50 inch is not considered entry level now. Especially not in the UK. And plasma screens are almost extinct.
Pretty much; 4K is just going to be wildly out of reach AND people are already taking issue with and/or unable to upgrade their entire collections just based on the quality of some of the sources out there. I think it's safe to say that if CBS is waffling about remastering DS9 for current HD standards, there's a Ferengi's chance in Stovokor of them even attempting to remaster it for 4K, or whatever the "new thing" is by the time they get around to it.
In terms of feature films on disc, Blu-Ray is now the dominate format, and DVD as anything other than value added content (i.e. the "combo pack") is rapidly diminishing to zero. In terms of television on disc, though, Blu-Ray has been struggling. Fox's recent announcement that they're basically going DVD-only on their television releases going forward (even ones that have had previous seasons on Blu-Ray) is indicative of this. Not good news for any television on Blu-Ray, really, although in terms of catalog titles that could get the high definition treatment, DS9 is certainly in a far better position than most.
Yea, nothing is better in blacks/contrast and reaction time. Fortunatly I bought mine in the last year Panasonic was producing them, so I hopefully have a couple of years, until OLED becomes cheap enough. TFTs never were made for moving images but for desktop computer graphics, and you still can see it. It is funny: Even in 2014 you still dont have a technique which shows moving images 1:1 on a screen, something is always a little off (TFT: Smearing during movement, no 100% blacks, Plasma: false colors during movement of flesh tones, burning in of static images like TV logos).
Nope. TFT display pixels dont emit light actively and thus dont heat up. They block light coming from the backlight (much like xray images or photo negatives).
4K is a bit of a red herring, although not as bad as 3D was. I hate 3D so I'm biased, but it has not been a success in the home on the scale the industry wanted. 4K is being pushed because it is staggeringly cheap to produce, and can be done with existing kit, just double the dimensions of what you cut from the mother glass, that's why 84" is a popular size, it is double 42, same as 100, double 50). The REAL step forward is OLED, but converting factories to produce this takes millions which post-recession the big electronics companies don't want to spend. Far better to sell people a new TV every couple of years they don't need based on specifications that they can convince people they THINK they need. As someone who has religiously replaced their DVDs with Blus over the last four years this is odd to say, but they are the same films and shows, being clearer and sharper does not make them better or worse.
I'm not saying 4K isn't better than HD but a few points to consider 1.>I suspect HD will be good enough for most people, and unless you have a big enough screen you might not even see the difference. 2.>TV companies want us to buy their product, so they will always try and inovate and improve to keep us upgrading. So of course they are pushing 4K they want us to go out and spend hundreds more upgrading from HD to 4K
I don't see any point to buying 4K now, because there is no material to feed it. Meaning: There is no such thing as a 4K Blu-ray or cable channel. So if you can't get anything out of a 4K set, why buy one? Unless your existing TV is so old that it needs to be replaced anyway.
It will get to the point where people with current 1080p HD TVs will have to buy a 4K set, either because of breakdown, insurance claim, or just because they want a new set. At some point, 4K sets will become so cheap that that's all there will be in the market place. I don't trust much of what I'm told by home electronics shop staff, but they told me that OLED is dead in the water. Apparently, the screens blow up after 2 years.
Indeed it will likely become the new standard, though a basically unnecessary one. Ive not heard that one but I cant imagine why they would. Oled is a great technology with all the advantages of LED and Plasma, better than both in some respects and using less energy. Its very new for large screens and currently very expensive. The reality is while they can push dubious new features like 4k and high refresh rates without spending too much money, they will.
Will the studios be willing to make an investment in 4K, though, beyond select new releases which don't require much additional investment to be released in the format? I have a hard time seeing that, especially for deep catalog titles that are mostly being outsourced to third parties these days, anyway.
not quite if I walked into a store like HMV, it's still about 75% DVD, 25% blu-ray in terms of space given over to each format. However I think the studios are pushing blu-ray more with releasing what seems like more and more DVD's with only minimal bonus features whilst blu-rays get more bonus features. Sure not everyone cares for bonus features but the studios might think they are a selling point to some.
I am pretty sure DVDs will go away. New TVs are 1080p, so Blurays fits best, and the players and the media becomes cheap enough. Its like with Vinyl and CDs. If I recall right, the transition took about 8-10 years.
As far as physical media goes DVD is not going anywhere and will remain the dominant disc format. Blu-Ray is still overpriced, and your average viewer does not believe their is an appriable difference between their upscaled DVD and Blu-ray to make the leap (unbelievable I know). Blu-Ray has always been viewed in the industry as a stop gap until streaming media/DRM licensed downloads became the preferred method of movie delivery. Hollywood has far more control over that than movies ripped off discs. Eventually physical media will be gone altogether, but in the mean time physical discs persist. As for costs going down, there's no incentive for studios to lower prices. During the old format wars prices did begin to drop drastically as HD-DVD tried to make inroads by lower disc prices and player prices. When BD first came on the scene your average cost for a new Blu-Ray release was $39.95 MSRP. HD-DVD countered by going to $29.95, then $24.95. Eventually Blu-Ray had to follow suit and prices dropped. Since HD-DVD bowed out of the Format Wars media prices for new releases have remained fairly static.
Wrong. There are many shows people want to archive that will NEVER see the light of Blu Ray. Unlike VHS where there was an actual need to convert from tape to disc media, there is no need or rush to convert from DVD to blu ray. Even Star Trek shows filmed in 4:3 format yield very little gain in the DVD to BR conversion. Not to mention BR players are backwards compatible with DVD. So shows that are far less FX intensive and benefit far less from BR have little to no incentive to convert to exclusively BR. Especially when you are talking about most shows filmed from 1955 to 2005 that have enough of a niche to buy in DVDs they have already produced, but not enough for BR. So DVD will be around MINIMUM for another decade or so.