To be replaced soon by "4k video is very silly indeed"
If you look at the angular resolution of the eye, unless you are sitting very close to the screen, you can't resolve 4k video.
If you look at the angular resolution of the eye, unless you are sitting very close to the screen, you can't resolve 4k video.
Most living-room TVs are probably placed at a 15- to 25-degree angle of view. 1920x1080 is enough for up to a 32-degree horizontal angle of view, which is 7 feet away from a TV with a 55" diagonal, for example. I will say, however, that movie theaters look a little better with 4K, since 30 degrees is supposed to be the back row, and the front row might be 60 or so.
I use a 65" 4k TV with my HTPC in the living room, but often do desktop-ish things on it. (Logitech's wireless keyboards are great).
The difference in resolution between 1080 and 2160 is huge. 1080 is just fuzzy.
Sure, if you're looking at a little 40" TV five meters away, not so much, but for many screens in common use 4K is useful (but getting close to the point of diminishing returns, sure). Whereas as this article says, higher than 48kHz audio should be literally impossible to discern for any human in any setup.