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

[bombyliid]

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



The image is 4 times bigger/denser.

No, the image is 2x denser. Thats what you are missing when you equate pixel numbers with pixel 'density'. Doubling pixel 'density' requires 4x the number of pixels. 1080p video has only 1.5 times the resolution of 720p video, but requires 2.25 times the number of pixels.

 

[IGI2]

No, the image is 2x denser. Thats what you are missing when you equate pixel numbers with pixel 'density'. Doubling pixel 'density' requires 4x the number of pixels. 1080p video has only 1.5 times the resolution of 720p video, but requires 2.25 times the number of pixels.

by denser I mean, showing it on a same device as 1080p.

4K is not even 2x denser, it's just bigger, how denser it it depends on the end device.

 

[vipergts2207]

The argument over whether 4K is 2x or 4x larger than 1080p is one of the most inane arguments I've ever seen on Macrumors, and that's saying a lot. WGAF! Here we have 13 pages of garbage arguing over semantics.

 

[bombyliid]

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.

Too funny

 

[PaulKemp]

I cant understand if this device brings back any marketshare in the home streaming box segment? Its competetors are way cheaper?

 

[cube]

Where is 3D?

 

[IGI2]

Where is 3D?

3D is dead, marginal tech. I guess VR will take the lead. But still, AR more developed by now.

 

[bombyliid]

I cant understand if this device brings back any marketshare in the home streaming box segment? Its competetors are way cheaper?

I suspect this is more to avoid losing marketshare. I'm an example of an existing customer who bought a current AppleTV to expand functionality of my existing 1080p TV. My exisiting 'smart' TV is so dumb that I gave up on using its built in apps in favour of an AppleTV, which is how I currently view Netflix, HBO etc. That won't work with 4k, because I need a new TV. But if I now buy a new UHD TV (which I'm considering, because I mainly watch Netflix and they now have a decent and growing amount of 4k content with HDR) it will come with a built in OS and apps that are so much better than my old one, that the AppleTV will become less important to me than in its current role.

I can't see myself buying a competing 4k box: what content would they add for me? The kids have invested a bit into TVOS already (games + a decent controller), so for now we will probably stick with the existing AppleTV. But once iTunes content becomes available in 4k, I would happily consider upgrading it.

 

[WilliamG]

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.

I sit at 14’ from my 65” 4K. Difference from 1080p to 4K content is night and day.

 

[cube]

3D is dead, marginal tech. I guess VR will take the lead. But still, AR more developed by now.

3D is not dead. People not caring about what they consume is true.

 

[ani4ani]

Just tossing it out there but 4K is not twice the resolution as mentioned in the article but rather four times the resolution.

No it's not...it is 4 x number of pixels, twice the resolution
[doublepost=1503657611][/doublepost]

Correct me if I'm wrong.. but 8,294,400 is 4x 2,073,600, correct?

Yes it is, but it is nothing to do with resolution

 

[TroyBoy30]

Good. It'll go perfect with my oled addition

 

[shiseiryu1]

Sure would be nice if Apple would include a first party controller with the AppleTV. The selection of games is absolutely awful; would really like to see developers devote more resources to it. I think Apple made a giant mistake with the arbitrary restrictions they put on the device initially.

 

[mmm1345]

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?

Yes. But you need to have a "perfect" combination of things to really appreciate the difference - which is why selling 4K is so difficult (just like 3D). It's a you won't miss it if you've never seen it kind of thing but once you do see it, it's "hard" to go back.You really need to have it in your home environment to truly appreciate it. Not just a 5 minute comparison in the store where you have no idea what you are looking at - especially when big box stores do a really crappy job of demoing most things, that alone 4K TVs.

4K isn't about just the resolution it's about the entire package of TV Tech that comes with it: 10-bit panels, wide color gamut, hdr, better picture processing, deeper blacks/contrast, upscaling, down-sampling and brighter nits, etc. When I watch something in regular blu-ray and go to the 4K-UHD version I rarely see the difference. But if I watch that same content first in 4K-UHD and then go watch the blu-ray, the difference is night and day. It's a you won't miss it if you've never seen it kind of thing but once you do see it, it's "hard" to go back.

Then the content you are watching needs to be in 4K HDR. 4K without a 10-bit panel and Wide-Color doesn't make much difference. The good thing about 4K is it upscale older content. So if you are watching 1080p content on a 4K TV it usually looks amazing and for those that don't have 4K TVs, the 4K down sample makes a noticeable difference to your 1080p content.

Luckily prices are dropping really fast, you can get a decent TV for $1k. Don't waste your time or money getting a 4K TV that doesn't have the features I listed above.

[doublepost=1503661513][/doublepost]

Yes please.

My ATV 3 is a dream to use compared to the buggy mess and terrible remote on the ATV4. Scrolling through large lists on the ATV4 is a nightmare.

 

[69650]

I hope they morph it into a home media hub with a large hard drive so I can store all my iTunes content.

 

[Xavier]

My 3rd gen Apple TV from 2012 still does what I need to do.

Mine is still running as well! Although, this will be the Apple TV version that gets me to upgrade.

 

[mmm1345]

Tim Cook: And you can have it for only $499.99. All accessories sold separate!

Most other 4K streaming boxes are $100, so I'd say with the apple tax it'll be $300

 

[PsykX]

Which means it will probably have an A10 or A11 processor, which would be a pretty nice upgrade for gaming. Perhaps VR-capable ?

I hope this also comes with a radical storage increases though. 32GB wasn't a lot, should be 128GB and 256 GB, because 4K content I think is 4x as big as 1080p content. But H.265 could play a major role to diminish video file sizes though...

I don't think I'll upgrade though, because my TV is still 1080p for a while. Once I get a house, my living room is gonna get a major upgrade

Now, if only it could support my PS3 and PS4 controllers...

 

[mmm1345]

If you sit about 8 feet or further away from your TV you won't notice a difference (depending on TV size). See chart below:

These charts are stupid and not at all reflective on people's REAL world personal experiences. I wish this dumb meme would die already. I have a 55 inch 4K UHD and can see the difference perfectly fine.

 

[lsutigerfan1976]

Most other 4K streaming boxes are $100, so I'd say with the apple tax it'll be $300

I was actually joking b4. But now it does make me wonder whether Apple will try and to double the price of other streaming boxes that do 4K. And bet that ppl will still buy the Apple one, cause they are Apple.

 

[mmm1345]

I was actually joking b4. But now it does make me wonder whether Apple will try and to double the price of other streaming boxes that do 4K. And bet that ppl will still buy the Apple one, cause they are Apple.

I love the Roku 4K box, but it doesn't play my iTunes content and it requires an extra HDMI port that I don't have (because I have to have an ATV box) so I couldn't really use it. I'm buying the Apple One simply because Xfinity fully supports it, with Vudu (where I have 900 movies), Hulu, Amazon AND iTunes (where I have 500) on one 4K Streamer it's the perfect streaming box for me. I would assume a lot of companies will finally start updating their Apps to 4K soon as well.
[doublepost=1503664908][/doublepost]

not the best quality 4k TV but its true, you can literally go to any walmart/target/best buy/frys electronics and pick up a 4k Tv starting at like 369$, and for a 32" too, which isnt too bad for a bedroom or small living room.

hell, i saw a 4k smart Tv at 50" for only ~650-700$. considering ~3-5 years ago it still cost almost double for a 1080P of the same size, thats pretty cheap.

Yes, but those cheap 4K TVs don't accurately represent the benefit of 4K and you'll just walk away disappointed. You absolutely need a minimum of a 10-Bit Panel with Wide-Color and HDR to get the benefit of 4K.

 

[lsutigerfan1976]

I love the Roku 4K box, but it doesn't play my iTunes content and it requires an extra HDMI port that I don't have (because I have to have an ATV box) so I couldn't really use it. I'm buying the Apple One simply because Xfinity fully supports it, with Vudu (where I have 900 movies), Hulu, Amazon AND iTunes (where I have 500) on one 4K Streamer it's the perfect streaming box for me. I would assume a lot of companies will finally start updating their Apps to 4K soon as well.
[doublepost=1503664908][/doublepost]

Yes, but those cheap 4K TVs don't accurately represent the benefit of 4K and you'll just walk away disappointed. You absolutely need a minimum of a 10-Bit Panel with Wide-Color and HDR to get the benefit of 4K.

But not everyone has iTunes content. If Apple wants to pull in those ppl, they will introduce a device that is priced more competitively with the other guys. For example, if I were an Amazon fire tv, or Roku user. I would not have any inclination to switch to Apple cause they had 4K. Unless it's box was priced right.

 

[mmm1345]

But not everyone has iTunes content. If Apple wants to pull in those ppl, they will introduce a device that is priced more competitively with the other guys. For example, if I were an Amazon fire tv, or Roku user. I would not have any inclination to switch to Apple cause they had 4K. Unless it's box was priced right.

I don't think Apple really "cares" about those people. They probably already have a streaming box and if people aren't "locked" into dumb iTunes now, they most likely won't be and probably wouldn't pay a premium price to get stuck on an ATV box. Streaming devices really are probably geared more towards a tech savvy consumer than the general mom and dad public.

 

[smaffei]

Don't plan on upgrading my 1080 P TV until 4K TVs significantly drop in price, so this has no interest for me

Um, have you actually shopped recently?!? 4K TVs are fairly cheap now.

 

[Juicy Box]

Don't quote me (jk) but I think my fios has a 1000 gig monthly cap

FiOS claims that it does not have a cap, but they do. It is so high, most people would never come close to it. I think it is like 10TBs, and after repeated violations of the cap, a warning letter is sent.

I read an article a while back about someone that reached their in-advertised cap. I forget what they were doing, probably running many servers or a business, but the FiOS customer was using the equivalent of streaming Netflix on 40 TVs nonstop 24 hours a day.

They were told to upgrade to a business tier of plan, or they would be disconnected.

HDR makes a bigger difference than 4k, but I love my 4k HDR set and wouldn't go back to 1080.

I understand the concerns about data caps from another poster, but I have no cable TV, I stream everything, and have not passed 350GB in a month. I suppose, for those that stream 24/7, or have multiple people streaming frequently, it would be a problem.

1000 gig cap - 350gigs of normal use
4k uses 11.25 gigabytes per hour. So 57 hours of streaming a month. 3 TV's in my house, all streaming. That will be gone in 3 days.

It's just not viable

Totally agree. I have two kids and a wife who stream media every day. I do the same. We get within 1-5% of our 1TB comcast cap every single month and we only stream 1080p.

For the people with Comcast, they have an unlimited data option for $50 more a month. You need to call to get it.

If you really want to stream 4K, or if you repeatedly go over the cap, then this option might be for you.