A 1998 Forrester Research prediction about HDTVs wasn't even close
By Ben Drawbaugh 
posted Oct 9th 2009 5:41PM
posted Oct 9th 2009 5:41PM
One of our favorite pastimes here at Engadget HD is to give analysts and researchers a hard time and this is one that we just couldn't pass up. The HDTV Almanac happened across a very old Forrester Research report that didn't think HDTV had much of a future. Of course looking back over 10 years makes it almost too easy to poke fun, but predicting that HDTVs would still cost $2000 in 2008 seems pretty silly about now. What's worse is the prediction that only one million sets would be sold by 2003, while the number ended up being 3.4 million. Looking back at all of this makes us wonder about all the 3D predictions we've seen lately, because if consumers went that crazy about going from 480i to 1080p, just imagine how they'll feel about adding a third dimension.
Not that simple...If the government decides to have a 3D switchover and make it to where everyone has to have a 3d TV,
then maybe 3D will see the kinds of sales that hdtv/digital has
I'm sorry what?
The government isn't forcing you to buy an HDTV. They are forcing you to make sure your TV has a digital tuner in it... SDTV's have digital tuners.
you missed what i was saying....most of your consumers thought that since there was a big switchover coming that they had to go out and buy a hdtv....I sold these tv's to many people that way. I understand that all you needed was a digital tuner, but most people dont.
ATSC is more than capable of being extended to support 3D - just add the other field as a secondary stream that'd be ignored by regular decoders. The government will never need to do a "switchover" even if they decide at a later date to mandate 3D (which is going to be the day I start thinking Glenn Beck is a pretty sharp individual.)
The digital switchover was a switchover from an analog platform to a more versatile digital platform, not a switchover from SD to HD, HD, together with decent audio, is merely the first benefit of ATSC.
"...but predicting that HDTVs would still cost $2000 in 2008 seems pretty silly about now."
Um.. in case you have not taken a look at the market, there are still MANY models above the $3500 mark; a few above $10,000, so your statement is not entirely accurate.
I see it this way: Sure you CAN buy a Kia for $8,000, but it is a piece of crap.
You obviously didn't read the actual article that Ben's referring to:
"But these investments, along with the cost of producing the components to receive and display HDTV broadcasts, will keep the price of HDTV sets at or more than $2000 for another 10 years."
The operative words there are "AT OR MORE THAN $2000," which is what Ben was referring to.
Basically he was saying, "predicting that HDTVs would still cost [AT LEAST] $2000 in 2008 seems pretty silly about now."
Apparently you didn't read my followup comment. Sure you can get a TV for less than $2,000. It will not be very big, and will not be the latest technology or highest resolution available. Doubt it? Find me a 65 inch Plasma with 1080p for $2000 or less. I dare you. The lowest price is almost $3,000 through virtually all retailers right now.
Best Buy... out $2950 is the lowest.
Walmart... out. They don't even sell a 65".
Circuit City... out of business.
And the list goes on.
well you can buy a 65 inch panasonic vera cast plasma tv for as low as 2,349 online from amazon
if you want big screen and 3d? you can buy an 82 inch 737 series mistubishi dlp set for as low as 2,399-2,999 online
the higher end (just a few extra features and extra hdmi) for $3500 online at lowest
you can get a 73837 model for as low as $2,039 online
the slight step down with the 73 737 model for as low as 1700-1800 online
and the 65 inch series for anywhere between 900-1200 depending on the model 65c9, 65737 or 65837
all mits dlps for 2009 do 3d and are all 1080p
Slappy, why do you arbitrarily choose 65 inches? 65" is not a very popular size and the quantity of them is relatively low so of course their price is still above $2000. 50 inches is big by most standards and there are a lot of them for $1000-1500 with all the latest technology.
Slappy, I did read your follow up. It didn't seem to have anything to do with anything, so I disregarded it. I was clarifying the fact that you misunderstood the post Sorry, you still fail.
Apparently you are ignoring this one simple thing: People WANT the largest TV's, and the law of supply and demand is in play, so the prices stay high. The only reason that the 50" and lower TV's are popular is because of the price and the fact that people are cheap. Companies KNOW they cannot get $2000+ for a 50" TV anymore because there are much larger ones on the market and that people will not pay over $2000 for a 50" TV. Anyone would be STUPID to do so. Maybe it is time all of you go back and take an economics class.
I still assert that while you CAN buy a larger TV for less than $2000, you WILL NOT be buying the biggest or best technology available.
The reason for choosing a 65" Plasma is that it is the largest screen that will fit into the space where my 46" LCD is now; above a corner fireplace. This is one of the most common reasons for the size choice of a TV, usually only second to price. In my case, it was the primary determining factor in choosing the size -- "Hey, how big of a screen can I fit in here without tearing out the wall?"
The fact that Amazon lists (not sells, get it right -- 6ave sells them, and raised their price $100 since you posted) a 65" Panasonic Viera for $2349 is evidence of what exactly? That you PROVED my point that you cannot purchase a 65" Plasma for under $2000?
DLP does not apply because it looks like shit. See Kia analogy above.
So now that I am finished here, you go ahead and get the last word. You know you want to.
@slappy: This may come as a surprise to you , but not everyone wants the biggest TV. There are people who do not want their TV to dominate their living room, and are perfectly happy with a 32" or small TV.
Also HDTV doesn't mean big. It mean 1080p. You can get a 1080p monitor with HDMI and component inputs for $300 on newegg.
3D will start to take off when the dumb glasses arent needed. Till then, it will be a niche product
More senseless whining about needing to wear glasses (that will more likely than not be wireless) for a few hours to watch a movie in the privacy of one's own home...or do you *really* think that there will be no 2D video available in the near future???
If they don't fit well over existing glasses and you cannot wear contacts, okay, that's a valid argument. But otherwise that relatively minor inconvenience is going to prevent you from watching the number of 3D movies that are in the works (and that number is growing rapidly)? Really??? (And keep in mind that some directors are already going back and working on converting their 2D movies to 3D!) Wow. That really is just mind-boggling.
3-D will do just fine. Even with the glasses. It's going to take a few years for the non-glasses approach to pan out and until then we will wear glasses. In 20 years that Virtual Reality thing will seem like childs play to what we'll be getting ready to play with. 20 years really isn't that much time considering it takes about 5 years to really acclaimate a product. So maybe 25 years until we will get our first 360 degree look into a movie; and even then it may be something that will only be done with a few Major motion pictures but it will happen.
As long as I'm married or my wife is alive I won't have anything 3-D. Wife is blind in her left eye so it would be a waste of money.
Same for my father. I hope if everything goes 3D that whatever standard is most common will still be normally viewable with only one eye.
3D will always be a niche product. It didn't take off in the 1950s, it didn't take off in the 1980s, and it's not going to take off now. Unlike sound and colour, 3D is a gimmick. It can be a nice gimmick, but it takes an astonishingly good director to actually do anything with 3D that enhances anything but the worst stories. It's also expensive and awkward to implement which is why most of the movies that have come out recently in 3D (I said MOST) are computer generated.
i must admit I'm fairly baffled by EHD's love affair with the technology. HD = High Definition. What do you think's the first to go when the bandwidth is needed for the other field?
Most of us at EHD agree that we couldn't care any less about 3D movies. What we are excited about is 3D sports and video games.
As for the bandwidth, 3D doesn't require an extra frame to be stored, only the difference in the left eye's frame and the right's. So when you combine H.264 and DD+ there will be more than enough throughput for a 1080p60-3D image in the the 19.3Mbps ATSC stream. Personally I don't really expect ATSC to support 3D any time soon, but I do think Satellite and Cable systems will adopt it, both of which aren't constrained by the 19.3 limit of ATSC.
You can ask anyone who knows me, I was totally against 3D until I saw the National Championship game in 3D at CES last year, and now it can't get here soon enough.
http://www.engadgethd.com/2009/01/09/3d-college-football-is-actually-quite-enjoyable/
I understand your point about the compression, but before I point out a major problem with it, it's worth pointing out that previously people on this site have been fairly critical about the fact most ATSC HD channels tend to have one or two additional SD channels on the same multiplex, despite the heavy compression used for the latter. That said, I think MPEG-2 is better than people give it credit for.
Anyway: Yes, you would, naturally, compress the "second" field by comparing it to the first, but this will only have an actual affect with I frames. There will be no compression gains at all using that strategy for B or P frames, as the difference between two spacially separated views is really not going to be that much different to the difference between two delta time views. With a typical ATSC GOP of 15 (one I frame every 15 B or P frames), and with a B/P frame typically being around 10-33% of that of an I frame, it's fair to suggest 3D will add around 62-88% to the bandwidth requirements over 2D. It might be slightly less for scenes with massive amounts of movement, but not a great deal less.
And yes, while this is pretty much impossible to implement over ATSC without cutting resolution and/or general image quality (or switching to H.264. Goodbye all existing TVs...) because of the 20Mbps limit, it's still a problem for Satellite and Cable operators, who are already facing issues trying to squeeze in normal HD channels into infrastructure originally intended for a few hundred SD channels. There's not a cable or satellite operator in the country that believes they have "too much" bandwidth.
In reality, whatever the transport method, we're looking at a reduction in quality whenever 3D is used.
I can kinda sorta see your point about sports benefiting, but I do feel that fans are going to find that operators will be making a choice (and a choice for them) about whether to have 3D or high definition. I suspect fans themselves will end up preferring HD.
squiggleslash,
I'm not sure exactly how much throughput 3D will require over HD, I'm just repeating what someone told me. I guess we'll find out in practice how it looks.
What I can tell you is that I've seen some 1080p24 encoded with h.264 at >7Mbps that looks better than 1080i60 at ~12Mbps. I guess we will see in practice.
The first 3D is going to be Blu-ray, and in that case there's no shortage of throughput so compression won't be a problem. I agree that ATSC probably won't support 3D anytime soon, but not because people are worried about replacing hardware. What I mean is that 3D will require HDMI 1.4 so no current tuner will support it no matter what the compression etc. I also think 3D is well suited for special events and not regular TV, and unlike the SD>HD conversion, the FCC isn't allowing broadcasters to broadcast on a second frequency. Of course anything could happen, but lets start with 3D Blu-ray and see how that goes before we start worrying about changing broadcast standards.
Actually Panasonic claims 3D is a 50% increase over 2D.
http://techon.nikkeibp.co.jp/article/HONSHI/20081030/160508/
So assuming that h.264 1080p24 uses half the throughput (8Mbps) as 1080i60 MPEG-2 (16Mbps), then when you make the codec switch, there will be more than enough bandwidth for 3D, with about 4Mbps to spare.
I don't recall any 3D tvs for sale in the 1950's or the 1980's
As for cost all new technologies are expensive at the start.
Once the movies studios have bought the 3D equipment they are not going to be throwing it away.
I don't see why the director has to be "astonishing" good either. They just need to know
how to best frame 3D shots,
It may be more expensive but it is also more profitable.
Of course not all movies would benefit from being in 3D
But it would love to see the a films that are shot on a big scale, Bond films, Lord Of The Rings
Star Wars I am sure would look better in 3D. Romantic comedy not so much.
p.s. people with only good eye should notice that I have yet to see a complaint from a totally blind person about 3D
Most analysts revise their predictions yearly or even quarterly so I'm sure they got it right eventually but I have to wonder why the fools would cast a 10 year net on technology like that. It goes against everything we knew even back then about evolving tech and the way prices decrease over time. Makes you wonder about what they are predicting right now.
Slappy, you need to get slapped, just kidding, interested nick. Anyway, you say people are cheap. So are u. People are educated and thrifty and do the research before they buy because nobody wants to be sold, they want to buy. The companies should do their own research and realize that americans are willing to pay for something but they dont want to be screwed. The jnd (just noticeable difference) in picture does not justify hundreds of dollars in price and you can call us cheap, but we are not. Cheap is the one that looks at all the tvs and buys best buy brand (insignia), westinghouse or olevia, they are ok, they'll do, but it means you just want a TV in your room, not a home theater. If you get a 32" in your living room, dont even get the TV, stick with the tube, go to your friends that has a 50" or more, then decide. I watched a blu ray on a 32" lcd at my friends house at it was way too small. I came home and watched the same movie and I personally think it was way too small for the room. You probably think that haggling makes one look cheap, but it is the oldest proffesion, even before the oldest proffession (we all know what that is) came to be. Anyway, try it al your local Best buy.
U-Verse can do all this
3D? Jeez, let's try to get HD right first. All I want is:
1) HD with DVR in any room of my house
2) ability to watch or recorde 2 different shows in different rooms
3) shows recorded to DVR can be displayed in any room.
Until this happens, I won't be buying ANY new HDTVs whether they're 3D or NOT.
Just sayin' ...
Windows Media Center has been able to do that for about 3 years. You just need one Media Center PC in the house with CableCARD tuners and a Xbox 360 at every TV.