Next-gen Apple TV will not initially support 4K streaming, report says

24

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 74
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by SockRolid View Post

     

     

    You're off by a factor of 10, plus or minus.  There *is* a thing called compression these days.

     

    Wikipedia says movies take up about 40GB.

    Go fix the article if you want to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4K_resolution




    Yes, I have to agree that compression was ignored in the arguments put forth by @jameskatt2.

     

    Even now, if I copy a Blu-ray uncompressed to my hard drive, it is 30-40 GB, but the same movie on iTunes would be about 4-5 GB for the same 1080p definition.

  • Reply 22 of 74
     
    Originally Posted by DocNo42 View Post



    4K, 3D, curved screens - all things that exist more to get you to buy new stuff than provide significantly new value.

     

     

    I never did understand the point of curved screens. I fail to see how it would be more immersive. A building-sized cinerama, I can understand. But a 108" home TV being curved doesn't make sense.

     
    Originally Posted by DocNo42 View Post



     I wonder if Neil Young is a big 4k proponent too...

     

    As a wise man once said - "fuçk Neil Young"!

  • Reply 23 of 74
    What comes after "Ultra High Def TV"?
    Super Duper Ultra High Def TV!!!
  • Reply 24 of 74

    Holograms.

     

    The only thing that can enhance 3D and enhance resolution after 4K is holographic presentations.

     

    I imagine a holographic Projector being like a mini stage performance.  

  • Reply 25 of 74

    Yes, I have to agree that compression was ignored in the arguments put forth by <a data-huddler-embed="href" href="/u/50735/jameskatt2" style="display:inline-block;">@jameskatt2</a>
    .

    Even now, if I copy a Blu-ray uncompressed to my hard drive, it is 30-40 GB, but the same movie on iTunes would be about 4-5 GB for the same 1080p definition.

    A blu Ray double layer will hold up to 50 GB. Factor in extras and that not all space would be used, then 30-40GB is reasonable for the typical HD movie, at the bitstream rates at which it is encoded on the physical Bluray. Net streaming would be in the ballpark of 1/10 of that rate, (reduced quality) so a complete download of a streamed movie would be around 3-4 GB.
    These are all compressed. It doesn't make any sense to talk about uncompressed outside of source masters. Note that if you use HEVC instead of AVC as the codec, you could cut these numbers in half if you have the client hardware to decode it.
  • Reply 26 of 74
    dacloodacloo Posts: 890member
    No it does not require 300gb of storage. Where did you get that from? 1080p H264 videos on Netflix for example are more close to 4 gb of storage. In theory 4K video would net around 4 times as much but this isn't the case since the codec is more efficient when the resolution scales.
    Now h265 does reduce the required bandwidth around 40% or so, so I can imagine content providers will both serve h264 and h265 versions to cover all possible devices out there.

    I'm also not sure why you mentioned downloading videos. Devices such as the appleTV never really 'download' anything, since the internal storage doesn't even come close to what would be required. The internal storage is mostly used for caching data.
    jameskatt2 wrote: »
    LACK OF STORAGE: A single 2-hour 4K movie would need 300 GB of STORAGE. Obviously, it would be unrealistic to give each AppleTV a 500 GB Solid State Drive to house the operating system and ONE 4K movie since this would add $200 to the cost of the AppleTV.

    LACK OF INTERNET CAPACITY: Streaming a single 2-hour 4K movie would also quickly bring consumers past their 250GB Monthly Cable Data Caps. This would add an additional $30 to $50 a month to their monthly internet bills for simply watching a single 4K movie. Most consumers also don't even have the internet capacity to stream a single 250GB movie into their homes.

    LACK OF COMPUTER STORAGE: And if Apple added the capacity to DOWNLOAD a 4K movie, consumers will quickly ran out of storage space. Three movies, and your 1 TB hard drive is FULL. Twelve movies and your 4 TB external hard drive is FULL. And what if consumers have to back up their hard drive? That would be at least another 4 TB external hard drive for their miserable 12-movie iTunes collection. Two 4-GB hard drives to house 12 4K movies in iTunes would cost the consumer another $300.

    NEED 4K TV AND 4K COMPUTER: What about the 4K Television the consumer has to buy? 4K won't play on a standard 1080p computer screen, so a consumer will also have to spend another $1000 for a new computer monitor. Actually, they might as well spring for a whole new computer to handle the data.

    COST: So the costs keeps going up for consumers wanting 4K video on AppleTV. It adds $200 to the cost of AppleTV. It would cost consumers at least $30-$50 a month more on their internet bill to watch 2 or more 4K videos a month. It would require them to spend another $300 for storage of only 12 4K movies. It would require them to purchase a new 4K TV and a 4K Computer - at least a $3000+ expenditure. Then how much would each 4K movie cost? $50 per movie is very realistic.

    NOT READY FOR PRIME TIME: 4K Video is NOT ready for prime time for the vast majority of consumers. So do not expect 4K Video on the AppleTV. Apple will let others lead the way and make fools of themselves first.
  • Reply 27 of 74
    dacloodacloo Posts: 890member
    It's much less even. If you compress a high quality h264 video for streaming in 1080p your video ends up around 7gb or so (depending on the contents of the video itself).
    Bluray movies net around 20gb, but they are compressed less extremely (and less efficiently by current standards).
    sockrolid wrote: »
    You're off by a factor of 10, plus or minus.  There *is* a thing called compression these days.

    Wikipedia says movies take up about 40GB.
    Go fix the article if you want to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4K_resolution
  • Reply 28 of 74
    25 new channels, again I see USA only...
  • Reply 29 of 74
    mauijoemauijoe Posts: 77member
    Compression!? Once you compress it it's not really 4k video anymore, right? I would think uncompressed 720 would probably be as good as 4k compressed to a reasonable size. Iam I wrong here?
  • Reply 30 of 74
    cnocbuicnocbui Posts: 3,613member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by NOFEER View Post

     

     

    ?   needs to get into the content production end create more stuff bypass the cable mess


     

    Might be better if they just bypassed the cable companies and put satellites up that could push data to ? devices.

  • Reply 31 of 74
    jinx59jinx59 Posts: 7member
    jameskatt2 wrote: »
    LACK OF STORAGE: A single 2-hour 4K movie would need 300 GB of STORAGE. Obviously, it would be unrealistic to give each AppleTV a 500 GB Solid State Drive to house the operating system and ONE 4K movie since this would add $200 to the cost of the AppleTV.

    LACK OF INTERNET CAPACITY: Streaming a single 2-hour 4K movie would also quickly bring consumers past their 250GB Monthly Cable Data Caps. This would add an additional $30 to $50 a month to their monthly internet bills for simply watching a single 4K movie. Most consumers also don't even have the internet capacity to stream a single 250GB movie into their homes.

    LACK OF COMPUTER STORAGE: And if Apple added the capacity to DOWNLOAD a 4K movie, consumers will quickly ran out of storage space. Three movies, and your 1 TB hard drive is FULL. Twelve movies and your 4 TB external hard drive is FULL. And what if consumers have to back up their hard drive? That would be at least another 4 TB external hard drive for their miserable 12-movie iTunes collection. Two 4-GB hard drives to house 12 4K movies in iTunes would cost the consumer another $300.

    NEED 4K TV AND 4K COMPUTER: What about the 4K Television the consumer has to buy? 4K won't play on a standard 1080p computer screen, so a consumer will also have to spend another $1000 for a new computer monitor. Actually, they might as well spring for a whole new computer to handle the data.

    COST: So the costs keeps going up for consumers wanting 4K video on AppleTV. It adds $200 to the cost of AppleTV. It would cost consumers at least $30-$50 a month more on their internet bill to watch 2 or more 4K videos a month. It would require them to spend another $300 for storage of only 12 4K movies. It would require them to purchase a new 4K TV and a 4K Computer - at least a $3000+ expenditure. Then how much would each 4K movie cost? $50 per movie is very realistic.

    NOT READY FOR PRIME TIME: 4K Video is NOT ready for prime time for the vast majority of consumers. So do not expect 4K Video on the AppleTV. Apple will let others lead the way and make fools of themselves first.

    Folks, read about this 4K streaming compression gamechanger:

    http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-32140732
  • Reply 32 of 74
    aderutteraderutter Posts: 618member
    mauijoe wrote: »
    Compression!? Once you compress it it's not really 4k video anymore, right? I would think uncompressed 720 would probably be as good as 4k compressed to a reasonable size. Iam I wrong here?

    There's lossy compression and loss-less compression.
    The latter obviously compresses less but retains quality.
    The former results in content that is noticeably inferior.

    It's funny how people think number of pixels is the be all and end all.
    I have seen poor quality 4k that is far worse visually than 1080p.

    If I'm honest I think 4k is still very niche.
    I also think 4k is kind of pointless on TVs but is great for those like me that use home cinema projectors.
    Much the same as 3d is fantastic on projectors and not TVs.

    Straming 4k won't be mainstream for years to come.
    Most people still only watch SD / DVD not HD / BluRay!
    4k will only make sense in disc or local data-server format for years.

    That said, if it costs Apple nothing to allow 4k streaming on the next AppleTV from third party sources then they should include it. I don't think they should support 4k on iTunes or with their new streaming TV service but if people have the bandwidth to watch Netflix4k then they should be able to.

    I do think the "report" is merely someones speculation though.
  • Reply 33 of 74
    mauijoe wrote: »
    Compression!? Once you compress it it's not really 4k video anymore, right? I would think uncompressed 720 would probably be as good as 4k compressed to a reasonable size. Iam I wrong here?

    According to Netflix here is the amount of data you will use per hour:

    0.7 GB per hour for SD (Standard Definition)
    3 GB per hour for HD (High Definition)
    7 GB per hour for UHD (Ultra High Definition also known as 4K)
  • Reply 34 of 74
    richlrichl Posts: 2,213member

    If H.265 hardware is available, I'd hope that any updated Apple TV includes it. Skating to where to puck is going, etc, etc, etc.

  • Reply 35 of 74
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 24,388member
    aderutter wrote: »
    There's lossy compression and loss-less compression.
    The latter obviously compresses less but retains quality.
    The former results in content that is noticeably inferior.

    It's funny how people think number of pixels is the be all and end all.
    I have seen poor quality 4k that is far worse visually than 1080p.

    If I'm honest I think 4k is still very niche.
    I also think 4k is kind of pointless on TVs but is great for those like me that use home cinema projectors.
    Much the same as 3d is fantastic on projectors and not TVs.

    Straming 4k won't be mainstream for years to come.
    Most people still only watch SD / DVD not HD / BluRay!
    4k will only make sense in disc or local data-server format for years.

    That said, if it costs Apple nothing to allow 4k streaming on the next AppleTV from third party sources then they should include it. I don't think they should support 4k on iTunes or with their new streaming TV service but if people have the bandwidth to watch Netflix4k then they should be able to.

    I do think the "report" is merely someones speculation though.
    There's other 4K steaming content too, some of it available since 2010 (talk about skating to where the puck will be!).
    http://www.pocket-lint.com/news/131981-where-can-you-watch-4k-streams-right-now-netflix-amazon-youtube-and-more

    In Best Buy a couple weeks back it seemed the folks there to buy were looking at the 4K sets, some quite reasonably priced too with several under $1500. IIRC I saw one at WalMart at under a $1000. There's also several boxes already on the market that offer 4K media support. I personally think 4K content, at least via streaming, will become common faster than we think.

    EDIT: Yup, WalMart has a 50" 4K Vizio, a decent brand, at less than $800
    http://www.walmart.com/ip/VIZIO-P502ui-B1E-50-4K-Ultra-HD-120Hz-Full-Array-LED-Smart-TV/38506042
  • Reply 36 of 74
    mde24mde24 Posts: 27member
    "won't support 4K content streaming at launch"
    "4K is... still in its infancy"

    All about streaming, not the hardware capabilities of the box. If there's an A8/A8X chip in the aTV then it will support 4K. I see two possibilities:

    1) 4K support will be there for e.g. photos, desktop extension but not streaming
    2) 4K support will be made available later as a software update
  • Reply 37 of 74
    As a big fan of pushing limits I see this as a non issue for 99.9% of the population. I would like to see content providers focus on bringing more true high quality HD programing...I use DirecTV and have to tell you that most of the HD channels do not use full HD. While they are not as bad as standard def they have a long way to go to give a true HD experience. Let's clean that up first. Plus all of the challenges that are already mentioned by others would make true 4k very difficult for the masses.
  • Reply 38 of 74
    herbapouherbapou Posts: 2,228member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by jameskatt2 View Post



    LACK OF STORAGE: A single 2-hour 4K movie would need 300 GB of STORAGE. Obviously, it would be unrealistic to give each AppleTV a 500 GB Solid State Drive to house the operating system and ONE 4K movie since this would add $200 to the cost of the AppleTV.



    LACK OF INTERNET CAPACITY: Streaming a single 2-hour 4K movie would also quickly bring consumers past their 250GB Monthly Cable Data Caps. This would add an additional $30 to $50 a month to their monthly internet bills for simply watching a single 4K movie. Most consumers also don't even have the internet capacity to stream a single 250GB movie into their homes.



    LACK OF COMPUTER STORAGE: And if Apple added the capacity to DOWNLOAD a 4K movie, consumers will quickly ran out of storage space. Three movies, and your 1 TB hard drive is FULL. Twelve movies and your 4 TB external hard drive is FULL. And what if consumers have to back up their hard drive? That would be at least another 4 TB external hard drive for their miserable 12-movie iTunes collection. Two 4-GB hard drives to house 12 4K movies in iTunes would cost the consumer another $300.



    NEED 4K TV AND 4K COMPUTER: What about the 4K Television the consumer has to buy? 4K won't play on a standard 1080p computer screen, so a consumer will also have to spend another $1000 for a new computer monitor. Actually, they might as well spring for a whole new computer to handle the data.



    COST: So the costs keeps going up for consumers wanting 4K video on AppleTV. It adds $200 to the cost of AppleTV. It would cost consumers at least $30-$50 a month more on their internet bill to watch 2 or more 4K videos a month. It would require them to spend another $300 for storage of only 12 4K movies. It would require them to purchase a new 4K TV and a 4K Computer - at least a $3000+ expenditure. Then how much would each 4K movie cost? $50 per movie is very realistic.



    NOT READY FOR PRIME TIME: 4K Video is NOT ready for prime time for the vast majority of consumers. So do not expect 4K Video on the AppleTV. Apple will let others lead the way and make fools of themselves first.



    Thats a nice pile of BS...    A H265 4k movie takes around 20g compare to a H264 HD movie which takes about 4g.  I have a 25mbps line and I can stream 2 4k movies at once from youtube... 

     

    Pretty much all of you're points gets destroy by you're assumptions that a 4k movies takes 300g...

     

    LACK OF STORAGE:   H265 movie is around 20 gigs..



    LACK OF INTERNET CAPACITY:  You can stream a 4k movie from youtube with a 15mbps line... And I dont know what kind of third world country internet package you guys have in the US, but here in Canada I have unlimited downloads at 25 mbps for $50/month...



    LACK OF COMPUTER STORAGE:  Again, 20g per movie...



    NEED 4K TV AND 4K COMPUTER:  Any 27" imac has more resolution that HD, so a 4k video already looks much better that HD. All the retina macbook have better than HD resolution, the retina ipads too...   I just bought a 4k LG TV for $600 ...



    COST: So This is where I think having a movie collection in the cloud could pay off.  I wish Apple will introduce resolution upgrades on itunes. For example, SD to HD +$10, SD or HD to 4k +$15

     

     

    There is a good article about HEVC here:

    http://www.cnet.com/news/what-is-hevc-high-efficiency-video-coding-h-265-and-4k-compression-explained/

  • Reply 39 of 74
    herbapouherbapou Posts: 2,228member

    I will be very disappointed if the new Apple TV doesn't supports 4k.  I wish we can buy a more deluxe version with 4k at least.   I can still rely of the smart TV for 4k content, but would love if Apple starts supporting it.

     

    Like a said in the previous post, I wish we could get resolution upgrades on itunes: This is where I think having a movie collection in the cloud could pay off.  For example, SD to HD +$10, SD or HD to 4k +$15

  • Reply 40 of 74
    herbapouherbapou Posts: 2,228member
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by BestKeptSecret View Post

     

     

    I never did understand the point of curved screens. I fail to see how it would be more immersive. A building-sized cinerama, I can understand. But a 108" home TV being curved doesn't make sense.

     


     

    Actually, it only makes sense for 1 person. All of the others will actually have a worst looking angle than a flat TV. So in other words, its BS for home

Sign In or Register to comment.