I don't know. I view 4K with the same degree of the enthusiasm that I viewed 3D. I mean, is it a bit sharper looking than 1080P? Sure. But it's not like 1080P looks like crap. And if the trade off is that huge a data load, I don't know that that's worth it. If everyone starts watching everything in 4K? What's that going to do to our internet traffic?? It's bad enough already.
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.
New Apple TV First Impressions: Not a 'Revolution,' But Siri and tvOS Shine
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
2 Things:
- People offered the exact same excuses when some of us wanted 1080p and Apple still clung to 720p... the exact same excuses applied to 1080p. Then, Apple rolled out 1080p hardware and they all disappeared. Apparently all these same old issues will magically go away as soon as Apple adopts 4K in
TV. - 4K hardware doesn't force anyone to ONLY download and store 4K content. Those happy with 1080p or 720p or SD could just keep going with what they like (and can store).
TV? (rhetorical)
Last edited:
HEVC is more efficient than the current h.264 often used so it's not necessarily going to be a 4x increase in file size. Compression bit rates will vary. Just because your internet sucks doesn't mean we should just hold up 4K for everyone else. Who are you to say what is and isn't ready? You have no idea what kind of masters studios have ready, what kind of 4K chips are being built, and how the encoding algorithms are being implemented. It's tiring hearing people who have no knowledge of things trying to pose as experts in forums.
It's not useless if you want to zoom in on a portion of a movie in your edit and output the final cut to 1080. Or just cutting the 4k movie and outputting it to 1080 for now and having the 4k version when you are able to play it on something. It's always nice to be able to record something at a higher quality than you actually need at the time. It gives you options.
Last edited:
I have had an Apple TV for a few years, mostly so I could use airplay and put things from my computer onto the screen or play my music. Here are my impressions, which are very much tailored to my situation:
1) The 'No 4K' issue- I don't really care, as I live a whopping 5 miles outside a large city and the only ISP in my area has speeds as high as 5mb. Don't everyone get jealous, you can't all have speeds like this. Actually, it would be nice if I ACTUALLY got speeds like that. So Hulu, Netflix and other streaming services are only wishful thinking for me. Quadrupling the data just puts me even further behind.
2) Voice control. Since 'Siri' isn't talking it isn't Siri, just voice control. If it works 99.999 percent of the time it's useful and worthwhile. If not, it's like most of the other voice command systems. Well intentioned, but not worth it.
3) Games. I am actually most excited by this possible option for a couple of reasons. Because of the blazing internet speed I mentioned above I don't play internet games. Why? Because I die. Quickly. And by the time I find out I have died whoever killed me has moved on to at least 2 other victims. I preferred games like 'Gauntlet' back in the day, and if I can get a 4 player version of games like that then I would be interested. I don't need COD or GTAV, I want something I can play for 15 or 20 minutes and not something that eats huge chunks of time trying to complete.
4) Price. A little high, especially for the 64 GB version.Depends on what the apps add to the value, and it's too early to know that right now.
5) Will I buy one? Maybe. If I had decent internet speed the answer would be 'yes'. Too much of what it could offer I can't really take advantage of anyway, since I'm locked into a low speed and indifferent ISP. So if games that I can play show up or if pigs fly and my ISP either improves or gets some real competition, which would cause him to either improve or go out of business then I might. But it won't be a high priority decision and that probably really means 'No'.
1) The 'No 4K' issue- I don't really care, as I live a whopping 5 miles outside a large city and the only ISP in my area has speeds as high as 5mb. Don't everyone get jealous, you can't all have speeds like this. Actually, it would be nice if I ACTUALLY got speeds like that. So Hulu, Netflix and other streaming services are only wishful thinking for me. Quadrupling the data just puts me even further behind.
2) Voice control. Since 'Siri' isn't talking it isn't Siri, just voice control. If it works 99.999 percent of the time it's useful and worthwhile. If not, it's like most of the other voice command systems. Well intentioned, but not worth it.
3) Games. I am actually most excited by this possible option for a couple of reasons. Because of the blazing internet speed I mentioned above I don't play internet games. Why? Because I die. Quickly. And by the time I find out I have died whoever killed me has moved on to at least 2 other victims. I preferred games like 'Gauntlet' back in the day, and if I can get a 4 player version of games like that then I would be interested. I don't need COD or GTAV, I want something I can play for 15 or 20 minutes and not something that eats huge chunks of time trying to complete.
4) Price. A little high, especially for the 64 GB version.Depends on what the apps add to the value, and it's too early to know that right now.
5) Will I buy one? Maybe. If I had decent internet speed the answer would be 'yes'. Too much of what it could offer I can't really take advantage of anyway, since I'm locked into a low speed and indifferent ISP. So if games that I can play show up or if pigs fly and my ISP either improves or gets some real competition, which would cause him to either improve or go out of business then I might. But it won't be a high priority decision and that probably really means 'No'.
Here here. Roku's search feature doesn't cover all content. The resolution isn't very good. I have both Roku and Apple TV and the only thing I use Roku for is Amazon Prime. When it comes to watching movies I use Apple TV because of the resolution
Last edited by a moderator:
2 Things:
And once more, Apple endorsed 4K video yesterday, just not in this one product. Are they wrong to be implementing something the world is "not ready for yet" or are they right for adopting 4K in iPhone, iMovie, etc AND also right for NOT adopting it in
They endorsed Bluray, but did not use it in any mac.
I am not saying Apple will not ever use 4K in ATVs like Bluray/Macs though, it will come, just not as soon as many would like.
If the hardware manufacturers would have dragged their feet- like they did with HD- we'd still be waiting on 4G networks today.
You appear to THINK that hardware manufacturers will apparently not innovate unless forced to by GOV mandates. Once again, Apple formally embraced 4K yesterday... just not in this ONE product. The GOV didn't make them do it. They did it because they wanted to embrace it. As such, software that takes advantage of it will come along to go with the software that Apple developed that also takes advantage of that new camera. It would make no sense to develop such software BEFORE there was known hardware.
And it makes no sense to take the stance that there must be a bunch of 4K
Now, I'm going to go buy a bunch of apps that can only run on the A10 processor that doesn't exist yet. The software companies have certainly loaded the app store with such software even though there's no such hardware on which it can run.
This is exactly why ATV does not have 4K support. iTunes store has no 4K content and apple servers probably cannot support it right now. So why give competitors like Hulu/Netflix/YouTube a leg up.
I have not read anywhere directly that says it can't do 4k. There could be some other reason why, but its not because of the HDMI connection. According to Apple's ATV Spec's it has a HDMI 1.4 connection on it which can do 4k. Per HDMI 1.4 Spec that connection is capable of 4K x 2K @ 24hz. http://www.hdmi.org/download/press_kit/PressBriefing_HDMI1_4_Final_083109.pdf page 26.
So maybe they will update it via software later...
I wish they would have put the same chip that was in the iPad Pro including the rumored 4GB of Ram.
So maybe they will update it via software later...
I wish they would have put the same chip that was in the iPad Pro including the rumored 4GB of Ram.
Pot, meet kettle!
And BTW, I'm sure those things you mention are coming, but the key concept is that none of those things you mention are available RIGHT NOW and current 4K adoption is miniscule. As I mentioned, about 60 percent of US adults haven't even heard of 4K video. (Look up the research reference. It's there). I wish that wasn't the case, but it is what it is right now.
I have friends in both movie and music industry. They have told me on numerous occasions that Apple wants any submitted file in the highest possible format. So later when they decide to sell an upgraded version of it they already have it in the library.
This is sort of true, but for film/tv I don't think there is a 4K spec for delivery yet for Apple (Not 100% sure though). But on the flip side, studios are re capturing libraries at higher resolutions for eventual 4K delivery.
They could support H.265 and do it or VP9. Both have support up to 8K resolutions.
Isn't mkv just a container, if there is x264 video in there the hw decoder should work
"Hey Siri, please play me the movie I shot yesterday on my iPhone 6s and edited on my iPad pro in 4k, please!"
"Sorry, can't do that!"
"Sorry, can't do that!"
The problem is the same as with more pixels in a photo, you get less light per pixel, processing is much more intensive (thus less battery life) and probably more issues when filming in low light or filming movement (or when you are in movement), than in filming 1080P.
If you're filming in broad daylight staticly (or doing slow pans on a tripod), then you'd get the best 4K results you can get. Otherwise, 1080P is possibly going to give you the best result.
Maybe, it depends on the size. If it is 40ish", than no.
Assuming the iPhone is the $600 one, if it is 4K<$600, and if it is 55"+, then I would call that cheap, but not insanely cheap.
But again, insanely cheap is subjective.
Here's a 43 inch that is $50 cheaper than the 16GB iPhone 6S.
http://www.amazon.com/LG-Electronics-43UF6400-43-Inch-Ultra/dp/B010Q8ES4O
I would bet you will be able to get a 55 inch 4K TV for $650 by Christmas while the iPhone will still be the same price.
As an Amazon Associate, MacRumors earns a commission from qualifying purchases made through links in this post.
I don't consider that cheap for a 43".
I hope the prices drop for the larger ones, although I probably would not get a new TV for at least a year, probably 2 years, unless something happens to my current one.
I sure many other people like me are not in a rush to get 4K TVs, especially since the ATV4 doesn't support 4K.
As an Amazon Associate, MacRumors earns a commission from qualifying purchases made through links in this post.