Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

2013: Year of 4K?

H

hleewell

macrumors 6502a
Original poster
Oct 22, 2009
544
62
This selection of 4K You Tube videos convinces me that the time for 4K video processing could be nearer than you think :
https://www.youtube.com/results?cli...ube+videos&oe=UTF-8&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=w1


From a recent article by Legitreviews.com:
".. The good news is that the upcoming Intel Haswell based processors will support 4K through a single DP output or a normal HDMI connector and the CPU usage will also be less!..
http://www.legitreviews.com/news/14116/

And 4K videos will also look better on your 3 year old 1080p display, better than your crappy pixellated, low bit rate 1080p videos.
 
I have a 4K computer from 2002 (uses 4 display cards to drive the 22 inck 4K monitor, but it is 4K). Thought 4K was already hot back then :D.
 
4K is amazing, my Mac Mini struggles with 1080p video though, I'll have to upgrade just to see those YouTube clips :eek:
 
Could just barley run it on my base model iMac, 26% of CPU to spare.
20h6ljm.png


I'm all for 4k when prices come down, but for now the hardware can barley handle it. (think about all the people who are running Intel core 2 duos still) and the displays are wayyyy to expensive.
 
Nyy8 said:
Could just barley run it on my base model iMac, 26% of CPU to spare. Image

I'm all for 4k when prices come down, but for now the hardware can barley handle it. (think about all the people who are running Intel core 2 duos still) and the displays are wayyyy to expensive.
Click to expand...

This is a bummer. 4k runs so well on my Windows machines. Wish Apple could get their stuff together, though I know this is basically flash related. But why does Flash run so perfectly on Windows and Linux but so horribly on OS X?
 
TennisandMusic said:
This is a bummer. 4k runs so well on my Windows machines. Wish Apple could get their stuff together, though I know this is basically flash related. But why does Flash run so perfectly on Windows and Linux but so horribly on OS X?
Click to expand...

It ran fine on my late 2011 MBP... after I let it buffer enough. Though the fan kicked in to blast-off mode. I'll have to try it on my late 2012 quad core mini. Though I don't expect it to have any problems.

Edit: Yup, after it buffered, it ran fine.
 
Last edited:
Very cool while sitting in front of my 30" display. From my normal viewing distance to my TV - about 5 meters - I don't even really notice the difference between SD and HD though. That's why I keep buying DVDs - plus they are cheaper.

Download/Streaming speeds are also just getting fast enough for HD here in Europe. I don't want to wait ages to watch a youtube video again like I had to 8 years ago. So, no thanks.
 
opinio said:
You might find this link interesting.

http://au.ign.com/articles/2013/04/08/intels-next-thunderbolt-twice-the-speed-4k-video
Click to expand...

I have seen those unaffordable 4K displays that measures 80" -105" ay Harvey Norman, and the video quality destroys BluRay at close range. For normal living room viewing, 1080p still has it, and the difference is not that significant. But for desktop viewing, 4K displays is a must for those demand Retina-level quality.

----------
Mr. Retrofire said:
Where do you need 4K? Professionals use already 4K displays, and 95 percent of all consumers do not need this resolution, not even on a 27" display.
Click to expand...

For close-range desktop viewing. I agree the contents (internet, youtube) are not there yet
 
Tsuchiya said:
4K is amazing, my Mac Mini struggles with 1080p video though, I'll have to upgrade just to see those YouTube clips :eek:
Click to expand...
My 2011 i5 Radeon mini can play it without hiccups. Thing is, you need to put it on your disk first. Having Flashplayer in between makes things a bit complicated.
 
hleewell said:
This selection of 4K You Tube videos convinces me that the time for 4K video processing could be nearer than you think :
https://www.youtube.com/results?cli...ube+videos&oe=UTF-8&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=w1


From a recent article by Legitreviews.com:
".. The good news is that the upcoming Intel Haswell based processors will support 4K through a single DP output or a normal HDMI connector and the CPU usage will also be less!..
http://www.legitreviews.com/news/14116/

And 4K videos will also look better on your 3 year old 1080p display, better than your crappy pixellated, low bit rate 1080p videos.
Click to expand...


Sheesh, the videos looked incredible even on my 13" rMBP. About 30% CPU usage which isn't too bad, probably would be even less if it didn't have to scale the video for my display. I can only do 1800p, not 2160p!
 
Calling it the year of 4K is an overstatement.

More like The year where 4K became of public knowledge to the masses of non-geeks that never even realized youtube has been playing with it since 2010..

Seriously speaking, 4K should be not that much of a deal to play fine (on my old Core 2 Duo pre-Apple times I could play those 4k from youtube just fine... after the half an hour caching times haha) on the coming generations (and even current ones).
The biggest issue should be loading times, like chaosbunny mentioned (be glad you live in Europe, not South America :D).
I imagine a full fledge "dual layer 4k Bluray" should be along the 120 GB mark.

And of course then we have the "problem" of proper 4k-res screens. The ones unveiled this year at CES (I think?) costed 40k USD... hmmm.. what? It will be some time before the price will drop to be affordable to people other than Dubai's sheiks.
 
ipsychedelic said:
And of course then we have the "problem" of proper 4k-res screens. The ones unveiled this year at CES (I think?) costed 40k USD... hmmm.. what? It will be some time before the price will drop to be affordable to people other than Dubai's sheiks.
Click to expand...

Just a few days ago there was 50" 4k tv on sale for $1200. $200 less than I spent on my 1080p 40" sony a few years back.
 
Mr. Retrofire said:
Where do you need 4K? Professionals use already 4K displays, and 95 percent of all consumers do not need this resolution, not even on a 27" display.
Click to expand...

I am talking about iMac Retina. For 27" to go retina, it needs to even go beyond 4K. But it will be quite a while before it happens. However a 21" retina iMac with super efficient graphic card is achieve-able..now.
:)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back