wasted money on something irrelevant. We can only grow as humans when we learn from our mistakes and move on. You very likely do not have super human vision, and science has proven the limits of our vision, so it’s quite easy to calculate.There are calculators inside my eyeballs that show that 4k does in fact look much better on my 55 inch TV from more than 8 feet away. Don't fall for the hype - they just want to trick you into spending more money on a bigger TV
Try out the calculator at the bottom of this page to see for yourself: https://referencehometheater.com/2013/commentary/4k-calculator/
Please check your math. It's not a combination (addition), it's multiplication. See my examples above. You are multiplying each dimension by two, which is the same as two times two (aka times 4).
(1920x1080)x2 = 4,147,200, but 4k has 8,294,400 pixels
What you are saying is (1920x2)x(1080x2) which is the same as (1920x1080)x4 or 3840×2160, but not the same as 1920x1080 times 2.
Last edited:
The only TV's worth buying anymore are 4K models. Don't get me wrong, someone shouldn't necessarily go out and buy a new TV just for 4K. But if someone is already in the market for a new TV, it's either going to be 4K or a POS.
I know for a fact Oblivion was shot on 4 and 6k (maybe 8k I forget) cameras. I watched an interview with the director and he stated that. So if that movie isn't native 4k then nothing is.