First anniversary of 4K UHDTV

Quote: Pacomartin

Disney made a huge boost in color TV sales by switching from ABC to NBC.

I remember that opening credit about color. I always wondered why they made such a big deal about it. And yes, I did get to see TV in black and white, though color TV was widespread by the early 70s.

Not too long ago, I guess in the late 90s, I recall someone looking for a B&W TV to put in the kitchen. He wanted it black and white because he thought it would be cheaper. I think they were rather extinct by then.

1954 model Westinghouse. What was there to
watch in 1954.



This was the first color TV, 1951. First Commercial Color Broadcast -- was by CBS, on June 25, 1951 at 4:35PM EST, over station WCBS, New York, for the Ed Sullivan show. This one-hour gala color premier could only be received by about two dozen sets like the one shown below
.


The 2nd color set to go on the market was this Admiral
in 1953. $1,175

Quote: Evenbob

I remember when ABC went all color in the mid 60's, it was a huge deal.

Color TV households went from 3.1% in 1964 to 24.2% in 1968. ABC and CBS converted mostly in the 1965-66 TV season. NBC had half their shows in color in 1964.

Basic Cable went from 17% in 1977 to 50% in 1987.

Can you imagine spending $1175 in 1953 on a color TV,
that's about $10,000 in today's money. And there was
nothing to watch with it yet.

"NBC made the first coast-to-coast color broadcast when it telecast the Tournament of Roses Parade on January 1, 1954, with public demonstrations given across the United States on prototype color receivers by manufacturers RCA, General Electric, Philco, Raytheon, Hallicrafters, Hoffman, Pacific Mercury and others.[50] A color model from Westinghouse H840CK15 ($1,295, or $11.3 thousand in today's dollars) became available in the New York area on February 28, 1954 and is generally agreed to be the first production receiver using NTSC color offered to the public; a less expensive color model from RCA (RCA-CT100) reached dealers in April 1954.Television's first prime time network color series was The Marriage, a situation comedy broadcast live by NBC in the summer of 1954. NBC's anthology series Ford Theatre became the first network color filmed series that October.
Several syndicated shows had episodes filmed in color during the 1950s, including The Cisco Kid, The Lone Ranger, My Friend Flicka, and Adventures of Superman. The first two were carried by some stations equipped for color telecasts well before NBC began its regular weekly color dramas in 1959, beginning with the Western series Bonanza."

So there was very little to watch till the early 60's.
A $10K boat anchor in your living room.

Quote: Evenbob

A color model from Westinghouse H840CK15 ($1,295, or $11.3 thousand in today's dollars) became available in the New York area on February 28, 1954 and is generally agreed to be the first production receiver using NTSC color offered to the public; a less expensive color model from RCA (RCA-CT100) reached dealers in April 1954.

Television's first prime time network color series was The Marriage, a situation comedy broadcast live by NBC in the summer of 1954. NBC's anthology series Ford Theatre became the first network color filmed series that October.

The Westinghouse model was made in small quantities.
The RCA model (CT-100 15") had only 5,000 produced in 1954.
In 1955 20,000 of the 21" model was produced and price was reduced to $495. The purchasers of the CT-100 were given a free 21" model.

Production by RCA stayed between 80,000 and 90,000 color TV's for the next 4 years.

The first 84" UHDTV that came out last year for $40K were bought up by sheiks and pop-stars. There was no UHDTV programming. That model came down to $25K in a few months, and a small collection of films was made available.

I suppose you can always find some consumer that will spend anything to be the first.

That 201" 1.4 ton Porsche outdoor giant TV costs over €500,000 = $680K.

Quote: Pacomartin

The first 84" UHDTV that came out last year for $40K were bought up by sheiks and pop-stars. There was no UHDTV programming. That model came down to $25K in a few months, and a small collection of films was made available.

I know we dropped this thread only three months ago, but one Chinese manufacturer is now selling their 4K television for only $91 more than the 1080p model of same diagonal. Also Netflix began transmitting in 4K.

TCL Ultra High Definition television for $647 (50")
TCL Full High Definition television for $556 (50")

Most experts say Ultra High Definition is only worthwhile for really big screens. LG 84" UHDTV are still $9K (which is down considerably from $40K), but is still a boatload of money to pay for a TV. But I am sure that people on this forum spend up to $700 on a television.

Has anyone on the forum weakened and bought one of these UHDTV?

Quote: Pacomartin

I know we dropped this thread only three months ago, but one Chinese manufacturer is now selling their 4K television for only $91 more than the 1080p model of same diagonal. Also Netflix began transmitting in 4K.

TCL Ultra High Definition television for $647 (50")
TCL Full High Definition television for $556 (50")

Most experts say Ultra High Definition is only worthwhile for really big screens. LG 84" UHDTV are still $9K (which is down considerably from $40K), but is still a boatload of money to pay for a TV. But I am sure that people on this forum spend up to $700 on a television.

Has anyone on the forum weakened and bought one of these UHDTV?

I must admit I have looked at them but due to the content constrictions right now have decided against it. The use would have to become far more mainstream before I would even consider it. I think my 65" 1080p 240hz Samsung is perfect. I can't see myself needing anything bigger or more clear anytime soon. The pictures already look like real live people standing in front of you.....it freaks me out sometimes.

I paid $600 for the TV during last years black friday.
Another thing that I fail to understand is people buying a "smart tv". Any device you connect to your TV such as a playstation/xbox or computer turns your tv into a smart tv. Why pay up to double the price for a "smart tv"? What am I missing?

What about 3D TV? You guys sold? My wife doesn't like things flying at her face (te he he he he) so we didn't get the 3D TV.

Quote: Tomspur

Why pay up to double the price for a "smart tv"? What am I missing?

What about 3D TV? You guys sold? My wife doesn't like things flying at her face (te he he he he) so we didn't get the 3D TV.

The TV room has a TV, DVD player, Roku box, and Cable Set top box. That is four remotes. Although the one remote is supposed to learn the functions of the other remote, they never work perfectly. Although the "input" function of the TV should be programmable into the Cable Set Top Box remote, it doesn't work with certain models.

To complicate matters the stereo has a remote in the same room, and the new phone is the same size as the remote.

So while "smart TV" seems like a stupid price, it would be nice to get rid of some remotes. Roku has always predicted that their long term fortune would depend on the TV operating system, not the hardware.

It seems like in the past four years as streaming video options have become more available, cable has decided to encrypt everything including the PBS stations. Now they shackle every TV in your house to expensive equipment that you must rent. It's like Cable TV is trying to put itself out of business.

Quote: Pacomartin

The TV room has a TV, DVD player, Roku box, and Cable Set top box. That is four remotes. Although the one remote is supposed to learn the functions of the other remote, they never work perfectly. Although the "input" function of the TV should be programmable into the Cable Set Top Box remote, it doesn't work with certain models.

To complicate matters the stereo has a remote in the same room, and the new phone is the same size as the remote.

So while "smart TV" seems like a stupid price, it would be nice to get rid of some remotes. Roku has always predicted that their long term fortune would depend on the TV operating system, not the hardware.

It seems like in the past four years as streaming video options have become more available, cable has decided to encrypt everything including the PBS stations. Now they shackle every TV in your house to expensive equipment that you must rent. It's like Cable TV is trying to put itself out of business.

The remotes would be a worry unless you have a Universal remote. I was sceptical about getting a universal until I got one in December when I was home. It is a touchscreen version that currently controls my TV, Xbox, Receiver, Cable and blu-ray player. It can control another 10 items if I so wish. It really has opened my eyes as far as UR is concerned. It would have been messy with all those remotes. Also, it wasn't cheap, retailed at $250 but it really was money well spent. As Bob had mentioned on another thread, I wouldn't need to go to the movies at all anymore.....but it is still fun :)

Quote: Tomspur

Also, it wasn't cheap, retailed at $250 but it really was money well spent.

http://www.amazon.com/MX-780-Universal-Remote-Control/dp/B007FIPSXE/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1398169562&sr=8-2&keywords=mx+450+universal+remote

Do you mean this one?

You can purchase dozens of brands of 32" TVs for $250 or less.

This 32" 1080p TV costs $200 and you can purchase a Roku streaming stick for $50 that will work on the same remote. So for $250 you can hang it on a wall, have one power cord to worry about, 1 remote, and you can watch streaming digital.