Why is it so important to own an Apple TV, especially when there are just as good if not better TV set-boxes on the market.
As usual, I'm sure you're basing that on some ridiculous spec sheet list, and not on the actual user experience of the device. Have you even used an Apple TV or Fire TV, or did you simply go with Shield because you knew few people would buy it (which would make you feel elite) and you could claim "but it has has an Nvidia GPU in it"?
You're talking about two different things. I use Apple TV to view purchased content from iTunes or stream Netflix because it streams better on Apple TV than any other box. As far as my own content, I already shoot 4k (professionally) but it would not be viewable on any set top box anyway, not even Apple TV. I don't think there's a a really good argument for shooting 4k home videos and buying a TV and set top box just to view those. There just isn't enough 4k content otherwise.
I run a postproduction house and we routinely handle 4K (and often 6 and 8K) source (and typically deliver @ 2K & 4K) and I think there is a compelling reason for home users (and hobbyists/prosumers) to shoot 4K. Even assuming they exclusively output at 1080 having the extra resolution allows them to stabilize, reframe and perform digital Pans & zooms (limited to ~2X). Yes 4K takes a lot of space, but it give you a lot of options during editing (on footage that you may never have a chance to shoot again.)
As far as 4K (viewing) at home; yep agree 110% nearly useless until 100-150" screens are common and affordable, 4k theater in the house is just a marketing hype pushed by tv manufacturers (unless you want to sit 4-6' in from of your 50" TV you can't see anything past 1080p) Not to mention that there is little 4K home content and what there is (outside heinously over sharpened "4K demos") isn't really that much better than good 2K (1080) (compare iTunes 1080 content to netflix or amazon)
That Apple didn't get on onboard the 4k home theatre marketing hype machine (and amazon did) says a lot about them (and also amazon)
As far as 4K (viewing) at home; yep agree 110% nearly useless until 100-150" screens are common and affordable, 4
That's just wrong. You can't make such a determine as you're only missing an entire variable.
4K UHD refers to a resolution of 3840×2160. From there you invented your minimum size, which you oddly created a minimum range where the second is 50% larger on the diagonal than the first. That is incomplete! All the resolution and display size give you are the pixel sizes. From there you can determine what the minimum viewing distance is, typically done with a "perfect" visual acuity of 20/20, but that in itself in incomplete because 20/20 vision is simply an antiquated system that doesn't actually define the best possible vision, nor does it take into effect how the brain perceives interpolated images moving on a screen as opposed to a still image.
Here's a calculator that takes in nearly every variable I mention:
That's just wrong. You can't make such a determine as you're only missing an entire variable.
4K UHD refers to a resolution of 3840×2160. From there you invented your minimum size, which you oddly created a minimum range where the second is 50% larger on the diagonal than the first. That is incomplete! All the resolution and display size give you are the pixel sizes. From there you can determine what the minimum viewing distance is, typically done with a "perfect" visual acuity of 20/20, but that in itself in incomplete because 20/20 vision is simply an antiquated system that doesn't actually define the best possible vision, nor does it take into effect how the brain perceives interpolated images moving on a screen as opposed to a still image.
Here's a calculator that takes in nearly every variable I mention:
I posted this before, (and there are similar all over) at "real" living room distances (12'-20') the average individual are going to need over 100" screen to just begin to perceive anything above 1080 and 150" to fully appreciate it.
I posted this before, (and there are similar all over) at "real" living room distances (12'-20') the average individual are going to need over 100" screen to just begin to perceive anything above 1080 and 150" to fully appreciate it. http://i.i.cbsi.com/cnwk.1d/i/tim/2013/01/27/resolution_chart.jpg
That was complete BS before, but now you're saying that if eyes are less than 12' away from the screen it's not a "real" living room. Come on!
Good points. I would say that 4k doesn't require fully uncompressed streams to look good (that would be over 12Gbps!! and uncompressed is never streamed to consumers), but rather it does require about 4x (or more) bitrate of an HD stream for the same codec. Blu-Ray discs would stream about 30Mbps with H.264, so with UHD having 4x resolution (+ more colour information), it would need about 120Mbps to show all of that 4k resolution with the same compression quality. H.265 might cut that in half - so 60Mbps to get that 4k video improvement over BR. Now, clearly 1080p streaming services have much lower bitrates - you could argue about 8-10Mbps H.264 is "pretty good" - so with H.265 4k could provide a pretty good stream at maybe 16-20Mbps. That is higher than the US average broadband rate though.
One other point on the TV's - not only are the settings of the TV's set to unnaturally bright and saturated colours, but to push 4k TV's now, the stores use much better content (much less uncompressed) for 4k, vs. what they show on HD steams (poor quality stream from cable). It is all about the upsell.
First not sure anyone will ready this at this time, but I thought I would share some facts about current state of cable broadcast Digital Video.
Most HD content is streaming at about 1.5Mbps to 4Mbps, it can burst up to about 10 to 20Mbps depending the video source and such. This is why cable video is VBR, it has to be since the bit rate has to change otherwise you will see issue with motion. The only content today running at more than 10Mbps all the time are sporting events like Football, if they are not running at that Bitrate you will see jerky video.
Keep in mind you cable feed to your house for Video is dedicated bandwidth, for video it does not get much better than this and they can not support full bandwidth 4k today, it took them years to support HD and only now is most content on Cable full HD and not even 1080P just 1080i. To even think Netflex support sending 4K streaming content at the higher bitrates on the network like Enet which is based on not all data gets whether it needs to all the time it all marketing hype.
That was complete BS before, but now you're saying that if eyes are less than 12' away from the screen it's not a "real" living room. Come on!
I said the same thing both times. Yes in typical living rooms the screen is normally between 12 and 20 feet from the seating. (hell even in my bedroom the screen is over 12' away) and as such you will need an above 100" (diagonal) screen (maybe I could get away with an 80" in the BR)
The 50" and 60" 4K screens they are selling now would have to be -really close-... like 4 to 6 feet (to see 4k)
I'm sorry but 4k for the time being is for (movie) theaters who have; the screen size necessary to actually see it and the content. This is unlikely to change for a couple years. 4K for right now is little more than marketing hype. (and I respect Apple for not jumping into the fray)
I said the same thing both times. Yes in typical living rooms the screen is normally between 12 and 20 feet from the seating. (hell even in my bedroom the screen is over 12" away) and as such you will need an above 100" (diagonal) screen (maybe I could get away with an 80" in the BR)
The 50" and 60" 4K screens they are selling now would have to be -really close-... like 4 to 6 feet (to see 4k)
I'm sorry but 4k for the time being is for (movie) theaters who have; the screen size necessary to actually see it and the content. <span style="line-height:1.4em;">This is unlikely to change for a couple years. 4K for right now is little more than marketing hype. (and I respect Apple for not jumping into the fray)</span>
That was complete BS before, but now you're saying that if eyes are less than 12' away from the screen it's not a "real" living room. Come on!
I said the same thing both times. Yes in typical living rooms the screen is normally between 12 and 20 feet from the seating. (hell even in my bedroom the screen is over 12' away) and as such you will need an above 100" (diagonal) screen (maybe I could get away with an 80" in the BR)
The 50" and 60" 4K screens they are selling now would have to be -really close-... like 4 to 6 feet (to see 4k)
I'm sorry but 4k for the time being is for (movie) theaters who have; the screen size necessary to actually see it and the content. <span style="line-height:1.4em;">This is unlikely to change for a couple years. 4K for right now is little more than marketing hype. (and I respect Apple for not jumping into the fray)</span>
I'm going to take a wild guess, and say that you don't live in NYC, or even in the Northeast.
As usual, I'm sure you're basing that on some ridiculous spec sheet list, and not on the actual user experience of the device. Have you even used an Apple TV or Fire TV, or did you simply go with Shield because you knew few people would buy it (which would make you feel elite) and you could claim "but it has has an Nvidia GPU in it"?
I have a Fire TV, it's in my office, though it's the first generation. I did just update it to Fire OS 5.0 though, so it is using the same version that's in the new one and I also have a Minix Z64 in my bedroom, so that's three that I have personal knowledge about. I didn't buy the Shield because it made me feel elite, it's the same price as the Apple TV for goodness sakes. I bought it because of the feature set and frankly it's really a good system, I would argue one of the best on the market today. It was also the only system that allows up to 4 players, yes the game selection is still small but there are still enough multiplayer games to make it fun for all of us. Though the kids, except for Mini Motor Racing, in which I rock, always seem to win. The FireTV used to be in my room until I replaced it with the Minix Z65, until recently it was even boxed up. However the launch of this new one also brought along an update so I wanted to play with and decided to keep going in my office. I really like the system and it's definitely worth the 130 dollar price tag with game controller.
I'm going to take a wild guess, and say that you don't live in NYC, or even in the Northeast.
Ok, I'm sorry, I have inadvertently caused great butthurt among the early 4K adopters out there. (PHL suburb BTW)
If you want to put your couch with the back 6' from the screen go for it. Most people have the seating (in a typical LR) much farther away (like 12-20') You do get that 12' is only two outstretched arms length's, yes? The tightest you could reasonably get with a coffee table would be 8' (2' couch 2' foot room 2' coffee table and 2' walkway (and that is very tight)
?As for bedrooms most have the screen on the wall facing the bed longways (typically with a dressers against the wall.) If you only have 3' walking space in front of the bed (which again is really tight) thats 12' from the headboard.
Comments
As usual, I'm sure you're basing that on some ridiculous spec sheet list, and not on the actual user experience of the device. Have you even used an Apple TV or Fire TV, or did you simply go with Shield because you knew few people would buy it (which would make you feel elite) and you could claim "but it has has an Nvidia GPU in it"?
You're talking about two different things. I use Apple TV to view purchased content from iTunes or stream Netflix because it streams better on Apple TV than any other box. As far as my own content, I already shoot 4k (professionally) but it would not be viewable on any set top box anyway, not even Apple TV. I don't think there's a a really good argument for shooting 4k home videos and buying a TV and set top box just to view those. There just isn't enough 4k content otherwise.
I run a postproduction house and we routinely handle 4K (and often 6 and 8K) source (and typically deliver @ 2K & 4K) and I think there is a compelling reason for home users (and hobbyists/prosumers) to shoot 4K. Even assuming they exclusively output at 1080 having the extra resolution allows them to stabilize, reframe and perform digital Pans & zooms (limited to ~2X). Yes 4K takes a lot of space, but it give you a lot of options during editing (on footage that you may never have a chance to shoot again.)
As far as 4K (viewing) at home; yep agree 110% nearly useless until 100-150" screens are common and affordable, 4k theater in the house is just a marketing hype pushed by tv manufacturers (unless you want to sit 4-6' in from of your 50" TV you can't see anything past 1080p) Not to mention that there is little 4K home content and what there is (outside heinously over sharpened "4K demos") isn't really that much better than good 2K (1080) (compare iTunes 1080 content to netflix or amazon)
That Apple didn't get on onboard the 4k home theatre marketing hype machine (and amazon did) says a lot about them (and also amazon)
That's just wrong. You can't make such a determine as you're only missing an entire variable.
4K UHD refers to a resolution of 3840×2160. From there you invented your minimum size, which you oddly created a minimum range where the second is 50% larger on the diagonal than the first. That is incomplete! All the resolution and display size give you are the pixel sizes. From there you can determine what the minimum viewing distance is, typically done with a "perfect" visual acuity of 20/20, but that in itself in incomplete because 20/20 vision is simply an antiquated system that doesn't actually define the best possible vision, nor does it take into effect how the brain perceives interpolated images moving on a screen as opposed to a still image.
Here's a calculator that takes in nearly every variable I mention:
That's just wrong. You can't make such a determine as you're only missing an entire variable.
4K UHD refers to a resolution of 3840×2160. From there you invented your minimum size, which you oddly created a minimum range where the second is 50% larger on the diagonal than the first. That is incomplete! All the resolution and display size give you are the pixel sizes. From there you can determine what the minimum viewing distance is, typically done with a "perfect" visual acuity of 20/20, but that in itself in incomplete because 20/20 vision is simply an antiquated system that doesn't actually define the best possible vision, nor does it take into effect how the brain perceives interpolated images moving on a screen as opposed to a still image.
Here's a calculator that takes in nearly every variable I mention:
I posted this before, (and there are similar all over) at "real" living room distances (12'-20') the average individual are going to need over 100" screen to just begin to perceive anything above 1080 and 150" to fully appreciate it.
http://i.i.cbsi.com/cnwk.1d/i/tim/2013/01/27/resolution_chart.jpg
That was complete BS before, but now you're saying that if eyes are less than 12' away from the screen it's not a "real" living room. Come on!
Good points. I would say that 4k doesn't require fully uncompressed streams to look good (that would be over 12Gbps!! and uncompressed is never streamed to consumers), but rather it does require about 4x (or more) bitrate of an HD stream for the same codec. Blu-Ray discs would stream about 30Mbps with H.264, so with UHD having 4x resolution (+ more colour information), it would need about 120Mbps to show all of that 4k resolution with the same compression quality. H.265 might cut that in half - so 60Mbps to get that 4k video improvement over BR. Now, clearly 1080p streaming services have much lower bitrates - you could argue about 8-10Mbps H.264 is "pretty good" - so with H.265 4k could provide a pretty good stream at maybe 16-20Mbps. That is higher than the US average broadband rate though.
One other point on the TV's - not only are the settings of the TV's set to unnaturally bright and saturated colours, but to push 4k TV's now, the stores use much better content (much less uncompressed) for 4k, vs. what they show on HD steams (poor quality stream from cable). It is all about the upsell.
First not sure anyone will ready this at this time, but I thought I would share some facts about current state of cable broadcast Digital Video.
Most HD content is streaming at about 1.5Mbps to 4Mbps, it can burst up to about 10 to 20Mbps depending the video source and such. This is why cable video is VBR, it has to be since the bit rate has to change otherwise you will see issue with motion. The only content today running at more than 10Mbps all the time are sporting events like Football, if they are not running at that Bitrate you will see jerky video.
Keep in mind you cable feed to your house for Video is dedicated bandwidth, for video it does not get much better than this and they can not support full bandwidth 4k today, it took them years to support HD and only now is most content on Cable full HD and not even 1080P just 1080i. To even think Netflex support sending 4K streaming content at the higher bitrates on the network like Enet which is based on not all data gets whether it needs to all the time it all marketing hype.
That was complete BS before, but now you're saying that if eyes are less than 12' away from the screen it's not a "real" living room. Come on!
I said the same thing both times. Yes in typical living rooms the screen is normally between 12 and 20 feet from the seating. (hell even in my bedroom the screen is over 12' away) and as such you will need an above 100" (diagonal) screen (maybe I could get away with an 80" in the BR)
The 50" and 60" 4K screens they are selling now would have to be -really close-... like 4 to 6 feet (to see 4k)
I'm sorry but 4k for the time being is for (movie) theaters who have; the screen size necessary to actually see it and the content. This is unlikely to change for a couple years. 4K for right now is little more than marketing hype. (and I respect Apple for not jumping into the fray)
Do the math, you're extremely off.
I'm going to take a wild guess, and say that you don't live in NYC, or even in the Northeast.
As usual, I'm sure you're basing that on some ridiculous spec sheet list, and not on the actual user experience of the device. Have you even used an Apple TV or Fire TV, or did you simply go with Shield because you knew few people would buy it (which would make you feel elite) and you could claim "but it has has an Nvidia GPU in it"?
I have a Fire TV, it's in my office, though it's the first generation. I did just update it to Fire OS 5.0 though, so it is using the same version that's in the new one and I also have a Minix Z64 in my bedroom, so that's three that I have personal knowledge about. I didn't buy the Shield because it made me feel elite, it's the same price as the Apple TV for goodness sakes. I bought it because of the feature set and frankly it's really a good system, I would argue one of the best on the market today. It was also the only system that allows up to 4 players, yes the game selection is still small but there are still enough multiplayer games to make it fun for all of us. Though the kids, except for Mini Motor Racing, in which I rock, always seem to win. The FireTV used to be in my room until I replaced it with the Minix Z65, until recently it was even boxed up. However the launch of this new one also brought along an update so I wanted to play with and decided to keep going in my office. I really like the system and it's definitely worth the 130 dollar price tag with game controller.
I'm going to take a wild guess, and say that you don't live in NYC, or even in the Northeast.
Ok, I'm sorry, I have inadvertently caused great butthurt among the early 4K adopters out there. (PHL suburb BTW)
If you want to put your couch with the back 6' from the screen go for it. Most people have the seating (in a typical LR) much farther away (like 12-20') You do get that 12' is only two outstretched arms length's, yes? The tightest you could reasonably get with a coffee table would be 8' (2' couch 2' foot room 2' coffee table and 2' walkway (and that is very tight)
?As for bedrooms most have the screen on the wall facing the bed longways (typically with a dressers against the wall.) If you only have 3' walking space in front of the bed (which again is really tight) thats 12' from the headboard.