No 4K Video Streaming Support for Upcoming Apple TV Set-Top Box

[SteveW928]

If 4K is a gimmick and not necessary on the new Apple TV, why did Apple come out with a 5K 27" iMac last year, reportedly a 5K 21" iMac next month and 4K recording on the new iPhone 6S. Why are Apple fans picking and choosing why it's innovative on some machines and totally unnecessary on others. That argument doesn't make sense to me and judgements to the contrary are totally arbitrary

It makes sense to have 4K (or 5K) when you're sitting a foot or two away from your display... and where more screen real-estate / pixel-density matters. (And, where video editors are starting to work with 4k source footage.)

When you're sitting on the couch 6'-10' feet away from a <60" screen, it's irrelevant.

Context matters.

 

[Girder_Shade]

It makes sense to have 4K (or 5K) when you're sitting a foot or two away from your display... and where more screen real-estate / pixel-density matters. (And, where video editors are starting to work with 4k source footage.)

When you're sitting on the couch 6'-10' feet away from a <60" screen, it's irrelevant.

Context matters.

That'sa pretty silly thing to say. It absolutely makes a difference.
I guess you haven't seen a 4K TV playing native 4K content.

 

[SteveW928]

That'sa pretty silly thing to say. It absolutely makes a difference.
I guess you haven't seen a 4K TV playing native 4K content.

I'm just repeating what the studies have shown. The average human eye can only perceive a certain amount of resolution from a given distance. Unless you're an eagle-eyed freak of nature, you won't be able to tell... all things being equal.

When you go to the stores and see the 'native' content, it's typically special stuff designed to promote the gimmick. Plus, you're often standing quite close (i.e.: not real world use).

 

[\-V-/]

Thanks for sharing you're non sequitur abusive reply; now I can report you.

That response is almost 5 months old.

 

[toke lahti]

I'm just repeating what the studies have shown. The average human eye can only perceive a certain amount of resolution from a given distance. Unless you're an eagle-eyed freak of nature, you won't be able to tell... all things being equal.

This eagle-eye myth is so wrong that is should be somehow crushed. Maybe the worst thing is the term 20/20 (or 6/6 or whatever), which gives you the false impression of being "perfect", but in fact in reality is the average acuity, meaning that HALF of people has BETTER eyesight, at least in some points of their lives.

 

[toke lahti]

It makes sense to have 4K (or 5K) when you're sitting a foot or two away from your display... and where more screen real-estate / pixel-density matters. (And, where video editors are starting to work with 4k source footage.)

When you're sitting on the couch 6'-10' feet away from a <60" screen, it's irrelevant.

Context matters.

Right on there.
Biggest obstacle in 4k is the interior design style, where television is still the small box, "visual radio", in the corner of the room. And it's watched as far away as possible; across the room...!
Most people I know are just beginning to notice how bad sdtv-feeds just look, by occasionally glimpse it when passing near the screen. And the solution to this problem is, of course, to keep the old habit of staying far enough from the screen, and of course, again, not seeking better hd content, oh well...

 

[SteveW928]

This eagle-eye myth is so wrong that is should be somehow crushed. Maybe the worst thing is the term 20/20 (or 6/6 or whatever), which gives you the false impression of being "perfect", but in fact in reality is the average acuity, meaning that HALF of people has BETTER eyesight, at least in some points of their lives.

I get what you're saying... though I think a better description might be average sight (with correction in many cases) at the peak of visual acuity.

But, I think the tests were done with reasonable numbers of people to determine distance where they could no longer tell the difference between the two. A good analogy might be stuff like a 160kbps MP3 vs lossless, etc. A few people, who know what they are listening for can tell, but the difference is unimportant to most.

 

[SteveW928]

Right on there.
Biggest obstacle in 4k is the interior design style, where television is still the small box, "visual radio", in the corner of the room. And it's watched as far away as possible; across the room...!
Most people I know are just beginning to notice how bad sdtv-feeds just look, by occasionally glimpse it when passing near the screen. And the solution to this problem is, of course, to keep the old habit of staying far enough from the screen, and of course, again, not seeking better hd content, oh well...

Unfortunately (at least I see it as a bit unfortunate in some ways), the trend seems to be going to people watching on their mobile devices and less on any kind of 'big' screens. If that trend continues, the only reason people will even buy a big-screen is for console gaming.

And, if you're watching on, say, an iPad screen up-close, you might see a difference, I suppose. But, there are other 4k obstacles like bandwidth, storage, etc. that are probably a bigger issue right now.

 

[MagnusVonMagnum]

This eagle-eye myth is so wrong that is should be somehow crushed. Maybe the worst thing is the term 20/20 (or 6/6 or whatever), which gives you the false impression of being "perfect", but in fact in reality is the average acuity, meaning that HALF of people has BETTER eyesight, at least in some points of their lives.

Sorry, but half the people out there do NOT have better than 20/20 eyesight. 20/20 is not an "average" of people, but the human "norm" for eye site without problems. Hardly anyone has "much" better than 20/20 without corrective lenses (I've had 20/10 before with correction. I would not pretend to think that I somehow needed better than 720p at 15 feet for a 48" screen in my living room (my 93" home theater at 12 feet downstairs is a different story, but it would still do little better than 1080p, at least without a 200" 2.35:1 screen at which point I would definitely WANT 4K for all ultra-wide movies.

 

[toke lahti]

Sorry, but half the people out there do NOT have better than 20/20 eyesight. 20/20 is not an "average" of people, but the human "norm" for eye site without problems.

I also have about 20/12.5 vision. Even that doesn't change the reality.

20/20 IS an "average" of people, ie. the human "norm" for eye site without problems.
Funny how you can think that "human norm" is not based on average.
http://www.todayifoundout.com/index.php/2013/12/2020-vision-scale-works/ :
"American ophthalmologists decided on the 20/20 scale, saying that “20/20” is the normal visual acuity of the average person."
https://www.uihealthcare.org/content.aspx?id=225702 :
"Only about 35 percent of all adults have 20/20 vision without glasses, contact lenses or corrective surgery. With corrective measures, approximately 75 percent of adults have this degree of visual acuity[...]"

 

[MagnusVonMagnum]

I also have about 20/12.5 vision. Even that doesn't change the reality.

20/20 IS an "average" of people, ie. the human "norm" for eye site without problems.
Funny how you can think that "human norm" is not based on average.
http://www.todayifoundout.com/index.php/2013/12/2020-vision-scale-works/ :
"American ophthalmologists decided on the 20/20 scale, saying that “20/20” is the normal visual acuity of the average person."
https://www.uihealthcare.org/content.aspx?id=225702 :
"Only about 35 percent of all adults have 20/20 vision without glasses, contact lenses or corrective surgery. With corrective measures, approximately 75 percent of adults have this degree of visual acuity[...]"

No, I just think that you have no clue what you are talking about since everything you just quoted says what I already said that 20/20 is "normal" vision. It does not mean a bell curve where half the remaining people have better than 20/20 vision and the other half have worse. No, you already stated only 35% have 20/20 without correction. That's a not a bell curve. That's saying MOST people have WORSE vision, not better vision. It's not even an "average" since that would require a majority to have 20/20. Well, MOST people do have 20/20 for part of their life. My vision got worse by 1st grade and continued to get worse for another 20 years. Before that it was 20/20. It's now more like -6.5 on the diopter scale. That's BAD. It was -7 at one point but now it's improving for some odd reason.

The best you can say is that 20/20 is considered "normal" vision in humans. A small percentage have somewhat better vision (far from an Eagle), but far more have worse vision and that's all over the map. Almost everyone becomes far-sighted as their lenses harden with age for that matter so even your 20/12.5 won't last forever.

In any case, it hardly matters in regards to Apple. They decided to support 4K on the iPhone, but not the new AppleTV. So you'll have to deal with 1080p at best or shop for another media player provider.

 

[JoeShades]

If Apple TV had 4K the trolls would be out saying Apple is not forwarding thinking in supporting 8K

 

[GFLPraxis]

To get the best out of 4K streaming, you need a 4K tv....which I am not willing to pay $6000+ for a freaking tv

It's not 2014 anymore, bud. They're down to only $500.

Even 55-inch 3D 120 Hz 4K TVs are only 1.5k.

Maybe you're getting confused with curved-glass 4K TVs. Those are in the $6k range.


I don't think 4K is necessary yet, but it will be pretty soon. Fortunately, it looks like the Apple TV can handle 4K with a simple software update.

 

[GFLPraxis]

If Apple TV had 4K the trolls would be out saying Apple is not forwarding thinking in supporting 8K

This is silly. You can buy 4K TVs for $500. There's no 8K TVs.

 

[Keirasplace]

This is silly. You can buy 4K TVs for $500. There's no 8K TVs.

Yes, 4K .... Under 60 inch TVs of dubious quality... And even dubious may be too kind a term, most low end LED/LCDs are terrible TVs... Their uselessness though is without a doubt assured unless watching it at less than 5 feet distance... That makes placement of the Sofa, at 3 feet from the TV, interesting...

 

[Keirasplace]

It's not 2014 anymore, bud. They're down to only $500.

Even 55-inch 3D 120 Hz 4K TVs are only 1.5k.

Maybe you're getting confused with curved-glass 4K TVs. Those are in the $6k range.


I don't think 4K is necessary yet, but it will be pretty soon. Fortunately, it looks like the Apple TV can handle 4K with a simple software update.

$500 4K TVs are utter garbage, and watching 4K 50 inch TV's at 8-10 feet, is useless. Doesn'T matter if you can get a better 4K for 55 inch for $1500... It'S still useless because we don't have eagle eyes.

When good quality 65 inchers reach $1000, then you'll really see something happening.
But, even then, by the time this happens and a sufficient number of people have got those TVs, we will be in 2020.

The reason you see cheap 4Ks is because company producing cheap 1080P have switched to 4K in hope of slightly boosting their margins and selling more TVs (4K looks so cool as a selling point... Not matter how ridiculous it is on a 42 inch TV).

 

[Keirasplace]

That'sa pretty silly thing to say. It absolutely makes a difference.
I guess you haven't seen a 4K TV playing native 4K content.

So, how big was that TV, how far away were you. Was this a cheap 4K TV or a top end one, was the content shot 4K, how much was it compressed. All these things make a difference.
Your talking about native content when most people here are not, and Apple would not give you native content but significantly compressed one.

 

[GFLPraxis]

$500 4K TVs are utter garbage, and watching 4K 50 inch TV's at 8-10 feet, is useless. Doesn'T matter if you can get a better 4K for 55 inch for $1500... It'S still useless because we don't have eagle eyes.

When good quality 65 inchers reach $1000, then you'll really see something happening.
But, even then, by the time this happens and a sufficient number of people have got those TVs, we will be in 2020.

The reason you see cheap 4Ks is because company producing cheap 1080P have switched to 4K in hope of slightly boosting their margins and selling more TVs (4K looks so cool as a selling point... Not matter how ridiculous it is on a 42 inch TV).

Doesn't negate the fact that a fair amount of people buying new TVs now are buying 4K TVs. If you have a 55-inch 4K, you'd prefer to get 4K than 1080p, even if it's a bad 4K TV.

 

[Aluminum213]

It took many years for streaming services to finally stream 1080p, but now 4k is make or break?


What's the percentage of TV's in households that are 4k? MAYBE less then 1%? I have a TV that's 2 years old, not 4k obviously, I'm not getting a new TV for AT LEAST 5 years or till this breaks down. Close to zero 4k content, gaming consoles don't support 4k, why would i be upset that the Apple TV doesn't support it?

SHOW ME THE 4K CONTENT

 

[SteveW928]

Doesn't negate the fact that a fair amount of people buying new TVs now are buying 4K TVs. If you have a 55-inch 4K, you'd prefer to get 4K than 1080p, even if it's a bad 4K TV.

Well, if too many of those folks start complaining, Apple can just release a 'software update' with their new virtual-4K feature and send those folks a 4K sticker to put on the front of their Apple TV box... then all will be fixed.

But, you do have a point there... if enough people get suckered into buying them (which they probably will) there will be a demand for content and supporting devices, whether they are needed or not. Yes, that's something Apple (and other manufacturers) will eventually have to deal with. Apple's probably just going to wait until that time comes, as they understand the reality of the situation just as many of us here do. (Apple's never been one to chase after frivolous specs and features.)

 

[SteveW928]

What's the percentage of TV's in households that are 4k? MAYBE less then 1%? ... why would i be upset that the Apple TV doesn't support it?

SHOW ME THE 4K CONTENT

Well, it's probably fairly small yet, but I'm sure people are being suckered into buying them, at least when buying new TVs. They are all over at the local retailers.

And, *some* of those people are probably going to think they need 4K content to go with their shiny new 4K TV and start to complain about it. But, aside from it not really mattering for most of them, they'll also probably not understand all the other technical hurdles involved... they'll just make noise. Eventually, I suppose, the whole chain will have to move to support it... but that's many years off yet.

The only serious drivers of it, currently, are home-theater folks who do actually have a very large screen. But, those people probably understand the limitations, and aren't really the Apple TV crowd anyway. They have specialized equipment to deal with it. (i.e.: they hook a 4K media player of some sort to the 4K screen... and wouldn't even be trying (yet) to do 4K with a device like what the Apple TV is made for in the mix).

 

[inkahauts]

Does appletv have hdmi2.0 and HDCP 2.2? If not no software update update is going to make it output 4K ever.

 

[SteveW928]

Does appletv have hdmi2.0 and HDCP 2.2? If not no software update update is going to make it output 4K ever.

Sorry, if you're referring to my comment, it was meant as a joke... in that *most* of the people buying 4K TVs would be just fine with a fake software update and a sticker, as they wouldn't know the difference anyway, and just want 4K because they think that's the new cool thing to have.

 

[Aluminum213]

Well, it's probably fairly small yet, but I'm sure people are being suckered into buying them, at least when buying new TVs. They are all over at the local retailers.

And, *some* of those people are probably going to think they need 4K content to go with their shiny new 4K TV and start to complain about it. But, aside from it not really mattering for most of them, they'll also probably not understand all the other technical hurdles involved... they'll just make noise. Eventually, I suppose, the whole chain will have to move to support it... but that's many years off yet.

The only serious drivers of it, currently, are home-theater folks who do actually have a very large screen. But, those people probably understand the limitations, and aren't really the Apple TV crowd anyway. They have specialized equipment to deal with it. (i.e.: they hook a 4K media player of some sort to the 4K screen... and wouldn't even be trying (yet) to do 4K with a device like what the Apple TV is made for in the mix).

Apple is usually not willing to adapt new tech until it's common place, the 4k fad is the tech industry to get customers to upgrade from their perfectly working and functioning TV's to something new

if the Apple TV did support 4k, the only thing that would be 4k resolution would be menu screens

 

[inkahauts]

Apple is usually not willing to adapt new tech until it's common place, the 4k fad is the tech industry to get customers to upgrade from their perfectly working and functioning TV's to something new

if the Apple TV did support 4k, the only thing that would be 4k resolution would be menu screens

While that was true with the first few years of 4K tvs and a way to upsell to them that's really not the case now that we have actual connection standards and the hardware that meets those requirements is in the tvs. Hollywood will be doing more and more in 4K and 8k as time passes, many are already there. Unlike 3D which was a tangent and needed a parallel processing 4/8k is linear and doesn't require any real additional steps to creat. In fact it's easier in some ways and simply running it through a down converter to Hi Definition is simple. 4K is coming. It will come from every path except over the air IMHO in about 5 years with a decent amount content since there is already a lot of content being produced in it now. It's just going to be a few more years before anyone has adequate way to get it to a customers home. One exception is DIRECTV. They are about the only ones who could launch several channels in short order. Short order being tomorrow.

With that said I expect a 4K appletv within 2 years. I think they will want a good App Store first and see if they need to tweak anything before going that route. The big thing is also hvec decoding in the home device. That would have required a larger box and if you wait another year or two it'll be able to be put in something about the same size as the new one is today.