Lacking YouTube, though. However, it's back to the computer and iPad for that.I'm still happily using my ATV2. I'll use it till it breaks.
Lacking YouTube, though. However, it's back to the computer and iPad for that.I'm still happily using my ATV2. I'll use it till it breaks.
Most SMART TV's have YouTube, even cheap ones. Not saying the TV doesn't need YouTube but with today's TV's that's not necessarily a deal breaker and can (and most likely will) be added though software.Lacking YouTube, though. However, it's back to the computer and iPad for that.
Apple will not add 4K support simply because you can't stream 4K content in iTunes store. And Apple will not offer 4K content due to the file size.
Not sure if your post is sarcasm or not, but I saw a great deal of people right here on MR that did this.An "influx" of people who bought it.. twice? why would anybody do that?
Not sure where you got that graph but personally I notice 4K over 1080p almost always, unless I'm very far away.
waiting for 4K... maybe - because while waiting, I have migrated to the built in apps in my samsung 65" 4K for all viewing. And that's working really well - maybe I'm done with apple TV - too little, too late.
Those whining that 4K can't been seen and likely the same types that used to say 720 was good enough.
Fact of the matter is, 4K is here. I've invested in a 4K tv as I needed one a few months ago. I have no regrets - and won't tolerate a brand new apple TV to be the "weak" link in the system.
[doublepost=1453816888][/doublepost]
interesting - you make the argument that 1080 is good enough for the human eye - say argument we all heard about 720. But then you say you got a UHD because "not a lot of point buying old tech".... EXACTLY! apple tv is repackaged old tech where it counts.
waiting for 4K... maybe - because while waiting, I have migrated to the built in apps in my samsung 65" 4K for all viewing. And that's working really well - maybe I'm done with apple TV - too little, too late.
Those whining that 4K can't been seen and likely the same types that used to say 720 was good enough.
Fact of the matter is, 4K is here. I've invested in a 4K tv as I needed one a few months ago. I have no regrets - and won't tolerate a brand new apple TV to be the "weak" link in the system.
[doublepost=1453816888][/doublepost]
interesting - you make the argument that 1080 is good enough for the human eye - say argument we all heard about 720. But then you say you got a UHD because "not a lot of point buying old tech".... EXACTLY! apple tv is repackaged old tech where it counts.
Different people have different priorities. Things that amaze me, might just be meh to you. Believe it or not it happens. Take bacon for instance. I believe, with every fiber of my being, it's the best thing God ever invented. He literally could have skipped making people, invented bacon, and then high five himself and smoke a good cuban while drinking 23 year old scotch. He'd be done. People may disagree with my assessment. They'd be wrong.Wow. Just wow.
Plex, alone is worth the upgrade.
Add in Siri search, voice navigation ("What did he say?", "Back up 20 seconds.", etc.) Apple Music voice control, games, and the upcoming Amazon Prime app, and I am completely blown away that anyone would make that statement.
The (very valid) point he is making is that the human eye cannot see the difference between 4K and 1080p at certain distances, so UHD is pretty much a waste of money for a lot of people who buy it. For instance, I bought a new TV for my girlfriend for Christmas. 43". It's a UHD television. The reason I bought it is because there's not a lot of point in buying old tech when you're making a new purchase. The TV sits about 10 feet away from those who are watching it, so the UHD functionality is pretty much useless. Now, if you get right up in front of the TV and look at UHD content it's amazing. But who wants to sit 3 feet from a 43" television?
And before anyone gets all butt hurt over the fact that they just bought a new UHD, I want to make sure my statement is clear: If you are buying a new TV anyway, there is absolutely nothing wrong with buying a UHD. But tossing your 1080p and running out to get a UHD, thinking that you're going to have a miraculously improved viewing experience is a waste for most people.
Now, OLED is a different story. But I'm not going there until someone other than LG is selling it.
Apples and oranges (no pun intended). Apple TV is not "repackaged old tech where it counts." It's got a lot of compelling tech in it that makes it worth buying. Would it be good if it supported 4K? Yes. But that doesn't discount the fact that the functionality of the ATV is worth the price of upgrade. And let's not forget that the jury is still out about whether the hardware inside the ATV can support 4K with a software/firmware upgrade. But then again, what difference does it make when most people who buy a UHD television will never get the UHD benefit?
Interesting point you made about 720 vs. 1080. I have a 10 year old 50" Panny plasma 720 display that still gives a better image than 95% of the LCD/LED displays on the market, including every Samsung I've ever owned.
The fact that you can't see the difference between UHD and 1080p at a distance has nothing to do with you having superman eyes, or anything. It's just physics, and a fact of nature.
Different people have different priorities. Things that amaze me, might just be meh to you. Believe it or not it happens. Take bacon for instance. I believe, with every fiber of my being, it's the best thing God ever invented. He literally could have skipped making people, invented bacon, and then high five himself and smoke a good cuban while drinking 23 year old scotch. He'd be done. People may disagree with my assessment. They'd be wrong.
MH01 does make some very valid points. Howevah, his quote and those like it almost always leave out one important word: average. As in, "The (very valid) point he is making is that the average human eye cannot see the difference between 4K and 1080p at certain distances..." Some people see better than others, some worse. It's not an absolute... like the delicious taste of bacon.
As for people being butt hurt after buying a UHD TV, yeah, that's not reality. Generally people don't buy TV's based on distance charts and such. They buy the most TV they can get for their money. Charts be damned. As HobbsSoundD pointed out, the exact same arguments were made in the transition from 720 to 1080.
BTW, few know this, but bacon cures cancer... and E.D.
I contributed to the pile of refurbished units by returning the one I bought for Christmas. Would have kept it if it didn't go "brain dead" any time there's a network disruption, and with my ISP, that is pretty regular...
If you're watching a movie (any video really) and the network stream is disrupted, the ATV4 can't find it's place to simply resume. Something happens in the network stack and the box won't communicate any longer. Local apps will run, but it won't communicate over the network for any type of media in any app. The only resolution is to reboot the ATV. Try that 4-5 times during a show.
Most lousy product rollout ever, imho, and I've been a die hard Apple customer for 20 years.
Actually I believe those graphs are based on scientific research of people having 20/20 vision, ie what the human eye is capable of seeing , not the average. So Infact the situation gets worse for 4K with people that have bad eyesight.
Maybe I wasn't clear enough about average. Apologies. When I said average, 20/20 vision is what I was referencing. 20/20 vision is not an absolute. It's the average vision for humans. Some have better vision, some worse. Your quotes, while informative, paint an inaccurate picture of "written in stone" true. It's not. Even your reference material states otherwise.
https://www.avforums.com/article/tv-full-hd-ultra-hd-4k-viewing-distance-guide.10704
"In fact the THX calculations would actually work as a general estimate of viewing distances for Ultra HD TVs, especially when compared to the other guidelines. In fact when it comes to ultra high definition, you will need to sit quite close to your TV to fully benefit from the higher resolution, especially with screen sizes below 65 inches. Of course ultimately these are purely guidelines and there is no right or wrong answer. In fact even the industry bodies involved can't agree on a single solution, so ultimately it should come down to personal preference." - excerpt from linked article.
The info you provided is a great guideline, but not the sole arbiter of the purchasing decision. I'd say for the most part it's rarely considered. Should it be? Probably so. It just isn't.
Different people have different priorities. Things that amaze me, might just be meh to you. Believe it or not it happens. Take bacon for instance. I believe, with every fiber of my being, it's the best thing God ever invented. He literally could have skipped making people, invented bacon, and then high five himself and smoke a good cuban while drinking 23 year old scotch. He'd be done. People may disagree with my assessment. They'd be wrong.
MH01 does make some very valid points. Howevah, his quote and those like it almost always leave out one important word: average. As in, "The (very valid) point he is making is that the average human eye cannot see the difference between 4K and 1080p at certain distances..." Some people see better than others, some worse. It's not an absolute... like the delicious taste of bacon.
As for people being butt hurt after buying a UHD TV, yeah, that's not reality. Generally people don't buy TV's based on distance charts and such. They buy the most TV they can get for their money. Charts be damned. As HobbsSoundD pointed out, the exact same arguments were made in the transition from 720 to 1080.
BTW, few know this, but bacon cures cancer... and E.D.
I got caught up in the hype of 4K, as higher resolution has generally been a much better experience with monitors, that was until I went over to a friends house and saw his 50" pioneer 2008 Kuro, versus a brand new Samsung 55" 4K , we actually moved them next to each other, and using the same BR dark knight rises, no contest at all, the pioneer was so much better, the colours and blacks were amazing ! I had to get to an unrealistic viewing distance to appreciate the 4K advantage. I went out and got a 2012 pannasonic plasma, was so glad I could get an almost new model.
We upgraded to the new model & LOVE it. The remote along is way slick & fast to use. Glad we made the move.I have a third gen Apple TV from 2012 and zero complaints. This new model doesn't offer enough to make the upgrade worth it, imo.
You're absolutely correct. 20/20 isn't average vision. It's considered normal vision. Apparently only 35% or so have it. The FACT is SOME people can tell the difference. That was my whole point. As to your point? I agreed with your point. If someone wants a UHD TV they should get it. Where I disagreed with you was about people getting mad about the purchase. I doubt that would happen.No, it's not the average human eye. The FACT that people cannot tell the difference between UHD and 1080p in most size/distance calculations is based on 20/20 eyesight. The average person doesn't even have 20/20 eyesight.
My point stands. You're buying a new TV? By all means buy the UHD. It's likely going to have all of the other bells and whistles that you're going to want over the life of the television, so there is no harm in buying the UHD. But if you're walking through Bestbuy, and see the 50" UHD television from 4 feet away, and get all google-eyed over it that's not a reason to throw away your 50" 1080p that you bought last year, when the TV is going to be hung on a wall that's 12 feet away from where you're sitting when you watch it.
And regarding bacon, the one thing God could have done better with bacon was to make it as easy to grow as tomatoes.
The 4K argument keeps coming over and over again and people don't understand the the limitation is in the human eye at normal viewing distance and not the resolution. This is also applicable to high resolution phone display.Unless you plan to sit very close to you TV, it's not even much better. The tech is great, the problem is the human eye.
For someone with 20/20 vision, here is the chart for viewing distances .
You need a very big 4K tv to start noticing the difference. Getting a smaller 4K tv makes little sense .
My 65" 1080p is 3m from the couch. Even if I had perfect vision, makes no difference.
![]()
(Just took your post as it was the last to make the point, not directed at you)
OLED or Quantum Dot. They seem pretty close. OLED needs competition. As long as LG is basically the only vendor there's no one to drive down prices.You are correct, and I agree. As with anything, the guidelines are for the masses, and a solid reference on where to start. Personal preference trumps all.
For me the decision came down to picture quality. The 1080p V 4K was a non issue, as side by side, I just choose the one that looked the best. Sadly Plasma's are a thing of the past, bring on the OLED sets.....
Apples & Oranges. You were testing what is visibly a superior technology (Plasma) vs. an inferior one (LCD) and then use that comparison to argue that 1080p > 4K.
I have a great 1080p plasma in my home too. And I happen to have an old 199X Tube TV. If I put them side by side and played some SD content for a head-to-head test, that SD will look better on the old tube TV than the Plasma. So, per the very same implied eval, SD > HD.
For a real 1080p vs. 4K test, you need 2 like technologies side-by-side, eliminating all of the variables except 1080p vs. 4K video. Then, one can make their own subjective eval from various distances and maybe even spin it as objective.
As is, per my similar test, I can now argue that SD is better than 1080p- hands down, no question... because I did a head-to-head test and my eyes are absolutely right... and my judgement should be taken as applicable to everyone.
Where I agree with you: Plasma > LCD for visual quality. But Plasma is dead or dying fast. OLED has promise as a kind of "best of both worlds" tech. But it has almost no bearing on 4K vs. 1080p. In other words, set two matching OLED sets side by side and compare 1080p vs. 4K. Then you have a good, even fair, subjective test.
The 4K argument keeps coming over and over again and people don't understand the the limitation is in the human eye at normal viewing distance and not the resolution. This is also applicable to high resolution phone display.
OLED or Quantum Dot. They seem pretty close. OLED needs competition. As long as LG is basically the only vendor there's no one to drive down prices.
The (very valid) point he is making is that the human eye cannot see the difference between 4K and 1080p at certain distances, so UHD is pretty much a waste of money for a lot of people who buy it. For instance, I bought a new TV for my girlfriend for Christmas. 43". It's a UHD television. The reason I bought it is because there's not a lot of point in buying old tech when you're making a new purchase. The TV sits about 10 feet away from those who are watching it, so the UHD functionality is pretty much useless. Now, if you get right up in front of the TV and look at UHD content it's amazing. But who wants to sit 3 feet from a 43" television?
Wow people broke their ATV 4s already? Or are these just repackaged returns from those upset it doesn't have 4K and Optical audio?