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.
I don't get why we need all content to be 4K before we have a 4K monitor? Do those that have 1080p monitors only watch 1080p content? No 720p content that need to be processed to fit on the display? What do people with smartphones, tablets, and Macs/PCs do when it comes to Netflix, Hulu, YouTube, etc. when the content doesn't match their physical display resolution pixel-for-pixel?
And what about the Disney umbrella I mentioned to get the ball rolling?
And what about YouTube and other sources as H.265 codec makes this feasible?
And what about the Apple TV SDK and App Store I mentioned?
And what about Airplay of content that still looks high-def as TV set move out of being "Retina" to being non-"Retina" as they constantly grow in size.
There has never been such a perfect setup for this industry.
If that's the case, wasn't 720 to 1080 equally sound?
How does 720 divide into 1080 equally? It's 1.5 which means it scales at 1.5 pixels. Note Apple didn't go from the 1024x768 iPad 2 to a 1,536x1,152 iPad 3. They doubled the pixels so that 1 pixel would now take up 4 pixels in a 2x2 grid exactly for SD content. There is no 1.5x1.5 pixel grid (unless you're using PenTile ).
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.
Now where did the **** did you get 100GB? Even if you insist on using H.264 what iTS movies are 25GB each? :no:
I was responding to a comment referring specifically to Netflix.
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.
I simply can't image why people are for increasing their TV set size every few years and yet don't understand what that does to the relative quality of the image.
I was responding to a comment referring specifically to Netflix.
My comment about bit rate still stands as well as it being an erroneous assumption that your monitor has to match the content pixel for pixel.
As for streaming quality that depends on a lot of factors that have nothing to do with bit rate.. Does the same thing happen with other streaming options? For example, do you find you can't streaming 720p (or 1080p) content from YouTube? If not, then your conclusion is likely incorrect, not to mention ignoring H.265 as being being an integral part of the future of streaming video of all kinds.
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.
I wear glasses and I have no problem wearing the second pair. I think it is different for different people. BTW, I love 3D. Luckily I don't have a headache problem.
I simply can't image why people are for increasing their TV set size every few years and yet don't understand what that does to the relative quality of the image.
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.
I seriously doubt 4K media will be widely available anytime soon, if only because of the conversion costs.
That depends on what you mean by media. If you limit it to just studio TV shows and movies you limit your scope, but consider what computer monitors have been done for decades when SDTVs were only at 480p. Let's not remember that a TV is just a monitor (historically low-res) with a tuner built in… and in this market the tuner is much obsolesced.
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.
Don't put the cart before the horse, as previously stated ad nauseam there is so much more than waiting for the Die Hard series to be released as 4K before we consider the uses of a large 3860x2160 monitor in the home.
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.
Unfortunately doubling the frame rate doubles the file size for uncompressed video. I don't think it's double for these MPEG codecs since much of the content frame-to-frame will be identical but i would imagine it would add quite a bit to the file size. Still, 1080p@60 content scaled to 2x on a UHD display isn't a bad thing all things considers.
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. If I tell somebody about my day, I can summarize the conceptual details for maximum dramatic content. I can even show you a movie I made of my day, edited to show you the VITAL information (the relevant dramatic conflict in a movie that makes each scene relevant). But if I start distracting you with frivolous details, your attention is drawn AWAY from the story and towards those frivolous details. 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. An extreme example would be if I said, "and then he shook her...like THIS!"...and then I shook the hell out of you. Are you immersed in the story, or did I just rattle the hell out of you? The example is extreme to make the point more obvious...for many people (a majority, I'd argue), 3D does exactly this. If I'm "there," I'm focused less on the story and more on the physiological experience of the movie. It's the same reason why it's easier to get a handle on what happened during a busy day once we're at the end of it and looking at it in retrospect. While 3d might be great for making us "feel we're there," the goal of a movie is to "tell a story." It's one thing if the story you want to tell is, "what it's actually like in this one spot," but you run into the same story telling problems using 3D as you'd run into if you're trying to tell somebody about your favorite vacation at an amusement park WHILE they're standing next to an incredibly loud roller coaster ride. They can't focus on what you're saying because "oh, I smell cotton candy! oh! what's that? oh! that guy almost ran into me!" Are these valid experiences to have? Of course. But the story you want to tell will be drowned out by it.
I think 3D is fantastic when the story IS the experience of being there...Wildlife shows, video games (I'd love an fully immersive fallout sequel), but I don't think a 2 hour story can be efficiently told when the senses are being bombarded. I think this is similar to why reading a thirty page short story in less than an hour will deliver more story, and a better one, than attempting to tell the same story on location in the same amount of time. There's too much information that is not pertinent to the story. For me, the most quick and dirty summation is this: when I watch Hulk smash Loki, I don't care about "being there," but rather "THAT" he smashed him and I saw what that looked like. A story is about dramatic conflict. In 3D, just as in real life, "being there" does more to obscure the story than it does illuminate it. I think "being there" is more conducive to analysis of particulars in science or when you actually want to simulate a specific experience.
They should make movies in 240p (like in youtube videos). We don't need the extra details in a 480p/720p or more. Also only black and white. Or just read the script
Story is the main component but not the only component. Visual details are another part (which not all might be interested).
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.
Actually, there are plenty of 1080P movies on iTunes over 5GB in size. Check out Lincoln for example at 5.09GB. You can already get a 4K movie but at full resolution it is 160GB. Compressed drops it to 25GB.
Most people don't have a choice between ISP besides one cable provider or one DSL provider. A lucky few that might have fiber as an option but even they have caps. Your suggestion to just move to a better ISP is rather obtuse. How may ISP's even exist anymore that offer unlimited data? I find your "let them eat cake" suggestion rather rich considering you have said numerous times you use a Mac Mini which is as cheap a Mac as you can buy and can't afford a new iPhone on a major carrier due to costs so stick with a 1st generation iPhone on a pre-paid plan. Your words not mine.
This could be Cook's first market disrupter as CEO.
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.
How may ISP's even exist anymore that offer unlimited data?
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.
Right. They're being stonewalled with content and with streaming of content. Thus, exactly what I said.
What you really said "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?"
As per my previous link, Apple is trying to negotiate a new deal with content providers for a new TV streaming service. Being stonewalled has nothing to do with your original comment.
Most people don't have a choice between ISP besides one cable provider or one DSL provider. A lucky few that might have fiber as an option but even they have caps. Your suggestion to just move to a better ISP is rather obtuse. How may ISP's even exist anymore that offer unlimited data? I find your "let them eat cake" suggestion rather rich considering you have said numerous times you use a Mac Mini which is as cheap a Mac as you can buy and can't afford a new iPhone on a major carrier due to costs so stick with a 1st generation iPhone on a pre-paid plan. Your words not mine.
You're just bullshitting. What part of 4x the resolution over 1080p and dropping the file size by one-half for a given quality is so hard to understand? The math is as simple as it gets. 4 x 0.5 or 4 ÷ 2 = 2. That 5GB Lincoln movie is only 10GB. Not 25GB, not 100GB. Not to mention that there is no requirement for using 4K data just as when streaming first appeared, then 480p, then 720p, and 1080p.
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.
I didn't say throttle I said caps. Comcast started the trend with caps and my ISP Cox used to have unlimited but unfortunately now have caps at 250GB thanks to data hogs using torrents 24/7. Now I usually don't use more than 100GB a month and I watch a lot of Netflix in 1080P. But my point is that if one movie averages around 20 to 25 GB I can see that 250GB cap becoming an issue.
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.
West Coast. No data caps and don't know of any that has had it capped.
Note that throttling is different from a cap. You can have unlimited/unlimited data but still be throttled (past the current throttling on cable) to reduce your usage.
Pretty sure you said you had an iPad, a Mac Mini, and a 1st gen iPhone in one of your posts listing your Apple products you owned but considering it would take a week to scour through your thousands of posts it certainly is not worth the effort. Not that it really matters.
OK. So the claim that 4K movies would be over 100 GB was just plain wrong.
No, in fact I provide a link with an actual UNCOMPRESSED 4K movie that is available to download now that is 160GB. I realize with compression these files sizes will be far smaller. That one example compressed for example is 25GB. Let's not forget that most of the world with the exception of Korea and Japan have far lower caps than the U.S. My friend in Australia only has 45GB for example and much of Europe is also low by American standards on caps.
Hers it is again since you seemed to have missed the link
Don't put the cart before the horse, as previously stated ad nauseam there is so much more than waiting for the Die Hard series to be released as 4K before we consider the uses of a large 3860x2160 monitor in the home.
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.
Comments
I don't get why we need all content to be 4K before we have a 4K monitor? Do those that have 1080p monitors only watch 1080p content? No 720p content that need to be processed to fit on the display? What do people with smartphones, tablets, and Macs/PCs do when it comes to Netflix, Hulu, YouTube, etc. when the content doesn't match their physical display resolution pixel-for-pixel?
And what about the Disney umbrella I mentioned to get the ball rolling?
And what about YouTube and other sources as H.265 codec makes this feasible?
And what about the Apple TV SDK and App Store I mentioned?
And what about Airplay of content that still looks high-def as TV set move out of being "Retina" to being non-"Retina" as they constantly grow in size.
There has never been such a perfect setup for this industry.
How does 720 divide into 1080 equally? It's 1.5 which means it scales at 1.5 pixels. Note Apple didn't go from the 1024x768 iPad 2 to a 1,536x1,152 iPad 3. They doubled the pixels so that 1 pixel would now take up 4 pixels in a 2x2 grid exactly for SD content. There is no 1.5x1.5 pixel grid (unless you're using PenTile
720p is a 3x3 and 1080p is s 2x2 in 2160p/UHD.
Now where did the **** did you get 100GB? Even if you insist on using H.264 what iTS movies are 25GB each? :no:
Quote:
Originally Posted by v5v
I was responding to a comment referring specifically to Netflix.
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.
My comment about bit rate still stands as well as it being an erroneous assumption that your monitor has to match the content pixel for pixel.
As for streaming quality that depends on a lot of factors that have nothing to do with bit rate.. Does the same thing happen with other streaming options? For example, do you find you can't streaming 720p (or 1080p) content from YouTube? If not, then your conclusion is likely incorrect, not to mention ignoring H.265 as being being an integral part of the future of streaming video of all kinds.
I wear glasses and I have no problem wearing the second pair. I think it is different for different people. BTW, I love 3D. Luckily I don't have a headache problem.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
I simply can't image why people are for increasing their TV set size every few years and yet don't understand what that does to the relative quality of the image.
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.
That depends on what you mean by media. If you limit it to just studio TV shows and movies you limit your scope, but consider what computer monitors have been done for decades when SDTVs were only at 480p. Let's not remember that a TV is just a monitor (historically low-res) with a tuner built in… and in this market the tuner is much obsolesced.
Don't put the cart before the horse, as previously stated ad nauseam there is so much more than waiting for the Die Hard series to be released as 4K before we consider the uses of a large 3860x2160 monitor in the home.
Unfortunately doubling the frame rate doubles the file size for uncompressed video. I don't think it's double for these MPEG codecs since much of the content frame-to-frame will be identical but i would imagine it would add quite a bit to the file size. Still, 1080p@60 content scaled to 2x on a UHD display isn't a bad thing all things considers.
They should make movies in 240p (like in youtube videos). We don't need the extra details in a 480p/720p or more. Also only black and white. Or just read the script
Story is the main component but not the only component. Visual details are another part (which not all might be interested).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
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.
Actually, there are plenty of 1080P movies on iTunes over 5GB in size. Check out Lincoln for example at 5.09GB. You can already get a 4K movie but at full resolution it is 160GB. Compressed drops it to 25GB.
http://gizmodo.com/5914426/the-first-cinema-resolution-movie-download-available-to-consumers-is-160gb-and-absolutely-breathtaking
Most people don't have a choice between ISP besides one cable provider or one DSL provider. A lucky few that might have fiber as an option but even they have caps. Your suggestion to just move to a better ISP is rather obtuse. How may ISP's even exist anymore that offer unlimited data? I find your "let them eat cake" suggestion rather rich considering you have said numerous times you use a Mac Mini which is as cheap a Mac as you can buy and can't afford a new iPhone on a major carrier due to costs so stick with a 1st generation iPhone on a pre-paid plan. Your words not mine.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GadgetCanada
This could be Cook's first market disrupter as CEO.
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by gwmac
How may ISP's even exist anymore that offer unlimited data?
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
Right. They're being stonewalled with content and with streaming of content. Thus, exactly what I said.
What you really said "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?"
As per my previous link, Apple is trying to negotiate a new deal with content providers for a new TV streaming service. Being stonewalled has nothing to do with your original comment.
You're just bullshitting. What part of 4x the resolution over 1080p and dropping the file size by one-half for a given quality is so hard to understand? The math is as simple as it gets. 4 x 0.5 or 4 ÷ 2 = 2. That 5GB Lincoln movie is only 10GB. Not 25GB, not 100GB. Not to mention that there is no requirement for using 4K data just as when streaming first appeared, then 480p, then 720p, and 1080p.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Apple ][
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.
I didn't say throttle I said caps. Comcast started the trend with caps and my ISP Cox used to have unlimited but unfortunately now have caps at 250GB thanks to data hogs using torrents 24/7. Now I usually don't use more than 100GB a month and I watch a lot of Netflix in 1080P. But my point is that if one movie averages around 20 to 25 GB I can see that 250GB cap becoming an issue.
West Coast. No data caps and don't know of any that has had it capped.
Note that throttling is different from a cap. You can have unlimited/unlimited data but still be throttled (past the current throttling on cable) to reduce your usage.
Originally Posted by gwmac
Most people don't have a choice between ISP besides one cable provider or one DSL provider.
And as long as those two options aren't BOTH Comcast and AT&T, you shouldn't have to worry about throttling and caps.
How may ISP's even exist anymore that offer unlimited data?
Most of them.
…considering you have said numerous times you use a Mac Mini…
At no point have I ever said this. Ever.
…can't afford a new iPhone on a major carrier due to costs…
That's true.
…so stick with a 1st generation iPhone on a pre-paid plan.
Nope; don't have any service with it.
Your words not mine.
Your words. Not mine.
OK. So the claim that 4K movies would be over 100 GB was just plain wrong.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
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.
That's true.
Nope; don't have any service with it.
Your words. Not mine.
According to this link with a chart, 64% of Americans have data caps. So tell me again how "most" don't.
http://gigaom.com/2012/10/01/data-caps-chart/
Pretty sure you said you had an iPad, a Mac Mini, and a 1st gen iPhone in one of your posts listing your Apple products you owned but considering it would take a week to scour through your thousands of posts it certainly is not worth the effort. Not that it really matters.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
OK. So the claim that 4K movies would be over 100 GB was just plain wrong.
No, in fact I provide a link with an actual UNCOMPRESSED 4K movie that is available to download now that is 160GB. I realize with compression these files sizes will be far smaller. That one example compressed for example is 25GB. Let's not forget that most of the world with the exception of Korea and Japan have far lower caps than the U.S. My friend in Australia only has 45GB for example and much of Europe is also low by American standards on caps.
Hers it is again since you seemed to have missed the link
http://gizmodo.com/5914426/the-first-cinema-resolution-movie-download-available-to-consumers-is-160gb-and-absolutely-breathtaking
and a few more
http://www.theverge.com/2013/2/28/4040932/sony-4k-movie-service-will-work-with-ps4-require-100gb-plus-downloads
http://www.redmondpie.com/4k-movies-confirmed-for-playstation-4-prepare-yourself-for-100gb-downloads/
http://www.cnet.com.au/why-4k-movies-and-download-caps-just-wont-work-339343591.htm
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
Don't put the cart before the horse, as previously stated ad nauseam there is so much more than waiting for the Die Hard series to be released as 4K before we consider the uses of a large 3860x2160 monitor in the home.
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.