or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Rumor: Apple building 4K Ultra HD television set for launch in 2013 or early 2014
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Rumor: Apple building 4K Ultra HD television set for launch in 2013 or early 2014 - Page 4

post #121 of 189
Quote:
Originally Posted by v5v View Post

 

I don't understand what that means. Can you elaborate?

 

To my eyes anyway, I can perceive resolution and detail before being able to see individual pixels. On my 92" front projection system, I have to be a couple of feet from the screen to be able to start to make out individual pixels. However, I don't have to be that close to see all the detail that 1080p has to offer. According to the chart I posted, somewhere around 12' is the magic number (which seems to coincide with my own observations).

post #122 of 189
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

Which studio created media format fits the iMac or 15" MBP's 2650x1440 resolution or the iPad's 20148x1536 resolution or the iPhone's 1136x640 resolution? There is none! Don't get hung up on the word TV. It's just a monitor!
Note that they started supporting far more than 2K (2048 x 1080) in their 2012 MBPs. That's half the pixels of a 4K display in a 15" panel. Going to 4K is only a 50% increase in resolution hence the doubling of the pixels.

There's always a risk in everything. The issue of new content vs. new hardware to run it on, is a chicken and egg problem. Studios aren't inclined to release 4k media if there's not much of a market for it, there won't be much of a market for 4k TVs unless there's media for them.

Quote:
Originally Posted by gwmac View Post

Love the way you ignored my link that proved you were wrong that most Americans do in fact live with data caps. With over 23,000 posts who in their right mind would try and look through all your posts to find the one where you mentioned what Mac you own? Might as well try an find a phone number in a phone book that isn't alphabetized. So why don't you just tell us what Mac(s) you own unless it is a secret. My memory is pretty good and I remember you specifically mentioning you having a Mac Mini in a thread where you were bashing people for wanting an updated Mac Pro as out of touch. Maybe someone else remembers that as well. 


Caps are a fact of life, but I'd like to see stats on the number of people actually bumping into them.

I know one person that bumped into his cap, and he basically has Netflix running on his PS3 12+ hours a day, while watching YouTube on his notebook. Which is insane, but he's on disability for special needs. He upgraded to a higher tier and the problem went away.
post #123 of 189
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post


...or the iPad's 20148x1536 resolution...

 

Wow! Where do I get one of those? (Sorry, I couldn't resist)

post #124 of 189
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post

There's always a risk in everything. The issue of new content vs. new hardware to run it on, is a chicken and egg problem. Studios aren't inclined to release 4k media if there's not much of a market for it, there won't be much of a market for 4k TVs unless there's media for them.
Caps are a fact of life, but I'd like to see stats on the number of people actually bumping into them.


Then HW is the egg and content is chicken (coming at it from a standpoint that the egg predates the chicken by millions of years 1biggrin.gif ).

Seriously though, this doesn't look like a chicken egg v. chicken situation to me. We have many resolutions for displays that have absolutely no content designed to fit pixel-for-pixel with it. The latest MBPs and iPads are great examples. I know there are some anti-Apple trolls that claims that a tablet or notebook only needs to be 1920x1080p with everything else being overkill* but the truth is we don't think of it when it comes to "computer" displays. We play YouTube, Hulu, Netflix, iTS, etc. content and never say "I wish my display had less pixels." The TV of the future — of today — is just a computer monitor, but with a stupid brain and an obsolescing TV tuner attached. If we are to expect an Apple TV with apps, which includes the great AirPlay mirroring we have with 2560x1440 Macs and the 2048x1536 iPad why would expect this experience is most ideal on a paltry 1920x1080 TV that is much, much, much larger than any of these other displays.



* Where were they when Amazon and Google were release high PPI displays in tablets last year?

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #125 of 189
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phone-UI-Guy View Post

4x the bit rate unless they also support H.265 which would bring it down to 2X. I'm not aware of any silicon with H.265 encode/decode support yet. Not that Apple couldn't be making their own. My current Apple TV would be good enough for awhile if it had an App Store. I just figured out that they let you move the apps like iPhone and iPad. Not sure how I missed that.

In my experience, quadrupling the pixels doesn't necessarily require quadrupling the bitrate of the encoded stream. It's a little complicated, but when you're showing finer details of a given image, it's not necessary to have quadruple the bitstream to do so, because of the way the coding works.
post #126 of 189
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post

In my experience, quadrupling the pixels doesn't necessarily require quadrupling the bitrate of the encoded stream. It's a little complicated, but when you're showing finer details of a given image, it's not necessary to have quadruple the bitstream to do so, because of the way the coding works.

Not at all. In fact, I've read (but can't verify) that there an increase in efficiency to a bit rate as you scale the resolution. Now I did use 2x in my examples earlier only to make the math simple and favoring the worst possible outcome.

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #127 of 189
See I have felt that apple has a rule in its self about ppi, well apple is probably going to do 4k( maybe even 5k.) well this is probably going to drive the TV in upper thousands thou(1800 for a small) (5000 for a large).
post #128 of 189
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

[...] The TV of the future — of today — is just a computer monitor, but with a stupid brain and an obsolescing TV tuner attached.

 

Or, even more ideally, just a monitor -- period, full stop. Who here actually uses their TV's built-in tuner? How many of us use an external cable box or equivalent? The only thing I need a "TV" to be is a display with an HDMI input.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

If we are to expect an Apple TV with apps, which includes the great AirPlay mirroring we have with 2560x1440 Macs and the 2048x1536 iPad why would expect this experience is most ideal on a paltry 1920x1080 TV that is much, much, much larger than any of these other displays.

 

AIRPLAY. Yes. That is an excellent point. You're right, I really would want a higher res display for that.

post #129 of 189
I wish they would build a touch screen iMac!!!!!!!!!

When Only The Best Will Do!

Reply

When Only The Best Will Do!

Reply
post #130 of 189
Quote:
Originally Posted by spydasweb View Post

I wish they would build a touch screen iMac!!!!!!!!!

I want to see the usage model of a desktop OS with a vertical touch screen. I'd really like to see people buy a touch screen computer and see how much they still use it a month later.
post #131 of 189
Quote:
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post

This means a 4K iTV could launch by year's end, the sources say, but is more likely to happen in early 2014.

Early 2014 now. That timeframe just keeps on movin'.

The biggest issue I see in this is the size of the market:

http://www.utsandiego.com/news/2013/mar/21/Global-Television-Demand-dropped-last-year/

203 million LCD TVs worldwide in 2012 of which Samsung accounts for 28%, LG 15% and the average selling price in the region of $500.

Sony seems to be planning a 4k TV at $5000:

http://www.flatpanelshd.com/news.php?subaction=showfull&id=1364200494

I'm sure I saw another one advertised somewhere around that price too. Given that the average selling price is so low, the sales volumes of expensive TVs has to be extremely small. The highest target volume would be Samsung at ~57 million per year worldwide.

I think we can exclude the $0-500 range under the assumption that they won't make a 1080p TV so that's well over half the volume cut out. Say it's only half, that leaves a best case volume of ~28 million units and the majority of those will be in the $500-1000 range.

Let's say that range is excluded too and it's only half again. That leaves the best case scenario for a $1000+ TV at ~14 million units per year worldwide. This is less than their Mac line. If they can get similar margins, ok it might be worth doing. Samsung and Sony can't maintain their margins:

http://appleinsider.com/articles/12/05/23/samsung_sony_begin_enforcing_minimum_prices_on_hdtvs_to_grow_margins

but this is the same on the phone side - they can't sustain margins as high as Apple. Nonetheless, almost certainly, Apple would make less profit from making a TV than they do from their Macs. That's still a decent amount of money at 30% of their profit but this is all under the assumption that they can match Samsung's volumes, maintain high margins and that the volume distribution is in even 50% splits, which it can't be.

It would probably have a nice design, maybe it's something they've always wanted to improve but it won't be a big money maker and it offers very few opportunities for Apple to show off why they are better than TVs with lower margins. If they've found a way to make a 4K TV in the $1000-2000 range, that's a huge selling point along with a laminated low glare front, coupled with some nice software. Even with the low numbers, they'll own the premium market, which is what they usually do. However, that's pretty optimistic because how could Apple have the tech to make a 4K display that cheap when nobody else does? Apple is buying the panels from a 3rd party.
post #132 of 189
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

Not at all. In fact, I've read (but can't verify) that there an increase in efficiency to a bit rate as you scale the resolution. Now I did use 2x in my examples earlier only to make the math simple and favoring the worst possible outcome.

2x bitrate for 4x more pixels seems to be a decent rule of thumb. I think there is a name for the theory behind it, but I don't remember what it is.
post #133 of 189
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post

2x bitrate for 4x more pixels seems to be a decent rule of thumb. I think there is a name for the theory behind it, but I don't remember what it is.

And that's with me assuming H.265 over the current H.264 so we can imagine even better results overall, not to mention that audio channels, subtitle/CC, and whatever is deemed the high and low values for a perceived video quality don't scale the same way as with video codecs. Meaning, the last one, that the amount of data per video frame could be dramatically lowered per pixel without having a noticeable effect on quality for a given circumstance. I think testing and comparing is the only way to figure that out; I don't think it can be done with formulas.

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #134 of 189
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post


I want to see the usage model of a desktop OS with a vertical touch screen. I'd really like to see people buy a touch screen computer and see how much they still use it a month later.

 

I know what you're saying, and I fully realize that it would be more tiring than "conventional" input methods, but I want it anyway. I've considered the trade-offs, and to me it's worth slightly more arm strain for the ease in collaboration, editing, mixing, scaling and probably a pile of other things I haven't even thought of yet. Besides, it's not THAT much extra effort -- roughly equivalent to playing the piano.

post #135 of 189
Quote:
Originally Posted by v5v View Post

I know what you're saying, and I fully realize that it would be more tiring than "conventional" input methods, but I want it anyway. I've considered the trade-offs, and to me it's worth slightly more arm strain for the ease in collaboration, editing, mixing, scaling and probably a pile of other things I haven't even thought of yet. Besides, it's not THAT much extra effort -- roughly equivalent to playing the piano.

There is no slightly involved. You can't keep your arms suspended all day like that. The only way a touchscreen Mac works for extended use is if the display is repositioned to be in a natural place your hands would be, like when you use an iPad on a table, lap with it propped up in the back. I think TS had a pic of a mockup once.

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #136 of 189
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

There is no slightly involved. You can't keep your arms suspended all day like that.

 

But see, it's NOT all day. It's not the ONLY form of input, it's ANOTHER form of input.

 

Here's an example: in Pro Tools there's no way for me to move more than one fader at a time with a mouse. If I want to turn up one channel while turning down another I have to do two passes. If I could just reach up and grab those two faders on screen for a few seconds it would save me time, and produce better results because I could hear what I'm doing in context rather than having to guess how much the one should go up and the other down. Once done, I go back to the keyboard and mouse and trackpad.

 

There are at least half-a-dozen other use cases I can imagine just off the top of my head.

 

The point is that one needn't leave arms suspended all day. The addition of a touchscreen just adds one more form of interaction with the machine, one that just happens to be much more intuitive than most others and provides options no other method does.

post #137 of 189
Quote:
Originally Posted by v5v View Post

But see, it's NOT all day. It's not the ONLY form of input, it's ANOTHER form of input.

Here's an example: in Pro Tools there's no way for me to move more than one fader at a time with a mouse. If I want to turn up one channel while turning down another I have to do two passes. If I could just reach up and grab those two faders on screen for a few seconds it would save me time, and produce better results because I could hear what I'm doing in context rather than having to guess how much the one should go up and the other down. Once done, I go back to the keyboard and mouse and trackpad.

There are at least half-a-dozen other use cases I can imagine just off the top of my head.

The point is that one needn't leave arms suspended all day. The addition of a touchscreen just adds one more form of interaction with the machine, one that just happens to be much more intuitive than most others and provides options no other method does.

You do realize that the less frequent an input method is and the more specialized its use the worse you make your case because you're essentially asking Apple to add a 27" touch panel to their iMac that hopefully 1) won't increase the cost for users, and 2) won't negatively affect the brightness, color quality, etc for professional that need the most accurate display, but won't get used much. Then you have people complaining that a touchscreen Mac is pointless since it's not capable of being placed in some "drafting board" mode, for lack of a better term.

In no way am I saying your desire isn't real or wouldn't help you out, but there are at least as many ideas for making something just right for an individual as there are people in the world. Your idea doesn't affect my usage in the slightest so I hope it comes true but so far I've seen nothing that would indicate that is high on Apple's priorities.

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #138 of 189
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

You do realize that the less frequent an input method is and the more specialized its use the worse you make your case because you're essentially asking Apple to add a 27" touch panel to their iMac that hopefully 1) won't increase the cost for users, and 2) won't negatively affect the brightness, color quality, etc for professional that need the most accurate display, but won't get used much. Then you have people complaining that a touchscreen Mac is pointless since it's not capable of being placed in some "drafting board" mode, for lack of a better term..

Not only that, but touching the screen leaves marks. It's not a big deal on the phone because I can wipe the phone on my jeans to clean it, but you can't do that with a 27" iMac. You'd need to keep cleaning supplies handy and use them all the time.
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #139 of 189
Originally Posted by v5v View Post
I know what you're saying, and I fully realize that it would be more tiring than "conventional" input methods, but I want it anyway.

 

People don't know what they want until you show it to them. You don't actually want it. As to the earlier query about the use case of those who buy vertical touchscreen desktops, I should think that we would have that information readily available, since HP, Dell, Acer, and nearly everyone else who makes a computer has a touchscreen desktop model.

 

And yet… we don't hear anything about how often they're used, if they're returned, or how they're used at all… 


…it's worth slightly more arm strain for the ease in collaboration, editing, mixing, scaling and probably a pile of other things I haven't even thought of yet.

 

Do you know what strain means? So how could it be easier? 


Besides, it's not THAT much extra effort -- roughly equivalent to playing the piano.

 

As a piano player myself, I often BEND MY HANDS UP VERTICALLY TO PLAY, so I know where you're coming from¡


Originally Posted by v5v View Post
But see, it's NOT all day. It's not the ONLY form of input, it's ANOTHER form of input.

 

That's why it won't be included until it's the only form. Apple isn't big on "another".


The point is that one needn't leave arms suspended all day. The addition of a touchscreen just adds one more form of interaction with the machine, one that just happens to be much more intuitive than most others and provides options no other method does.

 

Ah, but the thing is, a touchscreen can replace ALL forms, and therefore it'll be moved to when it's the only form.

Originally Posted by Marvin

The only thing more insecure than Android’s OS is its userbase.
Reply

Originally Posted by Marvin

The only thing more insecure than Android’s OS is its userbase.
Reply
post #140 of 189
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post


Don't get hung up on the word TV. It's just a monitor!

I'm NOT hung up on the word TV. The analysts are. I'm on record saying this will make for a great monitor. I'd love a 40" or larger retina display monitor! 

 

But a monitor is not going to sell anywhere near the volume that an Apple TV set will, nor that the analysts expect one would. If Apple just released a large format retina monitor along with a new headliner product at a media event, everyone would applaud, and nobody would think anything more about it. But the minute you call it a "TV" the ramifications of that word go waaaaaaaay beyond a really cool new monitor. Suddenly Apple's future depends on it.

 

What's being debated here is not whether Apple will release a nifty new Thuderbolt Display, but whether Apple will introduce a 4K Apple TV. The difference is profound. You wanna talk large screen retina display? I'm all for it. You wanna talk 4K Apple branded TV set? I doubt Apple will do it anytime soon.

 

Could somebody buy such a display now and then add to it a quietly updated 4K Apple TV set top box "hobby" of Apple's? You betcha. But there's a big difference between that and the launch of a new integrated product category which requires 4K media content to justify the cost.

post #141 of 189
Quote:
Originally Posted by v5v View Post

Besides, it's not THAT much extra effort -- roughly equivalent to playing the piano.

You do realize that a piano is a keyboard and in no way performed at the height of your head, right? 1confused.gif

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #142 of 189
Quote:
Originally Posted by v5v View Post

I know what you're saying, and I fully realize that it would be more tiring than "conventional" input methods, but I want it anyway. I've considered the trade-offs, and to me it's worth slightly more arm strain for the ease in collaboration, editing, mixing, scaling and probably a pile of other things I haven't even thought of yet. Besides, it's not THAT much extra effort -- roughly equivalent to playing the piano.

Holding a book isn't much work, either. Anyone can do it, right?

Now hold one at arm's length in front of you for 8 hours a day and tell me that it's roughly equivalent to playing a piano.
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #143 of 189
How many 4K movies is available for download?

How many games work at that resolution?

I believe the number may be ZERO.
post #144 of 189
Quote:
Originally Posted by studentx View Post

How many 4K movies is available for download?

How many games work at that resolution?

I believe the number may be ZERO.

How many 2650x1440 movies are available for download?

How many games work at that resolution?

What part of 2x and 3x pixel-for-pixel scaling is so hard to understand when putting a computer on a large monitor in the HEC?

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #145 of 189
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mac_128 View Post

Could somebody buy such a display now and then add to it a quietly updated 4K Apple TV set top box "hobby" of Apple's? You betcha. But there's a big difference between that and the launch of a new integrated product category which requires 4K media content to justify the cost.

1) Why are you talking about now? This about the future.

2) I guess they do it quietly but I don't see why you'd think they would. Seems to me it would be best to advertise that they support H.265 decoding and/or 4K resolutions with their Apple TV appliance.

3) I doubt you said "requires 2048x1536 media content to justify the cost" when the Retina iPad came out so why now make that claim against another display?

4) I guarantee you watch content on a combination of your TV, smartphones, tablets, and computers that were not encoded to fit that display pixel-for-pixel and yet you still do it? Why the hypocrisy?

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #146 of 189
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post
How many games work at that resolution?

 

Hey, I just thought of something. 

 

They don't have to support that resolution directly. With any retina display, a game simply becomes 2x anti-aliased by default. It's just left to the creators to properly code their work to take advantage of that. 

Originally Posted by Marvin

The only thing more insecure than Android’s OS is its userbase.
Reply

Originally Posted by Marvin

The only thing more insecure than Android’s OS is its userbase.
Reply
post #147 of 189
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

Hey, I just thought of something. 

They don't have to support that resolution directly. With any retina display, a game simply becomes 2x anti-aliased by default. It's just left to the creators to properly code their work to take advantage of that. 

1) No anti-aliasing needed to support the scaling Apple has done with all their Retina upgrades. It's pixel-for-pixel scaling.

2) I commented many posts ago and many times that 720p and 1080p fit into 2160p(4K) exactly 2x and 3x, respectively. This is exactly what they did with their Retina displays. jragosta has a good post about it. As I stated before, this is the most mathematically perfect setup we've ever seen.

3) I seem to recall you replying to my comment which I replying that that scaling is only 1.5 for 480p to 720p or for 720p to 1080p.

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #148 of 189
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post
1) No anti-aliasing needed to support the scaling Apple has done with all their Retina upgrades. It's pixel-for-pixel scaling.

2) I commented many posts ago and many times that 720p and 1080p fit into 2160p(4K) exactly 2x and 3x, respectively. This is exactly what they did with their Retina displays. jragosta has a good post about it. As I stated before, this is the most mathematically perfect setup we've ever seen.

3) I seem to recall you replying to my comment which I replying that that scaling is only 1.5 for 480p to 720p or for 720p to 1080p.

 

Right, right. Don't know why I thought it was 1:1 the same type of scaling, but that neuron's probably stuck there for life at this point…

Originally Posted by Marvin

The only thing more insecure than Android’s OS is its userbase.
Reply

Originally Posted by Marvin

The only thing more insecure than Android’s OS is its userbase.
Reply
post #149 of 189
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

[...] As a piano player myself, I often BEND MY HANDS UP VERTICALLY TO PLAY, so I know where you're coming from¡

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post
You do realize that a piano is a keyboard and in no way performed at the height of your head, right? 1confused.gif

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

Holding a book isn't much work, either. Anyone can do it, right?

Now hold one at arm's length in front of you for 8 hours a day and tell me that it's roughly equivalent to playing a piano.

 

 

You guys are so literal. Look at what I wrote: ...it's not THAT much extra effort -- roughly equivalent to playing the piano." It's not "exactly the same as playing a piano" but I happen to think it's a lot closer than you guys feel it is. Maybe we're envisioning it differently. Here's what I see:

 

 

It's not head height, it's not outstretched and it's not hands straight up vertically. It's not all that different than typing.

 

Right now Apple's computers accept input from keyboards (obviously), a multi-touch trackpad, a mouse that's also a really basic trackpad and a simple infrared remote. Third parties add button panels, jog/shuttle wheels, digitizers, pens, faders, etc. practically ad infinitum. Why couldn't a touch screen be just another input method? Why does it have to be exclusively touch screen or no touch screen at all?


Edited by v5v - 3/28/13 at 12:55am
post #150 of 189
Quote:
Originally Posted by v5v View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

[...] This is truly is the most mathematically sound upgrade path we've ever seen in the television industry.

Probably true. It's a shame that the nature of the market and the forces that drive it will draw attention in that direction instead of one that would be just as mathematically elegant while yielding MUCH more viewer benefit: instead of increasing resolution, increase the frame rate.

The BIGGEST problem with current viewing systems isn't detail, it's blurring. Motion blur. The frame rate of film was chosen based on the acceptable minimum with a small safety margin. 100 years later, we still use the same rate. With so few pictures captured each second, each frame is a really long exposure, so fast moving objects blur horribly. Simply double the number of images captured each second and the exposure time is reduced by half and the image becomes MUCH sharper.

True. Higher frame rate will indeed make the experience better. There's also the difference in interlaced vs progressive, the latter not necessarily being better. Two good links on this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interlaced_video
http://www.animemusicvideos.org/guides/avtech/video2.htm#1

But I don't think this will be evolved quickly, nor widely. Cameras are incredibly expensive, and that is just one part of the chain.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Apple ][ View Post

I haven't heard of any ISP in my area (East Coast) throttling data, and there are a few different ones to choose between. I've always been able to download however much I want, 24-7-365, if I so desire. 

West Coast. No data caps and don't know of any that has had it capped.

Note that throttling is different from a cap. You can have unlimited/unlimited data but still be throttled (past the current throttling on cable) to reduce your usage.

Wow, US ISP's capping. Mine isn't, searched their whole website - can't find it. But should they have a FUP in place, it would be understandable.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by spydasweb View Post

I wish they would build a touch screen iMac!!!!!!!!!

I want to see the usage model of a desktop OS with a vertical touch screen. I'd really like to see people buy a touch screen computer and see how much they still use it a month later.

That is a weird post indeed, makes truly no sense. At all.
Quote:
Originally Posted by studentx View Post

How many 4K movies is available for download?

How many games work at that resolution?

I believe the number may be ZERO.

Zero? YouTube has many 4k videos. Marvin posted links to many more sources earlier. Sure, there documentaries and such. And I don't think broadcasting companies will adopt to 4k any time soon.
Quote:
Originally Posted by v5v View Post

It's not head height, it's not outstretched and it's not hands straight up vertically. It's not all that different than typing.

I disagree, makes no sense to me. And others:
http://www.reddit.com/r/technology/comments/16271n/touch_screens_will_not_take_over_the_desktop_pc/


---
And on the topic of UHD:
1. Nitpicking here: the size of content might increase by factor of x2 while pixels with x4. But don't forget that the sound won't increase, so a 10GB movie with 9.5GB video will result in a 19.5GB in UHD, not 20.0GB (in H.265)
2. Most TV's currently have rectangle pixels, but if we go to UHD, the proposed standard will make them square pixels. According to ITU-R Recommendation BT.2020 Read a related article from Ken Rockwell on the subject of sharpness
I’d rather have a better product than a better price.
Reply
I’d rather have a better product than a better price.
Reply
post #151 of 189
Quote:
Originally Posted by v5v View Post

It's not head height, it's not outstretched and it's not hands straight up vertically. It's not all that different than typing.

Instead a posting (part of) a picture, why don't you post a 8 hour long video, showing a person behind a touch screen PC, using it all day long. Hmm, no video to be found? Thought so. "Touch devices need to be horizontal."
I’d rather have a better product than a better price.
Reply
I’d rather have a better product than a better price.
Reply
post #152 of 189
Quote:
Originally Posted by v5v View Post

It's not head height, it's not outstretched and it's not hands straight up vertically. It's not all that different than typing.

That is a MBA, not a 27" iMac, and it's a pic of the display bent backwards at an unrealistic angle unless the user is standing to use it.

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #153 of 189
Apple needs something spectacular.
Most smart TV's UI sucks, so that will be the first wow for Apple I assume.

4K and h265 is all cool buzz. Great for industry adoption of h265 to have a giant make wide use of the codec. But what will the 4K be used for? A lot of HD TV streams are even 720p and looking no that shabby. Movies in 4k from 2 meters away will only marginally look different from 2k. Perhaps they're readying the system for up to 4 users simultaneously.
post #154 of 189
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilBoogie View Post

Instead a posting (part of) a picture, why don't you post a 8 hour long video, showing a person behind a touch screen PC, using it all day long. Hmm, no video to be found? Thought so. "Touch devices need to be horizontal."

 

I completely understand your concern about arm fatigue, but the way I imagine using it I honestly don't think it would be a serious issue. It wouldn't be eight solid hours of touching. It would be typical mousing (or trackpadding) and keyboarding with an added element of touching when it makes sense.

 

The photo is me sitting in front of a co-worker's Air. I set it up in front of me in a position that was comfortable for both "conventional" input and touching the screen. It actually felt very natural, similar to sitting at a mixing console.

 

I can imagine touching the screen fitting in very well with the way I already do things. Particularly when working with another person (like a producer), I've noticed that we spend a lot of time pointing at things on the screen. Often the discussion is something like "Can you slide this to about here?" or "What if we made it this big?" It would be nice to be able just execute the task while one of our hands is there anyway.

 

Then there are tasks that are simply easier to do by touching the screen than with an input device, like rotating an image, and operations that just plain CAN'T be performed by conventional methods, which would be anything that involves two or more simultaneous actions (like my earlier example of an audio mix).

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

That is a MBA, not a 27" iMac, and it's a pic of the display bent backwards at an unrealistic angle unless the user is standing to use it.

 

Why does the computer have to be a 27" iMac? I work on a laptop. Maybe that's part of why our opinions on the ergonomics of touch differ.

 

As for the angle of the display, it's actually not unrealistic at all. I had a coworker snap that shot while I was trying it out to see how it would feel. I was just sitting at the work area in the graphics room, positioned just as I would be for normal work, and the screen was perfectly comfortable at that angle in that position. I did push it back farther than I would if I didn't intend to touch it, but not so far as to make it uncomfortable for "typical" use. 

 

I know why you guys feel it would be awkward, but after doing some imagination exercises I honestly don't think it would be as bad as you guys seem to expect. Perhaps there aren't enough benefits to your workflow to make it seem appealing to you, but I can envision a bunch of ways it would be quite handy in mine.

post #155 of 189
Quote:
Originally Posted by palegolas View Post

But what will the 4K be used for?

It makes more sense for them to use it in their computer displays. The iMac and Cinema display don't quite have Retina displays. This is at the very least down to the fact they couldn't drive those displays without displayport 1.2. Redwood Ridge will enable this though and Haswell IGP should be capable of driving it.

The big factor is price, not usage cases. If they can get 3840 x 2160 in a 27" display for $999, they immediately undercut everyone in the TV and display market, which they originally did with the 27" display and they did with the iPad too. They have a premium display at a premium price that nobody can match.

If they had say a 37"/47" 4K Cinema display, this can be used by film editors as well as TV consumers. That would give them a backup market to counter the low volumes in the high-end TV market.

That still leaves the issue of Apple being able to get panels at that low price when nobody else can, which seems unlikely - especially if Sony's entry price is to be ~$5000. The market above $2000 has to be under 5%, which is around 10m units per year of which Apple would only get a portion.
post #156 of 189
Quote:
Originally Posted by v5v View Post

Why does the computer have to be a 27" iMac?

So the MBA would get it but not the iMac? That isn't how this was presented before. If the OP wanted to be so specific as to suggest this would only be on the MBA they should have said so.
Quote:
I know why you guys feel it would be awkward, but after doing some imagination exercises I honestly don't think it would be as bad as you guys seem to expect. Perhaps there aren't enough benefits to your workflow to make it seem appealing to you, but I can envision a bunch of ways it would be quite handy in mine.

1) think it would be very awkward and uncomfortable unless the device was 1) physically designed for the ergonomics, and 2) the OS and APIs that are designed to make it useful.

2) I'd much rather that glass trackpad be an OLED display that is usually black (aka: off) but offer visual feedback for certain tasks that fit the build. This would include calculator, EQ sliders, moving Menu Bar items to the top of the trackpad when in FullScreen, to name a few ideas. I'd rather get finger prints on it than on a huge display. Should this happen simply because I want it? Of course not. Will this happen simply because I want it? Absolutely not.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin View Post

It makes more sense for them to use it in their computer displays. The iMac and Cinema display don't quite have Retina displays. This is at the very least down to the fact they couldn't drive those displays without displayport 1.2. Redwood Ridge will enable this though and Haswell IGP should be capable of driving it.

The big factor is price, not usage cases. If they can get 3840 x 2160 in a 27" display for $999, they immediately undercut everyone in the TV and display market, which they originally did with the 27" display and they did with the iPad too. They have a premium display at a premium price that nobody can match.

If they had say a 37"/47" 4K Cinema display, this can be used by film editors as well as TV consumers. That would give them a backup market to counter the low volumes in the high-end TV market.

That still leaves the issue of Apple being able to get panels at that low price when nobody else can, which seems unlikely - especially if Sony's entry price is to be ~$5000. The market above $2000 has to be under 5%, which is around 10m units per year of which Apple would only get a portion.

1) I've bee talking about a computer display from the start. This the 2nd decade of the 21st century. All future monitors in the living will be connected to computers.

2) Again why is the content such an issue with the living room display but not with any other computer display? Who is dissatisfied with YouTube after going to a a Retina Mac because the content isn't encoded to fit their display pixel-for-pixel. It's a ridiculous argument and it's ridiculous that we have phones that fit in our pockets with displays that match or exceed our HDTV resolution.

3) They've also done a great job with Retina displays on the iPhone, iPad, and MBPs without affecting the price of the device on all but the MBPs but that may mostly be the SSD. Going to 4K on an iMac doesn't seem that daunting, and considering the pixels are much less dense for a larger display there are some cost trade-offs.

4) But will they go 4K with an iMac when they've doubled each time they've gone Retina. 5120x2880? That means you'd have to be only 15" away for the Retina effect (assuming the common variables). That might be excessive. A 4K 27" iMac would bring the PPI down from 217 to 163, and you'd need to be 21" away. That might be cutting it too close for Apple.

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #157 of 189
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

So the MBA would get it but not the iMac? That isn't how this was presented before. If the OP wanted to be so specific as to suggest this would only be on the MBA they should have said so.

 

No, Soli, no one is suggesting any particular machine. Maybe it could be part of a model that they don't even make yet, maybe a "couldn't hurt" add-on to every model -- who knows? Use your imagination.

post #158 of 189
Quote:
Originally Posted by v5v View Post

No, Soli, no one is suggesting any particular machine. Maybe it could be part of a model that they don't even make yet, maybe a "couldn't hurt" add-on to every model -- who knows? Use your imagination.

RIght, which is what I stated in the post you quoted. If the OP didn't want to include the iMac they shouldn't have made inclusive to all Macs.

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #159 of 189
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

1) I've bee talking about a computer display from the start. This the 2nd decade of the 21st century. All future monitors in the living will be connected to computers.

They won't be used as computers though, they just stream media.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

2) Again why is the content such an issue with the living room display but not with any other computer display? Who is dissatisfied with YouTube after going to a a Retina Mac because the content isn't encoded to fit their display pixel-for-pixel. It's a ridiculous argument and it's ridiculous that we have phones that fit in our pockets with displays that match or exceed our HDTV resolution.

It's about the availability of content that makes the resolution a benefit. Computers can benefit from sharper text and the ability to work with high-end camera footage without scaling, as well as photographs at print resolution. The vast majority of TV content will be 1080p or less and has much further viewing distances so it's not an immediate benefit, especially if the price is really high and you know that consumers will send them back with a single dead pixel. I also wonder if TV buyers will be happy enough with 1 year warranties.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

3) They've also done a great job with Retina displays on the iPhone, iPad, and MBPs without affecting the price of the device on all but the MBPs but that may mostly be the SSD. Going to 4K on an iMac doesn't seem that daunting, and considering the pixels are much less dense for a larger display there are some cost trade-offs.

I don't really know why for example, Samsung's 4K 85" TV costs $37,900:

http://uk.ign.com/articles/2013/01/14/samsungs-floating-4k-ultra-hd-tv-to-cost-37900

and Sony can make a 4K 55" for $5,000 but there must be a reason why they are priced that way. It might just reflect the volume of orders they can expect from each model. Apple gets higher volumes at premium price points so I don't expect the price for a 4K Cinema display to go up but I would wonder how Apple could do it in 2013 and the others couldn't when Apple doesn't make the panels. Is Sony going to launch a 55" at $5000, Apple at $1000-2000 and Sony is somehow going to drop the price to 1/3 in less than a year?
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

4) But will they go 4K with an iMac when they've doubled each time they've gone Retina. 5120x2880? That means you'd have to be only 15" away for the Retina effect (assuming the common variables). That might be excessive. A 4K 27" iMac would bring the PPI down from 217 to 163, and you'd need to be 21" away. That might be cutting it too close for Apple.

They have to think about what the GPU can handle as well as IO standards. HDMI 2 might handle it but it's still pretty high bandwidth. IMO, the 27" UI elements are too small so it would run at 1080p in optimal mode.
post #160 of 189
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin View Post

They won't be used as computers though, they just stream media.

1) They already are connected to computers and they already show text. Ever use AirPlay?

2) You're completely discounting apps on the Apple TV and every other device that connects to an HEC display? 1confused.gif
Quote:
It's about the availability of content that makes the resolution a benefit. Computers can benefit from sharper text and the ability to work with high-end camera footage without scaling, as well as photographs at print resolution.

Again, no one watches video on their computer screens unless the content fits is pixel-for-pixel? That's ridiculous! We've never had a problem with this is the past and yet we're perfectly fine thinking that a 4" phone display should have a higher resolution than a 40", 50, 60, 70", …, 100" HEC display we grow the size year-after-year?

What rationale is there that you need a phone that is still "Retina quality" from 6 inch away but you have a display in your HEC that isn't unless you more than 13 feet away. How the hell is the HEC display suppose to grow in size when the picture quality will get worse because you're not extending the size of your living room every time you get a new HEC display.
Quote:
Apple at $1000-2000 and Sony is somehow going to drop the price to 1/3 in less than a year?

I never once mentioned this happening in under a year, much less at a 3rd the price. I've only stated how this can happen and why I think it's the most likely path for all the reasons stated previously, and all I've gotten in return are people saying that won't happen.
Quote:
They have to think about what the GPU can handle as well as IO standards. HDMI 2 might handle it but it's still pretty high bandwidth.

So the GPU in the iPad 3 can handle 3.1 million pixels in 2012. The iGPU in the RMBP can handle 5 million pixels. We aren't even using Img Tech's Rogue yet nor the additional cores that can be added. I don't see why a media appliance won't be able to handle 8 million pixels just fine in the future.

As for the video cable, this is where having a module device that can attach to various HEC displays can come in handy. The dumb display can then interact more directly with the computer and even use its IR sensor(s), antenna(e), FaceTime camera(s), etc. as its own, perhaps though an open standard or through a Designed for Apple TV standard.
Quote:
IMO, the 27" UI elements are too small so it would run at 1080p in optimal mode.

With the pixels being 2x that of 1080p and 3x that of 720p you end up with a pixel-for-pixel rendering just like with all other Retina transformations. Do you only play YouTube if it's 1080p and then only windowed exactly at 1080 on your Mac or iPad? Of course not! You play it full screen. This would be better all around but for the many computery things you do with your HEC display it would offer a better experience until such time as 4K studio content catches up. The studios will eventually move to 4K content. This is going to happen!


edit: I see, the article from the "What if" query generator states "launch* in 2013 or early 2014". I do think by 2014 we'll have 802.11ac, H.265 decoders, and Rogue 6 GPUs rampant in Apple products. I do wonder about why the changed the size of the entire Apple TV if it's just a smaller ASIC. I'd only do that if there was some other unique aspects to it, like H.265 and 802.11ac… but that's me.

I have no idea when the iMac will be push to Retina or even if it will scale by 2x like everything else, but I think if they can do all the others well before people thought they could and at prices well below what has been the norm, then why should be expect anything different as they move up the chain? How much was a QXGA (2048×1536) IPS display before the iPad 3 was released? I seem to remember they existed and cost thousands of dollars, so how can Apple make one that is so inexpensive, thin, low power, and much, much denser pixels than the competition? Same for the Retina MBPs. Whatever magic Apple has with displays that the competition can't touch I think it's bad judgement to say their full stop on it and now and look toward the future.




* Apparently launch now can mean to simply let people know it exists. 1hmm.gif
Edited by SolipsismX - 3/28/13 at 2:11pm

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Rumor: Apple building 4K Ultra HD television set for launch in 2013 or early 2014