I've been saying this for a while! Whilst 4k is great for big screen viewing and is also good for opening up flexibility with picture options at the editing stage, I really can't see any reason why the conventional domestic viewer would want it.
I also agree with the 3d glasses viewing not being what people want for everyday use. My own wedding shows have shown that to me quite clearly, with viewers loving the 3d but hating the glasses. I think that the acceptance of 3d across the board will be a graual process, rather like the slow domestic adoption of HD. It will gradually become more popular as glasses free becomes affordable and is added to new tvs as 'glasses free 3d ready'. 3d will not come back with a roar but with a gentle uptake as far as I can see.
First of all the thread is in the wrong place at AVS. It should be moved to the other location
where similar editorial opinions are being discussed. This forum section is for technical discussions of 3D content and content creation.
As far as Zitter is concerned, He is an old TV exec who is about to retire from HBO. His expertise is in HBO programming not in 3D, obviously.
His opinion is that 3DTV with glasses is "dead." Obviously he is out of touch with the consumer retail end of the industry as 3D TV WITH GLASSES is the only TV being sold right now and the latest set designs are including passive 3D ( with glasses) as more and more a standard feature. Maybe he needs to go out and visit a store rather than just write an editorial on some misinformed opinion. The only glasses free TV today are still in development and if he went to walk the floor at CES he would understand how stupid he appears making a statement like "3D with glasses is dead". Most people I know who have 3DTv don't mind having to wear the glasses and have been made used to it over the decades of s3D viewing as the norm. What is not normal today is glasses free 3DTV. While people would love to have glasses free 3DTV, not having it doesn't render 3DTV with glasses dead.
I am with you Roger on the 4K TV size issue and as such, also in agreement with Zitter here. 4K will be a niche market for homes with screens in the 80" plus range or 3D passive TVs in the 47" plus range. I defer to the demographics experts on how big a market that may be. But we had this debate once with TV's that got bigger than 25" decades ago and again when TV's got bigger than 50" Moving to 84" and bigger is just another paradigm shift as we saw before. Zitter just believes that people have reached their limit with the 50" size so therefore 4K TV is superfluous.
The truth is that HBO, the oldest subscription cable Movie service is the one that is dying. They are losing subscribers to the new age of IPTV fast after suffering many years of stagnant growth as a cable channel business model. HBO is not ready financially to add 3DTV and 4K services to it's lineup and is afraid that the market will demand it sooner than they can offer it. It behooves them to talk it down anyway they can to preserve their recent investment in HD and DD5.1 library conversion. Zitter's negative comments on new TV technology is just a sign that he fears his company falling behind new companies like Netflix, HULU, VUDU and Amazon as well as itunes. These IP services are taking a huge bite from HBO's once dedicated market.
Here in the US HBO video on demand, if your carrier has it and supports it will run a 3D movie now and then. Hard to find anyone who has actually used it on a regular basis. Running a couple 3D movies on a video on demand channel does not make Zitter an authority on whether the 3DTV business is dead or alive on glasses 3DTV. If that is a standard of measure then I'd be I have more programming on my You Tube channel in 3D than Zitter has on HBO video on demand.
I'm not saying it wouldn't be nice to have glasses free 3DTV that worked, I'm saying the current market for glasses required 3DTV is alive and kicking, not dead.
I maintain that 3D is and will continue to be like surround sound. There for those who want it, & no problem for those that don't.
It seems that 4k TV's and content will be as successful as the projector market. There will be a market for the ultra enthusiasts. People who do want an 84" TV in their viewing room.
Of course, there will always be the group of people who would buy a 50" 4K set, just to say they had one.
As for 3D, it's doing OK right now, so I don't see it dying out anytime soon. The really interesting part of this though, is that the majority of TV's now come with 3D capabilities. So I almost wonder how many people choose a TV that just happens to have 3D, versus those who go out searching for a 3D TV. Also, what are the 3D blu ray sales like?
Having watched several 3D movies on HBO and xfinity 3D, I can say, it's DVD quality at best with SBS or Top/Bottom. The color, contrast and grainy images are so bad I find it unwatchable. That sure will kill interest in cable 3D as it killed my interest--and I'm a 3D superfan. I only watch Bluray 3D now. I have a 159" screen and the 1080p resolution is great and better than any movie screen I've seen, though haven't witnessed 4K yet ala Hobbit. My point is a bad implementation of a good thing can easily destroy a good thing. The best thing that happened to 3D TV disc players was not having a DVD level 3D technology to contend with prior to 3D bluray. Unfortunately, cable TV managed to spoil it by reducing quality backwards to get 3D to the masses. And they will do the same with 4K. My guess is cable will finally be bluray level, when 4K kicks in, but never true 4K level. But disc players will be true 4K and carry the interest forward.
Watched a bit of the Masters today in 3D. First and last time for 3D here. Nothing but a gimmick.
I am not a golf fan but I did watch part of it on ESPN 3D on Verizon cable. They broadcast it on top/bottom so you don't have the quality of bluray but on my new 84" UltraHD 4K LG set it looked very good. The set upgrades somewhat to 4K so when passive reduces the resolution it still looks fine. So yes I believe the future is bright for 3D and 4K.
I think 4K will come as production price drops. I think 4k acceptance is just as likely as 1080p was... plenty of arguments as to why no one needs 1080p over 720p and then suddenly the price difference is so low no one buys 720 when you can have 1080 for a few $$$ more even if it makes no real difference to your viewing.
When 4k production costs get low enough and a 55 inch 4k costs $100 more than a 55 inch 1080p people will buy it.
Once that starts happening of course no one will buy bigger at a lower resolution, so no one will be buying 70 inch 1080p when they are used to the sharpness of 4k at 55 inches... think how staggeringly bad it will look in comparison.
As for glasses 3D I think passive glasses are getting a lot more acceptance than active ones and even newer active glasses are leagues ahead of what active glasses used to be. When people say they had the glasses they are probably largely thinking of the ski goggle weight ones of yesteryear or the demo things they have at stores that make the somewhat clunky glasses even clunkier.
Honestly the new batch of samsung 3D glasses is smaller than many designer sunglasses.
I think 4K at 55 inches passive 3D would be great, however at 84 inches I think we need higher resolution because then the pixel size will be the same as current 1080p 55 inch pixels which have visible scanlines in passive 3D mode at as far back as 10 ft...
As 3d enthusiasts, we are always going to see things from a different point of view to non 3d people and unfortunately we are in a considerable minority. For 4k to be commercially successful in a domestic environment, it needs to be supported by the public in the same way that 3d needed to be and wasn't. The recent short lived surge of interest in 3d was primarily due to the success of Avatar, the promise of something 'New' and exciting and people expecting to have that sort of quality available easily and affordably in a domestic environment. The manufacturers failed to standardise, broadcasters failed to deliver and the public got fed up with not understanding it all.
Now with 4k, the difference to 108op in a domestic environment on lets say a 50 " tv is going to be pretty much impossible for the human eye to resolve in a 2d broadcast. Add to that the fact that the vast majority of tv boadcast material across the networks is not even to HD quality. After 10 years of HD tvs,, most networks are also not even broadcast in HD, then you have to ask what is the point?
I agree that passive 3d on 4k will give a much sharper image due to the lower resolution of each image, but then you have also got to convince the public all over again that they actually want 3d, which clearly at the moment they don't. Also, whatever the quality of the glasses, my experience with people at the trade fairs that we show 3d at, is that they really don't want to wear glasses to watch a tv.
In my opinion, 3d will be specialised until the day that all angle viewing, glasses free tvs are the norm. HD ready was available on tvs for years before it became more widely broadcast and I think 3d ready will have to follow the same gradual acceptance route, but without glasses.
That's a rather good assessment, Roger. I see it from two persectives and that seems to be the industry consensus too.
The consumer is a follower of what the industry gives him and there will always be a small group of early adopters. There will always be a small group of early naysayers. The large sector of the consumer market will just accept the 3D or 4k offerings as commonplace.
The industry developers are the trend leaders and they are quite pleased at the acceptance of 3D by the consumer, for content creation, content viewing in theaters, and content viewing in the home. Broadcast has been less exciting since so few have jumped in, mainly due to lack of a good revenue stream to defray the added cost. Plus, most broadcast is comfortable with flat world presentations. The broadcast industry is not interested in the state of the art.
When I spoke to these industry leaders at NAB the opinion on 3D is stil quite positive. There is no shortage of demand for it by the content producers and most of these artists see it as an additional tool to tell the story. You and I and most of us here in this section of AVS are in this category. At this stage of the game, I, personally, don't care much about consumer acceptance on a wide scale. 3D remains in that specialty category like DD 7.1. It is an option that I can view because I now can. I choose to seek out and shoot content that begs for 3D only because the medium fascinates me. I gives me the most realistic views of my travels. I still shoot 2D but only with subjects that do not cal for 3D. For example, of I get a job to do some PI work catching a insurance fraud cheater, I'll use the 2D camera as that is all that is required. 3D would be superfluous, and adds a risk of discovery in execution.
When it comes to 2160p consumers will need to learn that this is only for those choosing very large displays. The industry considers 84" optimum but will have 4K sets in the 55" and 65" available. I have also seen the 24" 4K monitors for workstation use, that are glasses free single viewer and these are clearly better than the 2K equivalent, eecially with 3D.
The evolution by the industry was to first establish 3D in a way that the conten ptroducers would accept. We're past that stage now. Next is to get 4K ready for content producers that also uses a variety of codecs and frame rates. The final stage in the evolution will be to combine 3D with these 4K systems. Coming along for the ride will be a line of consumer products that allow for home viewing and home movie production.
But I learned last week at NAB, the industry is not going to stop with 3D 4K. 4K is just a stepping stone to 8k which will be used mainly for large scale big screen content production for events like sports. NHK will be taking the lead in this very advanced format. These 8k productions also use 22.2 sound systems to completely immerse the audience in sound and large screen with tremendous detail.
For those consumers who wish 3D would just die, sorry, it will be here for another 150 years and will be a part of the entertainment offering. It is established now in the home, whereas in theist was strictly a theatrical offering. This in and of itself gives it a former foothold with the consumer.
For those wishing for glasses free 3D, it is coming and the technology keeps getting better. The trouble is what really looks good now is single viewer. Next in line is multi viewers itch sweet spots but small screen, 55" the largest and very very expensive. The industry des not see glasses free 3D for the home yet. It is being pushed mainly for editor work stations and kiosk advertising panels.
I find it interesting how many people object to 3D glasses but they wear prescription glasses and seem glad to have them. Once I demo some great 3D content
the conversation moves from the odd glasses to the incredibly immersive images.
4K -- I'm glad it's coming. I enjoy 130"+ screens and need all the resolution I can get.
I wear prescription glasses because I can't see properly without them, but I am certainly not glad to wear them. Most people that I show my 3d work to, love the images even with the glasses on, but most express the opinion that they like the pics not the glasses.