美國有線電視體育節(jié)目聯(lián)播網(wǎng) ESPN 在本月稍早發(fā)布了一條推特，微妙地透露他們打算在今年稍晚放棄先前投資不少的 3D電視頻道；這個(gè)消息并不令人驚訝。 不過讓我覺得有點(diǎn)驚訝的是，產(chǎn)業(yè)界是如此深信尚未成形的超高畫質(zhì)電視(Ultra High Definition TV，UHDTV)市場不會(huì)重蹈 3D電視的覆轍；市場研究機(jī)構(gòu)IHS的顯示器產(chǎn)業(yè)資深分析師Sweta Dash在今年稍早的一篇評論中即表示：“3D電視失敗的教訓(xùn)將會(huì)讓4K電視迎向更光明的未來。”

xJbesmc

等一下….消費(fèi)性電子產(chǎn)業(yè)到底從 3D電視學(xué)到了什么教訓(xùn)？他們學(xué)到了不能忽略消費(fèi)者自然會(huì)對于只是為了看電視、就得戴上一個(gè)“設(shè)備”(就是那不舒服的3D眼鏡)的抗拒嗎？他們可知道，盡管產(chǎn)業(yè)界精心策劃各種行銷手法，要改變消費(fèi)者的基本行為仍是非常困難？

3D眼鏡“不舒服”就足以讓3D電視負(fù)分滾粗
xJbesmc

或者他們是否了解，新的電視技術(shù)(無論是3D或是超高畫質(zhì))需要豐富、大量、多樣、適合且可負(fù)擔(dān)得起的“內(nèi)容”(消費(fèi)者就是從中判定他們花的錢是否值得)，才能真正在市場上無所不在？那些優(yōu)質(zhì)內(nèi)容能在少數(shù)幾個(gè)可選擇的頻道上觀看，也不會(huì)被收進(jìn)藍(lán)光光盤，因?yàn)橐坏┠切┭b置被稱為“電視機(jī)”，消費(fèi)者就會(huì)預(yù)期3D或超高畫質(zhì)節(jié)目能透過網(wǎng)絡(luò)自由取得。 但最重要的是，我懷疑產(chǎn)業(yè)界是否真正了解，電視制造商不顧一切地發(fā)展業(yè)務(wù)(并致力不讓他們賣出去的每一臺電視虧錢)，并不代表他們也可以樂觀地認(rèn)定消費(fèi)者也會(huì)買帳。 本文授權(quán)編譯自EE Times，版權(quán)所有，謝絕轉(zhuǎn)載 第2頁：為何3D不行、4K行？ 第3頁：UHDTV誕生時(shí)機(jī)正好？

相關(guān)閱讀：
• 平板電腦將成為你的移動(dòng)電視
• 超高清電視普及，“軟肋”在哪里？
• UHDTV帶來的另外三個(gè)新技術(shù)商機(jī)xJbesmc

{pagination} 為何3D不行、4K行？ 先把我的偏見擺到一邊，我詢問市場分析師們，是否認(rèn)為產(chǎn)業(yè)界已經(jīng)從 3D電視挫敗學(xué)到了教訓(xùn)；然后我又問他們，為何會(huì)相信 UHDTV 將會(huì)有完全不同的命運(yùn)。對此IHS的Dash指出，“缺乏內(nèi)容、高價(jià)位以及不便利的技術(shù)”是 3D電視無法以利基型產(chǎn)品崛起的理由。 另一家市場研究機(jī)構(gòu)NPD Group的分析師Ben Arnold也同意以上看法，他指出，配戴 3D眼鏡：“對消費(fèi)者觀看內(nèi)容造成了妨礙；它讓消費(fèi)者對于該從何處取得3D內(nèi)容感到困惑，內(nèi)容可取得性是非常分散的?！贝送馑赋?，消費(fèi)者的教育與行銷是 另一個(gè)問題：“許多消費(fèi)者不了解他們其實(shí)還是可以把他家的3D電視當(dāng)普通電視看，不用戴3D眼鏡。” Arnold也坦承了一件業(yè)界鮮少有人承認(rèn)的事情：“整個(gè)產(chǎn)業(yè)界都被卷進(jìn)了一股毀滅力量，”因此所有人都朝同一個(gè)方向前進(jìn)，希望能挽救衰退的電視銷售量。 市場分析機(jī)構(gòu)Envisioneering 的研究員Richard Doherty表示：“以家用電視的尺寸，3D電視的好處難以從那些缺點(diǎn)(昂貴、需要裝電池的3D眼鏡、低亮度的顯示器)中突顯出來?！彼赋?，主動(dòng)快門式的3D電視應(yīng)該具備高兩倍的兩度，對任何人來說，若在不配戴3D眼鏡的情況下于室內(nèi)觀看3D電視機(jī)，效果都非常差。 3D顯示到目前為止在電影院里取得的成功經(jīng)驗(yàn)，并未能復(fù)制到家里的3D電視上，Doherty解釋，原因是在電影院中，3D影片是在亮度被控制的環(huán)境下播放，而且：“每個(gè)人都配戴了3D眼鏡，而且?guī)缀鯖]人會(huì)把頭動(dòng)來動(dòng)去或到處亂走?！钡诩依?，情況完全不同。 Doherty 堅(jiān)信：“超高畫質(zhì)技術(shù)有許多理由不會(huì)面臨以上問題?！彼赋?，UHDTV提供的是“實(shí)際的臨場感”體驗(yàn)，其分辨率等同于35mm~70mm的影片畫質(zhì)，每個(gè)人都看得到；他指出，無論是47、60或85寸的大電視，或是較小尺寸的新一代筆電、臺式機(jī)，都將支持4K超高畫質(zhì)視為標(biāo)竿，超高畫質(zhì)時(shí)代即將來臨。 而且，NPD的Arnold與IHS的Dash指出，UHDTV與3D電視最大的不同點(diǎn)之一就是：“再也不需要戴眼鏡?！边@當(dāng)然無須多言…但是，UHDTV內(nèi)容的可取得性如何？ 本文授權(quán)編譯自EE Times，版權(quán)所有，謝絕轉(zhuǎn)載 第3頁：UHDTV誕生時(shí)機(jī)正好？

相關(guān)閱讀：
• 平板電腦將成為你的移動(dòng)電視
• 超高清電視普及，“軟肋”在哪里？
• UHDTV帶來的另外三個(gè)新技術(shù)商機(jī)xJbesmc

{pagination} UHDTV誕生時(shí)機(jī)正好？ 在這方面，Dash認(rèn)為沒有什么問題：“許多電視品牌正在積極運(yùn)作提供超高畫質(zhì)內(nèi)容，無論是將現(xiàn)有內(nèi)容畫質(zhì)升級、或是創(chuàng)造適合的超高畫質(zhì)內(nèi)容；日本已經(jīng)打算最快在2014年開始提供超高畫質(zhì)廣播，比原先的計(jì)劃提早了兩年。此外，4K攝影機(jī)已經(jīng)問世，可支持4K內(nèi)容的創(chuàng)作；市面上也開始看得到一些4K電影?！? 然而，這類的技術(shù)升級，可能在消費(fèi)性電子產(chǎn)業(yè)這廂衍生過多的期待；到底更多樣化的超高畫質(zhì)內(nèi)容──就如同體育頻道業(yè)者一開始在4K領(lǐng)域所創(chuàng)作的──會(huì)多快的時(shí)間內(nèi)透過廣播節(jié)目廣泛提供，仍有待觀察。 根據(jù)業(yè)界消息，ESPN首席技術(shù)官Chuck Pagano在接受訪問時(shí)曾表示：“現(xiàn)在要說我對4K發(fā)展前景感覺樂不樂觀還太早，我有點(diǎn)像是仍走在半路上?！彼赋觯⒉幌嘈畔M(fèi)者可以分辨出 4K電視與1080p高畫質(zhì)電視畫面的差異，就連他跟他的同事們把兩臺55寸屏幕擺在一起試圖比較兩種畫面的不同，也是分不太出來。 電影頻道HBO前任首席技術(shù)官、現(xiàn)已推修的Bob Zitter在今年稍早時(shí)曾表示，他：“很懷疑消費(fèi)者會(huì)想購買4K超高畫質(zhì)電視?！盳itter指出，4K畫面至少要透過60寸以上的屏幕觀賞效果才會(huì)好，但大多數(shù)消費(fèi)者并沒有那么大的客廳可以擺那么大的電視；因此他表示，除非有多數(shù)觀眾家中擁有4K電視機(jī)，否則HBO不會(huì)輕易開始提供超高畫質(zhì)內(nèi)容。 當(dāng)然，還是有一些愛好嘗鮮者會(huì)搶先采購超高畫質(zhì)電視，就像那些客廳桌子上早就擺了一堆3D眼鏡的發(fā)燒友一樣。而NPD的Arnold表示，高畫質(zhì)電視 (HDTV)在2005年至2007年于美國市場掀起第一波銷售熱潮，若以電視機(jī)平均7~10年的產(chǎn)品壽命來看，超高畫質(zhì)電視正遇上電視汰換潮的大好時(shí)機(jī)。 所以，盡管要適當(dāng)享受超高畫質(zhì)電視得忍受大尺寸屏幕的不便，建立免費(fèi)的超高畫質(zhì)電視內(nèi)容也有待時(shí)日，再加上目前超高畫質(zhì)電視產(chǎn)品仍然價(jià)格高昂，超高畫質(zhì)電視還是可能因?yàn)闄C(jī)緣巧合而崛起──誰叫它們剛好誕生在這個(gè)大多數(shù)消費(fèi)者正準(zhǔn)備采買新電視的時(shí)候！ 本文授權(quán)編譯自EE Times，版權(quán)所有，謝絕轉(zhuǎn)載 編譯：Judith Cheng 參考英文原文：UHDTV whistling past 3-D TV grave，by Junko Yoshida

相關(guān)閱讀：
• 平板電腦將成為你的移動(dòng)電視
• 超高清電視普及，“軟肋”在哪里？
• UHDTV帶來的另外三個(gè)新技術(shù)商機(jī)xJbesmc

{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.