Alfred Poor Says HDTV Manufacturers are Hurting (Video)

The last time we talked with Dr. Poor (who is now a Senior Editor at aNewDomain.net), we ran out of time and didn't get around to discussing 3-D and ultra-high-def TV and whether they're worth buying. So here he is again on the Slashdot TV screen (which is *not* high-definition), talking about the TV marketplace. This is a perfect time for that discussion, since Dark Friday is only a few weeks away, and after that we move into the month during which TVs and a lot of other items sell at a lot higher rate than they do during the rest of the year. If you're thinking about buying a new TV for yourself or as a gift this holiday season, you might want to listen to what Dr. Poor has to say on the subject before you do.

Comments

pointless

[Xicor]

theres no point in buying a 3dtv or a 4k ultra resolution tv when you cant watch anything on it with either... televesion is at best 1080p, and you can only get fake 3d tv. if you want to watch a 3d movie, you have to pay extra. if you want to stream movies, dont even think you will get 4k resolution any time soon. even if you could find something online with 4k resolution, you wouldnt be able to stream it without a gigabit internet connection.

Re:pointless

[neurojab]

4k is indeed pointless, unless you literally have a full size movie theater in your house. How in the world can anyone make out individual pixels at 1080p on a reasonable screen size without getting right up to the screen? It's physically impossible.

And as for streaming being able to provide 4k before disc-based formats - HD streaming is good, but not close to blu-ray quality today at 1080p/24. This is due to bandwidth constraints. How is increasing the resolution going to help improve the bandwidth?

I would rather like to have a 4k desktop monitor (because I do sit right next to it), but I would not pay more for a living room TV that has 4k (because I don't).

Re:pointless

[Anonymous Coward]

who do people like you fail to realize that when you look at a TV picture you're not seeing pixels, you're seeing light emitted from those pixels, and that light interacts with all the light from the surrounding pixels to project an image on your retina. just because you can't see an individual pixel does not mean that more, smaller pixels don't produce a more pleasing/realistic image. there are a lot of other important physical phenomena and interactions happening at tiny scales between all the photons that you're not aware of. it's the same with people who argue that a 44.1kHz is the best sample rate for audio because you can't hear frequencies above 22kHz. there are interactions and harmonics beyond just the audible range that shape the overall sound of music. do you really think that 100 years from now we're still going to be watching 1080p video with 16-bit 44.1kHz audio?

Re:pointless

[wooferhound]

theres no point in buying a 3dtv or a 4k ultra resolution tv when you cant watch anything on it with either... television is at best 1080p, and you can only get fake 3d tv. if you want to watch a 3d movie, you have to pay extra. if you want to stream movies, dont even think you will get 4k resolution any time soon. even if you could find something online with 4k resolution, you wouldnt be able to stream it without a gigabit internet connection.

You already own content that can be viewed on a 4k TV. I'm sure that your Photo Camera pictures are much higher resolution than 4k and would come alive on a 4k television.

Re:pointless

[Waffle Iron]

this is true, but there is no 4K media yet

Nonsense.

My TRS-80 was displaying images exceeding 6K back in 1978.

Re:pointless

[TWiTfan]

The problem is that too many manufacturers got addicted to the phat cash they made during the transition from SDTV to HDTV, and thought the gravy train was going to last forever. So the last few years have been one attempt after another (120Hz, "Smart" TV's, 3D, 4K, etc.) to recapture that magic (and those profits). They're not satisfied making the modest money they made during the later SD era, with people occasionally replacing worn-out or broken TV's. They want the BIG MONEY they made in the early-mid oughts when everybody was running out to buy a new big-screen HDTV.

Re:pointless

[stdarg]

4k resolution is about 8.3MP so you're closer than you think.

Re:pointless

[TechyImmigrant]

>What I don't understand is why music is mastered in 96KHz or 192KHz and we're not even getting 48KHz digital distribution yet

So that a low phase distortion rc filter can be used to remove the super-nyquist components before sub sampling.
You don't need more that 48KHz for playback. There is no benefit.

Re:Transcripts? Summary?

[SydShamino]

See the "Hide/Show Transcript" link just under the video?

Re:"Dark Friday"?

[VortexCortex]

The article mentions "Dark Friday" but links to a wiki page called "Black Friday". What is that about?

Many people refused to support the shopping event "Black Friday" on the grounds that it is racist towards people of other skin tones. The pollitically correct term is "Dark Friday", which is on the eve of "Darkie Weekend" during which most people don't have to work and can just laze about on their porches like monkies.

3d

[Antipater]

One of the things about 3D is that the consumers have shown that they are not particularly interested in spending a whole lot more money in order to get 3D. And the installed base is growing but it is not growing fast enough to support the development projects by the broadcasters and the content producers. ESPN was singular for being way out in front on developing 3D content especially for live sports coverage. And they have actually pulled the plug on a lot of that activity now because I think, in part, they are just not getting the viewership for it.

Smart observation. But then...

And it is just a matter of time in my opinion for the installed base to get to the point where people are going to be able to take advantage of it and will want to take advantage of it,

WRONG CONCLUSION.

People do not want 3dtv. The market research shows this clearly, as he himself states. Then he does a 180 and starts pushing 3d. The fact that it's baked into every TV on Best Buy's shelves (for a significant markup, of course) is NOT A GOOD THING. Maybe TV sales wouldn't be so damn bad if TV manufacturers didn't keep trying to shove every damn bell and whistle in our faces for an extra $100. Just give us a big, pretty screen. That's all we want. No cameras in our TVs, no 3d, no internet bullshit. If I want internet on my TV I'll plug my computer into the HDMI port. If I want a camera I'll plug in a camera. If I want 3d I'll...wait, I'll never want 3d, because it's retarded.

Re:Dark Friday?

[slew]

Why so gloomy sounding? Why can't it be called A Mix Of All Colors Friday?

If you work in retail (as opposed to actually owning a retail establishment), maybe you might wish for a dark friday...

Dark Friday: a Friday when the staff is taking the day off and the establishment is not open (normally only applied to a Play or Show)
Pink Friday: a crappy album made by Nicki Minaj
Red Friday: (US/CA) support the troops (UK) July 31, 1925, british coal miner labor union celebrate winning a temporary government backed minimum wage
Orange Friday: (US baseball) support the SF Giants day
Big Yellow Friday: Children's liver disease foundation awareness/fundraising day
Green Friday: a social reform movement
Blue Friday: support law enforcement officers KIA
Purple Friday: (US football) support the Minnesota Viking or Baltimore Ravens
Black Friday: (US) the day after thanksgiving (which is always on thursday) many business goes from "red" to "black". This follows the tradition of accountants to use black for non-negative numbers and red for negative numbers. (UK) April 15th 1921, the day the Triple Alliance chickened out and called off a strike that would have supported british miners in their fight or minimum wages (see Red Friday)

Thank God it's Friday: oops that was a day early, it's only thursday.