I think because while visually and technically better in the right hands (with multi hundred million $ budgets), it will almost always end up looking like a che

I think because while visually and technically better in the right hands (with multi hundred million $ budgets), it will almost always end up looking like a cheap soap opera in lesser hands - every imperfection in makeup, set and lighting becomes immediately obvious to even an uncritical eye. It’s kind of similar to an uncanny valley situation in VR, side note: I think ultimately AI on its current trajectory will finally push forwards and make VR accepted and feasible for entertainment in a multitude of ways... For 4K or 8k HFR HDR live filming, you have to raise all your general production values by a really crazy amount for it not to look cheap and naff. Forget additional storage and transmission costs of the extra data, the actual day to day increases in production costs (and timelines) rapidly scales far beyond those, making such trivial things like storage a mere rounding error. Case in point - the most watched UK soap opera “Eastenders” saw the BBC go way over budget and spend £90m+ over many years just rebuilding all of their iconic sets so they could finally film it in basic HD. HFR 4K HDR would require an even bigger and more serious upgrade across the entire production, and a long term commitment to those bigger budgets, which the BBC have clearly decided is totally not feasible and also not worthwhile for a 3-4 times a week half hour soap opera. It won’t happen for most things because HD and certainly 4K is more than good enough for most normal people to enjoy video media on a screen up to around 100”’s at a sensible seating distance… So most entertainment can be done at a much lower cost and with way lower risk. The benefits just don’t and probably never will outweigh those factors.