Could somebody buy such a display now and then add to it a quietly updated 4K Apple TV set top box "hobby" of Apple's? You betcha. But there's a big difference between that and the launch of a new integrated product category which requires 4K media content to justify the cost.
1) Why are you talking about now? This about the future.
2) I guess they do it quietly but I don't see why you'd think they would. Seems to me it would be best to advertise that they support H.265 decoding and/or 4K resolutions with their Apple TV appliance.
3) I doubt you said "requires 2048x1536 media content to justify the cost" when the Retina iPad came out so why now make that claim against another display?
4) I guarantee you watch content on a combination of your TV, smartphones, tablets, and computers that were not encoded to fit that display pixel-for-pixel and yet you still do it? Why the hypocrisy?
They don't have to support that resolution directly. With any retina display, a game simply becomes 2x anti-aliased by default. It's just left to the creators to properly code their work to take advantage of that.
They don't have to support that resolution directly. With any retina display, a game simply becomes 2x anti-aliased by default. It's just left to the creators to properly code their work to take advantage of that.
1) No anti-aliasing needed to support the scaling Apple has done with all their Retina upgrades. It's pixel-for-pixel scaling.
2) I commented many posts ago and many times that 720p and 1080p fit into 2160p(4K) exactly 2x and 3x, respectively. This is exactly what they did with their Retina displays. jragosta has a good post about it. As I stated before, this is the most mathematically perfect setup we've ever seen.
3) I seem to recall you replying to my comment which I replying that that scaling is only 1.5 for 480p to 720p or for 720p to 1080p.
1) No anti-aliasing needed to support the scaling Apple has done with all their Retina upgrades. It's pixel-for-pixel scaling.
2) I commented many posts ago and many times that 720p and 1080p fit into 2160p(4K) exactly 2x and 3x, respectively. This is exactly what they did with their Retina displays. jragosta has a good post about it. As I stated before, this is the most mathematically perfect setup we've ever seen.
3) I seem to recall you replying to my comment which I replying that that scaling is only 1.5 for 480p to 720p or for 720p to 1080p.
Right, right. Don't know why I thought it was 1:1 the same type of scaling, but that neuron's probably stuck there for life at this point…
[...] As a piano player myself, I often BEND MY HANDS UP VERTICALLY TO PLAY, so I know where you're coming from¡
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
You do realize that a piano is a keyboard and in no way performed at the height of your head, right?
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
Holding a book isn't much work, either. Anyone can do it, right?
Now hold one at arm's length in front of you for 8 hours a day and tell me that it's roughly equivalent to playing a piano.
You guys are so literal. Look at what I wrote: ...it's not THAT much extra effort -- roughly equivalent to playing the piano." It's not "exactly the same as playing a piano" but I happen to think it's a lot closer than you guys feel it is. Maybe we're envisioning it differently. Here's what I see:
It's not head height, it's not outstretched and it's not hands straight up vertically. It's not all that different than typing.
Right now Apple's computers accept input from keyboards (obviously), a multi-touch trackpad, a mouse that's also a really basic trackpad and a simple infrared remote. Third parties add button panels, jog/shuttle wheels, digitizers, pens, faders, etc. practically ad infinitum. Why couldn't a touch screen be just another input method? Why does it have to be exclusively touch screen or no touch screen at all?
[...] 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.
True. Higher frame rate will indeed make the experience better. There's also the difference in interlaced vs progressive, the latter not necessarily being better. Two good links on this:
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.
Wow, US ISP's capping. Mine isn't, searched their whole website - can't find it. But should they have a FUP in place, it would be understandable.
I wish they would build a touch screen iMac!!!!!!!!!
I want to see the usage model of a desktop OS with a vertical touch screen. I'd really like to see people buy a touch screen computer and see how much they still use it a month later.
That is a weird post indeed, makes truly no sense. At all.
Zero? YouTube has many 4k videos. Marvin posted links to many more sources earlier. Sure, there documentaries and such. And I don't think broadcasting companies will adopt to 4k any time soon.
---
And on the topic of UHD:
1. Nitpicking here: the size of content might increase by factor of x2 while pixels with x4. But don't forget that the sound won't increase, so a 10GB movie with 9.5GB video will result in a 19.5GB in UHD, not 20.0GB (in H.265)
2. Most TV's currently have rectangle pixels, but if we go to UHD, the proposed standard will make them square pixels. According to ITU-R Recommendation BT.2020 Read a related article from Ken Rockwell on the subject of sharpness
It's not head height, it's not outstretched and it's not hands straight up vertically. It's not all that different than typing.
Instead a posting (part of) a picture, why don't you post a 8 hour long video, showing a person behind a touch screen PC, using it all day long. Hmm, no video to be found? Thought so. "Touch devices need to be horizontal."
Even though I also agree that a touch screen iMac is unlikely even if can appreciate that some people could find some use for that feature. You mentioned some examples yourself. I also think iOS developers testing iPhone apps could find it very useful or just people wanting to run iOS on a screen larger than an iPad id Apple ever decides to allow a full iOS experience on a Mac.
To get around the problems with outstretching your arms vertically Apple could choose to completely redesign the stand itself. It would not be hard to make a stand that could slide into a more comfortable horizontal position towards the user when they want to go into touch screen mode. I found a photo of what I mean and will include in this post. Given the tighter integration between iOS and OS X it is not out of the question that a Mac might one day have a dual boot or at least virtual environment to run a full iOS. I would imagine if Apple decided to try this out they would do so on a Mac laptop first and not the iMac.
It is not a feature I myself have pined for or would probably use a great deal but it would be nice to have on some occasions. There are certainly some people buying AIO PC's running Windows 8 over other computers simply to get that touchscreen feature and the reviews seem mostly good. Apple never copies just for the sake of copying, but if they see a real need or demand and feel they can really improve the experience it is a possibility this might eventually make it to their lineup.
Apple needs something spectacular. Most smart TV's UI sucks, so that will be the first wow for Apple I assume.
4K and h265 is all cool buzz. Great for industry adoption of h265 to have a giant make wide use of the codec. But what will the 4K be used for? A lot of HD TV streams are even 720p and looking no that shabby. Movies in 4k from 2 meters away will only marginally look different from 2k. Perhaps they're readying the system for up to 4 users simultaneously.
Instead a posting (part of) a picture, why don't you post a 8 hour long video, showing a person behind a touch screen PC, using it all day long. Hmm, no video to be found? Thought so. "Touch devices need to be horizontal."
I completely understand your concern about arm fatigue, but the way I imagine using it I honestly don't think it would be a serious issue. It wouldn't be eight solid hours of touching. It would be typical mousing (or trackpadding) and keyboarding with an added element of touching when it makes sense.
The photo is me sitting in front of a co-worker's Air. I set it up in front of me in a position that was comfortable for both "conventional" input and touching the screen. It actually felt very natural, similar to sitting at a mixing console.
I can imagine touching the screen fitting in very well with the way I already do things. Particularly when working with another person (like a producer), I've noticed that we spend a lot of time pointing at things on the screen. Often the discussion is something like "Can you slide this to about here?" or "What if we made it this big?" It would be nice to be able just execute the task while one of our hands is there anyway.
Then there are tasks that are simply easier to do by touching the screen than with an input device, like rotating an image, and operations that just plain CAN'T be performed by conventional methods, which would be anything that involves two or more simultaneous actions (like my earlier example of an audio mix).
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
That is a MBA, not a 27" iMac, and it's a pic of the display bent backwards at an unrealistic angle unless the user is standing to use it.
Why does the computer have to be a 27" iMac? I work on a laptop. Maybe that's part of why our opinions on the ergonomics of touch differ.
As for the angle of the display, it's actually not unrealistic at all. I had a coworker snap that shot while I was trying it out to see how it would feel. I was just sitting at the work area in the graphics room, positioned just as I would be for normal work, and the screen was perfectly comfortable at that angle in that position. I did push it back farther than I would if I didn't intend to touch it, but not so far as to make it uncomfortable for "typical" use.
I know why you guys feel it would be awkward, but after doing some imagination exercises I honestly don't think it would be as bad as you guys seem to expect. Perhaps there aren't enough benefits to your workflow to make it seem appealing to you, but I can envision a bunch of ways it would be quite handy in mine.
It makes more sense for them to use it in their computer displays. The iMac and Cinema display don't quite have Retina displays. This is at the very least down to the fact they couldn't drive those displays without displayport 1.2. Redwood Ridge will enable this though and Haswell IGP should be capable of driving it.
The big factor is price, not usage cases. If they can get 3840 x 2160 in a 27" display for $999, they immediately undercut everyone in the TV and display market, which they originally did with the 27" display and they did with the iPad too. They have a premium display at a premium price that nobody can match.
If they had say a 37"/47" 4K Cinema display, this can be used by film editors as well as TV consumers. That would give them a backup market to counter the low volumes in the high-end TV market.
That still leaves the issue of Apple being able to get panels at that low price when nobody else can, which seems unlikely - especially if Sony's entry price is to be ~$5000. The market above $2000 has to be under 5%, which is around 10m units per year of which Apple would only get a portion.
So the MBA would get it but not the iMac? That isn't how this was presented before. If the OP wanted to be so specific as to suggest this would only be on the MBA they should have said so.
I know why you guys feel it would be awkward, but after doing some imagination exercises I honestly don't think it would be as bad as you guys seem to expect. Perhaps there aren't enough benefits to your workflow to make it seem appealing to you, but I can envision a bunch of ways it would be quite handy in mine.
1) think it would be very awkward and uncomfortable unless the device was 1) physically designed for the ergonomics, and 2) the OS and APIs that are designed to make it useful.
2) I'd much rather that glass trackpad be an OLED display that is usually black (aka: off) but offer visual feedback for certain tasks that fit the build. This would include calculator, EQ sliders, moving Menu Bar items to the top of the trackpad when in FullScreen, to name a few ideas. I'd rather get finger prints on it than on a huge display. Should this happen simply because I want it? Of course not. Will this happen simply because I want it? Absolutely not.
It makes more sense for them to use it in their computer displays. The iMac and Cinema display don't quite have Retina displays. This is at the very least down to the fact they couldn't drive those displays without displayport 1.2. Redwood Ridge will enable this though and Haswell IGP should be capable of driving it.
The big factor is price, not usage cases. If they can get 3840 x 2160 in a 27" display for $999, they immediately undercut everyone in the TV and display market, which they originally did with the 27" display and they did with the iPad too. They have a premium display at a premium price that nobody can match.
If they had say a 37"/47" 4K Cinema display, this can be used by film editors as well as TV consumers. That would give them a backup market to counter the low volumes in the high-end TV market.
That still leaves the issue of Apple being able to get panels at that low price when nobody else can, which seems unlikely - especially if Sony's entry price is to be ~$5000. The market above $2000 has to be under 5%, which is around 10m units per year of which Apple would only get a portion.
1) I've bee talking about a computer display from the start. This the 2nd decade of the 21st century. All future monitors in the living will be connected to computers.
2) Again why is the content such an issue with the living room display but not with any other computer display? Who is dissatisfied with YouTube after going to a a Retina Mac because the content isn't encoded to fit their display pixel-for-pixel. It's a ridiculous argument and it's ridiculous that we have phones that fit in our pockets with displays that match or exceed our HDTV resolution.
3) They've also done a great job with Retina displays on the iPhone, iPad, and MBPs without affecting the price of the device on all but the MBPs but that may mostly be the SSD. Going to 4K on an iMac doesn't seem that daunting, and considering the pixels are much less dense for a larger display there are some cost trade-offs.
4) But will they go 4K with an iMac when they've doubled each time they've gone Retina. 5120x2880? That means you'd have to be only 15" away for the Retina effect (assuming the common variables). That might be excessive. A 4K 27" iMac would bring the PPI down from 217 to 163, and you'd need to be 21" away. That might be cutting it too close for Apple.
So the MBA would get it but not the iMac? That isn't how this was presented before. If the OP wanted to be so specific as to suggest this would only be on the MBA they should have said so.
No, Soli, no one is suggesting any particular machine. Maybe it could be part of a model that they don't even make yet, maybe a "couldn't hurt" add-on to every model -- who knows? Use your imagination.
No, Soli, no one is suggesting any particular machine. Maybe it could be part of a model that they don't even make yet, maybe a "couldn't hurt" add-on to every model -- who knows? Use your imagination.
RIght, which is what I stated in the post you quoted. If the OP didn't want to include the iMac they shouldn't have made inclusive to all Macs.
1) I've bee talking about a computer display from the start. This the 2nd decade of the 21st century. All future monitors in the living will be connected to computers.
They won't be used as computers though, they just stream media.
2) Again why is the content such an issue with the living room display but not with any other computer display? Who is dissatisfied with YouTube after going to a a Retina Mac because the content isn't encoded to fit their display pixel-for-pixel. It's a ridiculous argument and it's ridiculous that we have phones that fit in our pockets with displays that match or exceed our HDTV resolution.
It's about the availability of content that makes the resolution a benefit. Computers can benefit from sharper text and the ability to work with high-end camera footage without scaling, as well as photographs at print resolution. The vast majority of TV content will be 1080p or less and has much further viewing distances so it's not an immediate benefit, especially if the price is really high and you know that consumers will send them back with a single dead pixel. I also wonder if TV buyers will be happy enough with 1 year warranties.
3) They've also done a great job with Retina displays on the iPhone, iPad, and MBPs without affecting the price of the device on all but the MBPs but that may mostly be the SSD. Going to 4K on an iMac doesn't seem that daunting, and considering the pixels are much less dense for a larger display there are some cost trade-offs.
I don't really know why for example, Samsung's 4K 85" TV costs $37,900:
and Sony can make a 4K 55" for $5,000 but there must be a reason why they are priced that way. It might just reflect the volume of orders they can expect from each model. Apple gets higher volumes at premium price points so I don't expect the price for a 4K Cinema display to go up but I would wonder how Apple could do it in 2013 and the others couldn't when Apple doesn't make the panels. Is Sony going to launch a 55" at $5000, Apple at $1000-2000 and Sony is somehow going to drop the price to 1/3 in less than a year?
4) But will they go 4K with an iMac when they've doubled each time they've gone Retina. 5120x2880? That means you'd have to be only 15" away for the Retina effect (assuming the common variables). That might be excessive. A 4K 27" iMac would bring the PPI down from 217 to 163, and you'd need to be 21" away. That might be cutting it too close for Apple.
They have to think about what the GPU can handle as well as IO standards. HDMI 2 might handle it but it's still pretty high bandwidth. IMO, the 27" UI elements are too small so it would run at 1080p in optimal mode.
They won't be used as computers though, they just stream media.
1) They already are connected to computers and they already show text. Ever use AirPlay?
2) You're completely discounting apps on the Apple TV and every other device that connects to an HEC display? :???:
It's about the availability of content that makes the resolution a benefit. Computers can benefit from sharper text and the ability to work with high-end camera footage without scaling, as well as photographs at print resolution.
Again, no one watches video on their computer screens unless the content fits is pixel-for-pixel? That's ridiculous! We've never had a problem with this is the past and yet we're perfectly fine thinking that a 4" phone display should have a higher resolution than a 40", 50, 60, 70", …, 100" HEC display we grow the size year-after-year?
What rationale is there that you need a phone that is still "Retina quality" from 6 inch away but you have a display in your HEC that isn't unless you more than 13 feet away. How the hell is the HEC display suppose to grow in size when the picture quality will get worse because you're not extending the size of your living room every time you get a new HEC display.
Apple at $1000-2000 and Sony is somehow going to drop the price to 1/3 in less than a year?
I never once mentioned this happening in under a year, much less at a 3rd the price. I've only stated how this can happen and why I think it's the most likely path for all the reasons stated previously, and all I've gotten in return are people saying that won't happen.
They have to think about what the GPU can handle as well as IO standards. HDMI 2 might handle it but it's still pretty high bandwidth.
So the GPU in the iPad 3 can handle 3.1 million pixels in 2012. The iGPU in the RMBP can handle 5 million pixels. We aren't even using Img Tech's Rogue yet nor the additional cores that can be added. I don't see why a media appliance won't be able to handle 8 million pixels just fine in the future.
As for the video cable, this is where having a module device that can attach to various HEC displays can come in handy. The dumb display can then interact more directly with the computer and even use its IR sensor(s), antenna(e), FaceTime camera(s), etc. as its own, perhaps though an open standard or through a Designed for Apple TV standard.
IMO, the 27" UI elements are too small so it would run at 1080p in optimal mode.
With the pixels being 2x that of 1080p and 3x that of 720p you end up with a pixel-for-pixel rendering just like with all other Retina transformations. Do you only play YouTube if it's 1080p and then only windowed exactly at 1080 on your Mac or iPad? Of course not! You play it full screen. This would be better all around but for the many computery things you do with your HEC display it would offer a better experience until such time as 4K studio content catches up. The studios will eventually move to 4K content. This is going to happen!
edit: I see, the article from the "What if" query generator states "launch* in 2013 or early 2014". I do think by 2014 we'll have 802.11ac, H.265 decoders, and Rogue 6 GPUs rampant in Apple products. I do wonder about why the changed the size of the entire Apple TV if it's just a smaller ASIC. I'd only do that if there was some other unique aspects to it, like H.265 and 802.11ac… but that's me.
I have no idea when the iMac will be push to Retina or even if it will scale by 2x like everything else, but I think if they can do all the others well before people thought they could and at prices well below what has been the norm, then why should be expect anything different as they move up the chain? How much was a QXGA (2048×1536) IPS display before the iPad 3 was released? I seem to remember they existed and cost thousands of dollars, so how can Apple make one that is so inexpensive, thin, low power, and much, much denser pixels than the competition? Same for the Retina MBPs. Whatever magic Apple has with displays that the competition can't touch I think it's bad judgement to say their full stop on it and now and look toward the future.
* Apparently launch now can mean to simply let people know it exists.
1) They already are connected to computers and they already show text. Ever use AirPlay?
2) You're completely discounting apps on the Apple TV and every other device that connects to an HEC display? :???:
We've never had a problem with this is the past and yet we're perfectly fine thinking that a 4" phone display should have a higher resolution than a 40", 50, 60, 70", …, 100" HEC display we grow the size year-after-year?
You don't read from a TV like say an ebook or website.
Again, no one watches video on their computer screens unless the content fits is pixel-for-pixel? That's ridiculous!
Content creation is different from consumption. If you see a scaled version, you see an interpolated result so you might miss artifacts. That's why I'd say it's more important for higher resolution on a computer display than a TV.
I never once mentioned this happening in under a year, much less at a 3rd the price. I've only stated how this can happen and why I think it's the most likely path for all the reasons stated previously, and all I've gotten in return are people saying that won't happen.
What do you think the timeframe and launch price would be? Also, what would you expect the sales volume to be at the expected prices?
So the GPU in the iPad 3 can handle 3.1 million pixels in 2012. The iGPU in the RMBP can handle 5 million pixels. We aren't even using Img Tech's Rogue yet nor the additional cores that can be added. I don't see why a media appliance won't be able to handle 8 million pixels just fine in the future.
That was replying to the comment about 5120x2880 (double iMac res), which is nearly 15m pixels. 4K should be fine. Obviously it again depends on when the expected release is.
How much was a QXGA (2048×1536) IPS display before the iPad 3 was released? I seem to remember they existed and cost thousands of dollars, so how can Apple make one that is so inexpensive, thin, low power, and much, much denser pixels than the competition? Same for the Retina MBPs. Whatever magic Apple has with displays that the competition can't touch I think it's bad judgement to say their full stop on it and now and look toward the future.
The competition catch up quickly - look at the Chromebook Pixel vs the Retina MBP. If Apple gets the tech cheap enough to make a $1000-2000 4K TV, so will everyone else because they are buying the panels from a 3rd party.
The iPad and iPhone are high volume. Expensive TVs aren't high volume so I don't see how Apple could have the price advantage here in a new market.
You don't read from a TV like say an ebook or website.
Sure, I can see that argument, but I also don't read on my iPhone the same way I do on my Mac, but I do "read" stuff on there, which also includes the UI elements that simply look better with a higher definition.
I do like to put images on my Apple TV which just don't look that get with a 2 megapixel display.
Content creation is different from consumption. If you see a scaled version, you see an interpolated result so you might miss artifacts. That's why I'd say it's more important for higher resolution on a computer display than a TV.
I'm talking about a computer display. Why you keep referring to this as "television" simply because it's in the HEC doesn't change anything I've stated thus far. A "computer" can also have a TV tuner.
What do you think the timeframe and launch price would be? Also, what would you expect the sales volume to be at the expected prices?
I have no idea on either. If I do believe me I will comment as to my opinion on each. What we do know is that Apple has surprised us and lend the trend with amazing displays for years now when others couldn't compete. Other PC vendors have tried high-res and IPS displays before and they charged a lot for them. We're talking an additional $600 or more for the upgrade feature and they weren't anywhere near as good as what Apple offered last year with the MBP. I certainly was expecting the MBPs to go Retina last year (starting with the 13", actually) but I didn't think the price would be so reasonable. I didn't think that quadrupling the number of pixels of the 3rd gen iPad was likely in 2012 with all things considered, but they did, and they did it without raising the price.
How much do you think a 4K Apple Thunderbolt Display would be if it's $999 now for 2880x1440? I don't think we should expect Apple to start taking something standard and doubling the resolution by multiplying the price by 5 to 35 times.
The competition catch up quickly - look at the Chromebook Pixel vs the Retina MBP. If Apple gets the tech cheap enough to make a $1000-2000 4K TV, so will everyone else because they are buying the panels from a 3rd party.
Yes and no. The Chromebook Pixel shipped with a Retina-quality display less than a year after the RMBP, but it took longer for vendors to catch up to the Retina-quality on tablets, and longer still for smartphones. If you look at the trend of playing "catch up" being reduced as the display sizes increase that's all the better for the consumer.
The iPad and iPhone are high volume. Expensive TVs aren't high volume so I don't see how Apple could have the price advantage here in a new market.
I'm not even convinced Apple will make an actual HEC display with their branding on it. I think it's far too limiting by itself. My queries and comments were talking about many things converging to set up the next change in HEC displays in a way that never been better for consumers.
PS: BestBuy has an entire section of HDTVs listed as 60" and UP. And up! The cheapest is only $599 for a 65" 1080p display. That's a PPI of less than 34 which translates into needing to be 8.5 feet away from the screen in order to get the minimum Retina effect by Apple's definition. You're probably not getting a better experience with simply getting a larger display at this point, and possibly even making it worse. At 90', which is admittedly expensive, but where do you think it will be a year or two or three? Where was 65" a year or two or three ago? Oh, and at 90' you have sit nearly 12 feet away. The need for more and smaller pixels in an HEC display will need to happen if they want to sell larger TVs because they aren't going to get people to buy larger living rooms.
Comments
How many 2650x1440 movies are available for download?
How many games work at that resolution?
What part of 2x and 3x pixel-for-pixel scaling is so hard to understand when putting a computer on a large monitor in the HEC?
1) Why are you talking about now? This about the future.
2) I guess they do it quietly but I don't see why you'd think they would. Seems to me it would be best to advertise that they support H.265 decoding and/or 4K resolutions with their Apple TV appliance.
3) I doubt you said "requires 2048x1536 media content to justify the cost" when the Retina iPad came out so why now make that claim against another display?
4) I guarantee you watch content on a combination of your TV, smartphones, tablets, and computers that were not encoded to fit that display pixel-for-pixel and yet you still do it? Why the hypocrisy?
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
How many games work at that resolution?
Hey, I just thought of something.
They don't have to support that resolution directly. With any retina display, a game simply becomes 2x anti-aliased by default. It's just left to the creators to properly code their work to take advantage of that.
1) No anti-aliasing needed to support the scaling Apple has done with all their Retina upgrades. It's pixel-for-pixel scaling.
2) I commented many posts ago and many times that 720p and 1080p fit into 2160p(4K) exactly 2x and 3x, respectively. This is exactly what they did with their Retina displays. jragosta has a good post about it. As I stated before, this is the most mathematically perfect setup we've ever seen.
3) I seem to recall you replying to my comment which I replying that that scaling is only 1.5 for 480p to 720p or for 720p to 1080p.
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
1) No anti-aliasing needed to support the scaling Apple has done with all their Retina upgrades. It's pixel-for-pixel scaling.
2) I commented many posts ago and many times that 720p and 1080p fit into 2160p(4K) exactly 2x and 3x, respectively. This is exactly what they did with their Retina displays. jragosta has a good post about it. As I stated before, this is the most mathematically perfect setup we've ever seen.
3) I seem to recall you replying to my comment which I replying that that scaling is only 1.5 for 480p to 720p or for 720p to 1080p.
Right, right. Don't know why I thought it was 1:1 the same type of scaling, but that neuron's probably stuck there for life at this point…
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil
[...] As a piano player myself, I often BEND MY HANDS UP VERTICALLY TO PLAY, so I know where you're coming from¡
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
You do realize that a piano is a keyboard and in no way performed at the height of your head, right?
Quote:
Originally Posted by jragosta
Holding a book isn't much work, either. Anyone can do it, right?
Now hold one at arm's length in front of you for 8 hours a day and tell me that it's roughly equivalent to playing a piano.
You guys are so literal. Look at what I wrote: ...it's not THAT much extra effort -- roughly equivalent to playing the piano." It's not "exactly the same as playing a piano" but I happen to think it's a lot closer than you guys feel it is. Maybe we're envisioning it differently. Here's what I see:
It's not head height, it's not outstretched and it's not hands straight up vertically. It's not all that different than typing.
Right now Apple's computers accept input from keyboards (obviously), a multi-touch trackpad, a mouse that's also a really basic trackpad and a simple infrared remote. Third parties add button panels, jog/shuttle wheels, digitizers, pens, faders, etc. practically ad infinitum. Why couldn't a touch screen be just another input method? Why does it have to be exclusively touch screen or no touch screen at all?
True. Higher frame rate will indeed make the experience better. There's also the difference in interlaced vs progressive, the latter not necessarily being better. Two good links on this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interlaced_video
http://www.animemusicvideos.org/guides/avtech/video2.htm#1
But I don't think this will be evolved quickly, nor widely. Cameras are incredibly expensive, and that is just one part of the chain.
Wow, US ISP's capping. Mine isn't, searched their whole website - can't find it. But should they have a FUP in place, it would be understandable.
That is a weird post indeed, makes truly no sense. At all.
Zero? YouTube has many 4k videos. Marvin posted links to many more sources earlier. Sure, there documentaries and such. And I don't think broadcasting companies will adopt to 4k any time soon.
I disagree, makes no sense to me. And others:
http://www.reddit.com/r/technology/comments/16271n/touch_screens_will_not_take_over_the_desktop_pc/
---
And on the topic of UHD:
1. Nitpicking here: the size of content might increase by factor of x2 while pixels with x4. But don't forget that the sound won't increase, so a 10GB movie with 9.5GB video will result in a 19.5GB in UHD, not 20.0GB (in H.265)
2. Most TV's currently have rectangle pixels, but if we go to UHD, the proposed standard will make them square pixels. According to ITU-R Recommendation BT.2020 Read a related article from Ken Rockwell on the subject of sharpness
Instead a posting (part of) a picture, why don't you post a 8 hour long video, showing a person behind a touch screen PC, using it all day long. Hmm, no video to be found? Thought so. "Touch devices need to be horizontal."
That is a MBA, not a 27" iMac, and it's a pic of the display bent backwards at an unrealistic angle unless the user is standing to use it.
Even though I also agree that a touch screen iMac is unlikely even if can appreciate that some people could find some use for that feature. You mentioned some examples yourself. I also think iOS developers testing iPhone apps could find it very useful or just people wanting to run iOS on a screen larger than an iPad id Apple ever decides to allow a full iOS experience on a Mac.
To get around the problems with outstretching your arms vertically Apple could choose to completely redesign the stand itself. It would not be hard to make a stand that could slide into a more comfortable horizontal position towards the user when they want to go into touch screen mode. I found a photo of what I mean and will include in this post. Given the tighter integration between iOS and OS X it is not out of the question that a Mac might one day have a dual boot or at least virtual environment to run a full iOS. I would imagine if Apple decided to try this out they would do so on a Mac laptop first and not the iMac.
It is not a feature I myself have pined for or would probably use a great deal but it would be nice to have on some occasions. There are certainly some people buying AIO PC's running Windows 8 over other computers simply to get that touchscreen feature and the reviews seem mostly good. Apple never copies just for the sake of copying, but if they see a real need or demand and feel they can really improve the experience it is a possibility this might eventually make it to their lineup.
Most smart TV's UI sucks, so that will be the first wow for Apple I assume.
4K and h265 is all cool buzz. Great for industry adoption of h265 to have a giant make wide use of the codec. But what will the 4K be used for? A lot of HD TV streams are even 720p and looking no that shabby. Movies in 4k from 2 meters away will only marginally look different from 2k. Perhaps they're readying the system for up to 4 users simultaneously.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PhilBoogie
Instead a posting (part of) a picture, why don't you post a 8 hour long video, showing a person behind a touch screen PC, using it all day long. Hmm, no video to be found? Thought so. "Touch devices need to be horizontal."
I completely understand your concern about arm fatigue, but the way I imagine using it I honestly don't think it would be a serious issue. It wouldn't be eight solid hours of touching. It would be typical mousing (or trackpadding) and keyboarding with an added element of touching when it makes sense.
The photo is me sitting in front of a co-worker's Air. I set it up in front of me in a position that was comfortable for both "conventional" input and touching the screen. It actually felt very natural, similar to sitting at a mixing console.
I can imagine touching the screen fitting in very well with the way I already do things. Particularly when working with another person (like a producer), I've noticed that we spend a lot of time pointing at things on the screen. Often the discussion is something like "Can you slide this to about here?" or "What if we made it this big?" It would be nice to be able just execute the task while one of our hands is there anyway.
Then there are tasks that are simply easier to do by touching the screen than with an input device, like rotating an image, and operations that just plain CAN'T be performed by conventional methods, which would be anything that involves two or more simultaneous actions (like my earlier example of an audio mix).
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
That is a MBA, not a 27" iMac, and it's a pic of the display bent backwards at an unrealistic angle unless the user is standing to use it.
Why does the computer have to be a 27" iMac? I work on a laptop. Maybe that's part of why our opinions on the ergonomics of touch differ.
As for the angle of the display, it's actually not unrealistic at all. I had a coworker snap that shot while I was trying it out to see how it would feel. I was just sitting at the work area in the graphics room, positioned just as I would be for normal work, and the screen was perfectly comfortable at that angle in that position. I did push it back farther than I would if I didn't intend to touch it, but not so far as to make it uncomfortable for "typical" use.
I know why you guys feel it would be awkward, but after doing some imagination exercises I honestly don't think it would be as bad as you guys seem to expect. Perhaps there aren't enough benefits to your workflow to make it seem appealing to you, but I can envision a bunch of ways it would be quite handy in mine.
It makes more sense for them to use it in their computer displays. The iMac and Cinema display don't quite have Retina displays. This is at the very least down to the fact they couldn't drive those displays without displayport 1.2. Redwood Ridge will enable this though and Haswell IGP should be capable of driving it.
The big factor is price, not usage cases. If they can get 3840 x 2160 in a 27" display for $999, they immediately undercut everyone in the TV and display market, which they originally did with the 27" display and they did with the iPad too. They have a premium display at a premium price that nobody can match.
If they had say a 37"/47" 4K Cinema display, this can be used by film editors as well as TV consumers. That would give them a backup market to counter the low volumes in the high-end TV market.
That still leaves the issue of Apple being able to get panels at that low price when nobody else can, which seems unlikely - especially if Sony's entry price is to be ~$5000. The market above $2000 has to be under 5%, which is around 10m units per year of which Apple would only get a portion.
So the MBA would get it but not the iMac? That isn't how this was presented before. If the OP wanted to be so specific as to suggest this would only be on the MBA they should have said so.
1) think it would be very awkward and uncomfortable unless the device was 1) physically designed for the ergonomics, and 2) the OS and APIs that are designed to make it useful.
2) I'd much rather that glass trackpad be an OLED display that is usually black (aka: off) but offer visual feedback for certain tasks that fit the build. This would include calculator, EQ sliders, moving Menu Bar items to the top of the trackpad when in FullScreen, to name a few ideas. I'd rather get finger prints on it than on a huge display. Should this happen simply because I want it? Of course not. Will this happen simply because I want it? Absolutely not.
1) I've bee talking about a computer display from the start. This the 2nd decade of the 21st century. All future monitors in the living will be connected to computers.
2) Again why is the content such an issue with the living room display but not with any other computer display? Who is dissatisfied with YouTube after going to a a Retina Mac because the content isn't encoded to fit their display pixel-for-pixel. It's a ridiculous argument and it's ridiculous that we have phones that fit in our pockets with displays that match or exceed our HDTV resolution.
3) They've also done a great job with Retina displays on the iPhone, iPad, and MBPs without affecting the price of the device on all but the MBPs but that may mostly be the SSD. Going to 4K on an iMac doesn't seem that daunting, and considering the pixels are much less dense for a larger display there are some cost trade-offs.
4) But will they go 4K with an iMac when they've doubled each time they've gone Retina. 5120x2880? That means you'd have to be only 15" away for the Retina effect (assuming the common variables). That might be excessive. A 4K 27" iMac would bring the PPI down from 217 to 163, and you'd need to be 21" away. That might be cutting it too close for Apple.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
So the MBA would get it but not the iMac? That isn't how this was presented before. If the OP wanted to be so specific as to suggest this would only be on the MBA they should have said so.
No, Soli, no one is suggesting any particular machine. Maybe it could be part of a model that they don't even make yet, maybe a "couldn't hurt" add-on to every model -- who knows? Use your imagination.
RIght, which is what I stated in the post you quoted. If the OP didn't want to include the iMac they shouldn't have made inclusive to all Macs.
They won't be used as computers though, they just stream media.
It's about the availability of content that makes the resolution a benefit. Computers can benefit from sharper text and the ability to work with high-end camera footage without scaling, as well as photographs at print resolution. The vast majority of TV content will be 1080p or less and has much further viewing distances so it's not an immediate benefit, especially if the price is really high and you know that consumers will send them back with a single dead pixel. I also wonder if TV buyers will be happy enough with 1 year warranties.
I don't really know why for example, Samsung's 4K 85" TV costs $37,900:
http://uk.ign.com/articles/2013/01/14/samsungs-floating-4k-ultra-hd-tv-to-cost-37900
and Sony can make a 4K 55" for $5,000 but there must be a reason why they are priced that way. It might just reflect the volume of orders they can expect from each model. Apple gets higher volumes at premium price points so I don't expect the price for a 4K Cinema display to go up but I would wonder how Apple could do it in 2013 and the others couldn't when Apple doesn't make the panels. Is Sony going to launch a 55" at $5000, Apple at $1000-2000 and Sony is somehow going to drop the price to 1/3 in less than a year?
They have to think about what the GPU can handle as well as IO standards. HDMI 2 might handle it but it's still pretty high bandwidth. IMO, the 27" UI elements are too small so it would run at 1080p in optimal mode.
1) They already are connected to computers and they already show text. Ever use AirPlay?
2) You're completely discounting apps on the Apple TV and every other device that connects to an HEC display? :???:
Again, no one watches video on their computer screens unless the content fits is pixel-for-pixel? That's ridiculous! We've never had a problem with this is the past and yet we're perfectly fine thinking that a 4" phone display should have a higher resolution than a 40", 50, 60, 70", …, 100" HEC display we grow the size year-after-year?
What rationale is there that you need a phone that is still "Retina quality" from 6 inch away but you have a display in your HEC that isn't unless you more than 13 feet away. How the hell is the HEC display suppose to grow in size when the picture quality will get worse because you're not extending the size of your living room every time you get a new HEC display.
I never once mentioned this happening in under a year, much less at a 3rd the price. I've only stated how this can happen and why I think it's the most likely path for all the reasons stated previously, and all I've gotten in return are people saying that won't happen.
So the GPU in the iPad 3 can handle 3.1 million pixels in 2012. The iGPU in the RMBP can handle 5 million pixels. We aren't even using Img Tech's Rogue yet nor the additional cores that can be added. I don't see why a media appliance won't be able to handle 8 million pixels just fine in the future.
As for the video cable, this is where having a module device that can attach to various HEC displays can come in handy. The dumb display can then interact more directly with the computer and even use its IR sensor(s), antenna(e), FaceTime camera(s), etc. as its own, perhaps though an open standard or through a Designed for Apple TV standard.
With the pixels being 2x that of 1080p and 3x that of 720p you end up with a pixel-for-pixel rendering just like with all other Retina transformations. Do you only play YouTube if it's 1080p and then only windowed exactly at 1080 on your Mac or iPad? Of course not! You play it full screen. This would be better all around but for the many computery things you do with your HEC display it would offer a better experience until such time as 4K studio content catches up. The studios will eventually move to 4K content. This is going to happen!
edit: I see, the article from the "What if" query generator states "launch* in 2013 or early 2014". I do think by 2014 we'll have 802.11ac, H.265 decoders, and Rogue 6 GPUs rampant in Apple products. I do wonder about why the changed the size of the entire Apple TV if it's just a smaller ASIC. I'd only do that if there was some other unique aspects to it, like H.265 and 802.11ac… but that's me.
I have no idea when the iMac will be push to Retina or even if it will scale by 2x like everything else, but I think if they can do all the others well before people thought they could and at prices well below what has been the norm, then why should be expect anything different as they move up the chain? How much was a QXGA (2048×1536) IPS display before the iPad 3 was released? I seem to remember they existed and cost thousands of dollars, so how can Apple make one that is so inexpensive, thin, low power, and much, much denser pixels than the competition? Same for the Retina MBPs. Whatever magic Apple has with displays that the competition can't touch I think it's bad judgement to say their full stop on it and now and look toward the future.
* Apparently launch now can mean to simply let people know it exists.
You don't read from a TV like say an ebook or website.
Content creation is different from consumption. If you see a scaled version, you see an interpolated result so you might miss artifacts. That's why I'd say it's more important for higher resolution on a computer display than a TV.
What do you think the timeframe and launch price would be? Also, what would you expect the sales volume to be at the expected prices?
That was replying to the comment about 5120x2880 (double iMac res), which is nearly 15m pixels. 4K should be fine. Obviously it again depends on when the expected release is.
The competition catch up quickly - look at the Chromebook Pixel vs the Retina MBP. If Apple gets the tech cheap enough to make a $1000-2000 4K TV, so will everyone else because they are buying the panels from a 3rd party.
The iPad and iPhone are high volume. Expensive TVs aren't high volume so I don't see how Apple could have the price advantage here in a new market.
Sure, I can see that argument, but I also don't read on my iPhone the same way I do on my Mac, but I do "read" stuff on there, which also includes the UI elements that simply look better with a higher definition.
I do like to put images on my Apple TV which just don't look that get with a 2 megapixel display.
I'm talking about a computer display. Why you keep referring to this as "television" simply because it's in the HEC doesn't change anything I've stated thus far. A "computer" can also have a TV tuner.
I have no idea on either. If I do believe me I will comment as to my opinion on each. What we do know is that Apple has surprised us and lend the trend with amazing displays for years now when others couldn't compete. Other PC vendors have tried high-res and IPS displays before and they charged a lot for them. We're talking an additional $600 or more for the upgrade feature and they weren't anywhere near as good as what Apple offered last year with the MBP. I certainly was expecting the MBPs to go Retina last year (starting with the 13", actually) but I didn't think the price would be so reasonable. I didn't think that quadrupling the number of pixels of the 3rd gen iPad was likely in 2012 with all things considered, but they did, and they did it without raising the price.
How much do you think a 4K Apple Thunderbolt Display would be if it's $999 now for 2880x1440? I don't think we should expect Apple to start taking something standard and doubling the resolution by multiplying the price by 5 to 35 times.
Yes and no. The Chromebook Pixel shipped with a Retina-quality display less than a year after the RMBP, but it took longer for vendors to catch up to the Retina-quality on tablets, and longer still for smartphones. If you look at the trend of playing "catch up" being reduced as the display sizes increase that's all the better for the consumer.
I'm not even convinced Apple will make an actual HEC display with their branding on it. I think it's far too limiting by itself. My queries and comments were talking about many things converging to set up the next change in HEC displays in a way that never been better for consumers.
PS: BestBuy has an entire section of HDTVs listed as 60" and UP. And up! The cheapest is only $599 for a 65" 1080p display. That's a PPI of less than 34 which translates into needing to be 8.5 feet away from the screen in order to get the minimum Retina effect by Apple's definition. You're probably not getting a better experience with simply getting a larger display at this point, and possibly even making it worse. At 90', which is admittedly expensive, but where do you think it will be a year or two or three? Where was 65" a year or two or three ago? Oh, and at 90' you have sit nearly 12 feet away. The need for more and smaller pixels in an HEC display will need to happen if they want to sell larger TVs because they aren't going to get people to buy larger living rooms.