Smaller display sales are dropping and larger display sales are growing. That is quite clear in your graph.
"are expected to drop/grow". That's a projections graph from the end of 2012. The 2012 numbers are the stats. From it, you can see that smaller displays vastly outsell larger ones and that won't change in a short timeframe. Even if 50" becomes widely adopted, it's still not big enough to see the difference between 1080p and 4K.
HEC stands for Home Entertainment Center. It's usually in the living room and comprises of more than just the monitor. It's the Blu-ray player, console(s), cable/sat digiboxes, stereo equipment, etc.
I use that inclusive term for the display that goes in the HEC because simply calling it a TV as one would do when it was in a big wooden box playing first run episodes of I Love Lucy with rabbit ears connected is not doing the future of this space or technology any justice.
The component of a home entertainment center that shows the pictures is called a TV. We're not talking about selling an all inclusive home entertainment center with surround sound speakers, a games console, a Blu-Ray player etc, just the TV.
What I cant imagine is why we expect every small display that runs on a battery to have these resolutions that keep nearing 4K — 2800x1800 for 15" MBP v. 3840x2160 for UltraHD — but we think that a display with much bigger pixels (i.e.: cheaper per pixel), the computer UI having come to the HEC years ago, and having already reached the upper limit of "Retina"-quality with current HDTVs in the HEC.
What's the typical viewing distance for a TV and what text is being read that it needs to be that high resolution?
So people with DVD players and standard cable don't buy HDTVs? They don't like how AirPlay looks on an HD set? They don't like how their console games look on an HD set?
None of those things go higher than 1080p. There was a reason to move to HD because the viewing distances showed the poor quality in SD.
I'm the first to say that yes, there absolutely is a limit to the resolution a television NEEDS to be, and that it should also be illegal to try to manufacture and sell (scam) anything beyond that, but 1080p isn't it. No way.
Your example of 480p analog vs 1080p digital isn't equivalent to 1080p vs 2160p. I think it will be very hard to convince content providers to move to 4K and I don't think consumers will see an appreciable difference between 1080p and 2160p.
I don't get his comment since the higher pixel density means people can sit farther away and still get the Retina effect, or in the case of a larger display past 50 or so inches means they can finally get the Retina again after losing it when they upgraded their display.
The two things are linked. You are obviously assuming people will move to higher than 50" displays in large enough numbers that 4K will be beneficial. I agree that 4K is beneficial on very large displays but I don't think people will buy large displays in large numbers and I don't think content providers will offer 4K content for a long time.
If we are taking about 10 years down the line and they are selling roll-up displays that cost $300 that unroll to 80" and we have codecs that can stream 4K at a decent bitrate and enough people own the displays that content providers support it then could become mainstream technology. I'm not seeing where and when Apple gets into this and I don't think people will keep buying larger and larger displays until they reach the size of the wall.
In our house, the line between the home entertainment system and our computers is blurring. In fact, one of the sources in our HEC *IS* a computer.
All of our sources feed an AV receiver that acts as a source selector for the speakers and the display. Those sources are a cable box, a Blu-Ray player, an Apple TV and a Mac Mini. The Mac doesn't see much use as a source of entertainment media -- the Apple TV takes care of that -- but since the role of that computer is primarily transcoding media and managing the media library, we put it in the living room. Instead of tying up space with a dedicated monitor, we use the 50" 1920x1080 monitor TV as its display.
One of the things we're most looking forward to with my wife's new MBP is mirroring to the Apple TV. When she's looking at something she wants me to see, instead of us both crowding in on the little 15" screen she can just "beam" it to the big screen. The problem that now introduces is the scaling one screen or the other has to provide to manage the comparatively low resolution of the TV. That's a nuisance I could live without. A higher resolution primary display (aka "TV") would solve that.
"are expected to drop/grow". That's a projections graph from the end of 2012. The 2012 numbers are the stats. From it, you can see that smaller displays vastly outsell larger ones and that won't change in a short timeframe. Even if 50" becomes widely adopted, it's still not big enough to see the difference between 1080p and 4K.
The component of a home entertainment center that shows the pictures is called a TV. We're not talking about selling an all inclusive home entertainment center with surround sound speakers, a games console, a Blu-Ray player etc, just the TV.
What's the typical viewing distance for a TV and what text is being read that it needs to be that high resolution?
None of those things go higher than 1080p. There was a reason to move to HD because the viewing distances showed the poor quality in SD.
Computer displays are used for reading.
Your example of 480p analog vs 1080p digital isn't equivalent to 1080p vs 2160p. I think it will be very hard to convince content providers to move to 4K and I don't think consumers will see an appreciable difference between 1080p and 2160p.
The two things are linked. You are obviously assuming people will move to higher than 50" displays in large enough numbers that 4K will be beneficial. I agree that 4K is beneficial on very large displays but I don't think people will buy large displays in large numbers and I don't think content providers will offer 4K content for a long time.
If we are taking about 10 years down the line and they are selling roll-up displays that cost $300 that unroll to 80" and we have codecs that can stream 4K at a decent bitrate and enough people own the displays that content providers support it then could become mainstream technology. I'm not seeing where and when Apple gets into this and I don't think people will keep buying larger and larger displays until they reach the size of the wall.
1) All your arguments are exactly the same as the dissenters that said HDTVs were pointless and yet today I think you'll be hard pressed to find an SDTV that isn't tiny.
2) You keep look at the HEC as requiring a television as opposed to what it really has become, a computer monitor. Your game console is a computer. Your Blu-ray player is a computer. Your cable/sat digibox is a computer. If you are connecting any of these to the TV tuner via coax you're doing it wrong.
[...] You keep look at the HEC as requiring a television as opposed to what it really has become, a computer monitor. Your game console is a computer. Your Blu-ray player is a computer. Your cable/sat digibox is a computer. If you are connecting any of these to the TV tuner via coax you're doing it wrong.
All true. So now I'm left wondering, assuming we do start seeing higher resolution devices, how will we connect them? Does HDMI have sufficient bandwidth to carry 4K? If not, then what? DisplayPort?
All true. So now I'm left wondering, assuming we do start seeing higher resolution devices, how will we connect them? Does HDMI have sufficient bandwidth to carry 4K? If not, then what? DisplayPort?
DisplayPort Dual-Mode and HDMI 1.4 support 4K so the standards are there we just need the other HW to effectively support it. The HDMI support for 4K actually came 4 years ago back in 2009. HDMI 2.0 is slated to be released shortly with a rumoured 18Gb/s which will move the UltraHD support to 4K@60fps.
One of the things we're most looking forward to with my wife's new MBP is mirroring to the Apple TV. When she's looking at something she wants me to see, instead of us both crowding in on the little 15" screen she can just "beam" it to the big screen. The problem that now introduces is the scaling one screen or the other has to provide to manage the comparatively low resolution of the TV. That's a nuisance I could live without. A higher resolution primary display (aka "TV") would solve that.
The old Macbook Pro resolution is only 1440x900. Even the Retina MBP still outputs to the internal display at 1080p on the highest setting (1920 x 1200), it just renders the content at 2880x1800. Airplay is limited to 1080p too.
1) All your arguments are exactly the same as the dissenters that said HDTVs were pointless
That would be like saying that if someone said 300PPI was the limit of what we needed that it's the same argument people used for SD. It's not because some things have limits and SD was far from it. I don't think 1080p is the limit but I do think it's within the required limit for mainstream TVs. 4K is suitable for digital cinemas with theatre sized displays as it is around the quality that movies are shot with.
Are you going to suggest that the 16K that IMAX spreads out over a 90+ foot diagonal screen needs improvement?
2) You keep look at the HEC as requiring a television as opposed to what it really has become, a computer monitor. Your game console is a computer. Your Blu-ray player is a computer. Your cable/sat digibox is a computer. If you are connecting any of these to the TV tuner via coax you're doing it wrong.
I think you are just restricting the definition of the word television. Coax and tuners aren't requirements for something to be called a television. There is more of an overlap between computer monitors and TVs today but their uses are still distinct enough that it's well understood what a TV is and what a computer monitor is. Nobody walks into a TV store to buy a monitor for their computer.
The old Macbook Pro resolution is only 1440x900. Even the Retina MBP still outputs to the internal display at 1080p on the highest setting (1920 x 1200), it just renders the content at 2880x1800. Airplay is limited to 1080p too.
I've suffered three major head traumas in my life. That's my excuse for confusing a vertical measurement (1080) with a horizontal measurement (1440) and concluding the former was insufficient to display the latter. I know better (I work in TV fer cryin' out loud) but something in my head went upsideways down for some reason. I claim indemnification due to injury and being just generally kinda slow-witted.
You are, of course, correct. I have no idea why I'm having such a serious case of daim bramage today, but I'll try stupid less be to now on from.
Comments
"are expected to drop/grow". That's a projections graph from the end of 2012. The 2012 numbers are the stats. From it, you can see that smaller displays vastly outsell larger ones and that won't change in a short timeframe. Even if 50" becomes widely adopted, it's still not big enough to see the difference between 1080p and 4K.
The component of a home entertainment center that shows the pictures is called a TV. We're not talking about selling an all inclusive home entertainment center with surround sound speakers, a games console, a Blu-Ray player etc, just the TV.
What's the typical viewing distance for a TV and what text is being read that it needs to be that high resolution?
None of those things go higher than 1080p. There was a reason to move to HD because the viewing distances showed the poor quality in SD.
Computer displays are used for reading.
Your example of 480p analog vs 1080p digital isn't equivalent to 1080p vs 2160p. I think it will be very hard to convince content providers to move to 4K and I don't think consumers will see an appreciable difference between 1080p and 2160p.
The two things are linked. You are obviously assuming people will move to higher than 50" displays in large enough numbers that 4K will be beneficial. I agree that 4K is beneficial on very large displays but I don't think people will buy large displays in large numbers and I don't think content providers will offer 4K content for a long time.
If we are taking about 10 years down the line and they are selling roll-up displays that cost $300 that unroll to 80" and we have codecs that can stream 4K at a decent bitrate and enough people own the displays that content providers support it then could become mainstream technology. I'm not seeing where and when Apple gets into this and I don't think people will keep buying larger and larger displays until they reach the size of the wall.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin
Computer displays are used for reading.
In our house, the line between the home entertainment system and our computers is blurring. In fact, one of the sources in our HEC *IS* a computer.
All of our sources feed an AV receiver that acts as a source selector for the speakers and the display. Those sources are a cable box, a Blu-Ray player, an Apple TV and a Mac Mini. The Mac doesn't see much use as a source of entertainment media -- the Apple TV takes care of that -- but since the role of that computer is primarily transcoding media and managing the media library, we put it in the living room. Instead of tying up space with a dedicated monitor, we use the 50" 1920x1080 monitor TV as its display.
One of the things we're most looking forward to with my wife's new MBP is mirroring to the Apple TV. When she's looking at something she wants me to see, instead of us both crowding in on the little 15" screen she can just "beam" it to the big screen. The problem that now introduces is the scaling one screen or the other has to provide to manage the comparatively low resolution of the TV. That's a nuisance I could live without. A higher resolution primary display (aka "TV") would solve that.
1) All your arguments are exactly the same as the dissenters that said HDTVs were pointless and yet today I think you'll be hard pressed to find an SDTV that isn't tiny.
2) You keep look at the HEC as requiring a television as opposed to what it really has become, a computer monitor. Your game console is a computer. Your Blu-ray player is a computer. Your cable/sat digibox is a computer. If you are connecting any of these to the TV tuner via coax you're doing it wrong.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SolipsismX
[...] You keep look at the HEC as requiring a television as opposed to what it really has become, a computer monitor. Your game console is a computer. Your Blu-ray player is a computer. Your cable/sat digibox is a computer. If you are connecting any of these to the TV tuner via coax you're doing it wrong.
All true. So now I'm left wondering, assuming we do start seeing higher resolution devices, how will we connect them? Does HDMI have sufficient bandwidth to carry 4K? If not, then what? DisplayPort?
DisplayPort Dual-Mode and HDMI 1.4 support 4K so the standards are there we just need the other HW to effectively support it. The HDMI support for 4K actually came 4 years ago back in 2009. HDMI 2.0 is slated to be released shortly with a rumoured 18Gb/s which will move the UltraHD support to 4K@60fps.
The old Macbook Pro resolution is only 1440x900. Even the Retina MBP still outputs to the internal display at 1080p on the highest setting (1920 x 1200), it just renders the content at 2880x1800. Airplay is limited to 1080p too.
That would be like saying that if someone said 300PPI was the limit of what we needed that it's the same argument people used for SD. It's not because some things have limits and SD was far from it. I don't think 1080p is the limit but I do think it's within the required limit for mainstream TVs. 4K is suitable for digital cinemas with theatre sized displays as it is around the quality that movies are shot with.
Are you going to suggest that the 16K that IMAX spreads out over a 90+ foot diagonal screen needs improvement?
I think you are just restricting the definition of the word television. Coax and tuners aren't requirements for something to be called a television. There is more of an overlap between computer monitors and TVs today but their uses are still distinct enough that it's well understood what a TV is and what a computer monitor is. Nobody walks into a TV store to buy a monitor for their computer.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marvin
The old Macbook Pro resolution is only 1440x900. Even the Retina MBP still outputs to the internal display at 1080p on the highest setting (1920 x 1200), it just renders the content at 2880x1800. Airplay is limited to 1080p too.
I've suffered three major head traumas in my life. That's my excuse for confusing a vertical measurement (1080) with a horizontal measurement (1440) and concluding the former was insufficient to display the latter. I know better (I work in TV fer cryin' out loud) but something in my head went upsideways down for some reason. I claim indemnification due to injury and being just generally kinda slow-witted.
You are, of course, correct. I have no idea why I'm having such a serious case of daim bramage today, but I'll try stupid less be to now on from.