LED LCD and 3D HDTV Reviews & Prices

When Apple decides to build and market a new product, the product has to be a quality product that stands on its own and has value. However, Apple may have moved to a new place in the minds of customers, and that would weigh considerably on the success of the rumored Apple HDTV.

The iPad was a logical extension of the iPhone. The iPhone was a logical extension of the iPod touch. If there had never been an iPod or an iPhone, customers would not have seen an out-of-the-blue iPad as fitting into a familiar family. Without infrastructure, services and products, the iPad in 2006 would have been one of those head scratching products: “What do I do with it?”

Of course, that’s exactly where many competing tablets are. They’re not a coherent part of a family of products with the identical look and feel of the OS.

So when we ask ourselves about the prospects of an Apple HDTV, we have to consider not only the price, the picture, and the presumed new way of interfacing to an HDTV, the UI, but we also have to include the notion that this new product will be a familiar friend. If you know how to operate an iPhone and an iPad, the Apple HDTV will be a no brainer to use.

That will be a huge factor when it comes to making a personal buying decision.

Another factor will be the irritation customers have with their current TV service providers and the interfaces. The TV industry imposes on us in ways that get under our skin. For example, I remember when I had my Standard Definition Replay TV unit from 2002-2007, it would skip forward 30 seconds instantly. Poof. Right now.

However, my DIRECTV DVR does a fast scan on those 30 seconds on purpose. Why? Because there just might be a flicker of an image in the commercial, perhaps an attractive woman, that will draw me back to watch the commercial. Another example is how customers are used as pawns when a technology that looks like it will serve them is really developed as a weapon to be used in negotiations with content providers. There are more of these kinds of issues, but I’ve made the point.

So when we think about the prospects for success of an Apple TV, we have, of course, to look at traditional factors that influence customers:

Price.
Screen size.
Quality of the display. (contrast, black values, off-axis view, reflections, etc.)
Warranty.
Value compared to competing products.

These items are what analysts have been looking at, and some are not optimistic because of the cut-throat mentality in the already huge and powerful TV industry. But. Now we have to take into account the Apple Mentality Factor.

It’s (again!) beautifully integrated into the iOS family.
We’ll automatically know how to use it. (Just how a remote screen will achieve that? We shall see.)
There’s the pleasure of using a fine Apple product.
Many have a cord cutter mentality.

When you ponder those additional factors, it’s easy to see why the sales of a possible Apple HDTV could be a lot higher than one would expect from the price alone, and the prospects for success will be a lot better than the nay-sayers might guestimate.

And that leads up to the theme article for this discussion by Ryan Faas: “Analyst: Nearly Half Of All iPhone Owners Would Buy An Apple HDTV.” All of a sudden, the reaction of iPhone owners looks rather sane and highly motivated instead of just being ridiculous fanboi stuff. That’s what Apple knows right now but a lot of other nay-sayers do not.

Tech News Debris

If you love business analysis and the forces that make our industry tick, here’s a great story. “How Yahoo Killed Flickr and Lost the Internet.” It’s a long article, but the more you read, the more tickled you’ll be with the insights. Think of it as great story telling, like a epic movie.

Ever since Apple started the consistent theme of naming OS X versions after big cats, we’ve pondered what will come next. Apple pulled, forgive the mixed image, a rabbit out of the hat with Mountain Lion. What’s left? Cult of Mac’s John Brownlee lays it out in a light-hearted way: “Why The Next Version Of OS X After Mountain Lion Won’t Be Named After A Cat.”

Here it is, 2012, and programmers are still writing silly, limited algorithms to answer our questions. Why do we insist on having computers tell us how to think?

Google seems to have figured out why Apple customers are attracted to a coherent family of products instead of a mish-mash of products and technologies. But can the search company pull it off? “Google’s grand Android plan: Finally, it all makes sense.” Related: Google has gotten itself into a fine fragmentation mess, and something has to be done.

Is that a Linux computer in your pocket, or are you just glad to see me? What could one do with that!? I’ll bet Michael Westen could figure out some cool uses.

Finally, some of you may have noticed that you won’t find me on Facebook. LinkedIn, yes. Twitter, definitely. But not Facebook. I have my reasons, but I figured that with 800 million customers, I was just being inordinately stubborn. Then I read this: “As Facebook grows, millions say, ‘no, thanks’.”

I feel much better now. Thanks.

Article source: http://www.macobserver.com/tmo/article/yes_but_will_anyone_actually_buy_an_apple_hdtv/

Filed under: All No Comments

18May/120

Ed’s View – Old Movies and HDTV – The Dilemma of Sound

Like many, I love (most) old movies. And again, like many, I have accumulated a significant collection of classics – most on VCR’s and on the old RCA CED video disc format (RIP). With the advent of HDTV and advanced film restoration technologies, the BD and DVD versions of these movies are – for the most part – spectacular. However, the one generally disappointing aspect that mars the total HD experience of these productions is the disappointing sound quality. This is especially true with the beautifully (video) restored versions of the 1950’s – 60’s musical classics such as, “Singin’ in the Rain” and “There’s No Business Like Show Business” and other such movie musicals of this era.

Of course, one should not expect six-channel sound or even Hi-Hi, but one would hope for something at least as good as a vintage 50’s LP. But that’s not what one gets. Instead, what vibrates the air is a woefully compressed, somewhat noisy mess. No amount of jiggling of the thousands of handles on my Super Sony receiver helps much. Garbage in-garbage out. Why doesn’t the audio quality of these mid-20^th century classic restorations match the superb video quality?” After talking with some film restoration people along with research from Academy and SMPTE documentation, the answer becomes clear – or at least clearer:

Virtually all film restoration starts with a (hopefully) properly stored copy of either a release print or, with luck, the originally edited negative(s). Very seldom were the unedited negative elements or the final mixed optical sound tracks saved. Production sound technology and techniques were essentially unchanged from the early 1930’s until the early 1950’s when sound origination and editing had switched to magnetic media. Except for a brief period of magnetic multichannel release prints for major market theaters in the 1960’s, virtually all prints distributed employed monaural optical formats. This was the case until the advent of “Dolby Digital” and the establishment of the large, modern movie theater multiplexes in the 1990’s. Of course, sound production technology had improved both optically and electrically – taking advantage of improved optics, film emulsions, bulbs, sensors, microphone and amplifier circuitry – coping broadcast and recording technological improvements.

As television became increasingly competitive in the ‘50s, there was little economic incentive for medium and small market movie theaters to upgrade to magnetic sound reproduction equipment, and it was simply too expensive for distributors to support both optical and magnetic release print distribution. Not until the introduction of Dolby noise reduction technology applied to the optical format (in the application of “Dolby Stereo”) in the 1970’s, did optical sound tracks approach the quality of magnetic formats. But alas, by then, the era of movie musicals had long passed.

Restoring the old optical tracks usually consists of physical cleaning and the application of some analog ”pop” and “hiss” filtering. In extreme cases, the audio analog signal is digitized and reconstructed. This process can restore even the most damaged tracks, but there are definite downsides to digital sound restoration, especially for music information. Many times such digital signal processing introduces undesired artifacts, such as phase anomalies and sibilant hype in addition to a loss of high frequencies. And the process is time consuming and expensive. More recent film sound restoration technologies have achieved superior results by actually digitizing the sound track optical patterns as opposed to digitizing the detected optical audio signal itself. With these techniques restoration and enhancement can occur simultaneously with virtually no artifacts and with less expense. But, it is not clear whether the economics of film restoration will support the expense of audio re-restoration and enhancement.

However, now that some of Alexander Graham Bell’s original optical sound recordings (predating those of Edison’s) have been recently restored to audible recognition, perhaps the means does exist to restore the full fidelity of those original movie musical classics.

Posted by Ed Milbourn, May 18, 2012 7:26 AM

Article source: http://www.hdtvmagazine.com/columns/2012/05/eds-view-old-movies-and-hdtv-the-dilemma-of-sound.php

Filed under: All No Comments

18May/120

How A Mechanical Horse Is Like An HDTV Converter Box

Times of technological transition make interesting things. Because of the transitional nature of the things, they're usually not destined to be around long, but they're absolutely necessary for a certain magical moment. Think 8-track to cassette adapters or those USB 3.5" floppy drives they had for the first iMacs.

One of the biggest technological transitions in human history was the move from animal-powered to motorized vehicles. The reasons why are well-understood (humanity was sick of staring at horse anuses all the damn time), but where are the missing links between horse carriage and car?

While many early cars were certainly adapted horse carriages, you would think there would have been some sort of stopgap solution for all those carriages that were in use– an adapter of sorts. There were, but there's surprisingly little information about them available online. In fact, I first learned of them through a book, like an animal would.

The book was Floyd Clymer's 1957 Treasury of Foreign Cars , and in that book I learned about the 1899 Kuhlstein-Vollmer Motor Vorspann, which was pretty much exactly what you'd imagine a machine to transition between automobile and horse would be: a motor with two wheels that connects to a carriage in place of a horse. I'd always wondered if something like this existed, and it appears it did. The controls were accessible to the carriage driver, in roughly the same location as where the reins would be. From what I can tell, there's a steering wheel and a secondary wheel with levers that I suspect is for throttle and possibly spark advance, and perhaps even fuel mixture control.

With units like these, existing fleets of carriages and carts could be kept in service. In the book, it's mentioned that the German Empire's postal service used these with their delivery wagons, to great cost-savings. I'm not really sure how braking worked– I suppose that was the responsibility of the existing carriage, or the driver's skill.

A bit of research shows that our side of the pond had similar solutions. In a big automobile encyclopedia I saw an entry for the 1899 International Motor Wheel, which seems to serve pretty much the same horse-replacing role as the Motor Vorspann. The International Motor Wheel used just one wheel, with an engine and flywheel flanking it, like the bread on a motor wheel sandwich. Like the Vorspann, this was meant to replace a horse, and as such the scale of it is pretty intimidating– taller than an average man. It's a nice study in simplicity, especially compared to the two-wheel German model. One wheel makes steering very easy, and you can reverse by just turning it all the way around! Clever.

It looks like there were other motor wheels out there at the time, like this Briggs and Stratton model, but they were designed to be mounted to the rear of a vehicle to push, and were not really horse replacements. Still, I've imagined just such a device many times while stranded by the side of the road. A nice little motorized wheel I could clamp to my rear bumper to get my ass home. It'd be like having your own tow truck!

I wasn't able to find how popular these devices were. I suspect they had a core following, but in the end most people decided to go all the way and move to an actual car as soon as they could. I was trying to think of other, more recent situations that mirror this, and I realized we do have one very strange parallel: the switch to HDTV.

When HDTV replaced analog broadcasts a few years ago, consumers had a couple options: buy a nice new, not-nearly-as-awful-to-move flat screen television, or buy a converter box for your existing CRT TV. The converter boxes let your old TV work with the new format. It's doing essentially the same thing, but in a modernized way. This is exactly what the motorized horse-replacing wheels were doing– buying some extra life for your carriages, letting them do essentially what they did before, but motivated by a new, modern force.

And, like these mechanical horse-replacers and motor wheels, I suspect the number of people who convert their older technology to survive in the modern world is relatively small. I only know a few people who still have CRT televisions, the math of money savings to benefits clearly favoring a new flat screen. I imagine something similar happening at the turn of the last century, as the performance and use of these mechanical horses likely didn't match even the limited purpose-built automobiles of the time.

Still, these equine impostors do have a certain charm, and it's interesting to think about how things could have been different if they had been wildly popular– perhaps our auto industry would have been divided into separate motor unit and coachwork companies. You may own one nice Mitsubishi V6 traction unit (with integrated LED lights and a wireless instrument pod) that can connect to your small Pininfarina open top roadster carriage, or your German 6-passenger Karmann sedan body (with Nav system and great leather seats), or your useful American Fisher cab-and-truck, with a great stereo and a bed that can haul full-size drywall sheets.

Plus, I bet YouTube would be full of morons hooning the traction units alone while standing on them, like a 200 HP Segway.

Article source: http://jalopnik.com/5901831/how-a-mechanical-horse-is-like-an-hdtv-converter-box

Filed under: All No Comments

18May/120

Clear Cast HDTV Antenna’s advertising not so clear; BBB investigates

Burnsville, MN – The Better Business Bureau (BBB) has received hundreds of calls from consumers nationwide inquiring about the Clear-Cast HDTV Antenna.

The product is manufactured by Brilliant Built Technologies, a subsidiary of Universal Media Syndicate, Inc., located in Canton, Ohio. The company is running large advertorial ads that appear in newspapers across the U.S. and mailing notices to residents nationwide offering to eliminate cable and satellite costs completely using the Clear-Cast HDTV Antenna.

The ads and mailings claim the Clear-Cast HDTV Antenna “pulls in Free over-the-air broadcast signals that the cable and satellite companies get and then re-transmit to you for a hefty charge every month…there’s never a monthly bill, you get all the free channels with Clear-Cast and you won’t pay for hundreds of channels you never really watch.”

Recent consumer calls and complaints to the BBB express confusion with the company’s advertisement. Consumers have informed the BBB that they are under the impression that they will receive 953 channels as opposed to 953 shows as the ad claims. Consumers should be aware they could receive up to 53 channels depending on the area where they live, and that 953 is the possible number of shows available.

In November, 2011 the BBB of Canton contacted the company regarding their advertising and conducted a challenge of several claims that appear in the ad. The BBB Ad Review Committee conducted a secondary advertising challenge on Clear-Cast HDTV Digital Antenna and determined that all matters of compliance were not resolved.

The BBB’s concerns included the use of the word “free,” the company’s claims of advanced technology and the company’s comparison to cable or satellite. The BBB also voiced additional concerns that referenced the company’s implied government affiliation and overall impression of the ad.

The BBB feels these types of misleading advertising are purposeful and do not feel the company is in compliance with the BBB Code of Advertising; further, they are serious enough in nature for the company to receive an “F” rating with the BBB, the lowest rating possible.

The company met with the BBB of Canton in January and April to discuss additional changes and/or provide substantiation regarding the Clear-Cast Digital HDTV. The company provided the BBB with Clear-Cast Digital HDTV antennas to be tested by BBB staff. The BBB found that the product does provide some channels without cable or satellite connections. However, after testing the product the BBB found it did not perform as it is claimed in the ad.

Additionally, BBB inquiries indicate that because the headline claims the consumers can eliminate cable or satellite bills, consumers are under the impression they will receive the same type of channeling as with their current provider, which the BBB found is not the case. Consumers continue to contact the BBB and state they are also confused as to what they are actually getting. The BBB’s research found that 90 of callers surveyed are under the impression that they will receive 953 “channels,” when in fact the statement says “953 Free shows each year.”

When considering using TV antennas versus cable or satellite TV, the BBB recommends the following:

• Contact the BBB to check out any business before purchasing a product or service at www.bbb.org.
• Location is everything. If you live in a valley or rural area, you will have fewer channels available to you than others who live within a 40-mile radius of a TV station.
• You will not receive all the same channels and programming as your cable or satellite TV packages.
• Do not fall victim to sense of urgency claims. Make sure you research any product before buying.
• Make sure you’re aware of return and exchange policies before making a purchase.
• Different types of antennas provide different results; you can view all your options through the FCC’s website at http://www.fcc.gov/guides/antennas-and-digital-television.

The mission of the Better Business Bureau is to be the leader in building marketplace trust by promoting, through self-regulation, the highest standards of business ethics and conduct, and to instill confidence in responsible businesses through programs of education and action that inform, assist and protect the general public. BBB hours of operation are 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. Monday through Friday. Contact the BBB at www.bbb.org or 651-699-1111, toll-free at 1-800-646-6222.

Tags: Better Business Bureau (BBB), Brilliant Built Technologies, Clear-Cast HDTV Antenna

Article source: http://hometownsource.com/2012/05/18/clear-cast-hdtv-antennas-advertising-not-so-clear-bbb-investigates/

Filed under: All No Comments

18May/120