I mean, the Hickory Daily Record is Catawba Valley's source for local news and sports since 1915, but I don't know that I'd go so far as to call it mind blowing... rimshot
@ardichoke said:
For one, there's not enough profit margin in TVs for Apple to be interested.
There's "no profit margin" in phones either. Or PCs. There wasn't in MP3 players either, for that matter. Yet somehow one materializes suddenly when Apple enters a market. Funny, that.
I think it's pretty clear Apple prefers to offer one or two different variations of a product (from a physical size standpoint). Either they'd have a big flop on their hands because they would only offer 2 sizes of TV, thus not appealing to enough people, or they would be making a huge departure from their existing modus operandi.
There are currently 3 iPhone sizes, 5 iPad sizes, 6 laptop types/sizes, & 5 desktop types/sizes. I just bought a Sony TV that was only offered in 3 sizes. I guess Sony is screwed? None of this argument makes a lick of sense.
@Thrax said:
HDR+4K is the future. Not just 4K. I am 100% confident I am right on this. From 10 feet away on a 50" screen, 720p vs. 1080p vs. 4K has pixel density that exceeds human visual acuity (60 pixels per 1 degree of vision). This is why people say "I can't tell the difference."
But nobody can fail to see the difference between a TV without HDR vs. one with HDR.
HDR is fucking mind-blowing.
The new LG OLED models are the first thing to make me consider upgrading my 1080p 55" since I got it 5 years ago. True black and a basically infinite contrast ratio pixel-to-pixel? Do want.
@ardichoke said:
For one, there's not enough profit margin in TVs for Apple to be interested.
There's "no profit margin" in phones either. Or PCs. There wasn't in MP3 players either, for that matter. Yet somehow one materializes suddenly when Apple enters a market. Funny, that.
I think it's pretty clear Apple prefers to offer one or two different variations of a product (from a physical size standpoint). Either they'd have a big flop on their hands because they would only offer 2 sizes of TV, thus not appealing to enough people, or they would be making a huge departure from their existing modus operandi.
There are currently 3 iPhone sizes, 5 iPad sizes, 6 laptop types/sizes, & 5 desktop types/sizes. I just bought a Sony TV that was only offered in 3 sizes. I guess Sony is screwed? None of this argument makes a lick of sense.
Well, maybe I'm completely wrong then, but I still say they're not going to do it. The prices on cell phones and MP3 players were low enough that they could pad the price and get margins up to Apple levels while putting them at the top of typical consumer range. If you're talking about a TV that has razor thin margins at $2,000, then you put on the Apple tax, then I would expect you're starting to price too many customers out, even for Apple.
Oh, and there are 3 sizes of iPad. Pro, Air and Mini. They are just selling two different generations of the Air and Mini currently. That's not the same as having 5 different sizes.
Additionally, there is 1 sized MacBook, 2 sizes of MacBook Air, and 3 sizes of MacBook Pro. In my opinion, those are different Apple products as they are targeted at different users. Plus, computers are wildly different than a consumer electronic device like a phone, tablet or TV. The workload for a computer is extremely different for each user, which is why it makes sense for them to have more than one line of computers targeted at different users. They still have at most 3 sizes in each line.
There are only two sizes of iPhone, the standard and the Plus, once again they are still selling older generations of iPhone. Lumping an older generation in and saying it's just a different size of iPhone is disingenuous.
As for Sony, they don't have as tightly controlled branding or the yearly product line refresh that Apple does. It seems like they're constantly putting out new lines of TVs with marginal improvements. So yes, some lines only have a few sizes, but the difference between one line and the next seems to be almost nothing.... and they also have lines of TVs that have a larger number of sizes as well. If Apple were to get into the TV game, I would wager they would start by offering 1 or 2 sizes, then a couple years later, assuming the first gen wasn't a total flop, they would probably add a third size (and continue selling the previous generation, though two of the sizes would be the same between generations). There would still only be 3 sizes of TV total, whereas Sony has dozens of sizes of TV, you just might have to look at a line with slightly different styling or effectively meaningless technical differences to find the one you want. It's not really an apples-to-apples comparison at all.
Finally, I'm way more inclined to believe that Apple is developing their own self-driving car to compete with Google than I am to believe they're wanting to get into a way over saturated TV market.
I don't think Apple is going to get into a commodity market but if they do, they will redefine or at least push what we consider a "TV" into "new category of device" territory.
@primesuspect said:
I don't think Apple is going to get into a commodity market but if they do, they will redefine or at least push what we consider a "TV" into "new category of device" territory.
I feel like those days of Apple are pretty much over. Maybe I'm wrong. If Apple made a display that was geared towards home use, they would most likely just stick an AppleTV in an aluminum clad 55" 4k something and call it done. Not that I think they have any interest in trying to break into the living room any more than they already have with the iPad and current AppleTV.
@primesuspect said:
I don't think Apple is going to get into a commodity market but if they do, they will redefine or at least push what we consider a "TV" into "new category of device" territory.
It would have iTunes.
0
KwitkoSheriff of Banning (Retired)By the thing near the stuffIcrontian
@primesuspect said:
I don't think Apple is going to get into a commodity market but if they do, they will redefine or at least push what we consider a "TV" into "new category of device" territory.
No, they'll tack on existing services and spin them into magical, revolutionary ones. Their 4k will be called RetinaTV. 3D will become RealRetina or LiveRetina or some such shit.
Apple has a massive cash resource. Most companies that do the kind of revenue they do operate on credit with massive debt loads. Apple can weather a few consumer electronics failures and be just fine. TLDR, Apple, like Walter White will be done with you when they say so. It's the luxury barrels full of cash afford. Get over it.
Back on the topic of OLED, I saw some of the smaller Sony demos some years back and thought it looked amazing, but the large LG sets I have seen in showrooms (my local Microcenter has a few out)... Something just seems off. I'm not sure if they are using some kind of motion smoothing, or if it's some other kind of digital noise filter or something on the demo, but it's like blacks blur and bleed a bit, the edges don't seem defined... Hard for me to explain but it looks more processed digital than film like and I hate that. I thought the Samsung IPS panels next to it looked far superior (and even that was using some horrid 120 Hz up-scaling). I'm sure the tech is going to get better, like I said the little Sony 24" I saw a few years ago, DAT CONTRAST! But what I have seen from LG so far, it just doesn't appear to be the best implementation of the tech, at least as far as my eyes could see.
I watch all of these proceedings in befuddlement. I've only had HD cable to my house for about 4 weeks total, which was from a free* trail. I watch less than three hours of streaming video a week. When I do my annual hook up of my HDHomeRun over the air tuner and watch the SuperBowl, I'm always amazed at the resolution of sports in HD, since my only comparison is my college days of watching lots of football on analog cable. And mind you, I'm being amazed while watching the SuperBowl on my 720p projector with a bulb that refuses to burn out.
I've been wondering, when that bulb finally burns out and I'm tempted to buy a new TV or projector, would I even notice the resolution increase? Or would I have to get cable and watch more sports to notice? I don't think it matters for watching TV shows on Netflix.
*AT&T didn't seem to think it was free and can eat a bag of dicks.
Back of the envelope calculations here, letting isthisretina.com handle the ppi/distance calculations:
My home computer monitor is 2560x1440, 27" diag. "Retina" at 32 inches. Today I'm standing about 20 inches away, or 0.625 Retina.
My projector image is 1280x720, 100" diag. "Retina" at 234 inches. I sit about 144 inches away, or 0.615 Retina.
So the apparent pixel density of my above-average monitor and my below-average projector are about the same. I'm still inclined to think what kind of content I'm viewing makes a difference, but maybe this is part of why I'm in no hurry to upgrade my living room setup. It's no worse that my gaming PC.
@Gargoyle said:
would I even notice the resolution increase?
If you can't see the difference between 4k and 720p, you have a broken brain and eyes.
Not true at all. Being able to discern the difference between resolutions is a triangular relationship between screen size, resolution and viewing distance. As an example, research done by Bernard Lechner at RCA--a pioneer of the HDTV--found that most viewers sit approximately 9 feet from their TV. This distance is now known as the "Lechner Distance."
At the Lechner Distance with a TV up to 45", all resolutions would look the same. In other words, the apparent pixel density of 720p/1080p/2160p would exceed human visual acuity: approx. 60 pixels per 1° of your FOV. You'd have to dial the TV size up to a whopping 75" to just to discern all the detail 1080p had to offer from 9 feet away. And 4K? LOL, you'd need a 145" TV to reach peak benefit from that resolution from 9 feet away.
So if a 9-foot viewing distance is practically incapable of articulating the benefit of higher resolutions, what is the ideal viewing distance for a 4K TV? A viewing distance that gets the pixel density right in the 55-60pix/deg range that conveys the maximum amount of detail the human eye can see? If you have a 50" UHDTV, that distance is a mere ~4 feet.
Even with optimal viewing angles, distance and density, content plays a huge role in the quality of the image. Something pumped through Handbrake exported to an H.264 MP4 has a possibility to look far worse than source media or some other types of file formats. It all boils down to the content. You can have a 55" UHD display at 3.6 feet and play back something that was encoded poorly and it will ruin the experience. Even streaming services like Netflix and Hulu can suffer from lower visual quality depending on internet speeds. If you're not playing 4k content, there is no point to a 4k UHDTV. Just like when FullHD displays came out and people were watching DVDs on them and TV stations were not broadcasting in HD yet. Once you start playing content in the native resolution of the display, only then will your viewing distance, screen size and health of your eyes be important.
At a distance of 7' I am only sometimes able to discern individual pixels on my 60" Samsung FHDTV. I can usually tell if a TV is UHD or not depending on the content and viewing distance. On my 28" Asus 4k monitor, unless I have my nose to the screen, I am unable to see individual pixels and on my 24" 1080 displays I have to get at least within a 1.5' to see pixels. Point being that not everyone has my good eyesight so it depends on the individual. Is 4k cool? I guess.
Thrax hit the nail on the head with his point about HDR and future displays. That's a change everyone should be able to benefit from.
At the expense of sounding like a smug shit, there's an appropriate Latin phrase, here: ceteris paribus. Of course a shit bitrate is going to look like garbage. But these comments assume you're playing content that is encoded appropriately.
Until 4k media is common place on Blu-ray, available from TV service providers or streaming services, you can't assume video is "encoded appropriately". There are videographers and local media groups that can't even encode 1080p worth a damn. Regardless you're correct though. Shit in, shit out.
All I'm saying is that currently available content should play a roll more immediately than viewing distance and pixel density because 4k media isn't mainstream yet. Unless you like watching crappy 4k cellphone test video on YouTube.
I have a 4K TV now. 4K on it is bananas. Regular content also looks really good due to other bits in the display, but my jaw dropped when I watched some nature shots in 4k
@UPSLynx said:
3D - Dead
4K/8K - ???
HDR - lololol
The cycle continues.
Every time this thread gets bumped I re-read the article because I love it. Still a top 5 favorite Icrontic article for me.
Don't talk shit about HDR. It's mind-blowing. Better quality pixels, not more of them, is what we have been waiting for. HDR content is just breathtakingly beautiful. It's hard to ever go back.
Just because something is beautiful does not mean it will sell. HDR is one of those fairly abstract concepts, it's hard to explain to someone, why they would want to upgrade a perfectly good working HDTV for it. I have a 1080P plasma, and I really, really like beautiful screens. I can't justify buying a 4K / HDR display. I just can't do it, and I know what I'm looking at and have a little bit of disposable income. HDR will gain traction just because it is a natural technical evolution, one that makes sense, but it's going to be several years before it is common.
3D didn't because it is just silly. I promise you too, in home VR as we know it today, it's going to die. Nobody wants to wear their tech on their heads. That's the last sacred place on our body. We carry it everywhere, our pockets, our backpacks, our wrists, ordinary folks are going to want to preserve their face as organic. VR will fizzle for the same reason as 3D TV, you have to wear some silly shit on your head to enjoy the tech. Ain't nobody got time for that!!
Yeah don't get me wrong - I've seen HDR TVs and they're dope AF. I'm just saying the general consumer has yet to be convinced that it's something worth investing into. Just because it's awesome doesn't mean it's successful and/or the future.
I've still yet to feel like 4K is even really a thing in 2017. HDR is too young to pass true judgement on, I just don't have high hopes considering the last five years of big market technologies in televisions.
@Cliff_Forster said:
VR will fizzle for the same reason as 3D TV, you have to wear some silly shit on your head to enjoy the tech. Ain't nobody got time for that!!
Commercials where grandpa has a phone strapped to his forehead while the family gather 'round are possibly the most ridiculous things I've ever seen. There's no explanation other than a marketing team with zero concept of social dynamics.
Comments
I mean, the Hickory Daily Record is Catawba Valley's source for local news and sports since 1915, but I don't know that I'd go so far as to call it mind blowing... rimshot
There's "no profit margin" in phones either. Or PCs. There wasn't in MP3 players either, for that matter. Yet somehow one materializes suddenly when Apple enters a market. Funny, that.
There are currently 3 iPhone sizes, 5 iPad sizes, 6 laptop types/sizes, & 5 desktop types/sizes. I just bought a Sony TV that was only offered in 3 sizes. I guess Sony is screwed? None of this argument makes a lick of sense.
The new LG OLED models are the first thing to make me consider upgrading my 1080p 55" since I got it 5 years ago. True black and a basically infinite contrast ratio pixel-to-pixel? Do want.
But wait until you see an HDR OLED panel. My god, it's full of stars.
I currently use a 1080p 3D projector and my next upgrade is going to be HDR OLED 4k when those hit the right size/price point.
Well, maybe I'm completely wrong then, but I still say they're not going to do it. The prices on cell phones and MP3 players were low enough that they could pad the price and get margins up to Apple levels while putting them at the top of typical consumer range. If you're talking about a TV that has razor thin margins at $2,000, then you put on the Apple tax, then I would expect you're starting to price too many customers out, even for Apple.
Oh, and there are 3 sizes of iPad. Pro, Air and Mini. They are just selling two different generations of the Air and Mini currently. That's not the same as having 5 different sizes.
Additionally, there is 1 sized MacBook, 2 sizes of MacBook Air, and 3 sizes of MacBook Pro. In my opinion, those are different Apple products as they are targeted at different users. Plus, computers are wildly different than a consumer electronic device like a phone, tablet or TV. The workload for a computer is extremely different for each user, which is why it makes sense for them to have more than one line of computers targeted at different users. They still have at most 3 sizes in each line.
There are only two sizes of iPhone, the standard and the Plus, once again they are still selling older generations of iPhone. Lumping an older generation in and saying it's just a different size of iPhone is disingenuous.
As for Sony, they don't have as tightly controlled branding or the yearly product line refresh that Apple does. It seems like they're constantly putting out new lines of TVs with marginal improvements. So yes, some lines only have a few sizes, but the difference between one line and the next seems to be almost nothing.... and they also have lines of TVs that have a larger number of sizes as well. If Apple were to get into the TV game, I would wager they would start by offering 1 or 2 sizes, then a couple years later, assuming the first gen wasn't a total flop, they would probably add a third size (and continue selling the previous generation, though two of the sizes would be the same between generations). There would still only be 3 sizes of TV total, whereas Sony has dozens of sizes of TV, you just might have to look at a line with slightly different styling or effectively meaningless technical differences to find the one you want. It's not really an apples-to-apples comparison at all.
Finally, I'm way more inclined to believe that Apple is developing their own self-driving car to compete with Google than I am to believe they're wanting to get into a way over saturated TV market.
Only two sizes of MBP. 13" and 15". They killed off the 17" a while back.
Ah, I saw the Pro 13 and Pro 13 w/ retina as two different sizes. Thanks for the correction.
I don't think Apple is going to get into a commodity market but if they do, they will redefine or at least push what we consider a "TV" into "new category of device" territory.
I feel like those days of Apple are pretty much over. Maybe I'm wrong. If Apple made a display that was geared towards home use, they would most likely just stick an AppleTV in an aluminum clad 55" 4k something and call it done. Not that I think they have any interest in trying to break into the living room any more than they already have with the iPad and current AppleTV.
It would have iTunes.
No, they'll tack on existing services and spin them into magical, revolutionary ones. Their 4k will be called RetinaTV. 3D will become RealRetina or LiveRetina or some such shit.
RetinaVision™
FullRetina™
EyeScape3D™
iScape3D™
3Di™
Apple has a massive cash resource. Most companies that do the kind of revenue they do operate on credit with massive debt loads. Apple can weather a few consumer electronics failures and be just fine. TLDR, Apple, like Walter White will be done with you when they say so. It's the luxury barrels full of cash afford. Get over it.
Back on the topic of OLED, I saw some of the smaller Sony demos some years back and thought it looked amazing, but the large LG sets I have seen in showrooms (my local Microcenter has a few out)... Something just seems off. I'm not sure if they are using some kind of motion smoothing, or if it's some other kind of digital noise filter or something on the demo, but it's like blacks blur and bleed a bit, the edges don't seem defined... Hard for me to explain but it looks more processed digital than film like and I hate that. I thought the Samsung IPS panels next to it looked far superior (and even that was using some horrid 120 Hz up-scaling). I'm sure the tech is going to get better, like I said the little Sony 24" I saw a few years ago, DAT CONTRAST! But what I have seen from LG so far, it just doesn't appear to be the best implementation of the tech, at least as far as my eyes could see.
As soon as 4K projectors are in the budget, I'll upgrade.
Retina Color.
I watch all of these proceedings in befuddlement. I've only had HD cable to my house for about 4 weeks total, which was from a free* trail. I watch less than three hours of streaming video a week. When I do my annual hook up of my HDHomeRun over the air tuner and watch the SuperBowl, I'm always amazed at the resolution of sports in HD, since my only comparison is my college days of watching lots of football on analog cable. And mind you, I'm being amazed while watching the SuperBowl on my 720p projector with a bulb that refuses to burn out.
I've been wondering, when that bulb finally burns out and I'm tempted to buy a new TV or projector, would I even notice the resolution increase? Or would I have to get cable and watch more sports to notice? I don't think it matters for watching TV shows on Netflix.
*AT&T didn't seem to think it was free and can eat a bag of dicks.
If you can't see the difference between 4k and 720p, you have a broken brain and eyes.
Back of the envelope calculations here, letting isthisretina.com handle the ppi/distance calculations:
My home computer monitor is 2560x1440, 27" diag. "Retina" at 32 inches. Today I'm standing about 20 inches away, or 0.625 Retina.
My projector image is 1280x720, 100" diag. "Retina" at 234 inches. I sit about 144 inches away, or 0.615 Retina.
So the apparent pixel density of my above-average monitor and my below-average projector are about the same. I'm still inclined to think what kind of content I'm viewing makes a difference, but maybe this is part of why I'm in no hurry to upgrade my living room setup. It's no worse that my gaming PC.
Not true at all. Being able to discern the difference between resolutions is a triangular relationship between screen size, resolution and viewing distance. As an example, research done by Bernard Lechner at RCA--a pioneer of the HDTV--found that most viewers sit approximately 9 feet from their TV. This distance is now known as the "Lechner Distance."
At the Lechner Distance with a TV up to 45", all resolutions would look the same. In other words, the apparent pixel density of 720p/1080p/2160p would exceed human visual acuity: approx. 60 pixels per 1° of your FOV. You'd have to dial the TV size up to a whopping 75" to just to discern all the detail 1080p had to offer from 9 feet away. And 4K? LOL, you'd need a 145" TV to reach peak benefit from that resolution from 9 feet away.
So if a 9-foot viewing distance is practically incapable of articulating the benefit of higher resolutions, what is the ideal viewing distance for a 4K TV? A viewing distance that gets the pixel density right in the 55-60pix/deg range that conveys the maximum amount of detail the human eye can see? If you have a 50" UHDTV, that distance is a mere ~4 feet.
It's no surprise, then, that Sony recommends a viewing distance of just 3.6 feet on their 55" UHDTVs.
Source: I do this shit for a living.
Even with optimal viewing angles, distance and density, content plays a huge role in the quality of the image. Something pumped through Handbrake exported to an H.264 MP4 has a possibility to look far worse than source media or some other types of file formats. It all boils down to the content. You can have a 55" UHD display at 3.6 feet and play back something that was encoded poorly and it will ruin the experience. Even streaming services like Netflix and Hulu can suffer from lower visual quality depending on internet speeds. If you're not playing 4k content, there is no point to a 4k UHDTV. Just like when FullHD displays came out and people were watching DVDs on them and TV stations were not broadcasting in HD yet. Once you start playing content in the native resolution of the display, only then will your viewing distance, screen size and health of your eyes be important.
At a distance of 7' I am only sometimes able to discern individual pixels on my 60" Samsung FHDTV. I can usually tell if a TV is UHD or not depending on the content and viewing distance. On my 28" Asus 4k monitor, unless I have my nose to the screen, I am unable to see individual pixels and on my 24" 1080 displays I have to get at least within a 1.5' to see pixels. Point being that not everyone has my good eyesight so it depends on the individual. Is 4k cool? I guess.
Thrax hit the nail on the head with his point about HDR and future displays. That's a change everyone should be able to benefit from.
At the expense of sounding like a smug shit, there's an appropriate Latin phrase, here: ceteris paribus. Of course a shit bitrate is going to look like garbage. But these comments assume you're playing content that is encoded appropriately.
Until 4k media is common place on Blu-ray, available from TV service providers or streaming services, you can't assume video is "encoded appropriately". There are videographers and local media groups that can't even encode 1080p worth a damn. Regardless you're correct though. Shit in, shit out.
All I'm saying is that currently available content should play a roll more immediately than viewing distance and pixel density because 4k media isn't mainstream yet. Unless you like watching crappy 4k cellphone test video on YouTube.
This thread continues to deliver.
3DTV is dead
3D - Dead
4K/8K - ???
HDR - lololol
The cycle continues.
Every time this thread gets bumped I re-read the article because I love it. Still a top 5 favorite Icrontic article for me.
I have a 4K TV now. 4K on it is bananas. Regular content also looks really good due to other bits in the display, but my jaw dropped when I watched some nature shots in 4k
Don't talk shit about HDR. It's mind-blowing. Better quality pixels, not more of them, is what we have been waiting for. HDR content is just breathtakingly beautiful. It's hard to ever go back.
Just because something is beautiful does not mean it will sell. HDR is one of those fairly abstract concepts, it's hard to explain to someone, why they would want to upgrade a perfectly good working HDTV for it. I have a 1080P plasma, and I really, really like beautiful screens. I can't justify buying a 4K / HDR display. I just can't do it, and I know what I'm looking at and have a little bit of disposable income. HDR will gain traction just because it is a natural technical evolution, one that makes sense, but it's going to be several years before it is common.
3D didn't because it is just silly. I promise you too, in home VR as we know it today, it's going to die. Nobody wants to wear their tech on their heads. That's the last sacred place on our body. We carry it everywhere, our pockets, our backpacks, our wrists, ordinary folks are going to want to preserve their face as organic. VR will fizzle for the same reason as 3D TV, you have to wear some silly shit on your head to enjoy the tech. Ain't nobody got time for that!!
Yeah don't get me wrong - I've seen HDR TVs and they're dope AF. I'm just saying the general consumer has yet to be convinced that it's something worth investing into. Just because it's awesome doesn't mean it's successful and/or the future.
I've still yet to feel like 4K is even really a thing in 2017. HDR is too young to pass true judgement on, I just don't have high hopes considering the last five years of big market technologies in televisions.
Commercials where grandpa has a phone strapped to his forehead while the family gather 'round are possibly the most ridiculous things I've ever seen. There's no explanation other than a marketing team with zero concept of social dynamics.