Forums >
Off-Topic Discussion >
TV Technology Trends?
The intent is an open discussion on TV technology trends. Here are some thoughts to get us started: ... Remember 3D TV? It seemed to be all the rage last holiday season. It seemed that every other ad for TVs touted 3D. Now, despite having hundred of satellite TV channels, only a couple are for 3D channels. What happened? (Of course, the "new" 3D technology used by 3d TVs was "old" 4 decades ago when I did my thesis in 3D imaging. ... Does anyone have a "Smart TV" -- it's basically a TV that can access the Internet, play simple games, send/receive text/e-mails, etc.? There are TV models that have these features built-in, and there are add-on devices that add these features to "dumb" TVs. I'm interested. ... A 4K Apple TV: Does anyone still care? ... How come "Picture In Picture" is such a rare feature for DVRs & receivers? 10 years ago, I had Ultimate TV -- a short lived Microsoft DVR for satellite TV, but Microsoft abandoned it, TiVo came along, and DirecTV & Comcast came out with their own DVRs, and many of these "new" DVRs lacked the PIIP feature. I want it. ... How here has a home theater? What's it like? ... Got any features you want in your next TV? Mar 31 13 09:19 am Link After spending 3/4 of my career in TV R&D and serving for a while on the ATSC (the industry committee that put together the current HD system and advised the FCC on it's implementation), I am of the opinion that the broadcast side of TV is DONE with new technology for a while. We see innovation on the receiver side now, and will continue to see that happen - intense competition and a worldwide production overcapacity makes for desperation in a consumer electronics manufacturer. But a new development would have to REALLY go over big to convince the broadcasters to cough up more for new studio/transmitter innovations. Generally, the larger mass of TV viewers are happy with what they've got (hell, they were happy with that artifact-ridden NTSC system we just got rid of). To some extent, that larger group of viewers are still in the "gee-whiz" mode, so it's going to take some "really-visible-on-the-showroom-floor" new feature to make a significant percentage of them reach for their wallets. In addition, the new system's intro wasn't that many years ago, so the average age of HDTV receivers in homes isn't that high and the "urge to replace" probably isn't that powerful. OTOH, the receiver prices are really coming down... But I have to say that I'm more than a little surprised that we haven't seen more Silicon Valley participation in new things that could be done with that totally digital and flexible thing in the living room called the HDTV. I'm also surprised that we haven't seen more emphasis on enhanced sound, with the broadcasters and cable MSOs hyping (at least) 5.1 channel surround sound. So far as I can tell, nada! The movement that is clear was mentioned by the OP: that of the TV entertainment device's increasing involvement in sourcing data feeds from the Internet. The newer high-end products have the capability built-in, existing products work very well with Roku's and such, thank you! I have predicted for years that as we see more movies streaming on the 'net, the studios (whom we know are very slow learners, technology-wise) are suddenly going to realize that they can operate servers to stream their movies just as easily as say, Netflix. This will threaten the cable programmers (HBO, Showtime etc.) existance. To reply directly to a couple of the OP's questions: 4K image resolution: forget it! The masses will have to see a hell of a lot more than a JND or so on the showroom floor to cough up the dough. And 4K isn't that visible: in fact, I will predict that the average joe sixpack won't notice ANY difference between 1080 (P or I) and 4K, and he's not going to pay for what he can't see. The only ones who will do that are the techies and the early adopters who desperately need to have bragging rights, and there aren't that many of them to make it worthwhile. 3D: The need for sophisticated glasses for each viewer and the lack of a large amount of programming make this a curiosity. Add to this that there are a significant number of people who report intense eye strain and headaches while viewing 3D drives the nail in the coffin. Mar 31 13 11:00 am Link Managing Light wrote: +1. Tough to create a mass for 4K when there isn't any 4K content available and people will be expected to pay $15-20,000 for a 4K TV. Mar 31 13 11:27 am Link Looknsee Photography wrote: I have these: http://liliputing.com/2013/03/android-t … e-cpu.html Very cool little gadgets. I paid around $50.00 for mine. Its pretty smooth. Browse speed is good. Movie playback is good. Apple TV is okay also. Anybody buying the TV sticks on Ebay be careful. They aren't all the same with WI/FI strength being one issue. They can be rooted and are so cheap its no big deal. Take them with you when you travel instead of a laptop. Mar 31 13 11:37 am Link Managing Light wrote: Thanks for your thorough reply. Mar 31 13 12:18 pm Link Looknsee Photography wrote: I just have an HD tv and an internet connected device (an Apple TV in this case.. but there are zillions of others) for my video entertainment consumption. With iTunes and Netflix I don't really need anything else. I even watch first-run TV shows as they air. It's really great. The only thing I get from the cable company is my internet connection... no cable. Aside from increasing the resolution of the TV I don't see much more new tech needed. Mar 31 13 12:29 pm Link Looknsee Photography wrote: Likely because of the advances in DVR. Some friends of mine have satellite TV with all the bells and whistles. They can record four or six shows simultaneously and so rarely if ever try to watch shows simultaneously. Mar 31 13 05:58 pm Link The DVR is one of the most valuable luxury inventions in modern times. Easy to use, makes viewer in control and I LOVE zipping through the commercials. It has made me hate watching live TV. Mar 31 13 06:13 pm Link picture in picture is obsolete now because people have alternate concurrent ways to consume information Mar 31 13 06:18 pm Link R A V E N D R I V E wrote: That and they don't need to see it concurrently because the other channel is being recorded by their DVR. Mar 31 13 06:22 pm Link R A V E N D R I V E wrote: I do miss being able to feed my quad from the security cameras into the PIP on the TV, though. Mar 31 13 06:29 pm Link I have a 10+ year old VCR that does Picture in Picture and you can record two shows that way. Old idea but really I love it. Why didn't modern TV's catch on this? Mar 31 13 06:57 pm Link Looknsee Photography wrote: Programming worth watching. Mar 31 13 07:39 pm Link AdelaideJohn1967 wrote: I've never heard of any VCR that could record two shows simultaneously like today's DVRs. Mar 31 13 11:13 pm Link Looknsee Photography wrote: Orca Bay Images wrote: Not me. I love watching two NFL games at once -- there's only about 10 second of action per minute, and the programs tend to break for commercials (breaking before & after a kickoff should be a sin). I also think that the modern age encourages people to "multi-task" -- no one gives all their attention to a single TV program. We're the generation that texts & drives. Apr 01 13 11:39 am Link What Fun Productions wrote: My first TV (Ultimate TV from Microsoft) actually had a true 30 second skip. Instead of zipping through a commercial, they disappear at the press of the button. I miss that, too. Apr 01 13 11:41 am Link 3d technology comes and goes every few decades. Apr 01 13 12:07 pm Link Let There Be Light wrote: Well it had two tuners, and two tape drives. You could watch a tape in the first slot and record in the other one or vice versa. Also when watching TV a small PIP in the corner showed you what was on other channels or what you are taping in the 2nd deck. Apr 01 13 07:17 pm Link Looknsee Photography wrote: But now they don't have that do they? Because of whinging from networks and advertisers. Apr 01 13 07:18 pm Link I'd like to see OLED on big TV screens. Apr 01 13 07:33 pm Link Edge of the Moon wrote: What about small ones? Apr 01 13 07:48 pm Link Edge of the Moon wrote: AdelaideJohn1967 wrote: Those have been around for ages. I've seen 15" OLED TVs from Sony for at least a year or two. They're *super* thin. Pretty amazing if a small screen is what you need/want. Apr 01 13 07:57 pm Link Peter Claver wrote: Edge of the Moon wrote: Those have been around for ages. I've seen 15" OLED TVs from Sony for at least a year or two. They're *super* thin. Pretty amazing if a small screen is what you need/want. That's cool and all but it's not on the consumer market. Why? Apr 01 13 08:51 pm Link AdelaideJohn1967 wrote: Price I'm guessing. Apr 01 13 08:56 pm Link Peter Claver wrote: Edge of the Moon wrote: Those have been around for ages. I've seen 15" OLED TVs from Sony for at least a year or two. They're *super* thin. Pretty amazing if a small screen is what you need/want. Check these out: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sJehexDPEsE Apr 01 13 09:41 pm Link Peter Claver wrote: But not from a local retailer I imagine. Apr 01 13 11:16 pm Link AdelaideJohn1967 wrote: Again.. it's price. OLED is new.. once they get the volume going then they'll be easier to find. Apr 01 13 11:49 pm Link Peter Claver wrote: I didn't know that last tidbit....Interesting Apr 02 13 01:41 am Link |