LIVEdigitally

Tag Archives: HDTV

Is there a market for Ultra High Definition TV?

Posted on by

Quick history lesson. From the birth of TV through the invention of cable TV and the VCR, picture quality was effectively the same. Along came DVD, which doubled the screen resolution to 480p, ooh ahh. Then along came HDTV with 720p. Then 1080i, and now we’ve “settled” on 1080p. Only we haven’t – the next two resolutions are already picked, they’ve been called 4K and 8K by the industry for a while, and just got fancy labels with “Ultra High Definition Television.” And much as I’ve always considered Blu-Ray a loser format, I believe the same fate is in store for UHDTV.

First, the picture quality is virtually imperceptible. I’m pausing for a second as rabid video engineers attempt to tar and feather me, but on a 50″ screen from about 10′ away, 4K looks roughly the same as 1080p – which, while I’m at it, looks roughly the same as 720p.  Unless you really really really know what you are doing, and really set up your room properly, and really have the right size TV for the distance from your couch, and really watch the right source material, and really really really – you get it.  But for most regular humans watching most regular TV (which, I might add, isn’t even being broadcast in 1080p – what? yes, it’s true – if you are watching TV, you are not watching 1080p. deal with it), your existing HDTV setup probably looks beautiful enough as it is.

Second, even if you can tell the difference, it’s not impressive enough. I distinctly recall watching my first DVD, and I distinctly recall my upgrade to HDTV.  Each were monumental shifts in resolution and display quality. It’s reminiscent of upgrading to a retina display iPhone/iPad. But then what? If the next shift upwards doesn’t bring the same “ooh, ahh” moment, it’s a resounding “meh” – and “meh” doesn’t sell new TVs.

Third, it’ll be perfectly timed for “higher quality format fatigue” to set in.  As I’ve described above, consumers already finished going to stores to upgrade to get to the promise of “FullHD” – which, again, generally isn’t even being broadcast in FullHD. Going from FullHD to UltraHD is just going to make folks wary, if not pissed.  Nobody likes to think their recent investment as worthless, regardless of the plummeting prices of flatscreens.  It’s too little, too soon.

Fourth, there won’t be enough content. Whenever 4K sets are available, and I predict it’s coming within 18 months, odds are really low that a corresponding broadcast source or streaming medium will offer 4K videos. Unless a huge back catalog of content is released at the same time, most of which doesn’t even exist at 4K resolution I might add, consumers won’t see a compelling reason to upgrade.

Fifth, streaming won’t support 4K into homes anytime soon, and physical media is dead, which means there’s not going to be 4K content anytime soon. Per above, no content equals dead format, and since we don’t really have the infrastructure in North America to support a wealth of content…

Sixth, and it’s a minor point, but how can you have two different standards with the same name?!?!? Consumers hate that stuff. Quit it!

Much as the MP3 killed high definition audio long before its time, I believe streaming video and a lack of perceptible difference will kill ultra high definition video long before its time.  My advice to the industry: slow down, you move too fast. I know you are losing money on just about every TV you sell, and I know that’s not changing anytime soon, but 4K in 2012/2013 is not your answer.

My advice to the industry at large:

  • Don’t launch without a huge content library.
  • Don’t launch without multi-brand support.
  • Don’t launch without an all-streaming solution.
  • Don’t launch too expensively.
  • Don’t launch with a negative campaign against existing HDTV installations.
  • Don’t launch til you have it all perfect.  You aren’t there yet.  Stay quiet until you do.

ps – sorry for the gross picture.  🙂

pps – to videophiles who want to nitpick with some detail I’m sure I got wrong – please do so constructively!

3 Things That Are Helping the Spread of Connected TV

Posted on by

Over at Mashable there’s a post entitled “3 Issues Hindering the Spread of Connected TV” and I couldn’t help but read it and say “well that most certainly needs a counterpoint.”  Actually I said something more dramatic but I tend not to type in pottymouth.  Anyhow, I couldn’t disagree more with the concept that Connected TV (aka Smart TV) is doing anything other than growing in a massive way.  Counterpoint begins… Now!

1. The Guts.

An HDTV set is much like a computer, with a “brain” inside that does HD decoding, processing, etc.  Only a few companies make said guts, topped by ATI, Broadcom, and to a lesser degree, Intel.  And all of those companies have effectively put WiFi inside the guts. And, the WiFi components are inconsequential to the COGS of making a TV (as opposed to 3D, which is actually costly to include). In other words – virtually every TV manufactured in the future will have WiFi built in, much like cell phones with bluetooth or laptops with webcams.

2. The Content.

I’m not even going to bother finding a link to substantiate the following statement: literally every day the amount of online content made available and consumed increases.  Since content is king (and queen, knight, and even rook), and the offering of content directly to Connected TVs (aka Over-The-Top or OTT) is increasing, the inherent value of having a Connected TV is increasing constantly.  And, unlike 3D where title availability can be measured in numbers that my 4-year-old can count, even non-techie folks know there’s a ton of stuff to watch online.

3. The Infrastructure.

Let me phrase this bluntly: every single player involved in the TV space is pushing for Connected TVs.  Cable companies, TV manufacturers, content owners, startups, advertisers, retailers, game consoles, etc are all betting on it, and betting big.  Google, Microsoft, and Yahoo all have platform offerings for manufacturers to use.  Intel, Best Buy, Netflix, and Amazon are putting amazing resources out there to get consumers aware of the products.  Apple? Yes. In fact, I’d be hard-pressed to find a major player in the (roughly) Two Hundred Billion Dollar industry that we call television who is not playing ball in some way, even if just in trials.

Since this post is a rebuttal, I’ve kept my list to three.  I’m pretty sure it could go to twelve (thought I was going to say eleven, didn’t you?), but that’d be unfair.  I will acknowledge it may take a decent amount of time to get consumers to actually go through the hurdles of connecting these devices, but that’s not going to slow down the products themselves.  In fact, that piece alone is just one of the many, many opportunities ahead in Connected TV.  That and fixing some of the amazingly terrible interfaces virtually all the companies are offering consumers.  And better control.  And better content.  And improved social.  And… well, maybe there’s a few good startups left to build, eh?  🙂

ps – blogging feels good, glad to stretch the muscles.  I’m back baby!

How Blu-ray Can Avoid Failure

Posted on by

Just read David Carnoy’s piece on “9 reasons why Blu-ray will succeed“.  I like David, but I couldn’t disagree more with his post (though not the individual points, as you’ll see below).  And since (as of yesterday) it’s feeling like we’re in a free country where I can say what I want (again, at last), I’ll run through my counterpoints really quick:

  1. “Digital downloads will not eliminate the need for discs anytime soon.” – I agree, but this doesn’t point to Blu-ray success.  Despite the rise of downloadable/streaming content, people are still buying disks.  But for how much longer?  I think even people who’ve never heard of things like Hulu are aware that the inevitable next step of content acquisition is file/stream based, not physical media (though they’d probably not use those words).
  2. “Having one clear standard is a big advantage.” – agreed, it’s called “DVD”.
  3. “Blu-ray isn’t going to be replaced by another disc format anytime soon.” – agreed.  In his post, David references a piece that compares early complaints of DVD to current complaints of Blu-ray.  In this example, the more apropo statement is “just like CDs, DVD isn’t going to be replaced by another disc format anytime soon.”  Er, wait, hang on – I’ll go fire up my SACD player!
  4. “Prices for large-screen HDTVs will continue to drop.” – agreed.  But with an estimated third of the country already on HDTV sets, their amazing-looking upscaling DVD players aren’t about to get replaced.  Key here – there is not a dissatisfaction problem, in the slightest, with current content.  There was with VCRs.
  5. “Prices for Blu-ray players will continue to drop.” – now we’re talking!  Buuuuut, I still don’t see people rushing out to get them, even at $99 or $49.  There’s no incentive to do so, and (as I’ve said before) consumers do not purchase new technology just because it’s cheap.  In fact cheap Blu-ray players might cause as much negative enthusiasm as positive (“this thing was, like, $399, like, only last year!  they must be, like, doing badly, like, or something. dude. like.”)
  6. “Prices for Blu-ray discs will drop to near DVD price levels.” – see previous point.  Plus, people just aren’t into replacing their existing DVD collection.  Check the Amazon Blu-ray home page. I see deals for… wait for it… The Scorpion King 2.   End of Days.  Miami Vice (ooh, director’s cut!).  I think I’ve seen these titles in the $6.99 bin at Walgreens.
  7. “Sony will sell lots of PlayStation 3 game consoles.” – will they?  Not from what I’m reading…
  8. “Sony can’t afford to have Blu-ray fail.” – they also can’t afford to not be the #1 plasma vendor.  Oops, too late.  They also can’t afford to make terrible terrible laptops that have industry folk lamenting about constantly (yeah, I went there, but you kinda knew I would).  Oops, too late.  They also couldn’t afford to have UMDs fail.  Or memory sticks.  Or mini-discs.  Oops too late.
  9. “Sony and its partners will figure out a way to have Blu-ray resonate with the public.” – and, no.  Sony’s being run by a team stuck in the 1990s, still hoping somehow Morita’s coming back.  He’s not.  And his replacements are just utterly out of vision.  They let Samsung, LG, and a suite of other no-names take over the consumer electronics industry, and the best branding they can come up with today to sell me a plasma is based on deception.

So what’s to be done for dear old Blu-ray?  Is it as dead as I prognosticate, or no?  I think the best step is to change our expectations and mindsets on it.

People are buying buckets full of Blu-ray disks.  They are available for rent by every major company, and all the new top films are coming out on Blu-ray.  So if the definition of “success” changed from “Blu-ray will replace DVDs as the dominant format of physical media and we will have Blu-ray players in every home” to something more like “Blu-ray will be the last form of physical media consumers adopt, it will get adopted by enough of the population to show profitability, but will always be perceived as an also-ran” then we’re doing okay.

More than 80% of US homes have DVD players.  Put the target for Blu-ray around a third of that, tops, and then we’ve got a win on our hands.

Explaining the "Digital Transition" and Review of the RCA ANT1500 Antenna

Posted on by

I recently had a phone interview with Lou Lenzi, Sr. Vice President, Product Management with Audiovox Accessories and he gave me the statistic that 13 million homes in the US currently use an antenna to receive television signal to their main TV. Then there is another 6 million that use and antenna to receive signal to one or more of their extra TVs. Lenzi explained that people have TVs in the spare bedroom, basement, or out in the garage, all fall into this category. That means that come February 17, 2009, there will be about 13-16 million TVs that will stop working unless some actions are taken. Some of you are saying 13 million plus 6 million is 19 million, but there are some small markets that are not required to kill their analog signal.

For those of you that want answers to every digital TV questions, here are some resources. DTVanswers.com, DTVtransition.org, and here is a video created by CEA that explains everything. For everyone else, here are the basics.

There are 2 different OTA (over the air) TV broadcasts. NTSC (National Television System Committe) and ATSC (Advanced Television Systems Committee). There is no such thing as a HD antenna, all antennas can pick up the ATSC signal, or the NTSC for that matter, it is just that the rabbit ear antennas aren’t able to pick up a strong enough digital signal. Each of the signals need a tuner to correctly interpret the signal for the television.

Everyone that has an older TV with a rabbit ears antenna, will have a couple options. The first is to pony up the money and pay for cable or satellite service on the TV. If you want to keep on receiving free television, your next option is to purchase a newer TV that comes equip with a digital (ATSC) tuner. If you want to keep your old TV, you will need to purchase a converter box that has a digital tuner. With both of these free TV options you will also need to purchase an antenna that is built for the ATSC signal, and is strong enough to receive the signal in your location.

For all of the options above there are some pros and cons. First of all, anytime an antenna is used there is the possibility of what is called “drop off”. Meaning, if the signal drops too low for the tuner to display the TV picture, the picture freezes or skips. There is no fuzzy picture that happens, which is the case when the analog (NTSC) signal is not strong enough. If you don’t have the correct antenna for your location, this problem may occur many times during a show or game, and become very annoying. The big bonus of using an antenna for HDTV is that the OTA signal is uncompressed. So if you receive a clean signal with no drop offs, you will have the potential for the absolute best picture possible, pending your TV display. If you decide to go with cable or satelitte, you will receive a 100% uninterupted signal (unless you have Comcast, but thats another issue all together), but the picture could be highly compressed. You will also be paying a monthly fee, where as with the antenna, HDTV and/or converter box, you will just be paying a one time fee. Finally, most of the indoor antennas are bulky and pretty much the eye sore of you entertainment center. Enter the RCA ANT1500.

RCA ANT1500 Photo 1 RCA ANT1500 Photo 2
Front view of the RCA ANT1500

 Front view of the RCA ANT1500
with DVD case for size reference
RCA ANT1500 Photo 3 RCA ANT1500 Photo 4
Top view of the RCA ANT1500
with DVD case for size reference		 Back view of the RCA ANT1500
with DVD case for size reference

This new antenna from RCA is a compact, multi-directional, HD optimized antenna. With its small, form factor, you can lay it flat on top of entertainment center, hang it flat on the wall behind your TV, or in theory, stand it upright on a shelf.

Before anyone goes out and purchases an antenna to use with their digital tuner, they should check out AntennaWeb.org. Here you can type in your address to see what channels should be broadcasted in your area, and what type of antenna you should be able to use to receive them. After you find out what antenna you should be able to use, I would purchase one at a retailer with a good return policy, in case the antenna doesn’t work quite as well as you’d like.

I live in an apartment near O’Hare airport creating 2 factors that are big downsides for digital reception. AntennaWeb.org says that I should use a powered multi-directional antenna. I tested this ANT1500 with my ATI HD Wonder card in my PC, and a 24 in widescreen monitor. I loved how small and compact the antenna was, I was able to shove it in the corner, out of the way of all of my A/V gear. I just wish I could have kept the antenna in the corner out of the way, all of the time. In fact, I had to move the antenna between 2 different locations depending on the channel that I wanted to watch. I think if the antenna wasn’t hard wired with a 6 ft. coax cable, I would have been able to attach a longer cable, and find a single location farther than 6 ft away from my tuner, that would be able to receive all of the channels successfully. With the antenna in the correct location in order to get a good signal, I would still have “drop off” about 3-4 times in a 30 min program.

RCA ANT1500 Back Stand
RCA ANT1500 Back Stand

Besides having a hardwired coax cable, the only other design flaw is the “stand” that comes with the antenna. As you can see, there is a C shaped metal attachment that goes into 2 holes at the bottom of back of the antenna. The only thing is that, the cable comes out of the bottom as well. There is no notch or anything for the antenna to safely avoid bending at an awkward angle, making the antenna look like it is ready to fall over. I think the stand should have been thought about better, or just removed from the package altogether.

After reporting my not so awesome reception to AudioVox, they went ahead and sent me a Zenith converter box, saying it should work better than my HD Wonder card. Using the converter box was super easy, I connected the antenna to the box, and RCA cables from the box to my video and audio. The box automatically scanned for channels and was able to display programming details. Again, I had the exact same problems, needing to move the antenna between the 2 different locations, and 3-4 “drop offs” per 30 min program. My apartment might be one of the worst scenarios when it comes to digital reception.

If you live in a location where a non-powered multi-directional antenna will receive most of your channels, I highly recommend this antenna. Its small form factor is a huge plus in the world of antennas, because most of them are so darn ugly, and HUGE. Example A, B, C, D and E. Again, I would recommend trying the antenna out in your setup before you throw away your receipt.

I know some of you might be saying, with all this hassle of signal, and “drop off” why would I even want to bother with this whole HD antenna deal? As mentioned before, the two positives are no monthly payments, and uncompressed HD quality. But the real question is, whether or not either of those two are worth it, if your signal drops out every so often, especially during the big game. If you can receive a 100% free, crystal clear signal, with limited “drop offs”, I would say it is, for sure worth it. This digital transition, can be as costly or as not so costly as you want it to be. Hopefully this information can help you make the best decisions.

Wireless HDTV R&D Update: Tons of Spending, Tiny Market

Posted on by

Saw a thread on Techmeme this morning about wireless HDTV technology. Looks like some big companies are banding together to provide (yet another) wireless HDTV service. Over at Crave I read that while it’s a year away (read: 2-5 years away), it’ll be fairly low-cost, as in ~$100 (read: ~$500) per set to enable the technology. There’s also multiple competing standards, and as MG points out, two of the companies involved are participating in both platforms (updated: now both PCMag and Ars weigh in as well). This is a lot of big companies spending big budgets to build multiple technologies and standards in the space.

I ask “why?”.

Seriously. What’s the point here? So people can one day wirelessly stream video from a hard drive/PC in one room of their house to the plasma display in another room? Really? Don’t get me wrong, it sure sounds like a fun idea, and there’ll be some percent of the market willing to do it, but most definitely not the majority.

The other argument for it is just to have a short range, enabling me to “cut the cables” from my plasma to my HD set top box. Only one catch here: very few people will be willing to upgrade both their boxes and sets just to hide one cable, especially considering they still need the power cord! While the WAF is certainly a powerful force in every home, I don’t think anyone can argue that a plasma should be replaced to reduce a single cable.

I’m sure I’m missing some points here, but having spent the better part of 8 years working with organizations like UPnP and DLNA, it seems like neither the “connected home” nor “interoperability” are initiatives which win (ask Apple how interoperable the iPod is). There’s a lot of money being spent on R&D labs for this type of technology. Whenever it gets out of the labs it will need to go into *massive* testing before any cable company even considers distributing a box with new technology (ever wonder why it took Comcast 3 years to ship a DVR? it wasn’t a lack of technology, it was testing, and even then they still did a mediocre job with it). As a final point on the market opportunity here, just remember how well this must be testing in focus groups…

Would you like it if your plasma display worked wirelessly (not including power), and only cost $100 more?

Golly, sure I would!

Would you be willing to replace your cable box if you could get one that didn’t need any wires to hook up to your plasma?

Gee whiz, absolutely!

Anyone notice that the #1 seller of plasma TVs is not a participant here? Considering how well Vizio’s taken over the market, it seems pretty clear that customers are trying to save $100 by purchasing a brand they’ve never heard of before. But $100 for wifi HDTV streaming to/from nebulous devices with multiple standards? Yeah, that’ll happen.