Mike check
Everybody ready?
Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols
The future
It's all a pipe dream
Jason Perlow
The moderator has delivered a final verdict.
Everybody ready?
Ready to go
I am for The future
Let the games begin
I am for It's all a pipe dream
What's wrong with today's TVs, anyway?
Today's TVs are fine. I could wish that color and black and white were better on LCD and LED screens
and that OLED and plasma sets were cheaper, but for the state of TV shows today, they're OK.
What we don't have is enough content that makes use of their capabilities. Except for some over-the-air
(OTA) and Blu-Ray, nothing really makes use of 1080p. We really need is a lot more last mile Internet
bandwidth and for Blu-Ray discs to come down in price.
Looking ahead, 4K is going to need even more bandwidth. In the U.S. Today, we're still looking at an
average of 7.2Mbps. That's barely cuts it for compressed 720p, never mind 1080p.
On the other hand, the just approved High Efficiency Video Coding’ (HEVC) is going to require only
only half the bit rate of today's video codecs. That will make both today's HDTV
video and 4K much more bandwidth effective.
Between HEVC and a major step up in last mile Internet speeds in the next few years, 4K will rise to
the top.
I am for The future
Fundamentally I do not believe there are huge problems with today's TVs themselves, if you look at the entry level and middle-market end of the scale, where the majority of units are being sold.
Since the digital transition during 2008-2009 as consumer have enjoyed a very high level of content quality overall compared to what existed before, and I do not think most most of us would choose to go back to analog SD.
Now that being said, we are severely under-utilizing the capabilities of the current installed base of HDTVs. All of this has to do with the fact that to get the majority of that content distributed, we have to leverage the limitations of the existing broadband Internet infrastructure that is lagging far behind the capabilities of our content playback devices.
Very few people have been using the 1080p capabilities of their TV sets and set-tops because their content suppliers restrict much of this to pay-per-view on-demand, and to really take advantage of quality 1080p content you have to use Blu-Ray discs because nothing is over-the-air broadcast in this resolution.
Many households still do not have Blu-Ray players, nor is it as convenient a medium as Internet streaming.
To complicate this further, Internet-distributed 1080p and even 720p content has to be heavily compressed in order to be pushed by On-Demand services such as Netflix, Amazon Video and Apple TV, so the amount of visible artifacts during playback is significant and is qualitatively not comparable to Blu-Ray discs.
Most of these problems can be attributed to the broadband connection to the last mile and network congestion when attempting to access streamed video from the content delivery networks (CDNs) that services like Netflix and Amazon use.
We will need gigabit or higher broadband to the home to make 4K content transport viable in the Internet, and obviously the electromagnetic spectrum cannot be expanded, so we are going to need to make massive improvements in digital multiplexing on existing DTV channels, freeing up existing spectrum and considerably advancing compression technology to even think about moving 4K Over the Air.
If you thought the Digital TV transition was like the government trying to move Mount Everest, think about it trying to move Olympus Mons instead for a broadcast 4K adoption. The FCC has recently called for all 50 states to provide gigabit connections to the home within five years. I say Good Luck with that.
I am for It's all a pipe dream
At CES, executives said 4K is responding to market demand. Really?
At CES, executives said 4K is responding to market demand. Really?
Jason doesn't hang out with some of the people I do. Real videophiles are already going "Shut up and
take my money!" for the $20,000 and up 4K sets. Are these most people? Heck no! But they are out
there and there's enough of them that they make up a real market.
Heck, if I had that kind of cash, I'd do it.
I am for The future
No, the executives are all smoking crack. They are just coming up with excuses to push newer technology because the existing margins on consumer HDTVs have been reduced to nauseating levels for these companies.
I am for It's all a pipe dream
How will higher resolution impact content creators and infrastructure providers?
4K has actually already been around for a while. AMC theaters, for example, completing switching
to 4K projectors last year. Sony Pictures was switching over their filming most to 4K in 2008. Today,
many, if not most, digital movies are shot in 4K. So, for movie creators the infrastructure is already
there and has been for some time.
What we really need, as far as Internet TV goes, is for all the ISPs to increase their bandwidth. We
need that regardless of whether 4K takes off. Video now takes up most of the Internet's bandwidth>
Heck, Netflix alone is the single largest consumer of Internet bandwidth.
What this means for 4K is that in the immediate future, just like with HDTV and 1080p today, you're
going to be watching most of your high-resolution movies with a 4K player.
I am for The future
Well, the content creators are going to need extremely powerful workstations and server farms to process the data. Take a look at what Weta, the studio who produced The Hobbit movie uses. That should give you some idea.
Every uncompressed frame of data is going to be around 45 megs apiece, and then you are going to need serious compute power to do the compression and create the workprints, never mind having 100 Gig networks in your datacenter and 10 Gig to the workstation to move data around.
That's the kind of infrastructure TV studios are going to have to buy if network television and cable TV premium content providers have to get into this game. The storage and network companies like Cisco, EMC, NetApp, IBM and HP are also going to get rich beyond their wildest dreams if this technology enters wide adoption.
I don't see this happening so quickly, as they all just spent big money on 1080p production facilities and would have to at least quadruple their storage capacities if not more.
You can argue that this technology is going to get cheaper, and the recording and production technology is going to become more portable, but it's still going to be a very large expense if you multiply it at scale.
Service providers, like the content creators, are also going to have to beef up their networks, and the Internet-facing switch infrastructure capability at the Tier 1, 2 and 3 companies will have to be increased at a magnitude on the order of 10 times or even more to deal with this.
As it is today, the Internet is already overloaded with video streaming, and this would only compound the problem.
I am for It's all a pipe dream
Is there anything we could do in higher-definition that we can't today?
It's not a black and white question, it's a quality question. Games, sporting events, videos, high-end computing imaging, aka medical and modeling, all look much better in 4K. The question isn't "Can you do something you can't do?" It's is the improved quality worth it to you? For many people, the answer will be "yes."
I am for The future
Well, from an entertainment standpoint, at least as it relates to visualization intensive apps like video games, the higher the resolution you have the more complex the modeling you can do and thus the more realistic rendering of objects and textures.
From a vertical market standpoint this would be a huge boon to data visualization and scientific and medical imaging. Font rendering would also be super-duper sharp.
However, it should be noted that these applications are not as dependent on broadband infrastructure because these things are being rendered on the fly, using vectors, mathematical algorithms and bitmaps. GPUs will definitely need to be beefed up, without question.
But it is safe to assume that 4K will be adopted for these things first long before we see it in any broadcast form.
I am for It's all a pipe dream
Every new home theater technology is said to threaten attendance at real theaters. Will 4K move the needle further, or is that theory bunk?
Watching at home and watching at a theater are fundamentally different experiences. One is just you
and a few friends or family watching a movie while the other is you sharing the experience with a
crowd. Think about watching say the upcoming new Star Wars movie, would you rather see it at home,
even on a 4K TV, or with an audience? For a film like that I think most people will go to the theater.
That said, the movie theater's real problem is price. I'm far from poor, but I can't recall the last time I
went out to an evening, full-price movie. So sure, 4K will make staying at home to watch a film a wee
bit more attractive, but cost, not an improvement in video quality, is the real driver.
I am for The future
I think the movie theater is already in serious danger due to the home theater experience. And since many of them are co-located with malls and are affected by declining retail traffic they need to find ever increasing ways to attract customers (4K, 3D, high frame rates) when their home experience is more than "good enough" and ticket and concession prices are off the scale.
4K at home may compound the problem for the theater venues but I don't think it is as significant a variable as other technologies and factors that are hurting that industry.
I am for It's all a pipe dream
Smart TV technology is rising at the same time as 4K. How will such high resolution impact online content? (File size? Format?)
Jason and I see eye to eye on this one. No one cares about smart TVs. No, not even the long-rumored
Apple TV.
None of the TV vendors have yet to come up with a good user interface. Say Apple does come out with
an Apple TV, that's more than a box, so what? Do I want to be stuck with only those content providers
who've struck a deal with Apple? I don't think so.
My problems with "smart TVs" is the same one I have with TVs with VCRs and DVD-players built
into them. They put multiple points of failure in one device and they usually don't have all the features
I want. Give me a Roku box and a dumb TV any day.
I am for The future
Repeat after me: NOBODY CARES ABOUT SMART TV. Yes, people will expect that these features will be embedded in their TV sets, but nobody wants to pay extra for them and there is no standardized interactive TV content that anyone cares about. Everyone uses different content providers and they all have different UIs.
People want to watch their shows, period, not interact with them. If any of that activity is going to occur it will be on mobile devices like tablets and smartphones that will simply replace the remote controls for DVRs and other set-tops that are in use now.
I am for It's all a pipe dream
How will 4K impact other electronics: computer monitors, mobile devices?
It will become the standard for high-end computer monitors and tablets. It won't be for everyone. 4K on a Nexus 7 or iPad mini form factor? Surely not!
I am for The future
I expect to see this technology used in PC monitors first, within the next 3 years. As I said in my opening statement we'll probably also see it in tablets in a very similar time frame.
I am for It's all a pipe dream
What about backwards compatibility? How will today's "low" resolution content look on 4K?
As Jason says, "We already know what it looks like in 4K." In short, it looks great. What I'm really looking forward to though is the simultaneous rise of organic light-emitting diode (OLED) with 4K. This really will make today's video, even ordinary DVDs, look much better thanks to its improved black and white and color dynamics.
I am for The future
We already know what it looks like in 4K. SONY uses pixel quadrupling technology with their some of their Blu-Ray players in order to play current generation 1080p movies on their 4K TV sets. It looks fine, and is not susceptible to the same Analog/DTV translation issues we dealt with playing SD content on HD.
So pixel "Octupling" or "Sextupling" upscaler technology will be simply built into any set-top device that has 4K output capability and has to play back legacy 1080i and 720p HDTV content.
I am for It's all a pipe dream
How does this impact 3DTV technology?
I see 3DTV as an entertaining dead-end. Yes, we'll still see kid- and big-action movies, but I, for one, just don't find it that interesting—especially not at home. I see 3D becoming just another feature in 4K TVs.
I am for The future
I don't see it moving the needle. Major feature films will continue to be produced in 3D as well as in HFR, but I don't see network television or premium broadcast content going in that direction for a very, very long time, so there will always be a content cap.
I am for It's all a pipe dream
It took years for high-definition discs to roll out into the marketplace. Will 4K really get a shot before it's replaced?
4K will get its shot. 8K is still largely an engineering experiment, while the infrastructure for 4K movie production and projection is already with us. Today, we're seeing 4K's first steps to the consumer market. 8K will just be making it out of the lab when 4K has become a mass market product.
I am for The future
I think it is certainly possible that before it is widely adopted in broadcast, the 8K technology will arrive to replace it.
I am for It's all a pipe dream
Finally: what's the ultimate end game for TVs? Where are we headed?
I see two paths ahead. On the one side, the family living room TV, and for those that can afford it, the
home theater, are going to stay. At the same time, the tablet is becoming the personal video device of
choice.
I don't see either one winning out because they're really about two different activities: Sharing a video
and watching a video by yourself.
The end result? We're going to be watching more TV than ever. Pass the chips.
I am for The future
I certainly do not see the family living room TV going away anytime soon, but we are going to be seeing a lot more usage of personal viewing devices. The tablet will be used to stream more and more video data, and we may see them being used more with home TV "servers" that act as centralized DVRs and tuners for these portable playback devices for cached content. The back end of the equation will require beefier CDNs and faster edge of the network connections in order to service it.
In summary: a vast increase in couch or bed potatoism.
I am for It's all a pipe dream
Nice debate. I hope you get the picture. Tomorrow, our debaters will post their closing arguments and Thursday, I've give my verdict. Let's hear your opinion in the talkback section. Thanks so much for joining in.
Steven J. Vaughan-Nichols
Jason Perlow
Andrew Nusca
Predicting the future isn't easy, but both participants in this week's debate about 4K TV technology made great points. Jason Perlow's more nuanced take on the subject -- acknowledging that it will soon be a reality, yes, but not for most, and not in the best way -- was more convincing. Because nothing says "pipe dream" like the hollow feeling of a brand new 4K television set playing a 480i broadcast signal.
Posted by Andrew Nusca