Apple to Debut Apple TV With 4K HDR Support at September Event

[ErikGrim]

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.

If only there was a way to check that? Oh there is? http://realorfake4k.com/my-product/oblivion/

It is not real 4K in any material way due to having a final master at 2K. Studios have upscaled the 2K image to 4K and retouched the content for your 4K UHD TV. You should see some visual improvement over a standard 1080p Blu-ray. Check the information below to see if the studios have upgraded the video with HDR or added immersive Dolby Atmos or DTS:X audio tracks.

• Shot in 4K and 5K
• VFX Rendered in 2K
• Digital Intermediate at 2K*

 

[marvin_h]

Couldn't care less. 4k is dead to me as long as ISP's have data caps.
At 12' .. which is what my living room distance to the tv is. I wouldn't be able to tell anyways. Just tossing that bandwidth out the window.

Sorry to hear that. I have no data cap and my screen is 8 feet wide and my display can show wide color gamut and hdr and 4K so this is awesome news.
[doublepost=1503636765][/doublepost]

They really need add a feature that allows for pre-downloading of an iTunes move/tv show to watch later. So many poor bandwidth ISPs in Australia that watching even normal HD streaming almost never works properly... and Netflix needs to add the download feature into their Apple TV app also!

I do this all the time with iTunes rentals. Rent on my computer, download on the computer, and watch on the Apple TV. Very nice for those of us with inconsistent isp speeds.

 

[matjamca]

Uh... 4K is 4x the resolution of 1080p, not 2x.

It's 4x in terms of overall pixels, but 2x in actual width and height.

 

[Smearbrick]

Why should I get excited about a 5th gen AppleTV when the 4th gen AppleTV was barely on the Apple support radar after release?

Seems like another device with wasted potential.

 

[dilbert99]

I guess I need to buy 4k HDR TV before I get too excited about this. Does 4k HDR even make a big difference compared to 1080p?

HDR will
4K depends on size of screen and distance from screen and your eye sight.
But the screenophiles will swear they can see a difference in 4K from a hundred metres away
[doublepost=1503640497][/doublepost]

Uh... 4K is 4x the resolution of 1080p, not 2x.

I'd say it has twice the resolution but 4x the number of pixels.
Resolution being measured in pixels per inch in two dimensions.
It can resolve twice the amount of detail
1920 is considered 2K, 3840 is considered 4K from an HD/UHD point of view - twice the resolution
[doublepost=1503640836][/doublepost]

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

Better colour, range etc. But there is a physical limit as to what your eye can resolve from a given distance.

 

[aaronhead14]

It's 4x in terms of overall pixels, but 2x in actual width and height.

....Which is 4x the resolution.... Resolution isn't the measure of the width or the height, it's the measure of the image as a whole. A single UHD frame is literally the size of four 1080p frames. That's 4x....
[doublepost=1503641888][/doublepost]

I'd say it has twice the resolution but 4x the number of pixels.
Resolution being measured in pixels per inch in two dimensions.
It can resolve twice the amount of detail
1920 is considered 2K, 3840 is considered 4K from an HD/UHD point of view - twice the resolution

Well, then what you'd say is wrong. Resolution measures the entire image, not a flat line of pixels on the width or the height. There's literally 4x the amount of pixels, 4x the amount of data, 4x the amount of color information, 4x the amount of detail, and 4x the amount of resolution. How do people not know this by now? It's the most basic math there is. 2x2=4. Everybody knows this!

 

[vmistery]

So now it will just be deciding whether it is this and a 7s, this and an 8 or just the 8, all down to the pricing...

 

[IGI2]

Looks like we have a lot of marketing folks here today.

What the hell man

1080p is a resolution of 2 MPX / MP / megapixels
and 4K is a resolution slightly above 8 MPX / MP / megapixels.

So it's not marketing, GPU has 4 times more pixels to render. The resolution is 4 times higher.

 

[palmerc]

I guess I need to buy 4k HDR TV before I get too excited about this. Does 4k HDR even make a big difference compared to 1080p?

4K looks great. It is similar to the difference in getting to 1080p for the first time. The downside is that some content still looks camcorder-ish. As if the editors were focusing on 1080p output and didn't realise the colours were washed out in 4k. However, given the other problems associated with streaming devices and apps that aren't on Apple TV it won't surprise me if Apple does this better on day one.

 

[2IS]

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.

My math is fine, you are confusing resolution and pixels and using them interchangeably. They are related but not the same thing. 4k is twice the resolution and 4x the pixels of 1080p

 

[400]

4K looks good whatever the sums say, on a good set it is stunning (seen some bad ones). Both on Bluray and streamed it is excellent.

If they get this right then I will get it.

 

[The Game 161]

What apple apps that will work with it will be interesting

 

[GadgetBen]

I think it's more along the lines of it being a provider of TV, like DirectTV

Not really a provider, Apple is an intermediary.

 

[bombyliid]

UHD is FOUR TIMES the resolution of Full HD.

Thats a misconception: Default 4k is 3840 × 2160, which is precisely double the resolution of full HD (but 4 times the number of pixels). This is the problem with increasing resolution: every time it doubles, the number of pixels increases fourfold, and with it, the demands on the GPU
[doublepost=1503647069][/doublepost]

Uh... 4K is 4x the resolution of 1080p, not 2x.

No, it defaults to 3840 × 2160, which is precisely 2x the resolution of 1080p (you can specify 4k in similar terms as "2160p"
[doublepost=1503647602][/doublepost]

....Which is 4x the resolution.... Resolution isn't the measure of the width or the height, it's the measure of the image as a whole. A single UHD frame is literally the size of four 1080p frames. That's 4x....
[doublepost=1503641888][/doublepost]

Well, then what you'd say is wrong. Resolution measures the entire image, not a flat line of pixels on the width or the height. There's literally 4x the amount of pixels, 4x the amount of data, 4x the amount of color information, 4x the amount of detail, and 4x the amount of resolution. How do people not know this by now? It's the most basic math there is. 2x2=4. Everybody knows this!

Resolution is defined as the ability to separate two features (typically two adjacent dots or line pairs) in an image, not the total amount of information in two dimensions. 4k uses 3840 × 2160 pixels, which provides precisely double the resolution of 1080p (full HD). Yes, 4k has 4x the amount of data, but only double the resolution.

 

[IGI2]

Read some of the other comments. It's twice the resolution, four times the pixels.

It's 4 times resolution.

Resolution, on the example of photos, is 12 megapixels, 16 megapixels (MP/MPX).

So 1920x1080 = 2 megapixels / MPX / MP

but 3840x2160 = more than 8 megapixels / MPX / MP

So 4K resolution is four times higher.

GPU has four times more pixels to generate/process.

 

[IGI2]

Yes, and that's why marketing people are allowed to get away with claiming UHD is 4 times better than HD when most people who work with resolutions accept the convention that it's 2x the resolution, because it only gives 2x the power to resolve fine detail.

It gives you 4 times better quality, because it's bigger in two dimensions, so the overall size is 4 times larger.

It's like with photos.

8 megapixel photo is 4 times bigger than 2 megapixel photo.

Even though the vertical and horizontal edges are only 2 times longer, the overall pic is 4 times larger.

 

[bombyliid]

It's 4 times resolution.

Resolution, on the example of photos, is 12 megapixels, 16 megapixels (MP/MPX).

So 1920x1080 = 2 megapixels / MPX / MP

but 3840x2160 = more than 8 megapixels / MPX / MP

So 4K resolution is four times higher.

GPU has four times more pixels to generate/process.

The number of pixels is not a measure of resolution. In this context "resolution" defines the ability of an image to resolve detail. To double resolution (i.e. to be able to resolve a pair of lines that are half the distance apart) requires 4 times the number of pixels, because images are 2 dimensional, not 1 dimensional. Although "4k" sounds like it must be 4x better than 1080p (after all, 4000 is 4x 1000 right?), it could just as easily be rewritten as "2160p". For marketing reasons, the promoters of UHD TV (=4k) decided to use the horizontal resolution (4k) rather than the vertical resolution versus earlier HD standards (like 1080p or 720p).

 

[Applebot1]

In terms of streaming 1080p is fine for streaming quality against band width usage for the average person. 4K will be the new premium etc but at a cost which hopefully will reduce 1080p digital media down in price.

I do hope Apple look at their prices and make Apple TV more of an impulse buy like the previous models. This might intice more people into buying iTunes media.

If it wasn't for many purchases in the past I would probably buy from Amazon as the content is more accessible on many devices.

Like many my media is now spread across different platforms inc my own NAS.

 

[mw360]

What the hell man

1080p is a resolution of 2 MPX / MP / megapixels
and 4K is a resolution slightly above 8 MPX / MP / megapixels.

So it's not marketing, GPU has 4 times more pixels to render. The resolution is 4 times higher.

Megapixels is not a particularly useful metric for describing resolution unless you are trying to make a 40% increase in resolving power sound like 200%, which is exactly the game of marketers.

 

[CarlJ]

i'm more excited about this than the iPhone. but i'm also excited about the new iPhone since I ran my 6s over in my jeep the other day, so i guess, in general, i'm excited.

There probably aren't any new laptops in September, so don't run over your MacBook - just in case you were getting ideas.
[doublepost=1503649763][/doublepost]

What we really want to know is: did Jony fix the remote or is he doubling down on the bad symmetrical design?

Of course they've fixed the most glaring problem with the remote - the new one is even thinner.

 

[bombyliid]

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.

Try out the calculator at the bottom of this page to see for yourself: https://referencehometheater.com/2013/commentary/4k-calculator/

Indeed. This is the same as the hype that went with ever increasing numbers of pixels in digital cameras at one point. The sheer number of 'megapixels' was the single biggest marketing tool. Never mind that adding more of them made the pixels smaller and smaller to a point where sensor noise began to dominate and degrade the images... That said, the development of UHD TV is also driving innovation and uptake of improvements in connector bandwidth, color gamut and dynamic range that are all very welcome. In a smallish dark TV room, a 65 inch OLED UHD TV displaying 4k HDR content is really quite staggering compared with the best full HD TVs I've seen. To me the dynamic range is almost more important than the extra resolution, but as long as the hardware can cope, I'm also happy to have the latter.

 

[Jsameds]

The size of square A is 2m x 2m, or 4 metres squared.

The size of square B is 4m x 4m or 16 metres squared.

Square B is four times the size of square A.

 

[MortenD]

Uh... 4K is 4x the resolution of 1080p, not 2x.

Actually 2x the resolution and thus 4x the number of pixles.

 

[bombyliid]

The size of square A is 2m x 2m, or 4 metres squared.

The size of square B is 4m x 4m or 16 metres squared.

Square B is four times the size of square A.

The problem is your definition of size: you chose area rather than a linear measure. Thats fair enough if its what is important to you. But lets say we upscale building A from 10x10x20 metres high to 20x20x40 metres high. How much bigger is it now? Double the height? 8 times the volume?

Scientists who define and measure resolution (I'm one of them) use a linear measure to define image resolution (and technically we mean here spatial resolution, not temporal resolution or color resolution, which are separate issues). It is typically specified in line pairs per inch (or mm). With 2160 pixel rows, a 55 inch 4k UHD TV has precisely double the resolution of its 1080p counterpart.

 

[IGI2]

The number of pixels is not a measure of resolution. In this context "resolution" defines the ability of an image to resolve detail. To double resolution (i.e. to be able to resolve a pair of lines that are half the distance apart) requires 4 times the number of pixels, because images are 2 dimensional, not 1 dimensional. Although "4k" sounds like it must be 4x better than 1080p (after all, 4000 is 4x 1000 right?), it could just as easily be rewritten as "2160p". For marketing reasons, the promoters of UHD TV (=4k) decided to use the horizontal resolution (4k) rather than the vertical resolution versus earlier HD standards (like 1080p or 720p).

Megapixels is not a particularly useful metric for describing resolution unless you are trying to make a 40% increase in resolving power sound like 200%, which is exactly the game of marketers.

Megapixels is just what it is, is exactly the outcome of resolution.

The size of square A is 2m x 2m, or 4 metres squared.

The size of square B is 4m x 4m or 16 metres squared.

Square B is four times the size of square A.

So If you take that square and you will make each edge 2 times longer, the resolution will be 4 times higher.

The image is 4 times bigger/denser.
[doublepost=1503651024][/doublepost]

The problem is your definition of size: you chose area rather than a linear measure. Thats fair enough if its what is important to you. But lets say we upscale building A from 10x10x20 metres high to 20x20x40 metres high. How much bigger is it now? Double the height? 8 times the volume?

Scientists who define and measure resolution (I'm one of them) use a linear measure to define image resolution (and technically we mean here spatial resolution, not temporal resolution or color resolution, which are separate issues). It is typically specified in line pairs per inch (or mm). With 2160 pixel rows, a 55 inch 4k UHD TV has precisely double the resolution of its 1080p counterpart.

You just added another dimension.

Considering it, it's a completely different dimension of discussion, then.

Maybe you will add sphere next?

Image is flat. The resolution, for example, of a 16 MPX photo and 8 MPX photo can be normally measured and it's significant and straightforward.

The resolution is what it says it is, it is: "1280x720" <-- this whole equation is the resolution, gives you info about aspect, and the outcome of it, is the number of megapixels. A photographer knows, that he can't Photoshop too much on a 0.3 MPX photo, but he knows he can do a lot on a 10+ MP photo.

So that the image will be now 8 MP instead of 2 MP, it's a significant value, 4 times larger than before.