> Why isn’t HDR color moving very fast? My theory on tech adoption is that the advantages of some new piece of tech have to be _immediately_ obvious to the ave

> Why isn’t HDR color moving very fast? My theory on tech adoption is that the advantages of some new piece of tech have to be _immediately_ obvious to the average person and to such a large degree that they would actually care. E.g.: * Records -> Tapes: smaller, portable. * Tapes -> CDs: obvious sound quality improvements, never degrades, don't have to rewind/fast-forward. * CDs -> iPod et al: "you can carry hundreds of CDs in your pocket." * VHS -> DVD: just say "it does for movies what CDs did for music" and that's all it takes to convince someone of the benefits. * DVD -> Blu-ray: now it gets a little dicier. Yeah it's an obvious jump in quality but a lot of people just don't care. * Blu-ray -> UHD (just the resolution aspect): the average consumer isn't the most discriminating in terms of source quality, and even to someone who really cares it can be a bit tough to tell the difference (talking about movie transfers here, in particular). Generally the biggest benefit I've found here when going from Blu-ray to UHD is when the movie's existing Blu-ray transfer is 10+ years old and just terrible. The fact that the studio simply did a new scan is what brings out the improvement, and it would look pretty damn good on Blu-ray (just look at any Blu-ray sourced from a 4K scan). * SDR -> HDR: "the colors are better, man." Forget trying to sell this to your average consumer, even if they notice they won't care. 4K -> 8K? It's really out there as far as diminishing returns goes. It's not going to be embraced in any meaningful way by the average consumer. It'll be ubiquitous simply because hardware manufactures are eventually going to make nothing but 8K TVs, but the average person probably won't be able to tell it from 4K, perhaps even 1080p.