Originally Posted by Nitro67
You are comparing apples to Oranges. I have around 1000 Blurays now. The quality is great for 1080p, but if I am going to spending 20K for a TV. Then I don't want an over- compressed outdated technology that is only going to last a few years. I am willing to wait a few years for the next gen optical format. I hate to upgrade every few years, and that is what Sony wants people to do. Also realize there is only probably less that 50 movies for 4k Tv's now. Just looking at the RED website and Sony website. I want the best quality that I can buy. So, yes, I am willing to spend more...
I don't understand the relationship you are creating between the cost of a display versus the cost of the physical media the display will show. What does the price of the display have to do with what you are willing to spend on a per unit basis for the physical media? Those involved in creating new content in a new format will do it in a manner that is financially sensible to them with effort to make the finished product to what they deem acceptable.
Why should you care about how much compression is used? Are you an video compression expert? You are happy with BD - you must be with such a large collection, and it is highly compressed.
If you are waiting for Holographic Disc to be used to deliver prerecorded movies, then be prepared to wait for at least
10 years. By then 4K will be old tech and 8K will be just coming out.
A 4K format on a new physical media that would necessitate the retail price being $100 would be considered a major failure. It would be a niche product that will have an extremely small adoption rate - just like LD did with their $80 and $90 CAV special editions. It is not the intention of the CEMs to introduce a niche product. They want it to go mass market. THAT is where the money is, not selling to 1% of the total market. That is left to the "boutique" companies whose sales are tiny in comparison to the major CEMs.
People are going to ask:
1. What does it look like?
2. How much does it cost?
3. If I wait, what's next?
Because there is always something "next." Believe me, no one wants a format where they have to pay $100 per title versus the $25 they are paying today.
As far as how much 4K content could be available? Much more than the "less than 50 movies" you claim. It's over 300. That includes 4K productions, 65mm productions and IMAX docs.
HDMI has been huge disaster, because people want to have one central location for their movies and multiple TV's. The problem is now you have to spend $$$(1K to 16K) for these HDMI video matrix switches, that might work. There is issues with distance, and the handshake protocol that is required for these HDMI switches. So, I suspect that the future devices will use a technology similar to DisplayPort, but designed around optical fiber.
You suspect wrong. The next version of HDMI will be released later this year to specifically address 4K at higher frame rates and higher frame rate 3D. The industry has standardized on HDMI. That isn't going to change in the foreseeable future
Sonic is just an example on how little it costs for 1Gb/sec and fiber to the home. Actually, there is small communities that are developing co-op fiber networks. The communities are hiring Alcatel-Lucent to build their fiber network for them. That is the company that built Chattanooga TN network. http://www.ftthcouncil.org/
People are fed up with $200 a month Cable bills, so they hire a company to build their network. The cost is about the same each month. No increases. There are several other providers that will build the network for the community. I doubt if people know about the Internet2 plan.
Higher Cable TV bills are based on the content providers charges. Building your own network doesn't change that. IP service is different.