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.
Refurbished Apple TV 4 Now Available on Apple Online Store
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
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.
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
You can stream 4K content from the iTunes store as soon as some is added. But there's no point in adding 4K content for
TV until there are lots of 4KTVs in homes to play (and pay for) it. Hardware must come first (or simultaneously). There is not a cent of revenue potential if software comes first yet hardware that can play it is still unreleased. Take notice of how there are zero apps that exclusively run on iOS10 in the much more important & robust iPhone app store. Hardware must always lead this particular charge.And both this excuse and the "file size" argument were also made for 1080p iTunes store inventory before Apple rolled out the "3". Afterwards, it was crickets on both topics, "the chart", "until the whole internet is upgraded to be able to handle it", "99% can't see..." etc.
Last edited:
Not sure if your post is sarcasm or not, but I saw a great deal of people right here on MR that did this.
It's a universal chart for TV sizes to distance . Just google it.
https://www.avforums.com/article/tv-full-hd-ultra-hd-4k-viewing-distance-guide.10704
Another variation of it showing you don't need 1080p even.
If you are 3m away, you will not tell a difference between 1080p or 4K . Being 2-3 metres away from a TV is normal. If someone put you 3 metres away from 2x65" screens, without telling you which is which, you would not be able to tell which is which.
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.
720 was fine, until screens got bigger. Its all about how big the screen is and how far away it is.
Sure, don't get the Apple TV, though If you are more than 2.5 m from your TV, hope you got a 65" + 4K with 20/20 vision, and you may just tell the difference, under that your Apple TV will stream content without you knowing the difference.
I guarantee you that someone with a quality plasma at 1080p (pioneer/Panasonic) has a better picture quality right now , until OLED finally becomes affordable.
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.
Only think at will make me upgrade in the future will be OLED .
[doublepost=1453825787][/doublepost]
Actually I believe those graphs are based on people having 20/20 vision, ie what the human eye is capable of seeing , not the average. So the situation gets worse for 4K with people that have bad eyesight.
The source was http://www.rtings.com/tv/learn/4k-ultra-hd-uhd-vs-1080p-full-hd-tvs-and-upscaling-compared
Having looked at multiple sources of info, for viewing distances, the facts seem consistent with that chart.
If there are people will really amazing eyesight, yeah, they can spot the difference closer. I cannot see the point of getting a 4K under 55 inches. Its just marketing.
though some bacon does smell better at the same distance......
Last edited:
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.
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.
Uh? It happened to me the other day (TWC decided to kill my line), and had no problem resuming.
I also admit that I was watching the Gilmore Girls.
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.
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.....
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.
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
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. You were also testing a 1080p source on BOTH sets, so the better set got to display native resolution and the lessor set had to make up pixels (upscaling).
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 (using some 4K footage, which the 1080p display could downscale for a much better 1080p picture than upscaling 1080p to a 4K set). Then you have a good, even fair, subjective test.
Or head for Best Buy. They have lots of 4K and 1080p sets all over the store, typically organized by screen size and sometimes having very similar models side by side. Typically they are all running a 4K demo. Yes, their color & display settings are cranked to sell but that's true of both 4K and 1080p sets. Compare those at various distances head to head. Even that would be a much more objective test than plasma vs. LCD using a 1080p source for both.
Last edited:
We upgraded to the new model & LOVE it. The remote along is way slick & fast to use. Glad we made the move.
I was able to sell the "old" Apple TV (3rd gen) box for a really good price & pronto, so we were out minimal money with the upgrade.
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.
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 might want to read the comment I replied to, the context was image quality. The paragraph about the Pioneer Kuro, was personal experience, of why I got a Plasma in 2016, not a scientific comparison. Agreeing with the poster that a plasma is superior.
[doublepost=1453829819][/doublepost]
Resolution has turned into a marketing spin. Though many think they have superior handsets cause they have 4K....
its okay, My plasma has a good 5 years left in it
On a plus note, it warms the house nicely......summer might be a problem though....
I have good vision, a 65" 4k about 10' from the couch, and a hard time discerning the difference. But what people are forgetting here is interpolation and compression artifacts. Isn't it always better to have more pixels and less interpolation, assuming that it's not breaking the bank? And for those times when you do want to stand up and get some detail on a still photo, or display artwork, I think 4k makes a world of difference.
I know you're just trying to expand on what was previously said, so please bear with me as I just want to use the quote as a starting point, in the middle of an existing conversation...
The differences in resolution simply can't be captured by such a simplistic chart... one that is oft-cited, yet never understood. They always state "full" benefits, and the math changes depending on what set of standards are used... and that math often points to the distance where you start being able to pick out actual pixels... and nobody (hyperbole, since I'm sure there's someone on planet earth that has) has ever sat that close to a TV. But either way, our living rooms are bound by walls, and unless we're setting the thing up in a gymnasium, you'll find it very hard to back up far enough to where the benefits disappear entirely on a screen over 40".
A hammer can interfere with normal functioning. "What? Siri doesn't work with my collection?! Argh!" Smash.