I think this is the first valid pro 4K argument to be made. Artefacts do get smaller with 4K and thus the perceived image quality is better. I still believe that in this case, a higher bitrate would benefit everyone more than quadrupling pixels, but oh well.
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 TV tvOS Simulator Shown Running in 4K Resolution
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
What does it matter anymore? Have you been to Best Buy lately? Many stock maybe 1 or 2 models of 1080p TVs, and like 25 models of 4k TVs. And on top of that, the price difference is negligible - you're not saving anything by getting a 1080p today.
So even if there is no difference to my eyes, my new TV is going to be 4k no matter what. Might as well attach a 4k source to it as well. Whether it is marketing mumbo jumbo or a real effect, matching standards make me feel better than mismatched standards.
Unfortunately, in the post Steve jobs era, Apple has become the follower rather than the leader!
Let's say I take 2 still pictures BOTH 12-megapixel resolution:
Nr 1: with a Canon DSLR
Nr 2: with a Samsung phone
Do those picture have the same quality?
Or is the resolution actually a minor part of that equation.
THIS! x--x is completely right. 4K (or 5K) is only meaningful from a perception standpoint if you're either using a computer monitor from 24" away OR if you're in a theater or your screen width to viewing distance is close.
I love the concept of 4K...I have a 70" in my house, but short of standing about 5' away (or less), the resolution difference is nearly imperceptible from what anyone would consider a reasonable viewing distance. Period.
What if you were sitting at a standard TV viewing distance and shown a series of video clips of unknown definition on a series of screens that had an unknown definition? How well do you think you could identify which were HD, 2K, and 4K?
Yes some people have a rough time adapting to the quick change of technology. And that's understandable. What I don't get is why they blame others for their own shortcoming in this area. I mean consumers are, on whole, pretty savvy with their money -- they may spend more than that have but they don't spend it on things that don't excite them. True "gimmicks" usually get flushed out of the market pretty quickly -- things like 3DTV and software based 120hz refresh rates.
There are a LOT of big tent pole Hollywood films that have been shot on super high-end 4k and 8K cameras in Dolby Vision in the last few years and that the technology is rapidly expanding in Big Budget Hollywood film making. Give it a few yrs when all that stuff is released on 4K UHD in true 4K (not 4k intermediaries) and you'll see the difference.
List of Dolby Vision movies
https://www.dolby.com/us/en/cinema/theatrical-releases.html
Here are some reference quality material to view:
Planet Earth II
John Wick 1 & 2
Mad Max Fury Road,
Sully,
4K TV Demoes,
Sense 8 on Netflix
Power Rangers
Watch any of these on a proper 4K UHD Set (10-bit, wide color gamut) and then tell me there's no difference.
List of Dolby Vision movies
https://www.dolby.com/us/en/cinema/theatrical-releases.html
Here are some reference quality material to view:
Planet Earth II
John Wick 1 & 2
Mad Max Fury Road,
Sully,
4K TV Demoes,
Sense 8 on Netflix
Power Rangers
Watch any of these on a proper 4K UHD Set (10-bit, wide color gamut) and then tell me there's no difference.
Oh no... I LOVE technology and I LOVE science, which means provable facts and studies not just subjective perception.
It's like saying there is no climate change because I was cold the other day.
still salty about my 3DTv
. I think 3D could have succeeded if Movie Theater owners had better equipment. There were so many times I watch a 3D film on my Home TV and the quality was so much better - brighter, more detailed, etc. What I don't get is why people spend so much time not only hating new technology, but go that extra step of trying to convince others how worthless it is and how stupid you are for wanting it.
Love the people who just beat a dead horse over and over that 4K doesn't matter because X site says so. Seriously people - buy a 4K set and try yourself and see. Basically though it's not a black and white issue, since different people see things differently, all TVs are different, different distances, etc, etc, etc. My wife doesn't care if it's 1080p or 4K - that's just who she is. Me, I can tell. If you have a 55" TV and are sitting 20ft away - no you aren't going to notice.
However, each transfer is different. I own about 10 UHD titles in Vudu and honestly, some don't look much different than the HDX 1080p versions. Others however bring just a bit more clarity/cripsness to the picture. YouTube believe it or not is a fantastic example of some stunning 4K HDR videos.
HDR as well can make a huge difference, especially when it's on a 4K transfer.
1080p -> 4K is not the same as SD -> HD....and that's a big misconception some people think. But to blindly say that 4K doesn't EVER look different is foolish.
However, each transfer is different. I own about 10 UHD titles in Vudu and honestly, some don't look much different than the HDX 1080p versions. Others however bring just a bit more clarity/cripsness to the picture. YouTube believe it or not is a fantastic example of some stunning 4K HDR videos.
HDR as well can make a huge difference, especially when it's on a 4K transfer.
1080p -> 4K is not the same as SD -> HD....and that's a big misconception some people think. But to blindly say that 4K doesn't EVER look different is foolish.
Ha!
Most of the movies you listed here – Mad Max Fury Road for example – where at least edited, color graded and mastered in 2K, all CGI is 2k as well (some even SHOT in 2K).
The 4K version was just upscaled from normal HD.
Mad Max Fury Road
Shot in 2.8K
VFX Rendered in 2K
Digital Intermediate at 2K
John Wick 2
Shot in 2.8K
VFX Rendered in 2K
Digital Intermediate at 2K
It's called falling for marketing.
Last edited:
I'm pretty sure that the big problem for the Apple TV 4 isn't the A8 chipset, it's the HDMI 1.4 standard. 1.4 can output 4K, but not at 60fps and it can't do HDR. To really get the full benefit you need at least HDMI 2.0b and that's a hardware issue, not a firmware issue.
So it probably could do something in 4K even if it's just static images, but 4K with HDR is what you want and it's what the next Apple TV should be able to do.
I've been holding out on getting a 4K set because there are competing HDR standards, but it looks like HDR10 is the victor so I'll probably pick one up sooner rather than later.
2 different things. In this instance it is nearly impossible to use "science" to tell someone whether they can see the difference between a display technology. Either they can or they can't. This is what you are incapable of understanding and why you are being rude, arrogant and obnoxious.
You are trying to bully people into backing up the fact that you simply have crappy vision.
[doublepost=1502204509][/doublepost]
Did I say these were 4K masters? No, I said they were reference quality work (that shows off the potential of 4K - and Planet Earth was shot in 4K and 8K cameras). What part of I don't care how a film was shot or transferred but I CAN see the difference did you not understand?
Last edited:
Please address the question, rather than deflecting. To answer your question, sure, a better camera makes a better video? Fact is, the 4k footage on Youtube/Amazon/Netflix looks much better than the 1080p footage does on Youtube/Amazon/Netflix. Most of this content is professionally produced with nice, high end cameras.
And you still haven’t read any of the links supplied, where it’s made clear that our eye has finite resolution, and, except you’re an optical wonder child, you just can’t see an improvement in resolution. Every difference you see has to be explained by a different feature, technique or technology. But that conclusion can only be reached after reading up. Which you won’t, because you have seen something. It’s the little man’s science denial.
It’s quite funny to me how the people who actually did research after their first impressions, get framed as people who just will believe anything on the internet. As if the reasoning provided wasn’t convincing.
But that's just it - that's not a 4K TV's fault - it's because everything is being upscaled based on how it was shot.
Take some real 4K movies:
Aliied
Power Rangers
Logan
Sully
Some of these transfers are fantastic in 4K.
It's early days yet and we are going to get good and bad transfers. But don't sit here and say all 4K is bad.
Ha again!
Logan
Shot in 3.4K (limited scenes 1080p!!!!)
VFX Rendered in 2K
Digital Intermediate at 4K
Again, thanks for telling me what I CAN see. I already agreed, that I'm clearly wrong and my eyes are lying to me.
It shows in the WebOS Amazon app when viewing. Been awhile since I checked.
That said, I am not saying there is not a difference in 4k PQ, it's just not great enough at certain screen sizes to complain about. 720P Upscaled from Directv Now looks pretty damn good. HDR and Dolby Vision really bring the PQ to the next level in combination with the added rez. Less people would probably spring for an HDR or Dolby Vision Apple TV if they already had 4k, even though the greater added benefit is in the color space.
As an Amazon Associate, MacRumors earns a commission from qualifying purchases made through links in this post.
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
Actually, it's simpler than your advice. Right now a 4K
TV is a rumor, albeit one seeming to gain a lot of traction in the last week or two. As soon as Apple takes to a stage and rolls out a 4KTV, this anti-4K sentiment quickly evaporates.The exact same thing happened in the days when Apple still clung to 720p as "HD" (maximum) before announcing the 1080p
TV3. Back then, all of these same arguments being made against 4K were being slung around against 1080p. 1080p is a marketing gimmick, you can't see the difference, "the chart", until everything in the iTunes store is available at 1080p (which is still not the case by the way), until everyone's bandwidth everywhere is upgraded, hard drive storage and on and on.One of the best: "I don't want to throw away a perfectly good TV set because..." implying some perception that better hardware will "force" everyone to only download 4K video, in spite of an obvious history that advancing
TV technology can still download SD, 720p and 1080p versions rather than only 1080p versions. (this will be no different). A 4KTV is going to play 1080p or 720p or SD to it's fullest as better hardware always has no problem with lessor software demands. Hook it up to a 1080p or 720P HDTV and it's just going to be a better, more robust TV4 with a hardware capability that you can't use on that existing TV. Your iPhone has abilities to tap cellular bands that you don't use either but it's added hardware capability built in should you ever want to change providers and thus need that hardware.So basically, the crowd that seems to passionately argue for whatever Apple has for sale right now is just doing their (paid or unpaid) job. Note how you tend to not find these same people in threads for all of Apple's other products that already embrace 4K bashing against Apple for embracing "the gimmick" in iPhones, iPads & Macs- only here with this ONE Apple product that does not yet embrace 4K.
As soon as Apple has done the big reveal, the vast majority of this crowd will not dare show up to bash Apple for stupidly embracing "the gimmick" that "no one's eyes can see." Instead, it will be "Shut up and take my money" and the same old, TIRED arguments will go into the long-term recycling bin to be revived again as rumors start picking up for 8K a few years down the road.
We've already seen this exact same movie before and after the "3" was announced. I expect no difference here. A God will speak and then 4K will be fine to all His followers forevermore.
Last edited:
I don't think Apple has ever been the first to market on most of their products. All of their "big" products came after there was already a market. iPod, iPhone, iPad, and I am sure I am missing something. The laptops and desktops are maybe an exception, but then again they did go to Intel years after the Intel chips were out there. Heck, even the app store was not the first.
Now granted they did make those experiences easier and to do some degree nicer. But first, no.
I for one am now looking forward to 4k. However I don't know if my cable/internet provider is! Especially if Net Neutrality goes through and we are all held captive and charged through the rear by our providers!