Rob Ruffo
Well-known member
LOL 10 years. :smilielol5:
Technology trends do not move in a linear fashion. Technology is exponential, which is why it took 50 years for full adoption of landline telephones and less than 10 years for cell phones.
Agreed, albeit Moores Law is slowing due to a variety of braking mechanisms, including heat dissipation and other limits related to physics, and reaching "good enough" thresholds for common mass-consumer needs and desires. There is much less difference between a computer now and 3 years ago than a computer 3 years ago and 6.
As to:

He could mean the people he sells to (broadcasters), not the people in the market for a new camera. In which case, he's right; no broadcaster pays more for 4k/5k over 1080p (currently)... and 4k broadcast is not 12months away, but more like 5-10years(assuming it takes as long as HD did... Actually no one even broadcasts in 1080p yet... only 1080i.) Not sure how important re-releases 5-10 years down the line is on stuff like that either."
1080i, if shot/mastered in progressive (which all cinema and modern TV is except for some no-budget non-fiction) when de-interlaced by any reasonable recent HDTV, has its fields sewn back together into progressive frames for display. I.e. it looks exactly like 1080p30 (U.S.) 1080p25 (Europe) and 1080p 24 in 3:2 pulldown. The only advantage 1080p could have is if your TV can properly display "true 24" non-pulldown it could send a 24p signal and you would no longer have pull-down judder. Few HDTVs can properly display 24p as 24fps, so few people would even see this very subtle difference. If 1080i looks any different from 1080p it's because your TV has a poor de-interlacer. This has not been a problem for many years for any mainstream brand display.
It is impossible to display interlaced as interlaced on a natively progressive display. Only CRTs and two rare models of Hitachi plasmas can actually display interlaced content without de-interlacing to progressive first.