1080e.tv

HDTV Trends to Expect at CES 2009

Some threads we should expect to see at CES 2009 are from the netbook and notebook fronts. One of the biggest product categories that will be seen at CES 2009 won’t be from the computer market, it will be home theater.

A few trends are popping up and will be on prominent display at the show. One of the trends that continues (and has been prominent each year) is the move to ever-thinner designs. A thin TV looks really cool at the maker's booth, but does the average consumer really care how thin the set is?

I think that there is only one instance where a LCD HDTV or plasma HDTV benefits from being mega thin -- when wall mounted. I would certainly want the thinnest TV I could get hanging on my wall. The vast majority of consumers who buy HDTVs will be sitting them on or in an entertainment center where all the sexy thinness of the set will be moot.

One of the things that consumers look to when buying a computer is how fast the processors runs and most manufacturers prominently display the gigahertz of the CPU used in the computer system. TV makers are beginning to use a similar system to define the performance of their TVs by making prominent claims on the refresh rate. Many TVs today still use 60Hz refresh rates. At CES a few years back the refresh rate jumped to 120Hz. Last year several sets with 240Hz refresh rates popped up and at CES 2009 I expect to see even more sets with 240Hz refresh rates and some that are using 480Hz.

Does a faster refresh rate really make a difference? That depends on whom you ask. I have seen 60Hz and 120Hz sets running side by side with the same show and I could tell a difference. At some point, the refresh rate difference is going to be so small that it is a non-issue. When exactly we reach the point of faster refresh rates making no difference is unknown.

Screen size is always one of the most important things on a consumers mind and at CES 2009 we will see the typical giant screens. On the other end of the spectrum, this year I expect we will see a glut of new full HDTVs that are in smaller screen sizes. Manufacturers understand that consumers are looking for 1080p HDTVs that will fit into rooms where a 55-inch or larger screen just isn’t appropriate. Expect to see a glut of HDTVs in sizes around 24-inches to debut at the show. 

What's All This About 1080p and 3 Gbps?

We in the television technology field have been increasingly hearing about these two topics: "1080p" and "3 Gbps." What is all this about, anyway? The scanning format 1920x1080 progressively scanned has in fact been with us for awhile, in the form of 1080p/24 frames per second (fps). The appearance on the market of so-called "1080p TV sets" which have 1080p displays, but many of which cannot accept 1080p input signals, has raised the awareness of 1080p in consumers. Add to this 1080p Blu-ray DVDs (which are also 1080p/24 fps) and 1080p video game material, and you have the two sources of 1080p material available to the consumer. FILM FRAMES AND VIDEO FRAMES Several years ago, video mastering and archiving of film-based material for the various, and proliferating, video applications, migrated to 1080p/24 (well, really 1080p/23.98). This was a good thing, for several reasons. 24p video establishes a one-to-one relationship between film frames and video frames, and its 1920 pixels per line horizontally by 1080 lines vertically afford the maximum spatial resolution available in the video world, as opposed to the file world. It is, in fact, nearly 2K resolution. Further, by adding the appropriate pulldown (2/3 in the 60 Hz world or 2/2 in the 50 Hz world); subsampling as required; and, for the 50 Hz television world, speeding up to 25 fps, it may be readily converted to any required output format, with very high quality results. Along with 24p video acquisition, 24p editing and post production of 24 fps film-sourced material has been the industry standard for some time. It is at least theoretically possible to broadcast 1080p/24 material using the ATSC system for terrestrial digital broadcast that we employ in the United States. Along with 1080i at 30 fps and 720p at 24, 30, or 60 fps, 1080p, in the 24 and 30 fps frame rates plus their 1/1.001 variants, are listed ATSC formats. It is, therefore, technically feasible to broadcast both 1080p/24 (or 23.98) fps, and 720p/24 (23.98) fps, and ATSC receivers operating in film mode should at least theoretically be able to decode it, add 2/3 pulldown, and display it at 60 (59.94) fps. Parenthetically, the same may be said for 1080p/30 fps and 720p/30 fps. We now know, however, that for all the once much-discussed 18 (or was it 36, or 360?) possible ATSC scanning formats, HDTV has only ever been transmitted in the United States as either 1080i/29.97 fps or 720p/59.94 fps. And for all the talk about megapixels and such, the uncompressed data rates of the three HD scanning formats that are actually used: 1920x1080i/29.97; 1280x720p/59.94; and 1920x1080p/23.98; are, by design, comparable. The data rates for these scanning formats in 4:2:2 color difference component form (Y, R-Y, B-Y), at a bit depth of 10 bits, are as follows: For 1080i/29.97: 1920 horizontal pixels × 1080 lines × 2 components (R-Y and B-Y are each 1/2 Y) x 29.97 fps × 10 bits = approximately 1.243 Gbps. For 720p/59.94: 1280 horizontal pixels × 720 lines × 2 components × 59.94 fps × 10 bits = approximately 1.105 Gbps. For 1080p/23.98: 1920 horizontal pixels × 1080 lines × 2 components × 23.98 fps × 10 bits = approximately 0.995 Gbps. Each of these signals fits nicely into the SMPTE 292M HD-SDI, which, with overhead, has a nominal data rate of 1.485 Gbps. For terrestrial transmission, these data rates are usually reduced by being subsampled as 4:2:0, typically at 8 bits, and significantly compressed to fit into the ATSC transport stream, but we see that they all start out at relatively comparable data rates. WHY NOT SWITCH? Given that 1080p/23.98 fps has a one-to-one relationship between video frames and film frames, and that much primetime television programming originates on 24 fps film, and that further, some small degree of bandwidth savings might be effected by transmitting 1080p/23.98 as opposed to either 1080i/29.97 or 720p/59.94, it logically raises the question, "Why not broadcast 1080p/23.98 when possible?" As we have just seen, the data rate for 1080p/23.98 is only slightly lower than for the other two HDTV formats, and, the degree of redundancy in video that contains 2/3 pulldown is so great that the compressed data rate savings is considerably less than might be expected. The most important reason, however, is that television networks and stations don't transmit only material that was originally captured on 24 fps film. Film or 24p-video sourced material accounts for a considerable amount of primetime programming. However, the balance of primetime and other daypart programming, plus commercials, promos, sports, live events, upconversions from SD, 30 fps film-sourced commercials and a plethora of other things originate as 29.97 or 59.94 fps video. Intermixing 24 fps material with 60 Hz video material would thus require the network or station to constantly hot switch between scanning formats and this is never done. Switching scanning formats on the fly in this way would at best generate a huge number of switching glitches. Given all this, it is not difficult to see why although 1080p/23.98 is a terrific mastering and archiving format for film-sourced and 24p-video sourced material, it really has no future in television broadcasting per se. It raises the further question concerning the recently speculated use of 1080p/59.94 video. It is currently impossible to broadcast this kind of video terrestrially, and broadcasting it terrestrially would require some kind of fundamental change to the ATSC standard that would have the potential to turn current ATSC receiver screens dark. In Europe, a different landscape exists. Because Europe is really just launching HDTV, they were never tethered to MPEG-2 video coding for HD, and have opted for MPEG-4 AVC coding, which we understand can yield video quality comparable to MPEG-2 at compressed data rates as little as half those required for MPEG-2. This would seem to put 1080p/50 fps within the realm of feasibility for European HDTV broadcasting. PROPOSED SOLUTIONS In the United States, there are too many MPEG-2 HDTV sets in the field to contemplate shifting broadcasting to MPEG-4, in the absence of some sort of backward-compatibility scheme. Development of such a scheme is of course possible, but it is not a reality today. Possible solutions that have been proposed include duplicative parallel services, i.e., simulcasting both 1080i/30 and 1080p/60. This approach would seem to be a nonstarter for a number of reasons. Another proposal discussed is called "scalable video coding," or SVC. SVC involves transmission of a base layer, say 1080i/30 or 720p/60, and an enhancement layer. When the two layers are combined, the result is a full 1080p/60 signal. [Does this sound a little familiar to those of you who were around in the early analog days of HDTV development?] Two serious impediments to this idea immediately arise. First, the two layers must use the same encoding scheme: an MPEG-2 base layer cannot be combined with an MPEG-4 enhancement layer. Secondly, the transition from an interlaced base layer to a progressive enhancement layer would be significantly difficult. This approach, while not theoretically impossible, would be difficult, to say the least. 1080p/59.94 also has some serious implications for production and post production, one of which is the fact that it generates a data rate double that of the current HDTV scanning formats, or around 2.5 Gbps, requiring an interface with twice the bandwidth of today's HD-SDI. It can be done using a dual HD-SDI link, or by the implementation of SMPTE 424M, which specifies a 3 Gbps interface that is effectively a rewrite of SMPTE 292M at twice the data rate. This is easier said than done, and has some serious implications for television technologists, system designers and engineers. In the future, we will take a look at some of the challenges of working in this high-speed realm.

HDTV Sales Jumped 27 Percent In December

Washington, D.C. (February 18, 2008) -- Flat-panel High-Definition TV sales jumped 27 percent in December compared to November, according to a new study from Pacific Media Associates.

The research firm says that consumers also were more likely to buy larger-screen sets in December, the height of the holiday shopping season.

However, Pacific Media says Plasma took a back seat to LCD sales in December.

“One important development in December was that Plasma models continued to lose ground to LCD,” said Rosemary Abowd, a Pacific Media vice president. "LCD already dominates the market below 45 inches, but in December, LCD took 50 percent of the larger 50-inch to 54-inch size segment."

The study said Plasma's unit share fell to 17 percent in December in the flat-screen category.

Pacific Media also found that retailers held the line on most set prices in December with the average street price falling just one percent in December compared to November.

But consumers still found their discounts with 17 of the top 20 best-selling units dropping in price as much as 10 percent in December.

Power player: This device sniffs out electricity hogs

OK, power trippers. Here's another weapon in the fight against high electricity bills, a power meter called Watts Up? that asks a question but knows the answer to what's abusing power around the house.

You know the major offenders -- the refrigerator, the electric clothes dryer and, in the summer, the dehumidifier -- but we're taking on "recreational" electricity here. It's the hi-def televisions, DVD players, audio-video receivers and iPod speaker docks.

Watts Up?, from Electronic Educational Devices of Aurora, Colo., comes in four versions: a basic $96 model to the $236 Watts Up?.net, which transfers data over the Internet. The entry-level Watts Up? I tried works much like another power meter I tested about eight months ago, the $20 Kill A Watt. Plug in the meter to a wall outlet, then plug your HDTV or iPod dock into the meter's outlet.

Though both produce similar results, the Watts Up? is better on several counts. Where the Kill A Watt requires the user to do some math to figure out the monthly electricity costs of your equipment, for instance, the Watts Up? does the computation. All you do is supply the cost per kilowatt hour -- how the electric company measures power -- from your latest electric bill.

So I knew immediately that if I left my monster 60-inch plasma on the entire month, it would consume 337 kilowatt hours and, at 18 cents each, cost $60.60. It also told me that during a single viewing session, the television consumed anywhere from 425 to 633 watts. (That's a gruesome watts count, equal to about two refrigerators.)

This plasma might look great, but it'll never get Energy Star approval. A Toshiba HD-A30 HD DVD player, however, earned its Energy Star rating by consuming only 0.7 watts in standby. Compare that to the 5 watts sucked up in standby by the Oppo DV-981HD DVD player.

But in full operation, the Oppo (12 watts) would actually cost less per month than the Toshiba (17.75 watts). With that information, I would turn off the Oppo completely (no standby) after each use but leave the Toshiba in standby mode.

The Watts Up? also measures cumulative cost -- how much you've spent on power since you first started testing the HDTV or DVD player -- and can detect when your equipment has exceeded a designated power threshold. If you suspected a refrigerator was using too much electricity, the Watts Up? could tell you how often it uses more than, say, 100 watts. Excessive power consumption could mean a bad motor or low freon.

Plasma vs. LCD: Where did it go wrong for plasma? Everyone wants an LCD set now. Not me. In the 42- to 50-inch category, plasma still has the better hi-def picture.

LCD beat plasma to 1080p and convinced consumers that the higher resolution is automatically better. Under 42 inches, LCD is the way to go. In a bright room, LCD is the way to go.

But a plasma's picture, with deeper blacks, better depth perception and wider viewing angle, remains the best.

Clearing Up Confusion over HDTV

This was a blog post from David Pogue of the NYTimes, technology. He interviewed a Best Buy employee who was able to clear up some misconceptions and misinformation on HDTV. Great read.

===========================================

Interview by David Pogue

According to the Consumer Electronics Association, this Sunday’s Super Bowl will inspire the sales of 2.4 million high-definition TV sets. That’s a lot of plasma. (And L.C.D., and projection sets.)

In my weekly CNBC/Times video today, I pulled what I thought would be a brilliant stunt: I’d interview a TV salesman at Best Buy, firing a lot of typical confused-consumer questions at him. Then, during playback of that interview, I’d keep pausing the tape to correct him or interject little asides.

Well, the “correcting him” bit didn’t work at all. Steve at the Best Buy in Norwalk, Conn., was amazing, easily one of the most fluent HDTV experts I’d ever met. He was unstumpable.

So here’s a paraphrased version of what I learned or confirmed from him. If you’re among the HDTV shoppers who have yet to buy your set for the big game, maybe the advice here will help you out.

Q: Is there a lot of consumer confusion about HDTV?

A: Oh, man, you have no idea. People come in here absolutely clueless. Or furious, because they bought an HDTV set, got it home, and discovered that the picture doesn’t look anything like it did here in the store. Because they don’t realize they need a high-def *signal* to feed that set. For example, they need to replace their cable boxes with digital ones, or put an antenna on the roof.

[D.P. adds: According to a study by the Leichtman Research Group, 50 percent of HDTV owners aren’t actually watching any high-def shows on them… but 25 percent of them *think* they are.]

Q: Isn’t it true, in fact, that standard-def broadcasts actually look *worse* on a high-def TV?

A: Unfortunately, yes.

Q: Don’t you guys deliberately put the store-display screens in “torch mode,” cranking the brightness and contrast all the way up to catch shoppers’ eyes?

A: We don’t adjust the sets to look that way; that’s the way most sets come from the factory. It actually makes the set look a lot worse than it will when you get it home and get it properly calibrated.

Q: Oh, you have to pay someone to come over and tweak the set?

A: You really should. We offer that service as part of installation.

[D.P. adds: How did I know he was going to say that?]

Q: O.K., here we go. One-word answer: plasma or LCD?

A: They both offer an amazing picture these days. In the better sets, the traditional flaws of plasma (like burn-in) and LCD (limited viewing angle, not very deep blacks, weak fast motion) have been largely eliminated.

The plasma screens still have glossy surfaces, though, and LCD sets are still brighter. So as a rough guideline, plasma has truer color and does better in darker rooms, and LCD has more vivid color and does better in bright rooms. (LCD is also lighter and more energy-efficient, but usually costs more for the same-size set.)

Q: OK, how about this one: 720p or 1080p?

A: These are measurements of how many fine lines make up the picture.

You’d think that 1080p is obviously better than 720p. Trouble is, you won’t get a 1080p image unless you feed it a 1080p signal — and that’s hard to come by. There’s no such thing as a 1080p TV broadcast (cable, satellite, anything), and won’t be for years. Even most games, like Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3, generally send out 720p (or less).

So the *only* way to get a 1080p picture on a 1080p set is to buy a high-def DVD player (Blu-ray or HD DVD). That’s the only way.

[D.P. adds: Even then, you won’t see any difference between 720p and 1080p unless you sit closer than 10 feet from the TV and it’s bigger than 55 inches or so.

And even then, you’re not getting any additional sharpness or detail. Instead, as CNET notes, you’re just gaining the ability to move closer without seeing individual pixels: “In other words, you can sit closer to a 1080p television and not notice any pixel structure, such as stair-stepping along diagonal lines, or the screen door effect (where you can actually see the space between the pixels).”]

Q: But a 1080p set costs a lot more than an identical 720p set, doesn’t it?

A: Yeah.

[D.P. adds: At this point, he showed me two plasmas, same brand, same size, same model line, mounted one above the other: one 720p, the other 1080p. The fancier set cost $2,000 more — and the image quality was pixel-for-pixel identical.]

Q: What’s the best-selling size?

A: It used to be 42 inches. Nowadays, 50-inchers are more common, and even larger, because prices have dropped so much.

Q: Is a bigger screen always better?

A: Depends on whether you ask the husband or the wife.

If you sit 8 to 10 feet back, a 50- or 60-incher is not too big. But you don’t want to overpower the room. If the screen dominates the room, it almost discourages relaxing, because it just towers over the space.

Q: What about rear-projection sets?

A: They’re great. And they’re often overlooked, because flat panels are all the rage. But the truth is, once you mount a flat-panel TV, it’s just as thick as today’s rear-projection sets (several inches from the wall).

Meanwhile, the quality of the rear-projection sets is amazing; it’s been improving every year. The downside is that you can’t sit as far off-angle as you can with a flat panel. But rear-projection sets offer the biggest size at the best price. And they weigh almost nothing. One person can lift one.

[DP adds: Except you do have to replace the bulb every few years, which can cost several hundred dollars… UPDATE: Although not on LED-driven sets!]

Q: How come you guys don’t have the remote controls on display?

A: We don’t like to put them on display, because every time I turn around, somebody’s turned a bunch of the TVs off.

Q: So of all the sets here, which is the very best one to buy for the Super Bowl?

A: Well, all of them will give you an absolutely great picture. But there’s one thing that none of these sets can do: they can’t make the Giants look good.

[D.P. adds: I’m not touching that one. Happy ’Bowling!]