[Skybird]

Okay, 65", that is one and a half meter in the diagonal, or not? That is not big, that is monumental in my book. I have neve rbeen in any household where TV screens were bigger than 80-100 cm. Many use even less.

On very huge screens like yurs, 4K may make sense, to hide the tehcnical pixels in the screen better. But mind you: at leats over here there is pratcially zero content broadcasted or available on disc.

For PC screens of typically 24" and user sitting half a meter away at max, 4K makes no sense.

MY TV is 80 cm in the diagonal, and my eyes are 1.5m away. I already struggle to see a difference between normal resoultion and HD. 4K I would find impossible to differentiate from HD. And what use is there to watch a TV broadcast that shows HD or non-HD content (ther eis no 4K content) that then gets scaled to the tehcncial needs of the 4K screen? Makes no sense. The native resolution of the film material does not magically turn into real 4K.

And then the carrier medium problem - file size. The guy in the video talks about it somewhere in the last third. A 90 minutes film in VK would have a file severla times as bi as what a Buray today can store. Processing 4K material on your PC in video editing of your own shots, probably also would need incredibly strong hardware.

And 8K? Technically can be done, I thinl, but I do nto expect to see it, at leats on a commercially successful scale.. The economic formula just does not work well.

I will focus my own video filming on 1080p and either 30 or 60 frames. 2.7K I will test only. 4K I simply will not use. The higher the resoution, the darker the picture quality becomes, and that does not work well especially with dark spots in the film image: trees, bushes, shadows.