Why 4K Might Not Be the Best Way to Attract Consumers
- Thread starter starcentral
- Start date
every non industry person i've spoken to about 4K/UHD thinks it is a gimmick/gadget too. I took my dad into a Sony centre to see 4K in action and he just thought 4K meant a bigger screen, he couldn't see any discernible difference in image quality.
4K in the home will take a long, long time, if ever, to happen. imho
People are really not that keen to give up good money on an upgrade they can't see on a tv that fits their living room (eg, 40"). Maybe things are a bit differnet in the states, where houses are quite alot bigger than uk. Over here, having an 80" tv in a living room would be laughable.
4K in the home will take a long, long time, if ever, to happen. imho
People are really not that keen to give up good money on an upgrade they can't see on a tv that fits their living room (eg, 40"). Maybe things are a bit differnet in the states, where houses are quite alot bigger than uk. Over here, having an 80" tv in a living room would be laughable.
Don't all forget how much faster things are starting to come. (I'm only talking mainstream and don't bother counting 3D)
CRT was around for decades and although the TV's stayed the same res, computer monitors got better and better.
Finally Plasma and LCD came out. Started off small and got bigger and bigger faster and faster.
Started off at 100hz then went to 200, and i think Plasma went up and up faster and higher (Plasma has been around for a while, but not as long as crt was).
Then the LED LCD's came out a hell of a lot quicker than we went from CRT to LCD/Plasma.
The LED LCD wasn't out for long before that went 200hz and they put more more than just RGB in it. How long ago did the first LED's come out and how much were they? I don't know about the US bet we can get a 32" Samsung her in Aus for under $350 now (even less for lower brands).
Now we have got the OLED's and 4K coming out mainstream faster than we went from the others.
Video Tape was out for Decades. Then we went DVD. We have gone DVD to Blu-Ray a lot faster. Now we are getting the 100 GB Blu-Ray disc coming out to coincide with the 4k tv's.
I definitely don't need to mention to you all how fast the Cameras are changing!
(I'll say IMHO, because without doubt I'll be told I'm wrong)
CRT was around for decades and although the TV's stayed the same res, computer monitors got better and better.
Finally Plasma and LCD came out. Started off small and got bigger and bigger faster and faster.
Started off at 100hz then went to 200, and i think Plasma went up and up faster and higher (Plasma has been around for a while, but not as long as crt was).
Then the LED LCD's came out a hell of a lot quicker than we went from CRT to LCD/Plasma.
The LED LCD wasn't out for long before that went 200hz and they put more more than just RGB in it. How long ago did the first LED's come out and how much were they? I don't know about the US bet we can get a 32" Samsung her in Aus for under $350 now (even less for lower brands).
Now we have got the OLED's and 4K coming out mainstream faster than we went from the others.
Video Tape was out for Decades. Then we went DVD. We have gone DVD to Blu-Ray a lot faster. Now we are getting the 100 GB Blu-Ray disc coming out to coincide with the 4k tv's.
I definitely don't need to mention to you all how fast the Cameras are changing!
(I'll say IMHO, because without doubt I'll be told I'm wrong)
Barry_Green
Moderator
Those who are advocating a quick turnover, consider: the TV business is in the toilet. Sony is racking up horrific losses in their TV unit. Panasonic has either quit or is quitting. People in general are more concerned about making the rent and paying their skyrocketing medical insurance payments that are now required by law. (Not debating the politics of it, just acknowledging the impact on consumer spending patterns).
I don't think there will be a credit-financed rush to go adopting 4k TVs in record time. It just doesn't reflect todays reality.
I don't think there will be a credit-financed rush to go adopting 4k TVs in record time. It just doesn't reflect todays reality.
starcentral
Veteran
4k is a gimmick of course it is! Unlike HD which was never a gimmick really at all!
As Barry pointed out numerous times already there were at least 10 other reasons for consumers to go "HD" aside from actually being "HD".
4k screens will never have a lot of "reasons" going for it. Wrong place, wrong time. Sorry 4k.
Having said that I do expect a wider adoption of 4k screens in the commercial markets. ie. like lavish foyers and waiting lobbies and possibly dentists with deep pockets.
As Barry pointed out numerous times already there were at least 10 other reasons for consumers to go "HD" aside from actually being "HD".
4k screens will never have a lot of "reasons" going for it. Wrong place, wrong time. Sorry 4k.
Having said that I do expect a wider adoption of 4k screens in the commercial markets. ie. like lavish foyers and waiting lobbies and possibly dentists with deep pockets.
Surf it Mike
Well-known member
The are 2 discussions going here....
1) Will 4k penetrate the home as means of viewing ?
2) Will 4k or greater be used professionally for camera acquisition ?
The 1st point I couldn't give a toss about and as many observed, a long way out. Broadcast simply cannot deliver the bandwidth and I believe most probably never will. The real hope is digital download but this may well mean the end of TV as we know it ( a 20th century business model with already shrinking audience share ).
The 2nd point is already happening. Hence in the future most "new cameras" will have greater than HD capture (except maybe ENG/TV ) just to stay in the game & most definitely more DR in the mix . The old arguments about dataloads and *transcoding are diminishing. The only hold out is Avid & looks what is happening to their P & L's. Storage costs are likewise dropping through the floor. It is getting cheaper & easier to manage greater than HD acquisition by the day.
So IMO the question should not be about 4K viability, but about our own biases towards 4K or greater acquisition, in an ever changing 21st century production landscape.
*( transconding for daily's etc for feature workflows will still be needed )
1) Will 4k penetrate the home as means of viewing ?
2) Will 4k or greater be used professionally for camera acquisition ?
The 1st point I couldn't give a toss about and as many observed, a long way out. Broadcast simply cannot deliver the bandwidth and I believe most probably never will. The real hope is digital download but this may well mean the end of TV as we know it ( a 20th century business model with already shrinking audience share ).
The 2nd point is already happening. Hence in the future most "new cameras" will have greater than HD capture (except maybe ENG/TV ) just to stay in the game & most definitely more DR in the mix . The old arguments about dataloads and *transcoding are diminishing. The only hold out is Avid & looks what is happening to their P & L's. Storage costs are likewise dropping through the floor. It is getting cheaper & easier to manage greater than HD acquisition by the day.
So IMO the question should not be about 4K viability, but about our own biases towards 4K or greater acquisition, in an ever changing 21st century production landscape.
*( transconding for daily's etc for feature workflows will still be needed )
Bruce Watson
Veteran
Oh please. That's the same argument that was made about the transition from SD to HD. All the talent at the local news stations was all abuzz -- everyone was going to loose their jobs, only women 28 and under need apply, all that. Until they finally went HD. No one lost their jobs (indeed, locally to me the same people are all still working the news desks, except one woman who left one newscast only to resurface at a competing station a year later (probably a non-compete clause)). The only thing that changed tended to be the sets and the set dressing, which improved. And some of the news people actually got to gain a little weight -- they looked too skinny in HD after SD (remember the old adage that "TV adds 10 pounds"? True-ish of SD but not HD apparently).
Alpha Beta Omega
Veteran
I still have the last generation of Pioneer Kuro plasmas at home. I have no intention of purchasing a new TV set regardless of improved features or resolution. In a way streaming video has changed it all. Back when SACD and later BR came they were both to late. Today people watch video and listen to music in such a high procentage from streaming content on portable devices. That has changed it all. There's no demand these days for anything better by the consumer. But the industry certainly wants to sell you a new piece of hardware.
From a content producers standpoint, as we are, we want the things we do to look at their best by using the best equipment and post process we can mustard. Then again apart from cineplex I would reckon streaming is what can be expect as the delivery method. In that context 4k is less attractive and there are other things higher on the list.
I don't want to move into 4k to soon. Just as other new things I find it best to wait and see for a while until it matures.
From a content producers standpoint, as we are, we want the things we do to look at their best by using the best equipment and post process we can mustard. Then again apart from cineplex I would reckon streaming is what can be expect as the delivery method. In that context 4k is less attractive and there are other things higher on the list.
I don't want to move into 4k to soon. Just as other new things I find it best to wait and see for a while until it matures.
starcentral
Veteran
I only JUST replaced my 42" PLASMA from 10 years ago which was not even HD resolution, it was something around 1024x600 (not sure)!
Now that I only recently invested in a nice Sony 50" HD sceen (10 times cheaper than it was 10 years ago) I wouldn't replace it with a 4k screen even if it was FREE!
adkimery
Veteran
3D adds numerous technological hurdles (both in production, post and consumer viewing) that 4K does not. 4K doesn't require multiple cameras, special glasses nor induce headaches/motion sickness. If 3D could be achieved using a single camera, go through a regular post workflow be viewed by the naked eye and not cause adverse reactions in viewers we'd be seeing a lot more 3D.
Out of curiosity was your dad an early adaptor of HD? 'Cause right now I think 4K is in phase HD was back in around '04. Quite a lot has changed since the FX1 was the new kid on the block and the rate of change only accelerates.
Exactly. By 2018 or 2021 I think HD TVs will be getting phased out the same way SD TVs were. 5-8 years out is a long time in the tech world and everything is more tech than not these days. I don't think people will buy new TVs every year (or every other year) like smart phones, but we've seen more changes in consumer TV technology in the past 5 or years than in the previous 30. I mean, in 2008 Netflix started streaming a small number of titles in SD resolution to computers. Now we can stream HD content from Netflix, Hulu, Amazon, etc., on everything from smart phones to wi-fi enabled smart TVs and all of this is w/in the budget of a typical American household. It's incredible.
All the more reason for CE makers to push out something new to try and start and upgrade trend, no? And I'm not suggesting your Average Joe is going to go out right now and drop a large chunk of change on a 4K TV set. But in 5-8 years when their currently HD TV dies and they are in the market for a new set 4K will most likely be very affordable and could look like a better bang-for-your buck than 'just' an HD set (which I feel is a similar rational for many people when buying 1080p vs 720p even though they probably can't tell the difference).
I agree about broadcast which is why I said earlier that 4K will come via streaming. Sony already has a 4K streaming service and Netflix said it will start adding 4K next year. It will be interesting to see if the PS4 and Xbox One, both of which can do 4K, will help drive interest/adoption of 4K. The golden days of traditional broadcasting are already gone. B'cast won't disappear entirely but IPTV will permanently take away a chunk of the cable and broadcast business.
I feel like we've all got our cards on the table so how about in 2019 we all meet at NAB, revisit this thread and whomever was wrong about 4K has to buy everyone else a round. :beer:
-Andrew
starcentral
Veteran
; said:
Everyone keeps throwing this one around, but has anyone actually seen that in writing?
What I read is that NetFlix has LOOKED at adding it, but the problem is that only 15% of households have what it takes for delivery. Right now 4k delivery through Netflix is looking good for post production houses who already have the bandwidth in-house.
That doesn't make it viable for you or me.
Rishaar
Active member
Thomas Smet
Veteran
Yeah except as Barry points out who will buy it? Consumers don't have as much of an incentive to buy this time and they are not going to spend huge chunks of cash for something none of them will be able to see sitting on their sofa. 4k only really makes sense realistically with 50" or higher monitors. Yeah it really depends on viewing distance but the reality is that most people will not be sitting on top of their TVs like they do computer monitors. Since most people are fine in the 42" to 60" range it starts to make little sense for them to buy a 4k TV since they will hardly ever see the difference. Heck even for some people they can't tell the difference between a DVD or Blu-ray playing on their TV. How are they ever going to see the value in 4k? The economy is going to have to get a heck of a lot better for people to run out and buy into 4k. Just because manufacturers make 4k doesn't mean the public will buy into it. Honestly it must be a scary time for manufacturers. Should they or shouldn't they invest in 4k? If they do and it flops it could mean one heck of a massive loss to them. Enough to put some of them out of business.
Don't get me wrong I love quality like you wouldn't believe but I just don't see it having enough wow and convenience factor for consumers to get excited about it. Now if they can add some killer conveniences to 4k like flexible displays, paper thin and light displays that can be slapped anywhere or 4k displays that can follow you from room to room then perhaps consumers will feel like they have to have it. Or if 4k can skip the theatrical release and stream directly to a home theater on day one that may get consumers on board as well. I kind of hope not to see that however. It would really kill an era and cheapen cinema to such a sad point. Oh yeah just like the music industry and mp3 players.
My point is there needs to be a lot more than just extra pixels to sell 4k. If cool exciting features can be added then maybe it will take off faster. If not I agree with Barry that most consumers will have a who cares attitude. Manufactures will also never stop making HD displays as long as they sell. They will only stop making them when demand from consumers tell them they would rather have 4k displays.
Cory Braun
Well-known member
In between "looked" and "will" is "plan to": http://finance.yahoo.com/news/netflix-plans-launch-4k-uhd-171500822.html
For people who keep throwing the "3D is just a passing gimmick and 4k will be the same" argument in there. That just isn't right, and a big reason for that is because 3D you need special glasses and you need to have good vision in both eyes. You definitely can't be blind in one.
We will always need 2D, it would be discrimination to not have it. The same will apply to 4k and 8k and on. There will never be shows that are only in 4k. Analog is being phased out here in Aus, but not until you could get a set top conversion box for $25 (I think you can actually get Government Financial Assistance if you cant afford 1). That's why I didn't add 3D to my post earlier. It just isn't the same IMO.
We will always need 2D, it would be discrimination to not have it. The same will apply to 4k and 8k and on. There will never be shows that are only in 4k. Analog is being phased out here in Aus, but not until you could get a set top conversion box for $25 (I think you can actually get Government Financial Assistance if you cant afford 1). That's why I didn't add 3D to my post earlier. It just isn't the same IMO.
joe1946
Veteran
I could see men asking for 4K but I have yet to see any woman ask for HD let alone 4K and that is half the population.
Thomas Smet
Veteran
I really don't think stores will only carry 4k TVs. Stores will carry what sells and what consumers want. Sure they may try really hard to push a 4k model or two but they will never just stop selling HDTVs because the industry wants to push 4k. Even if some of them try it they would be taking a huge risk of not having any sales which could really hurt their bottom line. HD will only be phased out when consumers leave the HD sets on the shelves and stores see little reason to continue carrying them due to lack of sales. The only way any of this would make sense is if manufacturers start making 4k TVs for the same price point of current HDTVs. Not the price point four years but the price point today. Then if somebody has to choose over a $500.00 HDTV or a $500.00 4k TV of equal size then yes it would make sense but I doubt we will see that happen.