i agree with the 1st part of your statement but not the 2nd part. higher resolution is only a matter of time even if it's just another marketing gimmick. people are now offered 3d in their tvs for no further cost. whether they choose to put on the glasses and seek out 3d content is up to them. if you offer 4k to viewers for no additional cost, they won't need to do anything to reap the benefits. it uprezzes 1080p nicely and doesn't require annoying glasses.
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
i agree with the 1st part of your statement but not the 2nd part. higher resolution is only a matter of time even if it's just another marketing gimmick. people are now offered 3d in their tvs for no further cost. whether they choose to put on the glasses and seek out 3d content is up to them. if you offer 4k to viewers for no additional cost, they won't need to do anything to reap the benefits. it uprezzes 1080p nicely and doesn't require annoying glasses.
You qualify your statements twice by saying considering it's streamed. Well which is it. As good as blu-ray, or bad but good enough for something coming over the internet? My entire point was Apple is trading off quality for simplicity. It would seem like you do agree with me but for whatever reason are in denial about it.
The fact that you say you "have a 5.1" like it means something shows you don't have a clue about sound systems. Now I'm the first one to laugh at "audiophile" nuts and don't want to come off as gear-elitist, but you can get sub $100 5.1 systems that technically are 5.1 but aren't even as good as the TV's internal speakers. With a blu-ray and decent equipment there is no reason you can't get the same sound experience as a movie theatre, and if you think AppleTV sounds as good, you really need to book a hearing test. It's not a subtle difference like 720p vs 1080p, it is a glaring painful difference. The sound should be like the source is in your room from a quiet whisper to a jet engine.
Exactly, plus all the other TV manufacturers will get into 4K shortly. What is the the differentiator / unique selling proposition for Apple in TV sets? How could Apple command a premium and not get into a price war in TVs?
Please don't tell the difference is Siri
A TV should be a dumb picture frame, replacement every 5-7 years. Apple should make a clever/enhanced Apple TV box not invest in a giant dumb TV with no margins. Logistics is a nightmare also, think of Apple stores full of 50'' and 60'' sets...
It's all about the content, anybody can build a nice TV. Apple would be even better off buying Netflix and taking it worlwide with all the cash they have on hand...
Spot on !!
The physics of 4k and the biology of the human eye dictate that you must be sitting within about 6 feet of a 60" panel (give or take a foot or so) to perceive ANY advantage of 4k. Most rooms are not set up that way. So 4k may be mainly hype for home viewing. Now for theaters, a different story emerges.
Yup I agree, I was disappointed when I saw the side by side comparison of blu-ray 1080p and 4K blu-ray at CES.
I was even disappointed with the so called native 4K content on the TV's.
For some reason I don't see Apple doing a tv though.
Apple never puts anything to market unless it has a high margin and will sell in volumes. This is way off the mark.
This first sentence is technically and factually incorrect. The difference is stunning (assuming a well mastered source) especially at seating distances under 10 feet. Have you seen a demo of 4K? I can assure you that you will notice the difference the second you see it.
Also, for those of us with projection screens larger than 100" it allows closer seating distances, makes pixels virtually indistinguisahble, and provides a cleaner, clearer picture.
My first 1080p display was $10k and I believe the first 4K tv's are $20-25K. The price will drop sharply as it always does. In my opinion the largest factor will be how will we get the content? Is it through digital, optical, and what impact does the compression have on the native 4K content?
This is a ridiculous rumour, how are they going to provide any content for this 4K TV when their current delivery model of streaming can only just cope with 1080p and even then only with high compression. 4K has 4 times the data requirement of 1080p so this rumour doesn't even stand up to simple logical analysis.
Even 1080p is too much for usual viewing distances. So maybe we should go back to DVD?
No. Just get a bigger screen, and don't increase your viewing distance, so you can actually discern 1080p from DVD, and later on, 4K from 1080p. I watch movies from my 30" ACD from 20 inches. And I can easily spot the difference between 1080p and higher resolution images from that distance. So it's up to the people to actually make the technology work.
8k does not make any sense because human eye cannot discern between 8k and 4.5-5k for any screen size which you can view without turning your head. So at some point, our field of vision gets in the way. But it's not before 4k.
And 8k will work if it's 3D at 4k.
Last edited:
Fully agree, if I had to bet I would even rate the probability of an "iWatch/wearable Apple iThing" coming in late 2013 higher than an Apple TV set.
To my mind, the reason to do this is not for video consumption, but to make the TV more of the centerpiece of one's digital life. That many pixels makes internet on TV much more reasonable. And one can envision combination of television and internet experiences. Imagine the March Madness app on a TV. Watch football, hover on a player and it'll pull up his stats/bio. Watch a sitcom and see what episodes are upcoming, buy old episodes, or get a bio on that actor. Watch a twitter feed on a live event.
When and if broadcast/cable TV actually starts producing content in 4K, your TV will be ready for it. But to my mind, it's just gravy. There was a big jump in quality between SD and HD, but you're not going to see much more detail in 4k at appropriate viewing distances.
Dave
When and if broadcast/cable TV actually starts producing content in 4K, your TV will be ready for it. But to my mind, it's just gravy. There was a big jump in quality between SD and HD, but you're not going to see much more detail in 4k at appropriate viewing distances.
Dave
Interesting read. It is one review of a single movie by a reviewer who has also found a big difference with other movies.
For this movie, he says "Much of Argo was shot on grainy film, which presents a serious challenge to compression algorithms." It also make it rather a special case compared to modern digitally-smooth movies. In some of his samples (the girl and the airplane stand out), the iTunes version almost looks better simply because the grain is all faded to creamcheese while the blu-ray shows a much crisper grain. The thing is, it's a nuance of the movie that the over-compressed streams lose, and it's just a property of the choice of movie that makes it seem okay.
Most important though, this is just looking at screengrabs. The way digital video works (with key frames and deltas), that makes the whole review pretty useless. If I moved the samples a few frames earlier or later, would the differences in quality change? How does that translate in terms of full speed playback, is it smooth motion or does it become blurry at normal speed? What about fast action scenes in modern big-budget movies?
LOL.. hate to say it but they have already been working on one, they were being shown off at CES. I know this was tongue and cheek though.
every inch....an iPad?
Seriously I think it will come to market around right time with no more than typical Apple % price premium, it will sell, and content providers will wish they had made deal before negotiation power with Apple.
Also if coming by early 2014, I think we will still see 1080p models from them for first year or two, for the budget conscience, and until more 4k content available.
Seriously I think it will come to market around right time with no more than typical Apple % price premium, it will sell, and content providers will wish they had made deal before negotiation power with Apple.
Also if coming by early 2014, I think we will still see 1080p models from them for first year or two, for the budget conscience, and until more 4k content available.
Last edited:
Definitely true that the quality of iTunes movies could improve.
That said, the movies are much smaller in size than a typical BD-ROM. You have to be able to store a few on your computer, maybe on your iPhone or iPad too.
If space (and bandwidth) were not an issue, I'm sure they'd provide higher-bitrate files.
LOL.. hate to say it but they have already been working on one, they were being shown off at CES. I know this was tongue and cheek though.
I think Apple will probably come up with a more stylish stand though.
http://www.pocket-lint.com/news/49095/samsung-s9000-85-inch-4k-uhdtv-pictures
cant see apple rolling out a 4K TV when there is no 4K content, unless they are setting up an Apple Studio and making 4k content
I absolutely hope not. The reason TV is such a piece of crud in America is the that the service comes from the distributors (the cable providers).
Not only that, but it doesn't scale. Apple would need to invest in that fibre backbone before they could sell the product in a new market; even they can't afford to fibre up the entire world.
Future-proofing
If they launch a 4K TV, it would be to future-proof it. People don't buy new TVs as often as they buy computers or other electronics and Netflix has already said they plan on offering 4K streams of their shows in a year. They wouldn't want a 4K Google TV released in 2-3 years that makes the technology in an Apple TV look outdated.
Also, if they do 3840x2160 then they'll just have to double the pixels of 1080p shows, which Apple is always a fan of. And they could use special technology to deliver a blend of 4K and 1080p (I think Skype or someone else just announced something that does something similar for 1080p and a lower resolution for streaming video... it just displays faces in a higher resolution).
If they launch a 4K TV, it would be to future-proof it. People don't buy new TVs as often as they buy computers or other electronics and Netflix has already said they plan on offering 4K streams of their shows in a year. They wouldn't want a 4K Google TV released in 2-3 years that makes the technology in an Apple TV look outdated.
Also, if they do 3840x2160 then they'll just have to double the pixels of 1080p shows, which Apple is always a fan of. And they could use special technology to deliver a blend of 4K and 1080p (I think Skype or someone else just announced something that does something similar for 1080p and a lower resolution for streaming video... it just displays faces in a higher resolution).
At 10 Feet, you can't see the pixels on a 70" 1080 screen, why would this look any better. It's just an excuse to make people buy new crap since 3D flopped.
5-7 Years
dude id say 10+ years, i went 4:3 to 16:9 CRT, to a 1080p panel, and im now looking at potentially getting a 3D tvI dont use, or intend to use any "smart" features in a TV, i have external boxes such as the Apple TV and PS3 that do all that for me, and that i can swap out independent of the display, which, should be as good as possible, for as cheap as possible, no extra features required.