I was responding to a comment referring specifically to Netflix.
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".
Your link confirms what I'm saying. Thanks!
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.
If that's the case, wasn't 720 to 1080 equally sound?
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.
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.
Hmm, maybe not, then. But 24FPS content on, say, a 240 TV looks "smoother", somehow.
If 1080p is 4GB, then shouldn't 4K be 16? 8 in H.265…
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.
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.
Right. They're being stonewalled with content and with streaming of content. Thus, exactly what I said.
So Apple's aren't "properly encoded"? Because they're ~4GB.
Up to 2x quality at the same bitrate or the same quality at ~1/2 the file size.
Move to a better ISP. One that doesn't think 1994 is still the current date.
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.
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.
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.
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.
And as long as those two options aren't BOTH Comcast and AT&T, you shouldn't have to worry about throttling and caps.
Most of them.
At no point have I ever said this. Ever.
Nope; don't have any service with it.
Your words. Not mine.
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.
Right, lying about people is okay if you're too lazy to do the work required not to¡!
Three models of them.
Seems my ISP is lying to me. I've a letter to write.
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…
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.
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.
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.
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...