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

[I am Sampson]

I never expected it would have.
I just use TVs built in netflix for 4k on mine, xbox one doesn't support 4k either so can't use their apps for that.

 

[Donoban]

Forget 4k... 8k is coming!

Broadcasting[edit]
Japanese public broadcaster NHK began research and development on 8K in 1995, having spent over $1B on the resolution since then.[12] Codenamed Super Hi-Vision, NHK also was simultaneously working on the development of 22.2 channel surround sound audio, aiming for mainstream broadcasting by the year 2032.[12][13] Experimental transmissions of the resolution were tested with the London 2012 Olympic Games, and at the Cannes Film Festival showcasing Beauties À La Carte, a 27 minute shortfilm showcased publicly on a 220” screen. The world's first 8K television was unveiled by Sharp at the Consumer Electronics Show (CES) in 2013.[14]

 

[mattopotamus]

I own a 4k tv and an OLED 1080p set. The OLED blows the 4k set out of the water. Companies need to be focusing on OLED, not LCD 4k. Hell 95% of the current 4k sets lack standards that 4k blu ray supports (10 bit color, rec. 2020, HDR, etc).

OLED is the future today, and it has nothing to do with a new codec or resolution. Apple is smart to wait. Not to mention streaming 4k offers no benefit over 1080p. They are making a streaming device not a physical media device. Most people do not even have enough bandwidth to stream 4k. Also the fact net nutrality will lead to bandwidth caps being implemented. Stream a few 4k movies and bam that 300gb cap is throttled.

 

[chucker23n1]

I thought I read somewhere though that 4K only makes an appreciable difference in the 60"+ area with normal viewing distances.

Sure, but even those can be had below $1k.

As for discerning it: the average eye can resolve about one arcsecond.

At a distance of 2 meters, that means being able to resolve 1 inch / (2 × 2000mm × tan(1/60/2)) = 43.66 ppi, which at 4K would mean a display of sqrt(3840^2 + 2160^2)/60 = 100.91 inches.

To appreciate 4K at 60 inches, you'd have to be about 1.2 meters away.

 

[JoeShades]

Sure, but even those can be had below $1k.

As for discerning it: the average eye can resolve about one arcsecond.

At a distance of 2 meters, that means being able to resolve 1 inch / (2 × 2000mm × tan(1/60/2)) = 43.66 ppi, which at 4K would mean a display of sqrt(3840^2 + 2160^2)/60 = 100.91 inches.

To appreciate 4K at 60 inches, you'd have to be about 1.2 meters away.

And most people sit at least 4 meters away from a tv

 

[vashspike]

Give me an appstore and a copy of Infuse. I will buy 3 of them!

My Apple TV 2 is only 720p and that is bad. 1080p is perfectly fine for the next 3-4 years. 4K is nice but not practical yet.

 

[sziehr]

So i hate to break the bad news but 4k would be silly not cause the content or the tvs it is silly cause who has that kinda bandwidth and who has that kinda cap. I am in an aera where 250 gigs is the data cap that is one or two good evenings of breaking bad from netflix before it is gone. This also go to there whole idea of lets offer IP tv through this box love the idea but comcast is just going to strangle it with data caps to every house so the point is ........

This is a product that is perfect and doomed before it ever ships thanks to comcast's ilk they don't need to get on this box cause they just prevent you for using it with there data policy

 

[Donoban]

Sure, but even those can be had below $1k.

As for discerning it: the average eye can resolve about one arcsecond.

At a distance of 2 meters, that means being able to resolve 1 inch / (2 × 2000mm × tan(1/60/2)) = 43.66 ppi, which at 4K would mean a display of sqrt(3840^2 + 2160^2)/60 = 100.91 inches.

To appreciate 4K at 60 inches, you'd have to be about 1.2 meters away.

I can appreciate the difference in the shop when I see a 4k tv against a HD set. Maybe this is partly to do with the content being screened.

I think the biggest issue with 4k is the refresh rate, isn't it internally a lot lower than HD sets?

 

[Keirasplace]

I don't understand the negativity in these posts. I've got a 4K UHD TV by LG and it only cost £650 ($970). I don't think that's expensive at all, 4K is getting cheaper and more people are buying them. I know other people with 4K TVs.

Also I have Netflix 4K and Amazon Instant Video 4K on my TV so I would definitely want this on the next Apple TV. I hate the interface on my TV and would much prefer to use an Apple TV instead of the built-in apps.

4K is clearly the next big thing and it would be very stupid of Apple not to support it especially as they take years to update Apple TV so if they don't add it now it would likely be another decade before they do!

Only if you prefer resolution to actual image quality; many of the current low priced 4K sets have terrible quality. That's coming from someone buys high end sets. Contrast, angles, color accuracy, motion resolution, etc. All not so good.

Also, unless your 4K stream is a mp5 compressed with a high bitrate your not getting even close to top notch quality from the net. That's a fact.

HD streams are still not on par with blue-ray quality wise and people want to stream even more compressed data! What's the point of 4K if all your getting is a good view of compression artifacts.

This is an interesting link about the business of streaming content. Delivering content at 4K must also be worthwhile to the content producer.

http://blog.streamingmedia.com/2014...ntent-owners-cant-afford-bandwidth-costs.html

As for the next big thing, call me when unlimited very high speed Internet doesn't get to 90 bucks or more so I can stream things at 20MBS and not bust my quota, or choke my pipe. I'm not even talking about latency here, if you want 20MBS to not stall, you need a much higher average throughput than this or service garantees. You think Cable providers will give this for free (that's not part of net neutrality, they can charge extra for this).

There's a place for 4K for those that:
- Can buy decent quality panel
- Buy medium they can play locally
- Subscribe to premium subscription service that will deliver the 20MBS stream needed for decent (not excellent 4K)
- Has the high speed unlimited Internet on the user side to receive it.

For everyone else, its useless marketing drivel for the next few years.

 

[upthetoffees]

I can buy a 55" Sony 4K 3D TV today for around $1,400. Nearly did it this morning, actually.

I wouldn't do that, Dave.

It's not time yet. If you buy one you will be at a disadvantage when they kick in. I was going to buy one but researched but instead went for a standard one in 65". 4k and the bandwidth needed (physical media is dead) means we need to wait a few years. Be sensible, think about it.

 

[chucker23n1]

I can appreciate the difference in the shop when I see a 4k tv against a HD set.

I'm not convinced that'll hold up in an ABX test, but even so, all it would take is for you to notice it being higher-res; that doesn't necessarily mean you actually notice the full resolution. We're talking four times the pixels, not, say, a 50% increase.

 

[mattopotamus]

I can appreciate the difference in the shop when I see a 4k tv against a HD set. Maybe this is partly to do with the content being screened.

I think the biggest issue with 4k is the refresh rate, isn't it internally a lot lower than HD sets?

1080P demo footage use to look the same. It is demo footage and looks nothing like the actual content. The refresh rates are lower, but you cannot notice the difference in content.

That Spider-Man 4k demo footage looks way different than that same Spider-Man movie through the Sony 4k servers.

----------

Only if you prefer resolution to actual image quality; many of the current low priced 4K sets have terrible quality. That's coming from someone buys high end sets. Contrast, angles, color accuracy, motion resolution, etc. All not so good.

Also, unless your 4K stream is a mp5 compressed with a high bitrate your not getting even close to top notch quality from the net. That's a fact.

HD streams are still not on par with blue-ray quality wise and people want to stream even more compressed data! What's the point of 4K if all your getting is a good view of compression artifacts.

This is an interesting link about the business of streaming content. Delivering content at 4K must also be worthwhile to the content producer.

http://blog.streamingmedia.com/2014...ntent-owners-cant-afford-bandwidth-costs.html

As for the next big thing, call me when unlimited very high speed Internet doesn't get to 90 bucks or more so I can stream things at 20MBS and not bust my quota, or choke my pipe. I'm not even talking about latency here, if you want 20MBS to not stall, you need a much higher average throughput than this or service garantees. You think Cable providers will give this for free (that's not part of net neutrality, they can charge extra for this).

There's a place for 4K for those that:
- Can buy decent quality panel
- Buy medium they can play locally
- Subscribe to premium subscription service that will deliver the 20MBS stream needed for decent (not excellent 4K)
- Has the high speed unlimited Internet on the user side to receive it.

For everyone else, its useless marketing drivel for the next few years.

Exactly! I think there is 1 line of 4k TVs that is even equipped for 4k content and that is samsungs SUHD TVs. They support the specs, but even then a FALD set cost nearly $10k.

I still buy blu Rays and rent redbox b.c streaming quality pisses me off. It certainly is better than it use to be, but nothing beats the physical media.

 

[oatman13]

If it has the A8 and that supports 4K then i don't see the big deal, all it means is that a software update might be needed in the future and not a new box.

Yup, the only issue though is that Apple will likely want to use H.265 over 264. What this means is that a faster box than an A8 will be required to push through 4K content on 265.

For those that don't know... H.265 uses 4x the CPU usage, 2x the RAM, but the file size is half of 264 with the SAME quality.

It only makes sense for Apple to adopt the new codec but the problem is that the A8 is not fast enough in it's current form to support 4K UHD over H.265.

Ultimately this means that we'll need new Apple TVs for 4K in the future.

 

[Keirasplace]

I can appreciate the difference in the shop when I see a 4k tv against a HD set. Maybe this is partly to do with the content being screened.

I think the biggest issue with 4k is the refresh rate, isn't it internally a lot lower than HD sets?

This is confirmation bias. Of course it is different, but is it better ? What sets do you compare it too? Shop floor sets are all set on burn mode were everything is unnaturally bright and saturated. To the most expensive sets, they often don't put cheaper comparable sets nearby too.

If the content is local and uncompressed, then the added precision even on a crappy set with bad contrast and refresh rate will be very visible. But, your not getting that from a stream at all, not even close. And, current low end 4K sets are terrible for watching sports or anything that moves.

 

[LethalWolfe]

4K isn't going to take off in the consumer marketplace, and Apple knows it. There is no financial incentive for broadcasters to produce and broadcast 4K content at this point.

Eventually HDTVs will be phased out, the same way SDTVs were phased out, and only 4K sets will be available.

Broadcasters will have a big hurdle going to 4K (and possibly never will) but IP-based services do not have the same problems. Sony, Netflix, Amazon, YouTube, Comcast VOD, Time Warner Cable VOD, etc., are all starting to offer 4K streams. TV makers like LG, Samsung and Sony are getting in on the action as well by partnering w/the streamers to make sure that the 4K plays back smoothly on the TVs.

 

[Keirasplace]

Yup, the only issue though is that Apple will likely want to use H.265 over 264. What this means is that a faster box than an A8 will be required to push through 4K content on 265.

For those that don't know... H.265 uses 4x the CPU usage, 2x the RAM, but the file size is half of 264 with the SAME quality.

It only makes sense for Apple to adopt the new codec but the problem is that the A8 is not fast enough in it's current form to support 4K UHD over H.265.

Ultimately this means that we'll need new Apple TVs for 4K in the future.

The A8 has native H265 compression and decompression support (a separate processor does it, not the main CPU). They may not use it initially, but the SOC supports it.

 

[cuhulin]

There is no disc format

House of Cards on Netflix was filmed using Red 5K cameras, so they were recorded at higher than 4K resolution so not upscaled HD content.

My TV supports HEVC codec. I don't see why Apple would not just future proof.

Actually, the disc format was decided upon earlier this year, but it is irrelevant to Apple TV. It does have a higher bitrate than streaming HEVC does, just as BR has a higher bitrate than streaming 1080p - which is probably why some claim Amazon and Netflix are not "true" 4k. The guy who says that Apple wants to send the higher bitrate is just not telling the truth - they will not do that because of the huge increase needed. Amazon and Netflix already deliver the 4k pixels of the spec as well as improved color depth. There is no reason why Apple should not do the same, other than that they are focused on something else - their tv channels.

I am thinking it may be time to simply adopt slingtv for those, saving money in the process, and go with someone who delivers streaming movies and things at maximum quality.

 

[oatman13]

The A8 has native H265 compression and decompression support (a separate processor does it, not the main CPU). They may not use it initially, but the SOC supports it.

Ah I didn't know that. Hopefully that means we'll get 4K in the future with a software update.

 

[WilliamLondon]

And most people sit at least 4 meters away from a tv

I'm lucky enough to live in a city that offers fast broadband (my speed is 120Mb currently, increasing to 152Mb this summer), but it happens to be Europe, so for me to sit 4 meters away from the television in order to appreciate a 4K experience, I'd have to be in the next room, or in the next flat.

I'd assume that this is quite the norm, which means that where there is the broadband speed (i.e. non-US), there isn't the space (or money) for a 4K television set. Even if they have the space, it would require adequate content out there to view (which currently there is almost none being offered).

This 4K issue is a complete and utter non-issue, except for technophiles who frequent sites like this and complain that Apple isn't catering to them (all 10s of them).

 

[JoeShades]

I think they main things they will focus on are APP store, Siri integration and better UI, 99% will be satisfied and the other 1% will start threads saying Apple sucks i am buying a Roku

 

[mattopotamus]

The biggest benefit to 4K today is 3D. You can get full resolution passive 3D. Most people do not care about 3D though and consider it dead. It is the only reason I bought a 4K set haha.

 

[Keirasplace]

Eventually HDTVs will be phased out, the same way SDTVs were phased out, and only 4K sets will be available.

Broadcasters will have a big hurdle going to 4K (and possibly never will) but IP-based services do not have the same problems. Sony, Netflix, Amazon, YouTube, Comcast VOD, Time Warner Cable VOD, etc., are all starting to offer 4K streams. TV makers like LG, Samsung and Sony are getting in on the action as well by partnering w/the streamers to make sure that the 4K plays back smoothly on the TVs.

Proposed current 4K services will give you an image that's not much better than the one you get from your cable current cable providers (if going over the net); resolution is not everything.

The only exception may be from cable providers themselves which control their own pipe and thus could offer 4K as part of their cable packages with a higher bitrate and service garantees.

Net neutrality weakened the cable providers pricing capacity in regards to content provider (but curtailed their capacity to offer them a differentiated service level), but reinforced their pricing power in the face of consumers in the short to medium term.

Net neutrality has strange effects on prices. It maintains diversity of offer, but increase price to consumer in the short to medium term. In the long term, more offer reduces prices, so it will be worth while.

 

[RockSpider]

I love how the Apple devotees are sticking up for 1080p just like they did for 3.5". I haven't got a UHD TV yet but will have within 18 months, I was hoping the Apple TV would have 4k but I can understand Apple cheap skating on it, just like they're doing on the Macbook and Mac Mini.

 

[dampfnudel]

So there's no point in waiting for the next Apple TV - great, that means I can pull the trigger on an Apple TV next week whilst they are still cheap.

What about app store support? I think that's much more important than 4K, which doesn't really benefit people with the most common TV screen sizes that much.

 

[mattopotamus]

I'm lucky enough to live in a city that offers fast broadband (my speed is 120Mb currently, increasing to 152Mb this summer), but it happens to be Europe, so for me to sit 4 meters away from the television in order to appreciate a 4K experience, I'd have to be in the next room, or in the next flat.

I'd assume that this is quite the norm, which means that where there is the broadband speed (i.e. non-US), there isn't the space (or money) for a 4K television set. Even if they have the space, it would require adequate content out there to view (which currently there is almost none being offered).

This 4K issue is a complete and utter non-issue, except for technophiles who frequent sites like this and complain that Apple isn't catering to them (all 10s of them).

They need to do something to make people buy a new tv