Interest in 3D TVs is low - Smart TV and Ultra HD interest is up

vbimport
#1

Interest in 3D TVs is low - Smart TV and Ultra HD interest is up.

[newsimage]http://static.rankone.nl/images_posts/2013/06/Y1kDDl.jpg[/newsimage]Consumers aren't really interested in 3D televisions, according to a UK retailer.


Read the full article here: [http://www.myce.com/news/interest-in-3d-tvs-is-low-smart-tv-and-ultra-hd-interest-is-up-67416/](http://www.myce.com/news/interest-in-3d-tvs-is-low-smart-tv-and-ultra-hd-interest-is-up-67416/)


Please note that the reactions from the complete site will be synched below.
#2

When my current HDTV dies… I will buy a slightly bigger screen and it will come with SMART features such as WIFI streaming… maybe there will even be a hack/app capability for XBMC!! :slight_smile:

#3

I can say that the smart TV we bought recently has been a surprising convenience to me. Initially I thought the “smart” aspect wouldn’t be a feature I found all that useful since I have an HTPC attached to it. I was wrong. I use it quite often for streaming Netflix/Amazon Prime and for playing MKV files from USB/portable drives. It will even play Netflix streams with 5.1 audio which I can’t do with the HTPC. IMO, the TV companies, and Microsoft, would be smart (pun intended) to offer sets with the capability to boot up using a streamlined version of Windows that can use any mouse/keyboard attachments. The hardware is small enough and power draw low enough to make this a reality, IMO. I would easily pay a $200 premium for this feature.

#4

Our next TV will be bigger than a 46" Plasma and will be a smart TV. If the 4K TV’s come down by the time this one goes we just might go that route.

#5

If I can fit it, 100" projector in my basement someday soon.
Otherwise a Panny 65" plasma is on my wish list. My Apple TV makes my old plasma “smart” but I hardly use it. It will be interesting to see if Apple does make a TV set and how disruptive it will be (ie forcing 4K’s to come down in price).

#6

I’m not so sure about 4k?

From what I gather the advantage over 1080p doesn’t start to get noticible until somewhere between a 70" and 80" tv set? Over 80" to make a real difference.

I have a 42" right now. If it died I’d be looking at replacing it with a 55 or 60"

It seems I’m a long way off from having a TV that big in my house. I’m not sure about other people. I’m not sure UHD will catch on that quickly either?

#7

When I saw 4K TVs hooked up to PCs, the quality of the computer’s desktop, text - everything - was so much better than 1080p. That’s what changed my mind - I could definitely use a 4k as a TV and a computer-monitor. We’ve already seen to techy conventions come thru town with booth-sters hauling 40-50-60 inch 4K screens and getting comments on the crisp-looking demo’s and training sessions.

#8

4K should have been everywhere decades ago. Sharp, Fujitsu, Toshiba, Samsung, HP… they are just now announcing 3,200 * 1,800 panels and laptops with those panels.

#9

Actually ZOD a big factor of 4K is that you can sit closer to a smaller screen and it doesn’t feel as close due to the clarity of the image and smaller pixels, compared to 1080. When I sit closer to my 42" plasma trying to trick my brain to think its 60" :slight_smile: , I see the pixels…
If 9.7" iPads can benefit from retina display then I think most TVs will benefit from 4K. That said, we’re a long way from having UHD content good enough to say “yeah I see the difference”

#10

Personally, I have no use for 4k. Most of the content I watch is standard def, anyway. I don’t know that I ever will be watching anything in 4k anytime soon. That’s just me, though.

#11

[QUOTE=TSJnachos117;2689628]Personally, I have no use for 4k. Most of the content I watch is standard def, anyway. I don’t know that I ever will be watching anything in 4k anytime soon. That’s just me, though.[/QUOTE]

Your most likely correct. Until 4K content delivery has been sorted it will be a “TV File” niche market.

#12

[QUOTE=TSJnachos117;2689628]Personally, I have no use for 4k. Most of the content I watch is standard def, anyway. I don’t know that I ever will be watching anything in 4k anytime soon. That’s just me, though.[/QUOTE]

Why not watch FOUR 1920 by 1080 films at once? It’s quite easy nowadays to use latest TV sets as monitors for nearly everything.

#13

Where is all the bandwidth going to come from to support 4k video to the masses? Heck, we still don’t have 1080[B]p[/B] video so I am not holding my breath for content with quadruple the resolution of 1080p. The only reason we have HD content is because of the government forcing TV stations to abandon analog broadcasting. I doubt the government will intervene anytime soon to mandate 4k broadcasting. Without this I don’t see 4k going mainstream for a very long time. The interest of TV manufacturers are not necessarily the same as content providers. In the end, it is content providers that will drive the 4k market more than TV manufacturers.

#14

[QUOTE=UTR;2689640]Where is all the bandwidth going to come from to support 4k video to the masses? Heck, we still don’t have 1080[B]p[/B] video so I am not holding my breath for content with quadruple the resolution of 1080p. The only reason we have HD content is because of the government forcing TV stations to abandon analog broadcasting. I doubt the government will intervene anytime soon to mandate 4k broadcasting. Without this I don’t see 4k going mainstream for a very long time. The interest of TV manufacturers are not necessarily the same as content providers. In the end, it is content providers that will drive the 4k market more than TV manufacturers.[/QUOTE]

It never was that simple with DVD and Blu-ray, and not with iOS and Android again.

Anyway, most of the PC users will try 32001800 monitors, touch or non-touch, Igzo or non-Igzo before 38402160 TV sets from any of the major TV manufacturers.

#15

Actually as a Retailer, I’ve found interest in 3D to be non-existant.
Production OLED sets will probably never see the light of day unless someone comes up with a revolutionary way of manufacturing panels with substantially less than a 90% failure/reject rate.
As for Smart, you can have that crap. Perhaps my tastes in entertainment ar a bit too sophisticated and discriminating for the mainstream garbage found on Netflix and other streaming sites. I can get the same garbage (In Real Time) from my cable provider and at no additional charge, no waiting for the stream to buffer sufficiently to view 5 minutes and then pause to fill yet again. I certainly don’t need to use Skype on a 55" screen, and I have fewer privacy issues when viewing content on a real PC.

4K now that’s a different story.
The difference in image quality is very evident even to the Walmart crowd.
Sadly at the moment we’re in the same predicament as when 3D first arrived, No Content and no way to get content into the TV.
This problem is however going to be addressed by the Manufacturers in short order.
Sony’s new XBRs are truly stunning, no inexpensive but stunning. Sadly 55" is the smallest that they currently offer.

#16

I can get the same garbage (In Real Time) from my cable provider and at no additional charge, no waiting for the stream to buffer sufficiently to view 5 minutes and then pause to fill yet again. I certainly don’t need to use Skype on a 55" screen, and I have fewer privacy issues when viewing content on a real PC.

Slow internet connection? Wireless home network?

#17

[QUOTE=ivid;2689620]Actually ZOD a big factor of 4K is that you can sit closer to a smaller screen and it doesn’t feel as close due to the clarity of the image and smaller pixels, compared to 1080. When I sit closer to my 42" plasma trying to trick my brain to think its 60" :slight_smile: , I see the pixels…
If 9.7" iPads can benefit from retina display then I think most TVs will benefit from 4K. That said, we’re a long way from having UHD content good enough to say “yeah I see the difference”[/QUOTE]

Except most people have TV’s in living rooms and what not with the couch (chairs) on the other side. At which point it doesn’t make much of a difference.

Overall I don’t think the world is all that ready to make the leap. Bandwidth caps will keep internet distribution at bay. Most people only upgrade to HD sets in the last few years and aren’t ready for the upgrade. Most cable providers don’t offer 1080p yet and are in no position to deliver 4k.

I would think that 4k would be very useful for computer monitors, I don’t think there will be an agressive take up for home TV’s. Maybe in 5-10 years when there’s significant content for it. Then again by the time people are ready for it, there could be a bigger leap in technology and 4k gets skipped over.

#18

We had 3D movies in the 50’s. Then they went away. We had them again in the 70’s. Not much interest. They tried to bring them back in the 90’s. Same story. Now here’s 3D back again and interest is already starting to decline. Seems like the entertainment industry is on a 20-year 3D fixation cycle. You’d think they’d learn by now, wouldn’t you?