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
1. Welcome to the internet. People love arguing over semantics here.
2. Welcome to the nerd internet. People love arguing over math even more.
What you're saying doesn't make any sense. 4K resolves 4x the amount of detail, not 2x, and that's because there are 4x as many pixels. A 4 pixel sample of a 4K image covers the same area as a single pixel sample of a 1080p image. That's 4x the amount of detail.
Last edited:
Three years behind the industry huh? Yet most new 4K movies are filmed in 2K and then upconverted 
. And most cable is still not even pumping out full 1080
. And most cable is still not even pumping out full 1080 Almost guarantee the studios will require to pay to upgrade. Just like you had to pay to upgrade 480 to 720 /1080. And from DVD to bluray. And bluray to 4k.
I looked on the Panasonic website (EU, not US) and you're just wrong. They only have a single 2017 model that supports 3D in any market. Perhaps you're confused because they have continued to sell some 2016 models which supported 3D. It seems almost certain that the number will drop to zero for 2018. The technology is completely dead and you refuse to see it, it's bizarre.
Spoiler alert: the vast majority of movie theaters in the US were just upgraded to 2K. The vast majority of movies released are finished in 2K.
It’s not “my” science. It’s just science. Real science. It has been measured, tested and found to be true. You can’t have an opinion that facts aren’t true. This isn’t some fantasy world where science isn’t real and you have superhuman vision. I’ve said multiple times that there are other reasons it looks better. Resolution, however, is not one of them. But it’s foolish to argue with a person who disregards facts and reason, and therefore I must say goodbye forever.
[doublepost=1503719601][/doublepost]
Perhaps the bit rate of your content on 1080p was quite poor (making it effectively equivalent to 720p, for instance), and the 4K bitrate is sufficiently high enough (though still compressed) to make it look superior to the old 1080p compressed content that gets “smeared” during conversion?
A common definition of display/screen/graphic/pixel resolution (as used by MSDN and CompTIA, the textbook on my desk, and a number of archived magazine articles stretching back to the mid 90s) is that display resolution is the total number of pixels on the display expressed as X dimension multiplied by Y dimension. In earlier works I see an asterisk sometimes used between the numbers but now it's usually an x; either way multiplication is inferred, and if 1920x1080 is an equation to give you the total number of pixels, the associative property of multiplication applies just like it would for any other equation. Multiplying the horizontal dimension by two and the vertical dimension by two is the same as multiplying the entire equation (the "resolution") by four.
[doublepost=1503731369][/doublepost]
At least 3D won't die overnight. The movies do sell fairly well in some markets (which is why almost all my 3D Blu-rays are for Europe and Australasia). Just not in the big American one for... lots of reasons from how poorly 3D was implemented in sets to how costly and difficult it was to acquire the content. But 3D has died multiple times. It will be back. Each time it comes back it's better than before. It may be another 15 or 20 years, but we will get our 3D again, and it'll be glasses-free, multi-perspective, and possibly with multifocal depths.
Last edited:
I'm not trying to be condescending, so please don't take it that way, but look up what resolve means.
Resolving detail is a linear thing, take for instance a set of black an white vertical lines, up close they look like a striped pattern.
Go far enough back and it appears grey because your eyes cannot resolve the details.
Another way to think of it is take a monitor that is 100 pixels high and 100 pixels wide and another 100 pixels high and 200 pixels wide ie both have the same vertical resolution.
The difference between the two is that one resolves twice the detail of the other. Doubling the vertical resolution at this point will not reveal any more detail horizontally.
its 4 times the amount of pixels but you cannot resolve 4 times the detail, its twice the amount of detail in two directions. which equates to twice the detail but 4 times the pixels.
The above is talking about resolving detail which is what resolution is.
Monitors are sold as 1080p aka 2K or 4K which relates to twice the detail.
They are also sold as two dimensions eg 1920*1080 and not by the pixel count.
You are using resolution and pixels interchangeably, this would be perfectly fine if they were the same thing, but they aren't. Yes, you can calculate total number of pixels if you know the resolution. No, it isn't same thing. If I had a 1x1 display an doubled the resolution I'd have a 2x2 display which gives me 4x the pixels. If I simply wanted double the pixels I could have a resolution of 1x2 or 2x1.
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?
It only makes a big difference if you have a really big 4K TV.
[doublepost=1503737280][/doublepost]
UHD Blu-ray, another DOA format.
You looked for it wrong.
Panasonic has variations for different countries. If you look at a single one, you will find around 8.
It seems like some formats that die quickly in the massive US market sometimes die much more slowly elsewhere...but die they do, eventually.
4K looks better on the same sized TV. In part because the technology driving the image is much improved. If your TV is 4+ years old it is completely outperformed in every measurable way even before considering pixel density
Physical media is over. Every article you read says the same thing, physical media sales are in serious decline.
http://fortune.com/2016/01/08/blu-ray-struggles-in-the-streaming-age/
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2...ke-dvd-sales-for-first-time-netflix-amazon-uk
[doublepost=1503738619][/doublepost]
Hell, lets all go back to PAL/NTSC/SECAM
Let's wash clothes by hand, grow our own food and ride horses around.
Will we have the problem that YouTube videos on 4K Apple TV will NOT be 4K or HDR?
This being due to these YouTube videos being VP9 codec only and the 4K Apple TV not supporting VP9 codec.
[doublepost=1503738867][/doublepost]
I prefer to use the remote app on iPhone but it can't do volume sadly.
This being due to these YouTube videos being VP9 codec only and the 4K Apple TV not supporting VP9 codec.
[doublepost=1503738867][/doublepost]
I prefer to use the remote app on iPhone but it can't do volume sadly.
Killed by online services they say. Search for "Blu-ray sales decline". Double-digit declines in disc based media. Blu-ray sales peaked in 2013
If you have to choose between the 3D and the UHD version of a movie, you take 3D.
That's the problem with not also increasing the 3D resolution.
But it also means you don't care if a 4K TV is passive.
Online services do not kill 3D or 4K Blu Ray because they don't have them for studio movies.