Actually Tony, I would argue that this crowd is the easy one to sell the "more pixels" argument to, not the public.
We all want to make the highest quality product we can, if we didn't we shouldn't be in the business. My argument is that there is a point where anything we do will never be seen, so why waste resources on that. We currently make a much higher quality product than anyone ever sees at home. The best they can see is BluRay, and even that is heavily compressed.
As for the public, I truly believe that when their HD tv dies, and they go to the store, if there is a 4K TV for the same price or less than their current HD set, they will buy it. Not because it's 4K, but because they need to replace their TV.
And then they will go home and continue to watch SD upconverted.
---In Avid-L2@yahoogroups.com, <tony@...> wrote:
him spending money on? More pixels is an easy argument.
If we forget the public, and simply assume that they can receive these
'better pixels' with their current kit, then how are you going to convince
broadcasters to invest in 'better pixels' for zero ROI?
We can all have ideals, but ideals don't generate income for anyone, which
is why they are so rarely met.
Tony
-----Original Message-----
From: Avid-L2@yahoogroups.com [mailto:Avid-L2@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
David Dodson
Sent: 06 November 2013 14:28
To: Avid-L2@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Avid-L2] Better vs. More
Dammit, Terry, do I have to do all your work for you?
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/behind-screen/why-4k-might-not-be-636485
Seriously, though. Up with better. Down with more.
David D
David Dodson
davidadodson@...
------------------------------------
Yahoo Groups Links
| Reply via web post | Reply to sender | Reply to group | Start a New Topic | Messages in this topic (5) |
No comments:
Post a Comment