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 3

post #81 of 189
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

What do you mean they can't stream a decent picture at present resolutions?

 

I was responding to a comment referring specifically to Netflix.

post #82 of 189
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

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

And why is this a problem for those purchasing a TV and those using a full app solution on their 4K TV? And if less than 1MB/s — which is up to 8 Mb/s, which I think is pretty good — why is 1080p fine? We're talking about double the file size, and as jragosta has shown there is pixel-for-pixel matching on both 720p and 1080p content for those that simply don't want or can't get 4K content. This is truly is the most mathematically sound upgrade path we've ever seen in the television industry.

"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 #83 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.

Yes - 1080p TVs are now a commodity product.  Apple doesn't do commodity.  Apple does volume, but not commodity.  Like you say, 4K along with H265 and some of Apple's new data centers - could be "revolutionary".

post #84 of 189
Originally Posted by GadgetCanada View Post
Speaking of fail. Try not speak in such absolutes like you are the god of all information.

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/business/gorilla_tactics_OrVVl5tgFF7BeEO8lVU4eJ

 

Your link confirms what I'm saying. Thanks!


Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post
And why is this a problem for those purchasing a TV and those using a full app solution on their 4K TV?

 

It's a problem for Apple, who will have to sell 4K content to people who still can't download it within any meaningful amount of time. 


…there is pixel-for-pixel matching on both 720p and 1080p content for those that simply don't want or can't get 4K content. This is truly is the most mathematically sound upgrade path we've ever seen in the television industry.

 

If that's the case, wasn't 720 to 1080 equally sound?

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 #85 of 189
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

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

 

Are you sure these sets are actually generating tweens? The processing required to generate HD tweens in real-time would be quite daunting, and doing the necessary comparison against subsequent frames would introduce a fair amount of delay. I admit I haven't really looked into the feature in detail, but my impression is that high refresh rate *IS* just showing the same image two or four times.

post #86 of 189
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post
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. ...Did you compare your sitting distance, PPI, display type, backlight, calibration, etc. before buying?

My experience is the same. I will not likely upgrade to 1080p anytime soon, especially as long as broadcast media uses 720p/1080i as the standard.

 

I've routinely looked at panels of HD TVs side by side from Best Buy to high end home theater stores, and the universal perception I come away with is that there is indistinguishable difference between most sets in terms of resolution. And I know for a FACT that the home theater store sets have the highest calibration.

 

The only time I wish I had a 1080p set is when I use Airplay to stream application or internet content from my MacBook. That's when the 720p resolution lets me down, mainly for text. And that seems to me where 4K will have it's strength, integrated Internet/application on the living room screen. Because that is user generated content. I seriously doubt 4K media will be widely available anytime soon, if only because of the conversion costs. Studios are struggling now to generate BluRay content, much of which is a loss-leader for them to force consumers to upgrade their existing DVD collections, and the results are decidedly mixed. For the studios to go back and start prepping all of these titles for 4K in time for an iTV launch in a years time is just ridiculous.

post #87 of 189
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta View Post

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.

Yep, 10% seems to be the agreed estimate out there. I don't know if it would apply to your situation or not, of course, but Sue Barry has shown in her book Fixing My Gaze that some people can retrain their vision to regain stereopsis, even after a lifetime of supressing the input from one eye because of strabismus. Most optometrists are dogmatically convinced that vision training doesn't work, which is why I gave the COVD link. The "developmental" optometrists are the heretics in this challenge to the reigning dogma, and Sue Barry has shown that they are right.

It's totally anecdotal, but I've heard people with classic "lazy eye" problems say they've seen depth for the first time when looking at 3D media.
post #88 of 189
Originally Posted by v5v View Post
Are you sure these sets are actually generating tweens? The processing required to generate HD tweens in real-time would be quite daunting, and doing the necessary comparison against subsequent frames would introduce a fair amount of delay. I admit I haven't really looked into the feature in detail, but my impression is that high refresh rate *IS* just showing the same image two or four times.

 

Hmm, maybe not, then. But 24FPS content on, say, a 240 TV looks "smoother", somehow. 

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 #89 of 189

And monkeys will fly out of my b*tt.

post #90 of 189
Originally Posted by gwmac View Post
…up to a 100GB movie…

 

If 1080p is 4GB, then shouldn't 4K be 16? 8 in H.265… 

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 #91 of 189
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.

 

The visual impact of increased frame rate is much. much, much more visually striking than increased resolution. So much so that some people are freaked out by it and find it unsettling.

 

I don't know where/how a person would go about seeing it in person, but I'd encourage you to try. It'll forever change the way you think about video.

post #92 of 189
Quote:
Originally Posted by GadgetCanada View Post

 

The link talks about Apple negotiating for a streaming TV service with content providers. How is this not a rumor of a new deal? Do we already have a streaming TV service in iTunes?

 

No. We only have TV shows we can individually purchase/rent and download. Your welcome anyways if it makes you feel better.

Is this a deal for 4K streaming content?

 

i refer you to Skil's average Internet speed comment.

 

4K MIGHT be realistic as a download for the average Internet package. 4K streaming is just fantasy at present.

 

And I still go back to, where is all this 4K streaming content going to come from? Not from broadcasters for a very long time, and not likely studio home video either. That leaves the Internet to carry the entire burden for a very limited and niche market.

post #93 of 189
Originally Posted by GadgetCanada View Post
The link talks about Apple negotiating for a streaming TV service with content providers. How is this not a rumor of a new deal? Do we already have a streaming TV service in iTunes?

 

No. We only have TV shows we can individually purchase/rent and download.

 

Right. They're being stonewalled with content and with streaming of content. Thus, exactly what I said.


Originally Posted by gwmac View Post
A properly encoded 1080p H.264 movie can be stored in a file between 5 and 10 GB in size depending on the length of the movie and other factors. 

 

So Apple's aren't "properly encoded"? Because they're ~4GB.


What H.265 brings to the table I don;t know

 

Up to 2x quality at the same bitrate or the same quality at ~1/2 the file size. 


these will be huge files and how do you get around ISP data caps? 

 

Move to a better ISP. One that doesn't think 1994 is still the current date.

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 #94 of 189
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

It's a problem for Apple, who will have to sell 4K content to people who still can't download it within any meaningful amount of time. 

I don't get why we need all content to be 4K before we have a 4K monitor? Do those that have 1080p monitors only watch 1080p content? No 720p content that need to be processed to fit on the display? What do people with smartphones, tablets, and Macs/PCs do when it comes to Netflix, Hulu, YouTube, etc. when the content doesn't match their physical display resolution pixel-for-pixel?

And what about the Disney umbrella I mentioned to get the ball rolling?
And what about YouTube and other sources as H.265 codec makes this feasible?
And what about the Apple TV SDK and App Store I mentioned?
And what about Airplay of content that still looks high-def as TV set move out of being "Retina" to being non-"Retina" as they constantly grow in size.

There has never been such a perfect setup for this industry.
Quote:
If that's the case, wasn't 720 to 1080 equally sound?

How does 720 divide into 1080 equally? It's 1.5 which means it scales at 1.5 pixels. Note Apple didn't go from the 1024x768 iPad 2 to a 1,536x1,152 iPad 3. They doubled the pixels so that 1 pixel would now take up 4 pixels in a 2x2 grid exactly for SD content. There is no 1.5x1.5 pixel grid (unless you're using PenTile 1tongue.gif).

720p is a 3x3 and 1080p is s 2x2 in 2160p/UHD.
Edited by SolipsismX - 3/27/13 at 9:52am

"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 #95 of 189
Quote:
Originally Posted by gwmac View Post

The actual file sizes of these movies coupled with data caps for most ISP's of 250GB a month not to mention having to download up to a 100GB movie overnight before you can even watch it might breathe some life back into blu-ray again. 

Now where did the **** did you get 100GB? Even if you insist on using H.264 what iTS movies are 25GB each? 1oyvey.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 #96 of 189
Quote:
Originally Posted by v5v View Post

 

I was responding to a comment referring specifically to Netflix.

I find Netflix HD content to be pretty decent. 

 

It depends on the device that you are watching Netflix through and your internet connection speed.

 

Netflix encodes each movie about 120 different ways, to accommodate all of the different devices out there. If you are not watching on the right device and if you don't have a decent internet connection, then you will not be watching the best stream available.

post #97 of 189
I simply can't image why people are for increasing their TV set size every few years and yet don't understand what that does to the relative quality of the image.

Quote:
Originally Posted by v5v View Post

I was responding to a comment referring specifically to Netflix.

My comment about bit rate still stands as well as it being an erroneous assumption that your monitor has to match the content pixel for pixel.

As for streaming quality that depends on a lot of factors that have nothing to do with bit rate.. Does the same thing happen with other streaming options? For example, do you find you can't streaming 720p (or 1080p) content from YouTube? If not, then your conclusion is likely incorrect, not to mention ignoring H.265 as being being an integral part of the future of streaming video of all kinds.

"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 #98 of 189
Quote:
Originally Posted by reefoid View Post

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.

I wear glasses and I have no problem wearing the second pair. I think it is different for different people. BTW, I love 3D. Luckily I don't have a headache problem.
post #99 of 189
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

I simply can't image why people are for increasing their TV set size every few years and yet don't understand what that does to the relative quality of the image.
 

 

Since I already have a 9.7" iPad retina, which is far superior to any 1080 TV, why in the world would I want a 50" or more TV that is merely 1080?

 

I don't care what charts claim or what other people might claim, but I would definitely be able to tell the difference between watching a movie on a 1080 TV compared to a 4K TV. I don't watch TVs from a distance of 25 feet away. 

post #100 of 189
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mac_128 View Post

I seriously doubt 4K media will be widely available anytime soon, if only because of the conversion costs.

That depends on what you mean by media. If you limit it to just studio TV shows and movies you limit your scope, but consider what computer monitors have been done for decades when SDTVs were only at 480p. Let's not remember that a TV is just a monitor (historically low-res) with a tuner built in… and in this market the tuner is much obsolesced.
Quote:
For the studios to go back and start prepping all of these titles for 4K in time for an iTV launch in a years time is just ridiculous.

Don't put the cart before the horse, as previously stated ad nauseam there is so much more than waiting for the Die Hard series to be released as 4K before we consider the uses of a large 3860x2160 monitor in the home.

Quote:
Originally Posted by v5v View Post

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.

Unfortunately doubling the frame rate doubles the file size for uncompressed video. I don't think it's double for these MPEG codecs since much of the content frame-to-frame will be identical but i would imagine it would add quite a bit to the file size. Still, 1080p@60 content scaled to 2x on a UHD display isn't a bad thing all things considers.

"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 #101 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.  If I tell somebody about my day, I can summarize the conceptual details for maximum dramatic content.  I can even show you a movie I made of my day, edited to show you the VITAL information (the relevant dramatic conflict in a movie that makes each scene relevant).  But if I start distracting you with frivolous details, your attention is drawn AWAY from the story and towards those frivolous details.  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.  An extreme example would be if I said, "and then he shook her...like THIS!"...and then I shook the hell out of you.  Are you immersed in the story, or did I just rattle the hell out of you?  The example is extreme to make the point more obvious...for many people (a majority, I'd argue), 3D does exactly this.  If I'm "there," I'm focused less on the story and more on the physiological experience of the movie.  It's the same reason why it's easier to get a handle on what happened during a busy day once we're at the end of it and looking at it in retrospect.  While 3d might be great for making us "feel we're there," the goal of a movie is to "tell a story."  It's one thing if the story you want to tell is, "what it's actually like in this one spot," but you run into the same story telling problems using 3D as you'd run into if you're trying to tell somebody about your favorite vacation at an amusement park WHILE they're standing next to an incredibly loud roller coaster ride.  They can't focus on what you're saying because "oh, I smell cotton candy! oh! what's that? oh! that guy almost ran into me!"  Are these valid experiences to have?  Of course.  But the story you want to tell will be drowned out by it. 

I think 3D is fantastic when the story IS the experience of being there...Wildlife shows, video games (I'd love an fully immersive fallout sequel), but I don't think a 2 hour story can be efficiently told when the senses are being bombarded.  I think this is similar to why reading a thirty page short story in less than an hour will deliver more story, and a better one, than attempting to tell the same story on location in the same amount of time.  There's too much information that is not pertinent to the story.  For me, the most quick and dirty summation is this: when I watch Hulk smash Loki, I don't care about "being there," but rather "THAT" he smashed him and I saw what that looked like.  A story is about dramatic conflict.  In 3D, just as in real life, "being there" does more to obscure the story than it does illuminate it.  I think "being there" is more conducive to analysis of particulars in science or when you actually want to simulate a specific experience. 

They should make movies in 240p (like in youtube videos). We don't need the extra details in a 480p/720p or more. Also only black and white. Or just read the script 1smile.gif

Story is the main component but not the only component. Visual details are another part (which not all might be interested).
post #102 of 189
Quote:
Originally Posted by GadgetCanada View Post

This could be Cook's first market disrupter as CEO.


This is an Apple disrupter more than a market disrupter. Unless Apple's going to get into the messy business delivery and in-home service of large HDTVs, which have notoriously un-Apple-like margins, I think Apple plans to fill this space with something else.

 

What about an iTV product lineup? One size? Two? Three? Where does Apple start? 42-inch, then offer a 50-inch and a 60-inch?

 

In place of the Apple TV with a display, I have been arguing that we'll see an Apple TV appliance, one that adds Macintosh-like functionality and lives at our Internet connection. A robust content server, backup box, etc. No longer do we need to have our Macs up and running so our Apple TV can access local content, for example.

post #103 of 189
Quote:
Originally Posted by gwmac View Post

 How may ISP's even exist anymore that offer unlimited data? 

 

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. 

post #104 of 189
Quote:
Originally Posted by gwmac View Post

Actually, there are plenty of 1080P movies on iTunes over 5GB in size. Check out Lincoln for example at 5.09GB. You can already get a 4K movie but at full resolution it is 160GB. Compressed drops it to 25GB.
http://gizmodo.com/5914426/the-first-cinema-resolution-movie-download-available-to-consumers-is-160gb-and-absolutely-breathtaking

Most people don't have a choice between ISP besides one cable provider or one DSL provider. A lucky few that might have fiber as an option but even they have caps.  Your suggestion to just move to a better ISP is rather obtuse. How may ISP's even exist anymore that offer unlimited data? I find your "let them eat cake" suggestion rather rich considering you have said numerous times you use a Mac Mini which is as cheap a Mac as you can buy and can't afford a new iPhone on a major carrier due to costs so stick with a 1st generation iPhone on a pre-paid plan. Your words not mine. 

You're just bullshitting. What part of 4x the resolution over 1080p and dropping the file size by one-half for a given quality is so hard to understand? The math is as simple as it gets. 4 x 0.5 or 4 ÷ 2 = 2. That 5GB Lincoln movie is only 10GB. Not 25GB, not 100GB. Not to mention that there is no requirement for using 4K data just as when streaming first appeared, then 480p, then 720p, and 1080p.
Edited by SolipsismX - 3/27/13 at 10:39am

"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 #105 of 189
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.

"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 #106 of 189
Originally Posted by gwmac View Post
Most people don't have a choice between ISP besides one cable provider or one DSL provider.

 

And as long as those two options aren't BOTH Comcast and AT&T, you shouldn't have to worry about throttling and caps.


How may ISP's even exist anymore that offer unlimited data?

 

Most of them.


…considering you have said numerous times you use a Mac Mini…

 

At no point have I ever said this. Ever.


…can't afford a new iPhone on a major carrier due to costs…

 

That's true.


…so stick with a 1st generation iPhone on a pre-paid plan.

 

Nope; don't have any service with it.


 Your words not mine. 

 

Your words. Not mine.

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 #107 of 189
Quote:
Originally Posted by gwmac View Post

Actually, there are plenty of 1080P movies on iTunes over 5GB in size. Check out Lincoln for example at 5.09GB. You can already get a 4K movie but at full resolution it is 160GB. Compressed drops it to 25GB.
http://gizmodo.com/5914426/the-first-cinema-resolution-movie-download-available-to-consumers-is-160gb-and-absolutely-breathtaking

OK. So the claim that 4K movies would be over 100 GB was just plain wrong.
"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 #108 of 189
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post
Don't put the cart before the horse, as previously stated ad nauseam there is so much more than waiting for the Die Hard series to be released as 4K before we consider the uses of a large 3860x2160 monitor in the home.

I totally get the value of higher resolution screen in my home. I can see upgrading to 1080p for the clarity and real estate it will offer for my AirPlay streaming from my MacBook.

 

But Apple is a public company that has to make its shareholders happy. Launching a whole new and expensive product line based around a media format for which there is no available content is risky. They aren't removing floppy drives from the iMac, without content they're offering noting more than a high def monitor. There will be early adopters, and like the iPhone within a year the whole platform could be redefined. But unlike the iPhone, there were already app developers for mobile phones, Apple just offered them a robust exciting environment that helped cement the iPhone as a game changer. The 4K TV will not likely have any actual practical 4K content available for years after its introduction. Something I doubt the market will react favorably too. A market that clamors for cheaper iPhones to garner more market share. They want something consumers will buy right now, not something that will have to wait perhaps a decade for the infrastructure to catch up to. Disney is probably Apple's most likely partner to open up their 4K transfers to iTunes, but I don't even see them doing that anytime soon, based solely on cost and piracy issues alone.

 

Seriously, I don't pretend to know what Apple could or should do, but isn't it more likely based on their history over the last decade that they will enter the existing TV market and pull in customers with their superior interface and content offerings? Just like the iPod, the iPhone and iPad? Then as prices and technology catch up, as well as media content deals are in place, offer a "retina" model along with the traditional 1080p? 

 

Their forte is in software, always has been, along with seamless integration with stylish hardware. Once studios see the potential market for media distribution, Apple will be in a much better position to negotiate and convince studios to support the next step to 4K. 

post #109 of 189
Quote:
Originally Posted by gwmac View Post

No, in fact I provide a link with an actual UNCOMPRESSED 4K movie that is available to download now that is 160GB.

You just love it up there on bullshit mountain.

"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 #110 of 189
Quote:
Originally Posted by dave2012 View Post

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

Do Macs have HDMI?

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply
post #111 of 189
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mac_128 View Post

But Apple is a public company that has to make its shareholders happy. Launching a whole new and expensive product line based around a media format for which there is no available content is risky.

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!
Quote:
Once studios see the potential market for media distribution, Apple will be in a much better position to negotiate and convince studios to support the next step to 4K.

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.
Edited by SolipsismX - 3/27/13 at 11:16am

"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 #112 of 189
Quote:
Originally Posted by antkm1 View Post

Dear Apple Insider,
we've been seeing and reading rumors of an Apple Television set for a long time now (years even).
I think this is the very first post where you haven't posted a photo of this rumored device as a larger iMac or Thunderbolt display.
Thank you for not doing it this time.  Really...thanks.

They also stopped posting that iTunes screen with Hugh Laurie's House sucking on a lollipop. His Neanderthal stare was annoying.

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply
post #113 of 189
Originally Posted by gwmac View Post
Not that it really matters. 

 

Right, lying about people is okay if you're too lazy to do the work required not to¡!


Originally Posted by Suddenly Newton View Post
Do Macs have HDMI?

 

Three models of them.

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 #114 of 189
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.

 

Seems my ISP is lying to me. I've a letter to write.

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 #115 of 189
Originally Posted by gwmac View Post
My provider Cox used to have unlimited and I still thought I had that until about 6 months ago when another friend on Cox showed me a data usage meter app on his phone and asked me how much I used. Then when I logged onto my account I was shocked to see it. So far I have never gone over 200GBs in a month but these 4K movie could push me over the limit easily even if they are just 10GB a piece. 

 

Oh, and given that every ISP that already owns bandwidth is trying to move away from wired connectivity altogether, it seems that these artificial caps will keep shrinking and be supplemented by throttling, too. I'm reading Verizon and AT&T both want to stop making their networks better…

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 #116 of 189
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

Seems my ISP is lying to me. I've a letter to write.

Note he mentions his cap and then a stat (unverified) that caps are rampant with an implication that the caps would not allow for a better resolution large screen monitor because of his wildly obscene file sizes for 4K streaming video. It's all just FUD. Who the **** mentions streaming Internet video and uses "uncompressed" video as a metric?

"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 #117 of 189
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post
It's all just FUD. Who the **** mentions streaming Internet video and uses "uncompressed" video as a metric?

 

Oh, no, you know what's really FUD? What I just read about my ISP, which states that there's a cap for all Internet data that comes into your house (because of "high usage" and "being fair" with data distribution) … EXCEPT for their own TV service, which is Internet-based and is the same data moving in the same way. 1oyvey.gif

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 #118 of 189
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

Oh, no, you know what's really FUD? What I just read about my ISP, which states that there's a cap for all Internet data that comes into your house (because of "high usage" and "being fair" with data distribution) … EXCEPT for their own TV service, which is Internet-based and is the same data moving in the same way. 1oyvey.gif
You lost me there. That sounds reasonable.

Back in the analog cable TV days everything was sent downstream constantly. In fact, to remove channels we used Taps (i.e.: filters) that would block certain frequencies this was usually done right by the home, usually on the house box or yard box. Those boxes are locked but easily removable and the Tap is just an inline component inserted between two pieces of coax. You unscrew it and then reattached the cable and you're good to go.

With Internet this could sometimes cause issues depending on the frequencies you blocked. We usually just removed them because they were a PITA.

I believe each analog channel was 6MHz of bandwidth. With digital you could compress it (with MPEG-2) and put several channels in that 6MHz segment that the digibox can decode.

You data rate is different they also have to support TV working well. You can't have American Idol not working just to call the cable company to have them tell you you any watch TV because your neighbor is downloading a season of Game of Thrones.


PS: note their TV service is IP based but it is not Internet based. They are an ISP to get you to the Internet but are on their private network and they have a lot of buildings to support getting you streaming and on-demand content to you digibox.
Edited by SolipsismX - 3/27/13 at 12:28pm

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

I simply can't image why people are for increasing their TV set size every few years and yet don't understand what that does to the relative quality of the image..

 

Some of us Do understand the consequences and do it anyway because, for us, the benefits of encompassing more of our field of view outweighs the (to us) comparatively small compromise in image sharpness. Like I said, I find watching a hockey game on a 103" display at 8 feet from the screen immersive even at 1080 -- I haven't noticed the pixels.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

My comment about bit rate still stands as well as it being an erroneous assumption that your monitor has to match the content pixel for pixel.

 

I think you may be getting comments from others mixed up with mine. I agree with you. I don't think matching source pixels to display pixels one-to-one is critically important. It's nice when possible, but Apple products scale so well that it's much less important than it may once have been.

 

 


Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX View Post

As for streaming quality that depends on a lot of factors that have nothing to do with bit rate.. Does the same thing happen with other streaming options? For example, do you find you can't streaming 720p (or 1080p) content from YouTube? If not, then your conclusion is likely incorrect, not to mention ignoring H.265 as being being an integral part of the future of streaming video of all kinds.

 

I have a fast internet connection, 50MB. I had 100 for a while but didn't notice any improvement so I decided to save a several dollars difference in price.

 

Apple content streams beautifully. YouTube, depends on the day and obviously the source material. Netflix varies somewhat, but only between kinda crappy and meh. It never looks "good."

 

H.265 sounds exciting, but until it gets here...

post #120 of 189
Quote:
Originally Posted by v5v View Post

H.265 sounds exciting, but until it gets here...

Apple not yet officially adopting it is not the same as it not yet being here.

"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