Rumor: Apple building 4K Ultra HD television set for launch in 2013 or early 2014

1246711

Comments

  • Reply 61 of 207
    solipsismxsolipsismx Posts: 19,566member
    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.
  • Reply 62 of 207


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

  • Reply 63 of 207
    solipsismxsolipsismx Posts: 19,566member
    jragosta wrote: »
    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.
  • Reply 64 of 207
    tylerk36tylerk36 Posts: 1,037member


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

  • Reply 65 of 207
    v5vv5v Posts: 1,357member

    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.

  • Reply 66 of 207
    v5vv5v Posts: 1,357member

    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..."

  • Reply 67 of 207
    jragostajragosta Posts: 10,473member
    solipsismx wrote: »
    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.
  • Reply 68 of 207
    v5vv5v Posts: 1,357member

    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.

  • Reply 69 of 207
    v5vv5v Posts: 1,357member

    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.

  • Reply 70 of 207
    jragostajragosta Posts: 10,473member
    v5v wrote: »
    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.
  • Reply 71 of 207
    solipsismxsolipsismx Posts: 19,566member
    jragosta wrote: »
    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.
  • Reply 72 of 207
    jragostajragosta Posts: 10,473member
    flaneur wrote: »
    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.
  • Reply 73 of 207
    flaneurflaneur Posts: 4,526member
    sol77 wrote: »
    < . . . >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.
  • Reply 74 of 207
    solipsismxsolipsismx Posts: 19,566member
    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.

    v5v wrote: »
    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.
  • Reply 75 of 207
    v5vv5v Posts: 1,357member

    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.

  • Reply 76 of 207
    v5vv5v Posts: 1,357member

    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?

  • Reply 77 of 207
    reefoidreefoid Posts: 158member

    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.

  • Reply 78 of 207
    tallest skiltallest skil Posts: 43,388member


    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.

  • Reply 79 of 207
    mac_128mac_128 Posts: 3,454member

    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.

  • Reply 80 of 207
    solipsismxsolipsismx Posts: 19,566member
    v5v wrote: »
    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.
Sign In or Register to comment.