Production of Faster Apple TV 5 Rumored to Begin in Early 2016

[NocEdit]

It's it a little crazy, based on the past release track record of Apple TVs (which are years and years between releases), that we'd get any new Apple TV in 2016? 2017, maybe; but this seems a bit premature.

Does anyone with the ATv4 think that it needs to be faster???

Nah, it seems pretty fast.. Much better than the prior versions for streaming from my computer to the apple TV. And fast forwarding and rewinding is much smoother. The remote kinda sucks though.... The fact that they disabled the REMOTE app on the IPAD and IPHONE is infuriating! Most of the time I bypass the entire interface on the apple tv.. and search for a Netflix movie on my phone or IPAD on the couch.. then airplay it to my apple TV. I only have a 42 inch television.. and my eye sight isn't that great.. so I like having a remote with a screen.. aka IPAD or IPHONE. The worst part is trying to search for things without a QWERTY keyboard on the apple tv. It makes zero sense to break functionality with the old REMOTE app...

 

[NocEdit]

You're wrong and you clearly don't own one...

It took a few steps forward in speed and apps are a much needed addition. But SIRI is kinda of useless so far... and disabling the REMOTE app on IPADs and IPHONES from being able to control the new Apple TV is beyond moronic on apple's part. I currently bypass the entire Apple TV OS... and search for what I want to watch on my IPAD or IPHONE and airplay it to the Apple TV. But it's stupid to have to tie up my phone or ipad's processor and battery doing this. A fully functional remote app should have went hand and hand with the Apple TV. It's a step backwards otherwise.

 

[ErikGrim]

Anyone arguing against 4K simply hasn't experienced 4K. Simple as that. It is night and day compared to 1080p, from any distance.

 

[currocj]

I call ********. When have Apple ever superseded a brand new product inside of 12 months? Click-bait trash.

iPad 3rd generation anyone? That lasted from like March to October?

 

[Keirasplace]

Anyone arguing against 4K simply hasn't experienced 4K. Simple as that. It is night and day compared to 1080p, from any distance.

I've got good quality 4K monitors right here and one of those cheapish 4K TVs that's all the rage these days, and it's not undisputable at all, unless you got a native 4K source and a GOOD top end 4K monitor.

This is not the case for nearly all the people who actually comment here about 4K, since they're probably only 5% of those sales. Most 4K sales are those bargain bin low end panels.

The picture on my two 4K computer monitors (LG 27MU67-B and LG U32D970Q ) are wonderful with a native 4K source. But, if I put them in HD mode and walk away, with the same source, the difference is small (those monitors have a huge gamut

But even with those native sources, the cheap panels a really not in the same league with the monitors.
On the cheap on sale $350 42 inch UHD TV though I bought for the guest room the difference is major.
At a distance, of course I see a difference between my 4K monitors and the 4K TV; and it's not from resolution.

Considering the LG U32 cost $1000, that's not so surprising. The LG27MU is a very good value at $500, go buy it!

Even though my monitors are fine, for video viewing though,
LCD's in general are not so great compared to OLED or even PLASMA.

I've got a lot of different type of TV's around the house 60 inch plasma, cheap 4K, 3 mid range 1080P LED TV's, and cheap LCD TV's all over the rest of the house (even the garage). Even have a HD tube TV from 2002 in my basement (still working and fantastic but big as a house...).

4K OLED with native source... yes, that is tremendous and one my friends owns one
and that's the one I want to own in a few years. Right now, the big ones are pricey.

People dismiss the source all the time as a source of major difference
and considering that's what make the TV terrible in most case, I don't really get it.
OTA 1080P beats down hard on any 4K stream.

Getting a 4K stream and downscaling it to 1080P still gives you a better image than the 1080P
stream because those 1080P streams are soooo bad. If you could get an equivalent 1080P stream, a significantly higher bitrate than what's normal, the difference on all but the best TV's would fade away.

So, the biggest advantage of the 4K TV's is that allow to play to 4K streams directly.

You're still not getting a really different experience than 1080P unless you've tried native content, which is very rare still, on a top end 65 inch and up OLED 4K; that is mindblowing.

 

[Adamantoise]

Anyone arguing against 4K simply hasn't experienced 4K. Simple as that. It is night and day compared to 1080p, from any distance.

Depends on if the source material is recorded in 4K or not. You can increase the panel resolution all you want, at the end of the day, it's garbage in garbage out. You play a 1080p movie on a 4K display, you're still watching 1080p. Regardless of how fancy the interpolation algorithms get.

 

[warrior2000]

Anyone arguing against 4K simply hasn't experienced 4K. Simple as that. It is night and day compared to 1080p, from any distance.

So ignorant.

Sure, lets just totally ignore all science and physics and the limitations of the human eye.

 

[macduke]

And has been proven repeatedly, there is no science behind the chart. It's someone's estimation by using manufacturers recommended viewing distance charts. Nothing more.

The chart even has an actual response at the bottom that has actual scientific citations and studies that completely contradict the chart.

http://www.homecinemaguru.com/can-we-see-4kuhd-on-a-normal-sized-screen-you-betcha/

Perhaps take your own advice, read that and accept the education people are offering you. Full benefits, again, does not mean only benefits.

Human vision has limits. Most people can't even read small letters on an eye chart much closer than their TV—much less discern individual pixels! As I mentioned, even partial limits don't start until you get above 68" at a 10ft viewing distance. Good luck affording a 4K display over that size. I'm willing to bet that 99% of the 4K sets sold over Black Friday were in the 30-50" range.

Just doing a quick Google search pulls up a lot of information. Take for instance this random NBC News article, which has a whole list of scientists and experts saying that 4K is useless at current sizes. One of the experts is the head of DisplayMate, which is often cited by MacRumors as THE display expert company! Your article is fine and dandy when you look at pictures up close on a computer. I'm not blind, I can see the added clarity of the 4K scans. But I'd bet my life savings and investments that if I put the images up on a 50" 4K TV from 10ft away—even when set to fill the entire display with the graphics—you couldn't tell the difference between which image was the 2k film scan and which was the 4k film scan. Something else you need to realize is that stills are a lot different than motion. Increased resolution in motion is much more difficult to see. If you pause a typical video, you'll notice the video looks a lot more blurry than while watching it. Motion tends to smooth it out. That is another reason that 4K is better for computer monitors, which often have static content—in addition to being viewed from 18-24".

I'm in no way arguing that people are dumb. Totally not sure how you got that from my post. Also not sure how you got the idea I was advocating buy as we're told to buy. I gotta be honest with Duke, your post sounds a little tinfoil-ish. Strengthening our economy, children with less debt, and the TV industry scared info might get out... uhhh, maybe check to see if your carbon monoxide detector is working. Just kidding. You, me, and every member of this forum knows people don't buy based on charts like that one. It just doesn't happen. To argue differently is either intentional denial or selective reality. People aren't dumb. People buy what they like. It's simple. We do it with phones, cars, TV's, and pretty much anything else you can think of. Science typically doesn't come into play in any of those decisions. I can pretty much guarantee even if someone had that chart in hand, standing in Best Buy, they would get the TV they wanted regardless of size/distance info. Just so you know, that chart isn't educating anyone. Sorry, it just isn't. It's just semi-interesting esoteric info.

As someone who just got a minor in advertising and promotion just a few years ago, I can tell you that the majority of people don't buy what they like—they buy what they're told they should like or what they are expected to like by their peers because they want to show off. The reason most people are dumb when it comes to buying technology is that they simply latch on to a buzz word like "4k" and "oh it looks pretty in the store, I like that one" even though they're looking at it from 2 feet away and not the actual distance they would be viewing it from at home. I'm not saying people won't buy 4K, I'm saying that most people don't need to but buy it anyway. And yes, that is a big reason our economy has been in trouble. Educated buyers make smarter money decisions—end of story. Don't try to insult me by painting me as a loon. We need to invest a lot more in education across the board or we're screwed. An uneducated population is the reason that we could potentially end up with Donald Trump as president. I'm a moderate who leans conservative on certain issues and even I'm really freaked out at that prospect.

 

[warrior2000]

Tautological reasoning. 4K content provides better quality than 1080p content. Go figure.

With the onset of HD we had exactly the same rhetoric you're using now ... and today you won't contend that 1080p is indistinguishable from 480i.

We'll have sufficiently good 4K content sourcing soon enough - which you'll be able to watch with your 4K hardware if you have it. In the meantime, upscaling (like 480i -> 1080p) will make current lower-resolution media look better.

You are missing my point again.

You said you can tell the difference in picture quality between those 4k TV's in the showroom vs your TV at home.
I said of course. Because those 4k TV's are using 4k harddrives as a source. You are not comparing Apples to Apples.

There are no good 4k sources right now except for extremely niche devices. 4k Bluray won't come out until next year and releases will be extremely limited. 4k on Netflix is pathetic and is worse than standard Bluray. So where are all those great 4k sources you speak of? The industry has a hard time selling Bluray discs after more than a decade, DVD still outsells it. You seriously think 4k Bluray will immediately take over? And internet speeds in the USA are way too slow to stream real 4k that is significantly better than Bluray. So Apple is making the right decision. Why pay $$ for 4k licensing fees for a feature that is 5 years away from being mass market?

 

[69Mustang]

As someone who just got a minor in advertising and promotion just a few years ago, I can tell you that the majority of people don't buy what they like—they buy what they're told they should like or what they are expected to like by their peers because they want to show off. The reason most people are dumb when it comes to buying technology is that they simply latch on to a buzz word like "4k" and "oh it looks pretty in the store, I like that one" even though they're looking at it from 2 feet away and not the actual distance they would be viewing it from at home. I'm not saying people won't buy 4K, I'm saying that most people don't need to but buy it anyway. And yes, that is a big reason our economy has been in trouble. Educated buyers make smarter money decisions—end of story. Don't try to insult me by painting me as a loon. We need to invest a lot more in education across the board or we're screwed. An uneducated population is the reason that we could potentially end up with Donald Trump as president. I'm a moderate who leans conservative on certain issues and even I'm really freaked out at that prospect.

Being susceptible to marketing is not the equivalent of being dumb. Sorry, it's not. Conflating the subject of 4K with an overarching treatise on education? That's dumb. Somehow tying it to politics is even dumber. Again, sorry but it is. Outside of food, clothing, and shelter most of what we buy is what we like. Does marketing and advertising influence those decisions? Yup. Again, that has nothing to do with being dumb. You, like everyone else, buys what they like.

As for the perceived insult, apologies. I clearly said I was just kidding. My wife tells me all the time I should be more cognizant that some people on the internet are more sensitive than others.

 

[macduke]

Being susceptible to marketing is not the equivalent of being dumb. Sorry, it's not. Conflating the subject of 4K with an overarching treatise on education? That's dumb. Somehow tying it to politics is even dumber. Again, sorry but it is. Outside of food, clothing, and shelter most of what we buy is what we like. Does marketing and advertising influence those decisions? Yup. Again, that has nothing to do with being dumb. You, like everyone else, buys what they like.

As for the perceived insult, apologies. I clearly said I was just kidding. My wife tells me all the time I should be more cognizant that some people on the internet are more sensitive than others.

Call me dumb all you want for seeing the connection, but this is clearly a symptom of the bigger problem with our society. Poor education leads to sheep that follow what the marketing machine tells them to buy, even though it's 100% useless to them based on scientific fact and expert analysis. Furthermore, how is it even dumber to see the connection between politics and education? Any person with a proper education would see through Trump's charade and disagree with his racist antics—and yet he is leading in the polls! Furthermore, the politicians we elect directly influence education policy and funding. If you're too blind/stubborn/caught up in your own intellectual circle-jerk of passive-aggressive "I'm so subtly clever" commenting to see that, then I'm done with this discussion.

Good day sir.

 

[69Mustang]

Call me dumb all you want for seeing the connection, but this is clearly a symptom of the bigger problem with our society. Poor education leads to sheep that follow what the marketing machine tells them to buy, even though it's 100% useless to them based on scientific fact and expert analysis. Furthermore, how is it even dumber to see the connection between politics and education? Any person with a proper education would see through Trump's charade and disagree with his racist antics—and yet he is leading in the polls! Furthermore, the politicians we elect directly influence education policy and funding. If you're too blind/stubborn/caught up in your own intellectual circle-jerk of passive-aggressive "I'm so subtly clever" commenting to see that, then I'm done with this discussion.

Good day sir.

You need help with reading comprehension. I never called you dumb, and challenge you to find a single point in our discourse where I did. I called the connections you made dumb. A dumb idea doesn't equate to a dumb person. I also never stated or implied that a connection between politics and education was dumb. You won't find that in my statement either. I did say trying to tie the subjects of 4K, education, and politics together was dumb.

Somehow you've managed to take a topic about the technical specs of 4K and drive it completely off the rails with talk about the downfall of our society and the shortcomings of a politician. How the heck did that happen? Earlier upthread you accused me of painting you as a loon. Read back through your comments and see the devolution. Cleverly speaking, that paintbrush is firmly in your grasp.

It's ironic you seem so bent out of shape based on your errant assumption I called you dumb (I never did), but in multiple posts you declared the consuming public dumb for reasons related and unrelated to the topic of 4K. Internet outrage, amirite? We clearly disagree on the original topic, and I refuse to traipse down the rabbit hole on the other stuff. Let's say you win and call it a day.

 

[peterdevries]

So ignorant.

Sure, lets just totally ignore all science and physics and the limitations of the human eye.

There is more to 4K panels than just the size of the pixels, but you and many others prefer to refer to the "science" while forgetting (or not knowing) that real scientists (and yes I used to be one) do not dismiss any observations that fall outside of what is expected based on what has been proven previously. In stead, they would investigate what other effects need to be taken into account to explain the new observations.

 

[ctdonath]

You are missing my point again.

And you're missing mine: 4K displays are objectively superior to 1080p, and 4K content is available and will snowball fast & soon. We've seen all your arguments before, applied to 480i vs 1080p, and by golly we're all running 1080p displays & content now.

 

[ErikGrim]

So ignorant.

Sure, lets just totally ignore all science and physics and the limitations of the human eye.

It is not "ignoring science and physics and the limitations of the human eye". It is however ignoring all the bunk posing as "science" in this thread.

 

[warrior2000]

And you're missing mine: 4K displays are objectively superior to 1080p, and 4K content is available and will snowball fast & soon. We've seen all your arguments before, applied to 480i vs 1080p, and by golly we're all running 1080p displays & content now.

And how long did it take for 1080p to go mainstream? It took over a decade. Hell, most cable networks still only send a 720p or 1080i signal. Netflix 1080p stream still isn't even close to Bluray quality. Yet you think 4k streaming will just take off next year? LOL.



Of course 4k is better. No one here is disputing that. But there is no 4k content right now and in the near future that is significantly better than Bluray. Netflix 4k is an absolute joke. And most 4k streams in the next 3-5 years will be jokes too since their simply is not enough bandwidth in the average USA home to support true 4k streams.

The average USA home internet speed is 10 Mbps.
You will need at least 100 Mbps to run a 4k stream that is significantly better than Bluray.
You seriously think internet speeds will go up 10,000% in the next year? Give me a break.

My whole point is there is very little reason for the AppleTV to have 4k support because we won't see high quality 4k steaming for at least 3-5 years.

 

[warrior2000]

It is not "ignoring science and physics and the limitations of the human eye". It is however ignoring all the bunk posing as "science" in this thread.

Audio/Video pros all speak of the limitations of 4k at certain distances. For most living room setups you would need a screen 70 inches or bigger to see the difference.

This article explains that a 70 inch TV 9 feet away will give 4k an advantage over 1080p
http://referencehometheater.com/2013/commentary/4k-calculator/

But the average TV is closer to 50 inches. AT that size you would need to sit 6 feet or closer to see the difference between 4k and 1080p. I don't see 4k taking off unless 60-70 inch TV's become the average size. It may happen. This happenned with 720p/1080p TV's. In the early 90's the average TV size was 22 inches. But to take advantage of HD resolutions larger TVs were need. By the 2000's the average size went up to 40 inches.

I think this quote from the article sums it up:

"Many reviewers have tried to compare 4K to 1080p to see if they notice a difference. David Katzmaier pulled in a panel and showed them the same content on 4K streaming from Netflix and 1080p Blu-ray and none of the people could pick out the 4K display. At the same time, HDTVTest did a similar test using 1080p compared to 4K, but they used their own custom content instead of streaming content. In their testing people do notice the difference from a reasonable distance, though unless you are shooting you own 4K content you can't test this yourself.

I talked to other reviewers who tested projectors, being able to instantly switch between a Sony 4K projector and a JVC X700R on a 120" screen. They could barely notice the difference with the 4K resolution using content directly from a RED 4K camera. Even when they did notice, they preferred the JVC image because it had better blacks and a better contrast ratio, and the eye notices that more than resolution. With any display, resolution is only a single factor in how good a display looks. Knowing how much you might see that increased resolution can help you decide what TV will best work for you."

Bottom line is if you are not getting a true 4k source a 4k TV won't help. Netflix is not a true 4k source and is worse than Bluray.

 

[warrior2000]

And you're missing mine: 4K displays are objectively superior to 1080p, and 4K content is available and will snowball fast & soon. We've seen all your arguments before, applied to 480i vs 1080p, and by golly we're all running 1080p displays & content now.

Please explain to me what the snowball of 4k content is?

From my vantage point the 4k content is sparce and non-existant. Less than 1% of Netflix library is 4k. And even that 4k is low quality and worse than Bluray.

I'll be a believe when Netflix/iTunes is pumping out 4k streaming that is significantly better than Bluray. Then it would be time for AppleTV to support 4k. I don't see that happenning for at least 2 more years.

 

[turbineseaplane]

Please explain to me what the snowball of 4k content is?

From my vantage point the 4k content is sparce and non-existant. Less than 1% of Netflix library is 4k. And even that 4k is low quality and worse than Bluray.

I'll be a believe when Netflix/iTunes is pumping out 4k streaming that is significantly better than Bluray. Then it would be time for AppleTV to support 4k. I don't see that happenning for at least 2 more years.

And to add to that - Sports is a LONG way from 4k being mainstream. It's intensely expensive for networks to re-invest in a complete new pipeline from capture, to editing to content delivery....and honestly, 1080 is just fine for sports and will be for a good long time.

 

[ctdonath]

Please explain to me what the snowball of 4k content is? From my vantage point the 4k content is sparce and non-existant. Less than 1% of Netflix library is 4k. And even that 4k is low quality and worse than Bluray.

Movies are largely being rendered at 4K now. The problem isn't having 4K content, it's licensing it into catalogs, compressing it to match common streaming bandwidths, and getting customers to have 4K-ready set-top boxes.

BTW: 1% of Netflix library is enough content to keep you occupied until there's significantly more. Another service, Ultraflix, has a long list of 4K titles available: http://omnivanceadvisors.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/Paramount-Titles.pdf

You will need at least 100 Mbps to run a 4k stream that is significantly better than Blurry.

Gigabit fiber is rolling out nationwide. Cheap. YOU might not have it for a while, but many people have it already. We've got 100Mb/s in the office now; residential Gb/s service is not far from here.

Then it would be time for AppleTV to support 4k.

If the box can handle it now, why not add it now? That way lots of people can enjoy 4K the instant content is available.

Again, we went thru your rhetoric already re: 1080p. Yes, deep market penetration took a while - but once HDTVs came down to $1000, it was mostly just a matter of end-of-life replacement of customers' prior displays. Sure, some people still use DVDs and are content with streaming's "meh" quality - that's fine, they have the option to save money with content they don't particularly want in HD; if you want premium viewing, you go drop $2 in a RedBox and enjoy high-bitrate high-resolution video ... not everyone needs top-quality 4K all the time, I opt for a dozen or so movies a year with "gotta see this maxed out", for the rest high-compression HD is fine.

Apple will activate 4K on TV when iTunes has sufficient 4K content. That won't be long.

I'm not really sure why you're arguing. Yeah, it's not all there perfectly & pervasively - duh. You can stay on 1080p if you like; many of us will move on to enjoying 4K (even bad 4K is better than good 1080p), and can be done _right_now_ for under $1000.

 

[MagnusVonMagnum]

TLDR. Yet again.

Let's just end this here. My article proved your stupid viewing distance chart wrong

So you're telling me that you're too lazy to even read what I wrote so let's just agree that I am wrong and your are right and then end the discussion. PERIOD.

I'll agree that you shouldn't make extraordinary claims if you aren't prepared to defend them. Something isn't "science" or "not science" because you say so.

Pixels are the grain of digital. They just happen to be well-ordered square equal-sized grains.
Being pedantic doesn't help your argument.

As another poster noted above, good 35mm film equates to 12K projection. Yes, I've seen top-quality film projection, and there is a difference vs digital cinema.

Sorry, but 12k was stated as the point that the human brain cannot tell a projected image from reality when modified slightly to appear to be three dimensional (in the cited study). It is NOT the resolution of 35mm film for god's sake. 12k is more like iMax 70mm, not 35mm. It is also not the point where the human brain can distinguish side-by-side details (that is much lower). Learn the facts or don't waste my time.

{SNIP}

I'm routinely puzzled by people insisting that larger displays should be viewed at ever-farther distances, apparently in an attempt to negate any improvements in resolution. (To wit: if I swap a 42" HDTV for a 65" 4KTV I should get a bigger living room.)

Nowhere have I EVER asserted that anyone should sit further away for higher resolution displays. If anything, higher resolutions allow you to sit closer. That does not, however negate the reality that most people do NOT watch TV at a distance of 5 feet in a given room due to room layouts as much as anything else. Besides, as you get closer your view begins to shift from a focus on infinity to closer settings and this can create eye fatigue (as monitors routinely do for many people). I personally would not want to sit much closer than 8-12 feet regardless of the size of the screen for eye comfort.

Red herrings don't help your argument.

{SNIP}
I don't see where snake oil is a red herring. It cuts right to the heart of the matter in terms of people with "self-proclaimed" super vision and super hearing that contradict scientific studies on the matter and never provide a single shred of actual PROOF other than their "claim" they CAN tell such differences. As I said, I've seen those types of claims before about audio and I have YET to see a SINGLE shred of double-blind testing proof that even ONE person making those claims are able to hear the things they CLAIM they can hear once all the other variables are removed that give away which is which (like LOOKING at them, for example). With video, there are plenty of things that could show a "difference" between two side-by-side displays that have nothing to do with the resolution itself.

Costco has 'em unabashedly side-by-side. The difference is unmistakeable at 15'

And I'm sure that's because they are set up with everything adjusted to otherwise be the same (i.e. color, contrast, brightness, etc.) so that those differences aren't what is allowing you to tell them apart rather than detail/resolution. Yes, I'm sure your casual argument PROVES your claim once and for all over scientific studies on human eye acuity for resolving detail differences.

It is not "ignoring science and physics and the limitations of the human eye". It is however ignoring all the bunk posing as "science" in this thread.

Gee, where have I heard THAT sort of claim in the news all the time about science despite 95% of the world scientists agreeing??? That doesn't, of course 100% prove the 95% are right, but it does prove it's not just "bunk" rather than science. Science is never 100%, not even "laws". I'm pretty sure that calling things you don't like "bunk" is NOT science, however.

I do think people who have 20/10 vision (e.g. fighter pilots) can probably see 4K details further back than people with 20/20 vision. That doesn't invalidate the entire chart as "bunk" however and calling it bunk says more about you, IMO than it does the studies done over the past century on human vision.

 

[alexgowers]

You have a lot of incorrect information. 4K is currently offered by Amazon, Netflix, UltraFlix, YouTube, M-GO, and Vudu. Those are the ones I can think of off the top of my head. Amazon and Netflix are really the leaders. All of their new series are released in 4K.

HDMI 2.0 devices are very available. In fact, I would say you will be hard pressed to buy a new AVR that does not support HDMI 2.0 and HDCP 2.2

4K is a lot more than just a resolution increase. If it was just the resolution, I agree, it would not be a big deal. The wider color gamut and HDR are the real benefits. Anyone who has seen HDR content will tell you.....it blows anything else away.

Even early this year I would not have bought a 4K TV b.c it was simply a resolution increase; However, the new sets with HDR actually make a difference in PQ. 4K OLED is a whole other animal!

High dynamic range! this makes me laugh because these tvs can barely do full colour spectrums let alone get outside of pro colour specs! Seriously you do not know what you are talking about. my point was that 4k is not the issue it's the way in which it's provided, 4k streaming, even downloading has compression artefacts that make it pointless. amazon, netflix etc heavily compress, 4k isn't always 4k you know!

HDMI! Support is support, not content, tell me what media you can buy to put on your avr? there isn't any, it doesn't exist there is no 4k bluray no HDMI at this point is only being used for HD or high res PC output, there is no 4k HDMI content apart from streaming, if it's streaming why you need HDMI anyway?

4k is just resolution increase right now and will be for a long long time. Name me a source of HDR of 4k, nope there isn't any mate, no HDR available. You are talking out your backside. There might be some sony hard drive filled with naff demos but films, content stuff is just not available.

Right now there is no advantage to 4k what so ever. Not in real world tv viewing and the added cost of delivery is so extortionate for years and years content will still be delivered in 1080p. Yes eventually 4k will be available and it's worth making content in 4k if you really want picture quality to last and the technical advantages are great but as a consumer there is zero benefits to the tech.

You've been sucked into marketing hype and flashy demos that show slow mo 4k (basically pictures)

There are more important issues like pixel switching latency, moire, sub pixel layouts, blurring and smearing of moving images, oled ghosting and colour fading, led backlight bleed, viewing angles, poor sound quality, poor smart tv functions, confusing remotes etc etc. TVs are a mess in general still, 4k is not going to improve anything at all. The only difference you've seen is better tech, the res is really not that important at this point.

4k seems like it should be worth the detour being 4x the res but that's only half the pixel width it's less of a res bump than it seems. I know the kind of person you are, you'll claim 8k is so much better than 4k and then 12k, while you are still streaming highly compressed content on netflix that still looks worse than super high bitrate 720p.

 

[mattopotamus]

High dynamic range! this makes me laugh because these tvs can barely do full colour spectrums let alone get outside of pro colour specs! Seriously you do not know what you are talking about. my point was that 4k is not the issue it's the way in which it's provided, 4k streaming, even downloading has compression artefacts that make it pointless. amazon, netflix etc heavily compress, 4k isn't always 4k you know!

HDMI! Support is support, not content, tell me what media you can buy to put on your avr? there isn't any, it doesn't exist there is no 4k bluray no HDMI at this point is only being used for HD or high res PC output, there is no 4k HDMI content apart from streaming, if it's streaming why you need HDMI anyway?

4k is just resolution increase right now and will be for a long long time. Name me a source of HDR of 4k, nope there isn't any mate, no HDR available. You are talking out your backside. There might be some sony hard drive filled with naff demos but films, content stuff is just not available.

Right now there is no advantage to 4k what so ever. Not in real world tv viewing and the added cost of delivery is so extortionate for years and years content will still be delivered in 1080p. Yes eventually 4k will be available and it's worth making content in 4k if you really want picture quality to last and the technical advantages are great but as a consumer there is zero benefits to the tech.

You've been sucked into marketing hype and flashy demos that show slow mo 4k (basically pictures)

There are more important issues like pixel switching latency, moire, sub pixel layouts, blurring and smearing of moving images, oled ghosting and colour fading, led backlight bleed, viewing angles, poor sound quality, poor smart tv functions, confusing remotes etc etc. TVs are a mess in general still, 4k is not going to improve anything at all. The only difference you've seen is better tech, the res is really not that important at this point.

4k seems like it should be worth the detour being 4x the res but that's only half the pixel width it's less of a res bump than it seems. I know the kind of person you are, you'll claim 8k is so much better than 4k and then 12k, while you are still streaming highly compressed content on netflix that still looks worse than super high bitrate 720p.

Again, I do not think you have looked at the evolution of 4K in some time.

The man in the high castle and Mozart in the jungle both are HDR content.

4K blu-Ray is a month away and will support HDR and wider color gamut (like it or not that is part of 4k). I will also say the 4K streams from ultraflix beat out some blu-ray counter parts (see reviews of interstellar)http://www.avsforum.com/forum/39-ne...010-streaming-interstellar-uhd-ultraflix.html.

"The moment I saw the first few frames of Interstellar in streaming 2160p, I realized it made the 1080p streams from Amazon, iTunes, and Vudu look inferior, even outdated. Interstellar on Blu-ray fared quite a bit better versus the UHD stream, but there was no question the UltraFlix stream showed more detail."

sure 3 months ago 4K was just a resolution bump, but the new sets being put out are more than that.

Almost everything you posted is wrong...well outdated.

I am glad you think you know the type of person I am. In fact, you will see how I argued against 4K for a really long time b.c it was simply a resolution bump. This all changed with the introduction of HDR and wider color gamut being named part of the 4K blu-ray specs. It means streaming will also meet those standards. Those things are not a far off future. They are going to be readily available within the coming month-2. Even 4K streaming is taking over. Any series netflix and amazon is putting out is 4K, and they are the future of television/movies.

Even the experts have flipped http://www.cnet.com/news/4k-tvs-arent-stupid-anymore/

 

[Jeaz]

Wrong...I have a 65" 4K panel that can display HDR as the up conversion from 1080P to 4K is a noticeable difference on my tv. True 4K HDR with streaming via Amazon and Netflix looks really good and I could never go back to regular HD. BTW, I sit about 10 feet from my panel. To appreciate the tech you need to get a set in a home environment because stores do not do justice to the newer sets.

Wrong? Maybe difference of opinion.

Anyhow, I have a 4K TV myself. And running content in 4K quality looks gorgeous. For stuff like nature photos and similar. But for movies? No, it doesn't do anything to improve my experience.

 

[arftech99]

Wrong? Maybe difference of opinion.

Anyhow, I have a 4K TV myself. And running content in 4K quality looks gorgeous. For stuff like nature photos and similar. But for movies? No, it doesn't do anything to improve my experience.

Well both Amazon and Netflix are providing UHD HDR content and they're not just nature photos and similar. Have you seen The Man In The High Tower and Edge on Amazon Prime Video? They're both in HDR. They're more. As a promotion if you bought a Sony XBR TV than can display HDR Amazon/Sony offers 4 movie titles for free; Fury, Amazing Spider Man, Men In Black and After Earth that are UHD HDR. I got three out of the four offered and they were simply amazing! Can your TV do HDR?

We are a couple of months away from UHD/HDR Blu-Ray players and content being offered to the public that will take full advantage of this new tech. In fact, studios have already begun to leak out what some of their UHD/HDR titles will be.

Oh, I see that you're in Sweden and maybe some of this content is not available to you.