I have compared videos directly from USB stick plugged in TV. 1080 and 4K both at 60fps. Distance around 14-15 feet. I do notice a difference in the finer details from that distance.
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
I have compared videos directly from USB stick plugged in TV. 1080 and 4K both at 60fps. Distance around 14-15 feet. I do notice a difference in the finer details from that distance.
Ahhh, the "chart". It always comes out in arguments against the next resolution not currently able to be played by an Apple TV. Note the copyright date range. If you do a search and hop back to theTV threads before the "3", you'll find the very same chart, very same colors, etc minus the references to 4K. Back then, it was used just as often... and just as passionately... by those arguing why nobody needs a 1080p
Then, Apple rolled out the third generation "now with 1080p" and all the people who had slung around "the chart" didn't sling it around to bash Apple for being so stupid to embrace 1080p. Instead it was mostly "shut up and take my money".
Flash forward to the emergence of 4K in just about about everything else Apple offers and the very same chart is updated adding in 4K... and the very same arguments of why we don't need a 4K
Time for a reality check!!
This is just science, and science is usually based in fact. So it's not up for debate. I don't see why this point needs to be argued so much on here. Displays are retina at certain distances. It's all relative to the resolving power of the human eye and the distance at which hit is viewed. Check out this online calculator. It's a great resource for determining whether 4K is right for your environment.
You see, 4K monitors are great because we're only sitting about 18-24" away from them. Our eyes can clearly resolve the crisp edges of our UI and see detail in our photographs. 4K TVs require a much larger size because of where we put our couch. For instance, the minimum that most people sit from their TVs in their living room is around 8 feet, perhaps a little lower if you live in a tin can apartment (which I did for years). Taking that into account, 1080p benefits (over 720p) begin at 21.6" and are fully visible at 55". So yes, having a 1080p Apple TV is important vs. a 720p Apple TV. You also have to realize that 1080p is only roughly twice as many pixels as 720p, while 4K is four times as many as 1080p! So the scale factor is much larger. Looking at the calculator, it says that you would need to sit 6 feet away from an 80" screen to experience 4K, or would need a 110" 4K TV to experience it from 8 feet away.
In my house, I have a mid-range 2010 LG 1080p TV at 42" that sits an average of 10 feet from our sectional couch. I have a recently updated eyeglasses prescription (not a strong one either), and when I get up to walk towards the TV I notice additional detail. Mind you, I'm also a web/app/graphic designer and photographer for a living, so I'm used to pixel peeping all day and trained to notice tiny details and imperfections. If anything Netflix doesn't even provide an adequate 1080p quality as it looks fine from the couch but up close you can clearly see the compression artifacts—and that's on a 100mbps line! Using the calculator, I would need a 138" TV for a 10 foot viewing distance! Sure, some 4K benefits might start (a small increase in resolution over 1080p) at lower sizes. But we must ask ourselves, at this point, is it worth it? Let's look at another example. Let's take our 80" 4K TV—a set that, mind you, is still pretty astronomically expensive. In my living room 10ft away from the set, a person with 20/20 vision would only be able to distinguish 2227 x 1267 resolution. So we must ask ourselves, is it worth spending thousands of dollars on a TV set that is only showing a few hundred more lines of resolution than our current sets?
Maybe—under a very specific set of circumstances:
- If you have much better than 20/20 vision
- If you live in a small apartment and/or plan on sitting very close to the TV
- If you plan to use the TV as a giant computer monitor on your desk
As for me, I don't have plans to upgrade my TV in the next year, but if mine bites the dust, you can bet I'll be picking up a 68" 1080p set, which will give me full 1080p resolution, with perfect vision, at 10ft on my couch. It will also cost a whole lot less, especially with this ridiculous 4K fad going on. I've seen a lot of big wastes of money in my time, and 40" 4K ranks right up there among the worst.
The reason the 1080p Apple TV is adequate is because hardly anyone is going to go out and buy a $3,548.99 Vizio 80" 4K TV on sale at Best Buy. And that's the cheapest 80 incher they sell. The largest option is $19,999.98 Samsung 88" 4K TV, which will get you a viewing distance of nearly six and a half feet. The 720p Apple TV was inadequate because 1080p TVs in the 22-55" range were much more common and affordable at the time. 4K TVs in the 80-120" range are not. Once that changes, then we can be happy to change our minds and enjoy a 4K Apple TV.
You seem so shocked that people would change their minds over time. This happens in all of technology. Eventually people will love a 4K Apple TV because they can go pick up an 80" 4K display for $398 at Wal-Mart. For now Apple is meeting the needs of the market. And I'm glad to have 4K recording on my 6s because it means I'll have archival footage of my baby girl that will look awesome on the $799 120" 4K TV I order from Fasteroid using my iPhone X in 2022 on Black Wednesday sale.
Interesting side-thought: What will these stores do when they don't have room for all these 100"+ models? Will everything be online sales? Haha…maybe projectors will begin to become really popular. That makes more sense—just project a huge image. Or maybe TVs will be flexible and come rolled up in a box. Just unroll it and hook it onto the wall by corner stretching mounts. Weird! But I know that trying to fit a 120" TV inside my house is going to be a struggle. I'm also going to need a bigger wall…#21stCenturyProblems!
Not true I am not only one, I find threads on Macrumors and Apple with a number of folks with same issue. All have tested setups and such same experience. several have returned and gotten a new unit and same issue. so that won't likely help
check these threads:
https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/home-sharing-buffering.1938787/
https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/new-apple-tv-not-buffering-movies-over-home-share.1940011/
https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/homesharing-suddenly-disconnects-all-the-time.1355892/
https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/buffering-home-share-vs-streaming.1937402/
https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/buffer-issues-when-streaming-from-itunes-library.1934343/
https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/local-hd-buffering.1935802/
https://discussions.apple.com/thread/7334304
https://discussions.apple.com/thread/7322493
https://discussions.apple.com/thread/7314597
Last edited:
Do you think people using vr headsets would agree with you? As soon as they're available my Note 5 will be attached to one.
Apple will begin trial production of a fifth-generation Apple TV in December 2015, with supplier Quanta Computer ramping up volume production in the first quarter of 2016, according to Taiwanese website DigiTimes.
The report, citing "sources from Taiwan-based supply chain makers," claims the next-generation Apple TV will feature a new CPU that will "dramatically improve the device's hardware performance."
Apple will also reportedly adopt a "heat-dissipation solution" in the streaming box to handle the faster CPU, but it remains unclear how that would differentiate from the large heat sink in the fourth-generation Apple TV. The report adds the next Apple TV will also gain unspecified "new functions."
The report does not provide a release timeframe for the fifth-generation Apple TV, but it is unlikely to be soon given that Apple just released the fourth-generation Apple TV in late October. Apple beginning volume production in early 2016 would seemingly make a mid- to late-2016 launch possible.
DigiTimes has a mixed track record at reporting on Apple's upcoming product plans, so this rumor should be treated with caution until or unless other reports substantiate these claims in the weeks and months ahead.
Article Link: Production of Faster Apple TV 5 Rumored to Begin in Early 2016
My concern with the ATV has been that it going to be pulled off software support prematurely in order to sell hardware updates. I really don't need another thing that requires replacement every 2 years.
The third-gen iPad was released in March 2012 and discontinued in October of the same year, when the iPad 4 was released. This is not unheard of.
Isn't Apple the company that introduced new technology? Now they wait until everyone else has it.
The problem may be low refresh rate on the tv. It may not fps issue.
You're 100% right. Time for a reality check. Your post, just like the previous posts of freediverx, is full of informative esoterica that completely ignores the realities of the actual consumer. The science is great, but that's not how consumption works. With 1080p, consumers didn't buy based on distance and size charts. Generally speaking, I feel safe in stating that consumers have never purchased based on "the science". Basing the rest of your premise on the expense of that 80" threshold was good for supporting your narrative, but completely misleading considering your bolded call for a reality check.
Last edited:
Nope I did not say or mean that. If the app sucks, then don't approve it, but if the app works but does not meet somebody's idea of politically correct that is a different story. And that is the problem. I do have apps not approved for the simple reason that Apple did not like them. They worked just fine as I have multiple apps in the app store. The reasons they gave were completely made up, like that sonic commercial where the guy says his ring battery is only 2%.
Apple also disapprove apps because they have a product that does the same thing. Hey, I don't care if Apple has a product that does the same thing, Apples software products routinely but not always suck.
If you are not an experienced app developer then you have not experienced how arbitrary Apple is with regard to app approvals.
Without a really good setup 30 fps is easy to have problems with when viewing sports. That is why almost all sports are recorded at 780p 60 fps. The bandwidth is about the same, but the motion does not blur as easy. Flickering is usually an equipment problem, pixelating or pausing is usually a bandwidth problem.
Yeah, you are right. Still I can see the difference. I must have cyborg implants.
I think it would be great if the had 4K on it, but according to business insider's research, 4K will only be in about 10% of US house holds by the end of 2018. Not sure what it is now, but Apple hasn't really catered to niche markets lately.
Since when were they trailblazers? The Apple I've seen in my 34 years has been one that has refined existing technologies and simplified them. They've marketed well. They've stood out with products after they've existed and commanded premiums - even in the years they languished. More recently: The iPod wasn't the first MP3 player - they were the first to make it easy to use and load up without any effort. They weren't the first smartphone - they were the first to simplify the user interface and put it in a pretty device. The iPad wasn't the first tablet, they capitalized on their iPhone, enlarged it, and app developers, not Apple, changed blown-up iPhone apps into native tablet apps.
And besides... 4K isn't a technology. It's an industry standard for television resolution. They would've had little, if any, input in its standardization, much less been the one to introduce it.
Figuring that they were one of the first on the market, I'd say their innovation is just fine.
Further, 4K isn't in nearly enough homes to make it mainstream. It's a non event.
Figuring that Comcast, the largest cable operator in the country, is just now offering just three channels in full 1080p. Further in regards to streaming, with all these caps from Internet providers capping at 300GB, 4K content, when it finally is available, would use up a 300GB cap in three movies.
Further, 4K isn't in nearly enough homes to make it mainstream. It's a non event.
Figuring that Comcast, the largest cable operator in the country, is just now offering just three channels in full 1080p. Further in regards to streaming, with all these caps from Internet providers capping at 300GB, 4K content, when it finally is available, would use up a 300GB cap in three movies.
The previous complete redesign (ATV 2) was replaced in 18 months (with ATV3).
Honestly, though, all the descriptions - faster processor, heat management solution, new capabilities - seem like they are describing the change from ATV3 to ATV4. I'm betting, given the spotty track record of Digitizes, that their source is reading old reports and treating them as new.
Problem is that my local content is all from itunes store, no ripped CD's or DVD's thus it has the DRM on much of it except perhaps older itunes moves maybe? That means it will not play on plex for me. I have only itunes content no other sources of movies. So unfortunately this is not a choice that is likely to work for me.
And I do not have the skillset/experience and software to convert my itunes DRM files thus Plex really is not a solution that would do much from what I read on their site. They specifically say the DRM protected files of iTunes will not work in Plex.
I don't know how good of an example that is... Directv - the #2 pay tv service until the AT&T merger made it the largest - has offered 1080p since 2008... Comcast has various systems with vastly different bandwidths that limit their capability to do these things... They're shifting just now to mpeg4 and IP delivery to overcome that issue.
Anyway... That same directv is planning on launching 4K broadcast channels in early 2016 - after having offered 4K PPV movies for the past year.
I own an Apple TV 4 as well as a Roku 3, and as I live in the UK I can say for certain that the Roku is currently a superior device. The hardware is inferior of course, but the Roku has a near complete line up of UK streaming services. By contrast, the Apple TV has very, very few. Plus app quality is far higher on the Roku. Many Apple TV apps look like MS-DOS applications, being little more than screens of text with tiny thumbnails on an empty black screen.
In time that may change, but for now, the Roku is king.
Thank you, so the standard for HDR is yet to come, well now apples desicion to not inklude uhd/4k makes perfect sence they are holding off to make shore that thay back the right horse so the first gen UHD apple tv will not be left out when the push for HDR content srarts