Source: The Verge
quote: For anyone who thinks 4k TV will be a significant improvement
quote: That's almost true, and likely true in many cases, but certain film formats (wide screen and 70mm) have >4k resolution, and would benefit from a new 4k or greater transfer. In fact, formats like Todd-AO are closer to 7k and 70mm widescreen is more than 9k. So in theory we'd want a 12k format to completely replace all film formats in the home.
quote: Case in point: Ghostbusters (1984) in 4K, LOL.
quote: Many of those movies are upsampled from pre-4K and even pre-HD days. If the movie was not shot in 4K or HD, there nothing much you can do about it, even if you upsample it to 8K. Case in point: Ghostbusters (1984) in 4K, LOL.
quote: Kinda lengthy, but to break it down, the human eye/brain combination can resolve about 570 megapixels. And that's conservative. It wouldn't even break a sweat viewing 4K media.
quote: I have a 51" TV that's about 4m away at 1080p and it's a long way short of the clarity and sharpness (better colours and contrast though) of the screen of my Surface Pro (1080p and 10.6").
quote: 4K is stupid in a TV, especially a 55" TV. The human eye cannot resolve that much detail at normal sitting distances. 1080p is already retina quality if the user isn't sitting a few feet from the TV.
quote: Not only that, but there's no 4K content and not even a way to distribute it. 4K only makes sense on extremely large TVs in small spaces, and in projection home theaters but even then there's no actual content for it.
quote: However 4K isn't ready for prime time, there's not even any readily available 4K content for consumers out there without jumping through hoops.