Tarbija24: Eestlased ostavad aina nutikamaid telereid. Jätsin kommentaari siia ka, et see hiljem ära ei kaoks.
Eestis on võimalik üle kaabli (Starman) või ka IPTV (Elion) vaadata HD kanaleid küll. Esialgu on nö uuematest tehnoloogiatest laiemalt saadaval vaid FullHD.
See-eest UHD on alles verivärske ja seda sai näha näiteks FIFA jalgpalli maailmakarika ülekannet vaadates — nendel, kel vastav aparatuur olemas.
UHD standardeid on kaks: 4K ja 8K. Jaapan läks kohe 8K peale üle, teised maad ja riigid on nagu kahevahel, et kas valida 4K või 8K.
YouTube muuseas toetab 4K-d, kui video on selles resolutsioonis üles võetud. Vaja on vaid, et toru oleks lai.
Eestis on minuteada DVB-T digistandard koos MPEG4 AVC pakkimisega, mis peaks võimaldama HDTV-d, aga ma ei tea täpselt, kas see on Eestis digiantenniga vastuvõetaval HD-kanalil ainult 720p, või pigem 1080i või 1080p.
HDTV on DVB-T standardi ja MPEG-4 AVC kodeeringuga võimalik, kuid DVB-T läbilaskevõime võimaldab korraga vist ainult ühte-kahte HD kanalit. Ühe multipleksi kohta mitme kanali jaoks on tarvis DVB-T2 saatjaid, aga meil on vaid DVB-T, mille läbilaskevõime on väiksem. Tõsi küll, MPEG-4 AVC kodeerimine on tõhusam kui MPEG2, mis võimaldab veidi rohkem.
Sest soomlastel on alumises otsas DVB-T koos MPEG2 kodeeringuga, mis on vanem kui meie variant, aga nad juurutavad juba DVB-T2 saatjaid ja paljudel sealsetel telekatarbijatel on see mure, et tuleb välja vahetada digivastuvõtjad või üldse uus teler osta. Mõlematpidi on kulu.
Eestis oli üleminek digitelevisioonile ses mõttes ratsionaalne, et analoogiga võrreldes muutus ülekandmine kõigile odavamaks ja nii sai ka kulusid kokku hoida. Nii riik kui ka eeldatavasti erakanalid.
Eestis on alles neli aastat möödas digitelevisioonile üleminekust, mille hulka kuulub DVB-T saatjate paigaldamine (infrastruktuur) ning tarbijate poolt digibokside ja/või uute telekate ostmine.
Ma ei kujuta üldse ette, et kas ja kuidas ja millal oleks peale selliseid kulutusi otstarbekas DVB-T2-le ja seeläbi UHD-le üle minna. Et kui, siis loodetavasti toimub see siis juba järk-järgult, nagu kunagi ammu oli näiteks mustvalgelt värvitelekale üleminek.
Friday, November 21, 2014
Friday, November 7, 2014
Brand recognition and advancements in technology
Everyone knows this picture, as it has become a meme of sorts.
Two major points:
* that "The iPhone introduced the smartphone to the world, and the iPad the tablet computer."
Well...
* And the opposite argument claiming that 'the HUD [headgear] technology predates Star Trek: Deeep Space Nine by decades in theory and by many years as science fact.'
So...
Even if Google Glass-like devices might have been in use well before Google came out with its own product, then in all actuality they might have been deployed in only sequestered (military, intelligence) and/or niche environments (specific businesses).
If you go to a library an read a 1980's book or major magazine about future computing devices and gadgets, then the headgear is there already. At least I remember on such book when I was younger.
Very often the point is, that some technologies are not acknowledged as being widely in existence until a reasonably affordable, well-branded, and easy-to-use product is successfully introduced into consumer space and gains major mindshare from the press and then the public at large.
The smartphone was there long before the iPhone (IBM, Nokia), ditto the tablet computer (Microsoft's thingy from 2000 was a rather half-hearted attempt, btw), and videoconferencing. There were video capabilities in instant messaging programs long before Skype.
Only that major brands recognized by most people are major only because of very effective promotion in one otherwise backwards (if you will) or underdeveloped, but rather powerful market compared to the rest of the world. That's iPhone in the U.S.
There are other reasons:
* One is that mainstream technology journalism has been dominated by U.S. outlets;
* The other is that they are usually rather partial to Apple. Almost all of them;
* And that the tech press of the U.S. — and by extension its public — were, IMO, in a very desperate need for a fancy product that was ostensibly innovated in United States, marketed by a major brand native to the U.S., and of which every person would want to have a piece of.
* Never mind that actual product was made in China, where industrialisation and labour conditions are historically comparable to those of 19th century Britain. (Yes, there have been some improvements.)
Two major points:
* that "The iPhone introduced the smartphone to the world, and the iPad the tablet computer."
Well...
* And the opposite argument claiming that 'the HUD [headgear] technology predates Star Trek: Deeep Space Nine by decades in theory and by many years as science fact.'
So...
Even if Google Glass-like devices might have been in use well before Google came out with its own product, then in all actuality they might have been deployed in only sequestered (military, intelligence) and/or niche environments (specific businesses).
If you go to a library an read a 1980's book or major magazine about future computing devices and gadgets, then the headgear is there already. At least I remember on such book when I was younger.
Very often the point is, that some technologies are not acknowledged as being widely in existence until a reasonably affordable, well-branded, and easy-to-use product is successfully introduced into consumer space and gains major mindshare from the press and then the public at large.
The smartphone was there long before the iPhone (IBM, Nokia), ditto the tablet computer (Microsoft's thingy from 2000 was a rather half-hearted attempt, btw), and videoconferencing. There were video capabilities in instant messaging programs long before Skype.
Only that major brands recognized by most people are major only because of very effective promotion in one otherwise backwards (if you will) or underdeveloped, but rather powerful market compared to the rest of the world. That's iPhone in the U.S.
There are other reasons:
* One is that mainstream technology journalism has been dominated by U.S. outlets;
* The other is that they are usually rather partial to Apple. Almost all of them;
* And that the tech press of the U.S. — and by extension its public — were, IMO, in a very desperate need for a fancy product that was ostensibly innovated in United States, marketed by a major brand native to the U.S., and of which every person would want to have a piece of.
* Never mind that actual product was made in China, where industrialisation and labour conditions are historically comparable to those of 19th century Britain. (Yes, there have been some improvements.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)