https://www.macrumors.com/2012/01/23/apple-expected-to-adopt-802-11ac-5g-gigabit-wi-fi-this-year/
Maybe this is the answer.
Maybe this is the answer.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
There's got to be an 1080p ATV3 coming out
- Thread starter class77
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
But it's not about the specs... It's about the experience, right?
At least, that's what they always say when you try to talk phone specs... I figured it should apply here too, right?
Last edited:
Thanks! Great documentation! Now, my next question is this: on modern displays (say a 9G Pioneer Elite KURO display), can an educated viewer see a difference between the raw uncompressed signal from the source and the one which we see?
If you watching "the View" ...no
If you are watching a Sport event, Football, Soccer, stuff like that, or even fast moving movies, like car chases and lot of explosions (pretty much any Michael bay movie), then yes it will be noticeable
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
maturola, I wouldn't be as confident as you in that reply. You're are probably right. But his question was educated viewer looking at a quality (not cheap) consumer/prosumer HDTV. My answer would be: it depends on the compression.
You (Irishman) are asking about an uncompressed video signal vs. a compressed video signal on a great screen. Blu ray- as good as it is- is a compressed signal. Could an educated viewer tell the difference between fast-moving action in an uncompressed vs. blu ray compressed video? I'd say probably not.
Now, crank it up a bit more: how about uncompressed vs. iPhone 4s 1080p video? Again, I'd say probably not (but with less confidence than the blu ray scenario).
A bit more: Apple's compression choice for 720p applied to a 1080p signal. I'd guess probably yes to likely yes.
A bit more: Apple's 720p quality at 720p vs. uncompressed 1080p quality. I'd say very likely yes.
Irishman chimed in on the tired pro-(Apple)-720p argument tossed into this thread by someone else, which is usually cast as: "I'd rather have a good quality (of compression) 720p vs bad quality 1080p video" (which is always a "duh" argument by the way). However, in this thread, it was cast as "UNcompressed 720p vs a poor quality 1080p video", which is even more of a duh. Either way though, the implication is always the same: the arguer is suggesting that Apple will choose poor compression for 1080p versions of videos instead of choosing a good balance of compression vs. quality. That seems very unlikely.
Instead, Apple will more likely choose a good balance of compression vs. quality if they roll out 1080p videos. There's no rule that says a 1080p option for an iTunes store video MUST be encoded poorly. For all we know Apple might decide to use less compression than blu ray for 1080p video. That's just as viable as assuming poor quality compression before Apple actually rolls it out.
Now the questioning has evolved a bit: can the educated viewer looking at a great quality HDTV see the difference between uncompressed and compressed? While my answer is offered above, the best answer is that this is very much an eye-of-the-beholder situation. What's educated? How close or far are they from the set? Well lit room or not well lit? How well lit? Good eyes or bad eyes? What's good or bad eyes? What kind of video are they watching? Etc.
To some degree though, it's mostly an irrelevant question too. Nobody is going to be able to get uncompressed video for general purpose use. Nobody provides it in any consumer source. The real debate is what level of compression vs. what other level of compression, what resolution vs. what other resolution, etc.
My gut expectations are that the iPhone 4s 1080p video (and my guess that the iPad3's 1080p video) will be begging for an 1080p airplay channel to our 1080p HDTVs. I'm thinking with Apple embracing 1080p video in the iPhone 4s (and probably the iPad3- after all a >1080p iPad screen is not going to be maximized with upscaled 720p) begs for Apple to roll out a new set top box that can push that 1080p on to our HDTVs, not downscale it to 720p.
Will it also bring high quality or low quality 1080p compression in iTunes store videos? Who really knows? What I do know is that at one time SD video was the standard in the iTunes store. When Apple rolled out 720p, they chose to make it look good by not "over-compressing" it. I would think they would again choose to make their 1080p options look good by not "over-compressing" them too.
For us consumers, it's all WIN. Those happy with 720p should still be able to choose the 720p option- just like those happy with SD can still chose the SD option about 6 years after 720p was added to the store. Those waiting for 1080p can now join our little party too, selling more units which benefits Apple... and us. How (does selling more units benefit) us? More units flying into homes means more temptation for Studios to sell even more video via iTunes. All those movies/TV shows/etc we can't get now via iTunes will be increasingly tempted to show up if the masses embrace the little box from Apple.
You (Irishman) are asking about an uncompressed video signal vs. a compressed video signal on a great screen. Blu ray- as good as it is- is a compressed signal. Could an educated viewer tell the difference between fast-moving action in an uncompressed vs. blu ray compressed video? I'd say probably not.
Now, crank it up a bit more: how about uncompressed vs. iPhone 4s 1080p video? Again, I'd say probably not (but with less confidence than the blu ray scenario).
A bit more: Apple's compression choice for 720p applied to a 1080p signal. I'd guess probably yes to likely yes.
A bit more: Apple's 720p quality at 720p vs. uncompressed 1080p quality. I'd say very likely yes.
Irishman chimed in on the tired pro-(Apple)-720p argument tossed into this thread by someone else, which is usually cast as: "I'd rather have a good quality (of compression) 720p vs bad quality 1080p video" (which is always a "duh" argument by the way). However, in this thread, it was cast as "UNcompressed 720p vs a poor quality 1080p video", which is even more of a duh. Either way though, the implication is always the same: the arguer is suggesting that Apple will choose poor compression for 1080p versions of videos instead of choosing a good balance of compression vs. quality. That seems very unlikely.
Instead, Apple will more likely choose a good balance of compression vs. quality if they roll out 1080p videos. There's no rule that says a 1080p option for an iTunes store video MUST be encoded poorly. For all we know Apple might decide to use less compression than blu ray for 1080p video. That's just as viable as assuming poor quality compression before Apple actually rolls it out.
Now the questioning has evolved a bit: can the educated viewer looking at a great quality HDTV see the difference between uncompressed and compressed? While my answer is offered above, the best answer is that this is very much an eye-of-the-beholder situation. What's educated? How close or far are they from the set? Well lit room or not well lit? How well lit? Good eyes or bad eyes? What's good or bad eyes? What kind of video are they watching? Etc.
To some degree though, it's mostly an irrelevant question too. Nobody is going to be able to get uncompressed video for general purpose use. Nobody provides it in any consumer source. The real debate is what level of compression vs. what other level of compression, what resolution vs. what other resolution, etc.
My gut expectations are that the iPhone 4s 1080p video (and my guess that the iPad3's 1080p video) will be begging for an 1080p airplay channel to our 1080p HDTVs. I'm thinking with Apple embracing 1080p video in the iPhone 4s (and probably the iPad3- after all a >1080p iPad screen is not going to be maximized with upscaled 720p) begs for Apple to roll out a new set top box that can push that 1080p on to our HDTVs, not downscale it to 720p.
Will it also bring high quality or low quality 1080p compression in iTunes store videos? Who really knows? What I do know is that at one time SD video was the standard in the iTunes store. When Apple rolled out 720p, they chose to make it look good by not "over-compressing" it. I would think they would again choose to make their 1080p options look good by not "over-compressing" them too.
For us consumers, it's all WIN. Those happy with 720p should still be able to choose the 720p option- just like those happy with SD can still chose the SD option about 6 years after 720p was added to the store. Those waiting for 1080p can now join our little party too, selling more units which benefits Apple... and us. How (does selling more units benefit) us? More units flying into homes means more temptation for Studios to sell even more video via iTunes. All those movies/TV shows/etc we can't get now via iTunes will be increasingly tempted to show up if the masses embrace the little box from Apple.
Last edited:
There will be an APPLE HDTV that will have everything built in.
Also, Apple won't sell stand alone ATV2s or ATV3s because they want people to buy the HDTV instead.
iPhone 4S 64GB -
I disagree; while they may have an "all-in-one" television solution, they will continue to offer a standalone solution (potentially missing some features).
Another thing to bear in mind is that the successor to H.264 is coming out next year (called HEVC). A draft is supposed to be written this month with the final draft coming in the summer and final ratification in January. It's highly possible Apple has tuned their SoCs to be compatible. If so a 1080p with Blu-Ray quality would take up up ~10 GB which would make things very interesting indeed...
HobeSoundDarryl
macrumors G5
If people wont invest in a $100 AppleTV then what makes you think they'd go gaga for a 55" TV that will likely cost 30% more than a Panasonic?There will be an APPLE HDTV that will have everything built in.
Also, Apple won't sell stand alone ATV2s or ATV3s because they want people to buy the HDTV instead.
Im not saying Apple will never get into the TV market. I'm just saying that the AppleTV is an app store away from being mainstream so removing the standalone device from the market would only hurt them in the long run.
There has always been a market, however small at times, for premium televisions. It used to be Pioneer, Nuvision and Runco. Now, it's Sharp's Elite LED and Bang & Olufson.
A TV everyone else sold for $2999 4 years ago Pioneer sold their version of for $4999. I remember because I was shopping back then for a 50" plasma 1080p HDTV. Pricing ones self well above ones competition is not unheard of in the HDTV space, especially if one can make a clear competitive differentiation between you and the other guys.
That said, am I hoping for an actual, honest to god, Apple-branded HDTV? No. I just want a 1080p souped-up version of the hockey puck I have now, so I can rotate that one to bedroom duty on the 720p set there and marry 1080p signal with 1080p image in the media room.
I may not get that chance, since Apple is clearly pulling back the existing ATV2's from resellers like reverse wildfire.
We'll see in a week and a half.
My hope and prediction: a 1080p TV with an A5 (or A6) chip that does everything we all hope it will do...to the standard we expect from Apple...for $99. Maybe $199. Mirroring, streaming, everything will work. Second prediction: Apple has no reason to get into the television market right now. Samsung, Panasonic, Sony, etc. are doing just fine, and Apple, I believe, would only enter a market it could completely revolutionize. I can't think of anything that needs revolutionizing on a television that other companies aren't already addressing (look at TV tech announced at CES!). The two exceptions, which Apple has the potential to tackle (simplified control and an internet-only content option that's better than Netflix, etc), Apple can do with an TV. Apple can accomplish its rock-the-boat/change-everything-about-how-we-do-things trademark stamp on the TV industry with a simple, small box that everyone can afford. They don't have to sell a $2000 42-inch TV to do this.
Thoughts?
If apple wont be selling the 720p Atv2 after the new one comes out
Then the price of the new one will be $99 same price
Then the price of the new one will be $99 same price
There will be an APPLE HDTV that will have everything built in.
Also, Apple won't sell stand alone ATV2s or ATV3s because they want people to buy the HDTV instead.
Wrong!!!