Originally Posted by rogo
Um, what? Are you claiming "so long as the wall is 8 feet wide it can have a 100 inch display?" If so, that's technically true and completely irrelevant to my argument. Technically, I can have a llama in my back yard.
[quote[One of the limits on screen size has always been the resolution of the signal being displayed. Blow up an SD tv feed, VHS tape, or even a DVD large enough and it looks really bad.
This remains irrelevant to my argument. You need to find a shred of evidence there is some desire for 100-inch TVs. You need to find me a counter-example to the real people I encounter who "would never put in a TV that big". They don't want giant TVs. The issues are not technical, not ones of resolution.
They are often issues of space. I don't know anything about your home, but I have been in many homes around here where there is nothing resembling a wall that could accommodate a 100-inch TV. Yes, there are 8-foot walls (and larger of course). But that doesn't mean any of them could handle a 100-inch TV. In my home -- which is slightly larger than the average American home (very slightly) -- the only family room large enough has a couch and faces the sliding glass door. There is no way to use it for a TV. Placing a 100-inch TV in my home would require removing fireplaces and rebuilding walls. It will not be happening.
People get confused here often. When I write "People don't want 100 inch TVs" I don't mean "No one wants a 100 inch TV." The projector forums here will provide you with names and photos of people that want giant TVs. Many of them have media rooms or theaters -- that most homes do not have and do not want (see my good friend and the home theater he just dismantled after a decade of non use, for example). Many of them are single men with "bachelor pad" type residences. Some of them have a 100-inch display in a family room, but really not many.
In the middle 1980s, the music CD was commercialized and while we can debate digital vs. analog till the cows come home, it was a 44 kHZ, digitally sample pristine recording medium that at least compared to the cassette tape of its day, obliterated the sound quality of what we had become used to. (Again, I am aware that LPs contain more information than CDs by many metrics. I am also aware of their downsides.) The CD was so good, it removed all other music formats from the market in anything other than niche status.
Some years later, attempts were made to improve upon digital sound media with the SACD and the DVD-Audio formats. They are better. In fact, sometimes they are so good its amazing. They do not account for 1% of music sold and they never will. The dominant format for music distribution is the MP3 (or equivalent), typically compressed to bit rates of 128kbps, sometimes offer at 2-2.5x that. It is inferior to the CD of the same music in nearly all cases
. Efforts like Music Giants et al. to sell better quality compressed digital music have failed.
I am firmly convinced that the long run future of music sales is almost entirely in streamed music offerings like XM-Sirius (I'll let you figure out why that's a streamed digital offering), Rhapsody, Pandora, rdio, MOG, Spotify, et al. Those are all even lower quality than well-encoded, higher-bit rate MP3s.
This is true in spite of the fact that insanely great digital files could be made at 512 kbps and that with increasing storage, we could easily store more songs on an iPhone today -- assuming the 32GB model -- than we could on the iPod that ushered in the growth phase of the MP3 era (6x+ of the capacity, and assuming 4x the bitrate). There is no movement to distribute digital downloads consistently at 320kpbs, let alone 512kbps.
In video, the situation is probably even more grim. Despite the very solid growth of BluRay (ignore people who claim it's a failure, the numbers say it's doing about as well as DVD over its first 5 years), the movie industry's future lies in lower-than-BluRay bit-rate content. The fastest growing video service on earth is Netflix streaming, which occasionally exceeds DVD quality, but which never reaches BluRay quality. DirecTV (and others?) offer some 1080p PPV type content which can be very good, but again is never better than a current BluRay.
The move industry is pushing more digital sales and celestial locker solutions like Ultraviolet (and what you'll eventually see from Amazon and Apple). These are typically movies/TVs at 1/5 to 1/3 the bitrates of BluRay.
The notion that higher-bit-rate and higher-resolution video is something that is wanted by the industry is wrong. The notion that it's "compatible" with the anemic broadband speeds in the world's largest movie market is wrong. The notion that it's coming in the next decade is wrong. If anything, we are going to remember the era of receiving uncompressed HD and getting rapidly released BluRays of all new movies as the golden age for the videophile.
I'd rather not bet against a future home with a display wall and 10 gigabit connectivity and streamed content that doesn't need DRM because we no longer store any of it since said connectivity is as reliable as power. I'd like to believe that will come in the next 50 years. But I'm not naive. Most of the homes that had the first TVs in the US are still standing and some barely accommodate a 50-inch TV in the living room. A lot of TV viewers like my aunt and uncle live in a townhome which is much newer than the TV era, and yet no more capable of holding a 60-inch TV in the living room than a Toyota Prius is for the flip down back seat video.
The transmission lines for your phone might have been installed as early as the 1920s and almost certainly haven't been touched since they first went in. The cable "drops" in America are largely the ones that were installed with the cable when it was HBO and a better signal.
Things change insanely slowly even when they seem to be changing insanely quickly. The adoption of cell phones and the internet are interesting exceptions in that they largely didn't require the customer to make significant infrastructure changes.
If people were clamoring for movie theater sized home TVs, then I'd be of the opinion that they were coming in bigger numbers. But this desire is a niche within a niche and at AVS we are almost entirely the larger of the niches. We don't represent the market, which is why we are rarely entirely satisfied with the new product offerings delivering all we "demanded".
At the end of the day, I am a believer that you are entitled to believe what you want so long as you don't make up facts. And from what I can see, you are largely on the correct side of the factual divide and you simply don't see the multitude of reasons why I am flat out certain that even 70-inch TVs are only going to be a small fraction of the market. (A position that I believe most of the well-reasoned posters here agree with, although we often quibble over how small that fraction will be.)
I am actually more certain that even if 100-inch TVs become readily available -- and there are physical logistics reasons why they will absolutely never be readily available until they can be sold in pieces -- you are talking about fractions of 1% of U.S. homes having them. And fractions of 0.1% of European and Japanese homes. And the cost of said TVs will really not be high on the list of why those percentages are so low.[/quote]
My largest tv is 65". I could easily handle a 100" diagonal screen in my room, and still have room for my front speakers. Room is the least of my concerns.
My home is fairly typical.
I would not move to a larger screen size unless the price was reasonable and the image produced was stellar.
Front projectors have been available forever to deliver this screen size. Problem is the need for a light controlled viewing area. I want my viewing room to be multi-use as opposed to a dedicated movie theater.
Mitsubishi is about to break the 90" barrier with a DLP set and Sharp already has a 70" LED available for under $3000.
As prices continue to go down and screen sizes up, more people will move up their screen size. 19" tube tvs were once the most common size in the us. 42" Plasma sets went for over $3000 just a few years ago.
Bigger can be better in lots of things. TVs are just one of them.