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

Apple Working on 4K 'Ultra HD' Television Set for Late 2013 or Early 2014 Launch?

my predictions for "iTV"

June 2014: Apple launches a great LED/plasma/whatever TV thats only HD Ready and not even Full HD in white for "just" 2.999$ - everybody goes crazy
January 2015: Apple introduces THE BEST TV YET with FULL HD "RETINA" 1080p in andonized aluminum frame (white AND black!) - everybody is :eek: and buyers from 2014 are like :mad:
And samsung is like :rolleyes:

October 2015 - Apple introduces 4k TV, nobody gives a damn.
 
k995 said:
Sony is releasing a 5000$ 50-55" 4k TV

But its quite pointless if you can believe this graph :

Image

At a normal distance of 10+ feet you need a 80+" screen to be able to notice the extra resolution.

The only realy added effect would be for passive 3d, as this would allow for much higher resolution 3d images. Of course those dont excist and people dont care about 3d for the moment .
Click to expand...

The chart is really off-base and misleading in the first place. However, you are also reading the chart wrong. If anything, it shows that we need higher resolution screens to get the full benefit of viewing.

With a higher resolution, you can get a larger size screen size without having to sit further back from the screen. The higher the resolution, the closer you can get to the screen without noticing the pixels and artifacts.

As you get to lower resolutions, the further back you have to get from the screen to keep the image looking good. But as you sit further back, you reduce your field of view. To keep your desired field of view, you need to get a larger screen. But since the screen is larger, you again, have to sit further back to keep the image looking good…which then, again, reduces your field of view and negates the whole purpose of a larger screen in the first place. The only way to truly get the benefit of a larger screen is to increase the resolution.

At my typical 5 to 15ft viewing distance, I can see the pixels on a 1080p screen. I want a higher resolution.
 
It's not going to happen. They won't be interested in building a product which is so outrageously unaffordable for 98% of the population. The Retina MacBooks border on being unaffordable by most people.
 
AppleTV?

All I hear is desperate attempts to prop up Apple stock. Sorry, AAPL is gone from investors radar and will never get back, no matter what Apple do. Kind of headless chicken of what Apple has become and there is no possibility of changing that in decades to come. At least they are getting what they asking for: another Apple TV rumor = AAPL drops 10 points. Sw-e-e-t...

BTW, Apple TV 1080P content is not even worse 720P monitors - all details are compressed out of it. Folks seeing individual pixels but do not see microblocks ridden apple content, figures ...
 
Last edited:
k995 said:
Sony is releasing a 5000$ 50-55" 4k TV

But its quite pointless if you can believe this graph :

Image

At a normal distance of 10+ feet you need a 80+" screen to be able to notice the extra resolution.

The only realy added effect would be for passive 3d, as this would allow for much higher resolution 3d images. Of course those dont excist and people dont care about 3d for the moment .
Click to expand...

That chart is a load of bullc*** at those distances you can see individual pixels. I get excellent benefit from a 32" TV with 1080p at a nice 2m distance.

Edit: Have to clarify I'm talking about Bluray 1080p not iTunes "HD" which is often almost indistinguishable from the SD version.
 
komodrone said:
Apple Marketing:
"Today we're announcing a feature called Facelift. It takes an ordinary 1080p frame and it enlarges the image using new algorithms we've invented, like the stuff you've seen on CSI. It works like magic. And boy have we patented it"
Click to expand...

It sounds insane, but there's actually math that does this. Fractals or something.
 
Digitimes' apparent lack of understanding as to just how much bandwidth is necessary to transport 4k video should be a fairly clear indicator as to just how clueless their claims are.

WHY is MacRumors still quoting anything from these clowns?
 
But Lg as manufacturer?
Very High Input Lag...bad blacks,bad motion...
i hope it is not...and if they match with good specs will be a closed display
just like the crippled thunderbolt with Imac...because they will use thunderbolt isn'it?not hdmi...or will they...?
I mean no way to link my "durango-xbox" to the Apple 4k Tv isn'it?
And no AMOLED i suppose...
 
Mac Mini is better

Doesn't a mac mini behind any TV set with wireless nouse and keyboard trump any of these proprietary systems? I'm sure you can voice enable it to respond to open youtube. Rent Hobbit.

I'd wait for a full upgradeable cpu to be built in.
 
mozumder said:
If Apple wants to do this, they have to invest in fiber all over the country, in competition with Verizon FIOS and Google Fiber. Apple can certainly afford it, and the first company to build the distribution system can take the vertical market and sell Ultra 4K tv's as well.
Click to expand...

That would be one of the most interesting things Apple could do with its giant cash pile. A very interesting idea!
 
For those of you saying we don't need 4k TV, you sound just like those people who said we don't need HDTV or we don't need retina iPads...

I mean, it's coming, you have to accept it. Things get better, smaller, faster, shinier, whatever with time. No one wants a fuzzy black and white TV from 1960 today, and in the future, no one will want just an HDTV resolution TV when 4k will be available. There might be some for sale cheaper as we transition, but eventually 4K will be the standard.

I for one welcome it because I can tell the difference. If you can't, great, sounds like you don't have to be an early adopter and can save some money. For those of us who can, and have the means, we'll be enjoying our new TVs!

That being said, I think it will take about 3 years for 4k TVs to be just as accessible as 3D TVs are today.

The last point is, will Apple bring out a 4k TV as their first TV? I don't think so, but only because there hasn't been any proof so far, just a bunch of rumors that have been around for 3+ years.

I'll believe it when I see it I guess!
 
XtraSmiley said:
I for one welcome it because I can tell the difference.
Click to expand...

And I can run a 100 metres in 5 seconds.
Actually I can't. Because human beings can't do that. Damn biology.

Nor can they resolve much more than 60 pixels per degree. There's this irritating limitation of human anatomy, the size of cells in the retina, and the optical limitations of a squishy bag of goo to consider.

The only way anyone with regular human eyes will be able to resolve the benefit of 4K from the couch is using binoculars.

We all know that bigger numbers are always better. Right?

But when in reality, people can't actually tell the difference, you don't have a better product. You have just a regular product with bigger numbers on it.

If Apple are working on a 4K display, its a retina monitor or iMac.

Not a television.
 
This just isn't going to work with the current internet backbone. I shudder to think how long a 4K film would take to download from iTunes and which ever way you look at it this is just going to leave Apple at the mercy of the cable/broadband providers. Ultra HD is going to happen but it's far more suited to an offline model of TV, Player and Disk.

I think Apple would be better to focus on the mobile side of things. They could set up as a MVNO and provide mobile TV, unlimited data, the first true "world" phone that works seamlessly on 4G across Apple's own iNet service worldwide.

As far as the iTV goes, it would be better to make a series of small, light and highly portable screens that could be placed throughout the home. Just point your iPod/iPhone at the screen and away you go. iTunes content is too low res to make it worthwhile building a 4K TV.
 
OrangeSVTguy said:
That's awesome. I can go back in time and watch my show live instead of watching a recorded version in the present. :eek:
Click to expand...

The idea is to be able to rewind your TV back to say 2012, and then you can surf through channels in that time period. Not literally time travel.
 
Carniphage said:
And I can run a 100 metres in 5 seconds.
Actually I can't. Because human beings can't do that. Damn biology.

Nor can they resolve much more than 60 pixels per degree. There's this irritating limitation of human anatomy, the size of cells in the retina, and the optical limitations of a squishy bag of goo to consider.

The only way anyone with regular human eyes will be able to resolve the benefit of 4K from the couch is using binoculars.
Click to expand...

I went to the eye doctor's office and read every line on the chart. The technician got all excited, ran out of the room, and told everyone about it. I did not understand what the big deal was, but apparently I was the first ever to do this. I also can read freeway signs far earlier than anyone else in the car can. My dad was in the Navy, prior to GPS, and could see the stars far earlier than any other navigator could, so his ship always called in its position first in the fleet and the other ships always wondered how they did it so early.

Maybe I'm a mutant, but don't tell me what I can and cannot see.

My ex on the other hand, cannot tell the difference between a 480P DVD and a 1080P Blu-Ray.

All that this tells me is that every person is different.
 
Saladinos said:
If space (and bandwidth) were not an issue, I'm sure they'd provide higher-bitrate files.
Click to expand...

Again that's Apple's poor design. My desktop has a stack of 3TB drives I paid $110 each for and can hold 60 blu-ray's at 50 gig each (and more like 100 in practice).

My MBP has a 1 TB hard drive (and an SSD boot drive), so space is not an issue there either.

It's only because apple want's to push things like the mba that the consumers have to suffer a poor experience.

As far as bandwidth, no reason you can't pre-cache half the movie if needed. Or you get a choice of instant play with okay quality or pre-download an hour ahead for maximum quality. Again it's Apple trading performance for sleek curves.
 
ActionableMango said:
I went to the eye doctor's office and read every line on the chart. The technician got all excited, ran out of the room, and told everyone about it. I did not understand what the big deal was, but apparently I was the first ever to do this. I also can read freeway signs far earlier than anyone else in the car can. My dad was in the Navy, prior to GPS, and could see the stars far earlier than any other navigator could, so his ship always called in its position first in the fleet and the other ships always wondered how they did it so early.
Click to expand...
I can do the same thing. I could read the copyright notice at the bottom of the eye chart. Some people have great eyes.

But no one is super human.

ActionableMango said:
Maybe I'm a mutant, but don't tell me what I can and cannot see.
Click to expand...
Why not do a simple test? Sit 12 feet from the TV. And see if you can tell the difference between 720p and 1080p (exact same footage)

But lets assume you are a mutant with super human visual acuity.
What's the betting that anyone is going to produce an expensive product that only you can get the benefit of?
 
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