Topic: 4k television, how much do you care?

Ya. HD is way better than SD. No one should be discussing otherwise. They have demos that show the difference, all the time. At the very least, it is similar to the argument of lower vs. higher FPS. Even if you can't see all the pixels at any given time, having them there can still enhance the user experience.

The same logic applies to everything. I have a 7.2 surround sound system, when basically all content is ran at 5.1. Even if the extra 3 speakers(a sub and rear speakers) are mirroring another 3(the original sub and surround speakers), I get more sound and there are codecs to appropriately spread data to those speakers so that I get more from the system, even if the content is 5.1 sound. The exact same thing happens for upscaling a resolution to a higher one; you WILL get a benefit from running 1080p on a 4K TV that will effectively upscale the picture. That is why 4K TVs are still providing benefit for those who buy one, because the upscale feature is still beneficial to 1080p content, from a technical standpoint.

@CaviarMeths That's a flaw from movie creators, and I can still see everything I need to, simply by switching the aspect ratio on my TV, if necessary. Also, don't try to act as if Blu-Ray was an HD-only thing. If I want to, I can smack anything on it, HD or not, and still work it on non-HD devices, no problem.
But if you're already pleased with just better looks, that's your thing. I'm not interested in it, and my SDTV gets every job done HDTV's are supposed to be great for. Until HD actually improves more than the looks, I'll stick to what should really matter with entertainment: good entertainment, not just good-looking entertainment.

TV is a visual medium. Any technological advancement that enhances this experience (i.e. better colour, sharper image, more detail, etc) inherently makes the experience much more enjoyable.

When you see/saw a film in the theaters for the past 30 some odd years, the version you saw on television and home video was always lacking because it was in standard definition. Now with HD televisions we are able to watch these films in their original aspect ratios and with their intended level of visual detail, which was present when they were shown on the big screen but missing when they were released on SD media.

I can BBQ a plain piece of meat and eat it and get the same nutritional value from it as I would a steak that was prepared by a chef in a five star restaurant, but the one that was professionally prepared and seasoned will taste far better. Same goes for HD television. I can watch a VHS tape of a film and see the story and enjoy it, but watching it on a Blu-ray in 1080p is a far better experience and enhances it immensely.

That is the whole point to begin with, dude, besides other features like Chromecast, internet/networking, USB, ARC, etc. features that SDTVs don't have.

No one is going to go back in time and put modern features into SDTVs, so you are selling a bunch of other features short that SDTVs lack by saying HDTVs are just a visual upgrade, because of aforementioned features.

Sure, you can still plug stuff in with a composite cable, but TVs going to digital through HDTVs has brought a lot of other features that SDTVs didn't even have.

There are 4K TV's available for less than a 1000 dollars, so you want them to pay you?

4K only makes sense for bigger TV's, regular TV isn't available in 4K and consoles don't use it either. So I won't be buying one unless the TV with the features I like best happens to also have a 4K display. I'd sooner buy a 8K PC monitor or a 4K VR headset.

Well, at this rate, lots of people already have 4K ready devices that technically only need a firmware patch. All the 4K hardware is already here, except for the actual 4K TVs. The same thing already applies to 3D, pretty much, which is debately more important than 4K, and the industry hasn't even gotten that far yet.

I say they still need a faster response time and a few more tweaks before they will be totally worth owning. Toshiba made a 4K set that was autostereo like the 3DS, already. That's the ideal picture to begin with, and I think that's the only 4K set that has that stuff. It still doesn't work that well from what I've read online, but maybe they updated the firmware. It's been a while since I looked up stuff about 4K TVs, and it honestly doesn't matter to me, for the time being.

I honestly find the 4K quality pointless. 4K TV can cause more lag than other HDTVS. I'll rather wait until the technology is better.

What's next, 8K TVs? I'm going to get a lot of hate for this, am I?

8K TVs were showcased at CES as early as 2012. Sharp, Samsung, LG, and Panasonic all have working prototypes.

Keep in mind though that CES is often just a show for companies to show off insane hardware that may never be commercially viable, at least not any time soon. Samsung showed off a 110" 8K TV with glasses-free 3D last month, and it probably cost them tens of thousands of dollars to build it.

I am anticipating 4K, and I hope to buy a 4K camera in the coming months, however, Australian television is such a joke that I think it will take YEARS before we start seeing proper HD content on our screens, let alone 4K. We have five free-to-air networks in Australia, each with at least four channels each… (all of which are in SD except for the designated HD channels)

• Primary channel (ABC, SBS1, 7, Nine, Ten)
• Secondary channel (ABC2, SBS2, 7Two, Go!, Eleven)
• HD channel (ABC News 24, SBS HD, 7mate, Gem, One)
• Tertiary channel (ABC3, NITV, TV4ME, Extra [and Extra +2] and TVSN)
  (regional areas may receive different channels to the above)

The HD channels contain lower rating and/or niche content (such as COPS, Swamp People, Family Guy, White Collar etc.), many of which are provided in standard definition as the networks opt to buy the cheaper standard definition versions; and since the networks are spreading their already limited bandwidth really thin with their extraneous 24/7 shopping channels (i.e. TV4ME/Extra/TVSN), the A/V quality of the remaining channels are compromised significantly (particularly Go! which, not counting the shopping channels, appears to have the lowest bitrate of all Free-to-air Australian channels). To make matters worse, the HD channels frequently contain standard definition content and black and white films when they could be utilising that bandwidth to air contemporary programmes in HD. The quality of the picture and consistency of the schedule is so poor nowadays that I hardly watch any television at all.

I would be tempted, however, to buy a 4K TV upon the release of a 4K home video format (the Blu-ray corporation announced that they will set the standard for 4K home video delivery by the end of the year) or if Nintendo's next console is capable of outputting at 4K (though I doubt that this will be the case as a lot of games NOW are output at only 720p), but I suppose time will tell.

8K TVs are an eventuality, but I doubt that future TVs will expand beyond that resolution as I doubt that our eyes would be able to appreciate resolutions greater than that, at least not within the living room. However, cinemas may be forced to invest in greater resolution screens and/or projectors in order to compete with what will one day become readily accessible to the consumer.

Well, digital cameras are becoming more and more standard, but traditional film doesn't technically have resolution, in much the same way that your actual vision doesn't.

But digital photography will get there too. The Arri Alexa was out in 2010 and shoots at native 4K resolution. Skyfall used it and that movie is gorgeous to look at. Pretty much indistinguishable from traditional film.

I didn't care until I saw a 60" 4KTV in real life. I wanted it so bad, but being a teenager, did not have thousands of dollars on hand.