Do you honestly believe that all it takes to support 4K@60+ on the 4th gen Apple TV without usability issues is an upgrade to the firmware?
Remember that the 4 has an A8, which is the same chip as the iPhone 6, originally stated to be capable of 2160 playback… oh, you said 60 FPS. You’re right; it can’t do that.
And that's minimum expected for a device pushing to a UHDTV, even if the content was originally shot at 23.976 or 29.97 fps.
And it's good that Apple doesn't offer some cheap option for 4K content. Bring 2160p + 60 or 120 fps + HDR10 (and Dolby Vision (and Hybrid Log-Gamma and SL-HDR1) + HDMI 2.0 or 2.1 + Apple A9 or A10 (for faster CPU, GPU and more RAM) + more NAND + Bluetooth 4.1, 4.2 or 5.0. That sounds like a decent upgrade to me, it'll be about 2 years before this rumour would likely come to fruition, and we're only talking no more than $199.
Would better than Dolby Digital Plus 7.1 be a benefit to anyone?
A welcome addition, but not much true 4K content exists - so the importance of the lack of that feature was over emphasized (for now) . My Amazon Fire 'supports' 4K but processor still chokes with 1080p streams and finally overcame Dolby audio glitches with the most recent update.
What Apple TV really needs is an updated remote! Lack of crucial buttons, overly sensitive touch, inconsistent app mapping to button functions and horrid ergonomics (easy to hold upside down, too thin).
Try repeatedly flicking your thumb on the current remote, scrolling down a list of thousands of movies to reach your desired movie only to accidentally switch to another column on the Apple TV and having to start over flicking your thumb like a mad hamster. It's disgusting a remote control.
What Apple TV needs is a KEYBOARD remote. It doesn't work well with current Bluetooth keyboards.
What would be another needed upgrade is the use of MULTIPLE bluetooth remotes to allow game playing without the need to go through the network - which slows down response.
Hey..wanna secret...there is an app you can download to your iPhone or iPad to control the ATV, and it brings up a keyboard...
A welcome addition, but not much true 4K content exists - so the importance of the lack of that feature was over emphasized (for now) . My Amazon Fire 'supports' 4K but processor still chokes with 1080p streams and finally overcame Dolby audio glitches with the most recent update.
What Apple TV really needs is an updated remote! Lack of crucial buttons, overly sensitive touch, inconsistent app mapping to button functions and horrid ergonomics (easy to hold upside down, too thin).
Try repeatedly flicking your thumb on the current remote, scrolling down a list of thousands of movies to reach your desired movie only to accidentally switch to another column on the Apple TV and having to start over flicking your thumb like a mad hamster. It's disgusting a remote control.
What Apple TV needs is a KEYBOARD remote. It doesn't work well with current Bluetooth keyboards.
What would be another needed upgrade is the use of MULTIPLE bluetooth remotes to allow game playing without the need to go through the network - which slows down response.
Hey..wanna secret...there is an app you can download to your iPhone or iPad to control the ATV, and it brings up a keyboard...
Hey, wanna 'nother secret? It wasn't available when ATV4 shipped. Oh, and not everyone that buys a ATV owns a iOS device. so...2 secrets are now out.
A welcome addition, but not much true 4K content exists - so the importance of the lack of that feature was over emphasized (for now) . My Amazon Fire 'supports' 4K but processor still chokes with 1080p streams and finally overcame Dolby audio glitches with the most recent update.
What Apple TV really needs is an updated remote! Lack of crucial buttons, overly sensitive touch, inconsistent app mapping to button functions and horrid ergonomics (easy to hold upside down, too thin).
Try repeatedly flicking your thumb on the current remote, scrolling down a list of thousands of movies to reach your desired movie only to accidentally switch to another column on the Apple TV and having to start over flicking your thumb like a mad hamster. It's disgusting a remote control.
What Apple TV needs is a KEYBOARD remote. It doesn't work well with current Bluetooth keyboards.
What would be another needed upgrade is the use of MULTIPLE bluetooth remotes to allow game playing without the need to go through the network - which slows down response.
Hey..wanna secret...there is an app you can download to your iPhone or iPad to control the ATV, and it brings up a keyboard...
Hey, wanna 'nother secret? It wasn't available when ATV4 shipped. Oh, and not everyone that buys a ATV owns a iOS device. so...2 secrets are now out.
It is available now, and has been for some time. His complaint is that Apple should offer a keyboard remote going forward. On your second point, while theoretically true, I suspect that is a very small number. Give a real world example.
This being Apple, they were probably holding back on 4K+HDR until they had some content to sell you. If it comes with an upgrade to a decent chunk of their catalogue with reasonable upgrade pricing it could be worth something.
You won't have an option to upgrade to UHD from HD. You may purchase a new copy of what you want in UHD but not pay a small fee to upgrade to it. It's not even in Apple's control to allow you to do that.
Nothing like buying the same movie multi times!!! From VHS to DVD to Blue-Ray, to Digital SD to HD, and now 4K. Not once have I ever seen any type of discount for owning a past copy. 4K is really just so overblown anyway. 4K is what you are watching at a movie theater. Is your TV screen that large? It's really all about Size vs Distance to Resolution. To many people already have to small of a 1080P HDTV. They think that's more then large enough, when it's not. Generally it should be larger then you think. Jumping up to 4K means you really need a larger TV on top of what you already though was as large as you could go, or the wife would let you go. Unless you really sit pretty close to that 4K TV, 8 feet away, about average you should be in the 100" screen size range!!! Seems large, but really it isn't for 4K. If you're going to get 4K, don't you want to see the better detail 4K gives you? Which you can't with a screen size to small. What most people will really notice is not the better resolution because they have to small of a 4K TV, but HDR. (High Dynamic Range)
Really, the only practical, cost effective way to have a large enough 4K picture is a Front Projector.
The only thing I've seen is if you have old Disney digital copies in SD and you sign up for Movie Rewards, Disney upgrades all your old SD movies to HD for free.
I disagree. You can easily see the benefits of 4K with a 55" screen sitting 8 feet or so away. That has nothing to do with HDR either. I have a ton of native 4K content that isn't HDR and it's pretty incredible at how much better the resolution is compared to 1080. Same with watching UHD blu rays. Take the movie The Revenant for example. The 4K blu ray blows away the regular 1080p blu ray. 4K is not overblown at all.
I don't disagree, but i'd need to value that "blown away" experience. I think people have differing places in their lives for technology, and while one person simply refuses to spend $100 because "there's no 4k support" another might say "for $100 I get a load of viewing options i never had before that me and my family really enjoy."
My evaluation of 4k is limited to demos in big box stores, and the one thing that "blows me away" is how inexpensive they are becoming. When my 3 year old 42" 1080p tv dies, I'll replace it with 4k. Before then, I simply ask myself what the value of its price is *to me*. Can I get content that I watch in 4k? (no, I don't need to watch The Revenant. It's just not worth the 2 hours to me.)
I can see many people spend hours and hours each week "watching their shows" or "gaming." I find my ATV was a god value at the $129 I think I paid for it.
But...that remote. ugh. And add an OTV tuner with a coax port? Yeah, I'd pay $200 for that.
A welcome addition, but not much true 4K content exists - so the importance of the lack of that feature was over emphasized (for now) . My Amazon Fire 'supports' 4K but processor still chokes with 1080p streams and finally overcame Dolby audio glitches with the most recent update.
What Apple TV really needs is an updated remote! Lack of crucial buttons, overly sensitive touch, inconsistent app mapping to button functions and horrid ergonomics (easy to hold upside down, too thin).
Try repeatedly flicking your thumb on the current remote, scrolling down a list of thousands of movies to reach your desired movie only to accidentally switch to another column on the Apple TV and having to start over flicking your thumb like a mad hamster. It's disgusting a remote control.
What Apple TV needs is a KEYBOARD remote. It doesn't work well with current Bluetooth keyboards.
What would be another needed upgrade is the use of MULTIPLE bluetooth remotes to allow game playing without the need to go through the network - which slows down response.
Hey..wanna secret...there is an app you can download to your iPhone or iPad to control the ATV, and it brings up a keyboard...
Hey, wanna 'nother secret? It wasn't available when ATV4 shipped. Oh, and not everyone that buys a ATV owns a iOS device. so...2 secrets are now out.
It is available now, and has been for some time. His complaint is that Apple should offer a keyboard remote going forward. On your second point, while theoretically true, I suspect that is a very small number. Give a real world example.
So...how is offering that there's a secret iOS remote helpful? How does that address his point that there is no separate BT keyboard? Maybe the Siri remote should have a touchscreen?
I have a family member with an ATV and no iOS devices. So there's one.
There is a lot more to offering a "very good" 4K streaming capability than ability to output a 4K resolution. Just because it is technically possible to output 2160p doesn't mean the h/w could do 4K streaming services, requiring features like - 4K@60fps - HDR - HDMI 2.0 - HDCP 2.2 - Next generation codec (e.g. HEVC/H.265) to enable a high quality stream to be delivered at a bitrate that reasonable for a large number of broadband connections (a good quality 1080p@60fps stream encoded with H.264 takes about 10Mbps - 4K would be about 4 times that). To get to sub 20Mbps with a high quality 4K@60fps takes the next generation codecs. The royalty issues here have not yet been fully addressed, but maybe enough for Apple to take the plunge. - Content
So, doing "4K right" is a big h/w feature set. One would assume that this means updated SoC and related internals, and perhaps more storage at each tier to support 4K graphics games.
Other than an updated Siri Remote (which I agree with - and why not something cool like induction charging on top of ATV with magnetic attachment ala Apple Watch style...), what other features are people wanting, given that this device is clearly not going to be a cable/satellite STB, not contain a HDD for recording live OTA TV, etc?
A welcome addition, but not much true 4K content exists - so the importance of the lack of that feature was over emphasized (for now) . My Amazon Fire 'supports' 4K but processor still chokes with 1080p streams and finally overcame Dolby audio glitches with the most recent update.
What Apple TV really needs is an updated remote! Lack of crucial buttons, overly sensitive touch, inconsistent app mapping to button functions and horrid ergonomics (easy to hold upside down, too thin).
Try repeatedly flicking your thumb on the current remote, scrolling down a list of thousands of movies to reach your desired movie only to accidentally switch to another column on the Apple TV and having to start over flicking your thumb like a mad hamster. It's disgusting a remote control.
What Apple TV needs is a KEYBOARD remote. It doesn't work well with current Bluetooth keyboards.
What would be another needed upgrade is the use of MULTIPLE bluetooth remotes to allow game playing without the need to go through the network - which slows down response.
Hey..wanna secret...there is an app you can download to your iPhone or iPad to control the ATV, and it brings up a keyboard...
Hey, wanna 'nother secret? It wasn't available when ATV4 shipped. Oh, and not everyone that buys a ATV owns a iOS device. so...2 secrets are now out.
It is available now, and has been for some time. His complaint is that Apple should offer a keyboard remote going forward. On your second point, while theoretically true, I suspect that is a very small number. Give a real world example.
So...how is offering that there's a secret iOS remote helpful? How does that address his point that there is no separate BT keyboard? Maybe the Siri remote should have a touchscreen?
I have a family member with an ATV and no iOS devices. So there's one.
So the "secret" part was meant as sarcasm to his whiny post...the app in general has been available for years...I guess your detector is a bit off.
Do you agree with him that Apple is failing by not offering their own Apple TV keyboard remote?
Do you agree with him that Apple is failing by not offering their own Apple TV keyboard remote?
I don't. When you encounter a text field you can use the Remote app to input text using the SW keyboard. I can't imagine why their needs to be a standalone, keyboard app that only works with the Apple TV.
What Apple TV really needs is an updated remote! Lack of crucial buttons, overly sensitive touch, inconsistent app mapping to button functions and horrid ergonomics (easy to hold upside down, too thin).
Couldn't agree more. It'd also be great if the remote didn't explode when you drop it. A TV remote shouldn't need a third party case to prevent this.
There is a lot more to offering a "very good" 4K streaming capability than ability to output a 4K resolution. Just because it is technically possible to output 2160p doesn't mean the h/w could do 4K streaming services, requiring features like - 4K@60fps - HDR - HDMI 2.0 - HDCP 2.2 - Next generation codec (e.g. HEVC/H.265) to enable a high quality stream to be delivered at a bitrate that reasonable for a large number of broadband connections (a good quality 1080p@60fps stream encoded with H.264 takes about 10Mbps - 4K would be about 4 times that). To get to sub 20Mbps with a high quality 4K@60fps takes the next generation codecs. The royalty issues here have not yet been fully addressed, but maybe enough for Apple to take the plunge. - Content
So, doing "4K right" is a big h/w feature set. One would assume that this means updated SoC and related internals, and perhaps more storage at each tier to support 4K graphics games.
Other than an updated Siri Remote (which I agree with - and why not something cool like induction charging on top of ATV with magnetic attachment ala Apple Watch style...), what other features are people wanting, given that this device is clearly not going to be a cable/satellite STB, not contain a HDD for recording live OTA TV, etc?
That is one of the misconception. While 4K has 4 times the pixel of 2K/ 1080P, it doesn't requires 4 times the compressed bitrate. You would properly need 15 to 20 Mbps for H.264. And for HEVC it will be the same as H.264 10Mbps.
iTunes Movie Stream 1080P @ ~8Mbps. I suspect a 4K, HDR HEVC Movie would be around 10-12Mbps.
There is a lot more to offering a "very good" 4K streaming capability than ability to output a 4K resolution. Just because it is technically possible to output 2160p doesn't mean the h/w could do 4K streaming services, requiring features like - 4K@60fps - HDR - HDMI 2.0 - HDCP 2.2 - Next generation codec (e.g. HEVC/H.265) to enable a high quality stream to be delivered at a bitrate that reasonable for a large number of broadband connections (a good quality 1080p@60fps stream encoded with H.264 takes about 10Mbps - 4K would be about 4 times that). To get to sub 20Mbps with a high quality 4K@60fps takes the next generation codecs. The royalty issues here have not yet been fully addressed, but maybe enough for Apple to take the plunge. - Content
So, doing "4K right" is a big h/w feature set. One would assume that this means updated SoC and related internals, and perhaps more storage at each tier to support 4K graphics games.
Other than an updated Siri Remote (which I agree with - and why not something cool like induction charging on top of ATV with magnetic attachment ala Apple Watch style...), what other features are people wanting, given that this device is clearly not going to be a cable/satellite STB, not contain a HDD for recording live OTA TV, etc?
That is one of the misconception. While 4K has 4 times the pixel of 2K/ 1080P, it doesn't requires 4 times the compressed bitrate. You would properly need 15 to 20 Mbps for H.264. And for HEVC it will be the same as H.264 10Mbps.
iTunes Movie Stream 1080P @ ~8Mbps. I suspect a 4K, HDR HEVC Movie would be around 10-12Mbps.
It is not a misconception. The more pixels, the more there is to compress for a similar picture quality. HEVC is considered to offer about 50% improvement in codec efficiency vs H.264. An iTunes movie at 24fps is much different than a live steam at 60fps. The iTunes movie might be 8Mbps (or less), but higher frame rate content with more action will be higher, in terms of the same video quality.
Sure, it is possible to stream 4K resolution content at 20 Mbps with H.264, but you will NOT get the picture quality that one would expect of 4K. The compression artifacts will compromise the quality you would expect with 4K resolution. Better to offer a less compressed 1080p stream in that case.
I don't doubt that a 4K "movie" at 24fps could be delivered at 10-12 Mbps with HEVC, but its quality as perceived by the viewer (at least with current state of the art) would not impress. Even worse with live content and 60fps content.
To summarize, why would you want to compress the shit out of 4K content to get it down to a low bitrate when a less compressed 1080p would look better.
What could "more vivid colors" mean in the context of the Apple TV since it doesn't have a display? Are there TVs with colour profiles that the Apple TV doesn't currently utilise or something?
HDR most probably, that together with 4K would be enough for me anyway, to upgrade from my current 3rd-gen device. I also reckon it'll get a processor bump to an A9 or A10 too.
If its 4K, that means obviously it will have a new Soc and completely new internals. And obviously the OS will see a major update and features this yr.
The thing isn't going to grow a display or legs, it will still be the same box, but that doesn't mean it can't be significantly improved with new internals and software. Not that I have many complaints about the current one, I use it everyday.
It needs nothing of the sort. The A8 can handle 4K as it stands, as I linked above. All it "needs" is HDMI 2.0, and only then if it'll support 4K60.
It can play rendered content (movie), but can it play 4K games or any not pre-redered content, handle the UI without stutter : NO. People seem to forgot this slight detail hey. That's one of the reason Apple waited.
This being Apple, they were probably holding back on 4K+HDR until they had some content to sell you. If it comes with an upgrade to a decent chunk of their catalogue with reasonable upgrade pricing it could be worth something.
You won't have an option to upgrade to UHD from HD. You may purchase a new copy of what you want in UHD but not pay a small fee to upgrade to it. It's not even in Apple's control to allow you to do that.
Nothing like buying the same movie multi times!!! From VHS to DVD to Blue-Ray, to Digital SD to HD, and now 4K. Not once have I ever seen any type of discount for owning a past copy. 4K is really just so overblown anyway. 4K is what you are watching at a movie theater. Is your TV screen that large? It's really all about Size vs Distance to Resolution. To many people already have to small of a 1080P HDTV. They think that's more then large enough, when it's not. Generally it should be larger then you think. Jumping up to 4K means you really need a larger TV on top of what you already though was as large as you could go, or the wife would let you go. Unless you really sit pretty close to that 4K TV, 8 feet away, about average you should be in the 100" screen size range!!! Seems large, but really it isn't for 4K. If you're going to get 4K, don't you want to see the better detail 4K gives you? Which you can't with a screen size to small. What most people will really notice is not the better resolution because they have to small of a 4K TV, but HDR. (High Dynamic Range)
Really, the only practical, cost effective way to have a large enough 4K picture is a Front Projector.
Most so called 4K TV don't do HDR well and are of poor general quality and people say it looks better because their 4K stream looks better... Well, 1080P would also look better if it had the 4K streams's bitrate... You can get your 4K stream and downscale it to 1080P and most of those dweebs would not notice at the 12 foot distance they watch their 4K TV.
Yes, they watch 42-50 inch 4K TV at 10 foot plus!!!
This being Apple, they were probably holding back on 4K+HDR until they had some content to sell you. If it comes with an upgrade to a decent chunk of their catalogue with reasonable upgrade pricing it could be worth something.
You won't have an option to upgrade to UHD from HD. You may purchase a new copy of what you want in UHD but not pay a small fee to upgrade to it. It's not even in Apple's control to allow you to do that.
Nothing like buying the same movie multi times!!! From VHS to DVD to Blue-Ray, to Digital SD to HD, and now 4K. Not once have I ever seen any type of discount for owning a past copy. 4K is really just so overblown anyway. 4K is what you are watching at a movie theater. Is your TV screen that large? It's really all about Size vs Distance to Resolution. To many people already have to small of a 1080P HDTV. They think that's more then large enough, when it's not. Generally it should be larger then you think. Jumping up to 4K means you really need a larger TV on top of what you already though was as large as you could go, or the wife would let you go. Unless you really sit pretty close to that 4K TV, 8 feet away, about average you should be in the 100" screen size range!!! Seems large, but really it isn't for 4K. If you're going to get 4K, don't you want to see the better detail 4K gives you? Which you can't with a screen size to small. What most people will really notice is not the better resolution because they have to small of a 4K TV, but HDR. (High Dynamic Range)
Really, the only practical, cost effective way to have a large enough 4K picture is a Front Projector.
The only thing I've seen is if you have old Disney digital copies in SD and you sign up for Movie Rewards, Disney upgrades all your old SD movies to HD for free.
I disagree. You can easily see the benefits of 4K with a 55" screen sitting 8 feet or so away. That has nothing to do with HDR either. I have a ton of native 4K content that isn't HDR and it's pretty incredible at how much better the resolution is compared to 1080. Same with watching UHD blu rays. Take the movie The Revenant for example. The 4K blu ray blows away the regular 1080p blu ray. 4K is not overblown at all.
You can't at a regular distance unless you got a high end HDR 4K TV with HDR content or sit with your face in your TV, which almost no one does. Most difference people see is because the content they're seeing in 4K has a higher bitrate than the 1080P content. 1080P Blue Ray vs 4K internet stream, complete destruction of the stream at any distance. 1080P Blue Ray vs 4K Blue Ray at 10 feet on non HDR mid to low end, it's a wash
I'd bet 99.9% of people can't see the diff between Off the air 1080P and a 4K stream at their regular seating distance on their mid to low end 4K TV. I'd even bet they'd find the 1080P better...
One thing that people also conveniently forget, high end 4K's are better TVs in general with better everything. They'd have to be compared with top end 1080P TV's to make it fair. The thing is because 1080P is less profitable for manufacturers (because less sexy) now, these comparable 1080P's are slowly disapeering from the market.
There is a lot more to offering a "very good" 4K streaming capability than ability to output a 4K resolution. Just because it is technically possible to output 2160p doesn't mean the h/w could do 4K streaming services, requiring features like - 4K@60fps - HDR - HDMI 2.0 - HDCP 2.2 - Next generation codec (e.g. HEVC/H.265) to enable a high quality stream to be delivered at a bitrate that reasonable for a large number of broadband connections (a good quality 1080p@60fps stream encoded with H.264 takes about 10Mbps - 4K would be about 4 times that). To get to sub 20Mbps with a high quality 4K@60fps takes the next generation codecs. The royalty issues here have not yet been fully addressed, but maybe enough for Apple to take the plunge. - Content
So, doing "4K right" is a big h/w feature set. One would assume that this means updated SoC and related internals, and perhaps more storage at each tier to support 4K graphics games.
Other than an updated Siri Remote (which I agree with - and why not something cool like induction charging on top of ATV with magnetic attachment ala Apple Watch style...), what other features are people wanting, given that this device is clearly not going to be a cable/satellite STB, not contain a HDD for recording live OTA TV, etc?
That is one of the misconception. While 4K has 4 times the pixel of 2K/ 1080P, it doesn't requires 4 times the compressed bitrate. You would properly need 15 to 20 Mbps for H.264. And for HEVC it will be the same as H.264 10Mbps.
iTunes Movie Stream 1080P @ ~8Mbps. I suspect a 4K, HDR HEVC Movie would be around 10-12Mbps.
It is not a misconception. The more pixels, the more there is to compress for a similar picture quality. HEVC is considered to offer about 50% improvement in codec efficiency vs H.264. An iTunes movie at 24fps is much different than a live steam at 60fps. The iTunes movie might be 8Mbps (or less), but higher frame rate content with more action will be higher, in terms of the same video quality.
Sure, it is possible to stream 4K resolution content at 20 Mbps with H.264, but you will NOT get the picture quality that one would expect of 4K. The compression artifacts will compromise the quality you would expect with 4K resolution. Better to offer a less compressed 1080p stream in that case.
I don't doubt that a 4K "movie" at 24fps could be delivered at 10-12 Mbps with HEVC, but its quality as perceived by the viewer (at least with current state of the art) would not impress. Even worse with live content and 60fps content.
To summarize, why would you want to compress the shit out of 4K content to get it down to a low bitrate when a less compressed 1080p would look better.
That is assuming you are doing Lossless compression. Heck with Anime, Digitally Clean, No Grain, you could even do 4K with 2Mbps. For Live action yes, you will need much more bitrate due to low time delay and prediction sequence. But that is totally different to how most Apple TV usage, AND, you still dont need 4 times the bitrate for 4K.
This being Apple, they were probably holding back on 4K+HDR until they had some content to sell you. If it comes with an upgrade to a decent chunk of their catalogue with reasonable upgrade pricing it could be worth something.
You won't have an option to upgrade to UHD from HD. You may purchase a new copy of what you want in UHD but not pay a small fee to upgrade to it. It's not even in Apple's control to allow you to do that.
Nothing like buying the same movie multi times!!! From VHS to DVD to Blue-Ray, to Digital SD to HD, and now 4K. Not once have I ever seen any type of discount for owning a past copy. 4K is really just so overblown anyway. 4K is what you are watching at a movie theater. Is your TV screen that large? It's really all about Size vs Distance to Resolution. To many people already have to small of a 1080P HDTV. They think that's more then large enough, when it's not. Generally it should be larger then you think. Jumping up to 4K means you really need a larger TV on top of what you already though was as large as you could go, or the wife would let you go. Unless you really sit pretty close to that 4K TV, 8 feet away, about average you should be in the 100" screen size range!!! Seems large, but really it isn't for 4K. If you're going to get 4K, don't you want to see the better detail 4K gives you? Which you can't with a screen size to small. What most people will really notice is not the better resolution because they have to small of a 4K TV, but HDR. (High Dynamic Range)
Really, the only practical, cost effective way to have a large enough 4K picture is a Front Projector.
The only thing I've seen is if you have old Disney digital copies in SD and you sign up for Movie Rewards, Disney upgrades all your old SD movies to HD for free.
I disagree. You can easily see the benefits of 4K with a 55" screen sitting 8 feet or so away. That has nothing to do with HDR either. I have a ton of native 4K content that isn't HDR and it's pretty incredible at how much better the resolution is compared to 1080. Same with watching UHD blu rays. Take the movie The Revenant for example. The 4K blu ray blows away the regular 1080p blu ray. 4K is not overblown at all.
8 feet away from a 55 inch screen is pretty damn close.
So did you watch the 1080p version of Revenant on the same 4k TV?
And please note that streaming 4k will be much lower quality than the 4k bluray you saw.
The UHD Version of Revenant was created from the HDR Graded source. The HD was not. HDR is more effective at differentiating content than HD to UHD alone is. Most people can't tell the difference without it. If Apple adds HDR10 (and perhaps DV) support to AppleTV it will be a much more useful device. Enable Netflix UHD HDR, hopefully add Vudu, Amazon (I know but still).
This being Apple, they were probably holding back on 4K+HDR until they had some content to sell you. If it comes with an upgrade to a decent chunk of their catalogue with reasonable upgrade pricing it could be worth something.
You won't have an option to upgrade to UHD from HD. You may purchase a new copy of what you want in UHD but not pay a small fee to upgrade to it. It's not even in Apple's control to allow you to do that.
Nothing like buying the same movie multi times!!! From VHS to DVD to Blue-Ray, to Digital SD to HD, and now 4K. Not once have I ever seen any type of discount for owning a past copy. 4K is really just so overblown anyway. 4K is what you are watching at a movie theater. Is your TV screen that large? It's really all about Size vs Distance to Resolution. To many people already have to small of a 1080P HDTV. They think that's more then large enough, when it's not. Generally it should be larger then you think. Jumping up to 4K means you really need a larger TV on top of what you already though was as large as you could go, or the wife would let you go. Unless you really sit pretty close to that 4K TV, 8 feet away, about average you should be in the 100" screen size range!!! Seems large, but really it isn't for 4K. If you're going to get 4K, don't you want to see the better detail 4K gives you? Which you can't with a screen size to small. What most people will really notice is not the better resolution because they have to small of a 4K TV, but HDR. (High Dynamic Range)
Really, the only practical, cost effective way to have a large enough 4K picture is a Front Projector.
The only thing I've seen is if you have old Disney digital copies in SD and you sign up for Movie Rewards, Disney upgrades all your old SD movies to HD for free.
I disagree. You can easily see the benefits of 4K with a 55" screen sitting 8 feet or so away. That has nothing to do with HDR either. I have a ton of native 4K content that isn't HDR and it's pretty incredible at how much better the resolution is compared to 1080. Same with watching UHD blu rays. Take the movie The Revenant for example. The 4K blu ray blows away the regular 1080p blu ray. 4K is not overblown at all.
8 feet away from a 55 inch screen is pretty damn close.
So did you watch the 1080p version of Revenant on the same 4k TV?
And please note that streaming 4k will be much lower quality than the 4k bluray you saw.
I watch a 60" from about than 8' or so, no problem whatsoever. I'd like an even bigger one or did, these days I actually watch more Netflix on an iPad to be honest.
It is available now, and has been for some time. His complaint is that Apple should offer a keyboard remote going forward. On your second point, while theoretically true, I suspect that is a very small number. Give a real world example.
How about me? While I still have the Apple TV 3rd Gen, I have been looking at an Apple TV 4th Gen, and I don't own a Mac or other iOS Device. Have I looked at iOS devices, absolutely. However, money is always an issue, and I don't have the cash to spend on an iOS device, like a tablet, that I don't really need and that would basically be just for being a remote control, especially since I already have an Android phone that does what I need it to.
Comments
And it's good that Apple doesn't offer some cheap option for 4K content. Bring 2160p + 60 or 120 fps + HDR10 (and Dolby Vision (and Hybrid Log-Gamma and SL-HDR1) + HDMI 2.0 or 2.1 + Apple A9 or A10 (for faster CPU, GPU and more RAM) + more NAND + Bluetooth 4.1, 4.2 or 5.0. That sounds like a decent upgrade to me, it'll be about 2 years before this rumour would likely come to fruition, and we're only talking no more than $199.
Would better than Dolby Digital Plus 7.1 be a benefit to anyone?
My evaluation of 4k is limited to demos in big box stores, and the one thing that "blows me away" is how inexpensive they are becoming. When my 3 year old 42" 1080p tv dies, I'll replace it with 4k. Before then, I simply ask myself what the value of its price is *to me*. Can I get content that I watch in 4k? (no, I don't need to watch The Revenant. It's just not worth the 2 hours to me.)
I can see many people spend hours and hours each week "watching their shows" or "gaming." I find my ATV was a god value at the $129 I think I paid for it.
But...that remote. ugh. And add an OTV tuner with a coax port? Yeah, I'd pay $200 for that.
I have a family member with an ATV and no iOS devices. So there's one.
- 4K@60fps
- HDR
- HDMI 2.0
- HDCP 2.2
- Next generation codec (e.g. HEVC/H.265) to enable a high quality stream to be delivered at a bitrate that reasonable for a large number of broadband connections (a good quality 1080p@60fps stream encoded with H.264 takes about 10Mbps - 4K would be about 4 times that). To get to sub 20Mbps with a high quality 4K@60fps takes the next generation codecs. The royalty issues here have not yet been fully addressed, but maybe enough for Apple to take the plunge.
- Content
So, doing "4K right" is a big h/w feature set. One would assume that this means updated SoC and related internals, and perhaps more storage at each tier to support 4K graphics games.
Other than an updated Siri Remote (which I agree with - and why not something cool like induction charging on top of ATV with magnetic attachment ala Apple Watch style...), what other features are people wanting, given that this device is clearly not going to be a cable/satellite STB, not contain a HDD for recording live OTA TV, etc?
So the "secret" part was meant as sarcasm to his whiny post...the app in general has been available for years...I guess your detector is a bit off.
Do you agree with him that Apple is failing by not offering their own Apple TV keyboard remote?
iTunes Movie Stream 1080P @ ~8Mbps. I suspect a 4K, HDR HEVC Movie would be around 10-12Mbps.
Sure, it is possible to stream 4K resolution content at 20 Mbps with H.264, but you will NOT get the picture quality that one would expect of 4K. The compression artifacts will compromise the quality you would expect with 4K resolution. Better to offer a less compressed 1080p stream in that case.
I don't doubt that a 4K "movie" at 24fps could be delivered at 10-12 Mbps with HEVC, but its quality as perceived by the viewer (at least with current state of the art) would not impress. Even worse with live content and 60fps content.
To summarize, why would you want to compress the shit out of 4K content to get it down to a low bitrate when a less compressed 1080p would look better.
People seem to forgot this slight detail hey.
That's one of the reason Apple waited.
Yes, they watch 42-50 inch 4K TV at 10 foot plus!!!
Most difference people see is because the content they're seeing in 4K has a higher bitrate than the 1080P content.
1080P Blue Ray vs 4K internet stream, complete destruction of the stream at any distance.
1080P Blue Ray vs 4K Blue Ray at 10 feet on non HDR mid to low end, it's a wash
I'd bet 99.9% of people can't see the diff between Off the air 1080P and a 4K stream at their regular seating distance on their mid to low end 4K TV.
I'd even bet they'd find the 1080P better...
One thing that people also conveniently forget, high end 4K's are better TVs in general with better everything. They'd have to be compared with top end 1080P TV's to make it fair. The thing is because 1080P is less profitable for manufacturers (because less sexy) now, these comparable 1080P's are slowly disapeering from the market.
That is assuming you are doing Lossless compression. Heck with Anime, Digitally Clean, No Grain, you could even do 4K with 2Mbps.
For Live action yes, you will need much more bitrate due to low time delay and prediction sequence. But that is totally different to how most Apple TV usage, AND, you still dont need 4 times the bitrate for 4K.
The UHD Version of Revenant was created from the HDR Graded source. The HD was not. HDR is more effective at differentiating content than HD to UHD alone is. Most people can't tell the difference without it. If Apple adds HDR10 (and perhaps DV) support to AppleTV it will be a much more useful device. Enable Netflix UHD HDR, hopefully add Vudu, Amazon (I know but still).
james
How about me? While I still have the Apple TV 3rd Gen, I have been looking at an Apple TV 4th Gen, and I don't own a Mac or other iOS Device. Have I looked at iOS devices, absolutely. However, money is always an issue, and I don't have the cash to spend on an iOS device, like a tablet, that I don't really need and that would basically be just for being a remote control, especially since I already have an Android phone that does what I need it to.