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

iPad Pro 4K HDR is all the rage when Will Apple catch up ?

T

TheRealAlex

macrumors 68040
Original poster
Sep 2, 2015
3,024
2,306
I feel like Apple is in a time warp. When 4K TVs are below $999 or less and they are releasing devices that can't really take advantage of that resolution.

The iPad is the second most used device I have to watch movies sometimes I watch them first on iPad and if they are very good again on my big screen.

And in short movies in 4K And HDR are revolutionary. Enjoying colors and depth previously unseen.

So Apple has an opportunity with the iPad Pro line to really make it that must have movie watching device by launching an updated version with 4K and HDR. I would buy it a second. So would millions of consumers.

But there's also a huge secondary market, which are professional Hollywood production monitors used when movies are filmed and in medical settings.

I feel like Apple can dominate this aging sector with a high quality iPad Pro 4K HDR Display that color accurate or adjustable. And possible offer some adapters for camera equipment used by doctors and or film crews.

https://pro.sony.com/bbsc/ssr/cat-medicalproducts/cat-medicalmonitors/

https://pro.sony.com/bbsc/ssr/cat-monitors/cat-videoproduction/

In any case even if the sizes need to be bigger I feel like this is the sector Steve Jobs had his eyes on taking over with an Apple made Televsion Monitor powered by Apple TV brains, before his passing. Except now no one has the guts or manhood, to take a bold step.
 
Doesn't the 9.7" iPad Pro feature a DCI-P3 display already?

Caveat, switching to higher 4K display resolution would require larger assets and bigger storage. I don't think having entry level at 32GB is gonna pass muster anymore even for primarily streaming usage.
 
How exactly is it " all the rage"? 3D was "all the rage" 5 years ago and NO ONE GAVE A CRAP. This is going to wind up the same way. Theres barely Any 4K content let alone HDR.

So lets say Apple gets up on stage and says "the iPad now has a 4K screen" What exactly can you do with it??? They already paraded the iPad Pro being able to edit two streams of 4K video but that was met with luke warm responses.

Also when you get into viewing distances 4K on a tablet offers very little noticeable difference unless you are less than a foot from the screen. Human vision has its limits. Even for regular viewing distances in a living room at around 10 ft, you'd need a 100+ inch 4K tv to see that much detail.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Newtons Apple and steve62388
jonnyb098 said:
How exactly is it " all the rage"? 3D was "all the rage" 5 years ago and NO ONE GAVE A CRAP. This is going to wind up the same way. Theres barely Any 4K content let alone HDR.

So lets say Apple gets up on stage and says "the iPad now has a 4K screen" What exactly can you do with it??? They already paraded the iPad Pro being able to edit two streams of 4K video but that was met with luke warm responses.

Also when you get into viewing distances 4K on a tablet offers very little noticeable difference unless you are less than a foot from the screen. Human vision has its limits. Even for regular viewing distances in a living room at around 10 ft, you'd need a 100+ inch 4K tv to see that much detail.
Click to expand...

I disagree with the first part of what you said. There is a substantial amount of 4k content on Amazon and Netflix. Enough that, for me (I don't watch a whole lot, and definitely not daily) everything I seem to watch there is 4k. Youtube has a lot of content in 4k as well. I do agree that 4k on a TV does not always look entirely different than 1080p, but HDR does look WAY better.
 
DaveOP said:
I disagree with the first part of what you said. There is a substantial amount of 4k content on Amazon and Netflix. Enough that, for me (I don't watch a whole lot, and definitely not daily) everything I seem to watch there is 4k. Youtube has a lot of content in 4k as well. I do agree that 4k on a TV does not always look entirely different than 1080p, but HDR does look WAY better.
Click to expand...
Fair enough. But I still think the content wont ever be there and even if it is not enough for people to care. Most people cant accomodate more than a 50-60 inch TV in their homes which is no where near the size needed to even see a difference. People wont be flocking to pick up 80, 90, 100 inch TV's to put above their fireplaces at $3-5k a pop.
 
  • Like
Reactions: rui no onna
TheRealAlex said:
I feel like Apple is in a time warp. When 4K TVs are below $999 or less and they are releasing devices that can't really take advantage of that resolution.

The iPad is the second most used device I have to watch movies sometimes I watch them first on iPad and if they are very good again on my big screen.

And in short movies in 4K And HDR are revolutionary. Enjoying colors and depth previously unseen.

So Apple has an opportunity with the iPad Pro line to really make it that must have movie watching device by launching an updated version with 4K and HDR. I would buy it a second. So would millions of consumers.

But there's also a huge secondary market, which are professional Hollywood production monitors used when movies are filmed and in medical settings.

I feel like Apple can dominate this aging sector with a high quality iPad Pro 4K HDR Display that color accurate or adjustable. And possible offer some adapters for camera equipment used by doctors and or film crews.

https://pro.sony.com/bbsc/ssr/cat-medicalproducts/cat-medicalmonitors/

https://pro.sony.com/bbsc/ssr/cat-monitors/cat-videoproduction/

In any case even if the sizes need to be bigger I feel like this is the sector Steve Jobs had his eyes on taking over with an Apple made Televsion Monitor powered by Apple TV brains, before his passing. Except now no one has the guts or manhood, to take a bold step.
Click to expand...

"Except now no one has the guts or manhood, to take a bold step."

What would need to happen if a woman were CEO?
[doublepost=1493675077][/doublepost]
AceFernalld said:
The Blu-Ray discs? Good luck viewing those on your iPad
Click to expand...

I think he meant Amazon Prime. You can rent shows that are Ultra-HD TV" or "Ultra-HD Movies.
 
4K is 16:9, how would that even work on 4:3 iPad? What resolution exactly are we talking about here?
 
Skika said:
4K is 16:9, how would that even work on 4:3 iPad? What resolution exactly are we talking about here?
Click to expand...
I guess it would have to be 4096x3072 because that is 4 times the resolution on a normal retina iPad now and is a higher than 4K just like the 2048x1536 is also high enough for 1080p
 
I don't think Android devices have these 4K HDR screens either (the upcoming Sony Xperia XZ Premium being the first to do so); why should iOS devices have them?
 
Newtons Apple said:
4K on an iPad would be a HUGE hog of resources.

Please, not on my new iPad Pro!
Click to expand...

nah, it would just use a little more space. (which could be somewhat compensated by hardware h.2.65 decoding). the ipad already plays back 4k content, it only scales it down (which takes more ressources). if you can't discern single pixels on an ipad, it won't make much of a difference if it's in a higher resolution. also, the ipad got a p3 color display, with a wide color gamut, so it's halfway there to hdr. now it just needs brighter display for the high dynamic range, but that's going to use more power...

there's not much hdr/wide color gamut-content out there (you can probably count everything amazon offers with your fingers, and there's netflix with a little hdr content, just in another standard), and there won't be in the foreseeable future, because it'll be hard to make a profit with it. bt.2020 is not really backwards compatible right now. maybe when the (more backwards compatible) BT.1886 standard gains some popularity, big companies will start to produce more wide-gamut content. there's also no accepted standard to how much nits your display has to have for hdr content (and it won't work well, if your footage is not color-graded to a certain dynamic range). it won't pay off for the studios to master a hdr/wide color gamut version (you probably have to re-color-grade every single shot, using the original files) for a niche within a niche market. that's why you only get movies like the lord of the rings in hdr. in short: there are not really established standards apart from 4k resolution. if you buy a uhd/hdr tv now, you can only hope that it will be compatible with future standards, chances are good, that the best you'll get is some hd-ready-equivalent.

it's very much theory in the post-production world as well, apart from some major players experimenting with it. sure, the cameras can do it, but most companies have not invested in a hdr-workflow yet - too many unknown variables. so, don't hold your breath just yet.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: JohnnyGo
Unami said:
nah, it would just use a little more space. (which could be somewhat compensated by hardware h.2.65 decoding). the ipad already plays back 4k content, it only scales it down (which takes more ressources). if you can't discern single pixels on an ipad, it won't make much of a difference if it's in a higher resolution. also, the ipad got a p3 color display, with a wide color gamut, so it's halfway there to hdr. now it just needs brighter display for the high dynamic range, but that's going to use more power...

there's not much hdr/wide color gamut-content out there (you can probably count everything amazon offers with your fingers, and there's netflix with a little hdr content, just in another standard), and there won't be in the foreseeable future, because it'll be hard to make a profit with it. bt.2020 is not really backwards compatible right now. maybe when the (more backwards compatible) BT.1886 standard gains some popularity, big companies will start to produce more wide-gamut content. there's also no accepted standard to how much nits your display has to have for hdr content (and it won't work well, if your footage is not color-graded to a certain dynamic range). it won't pay off for the studios to master a hdr/wide color gamut version (you probably have to re-color-grade every single shot, using the original files) for a niche within a niche market. that's why you only get movies like the lord of the rings in hdr. in short: there are not really established standards apart from 4k resolution. if you buy a uhd/hdr tv now, you can only hope that it will be compatible with future standards, chances are good, that the best you'll get is some hd-ready-equivalent.

it's very much theory in the post-production world as well, apart from some major players experimenting with it. sure, the cameras can do it, but most companies have not invested in a hdr-workflow yet - too many unknown variables. so, don't hold your breath just yet.
Click to expand...

You post hurt my eyes and quit reading about half way through it.
 
For myself the issue with content lies not in the resolution but other intangible factors. Such as re-encodes/transcoding issues with streaming content or televised content. Heavy use of built in TV processing, unmanaged colour profiles and input lag! Newly formed ports and standards, HDMI and Display Port have only just been finalised and we need to be displaying at 60Hz minimums or it's not worth it. Content Compression is variable, too high and even 4k looks worse than good 1080p! Streaming bandwidth is just not there along with WiFi speeds and hard drive speeds, compressed 4k is still huge but good 4k is HUGE and at the limits of older tech provided by third parties like your router etc.

I want to say you're right 4k is now, but it just isn't. I enjoy 1440p on youtube on my MacBook but 4k is just beyond needs unless you are 2ft from a massive screen! We all enjoyed VHS for many many more years than we have had with 1080p so far. I don't think the desire is there when 1080p looks so damn good. Apple isn't going to burden the user with a bad experience and massive data hits when NO ONE is complaining. Over time we'll get 4k and maybe HDR with it but I don't think it'll change anyones lives for the better until everything else catches up.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Skika
Two words: Power consumption.

Apple switched to low refresh IGZO display technology with the iPad Air to reduce increase power efficiency. All those gains allow iPad Pro 12.9 to get barely 10 hours of battery life.

Processing power isn't a problem. It's the power required for the actual pixels and backplane.

Of course Apple wants a 4K high PPI display in their iPad Pro. What manufacturer wouldn't? But it takes away from the power budget especially since a tablet display is big. OLED is the next milestone if Apple wants high PPI and large displays. We need to wait until Samsung, Sharp, BOE, JDI, and LG scale up manufacturing before it will be in iPad.
 
jonnyb098 said:
How exactly is it " all the rage"? 3D was "all the rage" 5 years ago and NO ONE GAVE A CRAP. This is going to wind up the same way. Theres barely Any 4K content let alone HDR.

So lets say Apple gets up on stage and says "the iPad now has a 4K screen" What exactly can you do with it??? They already paraded the iPad Pro being able to edit two streams of 4K video but that was met with luke warm responses.

Also when you get into viewing distances 4K on a tablet offers very little noticeable difference unless you are less than a foot from the screen. Human vision has its limits. Even for regular viewing distances in a living room at around 10 ft, you'd need a 100+ inch 4K tv to see that much detail.
Click to expand...
I understand how 3D didn't catch fire.. It's trying to simulate reality but has only the eyes and ears involved. Even the Oculus type stuff is a bit painful (makes me a bit sick after about 5 minutes), and the main thing is that it doesn't address the inner ear (balance) problem. When I ride a roller coaster, my inner ear knows that I am going up/down/round and round, and reports to my brain that what my eyes are seeing makes sense. On a 3D type display, it just doesn't work. Plus, for the last 60 years, all of the 3D movies have been "splat in your face/roller coaster" thrill rides.

OTOH, higher resolution is a better investment. I know that Retina was supposed to be the end of that, as the eye could not see dots smaller than the pixels on the retina display, but I (uneducated in the eyes, but have a scientific mind) in that I know I'm looking at a screen, and can tell the difference between a screen and paper. There are plusses and minuses to both, but the one thing that I know (even on my 5K iMac and 2 4K screens attached) is that you're right, the hardware hasn't caught up to it to render it more naturally.

I guess that's the whole point about this essay: We can mimic natural things, or things made from basic natural components (i.e. paper and pencil), but our minds know the difference, and that is the solution that needs to be solved.
 
  • Like
Reactions: JohnnyGo
Of course, a big question for Apple on this is what is the return on investment? Would implementing 4K create enough increased demand and sales to cover development costs and potentially higher unit costs? For myself, I would not pay a higher price for 4K support.
 
  • Like
Reactions: rui no onna
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