I remember it well. I also remember "There's no point having 1080p on anything smaller than 32 inches", and now we have 4K on smartphones
Yup - and it's completely pointless and battery life sucks. A huge waste of processor power and battery life.
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.
Production of Faster Apple TV 5 Rumored to Begin in Early 2016
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Yup - and it's completely pointless and battery life sucks. A huge waste of processor power and battery life.
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
OR, maybe the handful of execs at Apple that appear to make all of the decisions have been shooting 4K videos on their iPhones and just realized they can't play it back easily on their 4K TVs. So they want one and thus, we may get one too.
While joking, I suspect that might be how we finally got 1080p on the "3" too. iPhone went 1080p, then iPads then
TV. I bet this repeats: next Fall, iPads inherit iPhone 4K cameras and either with them or soon thereafter, TV5 "now with 4K"
Last edited:
Agreed. "The man in the high castle" is visually stunning. The first time since the jump from SD to HD that I have been blown away by PQ that is not demo content.
From what distance?
Also you have to ensure you're comparing apples to apples. It's not fair to compare watered down 1080p content streamed at low bitrates and high compression against a pristine BluRay 4K film played locally. A lot of the currently available 4K content (especially demo video shown in store displays) has been created or remastered specifically for 4K, so you're benefitting from that, not just the increased resolution of the end product.
Like you said that show is stunning and I was blown away how good video could actually look. 4K with HDR is a game changer and the cool thing is you don't have to sit 4 feet away!
So true. It's staggering how different various "1080p" sources are. So much more too it than just the resolution, which is the first thing that comes to mind about 4k when streaming is involved.
That's hardly a given as it would depend on the original material to have been created in sufficiently high quality to begin with and then having it reach your screen without the degradation of low bitrates and heavy compression commonly used by cable companies.
High dynamic range can mean many things to many people. The only way to benefit from it is to have a standard that everyone follows, devices that support that standard, and a vast library of content optimized for that standard.
How much content is currently available optimized for the UHD standard and what percentage of the 4K TVs in stores and peoples' homes adhere to the UHD standard?
Last edited:
I could see it as a cable box replacement. Hardware modifications would include adding a coaxial cable port and maybe an ethernet port and HDMI 2.0 for 4k. The benefit to cable companies is a cheaper box than they have now but they would need to replace a lot of boxes. It may also provide cable companies with a hook to obtain and retain customers. Say they get a few key channels to 'broadcast' 4k content such as ESPN. That would reverse cord cutting as cable companies would have something that other outlets would not. Because it is broadcast to many, the bandwidth hit on the cable system would be minimal. Now you would have lots of AppleTV boxes out there. Early buyers wouldn't be happy but many of those would be cable company customers and would get a new box from the cable company anyway.
Pretty sure the Cable Companies like charging set top box rental fees above all the things listed above.
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
720p and then 1080p were not- and are not today- essential. If progress requires "essential" to drive it, we'll make almost no progress in all things. An iPhone 7 is not essential, nor are Skylake Macs, nor next generation iPads nor major updates to OS X. What future progress on almost anything requires essential drivers?
Such requirements and caps do not apply to everyone. And besides, a 4K-capable
TV doesn't force anyone who buys one to burn any more bandwidth than they burn now. Those with tight caps could keep choosing the 1080p or 720p or SD video option. Embracing 4K TV hardware doesn't force anyone to buy new televisions or burn more data or watch different videos or anything at all. It simply gives those that DO desire that feature an Apple product to enjoy too. Rather than excluding that segment, it lets them get what they want as well. Since it would have no effect at all on those who don't care, why do we make so many arguments against it?Evidence? Are there any competing set-top boxes that already have 4K that are priced higher than
TV4 without it? Any at all? Does Amazon or Roku, etc have more power than the mighty Apple to drive down the cost of components for their boxes? (rhetorical). There's no reason for this to cost more to play 4K. That's just something some of us make up to imply it would cost more... and thus support an argument against it (or in support of what Apple has for sale now as the one and only best choice for all consumers... until Apple embraces something else and then THAT will be the one and only best choice for all consumers).
Last edited:
To your credit, you've made some informative and technical quotes in this thread. It seems though all of your analysis has ignored one important factor: consumers. Actually consumers are the only important factor. Consumers (in general) don't care about spreadsheets and graphs detailing distances and bandwidth. Never have and never will. That's strictly the purview of techies. People simply want their stuff to work together. With all the cheap 4K TV's flying off the shelves, people want 4K accessories attached to them. In other words; integration. Apple knows product integration better than almost any company out there. Which makes the ATV4 a bit of an odd duck. Apple's product line is filled with 4K capability.
Whether it be the exception or the norm is irrelevant. The question was when has Apple ever release an updated product within 12 months. The iPad answers that question succinctly.
I must say I do like the functionality of it but it does feel cheap. I think the buttons need to be a little more flush with the surface like the older "unibody" aluminum remote and it needs to feel slightly heavier. Aesthetically I was underwhelmed, but functionally ok. I particularly like how you can scroll back a few seconds or so. They did that well.
here is a few I can think of
iPhone 3Gs > iPhone 4 7/19/2009-6/24/2010
iPhone 4s > iPhone 5 10/14/2011-9/21/2012
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
I remember it well. I also remember "There's no point having 1080p on anything smaller than 32 inches", and now we have 4K on smartphones
...and we can definitely see the difference and it's a big reason to buy those smartphones.
We're nothing around here if not consistent.
I recently read somewhere that the box rental fee is government required. I was looking up DishTV fees and found out that if you buy a DishTV receiver you pay the same monthly outlet fee that you do if the box was a 'rental'. The difference is that you can drop service to that box without paying an early termination fee. So yes, for 'cable enabled' Apple TVs, you would still pay an 'outlet' fee.
Dispelling the hype swirling around high dynamic range tv
www.techhive.com/article/2920188/dispelling-the-hype-swirling-around-high-dynamic-range-tv.html
Currently there’s no standard for HDR, so it’s a bit of a free-for-all with each manufacturer offering their own take on the technology.
Samsung labels its HDR implementation “Peak Illuminator Ultimate,” while LG calls its “Ultra Luminance” and Panasonic offers “Dynamic Range Remaster.” Sony offers two flavors of HDR—“X-tended Dynamic Range” and “X-tended Dynamic Range Pro.” And Vizio, Sharp, and TCL are throwing their hats in with Dolby’s HDR tech, “Dolby Vision.”
If that doesn’t lay the groundwork for enough consumer confusion, the lack of a standard leaves the door wide open for a manufacturer to slap “HDR” on its TVs just because they’re bright, whether or not they can truly handle HDR content.
Buying into a new technology is always dicey, and HDR is no exception. Upgrading your TV when HDR models hit the shelves won’t be cheap—for reference, Sony’s 65-inch X930C, which seems to be the first out of the gate, retails for $4500...
As with 4K before it, the decision on when to upgrade comes down to content. Sure, there looks to be enough coming down the pipe to make it enticing, but until a major studio either starts producing multiple HDR titles a year or offers a decent portion of its library to be remastered in HDR, it will be tough to justify the expense.
www.techhive.com/article/2920188/dispelling-the-hype-swirling-around-high-dynamic-range-tv.html
Currently there’s no standard for HDR, so it’s a bit of a free-for-all with each manufacturer offering their own take on the technology.
Samsung labels its HDR implementation “Peak Illuminator Ultimate,” while LG calls its “Ultra Luminance” and Panasonic offers “Dynamic Range Remaster.” Sony offers two flavors of HDR—“X-tended Dynamic Range” and “X-tended Dynamic Range Pro.” And Vizio, Sharp, and TCL are throwing their hats in with Dolby’s HDR tech, “Dolby Vision.”
If that doesn’t lay the groundwork for enough consumer confusion, the lack of a standard leaves the door wide open for a manufacturer to slap “HDR” on its TVs just because they’re bright, whether or not they can truly handle HDR content.
Buying into a new technology is always dicey, and HDR is no exception. Upgrading your TV when HDR models hit the shelves won’t be cheap—for reference, Sony’s 65-inch X930C, which seems to be the first out of the gate, retails for $4500...
As with 4K before it, the decision on when to upgrade comes down to content. Sure, there looks to be enough coming down the pipe to make it enticing, but until a major studio either starts producing multiple HDR titles a year or offers a decent portion of its library to be remastered in HDR, it will be tough to justify the expense.
Last edited:
High end gaming! please. I really want to see all the big titles on the apple tv. I honestly think although gaming is pretty slick on the big two already apple could slay if they sneak into the console market this way. A beefy cpu and gpu could launch games on the apple tv somewhere it could compete. They have the content delivery in place and the apps.
I really think the apple tv needs more picture in picture and app overlays though so you can tweet and play a game etc etc. i'm surprised it hasn't already but it's early days.
I really think the apple tv needs more picture in picture and app overlays though so you can tweet and play a game etc etc. i'm surprised it hasn't already but it's early days.
Just take OTA channels vs the cable companies. OTA looks so much better.
no doubt about that. There are only a few shows on Amazon that are actually in UHD with HDR. They look simply amazing. I am sure 4K blu ray is going to be stunning, and dolby HDR will be the standard.
The shows supporting HDR are "The man in the high castle" and "mozart in the jungle". I am not sure if there is anything else other than shorts.
Of course it needs to be faster! Software grows to consum the hardware it runs on.