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

Apple TV 4K Reviews: Expensive But With Cheaper 4K Movies, Some Limitations Like 1080p YouTube

trusso said:
I'm sure it's because I've never owned a 4K device, or watched a film in super-hi-def, but I don't quite understand all the hoopla about 4K/5K, etc. Sure, it's a great feat of engineering, but there's only so much resolution that the human eye can effectively discern. I'm more than happy to enjoy Casablanca without seeing every wrinkle on Bogart's face, or Field of Dreams without being able to count the blades of grass.
Click to expand...
Maybe actually try it then. Sure, not everyone will care, but having quadruple the detail, not to mention much deeper colors, is pretty stunning on a large, high quality screen.
 
Quick question. When, if ever, will I be able to watch this selection of 4K movies on my 5K iMac? Is it only possible to watch them in 4K on the new Apple TV?
 
  • Like
Reactions: TheMountainLife
iReality85 said:
Insofar as HDMI 2.1 is concerned, the only relevant spec for AVR manufacturers will be eARC (thus, Dolby Atmos), which can be added through a software update. AVR Manufacturers have been pushing out software updates for Dolby Vision, there's no reason to believe they won't also for eARC. People who buy a new AVR now (like I did) will likely be fine.

HDMI 2.1 is a little different than past versions since it is allowed to be "cherry picked" by manufacturers for the specs they need or don't need. Everything else besides eARC is either not here yet (4K 120Hz), way off into the future (like 8K passthrough), or not relevant to AVRs. I assume this is why Apple is holding off a bit on Dolby Atmos, since they want to implement eARC along with it which makes sense.
Click to expand...
Well, the clock rate is doubled to 1200Mhz and will require the higher speed 48G cables to support the higher modes.
Unless the AV Receiver manufacturers have built that capability into the units they're selling today, they won't be able to do a software update to support the higher spec.
 
doomfront said:
Thanks for the response. Whole reason why I would buy a NUC is the larger storage space, is it even possible to watch movies offline with the Apple TV?
Click to expand...
Not with the ATV alone (its memory management basically prevents permanent storage of media files on the device), but you can stream from a NAS or computer on the local network without using the Internet.
But if I can't watch a 4k movie that I buy from iTunes on a NUC then that's a big reason to hold off on it
Click to expand...
Not possible. You also won't have access to many of the other streaming apps that are available in the ATV app store (some popular ones such as Netflix and Hulu are in the Windows 10 app store, but the selection is far smaller).
 
Headline:

September 9, 2015. Apple announces Apple TV4

Macrumors Forum: Why would anyone buy this it doesn't have 4K!!!!!!!

September 12, 2017. Apple announces Apple TV 4K.

Macrumors forum: I'm so glad that I don't care about 4K video. Who would buy this!!!
 
  • Like
Reactions: BMox81 and nrose101
Keirasplace said:
Cheapest good quality HDR panel that's a size that actually matters for 4K, say 65 inch is more expensive that the POS crap 4K panels that's being sold on the market right now.
Click to expand...
It depends on how far away you sit from it. I have a 48" and wish it was 46" (I wanted to buy 40").
 
OllyW said:
Amazing, they are both Google and Apple apologists at the same time? :D

It could be the readers of the reviews are showing more prejudice than the actual reviewers. ;)
Click to expand...

PAtel sucks his own tit, doesn't need Google or Apple's, his current ego orientation right now is towards Google no question but it could flip eventually... It's all about him and his little circus.

His clown level Series 0 review of the Apple Watch is still the most embarrassing review I've ever seen anywhere of any product.
 
midkay said:
Maybe actually try it then. Sure, not everyone will care, but having quadruple the detail, not to mention much deeper colors, is pretty stunning on a large, high quality screen.
Click to expand...
One day I will, I'm sure. But I feel no compulsion to run out and buy something now, simply because it's the "next big thing." That's just my personal choice. I've seen plenty of Ultra-4K televisions at the store, and they are mouth-wateringly immersive. But I consider them to be a luxury which I am perfectly happy living without.
 
cube said:
It depends on how far away you sit from it. I have a 48" and wish it was 46" (I wanted to buy 40").
Click to expand...

Yes, I know all this. Most people don't sit 4 feet away from their TV, unless it is in their kitchen maybe.

For the average TV viewing distance in say the living room, a 65 incher would be the minimum were 4K makes sense.

You're obviously getting a HDR experience at a lower resolution than that though.
 
Keirasplace said:
Yes, I know all this. Most people don't sit 4 feet away from their TV, unless it is in their kitchen maybe.

For the average TV viewing distance in say the living room, a 65 incher would be the minimum were 4K makes sense.

You're obviously getting a HDR experience at a lower resolution than that though.
Click to expand...
4KTVs up to 48" make for quite great computer monitors.
 
  • Like
Reactions: apolkowski and scott911
Rigby said:
I used HTPCs for years. They are great if you like constant tinkering, and are of course much more customizable. But you'll never have anywhere near the same simplicity and smooth user experience as a good dedicated streaming box. I have pretty much given up on my HTPC since Infuse and MrMC for the ATV became available (which I use to stream my own media files from a NAS).

Besides, once you add in the RAM and SSD (and a Windows license if you want to run iTunes on it), a NUC is considerably more expensive than an Apple TV. And, to get back on topic, it won't be able to play back iTunes 4k content ...
Click to expand...

I too used a HTPC for years - way back when it was even more challengin! I found though, that getting a spouse and using a HTPC was not compatible. YMMV
 
fischersd said:
Well, the clock rate is doubled to 1200Mhz and will require the higher speed 48G cables to support the higher modes.
Unless the AV Receiver manufacturers have built that capability into the units they're selling today, they won't be able to do a software update to support the higher spec.
Click to expand...

My point was eARC doesn't require 48Gbps. Nothing does, except for content that is 4K 120Hz or higher, which there is none of at this time. Manufacturers will implement bits and parts of the HDMI 2.1 where appropriate, but if what you're looking for is fully implemented HDMI 2.1, you'll probably be waiting awhile.
 
iReality85 said:
My point was eARC doesn't require 48Gbps. Nothing does, except for content that is 4K 120Hz or higher, which there is none of at this time. Manufacturers will implement bits and parts of the HDMI 2.1 where appropriate, but if what you're looking for is fully implemented HDMI 2.1, you'll probably be waiting awhile.
Click to expand...
Games.
 
coolfactor said:
A lot of it is tied to industry that is anchored in old ways. Content licensing is a huge deal. Content managers and distributors want control over their goods, which is *not* always in the best favour of the consumer/experience.
Click to expand...
true. some of the decisions aren't within their control, but keeping prices high while lagging behind in hardware has become a disturbing pattern with the new Apple.
 
iReality85 said:
My point was eARC doesn't require 48Gbps. Nothing does, except for content that is 4K 120Hz or higher, which there is none of at this time. Manufacturers will implement bits and parts of the HDMI 2.1 where appropriate, but if what you're looking for is fully implemented HDMI 2.1, you'll probably be waiting awhile.
Click to expand...
Heh...tell James Cameron that....he's the one that's been pushing the HFR content. :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: iReality85
melancholy said:
Nilay Patel, the most incompetent reviewer than Lauren Goode. I’m pretty sure 4K and HDR limitations for YouTube is a Google thing and not Apple.
Click to expand...
I hope the irony of you accusing someone of incompetency does not get lost on you.;):D I'm pretty sure 4K/HDR limitations for Youtube is an Apple thing not Google. The thread is full of info regarding that fact.
 
fischersd said:
Heh...tell James Cameron that....he's the one that's been pushing the HFR content. :)
Click to expand...
Aren't you getting confused with 3D, HFR, and directors?
[doublepost=1506011837][/doublepost]
Keirasplace said:
Actually they don't really. The specs for monitors are much higher than for TV's of the same size. The prizes reflect this.
And using an OLED computer monitor is probably not a good idea cause you will get burn in for sure.
Click to expand...
It is great if you're looking for real estate and/or combined usage.

My TV is quantum dot, not OLED.
 
M.PaulCezanne said:
"I am very confident Apple is going to figure this TV thing out." - Patel

With the brainpower, influence and cash this company has, if they haven't figured it out by now, why on earth would you be so confident they will in the (reasonably near) future?

Somebody needs to hold these guys responsible for their shortcomings or explain/expose why they're holding back. Geez.
Click to expand...

I think 4K is still kinda fragile. Do you think that in 4 years 4K will be replaced with 8K? I mean 4K has been "out" and "at home" for what 2-3 years for most people, or even just early adopters? I mean 1080p lasted from 2005-2020? That's 15.

So if you understand Apple. They only really have one chance, to quote EMINEM, again, "You only get one shot!" So I think 4K could even last 20-25 years, maybe even more, 4K is HUGE. And if you know why we even have 1080p, you know it take computers use to even get close to using 8K. But I would think initially the only people who would use 8K would be scientist for scientific applications.

I don't think 8K is going to just be rushed out either. So yeah, they took their time, getting it right like Apple does? And they are still going to take their time. I mean for crying out loud, did the "Industry" FINALLY GET THE Cable Standardized? I mean if you don't think that was an issue, hmm...

even 1080 took almost 5 years to LOCK down HDMI...
 
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