PDA

View Full Version : Is it possible that we will see Full Ultra HD TVs and Content in the near future




mrmarts
Sep 26, 2013, 08:38 PM
I did not know where to post this question seeing its related to home theatre, it seems logical to ask it here. So without further ado here is the question.

For those earlier adopters who are getting Ultra HD TVs, will they likely feel the burn of full Ultra HD TVs and content in the near future?. For example when HD came out it was out for years with little content much like now, but when physical media (blu ray) emerged the TVs were reintroduced in full HD any thoughts.



linds15
Sep 26, 2013, 10:08 PM
i see the biggest problem (ignoring price) being that most people don't care enough anymore to constantly update their media. i remember going from vhs, to dvd, to blu ray, not with netflix and streaming rentals, alot of people are fine with lower quality for convenience. there will be those that only watch blu ray of course, and they will move on to 4K. this leads to less of an incentive for content creators to make the transition, resulting in a longer time for mass content availability.

just my thoughts

HobeSoundDarryl
Sep 26, 2013, 10:33 PM
Unlikely. A consumer standard must be pinned down usually manifesting as a format war (which is typically more about which patents are going to be THE patents behind a new "bag of hurt"). Is there any standardized format for Ultra content established yet? Not really. Some think H.265 could be it but even when that is fully in place, that's only one part of a consumer standard.

Getting an Ultra TV on a shelf is relatively easy. It's the content distribution that will be a mess. That takes a lot of time and it doesn't seem like anyone is taking that very seriously. Once we hear about the standard or, more likely, competing standards, it will be some time before product starts arriving in meaningful variety. Then the format war must be fought so only the early adopters will pay up for hardware that will be about 80% cheaper in just about 4 years (later).

Over-the-air? The 1080i/720p HD standards were established in 1986. It then took about 15 years for much over the air HD to start showing up and until about 2006 before it started feeling like it was beginning to take over for the former standard. Even if an ultra standard for over-the-air was established today, I wouldn't expect the over-the-air solution to come for another 10-15 or more years (if ever).

Cable/Satt? Again, step 1: establish a standard. step 2: make a lot of content available in that standard. Cable/Satt are just pipes. Need Step 1 & Step 2 before you even try to push all that fatter data through those pipes.

Figure out where the variety of ultra content is going to come from and then how it's going to be packaged for consumers to buy. Then, add about 10+ years for those decisions to potentially become mainstream reality.

Michael CM1
Sep 26, 2013, 11:58 PM
There is almost literally no point in more than 99 percent of the public upgrading a TV to Ultra HD. It's still costly as hell, and I know people who STILL HAVEN'T GONE HD. Yeah, I know.

The benefit going from SD to HD was also easily clear to anybody who saw it. But with Ultra HD, you're going from really high quality to really really high quality. It's the whole Retina display argument. If HD has enough pixels in whatever size TV so that your eye can't distinguish between them, what good does an Ultra HD set of the same size do? I see some of these new Android phones bragging about more pixels per inch. What good does that do aside from reducing your battery life? If I can't tell the difference between 250 and 350 ppi without putting the phone two inches from my eyes, it's really pointless.

The real benefit is for people with really huge TVs. If you have a 100-inch projector, you can benefit from UHD. But the market for that is REALLY tiny.

As far as content, especially through iTunes, don't count on it being widespread soon. iTunes just started selling 1080p content a couple of years ago, and it still just has Dolby Digital 5.1. Assuming UHD eventually catches on, I'm guessing iTunes would sell videos at that resolution -- for an extra cost.

linds15
Sep 27, 2013, 12:25 AM
post above me has a BIG and absolutely right point on size. unless you're going to 80" and up the difference is minimal. nobody is going to need that for their bedroom/kitchen tvs, and very few would even have use of that as a main size.

hd not only brought much better quality going from SD>HD (that HD>UHD) won't provide, but it also came with low profile technologies, where it was easy to stick a plasma or lcd on the wall of a bedroom and not have it take up half the room.

Michael CM1
Sep 27, 2013, 03:20 AM
post above me has a BIG and absolutely right point on size. unless you're going to 80" and up the difference is minimal. nobody is going to need that for their bedroom/kitchen tvs, and very few would even have use of that as a main size.

hd not only brought much better quality going from SD>HD (that HD>UHD) won't provide, but it also came with low profile technologies, where it was easy to stick a plasma or lcd on the wall of a bedroom and not have it take up half the room.

Of course it's right. I typed it! :D

I've seen so many reviews about these bigger Android phones that make some hay about how there are more ppi than the iPhone. If the whole Retina display argument is true, and I haven't exactly heard it debunked, then it's just more pixels you can show off by jamming the thing in your eye. I worried about the iPad looking not as good with a Retina display because it has a lower ppi, but you can't tell a darn difference.

There are plenty of things that can improve pictures. OLEDs can give us darker blacks with the power saving and thin profiles of LED. Motion smoothing is very helpful, although I read an article not too long ago about companies faking refresh rates with fun little tricks to make people think something is better. I know my 120Hz Samsung looks a lot smoother than the previous TVs I have owned.

I think Ultra HD might have a future, but not anything immediate as a mainstream thing. Hell, Blu-ray hasn't even received full adoption yet. For some reason the electronics makers haven't come up with some plan to kill DVD. Stop making DVDs, offer trade-in programs for DVD players and give away BD players to those people. Stop messing around with DVDs and you'll find savings to knock prices down on BD.

I've already pretty much switched to buying HD from iTunes because of the iCloud convenience, especially with the iOS 7 update. There's not a very easy way for me to loan videos to a friend for X days without doling out my account info, but it's getting closer. If Apple fixes that and just requires an Apple TV box, boom.

UHD has a much better future than 3-D. As I mentioned, the bigger TV displays can benefit from it. As more people get projectors and displays get made that are really thin enough to be just wall art, it makes sense. It could also make sense for projections in theaters, because I don't think they have quality like UHD. I could be wrong on that.

Anyway, I'm wagering that because iTunes, Amazon, etc. have decent delivery mechanisms, UHD will be delivered digitally. I don't think a BD exists that will work in current players to play that much video, and you see the trouble 3-D has. It's only getting players out there because it's pretty much added in without cost on the player end.