Curved TVs are everywhere, and companies sure want us to be excited about them. Time to figure out if we should be.
More than one high-profile vendor showed off a curved-screen TV during their press conferences at the Consumer Electronics Show. But as soon as the show floor opened, it became clear that curved screens weren’t just the provenance of big names like Samsung and LG. Nearly every TV vendor from high to low had a curved screen to parade in its booth.
The reason for a curved screen has somewhat mystified us since last year when we first saw Samsung’s curved 4K TV. Now that these screens are everywhere, it bears sussing out what, exactly, is their purpose.
The first clue that curved screens are a questionable improvement over flat ones is that every manufacturer has a slightly different reason for the style. Theaters, field of view, 3D, and depth enhancement all get name-checked in service of the curve. Some of these are easier to address than others, and some actually make a case for a curved TV screen. Still, it’s not exactly the next revolution.
Enlarge/ Samsung showed a curved 4K model last year, and this year decided to take them mainstream.
TCL writes that a typical flat screen “makes objects at the center seem larger,” but a curved TV “brings the edges closer to you,” creating a “theatrical effect.” The mixed argument of object proportionality and what theaters do aside, the statement that a flat screen would make centered objects seem larger seems to be at odds with the way video is filmed, the way we see things, and the way we are meant to see things in a film.
For instance, if we look at three chairs lined up in a row in front of us, of course the one at the center would seem larger because it’s literally closer. If we move the two chairs at the edge so they form a little semicircle, now everything looks proportional. But it’s a different scene, as the positioning is different. The chairs would now indeed seem to be surrounding us.
Enlarge/ Even Konka is throwing a curved model out there.
If you tried to mimic the effect of chairs surrounding us by curving the picture of chairs in a line, maybe that conveys a different feeling. But it also fundamentally alters the truth of three chairs lined up in a row. The point is, an immersive feeling or feeling of being surrounded may be paramount for, say, a show on the deep ocean in an IMAX theater, but it's far from suited to every scene or situation.
This type of reality distortion wouldn’t be unprecedented, as filmmakers achieve effects like this by using different lenses. For instance, a fisheye lens creates the opposite effect that a curved TV theoretically does. Curved screens are also used in theaters to correct depth perception, and indeed, lots of manufacturers refer to curved screens as IMAX-like. We get the theory, but curved theater screens are not completely similar to the effect that curved TVs will give.
Per AnandTech, the minimum curvature of a curved theater screen has a radius of 40 feet. That’s a slight curve for a very large (30x70 foot) screen that's meant for people sitting many feet away. The curve of a Samsung OLED TV has a 13.7-foot radius, much tighter, for a much smaller screen and people sitting much closer. If a slight curve for a large screen at a large distance corrects an image, it seems like a tight curve on a small screen at a small distance would unnecessarily distort it a little.
The reasoning that came closest to a technical explanation of curved TVs came from Samsung’s booth, where we found some diagrams that claim a curved screen provides a more expansive field of view.
Enlarge/ An explanatory diagram of how curved TV works. The first with arrows showing which way a person is looking when they are looking at a TV is great, but we will focus on the second.
A close read of this diagram also shows that, if we assume the TV being watched is 55 inches, the TV is about 50-inches wide. This means there are four people sitting within four feet of each other. Coziest loveseat ever. And how to solve this problem of cramped space? Buy a larger TV, of course.
Turning that screen width 90 degrees, we can also see these people are sitting all of three feet from the screen. Let’s scooch them back a bit.
Enlarge/ The field of view effects at a six-foot viewing distance. The envelopes between the green and pink lines show the "expansive" effect of a curved screen.
So, for people directly in front of a curved screen even six feet away, the field of view widening effect is pretty small. However, it is there for people sitting directly in front of the TV. At a more typical eight feet, the benefits get smaller. The daughter sitting left of center sees a TV that appears maybe 3-5 inches bigger than usual.
Enlarge/ At eight feet, the benefits of a curved screen are quite small.
The curved screens seem most theatrical in the sense that, if your living room is not set up literally like a theater, people who are sitting off to the sides cannot benefit from the curve and will likely get a distorted picture. And at wider angles, the edges are cut off entirely.
Enlarge/ People sitting off-center don't get curved screen benefits, and they likely see a picture that is significantly more distorted than if the screen were flat.
If you started to fan viewers out beyond the edges of the TV, the picture for them would be distorted. Beyond a certain point, the image cuts off at one edge. These wide-seated viewers also don’t get the field-of-view benefits, as their envelope just shifts to one side or the other. Persons A and B can’t see the far left side of the screen, and G and F can’t see the right side. They would be able to see a flat screen TV, though the picture would be distorted. Even person D sitting at a slight angle loses all the “widened field of view” benefits of the curve.
Hence, a curved TV is only right for a very specific, pretty unusual setup: everyone right in front of the screen, very close to it. A Samsung rep speaking to TechRadar said that curved displays give “a greater range of viewing angles,” but from what we see here, that doesn’t seem to be the case.
Enlarge/ If you use Samsung's diagram trick and scooch people closer to the screen, the field-of-view problems with off-center viewing are a little easier to see. A, B, E, and F are cut off from their sides of the screen.
Funnily enough, these diagrams show that, for certain setups, there actually is a point to the Samsung TV that can convert from flat to curved. When you are watching by yourself and can pull up a chair a few feet from the screen, go curve. When there are other people around whom you don’t want to sit practically in your lap, go flat.
Samsung also asserted in its PR presentations that the curved screens give video content a “3D-like effect,” but having the edges of a picture slightly closer doesn’t mimic any 3D experience we know of. Per the chair example above, the picture distortion would make you feel you are surrounded by chairs rather than looking at them. But as for things popping out of the screen, it doesn’t seem like curved TV will achieve that with its shape.
The mishmash of arguments for a curved TV isn’t necessarily an indictment of the value of curved TV. This would not be the first time that manufacturers obscured the technical or scientific reasons for a decision because they think it’s too hard to explain to consumers. It may be easier to latch onto words like “immersive” and “theatrical” and hope no one asks the hard questions.
But, it would also not be the first time that manufacturers assigned value to some spec based on the idea that it qualitatively improved a viewing experience in some way, only for consumers to find the end result is underwhelming and, more importantly, not worth paying for. Potentially over aggressive image distortion aside, is there a case for curved TV? Yes. Is it necessary, right for every setup, the way forward, or the new standard? No.
This is a very good take on the reality of 4K , if and when it will be meaningful.
End comment is to the point - it is going to take a while, so sit back an enjoy that nice HD TV you just purchased recently!
JZ
Yes, 4K — that’s 3840 x 2160 resolution — was all the rage at this year’s Consumer Electronics Show in Las Vegas.
Every leading flat panel manufacturer showcased 4K “Ultra HD” televisions at the show, including Sony, LG, Samsung, Toshiba, Sharp, Vizio and others. Sizes ranged from 50″ “entry-level” models to huge displays with 80″ and 100″ diagonals. Some even offered genuinely impressive “autostereoscopic” capability, which allows the viewing of 3D content without glasses. As you’d expect, they all looked fantastic. As you’d also expect, rumored prices for these high-resolution monsters were equally amazing — ranging from the modestly exorbitant to well over $20,000. While all the manufacturers claimed their consumer models will be “more affordable than expected,” few were willing to get specific, meaning that the Ultra HD 4K TV market will almost certainly remain limited to privileged super enthusiasts and professionals for the next few years, just as now old-fashioned HD was through the 1990s. Ironically though, high price is likely to be the least of the obstacles facing the adoption of 4K. First, there’s the lack of content. It’s not that there isn’t 4K material out there. After all, the Hollywood studios all produce films in 4K — it’s become a standard resolution for directors who choose to shoot feature “films” digitally. You may have heard of the “RED EPIC,” which is actually the brand name of a 4K digital HD camera system that has been used to make dozens of Hollywood film and TV projects — everything from giant features such as The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey and the upcoming Oblivion and Pacific Rim to TV series such as Justified and Southland. In fact, it seems as though almost every major new film is being shot in 4K these days and the final studio masters for each are completed and finished in 4K resolution. So what’s the problem? Try rampant concern in Hollywood over digital piracy. “Theoretically, 4K is the resolution you can get from a film print master,” notes Panasonic North America’s Chief Technology Officer, Eisuke Tsuyuzaki. “I don’t think the studios will be willing to give that up so easily. If they did, what’s the monetary value? What’s the business proposition?”
Think of it this way: If someone pirates a Blu-ray, they’ve got a great 1K — or 1920 x 1080 — high-definition copy. If someone pirates a 4K file, they’ve essentially got a duplicate of the studio master — not an appealing proposition for any senior studio executive. But let’s set this issue aside for a moment. Sony is making no bones about its desire to sell lots of Ultra HD 4K displays and offer 4K content (presumably from its Sony Pictures Home Entertainment division). So how will it deliver that content securely? While limited 4K broadcasting is just getting underway in Japan, Korea and parts of Europe, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has yet to approve a 4K broadcast standard for the United States, and one isn’t expected to be ready until 2016 or 2017. Also, according to Sony’s resident Blu-ray guru, Victor Matsuda, “There is currently no activity within the BDA to bring 4K into the Blu-ray specs.” Nor is there any new disc-based format being developed to replace Blu-ray. That means 4K movies are likely going to be distributed digitally, streamed over broadband or satellite transmission.
Sony’s 4K service is expected to launch this summer. Though the company hasn’t specified how it will work, it seems that some kind of Internet-connected box will be involved, employing an encrypted digital stream to deliver movies from Sony Pictures’ servers.
Meanwhile, RED is also marketing a 4K consumer player called the REDRAY, which will work like a DVR to deliver 4K digital files (in 2D and 3D) to your display. RED says its movie files will have a data rate of around 20mbps, which is about the same as a Blu-ray, but that means file sizes for a typical two-hour movie will hit 15GB. Cable companies are already up in arms about making consumers pay the full cost of their Netflix streaming in paltry 480p and 1080p resolution, so imagine how they’ll react to bandwidth-hogging 3840p!
The problems for 4K don’t stop there. The market research firm IHS Screen Digest recently reported that digital projection had officially surpassed traditional film projection. Analog film projection represented just 37 percent of all theatrical projection around the world by mid-2012, with that number expected to decline to just 17 percent by 2015. Care to hazard a guess as to what the current resolution standard for digital projection in theaters is? Yep… 4K. Given how much money theater owners and distributors have just invested in converting their screens to digital, it’s hard to imagine they’re especially thrilled at the prospect of having to compete with 4K in the home.
Yet another deal-breaker for 4K is the fact that many consumers will simply be unable to differentiate 4K content from current HD video at typical home display sizes. You’ll recall that lots of people had trouble telling Blu-ray content from DVD even in side-by-side comparisons, and there are many viewers to this day who own HDTVs but haven’t hooked them up properly. The result is that they’re not even watching true HD content on their expensive new TVs, but they don’t know it and can’t tell the difference anyway. Looking ahead, there’s research that suggests that in order to fully appreciate Ultra HD 4K, you either have to be sitting very close to your TV or have a very large display — something well over 60″. Neither of those alternatives is likely to be practical for most home viewers anytime soon.
But perhaps the biggest obstacle of all for Ultra HD 4K is the fact that HDTV is simply good enough for the vast majority of viewers, most of whom have only just upgraded to HD. In addition, most broadcasters have only recently completed the capital upgrades required to deliver HD content, so now they’re hoping to recoup their investments. And we tend to forget just how long we all lived with analog TV sets. Limited TV broadcasting in the U.S. began way back in 1929 but didn’t go nationwide until the FCC made NTSC the official analog standard in 1941, first in black-and-white and then (a decade later) in color. And so life continued for another 68 years… until analog broadcasting finally ended in the U.S. on June 12, 2009. That’s a long time to wait for digital and high-def, even though the first HD demonstrations appeared as early as 1987. Why did the HD transition take so long? Because, for most people, analog was good enough.
So what of Ultra HD 4K? Will there ever be a market for that much resolution in the home? “Time will tell,” says Panasonic’s Tsuyuzaki. “Keep in mind, people are already working on 8K. But I think 3D, IPTV [TV content delivered via Internet protocol rather than broadcast, cable or satellite] and mobile are the three areas where display technology is really going to evolve in the next few years.” Translation: Forget 4K for now. Sit back, relax and enjoy your new HD flat screen. It’s going to be around a long while.
For More: hometheater.com/tech-101 dvdinformation.com
By Bill Hunt
Affordable. Good viewing angles. Convenient port location.
Cons Only two HDMI ports. Some motion artifacts. Reds are slightly undersaturated.
Bottom Line
RCA's LEDC45RQ series is a very affordable HDTV line offering full 1080p resolution and energy-efficient LED backlighting. Picture quality is above average for sets in the under-$500 price range, so it's our Editors' Choice for budget HDTVs.
By John R. DelaneyBudget HDTVs are all about sacrifice, so don't expect 3D or Web connectivity, but it doesn't mean you have to live with a set that looks cheap and delivers subpar picture quality. The RCA LEDC45RQ series is an LED-backlit LCD HDTV line that delivers full 1080p HD and rich colors. The 42-inch model we tested (RCA LED42C45RQ: $449.99 list) $399.00 at Amazon offers wide viewing angles and conveniently placed I/O ports. You do only get two HDMI ports, and its 60Hz panel produces a bit of motion lag, but despite its flaws, it's our Editors' Choice for under-$500 HDTVs.
Design and Features The LED42C45RQ isn't very flashy, but it is a nice-looking HDTV. The 42-inch 1080p panel is framed by thin 1-inch glossy black bezels along the top and sides and a 1.5-inch bezel on the bottom. The trim has a subtle beveled edge that adds a touch of style. There's an RCA logo on the bottom bezel, to the right of the remote sensor.
Measuring 3.6 inches at its thickest point, this set isn't exactly svelte. It sits on a black rectangular stand with a clear acrylic finish that provides plenty of support for the 30-pound cabinet, but it does not let you swivel the panel. The cabinet is equipped with the requisite four VESA holes for mounting on a wall, as well as two 8-watt speakers that are moderately loud. You can even squeeze a modicum of low end out of them with the built-in equalizer, but don't expect wall-shaking bass output.
All six function buttons (Power, Volume Up/Down, Channel Up/Down, Input Select) are at the rear of the cabinet facing right. On the opposite side, facing left, is the I/O port array. You only get two HDMI ports, and the composite/component ports are shared. There's also a USB port, a headphone jack, a digital audio output, and a coax cable/antenna jack. At this price point you won't see web connectivity (wired or wireless), or Web/streaming apps.
The remote control is a black, no-frills, 9-inch wand with 48 rubberized buttons plus a four-way arrow key. None of the buttons are backlit and all of them are a bit small, but the remote is responsive and fits comfortably in hand.
This set offers limited picture settings; presets include Standard, Movie, User, Power Saving, and Dynamic mode, but only the user mode lets you adjust brightness, contrast, color, tint, and sharpness. On the other presets, these settings are locked. Oddly, the Power Saving mode looks identical to the Standard mode, and in fact uses the same amount of power.
Regardless of the preset you're using, you can change color temperature and a handful of advanced settings like Dynamic Contrast, Film Mode, and Noise Reduction. Sound settings include a not-half-bad simulated surround effect, auto volume control, and an equalizer. Performance The LED42C45RQ uses a 60Hz panel, unlike some other budget sets including the Insignia NS-42E480A13%displayPrice% at %seller% and the Westinghouse UW40T2BW$369.99 at Amazon , which both use 120Hz panel technology. In my tests, I observed some motion lag while watching the Blu-ray version of 2012, but the flaws were minor. Viewing angle performance is generally good; there was a slight loss of luminance when viewed from a side angle, but colors remained intact. We measured the panel's ability to display bright whites and dark blacks using a Klein K10-A Colorimeter and images from the DisplayMate suite of HDTV diagnostic tests. The set produced a peak brightness of 323.26 cd/m2, which is plenty bright, and a black level of 0.18 cd/m2, which is not very dark. Despite a middling contrast ratio of 1,796:1 the picture showed plenty of pop and exhibited good highlight detail. Shadow detail was a bit murky, however, while watching Black Swan on Blu-ray.
As shown on the chart above, generated by SpectraCal's CalMan5 software, green and blue color levels were close to the CIE standards but reds were a bit weak, although not weak enough to cause tinting or affect color fidelity.
The LED42C45RQ used 67 watts of power during testing, which is average for a 42-inch LED-backlit panel. The same-size Insignia NS42E480A13 used 64 watts, while the 40-inch TCL LE40FHDE3000%displayPrice% at %seller% consumed 50 watts. Conclusion With the RCA LED42C45RQ you get a very affordable 42-inch HDTV that uses energy-efficient LED backlighting and delivers a bright, well-balanced picture. In order to keep the price under $500 RCA had to skimp on some features, which explains the limited port availability and the 60Hz panel, but its overall picture quality is superior to the other sub-$500 HDTVs we've recently tested, including the Insignia NS42E480A13 and the Westinghouse UW40T2BW. If you're looking for a capable, yet affordable small-screen set without all the perks that come with pricier sets, the RCA LED42C45RQ should be at the top of your list.
Fun going back and seeing my comments from almost 4 years ago. How about that $99 price needed on a Blu-ray , and my concerns over IPTV (compare that to latest release from NPD), as well as the industry need to promote the VALUE of the innovation and technology we provide, vs the consumer just waiting for a cheaper price.
Ah if I was only so good with picking Lottery Numbers!!!!! ;-)
JZ
By Greg Tarr -- TWICE, 2/23/2009 NEW YORK — As the economic storm clouds grow
darker, consumer electronics manufacturers are looking at a handful of growth
categories — including Blu-ray Disc players — to hedge the industry's bets, but
one major retailer told TWICE that he fears the category is still not the
slam-dunk some perceive it to be.
Some manufacturers believe the economy
could actually have a positive impact on the fledgling Blu-ray category this
year. As consumers hunker down in their homes and avoid expensive nights out,
they can become more willing to spend to upgrade their entertainment experience
at home.
“We're still in agreement with CEA's estimates that Blu-ray
decks have the potential to double this year to roughly 5.7 million units,” said
Tim Alessi, LG Electronics product development director, who said he sees the
cocooning encouraging that adoption. “Also, a new category of Blu-ray-based home
theater has begun to emerge which will also add to the installed base. We
believe that providing home-entertainment options will be a key to
growth.”
Similar to the CEA, market research firm FutureSource Consulting
is predicting U.S. stand-alone Blu-ray Disc player sales at 6 million in 2009,
up from 2.5 million in 2008. At the same time, sales of Blu-ray-enabled
PlayStation3 consoles are forecast to rise from 3 million in 2008 to 5 million
in 2009. By 2012, the research firm sees the PS3 in more than 20 percent of U.S.
homes and stand-alone BD players in 50 percent.
But at least one retailer
wasn't as optimistic. Jonathan Zupnik, Sears audio/video/TV DMM, told TWICE: “I
continue to have concern about Blu-ray. It did not hit industry expectations
last year with production issues. I also believe the economy has had more of an
impact than believed. The simple reason being the difference is not demonstrable
in comparison to VHS to DVD. Standard DVD looks very good on a 1080p TV. Unless
you are watching on a 60-inch-plus TV, it is hard to see the impact [of a 1080p
Blu-ray Disc]. I do not believe the industry numbers will be hit this year,
unless they drop the price.”
Demand was generated in the fourth quarter
of 2008, largely through the price promotions and system bundling run by
manufacturers and retailers during the critical holiday shopping season, some
industry watchers have said.
Major price promotions were offered by
leading discount chains, such as Wal-Mart's $129 special, Target's $149 special
on an Olevia-branded player and Best Buy's $169 sale on an Insignia-branded
model.
Since then, most prices have trended back up to more than
$200.
According to a consumer study conducted by SmithGeiger in 2008 for
the Digital Entertainment Group, 60 percent of respondents listed higher cost as
the largest reservation they had in making a Blu-ray Disc player purchase.
Additionally, some of those who do use Blu-ray mentioned price as one important
factor when considering the purchase of a Blu-ray Disc title.
Sears'
Zupnik said, “As we are hearing the opening price point is already flashing $149
— it needs to be $99 to really get things going. Even with that, as long as the
movies are over $20 that will continue to keep things at a relatively slow pace.
The consumer is used to [disc prices of] $13.99 at launch and picking through
bins at $3.99.”
From a hardware perspective Reid Sullivan, Samsung
digital audio/video marketing VP, said that he is wary of Samsung moving player
prices downward too quickly.
“While price will always be an important
consideration, especially in a soft economy, we believe there is a great
opportunity to improve the consumer experience by offering more value,” Sullivan
said. “The biggest opportunity to increase Blu-ray sales is to attach to the
large and growing base of HD flat panel TVs. Consumers that may have recently
purchased a HDTV now realize that only Blu-ray can deliver a true 1080p
experience and bring out the full potential of their HDTV.”
Sears' Zupnik
agreed, saying: “1080p is the only call out that seems to attract consumers to
Blu-ray, they are well aware of 1080p due to the TV spec, and matching it up is
easy.”
In addition, Samsung, LG and other hardware manufacturers
introduced Blu-ray Disc players that add IPTV applications with the ability to
download various forms of audio and video content through built-in broadband
connectivity as a value-enhancement.
“For LG, new player adoption begins
with providing the best access to content for consumers,” Alessi said. “To do
this we've partnered with the best in the industry, players like CinemaNow,
YouTube and Netflix.”
Samsung's Sullivan said: “We also think more and
more consumers will find video-on-demand and other content services appealing as
they become easier to use and offer a wider selection of content.”
But
Zupnik said the IPTV message has not gotten across to most consumers
yet.
“I have not seen much of an impact from IPTV, but the younger
generation is comfortable with a significant amount of streaming and this may be
part of why Blu-ray hardware's install base is not as large as we all would like
it to be yet. I don't believe HD on demand, and quality content that is easy for
the consumer to download is a threat [go packaged media].”
As for the
wider crop of Blu-ray players adding BD-Live as another form of added broadband
functionality, Zupnik said he believes retailers and manufacturers need to do a
better job of getting the message out.
“BD-Live is not a requested
feature,” he said. “Disney has done a good job [promoting it], almost to a
fault, where you would think only Tinkerbelle and such titles they have
advertised have this feature. If there isn't a stronger marketing campaign to
draw attention to the increasing number of titles that are BD Live, I am not
sure it will be worth much to consumers.”
In general, Zupnik said, the
industry needs to generate more excitement and awareness for their
products.
“Customers don't get it about consumer electronics as a whole,”
he said. “Vendors and retailers do not do a good job building awareness and
pent-up demand for new technology — other than the iPhone, the iPod and the last
round of video game consoles. If there is no awareness or education before the
product is released, the customers do not have any opportunity to apply a value
to the benefit the technology will be for them, and determine if they need it
right away or are willing to wait. This generally keeps the majority willing to
wait until it hits a price, but the price is not based on what the technology is
worth.”
What is the best way to get streaming content to your TV, read below and let me know if you agree.
JZ
Connected TVs face platform fragmentation as critical challenge
Michelle Clancy | 03-12-2012
Connected television is predicted to break into the mainstream soon with over 220 million smart TV sets set to be sold worldwide in 2017, up from the 54 million that will be sold this year, according to Informa Telecoms & Media's latest smart-TV device forecasts.
However, big obstacles in terms of platform fragmentation and replacement cycles will prevent the sets from commanding the centre point for the digital home any time soon.
These numbers are promising for apps developers and consumer electronics manufacturers, but the success is not going to be enough to overtake the lead that games consoles and media-streaming devices, including set-tops like Apple TV and Roku, have in the market, Informa predicts.
The researchers said that 31% of households worldwide will own at least one smart TV in five years' time, with household penetration much higher in North America (63%) and Western Europe (64%). However, with their long life cycles, TVs are simply not the right device to be the hub of the digital home, the company said.
"Informa estimates that in 2017 more than half of the 800 million smart TV sets by that time will only be used as dumb screens," said Andrew Ladbrook, senior analyst at Informa Telecoms & Media. "Moreover, while any 'smart' TV bought in 2011 or 2012 can be used for streaming online video services for a few years, they lack the processing power and the necessary hardware to perform those smart TV functions that will be standard in 2015. Simply put, any smart TV purchased in 2012 will be effectively obsolete by 2015."
Instead, devices that are regularly replaced, including smartphones, tablets, set-top boxes, media streamers and games consoles, will be the key devices in the digital home experience. Smartphones in particular, with their short lifecycles and rapidly increasing processor power, will continue to define what 'smart' means, the analyst reasons.
The manufacturers' short-term support for their smart TV products will also prove a hindrance. New services will continue to be launched solely on the latest smart TV models – HBO GO, Skype, Onlive, BBC's Sport app – which means that users who bought last year's device are excluded. Apps cannot be easily released across multiple devices, since each smart TV platform demands bespoke development. Thus, the fragmentation of platforms and standards continues to plague the smart TV market. This situation benefits the current market leaders Samsung and LG as they attract the top services first due to their strong positions. And, while Informa believes that Google TV or Android will come to be the default OS for smart TVs, this is still some years away.
"If TVs are going to be truly smart, they must do more than offer a wide variety of online video services," Ladbrook said. "Instead they must add advanced functionality including voice control, motion control, advanced advertising, attractive user interfaces and two-way communications with other smart devices – so-called 'second screens' – allowing these devices to send video to the TV and also know what is being watched. Manufacturers should focus less on adding more content and more on improving how users can interact with that content."
It did not seem that all that long ago I was selling a new 35" CRTV console Mitsubishi Television for over $4,000 dollars to customers in West Hartford, CT. I do find it to be a sad day to see another brand basically exit the TV market, and what that indicates for the future of Brand Choices in Televisions in the not too distant future. I even remember when 27" Tube TVs in stereo for Mitsubishi sold for almost $1,000. Then they shocked the industry by dropping tube tvs way before the end of CRT and went directly to Projection Televisions only. Bringing the world 50" plus size televisions so we could chase after that dream of bringing the Movie Screen big screen to our house. Those where the days (oh and people actually cared about quality audio with that setup as well back then). Can the industry correct itself? Well one more company has decided it can't. They will continue to drive Business to Business , Professional Video equipment, but for the consumer it is over. I wish Max and his group nothing but the best. Very happy to see them moving on within the group and the B2B business.
A pioneer of big-screen rear projection TVs, Mitsubishi
(MEVSA) was the last hold-out in DLP displays, and finally is discontinuing the
line as part of a corporate restructuring.
So long, RPTV—the only big screen I’ve ever known. Meet my family and our 15
years of Mitsubishi in the slideshow below.
Mitsubishi Electric was the last hold-out in the rear projection TV
(RPTV) business, and now the company is dropping the line, CE Pro has
learned.
Mitsubishi Electrical
Visual Solutions America, Inc. (MEVSA), the group in charge of the RPTV and
other video product lines for both residential and commercial markets, has sent
a letter to authorized service centers (reprinted
below) indicating they are “discontinuing the manufacture of 73”, 82” and 92” DLP projection
televisions.”
The memo, issued by MEVSA president and CEO Junichi Nose, indicates that the
move is part of an “important change in business direction, which will
necessitate a corresponding restructuring of the MEVSA organization.”
Nose says MEVSA will continue to be headquartered at its current Irvine,
Calif., location and adds, “We expect that these changes will have a minimal
effect on you and your business.”
Reached early this morning, Max Wasinger, long-time exec with Mitsubishi’s
video products and currently executive vice president of sales and marketing for
MEVSA, tells CE Pro, “We are in the midst of an orderly exit from the DLP TV
business. MEVSA will now focus on B-to-B (projectors, display wall, printers,
digital signage, monitors, etc.) and the home theater projector business.”
TV
ANALYST SAYS ... The microdisplay category had a great run and was
really the first “thin” big-screen TV. Unit sales for the microdisplay RPTV
category hit point of 2.2M units in 2006. The category remained significant
thought 2007, and in 2008 shipments fell dramatically to a little over 500,000
from 1.3M in 2007. It was in 2008 that we really saw big-screen LCD TV take
off, with sales of 52” models over 1.5M.
Recently, the category has remained relevant only in the size 70” and above,
with 70” struggling as well this year. Volume for 2011 fell to 210,446 units and
this year we are projecting sales flat or below. The rental channel was the
category’s main supporter in recent years, but as large flat-screen
manufacturing prices declined, the rental channel quickly moved to LCD
TVs.—Tamaryn Pratt, principal, Quixel Research.
Wasinger will take on the position of executive vice president of sales for
all Mitsubishi Professional Products and solutions. Frank De Martin, vice
president of sales for MEVSA, is staying with the organization, Wasinger says
I have a large concern about the state of Consumer Electronics and it's future. Having another large company exit the category will just increase the issues we have. Just as another Retailer leaving the industry as Circuit City did will not be a good thing for Consumer Electronics. This is becoming very unhealthy and will lead to further problems in the industry. This is not just a Vendor issue, or a Retail issue, or a parts supplier issue. We all need to step back and take a hard look at what we are doing, how we are doing it, and stop sliding down the slippery slope we are already on. COMMODITY - that is what we are saying about the industry - just like NAPKINS. There is a large difference in what it take to bring new Electronics to market - it can't be treated like NAPKINS.
JZ
Sharp admits 'doubt' on survival
By Jonathan Soble, FT.com
November 2, 2012 -- Updated 0115 GMT (0915
HKT)
A customer checks LCD television sets made by
Japanese electronics maker Sharp on November 1.
STORY HIGHLIGHTS
Sharp has admitted there is "material doubt" about its ability to stay in
business
Comes as it warned of a second year of record losses and deepening Japan
gloom
The losses are blamed on failed investments in liquid-crystal display
manufacturing
Came a day after Panasonic stunned investors with a second consecutive $10B
loss
(Financial Times) -- Sharp has admitted there is "material
doubt" about its ability to stay in business as it warned of a second year of
record losses, deepening the gloom surrounding Japan's once dominant consumer
electronics industry.
The century-old company said it
expected to end the financial year to March with a net loss of Y450bn ($5.6bn),
worse than the Y250bn loss it had predicted in August. Last year it lost Y396bn.
The losses are blamed on failed investments in liquid-crystal display
manufacturing.
The warning came a day after
Panasonic stunned investors by projecting a second consecutive $10bn loss.
Panasonic's share price dropped a further 19 per cent on Thursday.
Sharp and Panasonic, along with
Sony, are the most consumer-focused of Japan's large technology companies. All
three have suffered as prices for flatscreen televisions and other household
items plunged globally.
A strong yen and competition from
lower-cost manufacturers elsewhere in Asia have turned the products that once
underpinned their success into financial millstones. Last year, the three groups
suffered a combined net loss of Y1.6tn -- a figure that Sharp and Panasonic will
come close to matching between them this year.
"Sharp is in circumstances in
which material doubt about its assumed going concern is found," the company said
in a statement to the Tokyo Stock Exchange.
Funding problems arising from the
ballooning losses have forced Sharp to mortgage its headquarters building and
seek a rescue investment from Terry Gou, the Taiwanese billionaire who founded
Hon Hai Precision Industry, the contract manufacturer of Apple iPhones and Sony
PlayStation video game consoles.
A deal with Mr Gou has been in
limbo since it was tentatively agreed in March, as the two sides haggle over
terms. Mr Gou had agreed to pay Y67bn for a 10 per cent stake in Sharp and
partial ownership of an underused display factory near Osaka, but has been
pushing Sharp to lower the price to reflect a precipitous decline in the value
of its shares.
Sharp's stock price has fallen 75
per cent this year, more than that of any other company on the 1,600-member MSCI
global index. In addition to mortgaging its headquarters, Sharp is selling
several overseas factories and cutting jobs and wages -- the first retrenchment
of its kind for the company since 1950.
In September, Sharp secured
Y360bn in loan extensions, which the company says will be enough to fund its
operations until at least next June, when the loans come due. By then, Sharp
says its restructuring measures will have borne fruit and it will be generating
a stable flow of cash.
Its position remains precarious
enough, however, that analysts at Moody's and Standard & Poor's have cut its
credit rating to junk.
In the six months to September,
Sharp said it made a net loss of Y387.5bn as a result of rising restructuring
costs and falling demand for LCD televisions. It booked Y84.4bn of extraordinary
charges as it wrote off the value of surplus display inventory and pulled out of
solar panel manufacturing -- another area where it has struggled to earn a
profit -- in the US and Europe.
The company also wrote off Y61bn
of so-called deferred tax assets -- corporate-tax credits it could redeem if it
returned to profit, a prospect that now looks more distant.
Sony bucked the trend of
worsening forecasts on Thursday by sticking with its projection for a narrow
Y20bn net profit this year, a result that would break four consecutive years of
losses. But it will have to improve its performance in the second half to
achieve the target, after posting its seventh consecutive loss for the
July-to-September quarter.
Panasonic said on Wednesday that
it expected to end the financial year with a net loss of Y765bn, a reversal of
its previous forecast for a Y50bn profit. It will not pay a dividend this year
for the first time since 1950.
Shares in Sony fell 4.1 per
cent, while Sharp shed 1.7 per cent ahead of its results.
I would agree with the point of view on the sales of 4K Television sets. 5-8 years , and still it will represent a small portion of the total sales. Below estimate is about 1% of toal units in the next 5 years. They nail it on all the right reasons. Price, and more importantly the lack of space in most homes for 60+ inch size televisions that have historically been less than 2% of the market year over year. Even if that was to double or triple it would still be a very small number to the total.
JZ
IHS: Initial 4K LCD TV Sales To Be Marginal
By Greg Tarr On Oct 4 2012 - 12:57pm
El Segundo, Calif. ” Consumer demand for new 4K ultra-high-definition TV displays will remain quite small for at least the next five years, according to a new study released by market research firm IHS iSuppli.
The IHS iSuppli Television Market Tracker Report†said shipments of high-profile 4K displays from Sony, LG, Toshiba and others will remain less than 1 percent of the global LCD TV market for at least the next half decade, before worldwide shipments climb to 2.1 million units in 2017, (or 0.8 percent of the global LCD TV supply). That will be up from just 4,000 units that are expected to sell this year, the study predicts.
LCD TVs are called 4K or ultra-high-definition when they have a dense pixel structure of 3,840 by 2,160 dots, or four times the pixel count of today™s FullHD 1,920 by 1,080p TVs.
Introductions of 84-inch 4K LCD televisions were recently announced by Sony ($25,000 suggested retail) and LG Electronics ($20,000). Toshiba offers a 55-inch model at $10,000 in Japan.
Hisense and Konka of China have also announced plans for 84-inch 4K sets later this year.
However, IHS said it believes that neither consumers nor television brands will have the interest required to make the 4K LCD TV market successful.
If you have a television that is 60 inches or larger and are watching video that has a 3,840 by 2,160 resolution, then a 4K television makes sense, said Tom Morrod, IHS TV systems and technology research director. “However, a very limited amount of content is available at the 4K resolution. Meanwhile, because of high prices and other issues, the market for super-sized, 60-inch and larger sets is very small ” at only about 1.5 percent of total television shipments in 2012. Furthermore, for most people, the 1,080p resolution is good enough. Because of these factors, combined with the massive price tags, the market for 4K sets during the next few years will be limited to very wealthy consumers or to commercial uses.
He added that 4K LCD sets may serve the high-end of the TV market as transitional technologies until AMOLED TVs arrive in the mass market.
“The 4K sets can fill the gap at the high-end of television brands™ product lines until the arrival of the next-generation AMOLED TVs, Morrod said.
Japanese brands are offering 4K product because they need to have a competitive alternative to the AMOLED TVs being sold by their rivals in South Korea, Samsung and LG Electronics. Meanwhile, the South Korean companies are having difficulties producing AMOLED panels, saying they will need two more years to achieve competitive volume and pricing. Therefore, the Korean brands are offering 4K sets as a transitional step until their AMOLED televisions are more widely available.
I will point out that this is .0038% of the households in the US.
But - it makes news so please read on about how the world it dropping traditional content for streaming sources.
JZ
Nielsen Cuts 500,000 U.S. TV Homes on Census, Web Viewing
By Andy Fixmer - Sep 25, 2012 2:46 PM PT
The number of U.S. TV households fell by 500,000, reflecting the popularity of online viewing and results of the 2010 census, according to Nielsen, producer of the weekly ratings that help set advertising prices.
The adjustment in U.S. TV households to 114.2 million took effect Aug. 27 and will apply to the television season starting this week, New York-based Nielsen Holdings NV (NLSN) said today in an e-mailed statement.
“We have had no household formation over the past several years, and I believe there is a modest amount of cord-cutting happening in younger households and in lower-income households,” said Paul Sweeney, Bloomberg Industries’ director of North American research.
Nielsen said it’s working with TV and advertising clients on what should constitute a TV home and how to account for new products such as tablet computers. It has already begun incorporating online viewing into ratings. This is the second straight year it has reduced the number of homes with TVs. In May 2011, Nielsen adjusted the number to 114.7 million, a 1 percent drop and the first decline since 1990.
In the past year, three of the four largest broadcast networks experienced drops in audiences ranging from 2 percent to more than 8 percent. Comcast Corp. (CMCSA)’s NBC, bolstered by the Olympics and football, increased its viewership by 19 percent, according to Nielsen data.
Nielsen said its estimates for the 2012-2013 season are the first to reflect demographic details from the 2010 census, including age, sex, ethnicity and ethnic households. For that reason, the reduction amounts to an adjustment rather than one-year population changes.
“To the extent that there is cord-cutting, over-the-top companies such as Hulu and Netflix (NFLX) are benefiting,” Sweeney said. “These households then fall out of Nielsen’s total household mix.”
Best article I have read to date on the subject of the new 4K or 8K televisions. Summed up perfectly in the last paragraph. Reality is that a large portion of the US market still watches in SD even if they own an HD television. The complete transition to HD is many years off, so a transition into 4K and / or 8K is a long way away.
JZ
The last 15 years have been an exciting time for home theatre enthusiasts thanks to the introduction of the DVD Player, the Blu-ray player, the personal video recorder (PVR), digital surround audio technologies, the switch to digital television and of course, the introduction of large screen flat panel high definition televisions (HDTV).
If you’re like most consumer electronics enthusiasts, you purchased one or more of these products in the last decade only to find out a few months later that an enhanced, updated, faster and cheaper version had since been released.
Fortunately, home theatre enthusiasts who have recently purchased a 1080p Flat Panel HDTV with a Blu-ray player and 7.1 A/V receiver capable of decoding the latest lossless audio formats can now sit back in their recliner munching popcorn knowing they need not worry about their home theatre system becoming technologically obsolete anytime soon.
Now before you get too comfortable in your La-Z-Boy, let me introduce you to a new standard in HD television called Ultra High Definition Television or UHDTV.
Similar to HDTV, which comes in two primary flavours (720 and 1080), UHDTV comes in two flavours called 4K and 8K. The primary advantage of UHDTV over HDTV is increased pixel resolution – more pixels typically means a more lifelike, more immersive and ultimately more enjoyable viewing experience.
How much more resolution does UHDTV offer compared to HDTV? In the case of 8K, more than 32 times the resolution of 720p (the standard resolution of most cable and satellite providers today). Think of going from a VGA 640 by 480 pixel digital camera of 15 years ago to a 10 megapixel digital camera today and you get a sense of how much more information is captured in an 8K video image.
To better understand UHDTV, let’s review the pixel resolution of three most common digital video formats, now called ATSC standards, developed in the early 1990s by a consortium of electronics and telecommunications companies.
The first is standard definition digital television, which is what you see when you tune to satellite TV or digital cable station. Broadcast in a 16:9 aspect ratio, the video image consists of 720 pixels across and 480 pixels down. Multiply that out and it means that 337,920 pixels – just over a third of one megapixel – is lit up on your screen.
The second and most common HD format is 720p. Today, most cable and satellite providers broadcast in 720p format which displays 1280 by 720 pixels for a total of 921,600 pixels on screen. That works out to just under one megapixel of information.
The final type is 1080 which comes in two variants, 1080i and 1080p. A Blu-ray player pumps out 1920 x 1080p video and delivers 2,073,600 pixels or just over two megapixels of information to your television screen.
In summary, SD delivers a third of a megapixel to your screen at any one time, 720p delivers about one megapixel of information while 1080p tops out at just over 2 megapixels.
UHDTV specs approved on August 23, 2012 by the International Telecommunication Union (ITU) defines two formats, 4K and 8K. UHDTV 4K has 3840 by 2160 pixels of resolution which works out to 8,294,400 pixels, exactly four times the resolution of 1080p HDTV. UHDTV 8K delivers 7680 by 4320 pixels onscreen totalling more than 32 megapixels of resolution.
In summary a 4K digital image will have 24 times the number of pixels on screen as a SD signal and nine times the number of pixels as the common 720p signal broadcast by most television stations today. In addition to the vast increase in resolution, the Japanese have been calling on the ITU to include a new audio format that calls for up to 22.2 channels of discrete audio! So when can consumers expect these new UHDTVs?
While the spec was only recently approved, consumer electronics companies have already jumped on the bandwagon.
Beating its competitors to the punch, LG Electronics says it plans to roll out an 84-inch 4K TV in North America, Europe, Asia, and Latin America in September. The cost? Just over $22,000. While that may seem like a ridiculous sum of money, remember that the first generation of 42-inch plasma televisions sold in North America cost close to $40,000. In addition, Sony last week announced plans to sell the 84 inch XBR-84X900 4K UHDTV in North America beginning in December. Toshiba, which is calling its 4K sets Quad Full HD, is set to begin selling 4K sets in the first half of 2013.
No firm has announced plans for an 8K set. Is UHDTV the future of HDTV?
The transition from analog to digital television began almost twenty years ago and continues today. After almost of two decades, the bulk of North American television viewing is still in standard definition with the complete transition to HDTV still years away.
UHDTV is another quantum leap which would require cable companies, satellite TV companies, television stations and consumers to invest billions of dollars in new equipment without any commensurate increase in revenues.
While UHDTV can deliver a superior video image, the benefits are only discernible when you play UHDTV source material (not available today) and on flat panels over 80 inches in size (not practical in the vast majority of homes).
In conclusion, UHDTV is a decade or two ahead of its time and not something consumers need think about anytime soon.
First, there’s the lack of content. It’s not that there isn’t 4K material out there. After all, the Hollywood studios all produce films in 4K — it’s become a standard resolution for directors who choose to shoot feature “films” digitally. You may have heard of the “RED EPIC,” which is actually the brand name of a 4K digital HD camera system that has been used to make dozens of Hollywood film and TV projects — everything from giant features such as The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey and the upcoming Oblivion and Pacific Rim to TV series such as Justified and Southland. In fact, it seems as though almost every major new film is being shot in 4K these days and the final studio masters for each are completed and finished in 4K resolution. So what’s the problem? Try rampant concern in Hollywood over digital piracy. “Theoretically, 4K is the resolution you can get from a film print master,” notes Panasonic North America’s Chief Technology Officer, Eisuke Tsuyuzaki. “I don’t think the studios will be willing to give that up so easily. If they did, what’s the monetary value? What’s the business proposition?”
But let’s set this issue aside for a moment. Sony is making no bones about its desire to sell lots of Ultra HD 4K displays and offer 4K content (presumably from its Sony Pictures Home Entertainment division). So how will it deliver that content securely? While limited 4K broadcasting is just getting underway in Japan, Korea and parts of Europe, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has yet to approve a 4K broadcast standard for the United States, and one isn’t expected to be ready until 2016 or 2017. Also, according to Sony’s resident Blu-ray guru, Victor Matsuda, “There is currently no activity within the BDA to bring 4K into the Blu-ray specs.” Nor is there any new disc-based format being developed to replace Blu-ray. That means 4K movies are likely going to be distributed digitally, streamed over broadband or satellite transmission.
View all 
We measured the panel's ability to display bright whites and dark blacks using a Klein K10-A Colorimeter and images from the DisplayMate suite of HDTV diagnostic tests. The set produced a peak brightness of 323.26 cd/m2, which is plenty bright, and a black level of 0.18 cd/m2, which is not very dark. Despite a middling contrast ratio of 1,796:1 the picture showed plenty of pop and exhibited good highlight detail. Shadow detail was a bit murky, however, while watching Black Swan on Blu-ray.
