UHDTV真的不会重蹈3D电视的覆辙吗？

美国有线电视体育节目联播网 ESPN 在本月稍早发布了一条推特，微妙地透露他们打算在今年稍晚放弃先前投资不少的 3D电视频道；这个消息并不令人惊讶。 不过让我觉得有点惊讶的是，产业界是如此深信尚未成形的超高画质电视(Ultra High Definition TV，UHDTV)市场不会重蹈 3D电视的覆辙；市场研究机构IHS的显示器产业资深分析师Sweta Dash在今年稍早的一篇评论中即表示：“3D电视失败的教训将会让4K电视迎向更光明的未来。”

pRoesmc

等一下….消费性电子产业到底从 3D电视学到了什么教训？他们学到了不能忽略消费者自然会对于只是为了看电视、就得戴上一个“设备”(就是那不舒服的3D眼镜)的抗拒吗？他们可知道，尽管产业界精心策划各种行销手法，要改变消费者的基本行为仍是非常困难？

3D眼镜“不舒服”就足以让3D电视负分滚粗
pRoesmc

或者他们是否了解，新的电视技术(无论是3D或是超高画质)需要丰富、大量、多样、适合且可负担得起的“内容”(消费者就是从中判定他们花的钱是否值得)，才能真正在市场上无所不在？那些优质内容能在少数几个可选择的频道上观看，也不会被收进蓝光光盘，因为一旦那些装置被称为“电视机”，消费者就会预期3D或超高画质节目能透过网络自由取得。 但最重要的是，我怀疑产业界是否真正了解，电视制造商不顾一切地发展业务(并致力不让他们卖出去的每一台电视亏钱)，并不代表他们也可以乐观地认定消费者也会买帐。 本文授权编译自EE Times，版权所有，谢绝转载 第2页：为何3D不行、4K行？ 第3页：UHDTV诞生时机正好？

相关阅读：
• 平板电脑将成为你的移动电视
• 超高清电视普及，“软肋”在哪里？
• UHDTV带来的另外三个新技术商机pRoesmc

{pagination} 为何3D不行、4K行？ 先把我的偏见摆到一边，我询问市场分析师们，是否认为产业界已经从 3D电视挫败学到了教训；然后我又问他们，为何会相信 UHDTV 将会有完全不同的命运。对此IHS的Dash指出，“缺乏内容、高价位以及不便利的技术”是 3D电视无法以利基型产品崛起的理由。 另一家市场研究机构NPD Group的分析师Ben Arnold也同意以上看法，他指出，配戴 3D眼镜：“对消费者观看内容造成了妨碍；它让消费者对于该从何处取得3D内容感到困惑，内容可取得性是非常分散的。”此外他指出，消费者的教育与行销是 另一个问题：“许多消费者不了解他们其实还是可以把他家的3D电视当普通电视看，不用戴3D眼镜。” Arnold也坦承了一件业界鲜少有人承认的事情：“整个产业界都被卷进了一股毁灭力量，”因此所有人都朝同一个方向前进，希望能挽救衰退的电视销售量。 市场分析机构Envisioneering 的研究员Richard Doherty表示：“以家用电视的尺寸，3D电视的好处难以从那些缺点(昂贵、需要装电池的3D眼镜、低亮度的显示器)中突显出来。”他指出，主动快门式的3D电视应该具备高两倍的两度，对任何人来说，若在不配戴3D眼镜的情况下于室内观看3D电视机，效果都非常差。 3D显示到目前为止在电影院里取得的成功经验，并未能复制到家里的3D电视上，Doherty解释，原因是在电影院中，3D影片是在亮度被控制的环境下播放，而且：“每个人都配戴了3D眼镜，而且几乎没人会把头动来动去或到处乱走。”但在家里，情况完全不同。 Doherty 坚信：“超高画质技术有许多理由不会面临以上问题。”他指出，UHDTV提供的是“实际的临场感”体验，其分辨率等同于35mm~70mm的影片画质，每个人都看得到；他指出，无论是47、60或85寸的大电视，或是较小尺寸的新一代笔电、台式机，都将支持4K超高画质视为标竿，超高画质时代即将来临。 而且，NPD的Arnold与IHS的Dash指出，UHDTV与3D电视最大的不同点之一就是：“再也不需要戴眼镜。”这当然无须多言…但是，UHDTV内容的可取得性如何？ 本文授权编译自EE Times，版权所有，谢绝转载 第3页：UHDTV诞生时机正好？

相关阅读：
• 平板电脑将成为你的移动电视
• 超高清电视普及，“软肋”在哪里？
• UHDTV带来的另外三个新技术商机pRoesmc

{pagination} UHDTV诞生时机正好？ 在这方面，Dash认为没有什么问题：“许多电视品牌正在积极运作提供超高画质内容，无论是将现有内容画质升级、或是创造适合的超高画质内容；日本已经打算最快在2014年开始提供超高画质广播，比原先的计划提早了两年。此外，4K摄影机已经问世，可支持4K内容的创作；市面上也开始看得到一些4K电影。” 然而，这类的技术升级，可能在消费性电子产业这厢衍生过多的期待；到底更多样化的超高画质内容──就如同体育频道业者一开始在4K领域所创作的──会多快的时间内透过广播节目广泛提供，仍有待观察。 根据业界消息，ESPN首席技术官Chuck Pagano在接受访问时曾表示：“现在要说我对4K发展前景感觉乐不乐观还太早，我有点像是仍走在半路上。”他指出，他并不相信消费者可以分辨出 4K电视与1080p高画质电视画面的差异，就连他跟他的同事们把两台55寸屏幕摆在一起试图比较两种画面的不同，也是分不太出来。 电影频道HBO前任首席技术官、现已推修的Bob Zitter在今年稍早时曾表示，他：“很怀疑消费者会想购买4K超高画质电视。”Zitter指出，4K画面至少要透过60寸以上的屏幕观赏效果才会好，但大多数消费者并没有那么大的客厅可以摆那么大的电视；因此他表示，除非有多数观众家中拥有4K电视机，否则HBO不会轻易开始提供超高画质内容。 当然，还是有一些爱好尝鲜者会抢先采购超高画质电视，就像那些客厅桌子上早就摆了一堆3D眼镜的发烧友一样。而NPD的Arnold表示，高画质电视 (HDTV)在2005年至2007年于美国市场掀起第一波销售热潮，若以电视机平均7~10年的产品寿命来看，超高画质电视正遇上电视汰换潮的大好时机。 所以，尽管要适当享受超高画质电视得忍受大尺寸屏幕的不便，建立免费的超高画质电视内容也有待时日，再加上目前超高画质电视产品仍然价格高昂，超高画质电视还是可能因为机缘巧合而崛起──谁叫它们刚好诞生在这个大多数消费者正准备采买新电视的时候！ 本文授权编译自EE Times，版权所有，谢绝转载 编译：Judith Cheng 参考英文原文：UHDTV whistling past 3-D TV grave，by Junko Yoshida

相关阅读：
• 平板电脑将成为你的移动电视
• 超高清电视普及，“软肋”在哪里？
• UHDTV带来的另外三个新技术商机pRoesmc

{pagination} UHDTV whistling past 3-D TV grave Junko Yoshida MADISON, Wis. -- I wasn’t surprised by ESPN’s tweet earlier this month, in which they subtly mentioned their plan to drop their costly 3-D TV channel later this year. Hey, who could be surprised? I was a little surprised, however, by the industry’s dogged insistence that the yet-to-be Ultra High Definition TV market won’t at all resemble the fate of 3DTV. “Chances are the lessons from 3-D’s broken promises will lead to a brighter future for 4K,” wrote Sweta Dash, senior director, Display Research & Strategy, IHS, in her commentary post at www.electronics360.net earlier this year. Wait a minute. What lessons did the consumer electronics industry exactly learn from their fatal 3-D TV push? Did they learn not to ignore the consumer’s natural reluctance to put on “equipment” (those uncomfortable 3-D glasses) just to watch TV? Do they now know that it’s tough — regardless of the industry’s well-orchestrated marketing machine — to change consumers’ basic behavior? Or do they understand now that new TV technology (be it 3-D or UHDTV) demands rich, abundant, varied, appropriate and affordable “content” (thus giving the consumer the impression that his purchase is worth the money) to be truly ubiquitous? Premium content that can be viewed on a few selective channels and Blu-ray disks won’t cut it, because as long as these devices are called “TV” sets, consumers expect 3-D or UHDTV programming to be freely available over the air. But above all, I wonder if the industry really gets this: TV manufacturers’ desperation to grow their business (and not lose money on every set they sell) doesn’t justify their optimism that consumers, too, will buy into it. Setting aside my own prejudices, I set out to ask market analysts what they thought the industry has learned from 3-D’s latest nosedive. Then, I asked them to make the case for why they believe UHDTV is a whole different story. Why 3-D failed IHS’s Dash summed it up by pointing out “a lack of content, high pricing and inconvenient technology” as the reasons why 3-D never emerged from a niche status. Ben Arnold, NPD Group’s director of industry analysis, agreed. Wearing 3-D glasses “was getting in the way of consumers’ content consumption,” he noted. Further, “it was confusing to consumers where they can get 3-D content. The availability of content was very fragmented.” Consumer education and marketing was another issue, he said. “Many consumers did not understand that you can use 3-D TV for everyday TV viewing without using 3-D glasses.” Caught up in a juggernaut Arnold then acknowledged something others in the industry rarely admit: “The industry got caught up in a juggernaut,” everyone going in the same direction in hopes of reversing the sales decline. Richard Doherty, research director, Envisioneering, pointed out, “The benefits of 3-D TV on home size displays were not shown to consumers versus the nuisance (expensive, battery discharging 3-D active shutters, dim displays).” Noting that active shutter 3-D TVs have to be twice as bright, Doherty said that 3-D TVs looked terrible to anyone in the room without 3-D glasses. 3-D’s thusfar modest success in movie houses didn’t translate to the 3-D TV experience at home, because in a theater, 3-D movies are offered in a controlled-brightness environment and “everyone is wearing glasses (polarized), and no one, (hopefully!), is tilting their head or walking around,” Doherty explained. “In the home, life is different.” Why UHDTV is different Doherty firmly believes that “UHD IS different for a host of reasons.” He said that UHDTV offers a “true YOU ARE THERE” experience. It is “equivalent to 35-mm to 70 mm film resolution displays of movies, live entertainment and sports. Everyone can see it.” He said, “Whether 47-inch, 60, 85-inch, UHD becomes the benchmark or Panasonic 17-inch laptop displays (shown at CES, stunning!), or Apple UHD products (they make a big deal new MacPro server provides 4 simultaneous 4K UHD outputs), UHD is coming.” Doherty added, “With less hype than 3-D, one hopes.” Meanwhile, both NPD’s Arnold and IHS’ Dash pointed out that “no need to wear glasses” as the one of the biggest reasons why UHDTV differs from 3-D TV. That goes without saying, but what about the availability of UHDTV content? Dash sees little problem. “Many TV brands are actively working to provide UHD content, either through upscaling or through the creation of proprietary UHD content. Already, Japan has plans to begin UHD broadcasting as soon as 2014, two years earlier than originally planned. Also, 4K cameras and camcorders are now on the market, enabling creation of 4K content. Movies in 4K are likewise starting to show up.” Such technology upgrades, however, may be spawning a little too much wishful thinking on the part of the consumer electronics industry. It remains uncertain how quickly broader content offerings – such as sports originally created in 4K — will become widely available in broadcast programming. UHDTV skeptics In recent media reports, ESPN’s CTO Chuck Pagano was quoted by saying “it's still too early to say if I'm bullish or not on 4K. I'm sort of in the middle of the road." In an interview with Multichannel News, Pagano said he's not convinced that consumers will be able to tell the difference between a 4K TV picture and a 1080p picture. Pagano said he and his colleagues have 'studied' the two images side-by-side on a 55-inch screen and "scratched their heads" because the difference seems minimal. Bob Zitter, HBO's now retired, former CTO, was also quoted earlier this year, saying he was "very skeptical that consumers are going to want to buy it [4K UHDV]." Zitter then noted that 4K would look best on a TV screen at least 60 inches in diagonal and that many consumers don't have the living room space for such a set. Zitter’s point was that broadcasters, such as HBO, will be reluctant to transmit programming in 4K unless a majority of viewers have a 4K set. But that’s not to say that early adopters won’t buy into UHDTV. But these are the same folks that have a punchbowl full of 3-D glasses on the coffee table. NPD’s Arnold said that the first big wave of HDTV sales took place between 2005 and 2007 in the United States. Given the average television’s life-cycle of 7-10 years, UHDTV might just be hitting the right moment for a sales boom in replacement TVs. Judging from many positive comments on UHDTV from our engineering readers on my previous blogs – in which my UHDTV forecast was pessimistic — I could be pleasantly surprised to find myself proven wrong (which happens a lot, by the way). Regardless of the inconveniently huge screen size required to enjoy UHDTV properly, and despite the slow build-up of free UHDTV content, not to mention the higher price tags for hardware, UHDTV might win by coincidence — hitting the market just when a lot of people are shopping for a new television.