--- In Avid-L2@yahoogroups.com, John Heiser <jpheiser@...> wrote:
"What if the clients paying your bills want to see it? Would you try to talk them out of it because YOU think it's pointless? "
If they are willing to pay more for something they can't see, I would provide it, but not until I pointed out what I perceive to be their folly.
My goal in life is not to make the biggest profit regardless of the consequences. At the end of my run, I want feel good about how I have lived my life. If I truly believed I would be serving the story, and therefore the audience by providing 4K in the home, I would be one of it's biggest proponents.
But I don't believe that, and I fear we are going to sacrifice a chance to actually provide a better quality, less compressed, higher bit rate, richer chroma viewing experience at home for the chance to chase unseeable resolution in the pursuit of more dollars for TV manufacturers.
I do believe, and I feel I have laid out a case that, in the matter of4K TV at home, the public will NOT be duped this time.
PS: Would you agree I was correct on my 3D prediction? How much further along would MC / Symphony be now if they hadn't blown all those resources on the rarely needed 3D feature set?
| Reply via web post | Reply to sender | Reply to group | Start a New Topic | Messages in this topic (150) |
No comments:
Post a Comment