3d tv.. or buy lcd tv?

tonyb · January 2010

MANSKITO wrote: »

my mistake i forgot about the under preforming super thin sets, how ever my point was that changing the display tech more so then ever higher FPS will lead to much better picture picture quality.

Not entirely true.... when you switch on the LCD to 240hz, which gives you, as you say, more frames per second, you lose alot of the finer detail in the picture. So you may have less motion blur for fast moving material, you get a less detailed picture. Who wants that ? I like the picture on Led's, they just need to work on the viewing angle thing. Plasma still has the best all around picture, no rainbow effect, no ghosting, no motion blur, and priced way cheaper than Led.

mystik610 · January 2010

MANSKITO wrote: »

my mistake i forgot about the under preforming super thin sets, how ever my point was that changing the display tech more so then ever higher FPS will lead to much better picture picture quality.

It really doesn't because the only difference between 120 and 240 hz and higher is the amount of frames repeated/interpolated. You aren't really getting any more frames per second. In a 60hz, 60 unique frames are displayed per second. In a 120hz set, 60 unique frames are displayed twice per second (but you see the same 60 frames). In a 240hz set, 60 unique frames are displayed four times per second (but you see the same 60 frames).

When frame interpolating technology is used, there is arguably some improvement going from 120 to 240hz, as twice as many frames will be interpolated. But that does not necessarily mean the picture will be twice as smooth, as the blurriness inherent in LCD’s has nothing to do with refresh rate and everything to do with response time.

Response time is more important than refresh rate. A plasma with a refresh rate of 76hz will produce a smoother image than an LCD at 240hz, without the need for interpolating frames. The response times on plasmas several times faster than even the fastest LCD.

LCD’s are prone to motion blur because they cannot twist quickly enough to flicker between frames and black frames to produce an image without blurring. These ‘motion-flow technologies’ mediate this by replacing the black frames with interpolated frames….an LCD can display an interpolated frame more quickly than it can display a black frame (completely block out the backlight). It’s a patch to a problem inherent in LCD technology. This is all coming from a 120hz LCD user btw (see my sig)

rcrook317 · January 2010

AeR0 wrote: »

can you really notice a diff from 120 to 240?

how clear is clear?! ive seen both,to the naked eye its pointless to debate this,i got 120hz to save the money.i dont see any motion blur @ all even watching sports,racing etc.

all these numbers are about d*ck measuring at this point

MANSKITO · January 2010

mystik610 wrote: »

It really doesn't because the only difference between 120 and 240 hz and higher is the amount of frames repeated/interpolated. You aren't really getting any more frames per second. In a 60hz, 60 unique frames are displayed per second. In a 120hz set, 60 unique frames are displayed twice per second (but you see the same 60 frames). In a 240hz set, 60 unique frames are displayed four times per second (but you see the same 60 frames).

When frame interpolating technology is used, there is arguably some improvement going from 120 to 240hz, as twice as many frames will be interpolated. But that does not necessarily mean the picture will be twice as smooth, as the blurriness inherent in LCDs has nothing to do with refresh rate and everything to do with response time.

Response time is more important than refresh rate. A plasma with a refresh rate of 76hz will produce a smoother image than an LCD at 240hz, without the need for interpolating frames. The response times on plasmas several times faster than even the fastest LCD.

LCDs are prone to motion blur because they cannot twist quickly enough to flicker between frames and black frames to produce an image without blurring. These motion-flow technologies mediate this by replacing the black frames with interpolated frames.an LCD can display an interpolated frame more quickly than it can display a black frame (completely block out the backlight). Its a patch to a problem inherent in LCD technology. This is all coming from a 120hz LCD user btw (see my sig)

thats in large part exactly what i have been saying, sorry if i was not clear i think any thing above 60fps is in large part just marketing BS.

MANSKITO · January 2010

tonyb wrote: »

Not entirely true.... when you switch on the LCD to 240hz, which gives you, as you say, more frames per second, you lose alot of the finer detail in the picture. So you may have less motion blur for fast moving material, you get a less detailed picture. Who wants that ? I like the picture on Led's, they just need to work on the viewing angle thing. Plasma still has the best all around picture, no rainbow effect, no ghosting, no motion blur, and priced way cheaper than Led.

sorry if i was not clear i think the DISPLAY TECH, plasma, LCD, OLED back light etc.. is more important.

cheddar · January 2010

MANSKITO wrote: »

well I didn't say wide spread adoption. All I'm saying is it will be available to those with the money (and the amount of money it coast will drop exponentially) and in some respects

http://www.kipnis-studios.com/The_Kipnis_Studio_Standard/Kipnis_Home_Theaters.html

it is already available today even to Home theater enthusiasts.
Moors law is not all i was talking about,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_Accelerating_Returns

Moors law and the derivatives has effected every part of your life from brushing your teeth to PC you use to type on this forum.

But no I don't think wide spread adoption will occur just that it will be much like 3D an emerging tech but in this case ready for adoption.

seeing as you can already buy a 4k set up, really the question is will how fast will the price drop occur?

I willing to bet faster then most think possible.

Well, widespread adoption leads to things like price drops because of economy of scale. If it's not adopted by the mainstream, then you've also got other problems to contend with besides price, most notably a lack of content as studios and broadcasters won't upgrade production infrastructure and produce as many shows and movies for something with low volume sales.

And something you haven't discussed is that the technology itself will present its own problems to 4k adoption. Even older digital 4k archival masters of movies shot on film stock have to have substantial clean-up and restoration before they look good on 1080p because of all the imperfections of the original print magnified by the increased resolution of 1080p. This restoration work is expensive and I would think be even more necessary for 4k playback. Again, without widespread adoption, available remastered content will be harder to find. And if they just dump the 4k archival copies to the market without the clean-up, they will look pretty bad compared to fully remastered 1080p content.

And if you think digitally shot films will look better, they are actually limited by current production equipment. It is my understanding that unlike analog film stock that actually has MORE detail than 1080p and only needs clean-up and remastering to look great on 1080p blu-ray players, films shot with digital cameras are actually limited in detail to whatever resolution they are shot at. So if a 1080p camera is used, that's the max level of detail contained in the source. And upscaling can only do so much for the image. They will always look inferior to a source that actually has a native 4k of information in the image. So I still think you're glossing over a lot of challenges for the adoption of 4k TVs and 3D.

MANSKITO · January 2010

cheddar wrote: »

Well, widespread adoption leads to things like price drops because of economy of scale. If it's not adopted by the mainstream, then you've also got other problems to contend with besides price, most notably a lack of content as studios and broadcasters won't upgrade production infrastructure and produce as many shows and movies for something with low volume sales.

And something you haven't discussed is that the technology itself will present its own problems to 4k adoption. Even older digital 4k archival masters of movies shot on film stock have to have substantial clean-up and restoration before they look good on 1080p because of all the imperfections of the original print magnified by the increased resolution of 1080p. This restoration work is expensive and I would think be even more necessary for 4k playback. Again, without widespread adoption, available remastered content will be harder to find. And if they just dump the 4k archival copies to the market without the clean-up, they will look pretty bad compared to fully remastered 1080p content.

And if you think digitally shot films will look better, they are actually limited by current production equipment. It is my understanding that unlike analog film stock that actually has MORE detail than 1080p and only needs clean-up and remastering to look great on 1080p blu-ray players, films shot with digital cameras are actually limited in detail to whatever resolution they are shot at. So if a 1080p camera is used, that's the max level of detail contained in the source. And upscaling can only do so much for the image. They will always look inferior to a source that actually has a native 4k of information in the image. So I still think you're glossing over a lot of challenges for the adoption of 4k TVs and 3D.

While it might be a while before i can watch Jurassic park or star wars natively at 4k or higher ress(maybe never) future content and source material will have no such limitations.

Think of it kind of like the shift from black and white to color, while black white movies can be given color and remastered to look better, generally the results are sub par to a film that was natively filmed in color and HD resolutions.

with the advent of the streaming video and 4k digital capture devices ever dropping in coast I don't see why if all other conditions are met (internet connectivity speed sufficiently fast enough, monitors of that ress becoming affordable etc...) why can't FUTURE sources be very well suited to 4k/3d?

Yes you are correct in saying that what ever ress a film is natively shot, at is the ress it will look best displayed at, however I don't know of a movie that was shot NATIVE at the comparatively low ress of 1920x1080(1080p). The thing about digital capture devices compared to film is they ever grow exponentially more complex and powerful (and this is important part) for the SAME amount of money. Aka a 500 dollar digital camera today will be exponentially out classed by a future camera at the same price point.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Hendys_Law.jpg

analog tech comparatively progresses EXTREMELY slowly.

In fact digital camera currently hold the world record for the highest resolution picture.

cheddar · January 2010

As I said before, I know change is coming. We just disagree about the timing. I'm just saying that 5 years is a pretty short time period for the type of industry changes you're suggesting from digital streaming, to network programming, to movies, to home theater. Especially when you use 4k and streaming video in the same sentence. A lot of infrastructure has to change before all this tech starts to work well together to deliver an affordable, well packaged product for the consumer all the way down the chain. Also that if you're predicting only a niche market that isn't widely adopted, then available content will suffer as not everyone is filming the next Avatar with the associated equipment.

And, world records aside, there are 2k as well as 4k professional digital equipment and mastering being used. And even prosumer (shaky perspective) cameras for cinematography.

bevo · January 2010

Get yourself a panasonic plasma and save 700-800$ and have a better picture then the LCDs offer. I have one and have never seen a better picture at anyones house I've been to. The only way I would ever buy another LCD(I own 2 of them also) is if it was a very, very brightly lit room. Some panny plasmas have a non reflective screen though so maybe I would look into one of those if need be. Really, don't pay more for an LCD when you can get a better TV by going plasma.

mystik610 · January 2010

cheddar wrote: »

As I said before, I know change is coming. We just disagree about the timing. I'm just saying that 5 years is a pretty short time period for the type of industry changes you're suggesting from digital streaming, to network programming, to movies, to home theater. Especially when you use 4k and streaming video in the same sentence. A lot of infrastructure has to change before all this tech starts to work well together to deliver an affordable, well packaged product for the consumer all the way down the chain. Also that if you're predicting only a niche market that isn't widely adopted, then available content will suffer as not everyone is filming the next Avatar with the associated equipment.

And, world records aside, there are 2k as well as 4k professional digital equipment and mastering being used. And even prosumer (shaky perspective) cameras for cinematography.

4k resolutions will be used to bring HD quality picture to large venues like movie theaters. The real successor to HD will be ultra HD or Super HIgh vision (8k resolution) which is in the works to replace HD by 2020. Some estimate that it could be commercially available by 2017, which seems feasible, when you consider the fact that commercial HD tvs' first hit the market in 1998 (almost 12 years ago).

tonyb · January 2010

Maybe sooner than we think, but manufacturers will have warehouses full of TV's that will come out before then. 4k is a huge jump, so I think it will be a gradual progression to get there,after all, they want to sell TV'S don't they ? There nuts if they think the public will go out and spend 3 g's every couple years for TV's. Unless of coarse, they make them to only last that long.

mystik610 · January 2010

Jumping back on topic, i went to Sony style to check out a demo of their 3d tvs' and personally don't think the technology will catch on. Having to wear the expensive rechargeable glasses is probably the biggest barrier to their wide spread acceptance. Couple that with the fact that material has to be specifically and meticulously encoded to support the 3d glasses and I don't see this really taking off. The effect was cool for awhile, but not really convincing....plus it stutters pretty badly and made me nauseous after a while.

i think the best way to emulate a better sense of depth is to use a higher resolution and possibly a higher NATIVE refresh rate....that is until something a holographic tv becomes a reality lol

slenap · January 2010

AeR0 wrote: »

any suggstions between 120hz and 240hz?
or even led?

i need a lcd upstairs b/c its a well lit enviroment.

Well, you can try take a look at some of the best LCD TVs based on their expert ratings. They may not be the latest releases but you can be sure that they're the best bang for the buck.

cheddar · January 2010

mystik610 wrote: »

commercial HD tvs' first hit the market in 1998 (almost 12 years ago).

Actually, the first HD panels started appearing in Japanese store fronts in the early 90s. With accelerated adoption in only the last few years, I don't think some people realize just how old flat panel HD tech really is. So roughly 2 decades later, it took an act of congress mandating minimum digital standards and shutting down analog TV to finally push the world into the digital HD age. And some people are still using digital tuners on old sets. I love using new stuff as it comes out. But I don't think realistically people will spend thousands of dollars to replace their TVs every few years either. I would love to see how well 3d transitions into actual home use now. But honestly, watching sports on TV wearing the glasses the whole game, getting nausiated would seem to get old fast.

cheddar · January 2010

mystik610 wrote: »

a holographic tv becomes a reality lol

They've already got that covered in prototype:

http://www.highdefdigest.com/news/show/Sony/3D/Sony_Boasts_360_Degree_Glasses-Free_3D/3631

Wonder what type of camera it will take to shoot a 360 3d event?

mystik610 · January 2010

cheddar wrote: »

Actually, the first HD panels started appearing in Japanese store fronts in the early 90s. With accelerated adoption in only the last few years, I don't think some people realize just how old flat panel HD tech really is. So roughly 2 decades later, it took an act of congress mandating minimum digital standards and shutting down analog TV to finally push the world into the digital HD age. And some people are still using digital tuners on old sets. I love using new stuff as it comes out. But I don't think realistically people will spend thousands of dollars to replace their TVs every few years either. I would love to see how well 3d transitions into actual home use now. But honestly, watching sports on TV wearing the glasses the whole game, getting nausiated would seem to get old fast.

10 years is a long time in the life of a product life cycle...it really isn't unrealistic to think that super hi-vision or ultra hd would start to trickle into the market within the next 7 years, with widespread adoption starting 3-5 years later.

To put things in perspective:

10 years ago most people were still on dial-up, listening to music on cd's, and dvd's became widely available.

20 years ago people were watching movies on VHS, cd's had just hit the market, windows 3.0 had just come out, and commercial internet was in its very early infancy.

cheddar · January 2010

I wasn't saying that 10 years is too long to see significant change. I don't want to understate what technology is capable of. I was just adding to the part of your post that I quoted. That the first commercial hdtvs appeared in 1998. I also agree that since many of these technologies discussed are just incremental changes to the current tech, that it should take far less time to bring them to market and gain acceptance than the initial digital TV push as much of it is backwards compatible like the blu-ray 3d stuff.

I just think when we start to think that consumer electronics will change as fast as the pc industry (where you can change out a graphics card with a screw driver and instantly boost your video performance or pop out the motherboard and put a whole new computer in there), it's a little unrealistic unless the CE companies dumped all their proprietary stuff and actually made their stuff more modular and consumer serviceable like PCs. The ps3's pop-out hard drive is a nice first step, though.

And the infrastructure problems like continued limited bandwidth for cable, etc. will continue to be a bottleneck for the predictions of quick elimination of physical media. Not saying it won't happen in 10 years. But I wouldn't overstate what technology is capable of, especially if we keep raising the requirements with the ability to stream 4k, 8k video whatever...

It is more than a little sobering for me to think that around 1993, while on a trip to Japan out of school, I was in the akihabara electronics district and noticed in store after store these huge flat televisions looping these sporting event videos. I was amazed at the clarity and detail that I'd never seen before. I couldn't wait for these sets to make it to the US to see actual movies and shows on them. Although I thought in my student mindset that I'd be too poor to afford one when they did. But if I knew it would be nearly a decade and a half after this...

mystik610 wrote: »

20 years ago people were watching movies on VHS, cd's had just hit the market, windows 3.0 had just come out, and commercial internet was in its very early infancy.

I don't think I would have been so worried...

MANSKITO · January 2010

My real ponit is thus, not only dose tech (OF ANY KIND) become exponentially more complex at the same price point over time, the rate at which said tech becomes exponentially more complex is also exponential.

"Exponentially exponential" http://www.kurzweilai.net/articles/art0134.html?printable=1

This growth is not limited to just the PC, this growth has happened to every single thing From automotive design to consumer electronics.

To think that the delta change in the world around you in the next 10 years will be any thing close to the delta change that happened in the last 10 years is amazingly foolish.

My long term prediction for the next 30 years of advancement is that our technology will beome so sufficiently advanced that looking at it from todays perspective it will be indistinguishable from magic.
(thats a semi quote C. clarke, yes I know he is a science fiction writer but science fiction of the past is todays science)

Honestly i can't wait for the future, but thats off topic.

Buy the best bang for the buck in tech, don't buy the latest and greatest. That gos for PCs and TVs.

cheddar · January 2010

MANSKITO wrote: »

To think that the delta change in the world around you in the next 10 years will be any thing close to the delta change that happened in the last 10 years is amazingly foolish.

I never made this statement. In fact, I just said the opposite in the post above. And if you're going to extend your change horizon to 10 years or 30 years, we really don't have a disagreement any more.

Except, of course, that sometimes economic reality throws a monkey wrench into things. We put a man on the moon how many decades ago? Your man Clarke had us at manned flights to Jupiter a decade ago. I know tech changes rapidly. Just that sometimes the practical intrudes on the possible is all I'm saying. And that it's often better to wait on new tech introductions until they 'beta' test them with consumers for a while. We probably agree more than you think we do.

cnh · January 2010

I have to agree with Cheddar here..and think some of you have been watching too many sci-fi films. The U.S. space program alluded to above is a great example of how ECONOMICS intrude and obstruct the woundrous development of brave new worlds...I'm one of those guys who was told we'd all be flying around in our cars by now...and that subsonic airplanes would be a THING of the past....how many SSTs are in the sky NOW.

What is the maximum air speed of a new BOEING...?

We are coping with billions upon billions of infrastructural upgrade dollars to get the kind of transmission speeds you're talking about in a period of time when the U.S. is nearly bankrupt! Who will buy 3D and super HD sets....the rich? It's a small, very small market...look at the TRAUMA the American public had and is still having over the digital transition and not even all channels are yet in HD??

Cheddar is right...we're supposed to have moon bases by now. Men on Mars. Cures for Cancer....a lifespan over 120...and increased intelligence and computer-brain interfaces..and so on. Where is all that?

Personally I'd settle for a supersonic transport or two because airspeeds in the new century are embarassing.

cnh

holt · January 2010

Absolutely as cnh succinctly sumed it up. Technology has not progressed as promise and another factor is the possibly long term change in consumer spending habits resulting from the economic downturn. Credit cards are not going to be buying those 3D TVS. Its a good time to buy used....

I can remember my expectations as a wide eyed kid in the 60's reading Popular Mechanics magazine and wondering how it would be today. Sure, I got a lcd tv, cell phone, and electic windows on my car, but its all a far cry from what was suppose to happen. I remember talking to someone after New Years Eve commenting on the fact that it was 2010 and nothing is as it was predicted to be.

dvran · January 2010

Get a nice Panasonic, Pioneer or Samsung plasma. Right now they are a steal and the picture quality is unmatched by LCD or LED.

3D will not take off in a while. Only ESPN and some other station want to start 3D TV soon but the technology is years away. Even if it was offered, it would be too expensive right now or even when it comes out in 3 years.

Another point is, you need glasses to view the 3D which is ghey. They cost about $100 each and can only be used with the specific vendors TV. Such as, your friends can't bring their glasses over to work on your TV.

mystik610 · January 2010

It should be noted that despite decline in economic activity we’ve seen in two years, sales of high definition TV’s have actually increased over the past two years. Economics will actually be the force that drives television technology to higher resolution and/or 3D displays. Display technology has gone a long way in just the past 5 years, as manufacturers are under constant competition from one another to feed an ever growing consumer demand for better picture quality. Consumer demand and economic efficiency is the force that drove the expansion of the market for HDTV’s despite the economic downturn….it’s the force that’s driving manufacturer’s to develop AMOLED and/or 3D displays in the very near future.

Consumers can appreciate and see the utility (no pun intended) in improving display techs, and the largest factor that inhibits the early wide-spread adoption of these technologies is price. As such, the latest display technologies initially appeal to a very niche market, but as prices fall (and economics teaches us that they will), the adoption of these technologies has increased/will increase in the market. This is in stark contrast to the market for high-end audio, where very few people appreciate and see the utility in improving audio technologies.

From a logistical issue the transition from 2k to 8k will undoubtedly be challenging, but not impossible. Getting over the analog hump and transitioning to digital was the hardest part. Going forward it’s a matter improving digital transmission speeds. 10 years ago we had just started reaching megabyte network speeds and look where we are now. Fiber optic networks and cat-6 cables are already widely available and capable of delivering gigabyte network speeds, so the infrastructure is certainly there. The demand is certainly there. The technology and the economic efficiencies are what need to catch up.

cheddar · January 2010

mystik610 wrote: »

It should be noted that despite decline in economic activity we’ve seen in two years, sales of high definition TV’s have actually increased over the past two years.

Interesting how you seem to ignore that the Feds only turned off analog TV last year and plenty of cable companies still support it despite all the 'new demand'. It was this looming transition that pushed many consumers over the edge to spend thousands of dollars on a new set. But also had the Feds bending over backwards to get all their digital tuner coupons out to people so there wouldn't be a consumer backlash against the change. It's no coincidence that everything ramped up just a year out from the digital switchover. And we're nowhere near 100% household penetration even at this point. As the last households that can afford to purchase do so, I wouldn't expect to go shake that tree too often to drum up demand.

mystik610 wrote: »

Fiber optic networks and cat-6 cables are already widely available and capable of delivering gigabyte network speeds, so the infrastructure is certainly there.

Again, you're ignoring the elephant in the room that high speed fiber often ends at nodes and it's plain old school copper in some pretty long runs to a lot of houses. These runs are at the limits of their capacity in many cases for current speeds. Now if you're the guy with a node in front of his house, then sure, it's possible to get much faster service. But I somehow think that economics will show up to ruin the show again by not being profitable enough to hook only that guy up. The technology can be there eventually, sure. But when you say infrastructure, you're talking about the actual physical cable network and supporting capital equipment that goes all the way to whatever device in the home is downloading your 8k stuff. And it most certainly isn't there yet to a large amount of homes.

mystik610 · January 2010

cheddar wrote: »

Interesting how you seem to ignore that the Feds only turned off analog TV last year and plenty of cable companies still support it despite all the 'new demand'. It was this looming transition that pushed many consumers over the edge to spend thousands of dollars on a new set. But also had the Feds bending over backwards to get all their digital tuner coupons out to people so there wouldn't be a consumer backlash against the change. It's no coincidence that everything ramped up just a year out from the digital switchover. And we're nowhere near 100% household penetration even at this point. As the last households that can afford to purchase do so, I wouldn't expect to go shake that tree too often to drum up demand.

Just because one group of people reject it, doesn't mean there isn't a market (demand) for it somewhere. Most people don't care for high end audio and spending hundreds, if not thousands, of dollars on audio equipment....yet you're here posting on this forum right? That's the whole concept of market segmentation.

People had been transitioning to HD long before the mandated digital transition took place, while many people were against it, most people benefited or were not affected by it.

cheddar wrote: »

Again, you're ignoring the elephant in the room that high speed fiber often ends at nodes and it's plain old school copper in some pretty long runs to a lot of houses. These runs are at the limits of their capacity in many cases for current speeds. Now if you're the guy with a node in front of his house, then sure, it's possible to get much faster service. But I somehow think that economics will show up to ruin the show again by not being profitable enough to hook only that guy up. The technology can be there eventually, sure. But when you say infrastructure, you're talking about the actual physical cable network and supporting capital equipment that goes all the way to whatever device in the home is downloading your 8k stuff. And it most certainly isn't there yet to a large amount of homes.

And 10 years ago, high speed internet wasn't available to most people either, but high speed internet providers saw the economic benefit of expanding their service, and what was once a very niche, luxury, kind of service, has since become the norm. Fiber optic internet is now being offered by most providers...the availability of such being limited to the proximity to a node (as you mentioned). They are working to expand the service though. They recently started the service in my father in laws neighborhood, and am expecting it to be in mine very soon. Cable internet has the same limitations, and overtime, cable internet providers have been able to overcome them.

Even if internet speeds aren't at a fast enough speed to support digital distribution of 4k or 8k media, there's still the old fashioned physical media distribution model. Current high definition media offerings (blu-ray) are doing just fine now, even though our internet speeds are fast enough to stream an uncompressed high definition video.

Economics can hinder technological process, but it more often encourages technological progress. Finance/Economics is one of the most powerful forces driving human progress. It creates monetary incentive for companies to improve the quality of the products and services they provide.

The market for high definition TV's will eventually become saturated and growth will start to slow. TV manufacterers are going to have to come up with the next big thing to keep consumers buying their products, and with all this talk of 3D TV's, AMOLED displays, and recent technologies like 120hz panels, you can just how high they're constantly trying to raise the bar.

cheddar · January 2010

mystik610 wrote: »

Just because one group of people reject it, doesn't mean there isn't a market (demand) for it somewhere. Most people don't care for high end audio and spending hundreds, if not thousands, of dollars on audio equipment....yet you're here posting on this forum right? That's the whole concept of market segmentation.

People had been transitioning to HD long before the mandated digital transition took place, while many people were against it, most people benefited or were not affected by it.

Never said there won't be a niche of early adopters that will buy any new tech. Heck, I'll probably give 3d a try at some point. Just pointing out that without the power of the federal government 'turning off' the main competing old school technology to digital, we'd be living in a dramatically different 'market' with a lot less demand for digital HDTVs, especially in this down economy.

mystik610 wrote: »

Fiber optic internet is now being offered by most providers...the availability of such being limited to the proximity to a node (as you mentioned). They are working to expand the service though. They recently started the service in my father in laws neighborhood, and am expecting it to be in mine very soon.

I'm not sure you understand me. The fragmented network with a mixture of new lines and old copper lines running along utility poles and underground IS what is being marketed as fiber internet in many cases. The monolithic 'internet' and other technologies that you describe to a large extent rely on very old infrastructure cobbled together with enough new links to just get the system working. It's not like the whole thing has gobs of excess capacity or cable companies and even the new IP TV services like ATT Uverse wouldn't need to compress the heck out of their HD offerings. Just like utility poles, there is still a lot of old school tech in the internet. And it will take the expensive guys in big trucks to change that. I wouldn't expect either to disappear anytime soon.

mystik610 · January 2010

cheddar wrote: »

Never said there won't be a niche of early adopters that will buy any new tech. Heck, I'll probably give 3d a try at some point. Just pointing out that without the power of the federal government 'turning off' the main competing old school technology to digital, we'd be living in a dramatically different 'market' with a lot less demand for digital HDTVs, especially in this down economy.

BUt when they turned off analog signals, they didn't force anyone to buy an HDTV set. People could have had a digital converter for practically free, yet many made the conscious decision to spend thousands of dollars on an HDTV as an alternative. The digital transition might have prompted them to buy an HDTV, but they still saw enough value in buying one to warrant spending thousands of dollars on a new set.

HDTV adoption had been growing steadily long before the digital transition, and would have probably grown at the same pace regardless of whether the digital transition ever occured or not.

mystik610 · January 2010

cheddar wrote: »

I'm not sure you understand me. The fragmented network with a mixture of new lines and old copper lines running along utility poles and underground IS what is being marketed as fiber internet in many cases. The monolithic 'internet' and other technologies that you describe to a large extent rely on very old infrastructure cobbled together with enough new links to just get the system working. It's not like the whole thing has gobs of excess capacity or cable companies and even the new IP TV services like ATT Uverse wouldn't need to compress the heck out of their HD offerings. Just like utility poles, there is still a lot of old school tech in the internet. And it will take the expensive guys in big trucks to change that. I wouldn't expect either to disappear anytime soon.

Point taken.

But that doesn't rule out the distribution of ultra high definition content via physical meda. Inadequate internet speeds haven't exactly hindered the adoption of high definition movies.

cheddar · January 2010

mystik610 wrote: »

Point taken.

But that doesn't rule out the distribution of ultra high definition content via physical meda. Inadequate internet speeds haven't exactly hindered the adoption of high definition movies.

cheddar wrote: »

And the infrastructure problems like continued limited bandwidth for cable, etc. will continue to be a bottleneck for the predictions of quick elimination of physical media.

I don't think we're in disagreement here.

I know early adopters will still go crazy for all this stuff, but for most of us, we will just slow down for a while and enjoy all the cool HD stuff we just bought. And, of course, aside from all the other constraints, there is also the most powerful force of all, WAF. If most people replaced their HDTV and player every time the next gimmick came out, the path to upgrades would be littered with the split heads of husbands who should have known better than to follow the rule of exponentially exponential...lol. Natural selection would make sure that didn't last too long...

cheddar · January 2010

mystik610 wrote: »

and would have probably grown at the same pace regardless of whether the digital transition ever occured or not.

This is sort of like saying if the government forced Intel to stop all production and sales, but you could have a starter AMD computer for almost free and a new AMD computer would be 3x as powerful, that AMD would grow at the same pace no matter if Intel was still in the market or not. If that's what you really believe, I suppose we'll just have to agree to disagree. It was an unprecedented gift to a fledgling technology courtesy of our federal government. I'm surprised you think it had so little impact. If Intel stayed in the market even with slower chips, but sold them cheaper, or marketed them differently, they could have done a lot to muck up the transition to AMD. Just like analog TVs would have done if there wasn't any penalty for continuing to buy and use them...

3d tv.. or buy lcd tv?

Comments