[panholio]

Maybe I didn't make myself clear, I was strictly talking for tv's being used for watching film and tv, that's basically what this standard is for. Computer monitors, like you said do not adhere to this and of course we always needed higher resolution for displaying text and using programs.onitors will teach this resolution much sooner considering they we slready have and have had for ages, 2560 and now 2880 horizontal resolution screens. In terms of tv's for tv and film watching the benefits of the higher resolution are subject to different standards. Like I said before, modern tv's are already too small to really exploit the detail of 1080p, let alone the forthcoming 4k res. of course it will be beneficial to the point that things will look sharper but beyond that the resolution is wasted. By wasted I mean that much bigger screen sizes would be needed to show all the detail, unless you don't intend to sit 3 feet away from a 50 inch screen. At distances over 8 feet the resolution would be redundant on screens below 50 something or 60 inches. People don't usually sit closer to their tv's than that even in small rooms. Basically, I can't wait for this technology myself but it's uses are only really beneficial on massive screens (above 80 inches) or mega outside screens.



Exactly ten years ago we had a 43" rear projection 1024 screen, this was just before the advent of hd, bluray etc. screen sizes historically have not increased a lot, even back then you could already find massive 60 inch rear projection screens. Since the early 2000's screen sizes haven't really increased that much. In the 90's we had affordable 28 to 34 inch screens with dismal 640 resolution which we've had for decades. Then rear projection screens came and we jumped to 40 to 50 inch screens. The arrival of hd redeemed the screen size but the jump in resolution was much bigger than the jump in screen size. Current tv's at a recommended viewing distance are a good fit for today's 1080p res. now we are going to experience another massive resolution increase with 4k yet 80 inch screens are not even possible for the regular consumer market yet. We can expect to see screens of 80" and more to hit prices below 2000 euros in the next couple of years. By then 4k will be the new 1080p. Finally, beyond the usual limitations we are hitting a certain screen size which is very big, closer to the upper limit of what people will be able to fit in their living rooms. I don't know many people who have the space or the inclination to get a 120" tv or screen and it's at that size where people can really start to enjoy the true benefits of a 4k resolution, let alone 8k.

I for one, can't wait to have a 4k screen but I think that importance should also be given to screen and image quality beyond resolution. Then we also have 3D where iq is diminished when it is activated, do there is a lot of room for improvement in that sector as well.

That said, I'm eagerly waiting for my wall to wall tv with 8k resolution, pitch blacks, perfect colour reproduction and superb glassless 3d. Not to mention Dolby's new infinite channel surround for my future viewing room in 10-15 years time.

The future is going to be pretty awesome.

Sorry for any spelling mistakes nw. I'm still in Athend and I'm typing this on my slow-ass 3GS connected to a dismal 3G connection, so please near with me.

I think you are confusing maximum available screen size with what's a commonly sold TV. 10-15 years ago a 28-34 inch TV was considered a big TV, whilst by today's standards anything below 46" is rather small. There is a constant increase in screen size. I have no doubts about screens beyond the 60" size becoming the mainstream norm within a few years.