Breaking News
Blog

CES: Three reasons why Ultra HDTV is a non-starter

NO RATINGS
Page 1 / 2 Next >
View Comments: Oldest First | Newest First | Threaded View
Page 1 / 3   >   >>
DB85
User Rank
Rookie
re: CES: Three reasons why Ultra HDTV is a non-starter
DB85   1/6/2013 8:51:33 AM
NO RATINGS
The same arguments are made with every new technology before it becomes commonplace. UHDTV will eventually come down in price, and bandwidth will increase to accommodate hundreds of channels. And at some point we will look back on current technology, as we do now on the first generation of cathode ray TV's and Atari game consoles.

Bert22306
User Rank
CEO
re: CES: Three reasons why Ultra HDTV is a non-starter
Bert22306   1/6/2013 9:46:30 AM
NO RATINGS
I wouldn't be quite so negative, and here's why. HDTV is great. Pretty much everyone (finally) figured it out. And yet, even on small devices, look at the hype "retinal displays" have created. So forget about the narrative that the "average joe" can't tell the difference. Retinal displays are higher resolution than 1080p, and yet average people like this "retinal" stuff EVEN on tiny screens. What does that suggest about UHDTV on more sensibly sized screens, like 50" or less? All the naysayers were telling us how expensive HD displays would be. Nonsense, I told them. HDTV is meant for the masses, and prices in fact came down to less than fuzzy analog sets were going for, toward the end of their tenure. What really made HDTV practical, Junko, was not that the FCC mandated "digital." The point was, it was to be spectrum-compatible. Initially, HDTV was envisioned as some pathetic 6 channels exclusively over satellite. But when the FCC required it to fit in a 6 MHz channel, suddenly cable systems and over-the-air broadcasters could carry HD too. Well, if we're to believe what we're being told, the new compression algorithm called H.265, which is an evolutionary upgrade to H.264, which in turn was an evolutionary upgrade of H.262 (MPEG-2 compression), is supposed to be four times as efficient as H.262. So, unless there is hyperbole there (I wouldn't be surprised), this UHDTV will also be spectrum compatible, potentially available over cable and terrestrial TV just like HDTV is today. As to internet TVs, since those who knock them also ballyhoo the wonders of Roku or AppleTV, I can only conclude that logic isn't their strong suit.

Bert22306
User Rank
CEO
re: CES: Three reasons why Ultra HDTV is a non-starter
Bert22306   1/6/2013 9:54:42 AM
NO RATINGS
In case that last point wasn't clear, I'm saying that in principle, "connected TVs" cold be great, and people would love them. The fact that the CE vendors seem to be in bed with the cable systems, making their "connected TVs" ridiculously crippled, is another matter. Don't think that just because the ones on the market are dismal, this must always be the case.

Duane Benson
User Rank
Blogger
re: CES: Three reasons why Ultra HDTV is a non-starter
Duane Benson   1/7/2013 5:07:56 AM
NO RATINGS
I give it ten years. I'm not sure what the median purchased TV size is these days, but I'd venture that it's pretty close to 40". Back in the late '70s/ early '80s, I worked for a place that sold TVs and appliances. The standard big console TV of about 20" cost around $700.00. I delivered and installed those TVs in houses through a wide economic spectrum. That amount of money today would get you a lot of TV, even if you didn't consider inflation. I don't think cost will be an issue in the long run. It really depends on the availability of quality content. I've seen some 1080p images so mucked up by over compression that an old CRT could probably have bested it. If 4K comes off like that, then no. It won't take off. But my bet is that it will become the (or a) standard in the not too distant future. Of course, TVs could take a left turn into a different technological factor and blow my prediction. OLEDs may turn out to have such rich colors and such a wide dynamic range, but be too expensive to produce in larger sizes or higher resolutions. TVs could evolve in that direction for a while.

novatom
User Rank
Rookie
re: CES: Three reasons why Ultra HDTV is a non-starter
novatom   1/7/2013 12:54:19 PM
NO RATINGS
I'm with Junko on this one. The form factor (and price) was the number one reason HDTV succeeded, not the content (unfortunately). The majority of HDTV viewers still watch mostly non-HD content on their flat panels, even though so much of it is available. Many can't even tell the difference. The only time they might make the effort to get HD is in live sports and movies. I think most people are satisfied with the picture quality already. In order to really tell the difference, screen sizes have to be 60 inches or larger. At 84-inches, you're talking about a redesign of the American living room (higher ceilings for one thing). I doubt that will happen anytime soon.

rick merritt
User Rank
Author
re: CES: Three reasons why Ultra HDTV is a non-starter
rick merritt   1/7/2013 4:45:33 PM
NO RATINGS
"UHDTV = Romneyvision" I love it! I am still watching the equivalent of that Archi Bunker Philco...in color of course!

tb1
User Rank
Rookie
re: CES: Three reasons why Ultra HDTV is a non-starter
tb1   1/7/2013 5:06:21 PM
NO RATINGS
Hah! I remember when the first large flat screens came out for 10s of thousands, and I wondered who would ever buy such an expensive device. Buyers of these devices won't necessarily want UHDTV over the air or over networks, at least for a while. What we need is an Blu-Ray alliance to come up with a device that can play UHDTV movies. I think there are some things out there but I don't know if anything is standardized yet (something to look for at CES). Certainly, multi-layer Blu-Ray disks can hold enormous amounts of data. I also love the Romneyvision comment!

old account Frank Eory
User Rank
Rookie
re: CES: Three reasons why Ultra HDTV is a non-starter
old account Frank Eory   1/7/2013 5:22:18 PM
NO RATINGS
I strongly disagree with you on this one Junko. UHDTV isn't a question of if, it's a question of when -- and the "when" is likely to be a purely economic issue -- like when the price drops from $20,000 to $2,000. I don't suppose there is a law for increasing video resolution over time -- analogous to Moore's Law for silicon -- but perhaps there should be. The Broadcom guy was spot on -- "When consumers come to a store and see the wall of pictures, the best picture always wins." And the best picture of tomorrow will easily beat the best picture of today.

Duane Benson
User Rank
Blogger
re: CES: Three reasons why Ultra HDTV is a non-starter
Duane Benson   1/7/2013 5:40:40 PM
NO RATINGS
The other consideration can be wrapped up in a phrase I like to use: "There are features you can use and features you can sell. They aren't necessarily the same." Digital cameras, for example, have long past the resolution needed to be an equivalent to the typical snap-shot film camera. In fact, in most cases the lens of the inexpensive digital point and shoot isn't high enough quality to utilize all of that resolution. Smaller pixels also reduce low-light capability. In essence, if it were really about quality and performance, most digital cameras would have stayed at, maybe 8 Mpixels and focused on other aspects of the technology. I would say that when 3D first became available in consumer TVs, it fell into the "feature you can sell" category. Now it doesn't really fall into either. Resolution will definitely fall into the "features you can sell" category. Whether is also falls into the "can use" category is a different question.

junko.yoshida
User Rank
Blogger
re: CES: Three reasons why Ultra HDTV is a non-starter
junko.yoshida   1/7/2013 5:44:52 PM
NO RATINGS
Don't get me wrong. I hate being a naysayer myself and I would be the first to admit wanting UHDTV. And yet, I just wonder what else need to happen to get this thing off the ground---aside from giving it "10 years."

Page 1 / 3   >   >>
More Blogs
Intel recently gave a tour inside the workings of its latest graphics processors, and here is what analyst Jon Peddie found out about the x86 giant's latest GPUs.
The Arduino WiFi Shield 101 is designed to enable rapid prototyping of IoT applications on the Arduino platform.
Do you need to take your signals to the next level? What techniques do you use?
The state of the art has progressed spectacularly since early forays into FPGA-based prototyping, but there are still challenges to be overcome.
IoT companies need to provide a positive user experience that drives value, which is exactly the focus for home automation and business monitoring company GridConnect.
August Cartoon Caption Winner!
August Cartoon Caption Winner!
"All the King's horses and all the KIng's men gave up on Humpty, so they handed the problem off to Engineering."
5 comments
Top Comments of the Week
Like Us on Facebook

Datasheets.com Parts Search

185 million searchable parts
(please enter a part number or hit search to begin)
EE Times on Twitter
EE Times Twitter Feed
Flash Poll
Radio
LATEST ARCHIVED BROADCAST
David Patterson, known for his pioneering research that led to RAID, clusters and more, is part of a team at UC Berkeley that recently made its RISC-V processor architecture an open source hardware offering. We talk with Patterson and one of his colleagues behind the effort about the opportunities they see, what new kinds of designs they hope to enable and what it means for today’s commercial processor giants such as Intel, ARM and Imagination Technologies.