If you need to explain to the public what they are supposed to see or hear it will not be a success. FM radio, stereo and 625 line TV are good examples of this. The public, who only had am radio and 78s at home, didn't even notice the Hi Fi (for its day) stereo surround sound when Cinemascope arrived and consequently it was soon replaced by the cheaper old optical mono system. No one cared enough to want to rush out and buy something new. Colour was the only exception, no one had to explain it, it was obvious. Everyone wanted it, all that held them back was the high price of TVs in the early days. 4K, HFR and wide gamut may excite engineers like me but the general public, no chance.
I highly doubt we will get any choice in the matter - 4k is coming whether we want it or not and will be included as default soon enough ...
But again, the same question for 4K TV enthusiasts: which UK broadcasters have announced that they intend to broadcast programmes to the specification of current 4K sets? And after that, to the spec. of UHD 1 phase 1?
Because until they come up with that committment and a start date, 4K TV is a failure in my book. 4K TV sets showing HD programming is HD TV not 4K TV. And if UK broadcasters go straight for UHD 1 phase 2, existing 4K sets will have been either a pointless flop, or at least a partial waste of money, depending on point of view.
If Sky think there is a market they will go for it but after 3D they might defer a decision for some time. There is nothing in it for the BBC, ITV C4 etc and they have just spent a vast fortune on HD, they are not beholden to far eastern TV manufacturers either of course.
"although most attendees succeeded in identifying the 4K Ultra HD TV, we have no idea of how they arrived at their conclusion. For all we know, it could have just been a fleeting shot which looked marginally sharper that clued them in, out of 30-odd minutes of video playback time per loop."
etc. etc.
A/B and side by side comparisons are irrelevant to domestic viewings, I'd be surprised after reading that link if most people would reliably know which of the sets they had installed if only one was installed - and they didn't go closer than that to find out. Not to mention all the people who watch from beyond 9 feet (like me) and those who would watch from screens below 55 inches.
UHD 1 Phase 1 should be dropped and the industry should get on with UHD 1 phase 2. Maybe that's what broadcasters will do anyway... can you name one UK broadcaster who has said they'll broadcast UHD 1 phase 1?
I'm puzzled why you would dispel the articles findings that 97% of attendees identified 4k at a HD distance, especially when you have the opinion 4k on a 4k tv will look better at normal HD distances than current HD.
Those viewing at 9ft and beyond with screens below 55" won't be getting the full benefit of HD, so presumably screen size vs distance is not important to them, those interested in getting the best out of 4k will adjust their environment to suit, as they do now for HD.
Currently the only provider that supports uhd1 phase 1 is Netflix.
4K, HFR and wide gamut may excite engineers like me but the general public, no chance.
"Most people" don't really give a **** about anything. They would be happy with 64kbps mono mp3s and SD colour TV. Look at DAB and Freeview: these people are well served!
But there's clearly a market for something better, even where a majority doesn't care. People make money from HD TVs, HD broadcasts, HD streaming and BluRay. People make money from quite decent stereo digital audio.
4K, HFR, HDR and wide gamut together is a huge step up from the ~6Mbps 1080i of the current "best" broadcasts. This combination should start to hit the high street in 4-6 years time. The people who care (not most people, but enough people to deliver a profit) will think "heck, that's much better than what I have at home now - if I can afford that, I want it."
The other thing people in the UK don't realise is that, in a lot of markets, HD is quite low quality. The Japanese and North Americans are still broadcasting it using MPEG-2. The cable companies receive that MPEG-2 source off-air and re-compress it. The results are often quite horrible. In these markets, any improvement (even to BBC One HD levels!) would be greeted with enthusiasm by the kind of people who give a damn. 4K, HFR, HDR and wide gamut together is going to knock their socks off.
"
The other thing people in the UK don't realise is that, in a lot of markets, HD is quite low quality. The Japanese and North Americans are still broadcasting it using MPEG-2. The cable companies receive that MPEG-2 source off-air and re-compress it. The results are often quite horrible. In these markets, any improvement (even to BBC One HD levels!) would be greeted with enthusiasm by the kind of people who give a damn. 4K, HFR, HDR and wide gamut together is going to knock their socks off.
Cheers,
David.
Virgin media HD service is mpeg2 compressed. As they aren't short of bandwidth the picture is much the same as the broadcast H264/AVC content.
4K, HFR, HDR and wide gamut together is a huge step up from the ~6Mbps 1080i of the current "best" broadcasts. This combination should start to hit the high street in 4-6 years time. The people who care (not most people, but enough people to deliver a profit) will think "heck, that's much better than what I have at home now - if I can afford that, I want it."
Trouble is that people buying today's 4K or UHD 1 phase 1 sets (when we see them) won't be getting what you describe when it arrives. That's what annoys me, because many unsophisticated viewers with money to burn will think the pixel count is the be-all and end-all and will never get the real McCoy with their shiny new 4K sets. You just KNOW that's what the industry will be delighted to facilitate with sneaky misleading and incomplete advertising over the next few years, encouraged by clueless shop assistants after a quick commission. The thought of it makes me mad.
Comments
They would all buy Bmws and the like.
The thing is people have limited budgets, and are happy generally with "good enough", which is similar to what Anthony just said.
I highly doubt we will get any choice in the matter - 4k is coming whether we want it or not and will be included as default soon enough ...
For sure, not everyone has money. However, prices will come down.
in 2008, my 42" 720P HD plasma cost me £1,700, and that was way after HD launched.
This weekend at Curry's you can buy a 46" Samsung Full HD TV for £399 or a more minor brand for £299!
That shows the drop in prices. Todays £3K 4k tv's will be tomorrows £300 tv's once the sales start to hit volume.
+1
But again, the same question for 4K TV enthusiasts: which UK broadcasters have announced that they intend to broadcast programmes to the specification of current 4K sets? And after that, to the spec. of UHD 1 phase 1?
Because until they come up with that committment and a start date, 4K TV is a failure in my book. 4K TV sets showing HD programming is HD TV not 4K TV. And if UK broadcasters go straight for UHD 1 phase 2, existing 4K sets will have been either a pointless flop, or at least a partial waste of money, depending on point of view.
Those viewing at 9ft and beyond with screens below 55" won't be getting the full benefit of HD, so presumably screen size vs distance is not important to them, those interested in getting the best out of 4k will adjust their environment to suit, as they do now for HD.
Currently the only provider that supports uhd1 phase 1 is Netflix.
But there's clearly a market for something better, even where a majority doesn't care. People make money from HD TVs, HD broadcasts, HD streaming and BluRay. People make money from quite decent stereo digital audio.
4K, HFR, HDR and wide gamut together is a huge step up from the ~6Mbps 1080i of the current "best" broadcasts. This combination should start to hit the high street in 4-6 years time. The people who care (not most people, but enough people to deliver a profit) will think "heck, that's much better than what I have at home now - if I can afford that, I want it."
The other thing people in the UK don't realise is that, in a lot of markets, HD is quite low quality. The Japanese and North Americans are still broadcasting it using MPEG-2. The cable companies receive that MPEG-2 source off-air and re-compress it. The results are often quite horrible. In these markets, any improvement (even to BBC One HD levels!) would be greeted with enthusiasm by the kind of people who give a damn. 4K, HFR, HDR and wide gamut together is going to knock their socks off.
Cheers,
David.
Virgin media HD service is mpeg2 compressed. As they aren't short of bandwidth the picture is much the same as the broadcast H264/AVC content.
4K from Amazon
Trouble is that people buying today's 4K or UHD 1 phase 1 sets (when we see them) won't be getting what you describe when it arrives. That's what annoys me, because many unsophisticated viewers with money to burn will think the pixel count is the be-all and end-all and will never get the real McCoy with their shiny new 4K sets. You just KNOW that's what the industry will be delighted to facilitate with sneaky misleading and incomplete advertising over the next few years, encouraged by clueless shop assistants after a quick commission. The thought of it makes me mad.