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 can't remember any tech being more polarizing then 4K. I really don't understand why people are so against it. Why wouldn't you want the best picture possible? There are so many people who will go into any thread that mentions it trotting out the same charts, and anecdotal accounts of minimal benefits.
Once you own one you will see. I went with my friend and helped him pick up a 65 inch 4K tv with my buddy to replace his 65 inch 1080p tv. We were setting them up, and since they were both smart tvs we put the same show on Netflix on both (Marco polo). He hadn't subscribed to uhd Netflix yet so both running 1080p side by side the 4K tv was noticeably sharper. Then he logged in and upgraded. Night and day difference even looking from behind his couch the 4K looked way better.
Convince yourself all you want that 4K is not worth upgrading to, but take it from someone who owns one, and has tested it side by side, if you want the best possible picture available it is worth the minor increase in price to go up to 4K. It really isn't even much money at this point. Costco had a nice 65 inch LG 4K for $900 the other day.
Once you own one you will see. I went with my friend and helped him pick up a 65 inch 4K tv with my buddy to replace his 65 inch 1080p tv. We were setting them up, and since they were both smart tvs we put the same show on Netflix on both (Marco polo). He hadn't subscribed to uhd Netflix yet so both running 1080p side by side the 4K tv was noticeably sharper. Then he logged in and upgraded. Night and day difference even looking from behind his couch the 4K looked way better.
Convince yourself all you want that 4K is not worth upgrading to, but take it from someone who owns one, and has tested it side by side, if you want the best possible picture available it is worth the minor increase in price to go up to 4K. It really isn't even much money at this point. Costco had a nice 65 inch LG 4K for $900 the other day.
Seriously? You're on a Macintosh Rumors forum and you've NEVER heard of a tech being more polarizing than 4K? Me thinks you should look at the bold print.
I'm not against 4K, though. I'm against wasting money on a SMALL 4K set (you know 65 inches or less). For a 100 inch projector, go for it.
You haven't thought about it much, then. Put most simply, is Moby Dick any better in a leather-bound book than in paperback form or on a Kindle for that matter? Yes, the book looks better, but did anything in the STORY change? What matters more, the book or it's cover?
Now back to the real reason they sell you that leather version. One thing you need to keep in mind is that the industry doesn't care about a 'better' picture. They couldn't give two farts about that. They simply need an excuse to sell you another television since the market is getting pretty saturated with 1080p sets. They tried all the "extra flat, LCD, curved screen, funky lights that illuminate the wall behind the set, a 4th color pigment (yellow), you name it, ALL to convince you that you should get rid of your perfectly functioning HDTV and get a new one and so spend more money so they can make more profits.
The same is true with the movie industry. Hey, you bought Ghostbusters on VHS, Laserdisc, DVD and Bluray already? Remember you don't 'own' those movies, just a license to watch the CONTENT (i.e. the "movie"), but hey! That license is only good for that one media piece that you don't own! You don't have any right to watch the same exact movie on another medium, streaming or a higher resolution medium unless otherwise explicitly granted under a given license. You MUST buy the exact same movie again and again and AGAIN and AGAIN! 4K Bluray (aka UHD Bluray) means you can buy the same movies you already own one more time...until 8k Super Duper Extra Ultra High Bluray comes out and then you can buy the same movies AGAIN. And then they will tell you that the limit of human sight is 11-12K and so they will sell you THAT after that. And by then, they will have various holographic lens type setups perfected and they will tell you that you simply MUST buy a holographic (look out of your window version of the same movie) and then after that, the holographic version without a pair of goggles and THEN, finally the Holodeck version! (which oddly looks like you're sitting in a movie theater watching it in 2D once again, but hey, it looks like you're in a movie theater and not your living room!!!! It's still just Ghostbusters and isn't any better "content" wise (same actors, same performance, same plot) than the old VHS version or when you saw it in the theater on grainy film on a 2nd grade setup, but hey, you've GOT TO HAVE IT!
My point is that 4K doesn't exist at home because the movie industry thinks it's needed at home, but because they want to make more money selling you the same movies AGAIN and to get you to buy a new TV long before your current one dies a natural death. At this stage, even with my 93" screen and knowing that I could see a slight improvement at 11 feet away with 4K, I'd much rather invest in a Dolby Atmos/DTS X setup that would give me far more convincing surround sound. The problem there is that few movies support Dolby Atmos and DTS X isn't even really out yet (i.e. no support). In fact, out of 100 blurays I have exactly 4 have 7.1 sound on them even. The rest are all 5.1 or less. Yeah, that's a good reason to invest in that surround system (funny how many of those movies in 5.1 DID have 7.1 at the theater, though. They'll probably offer the 7.1 surround version on a "special edition" bluray or on the 4k bluray to "encourage" you to buy it AGAIN.
I'd love to have some new movies that are actually worth watching, regardless of format. Sadly, I get the same damn movies made and remade and remade yet again instead of something NEW (too risky; better to do a remake or sequel). Look at the new Star Wars movie. I've seen it before. It's called the 1977 movie with a few changes and worse actors for the new stars. Yet ANOTHER death star??? Hey, but THIS one really does use a STAR to do it so it really IS a "Death Star"!!!! Woohooo! That makes the movie new and exciting! But hey, this one is in 3D!!!! People can't wait to see it AGAIN! I don't know if that tells me more about Hollywood or the population of humans on this planet!
Where is this "magic" sharpness coming from? You can't have more detail out than you have in. That's IMPOSSIBLE. It's why the only thing you've convinced me is that you buy right into snake oil products and convince yourself they work.
and i'll add most Australia, don't have 4K either
I'm not about to update my 1080p screen just because of this..why replace it, when it works.
not every movie, past & present, is in Blue-ray form either, but we have it.
4k up scaling makes 1080p content look glorious. I have looked at them side by side with a critical eye, and there is definitely a discernible difference
I could type out a long diatribe to refute you point, by point. Instead I will take comfort in the fact that you will eat your words one day.
There is nothing to refute. You can't create accurate information out of nothing. Do you know what upscaling does? It's typically a scan doubling/quadrupling method. In the old days, this filled in scan lines. It looks "better" to not see scan lines, but there's no new actual information. It's just duplicating lines. Modern upscaling is typically a bit more complex, but you can't create any new information (at least accurate information) out of nothing. Looking "better" doesn't mean it's actually any "sharper". Any 4K set is going to have to scale all signals sent to it below 4K. The question is how good a job it does of scaling. Cheap scalers look bad (this is why so many said 720p on Gen1/Gen2 AppleTVs looked so "bad" on 1080p screens). The average scaling has probably improved as higher end chips have gotten cheaper, etc. The fact remains that a 4K set showing 1080p is still just 1080p of information. If it didn't scale it, you'd have either a small "window" of a picture or it would have to skip lines (leaving an interleaved "blind" effect). But upscaling <> new information and thus can't truly be "sharper" any more than turning the sharpness setting on your TV makes it "sharper" (actually makes it worse). It's an illusion at best.
I just recently upgraded to a 55 inch 4K tv from a 34 inch CRT 1080i tv after it finally broke. Figured on getting the 4K to look at my photos and hope for future content.
Don't know if this is the best comparison,
but while watching 4K YouTube videos streamed at 4K vs 1080p (about 10 feet away) I could see the difference. However, the difference between 1080p stream and 720p stream was much more noticeable to me.
I would say that if I already had a 1080p TV, the upgrade would not have been worth the extra money for me at the 55 inch size, but since I needed a new TV anyway, it was marginally worth it.
Really noticed how bad my cable is though
Don't know if this is the best comparison,
but while watching 4K YouTube videos streamed at 4K vs 1080p (about 10 feet away) I could see the difference. However, the difference between 1080p stream and 720p stream was much more noticeable to me.
I would say that if I already had a 1080p TV, the upgrade would not have been worth the extra money for me at the 55 inch size, but since I needed a new TV anyway, it was marginally worth it.
Really noticed how bad my cable is though
You do know that the Netflix 4K stream has way more bandwidth... The reason there is a diff is because the 1080P streams on the net are utter crap. It has nothing to do with 4K in this case, but the content and delivery mechanism.
BTW,
I own one, and you're overselling it unless you also own a 65 inch+ 4K OLED set; then you'd have a very expensive point...
A average Led set doesn't even beat my 2014 top end 60 inch Samsung Plasma; it's not even close.
You're not "getting the best picture possible", that's it. Most of it right now is a marketing push for margins of LCD panel makers. Most 4K panels and their electronics is utter crap.
I just recently upgraded to a 55 inch 4K tv from a 34 inch CRT 1080i tv after it finally broke. Figured on getting the 4K to look at my photos and hope for future content.
Don't know if this is the best comparison,
but while watching 4K YouTube videos streamed at 4K vs 1080p (about 10 feet away) I could see the difference. However, the difference between 1080p stream and 720p stream was much more noticeable to me.
I would say that if I already had a 1080p TV, the upgrade would not have been worth the extra money for me at the 55 inch size, but since I needed a new TV anyway, it was marginally worth it.
Really noticed how bad my cable is though
Put and antenna on your TV and compare OTA 1080P with a net 4K stream and see if you still see a "difference", you'll be surprised.
Most of what people are seeing has nothing to do with the 4K TV and all to do with how crappy 1080P streams normally are. A downsampled 4K stream on a good 1080P TV at normal viewing distance will look similar to the same on a 4K TV. Why? Because the compression and viewing distance makes the difference moot.
I am well aware that 4K streaming is higher bandwidth. In many cases it is 2x higher then standard 1080p per my router traffic monitor. One could argue that somewhere is that 100% increase in bandwidth you might get a slightly clearer picture.
As it stands today the only way to access this higher bandwidth stream, is to buy a 4K tv. I watch all of my content streaming, therefore leading me back to the statement that if you value the highest quality picture it is worth the modest 10% increase in price to upgrade to a 4K tv.
Sure high end plasmas, and soon oled, will be superior to a Walmart brand 4K tv. However the state of the art TVs that are within a mere mortals budget, are LED, 4K and they look great. This time next year unless you are getting the most bottom of the barrel tv, it will be 4K.
If you are content with your 1080p TV, then more power to you. It just annoys me to no end that people come into every thread, and write 15 page long frothing comments if anyone is enthusiastic about a emerging technology. Unless you are going to stash a supply of 1080p sets, Everyone will eventually own, a 4K tv. On average my flat panels have been lasting about 5 years or so. So this will be all moot the next time you buy a TV.
I am not interested in a flame war, and will not engage any 4K conspiracy theorists.
Live, and let live. I like my 4K tv, the picture looks great. Deal with it.
As it stands today the only way to access this higher bandwidth stream, is to buy a 4K tv. I watch all of my content streaming, therefore leading me back to the statement that if you value the highest quality picture it is worth the modest 10% increase in price to upgrade to a 4K tv.
Sure high end plasmas, and soon oled, will be superior to a Walmart brand 4K tv. However the state of the art TVs that are within a mere mortals budget, are LED, 4K and they look great. This time next year unless you are getting the most bottom of the barrel tv, it will be 4K.
If you are content with your 1080p TV, then more power to you. It just annoys me to no end that people come into every thread, and write 15 page long frothing comments if anyone is enthusiastic about a emerging technology. Unless you are going to stash a supply of 1080p sets, Everyone will eventually own, a 4K tv. On average my flat panels have been lasting about 5 years or so. So this will be all moot the next time you buy a TV.
I am not interested in a flame war, and will not engage any 4K conspiracy theorists.
Live, and let live. I like my 4K tv, the picture looks great. Deal with it.
Well I just bought the new one today but I'm not bothered if they bring out a new one in a year because it wasn't expensive. If the new one is significantly better then I will buy it.
Except that Netflix's 4K is compressed and even at that, they've said they won't be able to get to full 4K streaming for at least 2 more years...lame that's at 15+ mbps, which is 6 ,ore then the average american gets. Not to mention 2 hour of streaming with that decoder comes to about 10GB. Meaning your d quickly run through your data cap.
I totally agree with the bandwidth issue. I'm fortunate enough to live in an area where I get 1gbps with no cap. The good news is more and more big players are upping the caps and speeds available to people.
I just wanted to make sure you have looked at 4K and availability recently. Like I said earlier, it has come a long way in just a few short months. By middle to late next year, I am hoping everything I consume is 4K, streaming and physical media
Just because people in rural areas have slow internet, is no reason for them to stop moving the bar up in quality. Netflix auto detects your speed and streams accordingly. I wish that they would do even higher quality then the 15-20mbps stuff. I have no cap, and 300 mbps fiber hard wired to my tv. I'm ready for whatever quality they want to push.
In a few years some of the new codecs like h.265 or vp9 could also push either really high quality content at the current standard, or provide decent 4K with less bandwidth.
In a few years some of the new codecs like h.265 or vp9 could also push either really high quality content at the current standard, or provide decent 4K with less bandwidth.
By that time, Apple will release a 4K Apple TV that also has 4K in its interface, which lets face it, no one would be able to do today, and people will buy that. The Apple TV isn't exactly expensive stuff you can't buy every 2-3 years; it's half the price of the cheapest Apple Watch and cheaper than a Ipod touch.
The nvidia shield costs the same price as ATV, and manages to include the hardware for 4K. Nvidia is a much smaller player, when you ad the scale that Apple orders parts on, they too could have easily included hdmi 2.0, and a GPU.
This was a profit margin based decision. It would have cost them like $5 more per unit. They decided to just cheap,out instead, and put out obsolete connectivity.
This was a profit margin based decision. It would have cost them like $5 more per unit. They decided to just cheap,out instead, and put out obsolete connectivity.
I will buy the new version for the front room, and pass down the current version to the workshop. I "cut-the-cord" and absolutely love the new ATV4. I really think Apple knocked it out of the park with this current version, yeah there is room for improvement, and I know Apple will deliver with the next version.
I hope they come out with the new Apple TV this year. I want to get a ATV but I have been holding out for the new one. It will tie in nicely with my iPhone and iPad.
I really doubt a new ATV will happen anytime soon looking at how many years each generation took for its release and worse part is there is never talks about what's next for ATV probably one of the most ignored device from Apple. It is going to be quite some time for the next ATV which most people are expecting a 4K streaming, 3D (I know 3D who really cares) and DTS-HD which that audio codec for movies should be available already.
At the moment I have been using my Xbox one rather than my ATV 3 since I can get more streaming options from my cable to allow me access such as HBO Go plus picture and sound quality is amazing.
At the moment I have been using my Xbox one rather than my ATV 3 since I can get more streaming options from my cable to allow me access such as HBO Go plus picture and sound quality is amazing.
aTV4 (and the aTV3 before it) happily play 3D streams as it's the TV that does that conversion. Although I'm not a big fan of 3D in the cinema, I think it works better on a smaller screen and I quite like watching a 3D film on my passive Philips TV.
I dunno, I just read a news article about Apple getting ready to release a new AppleTV to compete with Amazon's Echo or do you think they might actually update the software on the current one rather than dump all support for it what-so-ever like they have with the 1st and 2nd Gen AppleTVs?