Not the least bit surprising.

why? I think its a huge jump, I thought tomaio was gonna have a heart attack for sure

That's gonna happen when he sees the price...

Eventually the high end imaging technology will filter down to the consumer.  Nothing but good things ahead for photographers, assuming that the world doesn't self-destruct first, although we can at least record it in wide gamut HiDef now. 

Doug

its a new 21:9 aspect sensor, so its not really conventional in terms of size names but its a big bigger than their super 35mm

Aaaaaaaaand here it is, announced and ready for delivery at a very cheap price (for the feature set). Its 65k$. Remember that the ultra high grade f35 costs 250,000$, and this thing beats it hands down. 16 bit RAW footage and the possibility in the future (when the tech catches up, its that advanced) to decode 8k video from the raw files.
It has 14 stops of dynamic range and does 120fps at 1080p, 60fps at 4k and just about everything in between. Makes an Arri Alexa look like a 1994 handicam...

I think film makers dont change gear because they get married to whatever tech they use and refuse to look at anything else. It sounds harsh I know,  but 35mm film users will argue till theyre blue about the quality of film and refuse to accept that digital can compete, On the other hand, digital users will argue on the versatility of digital, shadow detail and noise control. I realized this even more when I saw the zacuto shootout (this year's) and many were surprised  at the output of the format that they didnt use. A lot were amazingly surprised that the AF 100 delivered waaaay more detail than the 5D,which is silly, the 5D is a stills oriented and optimized piece of equipment. Goes to show that pros are not immune to the sensor size silliness. Others were surprised to see that while highlight detail undoubtedly goes to film, digital rules the shadow arena by quite a margin. The fact that they were so surprised and amazed tells me that they had not gone out of their comfort zone format of choice.
All in all what this ultimately means is that your right, film users will most likely stick with film, and arri users will most likely stick with arri.
Still, spec wise this thing seems spectacular.

Changing the subject a bit, the hints that 4k is coming to us mere mortals are overwhelming. The quiet upgrade to HDMI 1.4 (whos major change was better support of 4k and 3D), sharp announcing their plans to have 4k consumer LCDs by the end of 2012 claiming that 3D sacrifices too much resolution (which, BTW, should be shot in 60p), and last but not least panny working on a 4k 4/3s  video sensor. Keep in mind I said consumer, there are already 4k LCDs out there, from about every maker you can think of, but I cant imagine what youd have to do to get your hands on one...or maybe its just me seeing things that are not there...

the specs frighten  a bit......hold me...... 

. . .and oddly enough we still look at projected film when we actually bother to go out to the cinema, even if it originated on digital.

Or even crazier, shoot on 35 or 70mm, go to digital intermediate for cgi work and then print back to film for release (people have been doing that for years).

In the 90s when I was still doing crew work the labs we used were absolutely plugged to capacity with processing original 16 and 35 and then transferring to tape for editing, the edit houses would then ingest the selects (real time) into their Avids or Media100s (this was before FCP hit the streets). This work path employed armies of people, I wonder what they are doing now.

I'm not really sure that 4K is such a big deal for consumer TV (and even if it was there probably needs to be a new delivery format with an accompanying "standards war"), I think all along its been seen as the silver bullet for high end-hollywood acquisition. I bet the Panasonic AF200 does 4K and comes in under $65K.

Detail apparently, a lot of 1080p footage today is scaled down from 4k or higher. It seems stupid, but it isn't. It's like resizing a photo to 8 megapixels from 16, its gonna be more detailed than if it was shot at 8 mp in the first place. But that doesn't really answer your question...4k displays are gonna have a very limited amount of support, upscaling to 4k would take a tremendous amount of computing power, more than what the ps3 with its 7 cores can do. 4k is not just simply double 1080p, its actually 8 times as much. I also can't imagine in what media would they store those movies, since 90 mins of 4k take an unfathomable amount of space...but then again, not more than 7 years ago we were using 256 mb floppy disks...things change fast...

. . .as predicted by Lisandra:

http://magazine.creativecow.net/article/film-fading-to-black