"Baseless Analyst Speculation" seem tautological to me.
I'm personally looking forward to them announcing the "Force Field API" that developers will be able to use to interact with the Defence Screen in the new iPhone. Although I hear development on that has delayed the "Chameleon Circuit Developer Kit" they were hoping to use in the next version of Xcode.
While enthusiasts clamor for an Apple TV with 4K content, at present, Apple has no 4K content, nor have there been any rumors lately of it appearing on the Apple media stores. Apple's tvOS is likely to see an update at WWDC, however.
Emphasize the word "Enthusiast".
4K is overrated for the average consumer.
Back in 2003 or 2004 I was reading up quite a bit on HD TVs as we were planning to get one (we got our first one just before the Summer Olympics and many events were shown in HD. We ended up watching things we normally wouldn't have just to marvel at the clarity!). One thing that stood out to me was staying above a 32" screen for HD content, as screens that were less than 32" were too small to see the difference in clarity that HD delivered. So, if you were watching something in HD on a (say) 29" screen, you wouldn't be able to see the difference between HD and SD on the same TV and from the same viewing distance. It was basically saying, "Save your money" as the difference was negligible or non-existent.
More interesting to me was a side comment that discussed UHD TV, or what they are now calling 4k. Using the same argument about screen size and viewing distance the article stated that for most homes UHD TV would not make much sense as the minimum screen size to see the difference between HD and UHD was 102" or 106" (I don't quite remember which, it's been 13 years after all).
Now I tend to question people who claim that 4k looks great on their 50" TV. A friend of mine recently purchased a second home in Florida and needed a TV there. He bid on some no-name brand TV on a website I have never heard of and ended up winning the auction (supposedly, I'm a little unclear as to how it worked) for around $300. Anyway, the TV is a 50-55", is 4k capable and has Amazon Prime Video built in. He says they watched a couple of shows in 4k via Prime and absolutely raves about the picture quality.
All of that doesn't add up for me: it's a brand I've never heard of, the display is roughly half the size of what 13 years ago was the recommended minimum and he's watching streaming video. Those variables don't sound like the perfect viewing experience, especially this early on in the life of "4k". To be fair, I have no idea how fast their internet connection is. But they aren't the type to spring for a higher tier, especially when they're paying for it every month but only there for a few weeks per year.
That is utter nonsense. You don't need a screen over 100" to tell the difference between HD and UHD. You can easily see the difference between UHD and HD on a 50" TV. With UHD having 4 times the pixels of HD, you will see the difference because of the level of detail and a noticeably higher level of contrast. You don't need a fast internet connection to stream 4K content.
What is the low limit then? Would you be able to tell the difference on a 25" screen? Can you see the difference between 4k and 1080p on an iPhone display? Do you believe that once you start cramming enough pixels into the same space you start to lose the advantage of having all those pixels? Will we also be able to see the difference between "8k" or "16k" on a 50" screen?
You say we don't need a fast internet connection to stream 4k, so does that mean my mom can view 4k on her crappy DSL connection? "Fast" to my mom would be 10Mbps, but to my co-workers 25Mbps is not "fast".
Until my neighbor's son started working for Comcast they had a 1.5Mbps connection because my neighbor said he only needed to check email and everything else was a waste of money. If my friend with the Florida house has a 1.5Mbps connection will he be able to stream 4k (and view it just as well)?
These are all legitimate questions, I'm not trying to come off as an asshole.
What do you people keep leaving out required variables to create even baseline model. Size paired with resolution gives you the size of each pixel. Or, to put it another way, when given a certain resolution and size you can then the determine the minimum distance in which your eyes can be that the pixels will be indistinguishable. This, of course, is dependent on your eyesight, and many other factors like the color quality of the display and what your eyes can see, as well as a variance in a still image v a series of images at a rate of 30fps v 60fps, and even refresh rate of the display comes into play. Now, many of these have a minor effect or can't be easily calculated because human eyesight varies between each person, but you at least need to have a resolution and display size to determine pixel size so you can determine distance, which means that holding a 2160p iPhone 12 inches in front of your face won't make a difference, but being 12 feet in front of a 50 8K Jumbotron you'll definitely see the pixels.
Right, but we're talking about Apple TV, which most people use in their homes. How far away from a 50" screen do people sit at home? And at what point does more pixels stop making a difference? As you say, 2160p on an iPhone at 12 inches is likely not noticeable by most people, maybe anyone, when compared to 1080p on the same phone at the same distance. But 2160p on the same size display as 1080p is supposed to be noticeably different at every screen size other than an iPhone? Boltsfan17 says the difference is easily discernible at 50". But at some screen size it can't possibly be. We can't just go increasing resolution by a factor of 4 every ten years forever at the same size display and continue to say there is an visible difference.
I have a non-HD screen that beats any FullHD screens I have seen to date.
A lot of my SD content also looks amazing when compared to the same content in FullHD.
My screen is a 42 inch plasma.
There are many reasons for this kind of situation but the video processors in the set, the colours, contrast and ultimately the quality of the compression all play a part.
4K will become the norm but a lot of our content will be at varying resolutions and how the TV handles that is vital.
My biggest criticism of ultra HD screens is excessive sharpness and clarity for native resolution film. When someone tells me to look at the detail in the image quality I compare it to how things look in the real world and more often than not I find the onscreen image in some way unnatural.
Maybe I'm too old already and one day I will have a 4K screen sitting in my living room but I'm sure I will miss my plasma.
While enthusiasts clamor for an Apple TV with 4K content, at present, Apple has no 4K content, nor have there been any rumors lately of it appearing on the Apple media stores. Apple's tvOS is likely to see an update at WWDC, however.
Emphasize the word "Enthusiast".
4K is overrated for the average consumer.
Back in 2003 or 2004 I was reading up quite a bit on HD TVs as we were planning to get one (we got our first one just before the Summer Olympics and many events were shown in HD. We ended up watching things we normally wouldn't have just to marvel at the clarity!). One thing that stood out to me was staying above a 32" screen for HD content, as screens that were less than 32" were too small to see the difference in clarity that HD delivered. So, if you were watching something in HD on a (say) 29" screen, you wouldn't be able to see the difference between HD and SD on the same TV and from the same viewing distance. It was basically saying, "Save your money" as the difference was negligible or non-existent.
More interesting to me was a side comment that discussed UHD TV, or what they are now calling 4k. Using the same argument about screen size and viewing distance the article stated that for most homes UHD TV would not make much sense as the minimum screen size to see the difference between HD and UHD was 102" or 106" (I don't quite remember which, it's been 13 years after all).
Now I tend to question people who claim that 4k looks great on their 50" TV. A friend of mine recently purchased a second home in Florida and needed a TV there. He bid on some no-name brand TV on a website I have never heard of and ended up winning the auction (supposedly, I'm a little unclear as to how it worked) for around $300. Anyway, the TV is a 50-55", is 4k capable and has Amazon Prime Video built in. He says they watched a couple of shows in 4k via Prime and absolutely raves about the picture quality.
All of that doesn't add up for me: it's a brand I've never heard of, the display is roughly half the size of what 13 years ago was the recommended minimum and he's watching streaming video. Those variables don't sound like the perfect viewing experience, especially this early on in the life of "4k". To be fair, I have no idea how fast their internet connection is. But they aren't the type to spring for a higher tier, especially when they're paying for it every month but only there for a few weeks per year.
That is utter nonsense. You don't need a screen over 100" to tell the difference between HD and UHD. You can easily see the difference between UHD and HD on a 50" TV. With UHD having 4 times the pixels of HD, you will see the difference because of the level of detail and a noticeably higher level of contrast. You don't need a fast internet connection to stream 4K content.
What is the low limit then? Would you be able to tell the difference on a 25" screen? Can you see the difference between 4k and 1080p on an iPhone display? Do you believe that once you start cramming enough pixels into the same space you start to lose the advantage of having all those pixels? Will we also be able to see the difference between "8k" or "16k" on a 50" screen?
You say we don't need a fast internet connection to stream 4k, so does that mean my mom can view 4k on her crappy DSL connection? "Fast" to my mom would be 10Mbps, but to my co-workers 25Mbps is not "fast".
Until my neighbor's son started working for Comcast they had a 1.5Mbps connection because my neighbor said he only needed to check email and everything else was a waste of money. If my friend with the Florida house has a 1.5Mbps connection will he be able to stream 4k (and view it just as well)?
These are all legitimate questions, I'm not trying to come off as an asshole.
What do you people keep leaving out required variables to create even baseline model. Size paired with resolution gives you the size of each pixel. Or, to put it another way, when given a certain resolution and size you can then the determine the minimum distance in which your eyes can be that the pixels will be indistinguishable. This, of course, is dependent on your eyesight, and many other factors like the color quality of the display and what your eyes can see, as well as a variance in a still image v a series of images at a rate of 30fps v 60fps, and even refresh rate of the display comes into play. Now, many of these have a minor effect or can't be easily calculated because human eyesight varies between each person, but you at least need to have a resolution and display size to determine pixel size so you can determine distance, which means that holding a 2160p iPhone 12 inches in front of your face won't make a difference, but being 12 feet in front of a 50 8K Jumbotron you'll definitely see the pixels.
Right, but we're talking about Apple TV, which most people use in their homes. How far away from a 50" screen do people sit at home? And at what point does more pixels stop making a difference? As you say, 2160p on an iPhone at 12 inches is likely not noticeable by most people, maybe anyone, when compared to 1080p on the same phone at the same distance. But 2160p on the same size display as 1080p is supposed to be noticeably different at every screen size other than an iPhone? Boltsfan17 says the difference is easily discernible at 50". But at some screen size it can't possibly be. We can't just go increasing resolution by a factor of 4 every ten years forever at the same size display and continue to say there is an visible difference.
You're still not factoring in distance from the screen compared to display size for a given resolution (which those two values determine the size of the pixels). There are countless online calculators for you to see what the minimal distance is for a 2160p v 1080p display and then see if that would benefit you in your living room for a given size and your eyesight. Again, even then that doesn't mean a newer TV wouldn't offer a better experience because of other values that make the picture better.
While enthusiasts clamor for an Apple TV with 4K content, at present, Apple has no 4K content, nor have there been any rumors lately of it appearing on the Apple media stores. Apple's tvOS is likely to see an update at WWDC, however.
Emphasize the word "Enthusiast".
4K is overrated for the average consumer.
Back in 2003 or 2004 I was reading up quite a bit on HD TVs as we were planning to get one (we got our first one just before the Summer Olympics and many events were shown in HD. We ended up watching things we normally wouldn't have just to marvel at the clarity!). One thing that stood out to me was staying above a 32" screen for HD content, as screens that were less than 32" were too small to see the difference in clarity that HD delivered. So, if you were watching something in HD on a (say) 29" screen, you wouldn't be able to see the difference between HD and SD on the same TV and from the same viewing distance. It was basically saying, "Save your money" as the difference was negligible or non-existent.
More interesting to me was a side comment that discussed UHD TV, or what they are now calling 4k. Using the same argument about screen size and viewing distance the article stated that for most homes UHD TV would not make much sense as the minimum screen size to see the difference between HD and UHD was 102" or 106" (I don't quite remember which, it's been 13 years after all).
Now I tend to question people who claim that 4k looks great on their 50" TV. A friend of mine recently purchased a second home in Florida and needed a TV there. He bid on some no-name brand TV on a website I have never heard of and ended up winning the auction (supposedly, I'm a little unclear as to how it worked) for around $300. Anyway, the TV is a 50-55", is 4k capable and has Amazon Prime Video built in. He says they watched a couple of shows in 4k via Prime and absolutely raves about the picture quality.
All of that doesn't add up for me: it's a brand I've never heard of, the display is roughly half the size of what 13 years ago was the recommended minimum and he's watching streaming video. Those variables don't sound like the perfect viewing experience, especially this early on in the life of "4k". To be fair, I have no idea how fast their internet connection is. But they aren't the type to spring for a higher tier, especially when they're paying for it every month but only there for a few weeks per year.
That is utter nonsense. You don't need a screen over 100" to tell the difference between HD and UHD. You can easily see the difference between UHD and HD on a 50" TV. With UHD having 4 times the pixels of HD, you will see the difference because of the level of detail and a noticeably higher level of contrast. You don't need a fast internet connection to stream 4K content.
Yes you do. More pixels is more data. This is part of the reason why HD cable providers apply excessive compression to their channels, making them look worse than OTA HD. I'm sure we'll see crappy bitrates on 4k, negating some of the advantage of increased resolution.
It is just another attempt by an analysis to manipulate the stock. Claim they will show off products and when the do not it means something is wrong and apple is in trouble.
It is well known that Analists speak out of their backsides. AFAIK, they do talk up companies and have their 'friends' short the stock when it all comes to nothing. Is Apple in Trouble? Well, it depends upon two thing. 1) How you define trouble 2) Where you are looking at Apple from.
Personally, I think that they have become far too reliant upon the iPhone. Take that away and what have you got left? Very little really. As a result, I cut my holding in Apple in half last month. Uncertain is my take on 'is Apple in trouble'. YMMV and probably will and this post is no way financial advice.
As one who replaced his older Sony with a new one that's 4K ultra high def, I can assure you that 4K is a definite improvement over 1080p. The Sony remote even has Netflix built into it, so watching their 4K movies is awesome. Same goes for other programming. Can't wait for ESPN to begin broadcasting in the newer standard.
It is just another attempt by an analysis to manipulate the stock. Claim they will show off products and when the do not it means something is wrong and apple is in trouble.
Personally, I think that they have become far too reliant upon the iPhone. Take that away and what have you got left? Very little really.Tpt
Nonsense. What are you left with? Product lines still worth more than other entire corporations, that's what.
Comments
I'm personally looking forward to them announcing the "Force Field API" that developers will be able to use to interact with the Defence Screen in the new iPhone. Although I hear development on that has delayed the "Chameleon Circuit Developer Kit" they were hoping to use in the next version of Xcode.
I have a non-HD screen that beats any FullHD screens I have seen to date.
A lot of my SD content also looks amazing when compared to the same content in FullHD.
My screen is a 42 inch plasma.
There are many reasons for this kind of situation but the video processors in the set, the colours, contrast and ultimately the quality of the compression all play a part.
4K will become the norm but a lot of our content will be at varying resolutions and how the TV handles that is vital.
My biggest criticism of ultra HD screens is excessive sharpness and clarity for native resolution film. When someone tells me to look at the detail in the image quality I compare it to how things look in the real world and more often than not I find the onscreen image in some way unnatural.
Maybe I'm too old already and one day I will have a 4K screen sitting in my living room but I'm sure I will miss my plasma.
Is Apple in Trouble? Well, it depends upon two thing.
1) How you define trouble
2) Where you are looking at Apple from.
Personally, I think that they have become far too reliant upon the iPhone. Take that away and what have you got left? Very little really.
As a result, I cut my holding in Apple in half last month. Uncertain is my take on 'is Apple in trouble'.
YMMV and probably will and this post is no way financial advice.
Can't wait for ESPN to begin broadcasting in the newer standard.