High Def Forum
Thank you for visiting. This is our website archive. Please visit our main website by clicking the logo above.

NPD: 80% of Connected Blu-ray Players Stream Content

Lee Stewart
06-20-2012, 04:31 PM
NPD: 80% of Connected Blu-ray Players Stream Content

20 Jun, 2012
By: Erik Gruenwedel

Blu-ray Disc players are increasingly used to access subscription video-on-demand content, according to new data from The NPD Group.

Port Washington, N.Y.-based NPD said Blu-ray players are among a group of connected devices that are changing how broadband consumers interact with home entertainment.

Nearly eight in 10 users who connect their Blu-ray player to access online content download television shows and movies via Hulu, Netflix and other SVOD services, compared with 69% of connected-TV users and 64% of connected video game console users. Tablets and smartphones tend to be used less frequently to access SVOD services. Nearly one quarter of connected tablet users and about 15% of connected smartphone users access these services on their devices, but consumption is growing.

“The growing installed base of Web-connected devices is already having implications for how consumers discover, consume and acquire entertainment content, and for how providers and retailers need to promote entertainment content to consumers,” said Russ Crupnick, SVP of industry analysis for The NPD Group. “Once primarily the domain of tech-savvy young male early adopters, downloading entertainment content to tablets, TVs and game consoles is now much more common among regular American moms, dads — and their kids, too.”

Listening to music in the home or on the go is also being influenced by connected devices, according to NPD. Just under a third of smartphone users and connected-TV users (31%) who access online content use their devices to stream music or listen to Internet radio, compared with just under 20% for tablet users and video-game console users. The usage profile for the various smart connected device types also varies widely for online video games and game apps.

“The evolution of entertainment content acquisition has obviously been driven by wild growth in, and availability of, Web-connected devices now commonly seen both inside and outside of the home,” Crupnick said. “The once-ubiquitous desktop computer has given way to connected televisions, Blu-ray players, notebook computers, tablets and smartphones, which have enjoyed tremendous growth in the past two years.”

http://www.homemediamagazine.com/digital-evolution/npd-80-connected-blu-ray-players-stream-content-27571

Kosty
06-20-2012, 05:39 PM
I think a lot of consumers see Blu-ray players as a much better value than a pure streaming device like a Roku device.

I know a lot of people, including myself, who watch TV shows on their Blu-ray players from Netflix or Hulu.

That's why I think the Roku CEO stating his box will kill off Blu-ray players is kinda silly.

Malanthius
06-20-2012, 09:13 PM
Pretty much what I thought. This shows just how popular a Bluray player is for streaming. For the percentage to that high is amazing to me. If it was in the same range as a game system I would think that would be more of a normal percentage. But in the 80s? That makes me think many are bought for the streaming. I agree though. The player is a great value. But more so as a streaming/DVD player more than a Bluray player. Bluray movies have not taken the crown from DVD. Not even close. And with so many DVDs already in homes? I'm guessing the players get used more to play DVDs than Blurays when it comes to disc.

h0mi
06-20-2012, 10:23 PM
Numbers seem off to me. Was this a survey?

Kosty can you repost that chart from Hulu and Netflix indicating how many of their users were using assorted devices like consoles, blu-ray players, etc.? I'd like to see those numbers again.

GizmoDVD
06-20-2012, 10:28 PM
So people are using there streaming box to play some discs? Shocker.

Echo13
06-20-2012, 10:32 PM
Pretty much what I thought. This shows just how popular a Bluray player is for streaming. For the percentage to that high is amazing to me. If it was in the same range as a game system I would think that would be more of a normal percentage. But in the 80s? That makes me think many are bought for the streaming. I agree though. The player is a great value. But more so as a streaming/DVD player more than a Bluray player. Bluray movies have not taken the crown from DVD. Not even close. And with so many DVDs already in homes? I'm guessing the players get used more to play DVDs than Blurays when it comes to disc.Thats definitely the case. But more importantly they have blu ray players, and the potential is there. And we see what the BD hardware base is capable of when movies get a 60% or more share on the blu ray format.

GizmoDVD
06-20-2012, 10:33 PM
Potential is there, but as 2011 and 2012 have proven, people don't give a crap about Blu-ray. Well, not just people, but major studios as well.

Echo13
06-20-2012, 10:35 PM
Potential is there, but as 2011 and 2012 have proven, people don't give a crap about Blu-ray. Well, not just people, but major studios as well.Im pretty sure they care about the format making the majority of sales on major blockbuster releases.

GizmoDVD
06-20-2012, 10:57 PM
Im pretty sure they care about the format making the majority of sales on major blockbuster releases.

They do? By packing in a DVD? Digital Copy? Discounting it like crazy?

No, they are pretty upset Blu-ray has failed. All that money invested and the damn format peaked at a pathetic 2 billion. It's pretty embarrassing.

Echo13
06-20-2012, 11:05 PM
They do? By packing in a DVD? Digital Copy? Discounting it like crazy?That would seem indicative of a format they cared about.
They care about DVD too. And thats getting discounted like crazy.

No, they are pretty upset Blu-ray has failed. All that money invested and the damn format peaked at a pathetic 2 billion. It's pretty embarrassing.You asked if they cared about blu ray. They do.

GizmoDVD
06-20-2012, 11:07 PM
That would seem indicative of a format they cared about.

The format is on life-support. Giving away things with it is indicative of it being a failure.

You asked if they cared about blu ray. They do.

They don't. They wouldn't be licensing out titles to smaller studios if they did.

Echo13
06-20-2012, 11:11 PM
The format is on life-support. Giving away things with it is indicative of it being a failure.Iyo. But selling the majority units on some movies would make blu ray the least failure.

They don't. They wouldn't be licensing out titles to smaller studios if they did.Smaller studios would indeed be considered 'studios.'
So yes studios care about blu ray.

HD Goofnut
06-20-2012, 11:16 PM
They do? By packing in a DVD? Digital Copy? Discounting it like crazy?

No, they are pretty upset Blu-ray has failed. All that money invested and the damn format peaked at a pathetic 2 billion. It's pretty embarrassing.

Your opinion is obvious and duly noted, but I have to disagree with you because failed implies past tense and that's not what we have here.

GizmoDVD
06-20-2012, 11:17 PM
Iyo. But selling the majority units on some movies would make blu ray the least failure.

LMAO. Majority of units for some movies? Please - which ones? Go through every Blu-ray release for the week and tell me which ones sold more copies on Blu-ray. Oh, how many had a DVD packed inside?

Smaller studios would indeed be considered 'studios.'
So yes studios care about blu ray.

If that makes you feel better that Sony, Paramount, Disney, Fox etc. see little reason to release on Blu-ray that's fine. We have several people who post who can't handle bad Blu-ray news either.

HD Goofnut
06-20-2012, 11:18 PM
Pretty much what I thought. This shows just how popular a Bluray player is for streaming. For the percentage to that high is amazing to me. If it was in the same range as a game system I would think that would be more of a normal percentage. But in the 80s? That makes me think many are bought for the streaming. I agree though. The player is a great value. But more so as a streaming/DVD player more than a Bluray player. Bluray movies have not taken the crown from DVD. Not even close. And with so many DVDs already in homes? I'm guessing the players get used more to play DVDs than Blurays when it comes to disc.

That's right, you are guessing. For households that own 2 or more BD players I am sure they play more BDs in their drives than DVD. You might have an argument for households that have only 1 BD player, but without any data as I said you're guessing.

Echo13
06-20-2012, 11:29 PM
LMAO. Majority of units for some movies? Please - which ones? Go through every Blu-ray release for the week and tell me which ones sold more copies on Blu-ray. Oh, how many had a DVD packed inside?Studios consider Blu ray combos as blu ray. Odd that you dont.
If thats the case then Im curious as to why you still follow blu ray sales, since iyo they havent been relevant since the first blu ray combo(digital and/or dvd)
Why include blu ray at all if they dont care about it?

If that makes you feel better that Sony, Paramount, Disney, Fox etc. see little reason to release on Blu-ray that's fine. We have several people who post who can't handle bad Blu-ray news either.All those studios release movies on blu ray.

Lee Stewart
06-21-2012, 01:28 AM
Thats definitely the case. But more importantly they have blu ray players, and the potential is there. And we see what the BD hardware base is capable of when movies get a 60% or more share on the blu ray format.

EXACTLY how many BD releases get a 60% share? Do I need two hands to count them or will one do? :lol:

Lee Stewart
06-21-2012, 01:33 AM
That's right, you are guessing. For households that own 2 or more BD players I am sure they play more BDs in their drives than DVD. You might have an argument for households that have only 1 BD player, but without any data as I said you're guessing.

Since when do we have data that shows how many households have more then 1 BD player?

Link? Or are YOU just guessing? :lol:

Dave J
06-21-2012, 03:33 AM
Pretty much what I thought. This shows just how popular a Bluray player is for streaming. For the percentage to that high is amazing to me. If it was in the same range as a game system I would think that would be more of a normal percentage. But in the 80s? That makes me think many are bought for the streaming. I agree though. The player is a great value. But more so as a streaming/DVD player more than a Bluray player. Bluray movies have not taken the crown from DVD. Not even close. And with so many DVDs already in homes? I'm guessing the players get used more to play DVDs than Blurays when it comes to disc.

I don't know how you can draw that conclusion unless we know what percentage of blu-ray players are actually connected. All we know is 80% of connected blu-ray players are used to stream content but that is just a percentage of a percentage. I'd be suprised if connected blu-ray players is more than 40-50%.

mikemorel
06-21-2012, 07:14 AM
I think a lot of consumers see Blu-ray players as a much better value than a pure streaming device like a Roku device.Tiny Roku sold 1.5 million streaming devices in the US in 2011. That is triple 2010 sales.

Most traditional CE manufacturers sold far fewer blu-ray players in the US. And Roku's devices avoid blu-ray material costs, added shipping costs, support costs, and (most importantly) blu-ray royalties.

It appears that many consumers see lots of value in a streaming player purchase.
I know a lot of people, including myself, who watch TV shows on their Blu-ray players from Netflix or Hulu.Consumers like yourself spending time streaming Netflix, Hulu, or Vudu on blu-ray players means fewer blu-ray discs sold or rented. Most people have a fixed amount of free time to consumer content.

That's why I think the Roku CEO stating his box will kill off Blu-ray players is kinda silly.He didn't say his box will kill off blu-ray players. He said blu-ray player sales are going to peak this year or next, and that blu-ray players can't compare with the consumer experience of streaming.

It would not be surprising to see hundreds of streaming channels, each offering thousands of titles, on a streaming box in 4 or 5 years.

GizmoDVD
06-21-2012, 08:15 AM
That's right, you are guessing. For households that own 2 or more BD players I am sure they play more BDs in their drives than DVD. You might have an argument for households that have only 1 BD player, but without any data as I said you're guessing.

LOL!

You are guessing that they play more BDs over DVDs? Because the selection of 6k BDs vs tens of thousands of DVDs - including TV shows - just isn't being watched anymore.

Laugh of the week!

GizmoDVD
06-21-2012, 08:19 AM
Studios consider Blu ray combos as blu ray. Odd that you dont.
If thats the case then Im curious as to why you still follow blu ray sales, since iyo they havent been relevant since the first blu ray combo(digital and/or dvd)
Why include blu ray at all if they dont care about it?

All those studios release movies on blu ray.

They have to consider them Blu-ray sales. That's the whole point. They need the artificially boost Blu-ray sales so retailers will continue to stock them. This is a secret to no one.

bruceames
06-21-2012, 08:52 AM
I don't know how you can draw that conclusion unless we know what percentage of blu-ray players are actually connected. All we know is 80% of connected blu-ray players are used to stream content but that is just a percentage of a percentage. I'd be suprised if connected blu-ray players is more than 40-50%.

It's probably less than that, and it would be interesting info to know what percentage of Blu-ray players are connected. Obviously they are used more all the time to stream and Blu-ray players may actually be the cheapest way to get both an upscaling DVD player and a streaming player. It's becoming a good value even if the player actually never sees a BD.

dsskid
06-21-2012, 10:35 AM
Delete

1stSilverado
06-21-2012, 10:53 AM
They have to consider them Blu-ray sales. That's the whole point. They need the artificially boost Blu-ray sales so retailers will continue to stock them. This is a secret to no one.

If BD/DVD sales actually counted toward DVD sales also, would that push DVD into sales growth??
I think the consumer has spoken with the disregard of HD media and the cling to SD media.

h0mi
06-21-2012, 11:15 AM
I don't know how you can draw that conclusion unless we know what percentage of blu-ray players are actually connected. All we know is 80% of connected blu-ray players are used to stream content but that is just a percentage of a percentage. I'd be suprised if connected blu-ray players is more than 40-50%.

The numbers don't work out and I found the Nielsen link.

http://blog.nielsen.com/nielsenwire/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/netflix-hulu-viewing.png

Nielsen reported that just 2% of hulu users (last year) and 11% of Netflix users use blu-ray players. With 38 million and 25 million subs respectively (and this over counts the hulu figures significantly since hulu only has 2 million subs with hulu plus, the only subscribers capable of using blu-ray players anyway) this ends up being barely 3 million subscribers of both services. Is that even close to 80% of blu-ray players?

bruceames
06-21-2012, 11:26 AM
The numbers don't work out and I found the Nielsen link.

http://blog.nielsen.com/nielsenwire/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/netflix-hulu-viewing.png

Nielsen reported that just 2% of hulu users (last year) and 11% of Netflix users use blu-ray players. With 38 million and 25 million subs respectively (and this over counts the hulu figures significantly since hulu only has 2 million subs with hulu plus, the only subscribers capable of using blu-ray players anyway) this ends up being barely 3 million subscribers of both services. Is that even close to 80% of blu-ray players?

The article said that 80% of those players connected are streaming content, not that 80% of all Blu-ray players are doing so. I don't think that's even physically possible as likely well over 20% of Blu-ray players in people's homes today do not have streaming capabilities.

Malanthius
06-21-2012, 11:32 AM
That's right, you are guessing. For households that own 2 or more BD players I am sure they play more BDs in their drives than DVD. You might have an argument for households that have only 1 BD player, but without any data as I said you're guessing.

That's why I said I'm guessing man! But I do think I'm right. Think about it. It's safe to say that the majority of mainstream consumers out there have DVD collections much larger than their Bluray collections. I'll guarantee that. How many times can you go through that small Bluray collection. And that player replaced an old DVD player right? Who would add a Bluray player to a rack with a DVD player? I'd chuck that DVD player or throw it in the garage. People are not going to stop playing their DVDs. Sorry man I think I'm right on this one. It's the most logical conclusion. I've stated my case. Now show me how I'm wrong and explain to my why more Blurays would be getting played.

bruceames
06-21-2012, 11:36 AM
Most smart tvs sold in the past 2-3 years have streaming capabilities built in.

I find it unlikely that the consumer who doesn't have a display capable of streaming would buy a BD player for it's streaming capability when they could buy a streaming box for less money, unless of course they planned on utilizing it to play Optical discs (DVD or BD) movies as well.

Yes, but most tvs sold today are not smart tvs, and a Blu-ray streaming player costs little more than a streaming player by itself. It's a good value just for the streaming and DVD upscaling. The BLu-ray playback for those who would use it is a bonus (and maybe that don't use it now will so later). No wonder the Roku guy is worried and is so bearish on Blu-ray.

Lee Stewart
06-21-2012, 02:38 PM
Yes, but most tvs sold today are not smart tvs, and a Blu-ray streaming player costs little more than a streaming player by itself. It's a good value just for the streaming and DVD upscaling. The BLu-ray playback for those who would use it is a bonus (and maybe that don't use it now will so later). No wonder the Roku guy is worried and is so bearish on Blu-ray.

NPD: 27% of Global Q1 TV Shipments Featured Web-Connectivity

http://www.homemediamagazine.com/digital-evolution/npd-27-global-q1-tv-shipments-featured-web-connectivity-27508

bruceames
06-21-2012, 03:34 PM
NPD: 27% of Global Q1 TV Shipments Featured Web-Connectivity

http://www.homemediamagazine.com/digital-evolution/npd-27-global-q1-tv-shipments-featured-web-connectivity-27508

Compare that with most Blu-ray players sold today being capable of streaming video. The format is using the growing popularity of streaming to piggyback hardware into people's homes, but it's kind of a double-edged sword, as people that buy it for Blu-ray may end up using it mostly for streaming instead and buy less.

But given that so many Blu-ray players have that capability already, it's easy to see how it may become the dominant streaming player medium in the years to come. I'm sure the Roku guy won't agree though.

Kosty
06-21-2012, 07:49 PM
Also as consumers continue to upgrade their HDTV screen sizes year after year two things may happen.

One is that Blu-ray Discs look better more and more than DVD or standard definition or HD lite streaming, so that favors Blu-ray for things you want to watch over and over again and can buy for the same price you have bought DVDs in the past.

The second thing is that consumers with larger display sizes will appreciate better streaming quality and more and more streaming will be offered in better HD quality.

But if Blu-ray players with streaming that have the extra feature of playing CDs DVDs and Blu-ray Discs cost the same as a Roku or other streaming box, the extra capability of that Blu-ray player for the same price has the advantage.

morriscroy
06-21-2012, 08:51 PM
And that player replaced an old DVD player right? Who would add a Bluray player to a rack with a DVD player? I'd chuck that DVD player or throw it in the garage.

After my old dvd player died around 7 months ago, I ended up picking up a bluray player to replace it. At the time around xmas 2011, there were bluray players for $50. It seemed like a worthwhile purchase, when it was only around $10-$15 more than the dvd players on the shelves.

Echo13
06-21-2012, 09:45 PM
That's why I said I'm guessing man! But I do think I'm right. Think about it. It's safe to say that the majority of mainstream consumers out there have DVD collections much larger than their Bluray collections. I'll guarantee that. How many times can you go through that small Bluray collection. And that player replaced an old DVD player right? Who would add a Bluray player to a rack with a DVD player? I'd chuck that DVD player or throw it in the garage. People are not going to stop playing their DVDs. Sorry man I think I'm right on this one. It's the most logical conclusion. I've stated my case. Now show me how I'm wrong and explain to my why more Blurays would be getting played.It seems to me that people are going through a great deal of trouble to play DVD.
When the majority of certain blockbuster titles are sold on BD combos, the excuse is that theyre buying it to watch the DVD. When BD players are being bought, its said that the majority of them are using it to play DVDs. I guess these people with BD players will still choose to watch the DVD when they buy the BD combo.

bruceames
06-21-2012, 10:05 PM
It seems to me that people are going through a great deal of trouble to play DVD.
When the majority of certain blockbuster titles are sold on BD combos, the excuse is that theyre buying it to watch the DVD. When BD players are being bought, its said that the majority of them are using it to play DVDs. I guess its just too troublesome to play those blu rays.

It's not that they're more troublesome (well maybe they are, if you care about things like loading times and purchase cost), it's that there's just a lot more DVDs to play. Think about it, DVD has sold nearly $120 billion in discs, and that's not including the ones that Rentrak is not counting (combos). That's probably around 10 billion discs floating around, probably more when you consider TV shows. Blu-ray has sold just over $6 billion since launch, perhaps about 400 million disc total. A good 25:1 ratio.

It's not like people are going to stop playing their DVD collection because they bought a Blu-ray.

bruceames
06-21-2012, 10:18 PM
Also as consumers continue to upgrade their HDTV screen sizes year after year two things may happen.

One is that Blu-ray Discs look better more and more than DVD or standard definition or HD lite streaming, so that favors Blu-ray for things you want to watch over and over again and can buy for the same price you have bought DVDs in the past.

The second thing is that consumers with larger display sizes will appreciate better streaming quality and more and more streaming will be offered in better HD quality.

But if Blu-ray players with streaming that have the extra feature of playing CDs DVDs and Blu-ray Discs cost the same as a Roku or other streaming box, the extra capability of that Blu-ray player for the same price has the advantage.

The large size helps and will be helping. But a funny thing happened when wall mounts became the norm. It actually moves the TV back a few feet from where it was. So instead of the TV 8 feet back, now it's 10. The average TV size needs to grow about 10 inches to compensate for that setback, in order to maintain the same distance to display size ratio. Which by the way for Blu-ray, should be at most 2.5:1. 2:1 or closer would be ideal. At 3:1 or more, you may as well be watching DVD, you're not going to tell the difference unless you have an eagle eye.

So TV sizes really need to grow quite a bit for consumers to fully appreciate Blu-ray. It's going to take some time I'm afraid.

Malanthius
06-22-2012, 03:54 AM
It seems to me that people are going through a great deal of trouble to play DVD.
When the majority of certain blockbuster titles are sold on BD combos, the excuse is that theyre buying it to watch the DVD. When BD players are being bought, its said that the majority of them are using it to play DVDs. I guess these people with BD players will still choose to watch the DVD when they buy the BD combo.

I think you miss the point. If people buy a Bluray DVD combo? I think the Bluray gets played more in their Bluray player. But people are not buying very many Bluray movies as seen in the poor sales. Plus remember these people probably have a built up collection of DVD at home. Many of which they will never upgrade to Bluray as seen by the even more pathetic catalog sales we are seeing.

So you see they have many more DVDs to choose from at home. Thus DVDs are probably fed into those new Bluray players more than Blurays. I know thats the case in my household. And we have multiple Bluray players. Hey unless you think people have stopped playing their DVDs all together? Then maybe you are right. I just can't believe that to be true.

Malanthius
06-22-2012, 03:59 AM
The large size helps and will be helping. But a funny thing happened when wall mounts became the norm. It actually moves the TV back a few feet from where it was. So instead of the TV 8 feet back, now it's 10. The average TV size needs to grow about 10 inches to compensate for that setback, in order to maintain the same distance to display size ratio. Which by the way for Blu-ray, should be at most 2.5:1. 2:1 or closer would be ideal. At 3:1 or more, you may as well be watching DVD, you're not going to tell the difference unless you have an eagle eye.

So TV sizes really need to grow quite a bit for consumers to fully appreciate Blu-ray. It's going to take some time I'm afraid.
That's a great point About the wall mount Bruce. Plus with the housing market the way it is, I don't see people upgrading to larger homes anytime soon. In the average home you can only go so big. I think that's why 42" is the most popular size sold? Or was it 32"? I forget. Anyway still way far out to really get the full benifit for most people like you said.

Lee Stewart
06-22-2012, 05:33 AM
Also as consumers continue to upgrade their HDTV screen sizes year after year two things may happen.

One is that Blu-ray Discs look better more and more than DVD or standard definition or HD lite streaming, so that favors Blu-ray for things you want to watch over and over again and can buy for the same price you have bought DVDs in the past.

The second thing is that consumers with larger display sizes will appreciate better streaming quality and more and more streaming will be offered in better HD quality.

But if Blu-ray players with streaming that have the extra feature of playing CDs DVDs and Blu-ray Discs cost the same as a Roku or other streaming box, the extra capability of that Blu-ray player for the same price has the advantage.

If consumers put picture quality first, then BD would be doing twice the amount of sales it is doing today. But that isn't happening. Consumers respond to convinence and cost.

bruceames
06-22-2012, 08:56 AM
That's a great point About the wall mount Bruce. Plus with the housing market the way it is, I don't see people upgrading to larger homes anytime soon. In the average home you can only go so big. I think that's why 42" is the most popular size sold? Or was it 32"? I forget. Anyway still way far out to really get the full benifit for most people like you said.

I read a few days ago that the average size purchased (or shipped to retailers) today is 37". Average living room HDTV size is probably around 42" or maybe a few inches more.

I also remember reading a study done where the average living room viewing distance was either 9 or 10 feet away. (I think Lee found that link a while back). It's probably at least 10 feet now because of the wall mounts.

So if the average TV size is 42" and it's normally viewed 10 feet away, that's a 2.86:1 distance/size ratio. At that ratio you can only see about 1/2 the benefit of 720p video, which is about the same as upscaled DVD (although DVD is only 480p, the upscaling improves the perception of the video to a degree where it looks like so-so 720p). You'll probably notice only a tad improvement when you stick in a Blu-ray and do an A-B comparison with the DVD, but that about it.

To get the full benefit of 1080p with a 42" TV sitting 10 feet away, you have to sit no more than 6 feet away. Either that or get an 80" TV and keep the couch where it is.

So that's what Blu-ray is up against. Unlike VHS, there is no real motivation visually speaking for most people to upgrade to Blu-ray because it's going to look marginally better at best from their current setup and seating arrangement.

Heck, back in the late 90's and early 2000s, there were very few large TVs in people's homes. And on a 27" tube TV viewed 8-10 feet away, VHS will look just about as good as DVD will. The main motivation back then for switching from VHS to DVD was more convenience and form factor than better PQ. It was only when HDTVs came out that VHS started looking really crappy. By then DVD was already mainstream. But nothing has come out yet to make the DVDs look crappy and probably won't for many years.

http://s3.carltonbale.com/resolution_chart.html

http://s3.carltonbale.com/resolution_chart.png

Kosty
06-22-2012, 09:17 PM
The large size helps and will be helping. But a funny thing happened when wall mounts became the norm. It actually moves the TV back a few feet from where it was. So instead of the TV 8 feet back, now it's 10. The average TV size needs to grow about 10 inches to compensate for that setback, in order to maintain the same distance to display size ratio. Which by the way for Blu-ray, should be at most 2.5:1. 2:1 or closer would be ideal. At 3:1 or more, you may as well be watching DVD, you're not going to tell the difference unless you have an eagle eye.

So TV sizes really need to grow quite a bit for consumers to fully appreciate Blu-ray. It's going to take some time I'm afraid.

Most consumers do not bother with wall mounting their flat panel displays.

Most HDTVs are sitting on their pedestals out of the box.

bruceames
06-22-2012, 09:25 PM
Most consumers do not bother with wall mounting their flat panel displays.

Most HDTVs are sitting on their pedestals out of the box.

That could be, but the trend is clearly putting them on the wall. It's the cool factor, especially as they get bigger and look too cumbersome on a pedestal. Most living room HDTVs I see are on mounts, but it could depend on where you live.

Kosty
06-22-2012, 09:26 PM
There are a few surveys out there that clearly state most consumers would prefer 50+ or larger displays if cost was no object.

One reason why is that cinemascope 2.30 epic movies still have letterbox bars on a 16:9 HDTV and 4:3 images are not as tall on a 16:9 display for the screen size as they were on a 4:3 analog display.

The NPD data was also pretty clear for the holiday season that consumers each year are preferring to purchase larger and larger screen sizes over time as well.

http://i45.tinypic.com/ev28ux.jpg

http://i47.tinypic.com/301q6gn.jpg

Lee Stewart
06-23-2012, 02:34 AM
NPD: Global LCD TV Shipments Fall for First Time.

June 20,2012

Despite the declines, demand for televisions with bigger screens continued to grow. The average LCD TV screen size increased 5%, passing 35 inches for the first time. Televisions with screens of 40 inches and larger saw shipments rise 12%–for a market share of more than 37%, up from just under 31% a year earlier.

http://blogs.wsj.com/digits/2012/06/20/npd-global-lcd-tv-shipments-fall-for-first-time/

TowerGrove
06-23-2012, 04:52 AM
That could be, but the trend is clearly putting them on the wall. It's the cool factor, especially as they get bigger and look too cumbersome on a pedestal. Most living room HDTVs I see are on mounts, but it could depend on where you live.

My father has a fireplace business and may people want their televisions mounted above the opening of the fireplace above the mantle. I guess people don't think because its not a good choice of location as the radiant heat eventually will get to the device. We have seen many many televisions with damage after a few short years.

HD Goofnut
06-23-2012, 06:11 AM
My father has a fireplace business and may people want their televisions mounted above the opening of the fireplace above the mantle. I guess people don't think because its not a good choice of location as the radiant heat eventually will get to the device. We have seen many many televisions with damage after a few short years.

At least you never need a fireplace in Mississippi.:p

Kosty
06-23-2012, 09:52 AM
My father has a fireplace business and may people want their televisions mounted above the opening of the fireplace above the mantle. I guess people don't think because its not a good choice of location as the radiant heat eventually will get to the device. We have seen many many televisions with damage after a few short years.

Its also a horrible position for viewing. But wifes and decorators like it there but its really a lousy position for viewing.

Malanthius
06-23-2012, 11:12 AM
There are a few surveys out there that clearly state most consumers would prefer 50+ or larger displays if cost was no object.

One reason why is that cinemascope 2.30 epic movies still have letterbox bars on a 16:9 HDTV and 4:3 images are not as tall on a 16:9 display for the screen size as they were on a 4:3 analog display.

The NPD data was also pretty clear for the holiday season that consumers each year are preferring to purchase larger and larger screen sizes over time as well.

http://i45.tinypic.com/ev28ux.jpg

http://i47.tinypic.com/301q6gn.jpg
Cool info. But looking at the growth in that chart? Bluray will have come and gone before its benefit can be seen or needed by a majority of consumers. The two sizes that are the most popular really don't need Bluray or reap its benefit. The larger sizes that do I doubt will every be a majority or even close to it. If and when that happens? It will be many years and Bluray will be gone. Probably replaced with Bluray quality or better streamed ect...

Kosty
06-23-2012, 12:48 PM
Cool info. But looking at the growth in that chart? Bluray will have come and gone before its benefit can be seen or needed by a majority of consumers. The two sizes that are the most popular really don't need Bluray or reap its benefit. The larger sizes that do I doubt will every be a majority or even close to it. If and when that happens? It will be many years and Bluray will be gone. Probably replaced with Bluray quality or better streamed ect...

Perhaps, but not likely.

One can also see that the greatest growth rate is with the larger screen sizes and that's the area where Blu-ray quality makes more of a difference.

Its also something that is aspirational in nature for consumers. Even if consumers have an HDTV, when they see their friends, neighbors and family using larger screen sizes for HDTVs they aspire to get a larger screen size themselves.

One other observation. Even though the consumer penetration of HDTVs has been growing in the past few years a lot of home that count in the HDTV household penetration statistics have sets they have bought in the past five years that were 30" or 32" or smaller sizes and do not benefit a lot from the better quality of Blu-ray.

As consumers upgrade to larger screen sizes and from 720p to 1080p or 3D displays there is a temptation for many of them to also upgrade their old DVD player to a newer Blu-ray player that can also double as a streaming device as well.

So just looking at those charts you can see that there is a lot of potential for consumers to upgrade their existing screen sizes to larger displays that make Blu-ray an more attractive option to those that have been satisfied before with using only DVD.

HDTV screen size and lack of HDTV adoption is one of the driving forces in some consumers being still satisfied with DVD or standard definition streaming resolution and quality. As people escalate into larger screen sizes over time the consumer demand for better quality streaming and Blu-ray quality over DVD will grow somewhat over time. As that happens and as Blu-ray displaces DVD more at retail Blu-ray demand and sales volumes will also rise over time.

There is still a lot of potential for growth in Blu-ray household adoption that's embedded in the data in those charts.

bruceames
06-23-2012, 01:24 PM
Its also a horrible position for viewing. But wifes and decorators like it there but its really a lousy position for viewing.

I have my LR TV mounted above the fireplace. It's actually the best position because the wall is jutted in 2 feet from the rest of the wall. That means it's 2 feet closer to the couch that's against the other wall.

As for height, is mounted just above the mantle, 42" from the floor. I wouldn't mind 6" lower but when I'm in the recliner my head is tilted back anyway. The couch is about 10 feet away so the viewing angle is still pretty low. The swivel and tilt features also migigate that further.

bruceames
06-23-2012, 01:26 PM
My father has a fireplace business and may people want their televisions mounted above the opening of the fireplace above the mantle. I guess people don't think because its not a good choice of location as the radiant heat eventually will get to the device. We have seen many many televisions with damage after a few short years.

Fortunately my wall is very well insulated so it's not an issue. I also don't use the fireplace very often so that helps as well.

Kosty
06-23-2012, 01:53 PM
I have my LR TV mounted above the fireplace. It's actually the best position because the wall is jutted in 2 feet from the rest of the wall. That means it's 2 feet closer to the couch that's against the other wall.

As for height, is mounted just above the mantle, 42" from the floor. I wouldn't mind 6" lower but when I'm in the recliner my head is tilted back anyway. The couch is about 10 feet away so the viewing angle is still pretty low. The swivel and tilt features also migigate that further.

That seems to be a reasonable compromise and if it works for you with your floor plan its cool. That's one of the major disadvantages though that you work around that the line of sight is too high for comfortable viewing.

The other thing from a ISF calibrationist standpoint is that when you have the fireplace actually turned on its distracting from the image on the screen. But like anything else in life one gets used to it and you probably hardly notice it now in your comfy chair.

bruceames
06-23-2012, 02:05 PM
That seems to be a reasonable compromise and if it works for you with your floor plan its cool. That's one of the major disadvantages though that you work around that the line of sight is too high for comfortable viewing.

The ideal "line of sight" mounting height for an HDTV is probably too low for where most people want to put it, regardless of whether there is a fireplace below it or not. People don't want to mount their TVs 2 feet off the floor.


The other thing from a ISF calibrationist standpoint is that when you have the fireplace actually turned on its distracting from the image on the screen. But like anything else in life one gets used to it and you probably hardly notice it now in your comfy chair.

I tried using the fireplace while watching TV, but obviously found it distracting. Unless one uses a fireplace with relative frequency, a fire is best enjoyed with the TV turned off, wherever it may be.

Kosty
06-23-2012, 02:12 PM
The ideal "line of sight" mounting height for an HDTV is probably too low for where most people want to put it, regardless of whether there is a fireplace below it or not. People don't want to mount their TVs 2 feet off the floor.



I tried using the fireplace while watching TV, but obviously found it distracting. Unless one uses a fireplace with relative frequency, a fire is best enjoyed with the TV turned off, wherever it may be.

I actually like using my fireplace in my living room while watching a lot of stuff at night during the winter. But its not directly in the line of sight but off to the side so its really not an issue in my living room.

For my home theater, its not an issue and that's where I watch most movies anyway on my wall sized screen.

bruceames
06-23-2012, 02:33 PM
I actually like using my fireplace in my living room while watching a lot of stuff at night during the winter. But its not directly in the line of sight but off to the side so its really not an issue in my living room.

For my home theater, its not an issue and that's where I watch most movies anyway on my wall sized screen.

I wish I had a home theater, but after one of my kids move out I can eventually convert that room to a home theater.

Kosty
06-23-2012, 02:41 PM
I wish I had a home theater, but after one of my kids move out I can eventually convert that room to a home theater.

All you need is a wall with space you can place a screen on and a ceiling or place to mount the projector and a moderately controlled light environment during the day or just plan to use it at night.

A solid basic 1080p front projector can be had now for well under $999 and for a lot less if you want.

Watching a movie on a wall sized screen is a different experience.

Kosty
06-23-2012, 02:47 PM
Acer H6500
Epson Home Cinema 8350
Panasonic PT-AR100U
BenQ W710ST
Mitsubishi HC400

...are all basic projectors that are around $1000 price point. Add a $100 DIY screen and a $250 HTiB setup and you can make a basic home theater set up with a 90 inch screen that can be right in the open when you are not using it as long as the wall is available. You can hide the screen with drapes for the wife acceptance factor.

I personally like the Mitsubishi HC4000 with its solid DLP technology as a no frills entry level front projector but all the newest entry level projectors from the major brands have advantages and disadvantages.

bruceames
06-23-2012, 03:36 PM
Would it be possible to have a roll down screen so that it doesn't need to be mounted against a wall?

Kosty
06-23-2012, 03:53 PM
Would it be possible to have a roll down screen so that it doesn't need to be mounted against a wall?


Absolutely.

I've seen setups in wide open glass filled kitchen/living great rooms.

They cost a bit more but they can totally hide the screen. Here is just one option. Lots more that cost less.

http://www.draperinc.com/projectionscreens/electricScreens.asp

Kosty
06-23-2012, 03:55 PM
If you are serious, I can give you all sorts of advice for any budget or circumstance you could think of for any sort of a entry level to cost effective setup.

You could budget less than buying a large HDTV and get started.