We'll never know the full story of the first-rate products we missed out on.
Wow, I love your argument. Since Microsoft were only creating mediocre products magically that prevented their magical hypothetical competition from creating magical hypothetical software of magical unicorn quality. You are clearly fully rational.
Sony paid a whole lot of bribery money
That isn't actually true. Microsoft was the ones who did the bribery and they did pay a lot of money to turn HD-DVD into a winner, they lost even more.
I don't think he is all that confused, that's why he wrote: "while essentially all video is encoded at 4:2:0 - my emphasis. He was commenting on someone looking at images and not being able to see the difference between the resolutions on his monitor. His images are not 4:2:0 encoded, and given the different color gamut between 4K and 1080p, his comment is valid though not entirely technically correct.
UHD monitor and I've taken very high resolution photos (18MP)
That is in fact not a valid test. When you view your images you see them at a significantly better color gamut than what your TV has. You also view them at a significantly better color gamut (even bigger) than what video has. 4K is not only about resolution, it is also about a much wider color gamut, which will also add significantly to the quality of your video (but you won't see a difference between pictures).
Try it your self, shoot some high quality HD video on your camcorder. Edit and color it on your computer (with no professional monitor to pre-view). If you can make it look as good on your TV as it looked on your computer screen you are a genius. A one of a kind. TVs and computer monitors are not the same. By a long shot.
You mean the same BBY that showed the gold plated monster hdmi look so much better than the display next to it?
Not being able to tell the difference between good SD and good HD requires you have bad eye sight and are watching a 40" screen from 10 feet away.
Not being able to tell the difference between perfect HD and decent 4K on a 70" screen from 8 feet away means you are blind. Entirely blind. The difference is huge, and not only because of the higher resolution. 4K video also has a significantly improved color gamut which means it looks even more spectacular.
The main problem is that most people are 6 feet or more from their TV. To properly experience 4K, that would require a screen in the 90" area.
There is no such thing as a "4k Blu-ray drive".
That is not entirely true. Yes, Blu-Ray is a disk format, and as such it doesn't care about resolution, however, it must be able to deliver a 4K data stream through a HDMI 2.0 interface at bit rates significantly higher than for HD. The format must also be able to store a 4K movie on the disk, which means the drive probably has to be able to support BD-XL3 or XL4. This means that the player (drive) must be able to support BD-XL, it must support HDMI 2.0 and it must support 6x speeds. I doubt most Blu-Ray players of today supports this.
H.265 alledgely achieves same quality in half the size.
Not even close. Not yet. Probably never.
I haven't inserted a disc into a device to watch or listen to something in many many years.
Your loss. Streaming "HD" is barely SD in quality.
let's focus on improving 3D technology
You can't. 3D doesn't work and it never will
Whaling ended because the big whales were pretty much wiped out
No. It ended because there were better alternatives. Norway and Japan do commercial whaling today and these operations are not even close to profitable. Never will be. The product isn't attractive enough to fetch a price making it profitable.
why would I still take you seriously if you can't even follow the simple rules of logic?
That is actually not ad hominem since you include a property that is probably a real factor in your evaluation of his level of seriousness.
Ad hominem would be: why would I still take you seriously if you have red hair?
You knew the job was dangerous when you took it, Fred. -- Superchicken
