[HoustonHam] TV of the future--Whats Next?

[cboone at earthlink.net]

>From "XP News":

TV of the Future: What Comes Next?

At our house, we resisted the lure of high definition for quite a while. Those around us were spending thousands on HDTV sets, and paying high cable bills for the HD channels, but we didn't watch TV all that much and when we did, we thought standard definition was "good enough." That was then. Once we broke down and experienced HD on a really good set (Sharp Aquos), we became believers. The picture sharpness was just so amazing - more "real" than real life. When we first got the TV and HD service, we would sometimes just sit there with the sound off and watch a program we didn't even like, marveling at the picture quality (admittedly we didn't do that often or for very long, but we did do it). After a couple of years of HD, we've almost forgotten what SD looks like.

But we've been similarly resistant to the latest trend in TV technology: 3D. It seemed (as HD did in the beginning) like a bunch of hype to persuade folks to throw out perfectly good (and expensive) TV sets to replace them with even more costly new ones. We had watched 3D movies before, Blu-ray releases that came with their own little cardboard glasses. They looked somewhat three dimensional, but the color was all washed out. It was an interesting experiment, but we weren't particularly impressed.

We wait for movies to come out on DVD and almost never go to the theater, for a number of reasons. Thus we missed the recent blockbusters in 3D, such as Avatar and Clash of the Titans (we watched both in regular HD when they came out on DVD). We didn't know or care what all the fuss was about. Then last weekend, I was at Fry's with my son and had some extra time to wander through the aisles. They had a couple of 3D TV demos set up and for once, there were no other people crowding around them. I decided to take a look at a Sony model that was displaying a rather incredible picture in 2D mode. I put on the glasses (which were far from cardboard - they reminded me of Jordi's visor on Star Trek Next Generation) and hit the "3D" button.

Wow.

This is not your grandfather's 3D. The hot air balloons drifted past one another at different depths on the screen in all their full, glorious color. The saltwater fish seemed to swim right out of the screen toward me. There was no decreased luminosity as I'd seen with some 3D displays; everything was bright and beautiful. And I didn't feel any eye strain, nausea, or other physical discomfort that is sometimes associated with viewing 3D stereoscopic images. Of course, I wasn't drunk, tired or pregnant at the time.
http://www.wxpnews.com/7KECNL/100928-3D

And granted, I only watched for a short while. Of course the demo was optimized to show off the technology at its finest, and it did. Am I going to run out and plop down a few grand for a 3D set? Not just yet. But I'll confess that 3D is on my radar now; I'm interested. I expect there will be plenty of 3D sets at the next CES (Consumer Electronics Show), and the technology has had a year to mature and get better (and cheaper) since it hit the electronics show floors last January. I was actually surprised that the Sony set, a 55 inch Bravia LED 3D, was selling for well under $2500. When I first checked out 3D sets a year ago, I didn't see anything under $3000. Of course, the one I really want if I were to consider replacing our 65 inch Aquos would be the backlit 60 inch model, which is over $4000. Sharp has just introduced its Aquos Quattron series with the 60 incher going for more than $5000. Yes, I think I'll wait a while for prices to fall a bit more.
http://www.wxpnews.com/7KECNL/100928-aquos

Some people are waiting for 3D that doesn't require the dorky glasses, and TV makers are hard at work on that. It's already here, with something called lenticular lens technology, but it's not ready for prime time yet. Another method for achieving this is head tracking 3D. These are being developed for handheld games, but there are still major obstacles to overcome before they can be used for multiple viewers as is the norm with a TV set.
http://www.wxpnews.com/7KECNL/100928-nintendo3d

Whether we're talking about today's glasses-required 3D or tomorrow's 3D without glasses, what about the 3D content? Will 3D DVDs cost significantly more than regular HD discs, as Blu-ray costs more than SD DVDs? That may be a key factor in the successful adoption of the technology. We're already being charged $29 for many new Blu-ray releases ($10 more than the SD counterpart). How much higher will consumers go? Would you pay $40 for a movie? I guess some folks would ... I dimly remember the early days of Betamax and VHS, when commercially released tapes of movies were $50-80 each. Ouch! At those prices, building a movie collection was only for the wealthy.

However, we can probably expect 3D movies to follow the pricing patterns of Blu-ray and SD movies. That is, new releases will command premium prices but if you care to wait a few months, you'll probably be able to buy them in the bargain bin for much more reasonable prices. And some of the 3D TVs, such as one made by Samsung, can convert 2D movies to simulated 3D, similarly to the way the best Blu-ray players can upconvert SD DVDs so that they look almost as good as HD. Another thing to think about: you probably won't have to buy discs to get 3D content; expect it to be delivered over the Internet like its HD and SD predecessors are now.

Which brings us to the fact that 3D isn't the only thing that's new in the television world. And that's a good thing, since apparently a small percentage of people are "stereo blind" (aren't able to process stereoscopic imagery) and can't even see the 3D images:
http://www.wxpnews.com/7KECNL/100928-gizmodo

So what about other technologies that are making TV better? High def will inevitably get higher def, with the new ultra definition standard that goes beyond 1920 x 1080 all the way to 3840 x 2160 resolution. Large screens with UD technology will allow you to zoom into a part of the picture to get a closer view of the center of the action.

Many HD sets are now Ethernet and/or wi-fi enabled, so that they can connect to your home network and access the Internet to display streaming video content without having to connect a computer to the TV. This may be a welcome change for those who have struggled to set up Windows XP Media Center Edition with their TVs; it certainly simplifies the process of getting online with your TV. However, you can still do much more with Media Center, including recording and playing back programs.

It's a safe bet that the TVs of the future will almost all be connected to the Internet, one way or another. Google TV is a new service that's expected to come out next month, which will come built into some sets (Sony and Logictech are set to launch the first Google TVs in the next few weeks) or can be added via a set-top box. It integrates a web browser into the TV experience and runs Android (and Android apps). It will likely be easier and require a lower up- front expenditure than connecting a Windows Media Center computer to the TV, but you'll have ongoing monthly charges that you don't have with WMC.

Meanwhile, I've noticed that while TVs are getting thinner and thinner, they aren't getting much bigger in screen size - at least, not in the consumer space. While the old rear projection/DLP sets could be found in sizes up to 82 inches, it's hard to find a 65 inch flat screen, except those made for commercial purposes that are available at 100 inches and bigger and cost tens of thousands of dollars. Another new development is WindowWall, which uses multiple 46 inch panels to create a huge screen for high end home theaters. Unfortunately, you need a high end income to afford it:
http://www.wxpnews.com/7KECNL/100928-windowwall

We've come a long way, baby, since the old 19 inch black and white TV set that tuned in a handful of OTA broadcast channels, which many of us grew up with. If you were impressed the first time you watched "I love Lucy" on the neighbor's RCA color TV, prepare to be floored by what's available today and what will be available in the near future. Now, if only there was some good programming to watch on these fancy sets.

Tell us what you think. Has television become irrelevant, or is it an important part of your entertainment life? Are you thrilled with HD, or are you still sticking with your old standard definition set and programming? If the latter, is it because of cost or lack of interest? Have you tried the new 3D technology? Did it make you want to take a 3D set home, or did it make you sick (literally)? What's the price point at which you would consider buying? Are you waiting for 3D without glasses? Do you not care about 3D at all? Is your TV connected to the Internet (either via a computer or directly)? Do you prefer to keep TV and computing separate? How big should a TV set be? If price were no object, what size set would grace your family room? How many sets do you have in your home (if any)? Do you just do your TV watching on your computer monitor now? We invite you to discuss these and any other TV-related questions in our forum at
http://www.wxpnews.com/7KECNL/100928-DiscussThisWeeksWXPNewsHere