At the introduction of HDTV, the goals were more clear. We understood the drive for the convergence of display panels, broadcast, codecs, optical disk, media players, gaming consoles and camcorders. 720p/1080i was cohesive. That's not happening this time. The 4k products are coming, but without the synergy.
Why 4K Might Not Be the Best Way to Attract Consumers
- Thread starter starcentral
- Start date
adkimery
Veteran
There was synergy w/HD? I remember it being a typical chicken/egg problem with SD still being firmly entrenched while HD suffered a series of false starts. Not to mention an aspect ratio change, a plethora of new 'standards' in terms of frame sizes and frame rates and the switch from analog to digital broadcast happening at the same time. To me HD was a hot mess in the beginning but with 4K basically the only thing changing is size of the image.
-Andrew
-Andrew
Nektonic
Veteran
Yep, so far no 4K Ultra HD media format to take Blu-ray's place (let alone 4K streaming being common either). Also, Xbox One and PS4 are even struggling with putting out full 1080p games. Which shouldn't be that much of an issue since they are supposed to be much more powerful than the Xbox 360 and PS3. Of course, many of the games on those systems were not even full 720p either.
I predict four to five more years before 4K begins making any sort of dent in regular 1080p HD sets and Blu-ray. By then we should have some sort of 4K media solution for distribution (streaming or maybe the last physical media format after DVD/BR), as well as the successors to the Xbox One and PS4 looming on the horizon.
adkimery
Veteran
Both the Xbone One and the PS4 will output UHD video, they just won't do 4K games (I'd expect the next gen of consoles to last at least as long as the current gen). I agree that distribution is still very early in the development stages but Sony has a 4K streaming service and Netflix said it plans to start rolling out 4K streaming next year. I think too that we are at least 5yrs out from UHD/4K really going main stream.
-Andrew
Has PS4 / xbox1 announced UHD codec(s) support besides HEVC? How about XAVC or RAW? HEVC (H.265) is for now primarily hardware encoding for live and broadcast and PS4 is included in that plan for online streaming, but if lacking XAVC codec support (h.264) then file based 4k doesn't get supported at the rollout.
5 yrs out may be an accurate estimate for adoption of UHD into mainstream coexistence, but fundamentally it has a problem of justifying the need for more pixels matched with sales either for discriminating users who want large panel display sizes, or watch on smaller ones from very close. Already it's being pitted against HD OLED with many preferring the higher quality HD. If that drives the perception among consumers that UHD is not needed, the uptake is bound to be affected.
Bruce Watson
Veteran
I think smearing engineers, or any class of people for that matter, is just wrong. Pissing off engineers is counter productive; we need engineers to solve the problems.
Who knows more about the technology than the people who invented it? The people who build it? The people who design the factories, who design the machines in the factories? At least the engineers have a clue about what your "best aesthetic display" might translate to, might be able to quantify it, have a clue about how to make it happen, and have a clue about what the biggest bang for the buck is going to be to get your to your goal.
We didn't get plasma displays because an artist wanted it. We got plasma displays because engineers were trying to create the "best aesthetic display" they could, and plasma technology turned out to be scalable enough and inexpensive enough in quantity. The fact that plasma is being killed off isn't because it's not the "best aesthetic display"; one can certainly make the argument that for most applications plasma is still the best display technology. But LCD is sufficient in the collective mind of the marketplace, and cheaper.
adkimery
Veteran
That I do not know.
Are the companies making HD OLED sets the same companies that are/will be making 4K sets? Probably, as there aren't that many companies that make displays so unless there is 'format war' between HD OLED makers and 4K makers then I don't think a problem will arise. To help move HD adaption forward consumer electronics companies stopped making SD products and I think they'll eventually stop making HD products to help the adaption of 4K. Discriminating users don't make up a very large percentage of the buying population so my money is with the marketing departments and their ability to continually sway the masses that more is always better.
4K has none of the baggage nor technical short comings that 3D has so I see it (4K) as a much easier sell.
-Andrew
Thomas Smet
Veteran
The move from SD to HD was fueled by a heck of a lot more than just resolution and pixels. It was the move from analog to digital, it was the move to multiple channels compressed through a single pipe, it was the move from decades of basically the same format and standard.
Just like the move from VHS to DVD was more than just an issue of pixel quality. It was about so many factors to make the experience more enjoyable.
4k has none of that. It is just throwing more pixels at people without any of the exciting other benefits. All the other annoying issues with TV are now history for the most part. What is there to get the consumer excited? More pixels? Good luck with that sell. And the world wonders why TV manufactures have to start laying people off because sales are down. At least 3d was a somewhat neat thing for most people with a wow factor. Where is the wow with 4k? I can't think of anybody that will walk into a Best Buy and replace their already awesome 1080p display with something I doubt Best Buy will even manage to make look good in the store. If anybody does buy into it more than likely it will be because they were duped into it by some sales goon at Best Buy.
Companies are trying to push changes too quickly for consumers and they are losing massive amounts of cash because of it. Most people finally replaced their VHS collection with DVD and then a couple of years later were told to now replace that with Blu-ray. Now they will be told to move to 4k. Not going to happen very quickly and it will be a niche just like 3D for awhile.
Just like the move from VHS to DVD was more than just an issue of pixel quality. It was about so many factors to make the experience more enjoyable.
4k has none of that. It is just throwing more pixels at people without any of the exciting other benefits. All the other annoying issues with TV are now history for the most part. What is there to get the consumer excited? More pixels? Good luck with that sell. And the world wonders why TV manufactures have to start laying people off because sales are down. At least 3d was a somewhat neat thing for most people with a wow factor. Where is the wow with 4k? I can't think of anybody that will walk into a Best Buy and replace their already awesome 1080p display with something I doubt Best Buy will even manage to make look good in the store. If anybody does buy into it more than likely it will be because they were duped into it by some sales goon at Best Buy.
Companies are trying to push changes too quickly for consumers and they are losing massive amounts of cash because of it. Most people finally replaced their VHS collection with DVD and then a couple of years later were told to now replace that with Blu-ray. Now they will be told to move to 4k. Not going to happen very quickly and it will be a niche just like 3D for awhile.
Ryan Farnes
Well-known member
The cost difference is apparently significant. They shot Oblivion on the F65 and yet decided to do the VFX and release in 2K due to time and cost. This is basically a film project on par with any of the largest projects out there. I think a great deal more is at play beyond just processing costs and time, although you may be correct in assuming it is the largest consideration.
http://www.fdtimes.com/2013/03/29/claudio-miranda-asc-on-oblivion/ (just search "4K" on the page and the DP gives an answer addressing it)
adkimery
Veteran
Maybe I'm just jaded, but the same thing fueled it then that fuels it now... money. No one was demanding 16x9 HD, digital programming, TVs and camcorders in 2001 which is a big reason HD stalled out for so long. I mean, TV makers didn't stop making SD TVs due to lack of demand, they stopped making SD TVs so the only new TVs available would be HD TVs. The government mandate from analog to digital transmission was an opportune coincidence for the TV set makers.
IMO 5-8yrs down the road UHD will be as ubiquitous as HD is today.
Their awesome 37" 1080p TV playing stretched out 4x3 content with the 240Hz mode engaged and they are viewing it from a couch 10 feet away.
The masses buy based on quality they presume is there, not quality they can actually see.
Their awesome 37" 1080p TV playing stretched out 4x3 content with the 240Hz mode engaged and they are viewing it from a couch 10 feet away.
If that were true, then HD would have been adopted a lot quicker than it was, and Blu-ray would have made the DVD revolution look like a warm-up.
Barry_Green
Moderator
Don't forget that the transition from SD to HD also neatly coincided with the transition from gigantic, massive, power-hungry CRTs, to sexy, stylish, wall-hanging flatscreen LED/LCD TVs. I did a lot of research and looking into things during that time and came to the conclusion that most of the people who bought HDTVs, had no idea they'd bought an HDTV. They only knew that they'd bought a flatscreen. Of course, to some of them, that was inherently the same thing -- they didn't know the difference between "HD Ready", "HD Capable", 720, 1080, or SD... all they knew was that the screen was flat, and to them, that meant the same thing as HD.
adkimery
Veteran
There was no initial consumer demand though which is one reason it took so long. Just like there isn't any initial consumer demand for 4K which is why I think 4K will follow a similar arc as HD (including manufacturers ceasing to sell HD products in an effort to spur 4K adoption). Once the ball gets rolling though I think consumers will buy 'bigger, better 4K' sets because they'll believe the marketing info. Same reason so many rave about 'TrueHD' and call 720p 'fake HD' even though in a blind test (let alone in the average living room) I doubt very many people could ID which TV was 720p and which was 1080p.
Blu-ray was largely a victim of timing (and a format war). Take away streaming media and Blu-ray becomes a more successful platform. Conversely if streaming media existed when DVDs first hit the market then DVD, as format, would not have been nearly as successful.
I guess my overall point is I think 4K/UHD is coming to a living room near you no matter what because consumer electronics makers need to sell people on the 'next big thing' to stay in business, it's easily marketable on a lowest common denominator level and it doesn't have the technical hurdles that 3D has.
Sadly, I tend to generally agree with that.....
Though I'd have thought in the States the differentiation of SD being 4:3, HD 16:9 would have helped? I say that because in the UK, we went through quite a long period of SD 16:9 before HD became commonplace on the main channels, and that also meant some years with 16:9 CRT sets. (And the number of times in that period I saw a wrong aspect ratio picture you wouldn't believe.....
) What it meant was that digital transmission (and new transmission standards) and 16:9 came around well before HD was really viable. The consequence was that here a lot of people thought that HD broadcast would never happen - that digital i576 at widescreen was good enough, and having just established SD digital standards, there was no will to upset things again for HD. That was only about 10 years ago - it just seems a lot longer.My personal view about the future is that 4K sets will become the norm simply because of routine technical advancement. Similar to first "HD ready", then "full HD", and most recently 3D. They go through phases of "expensive novelty", then "command a premium", to "the norm". Such that now it's difficult to buy a largish screen that isn't 3D and full HD. So in a few years time most of the screens on display will be 4K capable - what anyone chooses to display on them is another matter. (As whilst most TVs now are 3D CAPABLE, not much 3D actually gets viewed on them.) 4K screens will be what the factories routinely produce.
I also agree with those who feel 4K displaynow is one thing, acquisition quite another. I think we will eventually see 4K delivery to the home of the main TV channels - though not for 5-10 years as a guess - but 4K acquisition will become mainstream much sooner. How soon will depend on the type of material and budget, and some types of programming will remain HD (and even SD) for some years to come. But at the high end of the market, the move to 4K acquisition is already happening. That trend is only going to go one way.
Last edited:
Bruce Watson
Veteran
Not in my experience. What drives the average consumer is convenience. Convenience is first, cost is second. If they think about quality at all, it's way off down the line somewhere.
starcentral
Veteran
Barry said it best.
Back in early 2000 I had tons of people asking which HD flat screen they should buy. ie. they were looking to get a flat screen and hang it on their wall and get rid of their 27" CRT's taking up space on the living room floor. People faced very difficult decisions trying to figure out if they needed the $10,000 Sony 42" or could just settle with one a bit "cheaper".
Given there weren't many networks broadcasting HD, an HD disc format war was going on (and players were $500), and there weren't really a lot of HD video sources at the time - I use to ask people what they were planning to watch in "HD" just to see them squirm.
Yep. I had a lot of fun back then.
Back in early 2000 I had tons of people asking which HD flat screen they should buy. ie. they were looking to get a flat screen and hang it on their wall and get rid of their 27" CRT's taking up space on the living room floor. People faced very difficult decisions trying to figure out if they needed the $10,000 Sony 42" or could just settle with one a bit "cheaper".
Given there weren't many networks broadcasting HD, an HD disc format war was going on (and players were $500), and there weren't really a lot of HD video sources at the time - I use to ask people what they were planning to watch in "HD" just to see them squirm.
Yep. I had a lot of fun back then.
Well, that's the point; if people bought on "quality they presume is there," then there would have been demand. Instead, people didn't see too much of an advantage over what they already had.
Unlike DVD, which had MASSIVE advantage over VHS, not having anything to do with resolution. It was all about convenience. And yeah, it was noticeably better -- though it did get stopped up when people panicked over widescreen letterbox bars.