Very same thing said when :apple:TV was limited to 720p and some of us wanted it to go 1080p. Funny how before Apple embraces something it doesn't make much sense... but after they move, it makes great sense (go back and look at 1080p wish threads when 720p was Apple's max, or bigger screen phone threads, or NFC, or even front-facing "iSight" cameras when iPad 1 was launched, etc).
Why bother with a 5K iMac since we sit the same distance from the non-5K iMac screen? Why bother with retina-screens at all when we look at them from the same distance as non-retina screens?
4K is the next big thing in screens. If it can't make sense to us today, it shouldn't make sense when Apple embraces it either. BUT, like bigger screen phones or 1080p or 5K iMac or NFC or Retina screens on anything or FaceTime cameras on iPads, our collective sentiment will "evolve with the times" as soon as Apple decides to go there.
That said, I'm much encouraged by this rumor. The hardware must lead; it never makes sense for the software to come first. Personally, I don't really care if there is ever 4K content in the iTunes store; 4K playback means sharper pictures on 4K screens, our own 4K content shot on 4K camcorders will play back that much sharper, and so on. Eventually a Studio would be tempted to test 4K movie profitability; it they make a profit, they'll do more. And competition will want to compete.
There's no downside. The "1080p is good enough" (or the "no one will be able to see a difference") crowd could still enjoy their 1080p to the fullest, as better hardware can always player lighter software to it's MAX. Even the "720p is good enough" crowd could still enjoy their 720p video to it's fullest too... just like older software written for Macs several years ago will run just fine on brand new Mac hardware just made. My current :apple:TV plays my choice of 1080p, 720p or even SD video. Should a 4K option come along, I'd expect it to simply be one more option (not forcing anyone to buy a 4K TV if they are happy with whatever TV they have now).
re: same thing said of 720p
I don't recall much of that, but I'll take your word for it. But, if so, here's the thing... on many of the screen sizes at the time and due to compression used, etc., you actually couldn't tell much difference in the majority of cases (I'm pretty sure Consumer's Report did a bunch of testing). That said, I don't think anyone was arguing no difference between the two in the sense of 'why go to 1080p,' it was more about the *necessity* to get there right then.
In some ways, we're kind of saying the same thing now. Clearly, 5K is better than 1080p. The problem is we're dealing with a reality of lack of standards and the fact that few people have TVs over 80" in size (or sit close enough to smaller screens to make a difference). Then, we're also dealing with an Internet infrastructure that just can't handle such transmission (without killing the benefit).
So, like the 720p/1080p debate, there's no reason for Apple to rush into it. But, unlike it, I don't see the majority of people going to 80"+ displays. If anything, a bad economy will probably drive things in the opposite direction... smaller homes and smaller or at least stagnant screen sizes. And, since more and more people watch video on their phones and tablets, there is even less need for 5K.
re: bigger screen phones
It doesn't make any more sense today than it did back then... FOR THE REASONS APPLE GAVE! What pushed them to bigger screens, is a world-market where the smart-phone is the sole computing device for a household and consumer demand based on what the competition was doing. Their argument about the optimal size for a phone still stands, IMO. They have developed technologies to help with the deficiencies of a bigger screen (both physical and UI), but the deficiencies still exist. Aside from staying current on the hardware, the optimal size is probably the 5s. The 6 is even too big, IMO.
re: NFC, or even front-facing "iSight" cameras
What? I seriously don't recall these. Maybe I'm just getting too old, having followed Apple news for over 25 years now. :) What were the objections?
re: 5k iMac
Well, when you're sitting that close, people with good eyes can actually see the difference. And, since video pros often work with higher-rez source material, it makes sense to have a machine at that rez. And, the other retina devices are similar, especially phones.
I was one of those objecting to Retina on the iPad and laptops... BECAUSE of the tradeoffs Apple was making on the initial models to pull it off. Obviously at close viewing distances, Retina will be noticeably better. I just didn't want to lose performance and battery life, as IMO, it's not *that* big of a deal (enough to lose those things over).
re: "4K is the next big thing in screens."
Why? Just because? And then 8K? Then 16K? I think there needs to be some point to it besides just being the next mathematical step in quantity of pixels. Are you waiting for the Retina-x2 displays before you buy your next iPad too?
re: 4K, just one more option
Sure, I agree. There are some home-theater people who would be very happy with that. But, the question is whether there is a compelling enough reason for Apple to jump on it now (pre-standards, bandwidth limitations, really-niche-market), vs waiting another year or two. And even then, as I argued above, this isn't like the SD to 720p or 1080p jump... it just simply isn't as necessary.
Source Article from http://www.macrumors.com/2015/06/18/apple-explored-4k/ http://revealedtech.com/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_smile.gif
Apple Explored 4K Video Distribution in 2013
No comments:
Post a Comment