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 2

post #41 of 189

An Apple TV set is the product of the future, and it always will be.

post #42 of 189
Quote:
Originally Posted by GadgetCanada View Post

This could be Cook's first market disrupter as CEO. There's no point in Apple producing a 1080p TV when the prices have fallen so drastically and everybody and their dog probably already own a 1080p TV. This would be great timing as stated earlier with the H.265 codec. It makes a lot of sense.

 

My dog has a 3D 1080p TV but he doesn't like wearing his 3D doggles. 1wink.gif

post #43 of 189
Quote:
Originally Posted by nagromme View Post

Let's recap DigiTimes "track record" for Apple supply-chain rumors:

http://techland.time.com/2012/05/14/digitimes-apple-rumors/

Their occasional correct guesses are probably just that: guesses. Or fictions, either by them or by false "sources."

Or simply obvious.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nagromme View Post

Most of us on this forum could make an educated Apple guess, claim a phony source, and turn out right more often than DigiTimes.

DigiTimes' only talent is self-promotion, apparently.

Agreed.

Quote:
Originally Posted by enzos View Post

Sounds stunning. But why? It wouldn't be in Apple's MO to simply a produce a higher res TV; more dots on the screen - wow! - wet-your-pants Nerd Heaven! LG and/or Samesong &c could do that for themselves.

Why not? It sounds like exactly the kind of thing that Apple would do - the television market has become saturated and boring. Everyone is bragging about the same things - which mostly don't matter. Few people can tell the difference between 60 Hz and 120 Hz (and 240 Hz is insane unless you spend the day watching special test images).

If Apple were to offer 4K televisions, they'd be doing the same thing that they did with the phone and tablet markets (or, to a lesser extent, the MacBook Air) - revolutionizing the market.
Quote:
Originally Posted by enzos View Post

There was a patent a while back for glasses-free 3D-TV. %u2026 Ah yes, actually 2010's 3D-projector patent

"Apple's patent describes using a special reflective screen with a rippled texture to create an autostereoscopic projection system, meaning one in which different images are projected to each eye without the need for special glasses."

That sounds more like the basis of a "revolutionary" product.

That doesn't solve the fundamental problems of 3D mentioned below. Besides, it would be treated by the industry as "just another 3D television where Apple is following rather than leading".

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sol77 View Post


By "physiology" I think he's alluding to the fact that while we can simulate three dimensions by delivering a different image to each eye, what we can't "fix" is the fact that the eye handles depth by focusing and refocusing.  Regardless of how good the illusion is, it is still being shown on a flat surface, which means the eye will always be in some manner of conflict with the image ("conflict" might be too strong a word...just couldn't think of something more appropriate...maybe "slight tussle"?).  When my eye perceives something in the foreground and then shifts focus to the foreground, the shape of my lens changes to bring that into focus.  On a TV, no matter how good the technology is, you're still tricking the eye...the eye wants to change the shape of the lens but then discovers it doesn't need to.  Yet this happens constantly.  As long as "3D" technology isn't a hologram with real depth, there will always be this issue that causes some manner of eye strain. 

There's another issue with that. Something like 10% of the US population doesn't have binocular vision for one reason or another. Watching 3D movies give me a headache and adds nothing to the movie. For a personal device, that's not a problem - the people who can't benefit simply don't buy it. But for a device meant to be watched with others, that could be a problem. Even if there were 6 or 8 people in the house, the fact that one finds 3D TV to be painful may mean that the house doesn't get one. So instead of losing 10% of the potential market, you could lose 50 or 60% of the potential market (maybe more).
"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 #44 of 189
Revolutionary wouldn't be a TV at all....HOLOGRAM would be!
post #45 of 189
Quote:
Originally Posted by quamb View Post

Why 4k for the home? You can't see the pixels on a 1080p HD television when sitting on the couch, 4k is complete overkill.

 

You should have clarified that statement by citing a screen size or size range. At 11', the full benefit of 1080p can be realized with a 60" screen. The last time I looked, larger and larger screens are become increasingly affordable. And it's not about seeing the pixels, it's about being able to perceive the resolution.

 

post #46 of 189
This would be AWESOME if true! Just like HD TV replaced regular tv's, this technology will eventually grow and become more affordable and replace standard HD...and Apple can be right there at the forefront of it!
post #47 of 189

While Apple's products may carry a premium price tag their recent interest is to get their products to the masses.  I can hardly see the masses willing to pay $14,000+ for a TV, even if it is stunning.  It's just not in the budget of the ordinary household.

post #48 of 189

I believe Apple will produce a TV in the next 12 months regardless if the Content providers and cable companies are on board or not. 

 

C*cks Cable should be ashamed of the clunky set top box and remote they are providing to their customers. It's straight out of 1994. Just awful.

post #49 of 189
Quote:
Originally Posted by christopher126 View Post

 

C*cks Cable should be ashamed of the clunky set top box and remote they are providing to their customers. It's straight out of 1994. Just awful.

 

Ditto for Cablevision at my mom's house. The box is just awful and the GUI, though just updated, is unbearably slow. DirecTV at home is pretty good, but I imagine a user interface by Apple would run circles around the competition.

post #50 of 189
Quote:
Originally Posted by maclancer View Post

A 4k TV coming from Apple means that the product will sport a price tag more than what an average consumer will be able to pay, which means than only people with a lot of money will only be able to afford it.

I said it before...70% of the US economy is driven by the consumer. However, 50% of the US economy is driven by the top 10%.

 

That top 10% will buy the Apple TV. Just like they can drive a Ford for $15K, but rather drive a BMW, Mercedes, or Porsche for 4 times the price of a Ford! :)

post #51 of 189
Originally Posted by GadgetCanada View Post
This could be Cook's first market disrupter as CEO. There's no point in Apple producing a 1080p TV when the prices have fallen so drastically and everybody and their dog probably already own a 1080p TV. This would be great timing as stated earlier with the H.265 codec. It makes a lot of sense.

 

Have we heard a single rumor from ANY source about Apple doing new deals with content creators that aren't already in the iTunes Store?

No?

Then anything they do in this regard WILL fail.


Originally Posted by enzos View Post
That sounds more like the basis of a "revolutionary" product.

 

The problem with autostereoscopic 3D is that you need twice the pixels of a regular display.

 

And since 4K's a stopgap in the first place, the only meaningfully better resolution is SHV. So we're talking a monitor with 2x the pixels of SHV. That won't even be POSSIBLE for another decade.

 

And all this is ignoring the fact that 3D is nothing but a gimmick.


Originally Posted by quamb View Post
You can't see the pixels on a 1080p HD television when sitting on the couch

 

I can. Dear heavens, can I ever.


4k is complete overkill.

 

I can see the pixels on these newfangled gigantic TVs from about 1.5x their 'recommended' distance. I don't have rooms that long in which to put them. Retina screens will take over everywhere. It's only a matter of time. SHV is retina, but we're two to three decades away from getting that pushed out.


It seems 4k is a convenient way for manufacturers to push the next big thing and keep the consumer wheel ticking along.

 

Of course. Absolutely. And they want to sell off THIS instead of the real prize—actual retina panels—because they get to sell everything twice over again before it all becomes (finally!) pointless.


Originally Posted by KiltedGreen View Post
They could have trouble with iTV in the UK - http://www.itv.com

 

They will never have trouble with this company. I hate the name "iTV" due to how inaccurate it is, but at this point I really want them to just rename Apple TV "iTV" (its codename) just to shut up the people who keep complaining about this for a fake product.

 
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post
Saturated market. Everybody and his dog owns one. Low profits. Too many players. Bottom feeding. Apple's offering would be too expensive. No control over distribution/pipes/content.

It all sounds like a vaguely familiar set of nay-saying. And it is completely wrong, as it was before.

 

Bingo. We have to hear about the content first. Then people can start whining about their precious panel while Apple slips them a new Apple TV box to change the world.


Originally Posted by christopher126 View Post
I believe Apple will produce a TV in the next 12 months regardless if the Content providers and cable companies are on board or not. 

 

So basically a stupid panel with access to no content and which will fail more quickly than the iPod Hi-Fi?

Originally Posted by Slurpy

There's just a TINY chance that Apple will also be able to figure out payments. Oh wait, they did already… …and you’re already fucked.

 

Reply

Originally Posted by Slurpy

There's just a TINY chance that Apple will also be able to figure out payments. Oh wait, they did already… …and you’re already fucked.

 

Reply
post #52 of 189
Quote:
Originally Posted by gijoeinla View Post

 The "digitimes" track record exposés have been beaten to death... The carcass is getting old.... Can we move beyond their "track record"... Speaking of which 99% of analysts, pundits and posters thought the iPad mini was the "stupidest" move Apple could do.... Apparently Cook and team had the CORRECT hindsight a year or so earlier to move that product to market....doh!

So... by your logic, anything we here from analysts, posters and pundits we should expect the opposite.  Okay... I guess we should be focusing  on the opposite of a 4KHD TV. the iWatch?   Heck, I'm starting to think of a 4K 42" iMac with VESA

 

You need to keep your logic down to one thought per thread.  Either Digitimes is right some of the time, or they are part of the 99%.

 

and I would argue that the 99% was more like 67%.  Yes, big names were leaning maintaining the 'big 10 inch" but many others were arguing for 5 and 7.

Gotta remember the big names get more doses of lithium licks than most others.

 

Personally, It still boils down to infrastructure and guts:  Ripping content at 4K means doubling/quading bandwidth), support of cable/OTA capture and display, integrating your 'iTunes/TV/HT/Aux (bluRay)' into one interface (merging iOS's iTV,airplay,remote,into a better appleTV nav).  and doing all that in a manner that makes it profitable for Apple, and attractive for those earning less than 100K a year/household.

 

Building the TV is the easy part;-)   In fact, I still argue that Apple will expose the guts of a new AppleTV/Sound system separate from the TV set for something less than $599 (AppleTV with cable input, sound bar/subwoofer, allowances for side and back speakers)....  think mac mini, vs an iMac TV+AppleTV in one enclosure.

post #53 of 189
It only makes sense if Apple can also offer 4K content. Sony had to "lend" the buyers of their 4K 84" $25,000 TV a hard drive with about 20 movies on it.

Also, while "4K" and/or "UHD" or "Retina HD" will be great for marketing, for the purposes of movies, you really aren't going to see a difference unless the set is at least 55" and maybe not even at that size. You'll notice that all of the current 4K models are larger sizes.

But if Apple is secretly signing deals to get true 4K content, especially if it's exclusive for a time and their TV is large enough, I think Apple can change the market again. The difference however between this and iPhone or iPad is that unless Apple has miraculously found a way to lower prices to a point several years ahead of the market, this isn't going to be a mass consumer product like those were.
post #54 of 189
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post

Still, I'd expect 4k to require double the bitrate of 1080p.

That's what my math comes out to and that seems feasible to me.

"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 #55 of 189
Quote:
Originally Posted by JeffDM View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

I've been saying "No! No!" on this rumour for a long time but with 4K prices coming down, Apple already packing over 505 of the pixels into a 15" display for a reasonably priced notebook, and H.265 being readied by the time this is set to launch and offering a 50% reduction in file sizes for the same quality, I think this is a perfect match with the iTS video and a way for Apple to secure a profitable, high-end foothold and strengthen their ecosystem even more.

Still, I'd expect 4k to require double the bitrate of 1080p.

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.
post #56 of 189
This only makes sense if they can also be the first to provide 4K content via iTunes. Great picture if you can find content. You know, like color TV, when Bonanza was the only show in color.
post #57 of 189
Quote:
Originally Posted by zoetmb View Post

Also, while "4K" and/or "UHD" or "Retina HD" will be great for marketing, for the purposes of movies, you really aren't going to see a difference unless the set is at least 55" and maybe not even at that size. You'll notice that all of the current 4K models are larger sizes.

At 55" a 3840x2160 TV is 80 PPI. You'd have to sit slightly over 3.5 feet (or more) away from the set for it to be Retina. That sounds great to me.

For a 1080p TV that is 55" the PPI is half that, 40 PPI, which then doubles the the distance which puts it just over 7 feet for the minimum for Apple's Retina classification. 7" might be cutting it close, and if you have a smaller HDTV, especially in the 40 inch range you're likely already at the Retina classification.

That said, moving into the 50 inch and definitely into the 60 and 70 inch ranges UHD will be the only reasonable way to achieve the Retina effect. Think of 5 years from now, not today, but regardless of what Apple does they are looking at will they think the puck will be.

"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 #58 of 189
Quote:
Originally Posted by zoetmb View Post

It only makes sense if Apple can also offer 4K content. Sony had to "lend" the buyers of their 4K 84" $25,000 TV a hard drive with about 20 movies on it.

Also, while "4K" and/or "UHD" or "Retina HD" will be great for marketing, for the purposes of movies, you really aren't going to see a difference unless the set is at least 55" and maybe not even at that size. You'll notice that all of the current 4K models are larger sizes.

Since when has the market been driven by logic? Look at the push to 120 Hz and then 240 Hz. Other than some very carefully selected test images in conditions you won't experience in your home, you can't even detect the difference between 60 Hz and 120 Hz, much less 240 Hz.

Similarly, even displaying 1080p images, there would be a big push to use a 4K screen. This market loves hype.

Not to mention, of course, the value of 'future-proofing' your purchase.
Quote:
Originally Posted by zoetmb View Post

But if Apple is secretly signing deals to get true 4K content, especially if it's exclusive for a time and their TV is large enough, I think Apple can change the market again. The difference however between this and iPhone or iPad is that unless Apple has miraculously found a way to lower prices to a point several years ahead of the market, this isn't going to be a mass consumer product like those were.

Yes, content is important, but it's not the only possible way to sell the product. And I'm not sure price is such an issue. It wasn't that long ago that a good LCD TV was $5 K or so and they're now well under $1 K. If Apple could sell one for a few thousand dollars, it would energize the 'premium' buyers.
"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 #59 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.

1) I don't think "yet" is appropriate since there is also no 4K iTS content of reasonably priced UHD sets. Even this rumour has a launch date that could be up to a year from now. The point is that H.265 fits in well with 4K sets.

2) HEVC has been ratified and approved with the final draft of the MPEG process apparently underway now.and the first devices will start appearing very shortly. There are already several implementations, including the upcoming Samsung Galaxy S IV that will be on sale next month. Vendors want this with a passion! I will be more surprised if the 7th gen iPhone doesn't have 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 #60 of 189

Will you be able to use it as a computer monitor?

post #61 of 189
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

Yes, content is important, but it's not the only possible way to sell the product. And I'm not sure price is such an issue. It wasn't that long ago that a good LCD TV was $5 K or so and they're now well under $1 K. If Apple could sell one for a few thousand dollars, it would energize the 'premium' buyers.

1) If we look at their Retina MBP and iMac displays we already have half the number of pixels on a quality IPS display. Surely more pixels can lead to more issues but the price difference to difficulty seems pretty well covered ground as Apple moved from the 110 PPI MBPs to the 220 PPI MBPs. What is really costing 10s of thousand of dollars more for double the pixels and them being so much larger than on than other devices? I think Apple could use their economies of scale to really make this take off.

2) I see a lot of concerns about the resolution for content not matching for the display but doesn't anyone watch video on their computer displays? I certainly do and all the video I comes across makes it seem like a lot of other people do too. I don't think I've ever encountered 2048x1536 or 2560x1440 content, yet these are the displays in which I want them… often in full screen. So why even have such high-res displays? The UI! If we get apps for the Apple TV, if Jobs really did "crack it", then we get a beautiful image in much the same way that early monitors we much higher than SD TV sets so fonts and edges looked smooth.

"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 #62 of 189

4K price.  Its not gonna be a product I will buy.

An Apple man since 1977
Reply
An Apple man since 1977
Reply
post #63 of 189
Quote:
Originally Posted by Apple ][ View Post

I also read recently that Netflix says to expect 4k Streaming in about 2 years time. 

 

I wonder how they how they hope to accomplish sending four times as much data per second when they can't even stream a decent looking picture at present resolutions?

 

Actually, I don't wonder, I know how. Even softer, blurrier, more compressed video mush.

post #64 of 189
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flaneur View Post


Whose eye's physiology? Mine works just fine.

Directors who don't think 3D is a gimmick so far: Martin Scorcese, Ang Lee, Wim Wenders, Werner Herzog.

I don't see how any company could offer a 4K television today that wasn't 3D capable. The glasses-free part is questionable, though.

If you have trouble watching 3D movies, there are two possibilities: 1) you are going to bad movies, and there are plenty out there, or 2) you have some imbalance in the vision of your two eyes, a fairly common condition.

There are optometrists who specialize in stereo vision problems. You can search the COVD list to see if any are around you:

https://covdwp.memberpoint.com/WebPortal/BuyersGuide/ProfessionalSearch.aspx

 

Actually, 3D fails for many people because their brain picks up a conflict between what the illusion is trying to portray and what the eyes are doing. The apparent distance of objects on the screen is constantly changing but the eye's focal distance never changes. Some people's brains "overlook" that, but for some the brain says, "Hey wait a minute, something's not right here..."

post #65 of 189
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

2) I see a lot of concerns about the resolution for content not matching for the display but doesn't anyone watch video on their computer displays? I certainly do and all the video I comes across makes it seem like a lot of other people do too. I don't think I've ever encountered 2048x1536 or 2560x1440 content, yet these are the displays in which I want them… often in full screen. So why even have such high-res displays? The UI! If we get apps for the Apple TV, if Jobs really did "crack it", then we get a beautiful image in much the same way that early monitors we much higher than SD TV sets so fonts and edges looked smooth.

I think the resolutions are a non-issue.

Keep in mind that TV is different than computers. You don't normally change the resolution of your TV to fit the content and the content comes in a limited number of sizes.

4K has the advantage of being double (linear) or 4x (area) the number of pixels of 1080p. That means that there would be no interpolation. For every 1080p pixel, you light up 4 pixels on 4K. I'm not 100% sure, but I think the same applies for 720p - for every 720p pixel, you light up 9 pixels on 4K. Thus, no interpolation errors and no degradation of image quality even with non-4K images.
"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 #66 of 189
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sol77 View Post


[...] It's similar to watching an extremely high definition movie after you've seen the same movie in in standard or just a 720p TV - the video is so clear that your brain becomes distracted by visual detail...and you can't focus as much on the story.

 

My wife and I have discovered that we have the extreme good fortune to be on the opposite side of this equation. Within three or four seconds of watching a movie we become involved in the story and stop noticing the picture (unless there's some obvious fault). That means we don't notice whether we're watching an upconverted DVD or a Blu-Ray.

 

When we upgraded our 720p TV to a larger, high-end 1080p set, we were disappointed to find that our viewing enjoyment did not increase. Apparently for us, factors completely unrelated to display technology affect our viewing experience more than screen size and pixel count.

post #67 of 189
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sol77 View Post

[...] if I start distracting you with frivolous details, your attention is drawn AWAY from the story and towards those frivolous details.

 

Agreed. The same is true for sound. I'm an audio engineer so I really WANT surround to work, because it allows me to create a more "immersive" experience for the viewer. Unfortunately, when I watch a movie I find that the coming and going of sound from beside/behind me usually just distracts me rather than making me feel more involved. Nice gimmick, like 3D, but as a means of supporting the storytelling exercise, it usually fails.

post #68 of 189
Quote:
Originally Posted by v5v View Post

My wife and I have discovered that we have the extreme good fortune to be on the opposite side of this equation. Within three or four seconds of watching a movie we become involved in the story and stop noticing the picture (unless there's some obvious fault). That means we don't notice whether we're watching an upconverted DVD or a Blu-Ray.

When we upgraded our 720p TV to a larger, high-end 1080p set, we were disappointed to find that our viewing enjoyment did not increase. Apparently for us, factors completely unrelated to display technology affect our viewing experience more than screen size and pixel count.

I agree. Unless I'm really looking for it, the difference between DVD and Blu-Ray doesn't change my enjoyment of a movie one bit.

However, that doesn't mean that a 4K TV wouldn't sell like hotcakes.
"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 #69 of 189
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

4K has the advantage of being double (linear) or 4x (area) the number of pixels of 1080p. That means that there would be no interpolation. For every 1080p pixel, you light up 4 pixels on 4K. I'm not 100% sure, but I think the same applies for 720p - for every 720p pixel, you light up 9 pixels on 4K. Thus, no interpolation errors and no degradation of image quality even with non-4K images.

Yes, for 1080p it's 2x2, or 4 pixel for every one, just like we saw with all Retina displays. And for 720p it's 3x3, or 9 pixel for every one.

Assuming 16:9 aspect ratio:
  • 2160 ÷ 1080 = 2
  • 2160 ÷ 720 = 3

This is better than those with 1080p displays trying to play 720p content, or vice versa. Since most people get their cable or sat in HD at 720p I don't think many realize exactly what is being done to their content. 4K is a winner all around.



PS: Let's remember that DVD has never matched any resolution TV except for scant EDTV.
Edited by SolipsismX - 3/27/13 at 9:05am

"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 #70 of 189
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flaneur View Post

Whose eye's physiology? Mine works just fine.

Directors who don't think 3D is a gimmick so far: Martin Scorcese, Ang Lee, Wim Wenders, Werner Herzog.

I don't see how any company could offer a 4K television today that wasn't 3D capable. The glasses-free part is questionable, though.

If you have trouble watching 3D movies, there are two possibilities: 1) you are going to bad movies, and there are plenty out there, or 2) you have some imbalance in the vision of your two eyes, a fairly common condition.

There are optometrists who specialize in stereo vision problems. You can search the COVD list to see if any are around you:

https://covdwp.memberpoint.com/WebPortal/BuyersGuide/ProfessionalSearch.aspx

Thanks for the link, but I already have an optometrist. My lack of stereo vision is not correctable - as is the case for a large fraction of people who don't have binocular vision.

The reason 3D hasn't caught on in a big way is that it has significant downsides. For a significant fraction of the population (I've see numbers as high as 10%), there is no benefit and often a disadvantage (headaches are a common side-effect). Also, most implementations require expensive and clumsy glasses.

And, unlike a portable electronics device, TVs are watched by several people at a time - so a problem for a small percentage of viewers can actually prevent a larger percentage of people from buying.
"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 #71 of 189
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sol77 View Post

< . . . >The purpose of 3D is to enhance the physiological experience of "being there."  There's a problem with this, in terms of telling a story...or perhaps the types of stories we're used to telling.  < . . . >

I think 3D is fantastic when the story IS the experience of being there...  I'd love to see nature shows in 3D, < . . . >

I want to see where the tech goes, but I have yet to see anyone objectively explain to me how a story was better told by using 3D. < . . . >

Edit: Also, I wouldn't assume that greater directors have the final word on whether 3D is a good medium...Directors are craftsmen...they don't necessarily have degrees in Psychology, Biology, or anything that would make them an expert on how the human brain conceptually deals with stories.  I'm not saying they don't know anything...but I'm not going to assume that just because I can't direct a movie and Scorsese can, that means he knows more than me about the philosophy and psychology of why story telling works and how it does. 

Nice essay, which I would encourage anyone interested in this to read in full. It's all a bit off topic, but if Apple does do a TV, you can imagine how this question of 3D or not 3D would be internally debated. (Or will someone from Pixar or Disney juat say, "Are you kidding? You have no choice.")

You are assuming that story-telling is the end-all and be-all of the moving picture medium. It is not, as you yourself indicate. Nevermind the video games, I can't address that, because I think they are a colossal distraction when there's still so much to learn in life, and not enough time as it is . . .

I've never been a fan of Scorcese's movies, but Hugo was a visual feast on many levels. (I didn't care for a lot of the action-camera work either—that's ol' Marty's self-indulgence at work.) But it was first more of a visual feast, and secondly a fictionalized documentary about Marty's chosen art form, the cinema, and (third and last) a STORY about one of cinema's pioneers. The story was there and carried things along, but the photography, the cinema, was the point of the movie, and as such, it HAD to be done in 3D. The movie is a tribute to a pioneer, a magician, of the cinema. The medium for telling this story had to be pioneering and magical too, thus the 3D.

In other words, story-telling is only one reason to make a movie. Feasting the eyes, the visual apparatus that we were given that can see depth is another. If you haven't seen it, Herzog's Cave of Forgotten Dreams illustrates that it would be a crime to have made that movie in 2D, since the French authorities are unlikely to open that cave to another filmaker, maybe ever.

Your condescending point about film directors as craftsmen and not thinkers aside, Ang Lee and his stereographer Brian Gardner on The Life of Pi have shown that careful use of the medium can support and enhance even the most outrageous story, in fact make it possible for the "craftsmen" to philosophically accept doing the story at all. Lee said it wasn't until he conceived of doing the book in 3D that he could imagine doing it. I think the results bear him out.

3D moving pictures are for conveying a sense of time, place, and the things within that spacetime. Story-telling can just move over. The human mind is big enough to entertain some reality once in a while, maybe more than it needs to be entertained with stories. The ground is shifting under our feet.
post #72 of 189
I have been trying to figure out why Apple would introduce a smaller, 4th gen Apple TV that just had a smaller A5 chip. That alone doesn't warrant a smaller casing, but what if it also includes an H.265 decoder. That would be a way to good demarcation point as to what models from what can and can't decode HEVC.

Quote:
Originally Posted by v5v View Post

I wonder how they how they hope to accomplish sending four times as much data per second when they can't even stream a decent looking picture at present resolutions?

Actually, I don't wonder, I know how. Even softer, blurrier, more compressed video mush.

What do you mean they can't stream a decent picture at present resolutions? I stream from iCloud and my Macs daily and it works great. No media appliance has ever streamed as fluidly or as simply as the Apple TV.

What do mean 4x the data? it's closer to 2x the data with H.265.

"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 #73 of 189
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

[...] Few people can tell the difference between 60 Hz and 120 Hz (and 240 Hz is insane unless you spend the day watching special test images).

 

Can anyone see the difference? Honestly, I don't know how it's possible.

 

Increasing the refresh rate of the display does not increase the frame rate. If you're watching a movie, there are 24 still pictures per second. The TV may "refresh" each still image twice or even four times before moving on to the next one, but that doesn't add any picture information whatsoever.

 

What am I missing? It seems like a useless feature.

post #74 of 189
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rob55 View Post

[...] it's not about seeing the pixels, it's about being able to perceive the resolution.

 

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

post #75 of 189
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post


The reason 3D hasn't caught on in a big way is that it has significant downsides. For a significant fraction of the population (I've see numbers as high as 10%), there is no benefit and often a disadvantage (headaches are a common side-effect). Also, most implementations require expensive and clumsy glasses.

 

Too true.  I wear glasses (I can't wear contact lenses) so having to wear a second pair is impractical and ridiculous.  The last 3D film I attempted to watch was Prometheus but I left after an hour with a killer headache.  I don't think 3D is going away anytime soon, but its always going to be a sideshow with its current limitations.

post #76 of 189
Originally Posted by v5v View Post
Can anyone see the difference? Honestly, I don't know how it's possible.

 

I can see the difference when it's upconverting content. It looks unnatural and wrong.


Increasing the refresh rate of the display does not increase the frame rate. If you're watching a movie, there are 24 still pictures per second.

 

Exactly, but it's processing its own 'in between' frames. Otherwise you're right; it would just show the same thing four times.

Originally Posted by Slurpy

There's just a TINY chance that Apple will also be able to figure out payments. Oh wait, they did already… …and you’re already fucked.

 

Reply

Originally Posted by Slurpy

There's just a TINY chance that Apple will also be able to figure out payments. Oh wait, they did already… …and you’re already fucked.

 

Reply
post #77 of 189
Quote:
Originally Posted by kent909 View Post

This only makes sense if they can also be the first to provide 4K content via iTunes. Great picture if you can find content. You know, like color TV, when Bonanza was the only show in color.

Exactly!

 

An Apple 4K TV would only showcase 4K iTunes content, which would be limited. Why would a studio basically give away the equivalent of their picture negative for ultimate piracy?

 

And people go on about this like the networks and broadcasters are all chomping at the bit for 4K content. Absolutely ridiculous considering they will be paying for the conversion to HD for the next decade or longer. 4K would mean investing in a totally new equipment infrastructure worldwide.

 

And home video distributors can't get people to invest in BluRay, 4K would kill that market dead and spark another HD vs. BluRay format war possibly permanently killing the physical home media market.

 

Then there's the delivery infrastructure ... Is the Internet really ready to handle the bandwidth required for everyone to stream 4K video in real time? I know mine has trouble with 720p sometimes and I have an above average speed package.

 

The only possible immediate beneficiary is the video game industry, which lets face it, do I really need to see their animated video content at 4K? It's bad enough at 1080p. Is the average video game consumer wealthy enough to afford and primarily support the 4K industry, and are they even interested?

 

It's all well and good to geek out about where it's all headed, but when it took over 50 years to change from analogue to digital, it's unlikely that an entire industry will switch to an even higher standard simply because its available in less than a decade since analogue TV was turned off.

 

i mean seriously, most consumers are satisfied watching a stretched 480i picture, especially if it means eliminating bars. 4K at best would be a niche market smaller than even Apple's current Apple TV market. And without a massive amount of content available on iTunes, virtually pointless except for perhaps high end computer workstations, and considering Apple's dedication to the Mac Pro and it's niche customer base, I feel unlikely to interest Apple anytime soon.


Edited by Mac_128 - 3/27/13 at 9:07am
post #78 of 189
Quote:
Originally Posted by v5v View Post

When we upgraded our 720p TV to a larger, high-end 1080p set, we were disappointed to find that our viewing enjoyment did not increase. Apparently for us, factors completely unrelated to display technology affect our viewing experience more than screen size and pixel count.

There are lots of technical reasons why that would happen but in no way does it mean you and your wife can't find 1080p or 4k a better overall experience than 720p. Moving from 480p (SD) to 720p and then to 1080p is a 50% higher resolution each time but there are many factors that made SD to 720p appear more dramatic. 720p and 1080p to 2160p is 200% and 100% higher resolution each time. It's also finally in the Retina category for most people sitting in a typical room, especially with a larger TV. Did you compare your sitting distance, PPI, display type, backlight, calibration, etc. before buying?

I predict 4K will catch on much faster than 1080p did.

"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 #79 of 189
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

[...] That said, moving into the 50 inch and definitely into the 60 and 70 inch ranges UHD will be the only reasonable way to achieve the Retina effect.

 

All true. What I find myself wondering is whether the "retina effect" actually matters to anyone other than a tiny group of videophiles?

 

At work we have a 103" Panasonic plasma as a set piece. Occasionally I get the chance to watch a sporting event on it. At a viewing distance of roughly eight feet I'm nowhere NEAR "retina range" yet I've never, even once, noticed the pixels -- I just become much more immersed in the experience.

 

That said, there is no doubt that the market will flock to higher resolution just because we're all bored with whatever we have now and "more" must be "better."

post #80 of 189
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post
I predict 4K will catch on much faster than 1080p did.

 

The average US Internet speed is still <1MB/s. Good luck with that.

Originally Posted by Slurpy

There's just a TINY chance that Apple will also be able to figure out payments. Oh wait, they did already… …and you’re already fucked.

 

Reply

Originally Posted by Slurpy

There's just a TINY chance that Apple will also be able to figure out payments. Oh wait, they did already… …and you’re already fucked.

 

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