So all this whining about Apple being behind and you don't once mention that this device from Sony costs $700 and that it only works with Sony 4K UHD sets, which are already expensive for 4K UHD sets. You also fail to mention the quality of their catalogue or the low amount of data per pixel that makes unconverted 1080p Blu-ray look as good or better, according to reviews from last year. Gee, how is it that Apple isn't bending over backwards to release a $4000 AppleTV that comes with it's own TV?¡
So all this whining about Apple being behind and you don't once mention that this device from Sony costs $700 and that it only works with Sony 4K UHD sets, which are already expensive for 4K UHD sets. You also fail to mention the quality of their catalogue or the low amount of data per pixel that makes unconverted 1080p Blu-ray look as good or better, according to reviews from last year. Gee, how is it that Apple isn't bending over backwards to release a $4000 AppleTV that comes with it's own TV?¡
A SONY 49" 4K UHD set is $1399 which is nothing when compared to the price of plasmas etc when they first came out so please stop spreading FUD.
A SONY 49" 4K UHD set is $1399 which is nothing when compared to the price of plasmas etc when they first came out so please stop spreading FUD.
Wow, you picked the cheapest set that works with the $700 FMP-X10 so you can claim that Apple's solution which is already on sale from $2000 (something Apple doesn't do) so you can claim that a 4K UHD Apple TV would with 55+ monitor (pretty much the minimum anyone should get if they are planning to get rid of their 1080p set) wouldn't cost at least $4000. I even threw you a bone by dropping the price I think Apple would charge after seeing how competitive they are with the new 5K iMac.
yeah I'm in no rush to see the makeup on actors, either. 1080p is fine for me. hell my ATV is still the 720p model.
Danny Boyle agrees with you. He reckons only a fraction of actor's faces will cope with the 'reveal', that make up and lighting will hate it...and likely cosmetic surgeons since even the underlying blemish under the repair would show up.
Deep irony when he suggested that older actors would need post production 'protection' work and/or use of inferior lens to tone it down.
Edit 'lenses'
Danny Boyle agrees with you. He reckons only a fraction of actor's faces will cope with the 'reveal', that make up and lighting will hate it...and likely cosmetic surgeons since even the underlying blemish under the repair would show up.
Deep irony when he suggested that older actors would need post production 'protection' work and/or use of inferior lens to tone it down.
Edit 'lenses'
Movies and TV shows have been show in 4K for years now, and I assume we have inexpensive and advanced CGI techniques to make smoothing out of blemishes a simple task. My guess is 4K UHD in the home will make the experience better, not worse.
Danny Boyle agrees with you. He reckons only a fraction of actor's faces will cope with the 'reveal', that make up and lighting will hate it...and likely cosmetic surgeons since even the underlying blemish under the repair would show up.
Deep irony when he suggested that older actors would need post production 'protection' work and/or use of inferior lens to tone it down.
Edit 'lenses'
Some people's memories are very short.
The exact same hand wringing and teeth gnashing happened when high-definition television transmissions commenced, with the exact same predictions of doom and horror concerning actors' appearances, skin blemishes, etc.
I predict that people will get over it rather quickly, then bitch and moan when an even higher resolution 8K video replaces 4K like there has never ever been a resolution increase in history. Laughable.
Because I’m of the belief that regular people aren’t so mind-numbingly stupid that they need a “4” in the marketing name to comprehend that it has 4 times the number of pixels.
I also like consistency. I think it’s misleading, one, to use the long side rather than the short, and two, to call it 4K when it’s 3840. It’s like the psychosis of a “55 inch-class” television that is 54.2”. PUT THE ACTUAL NUMBER ON THE BOX. It’s legalized false advertising.
Because I’m of the belief that regular people aren’t so mind-numbingly stupid that they need a “4” in the marketing name to comprehend that it has 4 times the number of pixels.
[image]
I also like consistency. I think it’s misleading, one, to use the long side rather than the short, and two, to call it 4K when it’s 3840. It’s like the psychosis of a “55 inch-class” television that is 54.2”. PUT THE ACTUAL NUMBER ON THE BOX. It’s legalized false advertising.
Then you should follow the previous 480p, 720p, an 1080p standards by calling it 2160p to denote the number of vertical pixels as compared to their current set. Halving a marketing name doesn't help your cause.
PS: The large text in your image are SD, HD, and Full HD, so why not simply use UHD? It's the shortest term to write and it's marketed along with 4K as 4K UHD so it's not uncommon.
Then you should follow the previous 480p, 720p, an 1080p standards by calling it 2160p to denote the number of vertical pixels as compared to their current set. Halving a marketing name doesn't help your cause.
PS: The large text in your image are SD, HD, and Full HD, so why not simply use UHD? It's the shortest term to write and it's marketed along with 4K as 4K UHD so it's not uncommon.
Twenty one sixty doesn't sound as nice as ten eighty.
Twenty one sixty doesn't sound as nice as ten eighty.
There is an extra syllable, so sure, but I don't think it's unwieldily, and none of these are nice to say or very user friendly. 4K is the most user friendly and I agree they should have kept with the vertical pixels (or rather started with the horizontal pixels) but they didn't, so we're now stuck with many crappy options.
There is an extra syllable, so sure, but I don't think it's unwieldily, and none of these are nice to say or very user friendly. 4K is the most user friendly and I agree they should have kept with the vertical pixels (or rather started with the horizontal pixels) but they didn't, so we're now stuck with many crappy options.
I'm less enthused about describing HD by the vertical resolution. In the early days, the term "1080i" would be abused to mean 1440x1080 (interlaced, to save bandwidth, so each frame carried only 1440x540 pixels). DirecTV and HDV were doing that, so later, the term "Full HD" was coined to describe 1920x1080 (progressive scan). I always liked how computer monitor resolutions were cut and dried: 1600x1200 means exactly that. No dicking around with tricky marketing terms to convince you that you were getting something you weren't. I wish home video displays followed the same rules; if you give manufacturers and content providers a way to weasel out of it, they will.
Comcast limits us to 300 GB a month, which we struggle to stay under now. So it's a moot point really. We wouldn't be able to use 4k video. We can't really even use HD video as it is.
I bet you all the the unannounced iPad Pro (with the larger screen) will have a resolution capable of 4K! That would explane why the resolution hasn't changed on the iPad Air 2. They were saving the bump in resolution for the model with the bigger screen!
Comments
So all this whining about Apple being behind and you don't once mention that this device from Sony costs $700 and that it only works with Sony 4K UHD sets, which are already expensive for 4K UHD sets. You also fail to mention the quality of their catalogue or the low amount of data per pixel that makes unconverted 1080p Blu-ray look as good or better, according to reviews from last year. Gee, how is it that Apple isn't bending over backwards to release a $4000 AppleTV that comes with it's own TV?¡
4K defines the pixel count- not the cost in US$.
So all this whining about Apple being behind and you don't once mention that this device from Sony costs $700 and that it only works with Sony 4K UHD sets, which are already expensive for 4K UHD sets. You also fail to mention the quality of their catalogue or the low amount of data per pixel that makes unconverted 1080p Blu-ray look as good or better, according to reviews from last year. Gee, how is it that Apple isn't bending over backwards to release a $4000 AppleTV that comes with it's own TV?¡
A SONY 49" 4K UHD set is $1399 which is nothing when compared to the price of plasmas etc when they first came out so please stop spreading FUD.
Wow, you picked the cheapest set that works with the $700 FMP-X10 so you can claim that Apple's solution which is already on sale from $2000 (something Apple doesn't do) so you can claim that a 4K UHD Apple TV would with 55+ monitor (pretty much the minimum anyone should get if they are planning to get rid of their 1080p set) wouldn't cost at least $4000. I even threw you a bone by dropping the price I think Apple would charge after seeing how competitive they are with the new 5K iMac.
That earns you a double.
So Vizio has a 2K TV available for... what was, it, either $699 or $899 on Black Friday.
Now, given that it’s Vizio, the panel is going to be the equivalent of a TN monitor, isn’t it?
Danny Boyle agrees with you. He reckons only a fraction of actor's faces will cope with the 'reveal', that make up and lighting will hate it...and likely cosmetic surgeons since even the underlying blemish under the repair would show up.
Deep irony when he suggested that older actors would need post production 'protection' work and/or use of inferior lens to tone it down.
Edit 'lenses'
Why do you call it 2K?
Movies and TV shows have been show in 4K for years now, and I assume we have inexpensive and advanced CGI techniques to make smoothing out of blemishes a simple task. My guess is 4K UHD in the home will make the experience better, not worse.
Danny Boyle agrees with you. He reckons only a fraction of actor's faces will cope with the 'reveal', that make up and lighting will hate it...and likely cosmetic surgeons since even the underlying blemish under the repair would show up.
Deep irony when he suggested that older actors would need post production 'protection' work and/or use of inferior lens to tone it down.
Edit 'lenses'
Some people's memories are very short.
The exact same hand wringing and teeth gnashing happened when high-definition television transmissions commenced, with the exact same predictions of doom and horror concerning actors' appearances, skin blemishes, etc.
I predict that people will get over it rather quickly, then bitch and moan when an even higher resolution 8K video replaces 4K like there has never ever been a resolution increase in history. Laughable.
Because I’m of the belief that regular people aren’t so mind-numbingly stupid that they need a “4” in the marketing name to comprehend that it has 4 times the number of pixels.
I also like consistency. I think it’s misleading, one, to use the long side rather than the short, and two, to call it 4K when it’s 3840. It’s like the psychosis of a “55 inch-class” television that is 54.2”. PUT THE ACTUAL NUMBER ON THE BOX. It’s legalized false advertising.
Then you should follow the previous 480p, 720p, an 1080p standards by calling it 2160p to denote the number of vertical pixels as compared to their current set. Halving a marketing name doesn't help your cause.
PS: The large text in your image are SD, HD, and Full HD, so why not simply use UHD? It's the shortest term to write and it's marketed along with 4K as 4K UHD so it's not uncommon.
Twenty one sixty doesn't sound as nice as ten eighty.
There is an extra syllable, so sure, but I don't think it's unwieldily, and none of these are nice to say or very user friendly. 4K is the most user friendly and I agree they should have kept with the vertical pixels (or rather started with the horizontal pixels) but they didn't, so we're now stuck with many crappy options.
As far as the picture goes it's not crappy.
Comcast limits us to 300 GB a month, which we struggle to stay under now. So it's a moot point really. We wouldn't be able to use 4k video. We can't really even use HD video as it is.
Well, 4096x3072.
No, it didn’t need to be changed. That’s why they didn’t change it.