[...] That said, moving into the 50 inch and definitely into the 60 and 70 inch ranges UHD will be the only reasonable way to achieve the Retina effect.
All true. What I find myself wondering is whether the "retina effect" actually matters to anyone other than a tiny group of videophiles?
At work we have a 103" Panasonic plasma as a set piece. Occasionally I get the chance to watch a sporting event on it. At a viewing distance of roughly eight feet I'm nowhere NEAR "retina range" yet I've never, even once, noticed the pixels -- I just become much more immersed in the experience.
That said, there is no doubt that the market will flock to higher resolution just because we're all bored with whatever we have now and "more" must be "better."
Sony has already announced their 4K TV's will ship this summer. The PS4 will also be 4K content ready for streaming movies. The problem is the file size which will be around 100GB each uncompressed. With compression that will drastically reduce the file size but these movies will still be huge. Many ISP's now have data caps at 250GB a month. And even without a data cap how fast will your connection have to be to stream movies this large? Fiber is still few and far between.
I couldn't find the price of the upcoming Sony 4K TV, but the one by Samsung will set you back $40,000.
Have we heard a single rumor from ANY source about Apple doing new deals with content creators that aren't already in the iTunes Store?
No?
Then anything they do in this regard WILL fail.
Bingo. We have to hear about the content first. Then people can start whining about their precious panel while Apple slips them a new Apple TV box to change the world.
So basically a stupid panel with access to no content and which will fail more quickly than the iPod Hi-Fi?
Speaking of fail. Try to not speak in such absolutes like you are the god of all information.
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.
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".
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?
[...] 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
If 1080p is 4GB, then shouldn't 4K be 16? 8 in H.265…
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. 4K is about 4 times 1080p. By my calculations that means a file size of between 20 and 40 GB for a 4K resolution movie with compression to maintain good quality. What H.265 brings to the table I don;t know, but my point still stands that these will be huge files and how do you get around ISP data caps?
[...] 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.
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.
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
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.
Comments
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
[...] That said, moving into the 50 inch and definitely into the 60 and 70 inch ranges UHD will be the only reasonable way to achieve the Retina effect.
All true. What I find myself wondering is whether the "retina effect" actually matters to anyone other than a tiny group of videophiles?
At work we have a 103" Panasonic plasma as a set piece. Occasionally I get the chance to watch a sporting event on it. At a viewing distance of roughly eight feet I'm nowhere NEAR "retina range" yet I've never, even once, noticed the pixels -- I just become much more immersed in the experience.
That said, there is no doubt that the market will flock to higher resolution just because we're all bored with whatever we have now and "more" must be "better."
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
I predict 4K will catch on much faster than 1080p did.
The average US Internet speed is still <1MB/s. Good luck with that.
Sony has already announced their 4K TV's will ship this summer. The PS4 will also be 4K content ready for streaming movies. The problem is the file size which will be around 100GB each uncompressed. With compression that will drastically reduce the file size but these movies will still be huge. Many ISP's now have data caps at 250GB a month. And even without a data cap how fast will your connection have to be to stream movies this large? Fiber is still few and far between.
I couldn't find the price of the upcoming Sony 4K TV, but the one by Samsung will set you back $40,000.
http://good3dtv.com/4k-tv-news/samsung-4k-tv-costs-39999/
I can see many people paying up to $4,000, but $40,000 is going to be a niche product available for the rich.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Have we heard a single rumor from ANY source about Apple doing new deals with content creators that aren't already in the iTunes Store?
No?
Then anything they do in this regard WILL fail.
Bingo. We have to hear about the content first. Then people can start whining about their precious panel while Apple slips them a new Apple TV box to change the world.
So basically a stupid panel with access to no content and which will fail more quickly than the iPod Hi-Fi?
Speaking of fail. Try to not speak in such absolutes like you are the god of all information.
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/business/gorilla_tactics_OrVVl5tgFF7BeEO8lVU4eJ
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
What do you mean they can't stream a decent picture at present resolutions?
I was responding to a comment referring specifically to Netflix.
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GadgetCanada
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".
Originally Posted by GadgetCanada
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
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?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
[...] 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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
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.
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.
Originally Posted by v5v
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.
And monkeys will fly out of my b*tt.
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.
Originally Posted by gwmac
…up to a 100GB movie…
If 1080p is 4GB, then shouldn't 4K be 16? 8 in H.265…
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Have we heard a single rumor from ANY source about Apple doing new deals with content creators that aren't already in the iTunes Store?
http://www.nypost.com/p/news/business/gorilla_tactics_OrVVl5tgFF7BeEO8lVU4eJ
Your link confirms what I'm saying. Thanks!
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
If 1080p is 4GB, then shouldn't 4K be 16? 8 in H.265…
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. 4K is about 4 times 1080p. By my calculations that means a file size of between 20 and 40 GB for a 4K resolution movie with compression to maintain good quality. What H.265 brings to the table I don;t know, but my point still stands that these will be huge files and how do you get around ISP data caps?
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
[...] 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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GadgetCanada
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.
Originally Posted by GadgetCanada
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
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.