Amazon announces new Fire TV with 4K and HDR
theverge.com
theverge.com
Actually, that's a serious question. I'm looking for a box to recommend to a friend who's going to cut the cord. I think the Nvidia Shield will be better for them due to being real android tv, and because I have one and know the Android TV ecosystem better...
It looks like FireTV still doesn't have an easy way to install Kodi from the appstore, but requires that it be side-loaded.
And it looks like the Youtube app in the amazon app store is written by Amazon. The icon makes it look not not legit..
It certainly does, and the remote is awful. I'm very happy that there's a setting to completely turn that feature off (which I did in a fit of rage when the TV I had just purchased for $2000 showed me an advertisement without being connected to a cable box or antenna).
Kodi is great at file playback but the bring-your-own-hardware approach is a great way to spend movie night trying to fix a broken computer (a separate mysql backend is needed for multi kodi device sync... seriously?) I replaced my kodi boxes with rokus and plex and haven't looked back.
Roku has a nice app selection and the remote makes a huge difference in usability for non tech folks. Then again roku lacks a good built-in "airplay" feature so I have an apple tv to do that.
I'd recommend to your friend two devices. A Roku, and a device that they can "cast" from the mobile platform they use.
Amazon has chosen to support HDR10 but not Dolby Vision for HDR playback. On the audio side, the device offers Dolby Atmos integration. That’s an odd switch-around from Apple’s approach with the Apple TV 4K, which outputs both Dolby Vision and HDR10 but not the Atmos audio format."
AppleTV Atmos support is coming.
And I don't think the comparison is rough. Apple is trying to make the best TV box not the cheapest. They should never cut the price, instead they should fix their rough edges, including the remote. I have no problem paying an extra $100 for a TV box I'm going to use every night if it's UI is the best, and it's content offerings are among the best.
Wait, what? There's been a 4K Amazon TV for ages. If they're talking about the new frame-rate and HDR, that's not resolution, is it?
AFAIK, yes and no (respectively), strictly speaking. More fully:
Frame rate is temporal resolution.
HDR is increased range in luminosity, but does not (AFAIK) imply greater resolution in that dimension.
The dynamic range compares the highest signal level to the lowest level. Higher dynamic range implies higher resolution because if you hold the maximum output as a constant, one can resolve smaller signals with a better DR spec.
It doesn't? Dynamic range and resolution are directly related. Dynamic range isn't "range." This is why an HDR image has greater bit depth (more bits). Greater bit depth implies more resolution.
All things being equal, a system with higher dynamic range can convey smaller signals. More accurate information is able to be conveyed, which requires greater bit depth. There are even formulas for calculating the theoretical dynamic range of a digital system given its bit depth.
In the application under discussion, it's the ratio between the highest and lowest representable illumination level. This is, I think, very clearly “range” in the usual sense.
> Greater bit depth implies more resolution.
But it doesn't, in the same way that frame rate (temporal resolution) differs from run time (temporal range). Now, the difference is in the what the output device does with the data (since data intended to support one use could be interpreted and used for the other, with a 120fps stream played at 24fps with 5 times the runtime, or vice versa), not the representation format, but the whole point of HDR is representing wider differences in illumination, not resolving smaller differences between the same minimum and maximum.
I don't think the device will fail from hanging, as it's static, but it will almost certainly put strain on some varieties of HDMI connector, depending on orientation, and may be prone to falling out. One solution might have been an adhesive velcro pad to attach the device to the TV.
In any case, it's pretty impressive to offer 4K in a device a fraction of the size of the new Apple TV, and powered only from the HDMI port. Now all they need is more than a couple of dozen titles in 4K!
Looking at the marketing material, it’s clear Amazon is trying to make people think this and hope they’re not disappointed when they find out that, yes, they still have to plug it into the wall.
There’s only one tiny image on the product page [1] that shows the power cord coming out. Every other image is very careful to show it from an angle that makes it seem like the HDMI cable is the only cable.
There is text that mentions the power cable, but you have to scroll down pretty far (about 60% of the way down) before you’ll see it.
[1] https://www.amazon.com/All-New-Ultra-Remote-Streaming-Player...
It looks like they're now selling an ethernet dongle compatible with the new fire tv box...that has itself become a dongle. I think I may have been dongle Incepted.
UI fails are not limited to guis.
Yes it IS technicaly feasible to figure out that you are alone in your room and that you want to play movies on your default app + device. No strong AI needed for that yet.
Anyone try this new Dolby tech out yet in practice? Is it a meaningful improvement?
I'm starting to see Atmos in far more products and content now where it's going beyond early adopter territory, so I'm curious if it's a noticeable improvement, ala 4k.
After those... RAW video?
there is already HDR10+, which is an improvement on HDR10 so I imagine better HDR formats and displays will be coming.
35mm films can't really scan much higher than 5k/6k, so we might be reaching the limit on new formats fairly soon. Many digital films today are shot in 2k or 4k, or have effects mastered at 2k. I imagine that won't translate very well to an 8k screen vs just a 4k.