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 Working on 4K 'Ultra HD' Television Set for Late 2013 or Early 2014 Launch?
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
"Ultra UD"? Shouldn't it just be "UD"?
I don't see the point of this. I'll wait for the nice UD TVs and use my Apple TV on the side. The future is nice
It makes as much sense as Mac OS 10 10.8
I disagree. "OS X" is even worse. They should have called it "Mac OS" so it's not both vague AND redundant. What is this supposed to be, "the tenth OS"? At least "Mac OS X" meant something.
----------
You're wrong. They wouldn't like 4K because it doesn't say "1080p"
I think Apple went to 1920x1080 from 1920x1200 on their iMacs in 2007 just to make it 1080p instead of slightly bigger. People will take 1080p even compressed to 100kbps.
If you transcode the BD - your anecdote about bitrates and files sizes is worthless.
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
Faster data pipes are also coming with tightening tiers, which fights against this enthusiasm (I share with you BTW). Fast data and tight tiers means we just get to the toll booth much faster.
Not that long ago, "unlimited" was unlimited (conceptually anyway). Now it's "Unlimited*" which means about 2GB or less in the wireless space and about 250GB or less on the wires. Meanwhile the wired Execs are thinking, "but wait, we are much faster than those wireless guys, why do they get to charge almost as much as us and only deliver 2GB?" It's only a matter of time until the "good old days" will be back when we had "unlimited*" tiers at 250GB. They'll get tighter (and more expensive) as the "cut the cable" crowd actually starts being felt on the bottom line in a meaningful way. As soon as they feel real pain in their cable revenues, they'll make it up with increased broadband rates "for high-bandwidth users" and ever-tightening tiers.
I don't see us getting there with the existing infrastructure without much higher pricing for us consumers. If 4K is coming via Internet distribution, these middlemen have to be cut out of the equation (meaning some kind of direct link between Apple's iCloud and the mythical Apple Television or
TV4).I don't transcode, i copy the video losslessly, then take the lossless audio, decompress it to wave, then compress it to FLAC, all lossless son.
Pretty funny you're criticizing me about blu-ray ripping, when you don't even know about FLAC, or PGS subs.
If a movie is 160 GB when it's encoded in h.264 (AVC), then the same movie encoded in h.265 (HEVC) would be around 80 GB. And there IS a version of Blu-ray available now that could hold such a film- it's called BDXL. It has either three or four layers, with 33 GB each- so the discs are either 100 or 128 GB.
This is something I've wondered about too. I've heard it said that you need a TV that's at least 32 inches for 1080p to really be worthwhile. With that in mind, I'm guessing you would need one that's at least 65 to really start to appreciate 4k...
...Or those FedEx trucks that say "FedEx Express". Doesn't the "Ex" in FedEx stand for Express already??
But higher resolution means that artifacts which are a problem in current iTunes 1080p streams will be compounded. It depends what you watch but in some cases the quality of these streams is a problem. Anyway my original argument still stands that there is not sufficient bandwidth in current broadband networks to sustain a 4k streams and upgrades necessary to make this viable are going to be years not months away. Think about this logically, most broadband connections can only just cope with current 1080p highly compressed streams if at all. Also there is no real consumer demand for 4k as 1080p is more than sufficient for almost all consumers and with H.265 coming on stream to give us higher quality 1080p streams it makes the case for 4k even weaker.
I really wish they would make a law against old people who don't understand technology but happen to be allowed to write in newspapers rehashing various technological phrases together that they don't understand the implications of.
Any reasonable, sensible person would wince at the thought of 4K video being delivered via streaming (Apple's clearly-invested technology) as much as they would the notion that Apple would require 4K as a selling-point; versus some style of content distribution that was sold on ease-of-use.
Please, if your Mum or Dad wrote this original article, buy them some golf-clubs and tell them to keep away from writing about technology. It's just sad.
Any reasonable, sensible person would wince at the thought of 4K video being delivered via streaming (Apple's clearly-invested technology) as much as they would the notion that Apple would require 4K as a selling-point; versus some style of content distribution that was sold on ease-of-use.
Please, if your Mum or Dad wrote this original article, buy them some golf-clubs and tell them to keep away from writing about technology. It's just sad.
I'd be more interested in seeing 2K or 4K IPS Cinema Displays for video editing before a 4K TV. (Though the current 27" is almost 1.8K, I would at least want a perfectly halved 2K before doing serious video editing. Not to mention the PPI is pretty terrible currently at 27").
4K Preamp
I have a Marantz AV Preamp that upscales all video content to 4k. Just give me the monitor. My current TV monitor is 720p, which is fine for ABC and Fox, but not any other OTA HD broadcasts. If this Retina TV ever comes to market, both the cable companies and satellite companies will make it available, although highly compressed. There are probably some DVB satellite broadcasts already trying this. I can imagine the bandwidth required to download a 4k movie, two hour length at about 40GB. Six movies and there goes my data allowance for the month.
I have a Marantz AV Preamp that upscales all video content to 4k. Just give me the monitor. My current TV monitor is 720p, which is fine for ABC and Fox, but not any other OTA HD broadcasts. If this Retina TV ever comes to market, both the cable companies and satellite companies will make it available, although highly compressed. There are probably some DVB satellite broadcasts already trying this. I can imagine the bandwidth required to download a 4k movie, two hour length at about 40GB. Six movies and there goes my data allowance for the month.
Weegee1;17062289 From a computer... and producers will probably start outputting 4K now. It should be easy to do with today's movie technology. I'm sure the ≤1080p display is the bottleneck here.[COLOR="#808080" said:
You should educate your self on how 4K content is created.
The studio's don't just take a 480p or 1080p source and magically make it 4K.
That would just be upconverting.
They need to go back to the film print or digital source(for newer movies) and master them to 4K resolution. This costs money and time.
Have you even done the math required to get true 1080p blu-ray content(HD audio included) pipped through an ISP?
You should really take a look at the numbers than let us know how much bandwidth true 4K content will require.
...Or those FedEx trucks that say "FedEx Express". Doesn't the "Ex" in FedEx stand for Express already??
Fedex?
Or
Hmmm which fedex do you want?
4k tv's cost 25.000. If Apple brings out a tv like that no one would buy it.
However, with 130 billion USD in cash on the bank they could sell them for considerably less, making a loss on every sold unit but dominate the 4K tv market.
I personally don't see the benefit for 4K on tv sets below 65" but we'll see.
However, with 130 billion USD in cash on the bank they could sell them for considerably less, making a loss on every sold unit but dominate the 4K tv market.
I personally don't see the benefit for 4K on tv sets below 65" but we'll see.
Chicken or the egg. 4K content won't be available until 4K screens are widely available. 4K screens won't be available until 4K content is widely available. We already went through this with HD. It's really not so hard to imagine the content and screens will arrive at roughly the same time.
Am I the only one who doesn't see the point of 2160p? I think uncompressed 1080p is already pretty incredible... And more than I need... And 120hz? Overkill.
That sounds fantastic, but I already know 4k is going to be the last TV resolution upgrade I will anticipate with any excitement- because no matter how much persuasive advertising I see, and no matter how much the salespeople try to convince me, I am NOT buying a TV with a ten foot screen so I can take advantage of 8k!
Last edited:
That sounds fantastic, but I already know 4k is going to be TV resolution upgrade I will anticipate with any excitement- because no matter how much persuasive advertising I see, and no matter how much the salespeople try to convince me, I am NOT buying a TV with a ten foot screen so I can take advantage of 8k!
I'd buy a 46" with 4k.
You should educate your self on how 4K content is created.
The studio's don't just take a 480p or 1080p source and magically make it 4K.
That would just be upconverting.
They need to go back to the film print or digital source(for newer movies) and master them to 4K resolution. This costs money and time.
Have you even done the math required to get true 1080p blu-ray content(HD audio included) pipped through an ISP?
You should really take a look at the numbers than let us know how much bandwidth true 4K content will require.
For anything new, it's stored on the computer. All they have to do is re-output it to 4K. What's so hard about that? And I know how much bandwidth it will use... 4X at most.
I didn't mention old movies. Of course I know that upscaling to 4K is very difficult.
Thats in the "effects become noticable"
And dont forget bluray is more then just extra resolution . I tried it and its largely accurate .
----------
Nope, it just shows when the added resolution become noticable at what distances .
But yes, it also shows that you need larger TV's with higher resolutions. Wich is why I made my comment : just like with 1080p 30/32" if your TV is too small or you are sitting to far away you wont notice a difference for something you paid a lot extra for.