| Corey said: My main argument was the ability to produce 4K content for these screens in the coming years. How is the content going to be delivered to homes without a 4K media disc, console gaming restrictions (what developer is going to waste the hardware power on a 4k res), low resolution tv channels and incapable internet all over the world. Consumer's aren't going to mass upgrade to a technology where there xbox looks the same, where the football looks the same and where all of their previous content looks the same, the difference with 1080p wasn't just for the resoltuon but the convenience of thin and large flat screen tv's that came with it. For 4K to be feasable it needs the consumer to see a large benefit from having an upgrade, at this point in time and likely for many years to come it will remain pointless. 1080p console gaming, streaming and TV channels still aren't exactly the standard, yet they are already jumping at the possibilities of 4K. |
It has to start somewhere. It always starts on the Hardware level and Content follows after. Its never been the other way around.
But it follows soon after. 4k Bluray will come soon. 4k Games will follow (PC can do it already). But still upscaled 4k content already looks better. 4k is also very important for glassless 3D. It still sucks but you need 4k for it to work at acceptable quality. Cinema 3D halves the resolution too, 4k remedies it too.
Obviously it will take time to get enough 4k content for most people to be pleased but this doesn't mean 4k is not worth it to some people. A plane ticket can easily cost as much as a 4k TV. Some people are willing to buy 4k TVs just because its better (upscaling). If people would only buy tech that runs at the limit of its potential technological advancements would happen every few decades instead of years. People are obviously willing to buy things before all other infrastructure catches up.
Upscaled 4k>1080p,
TV is still not 1080p does that mean 1080p is not worth it ?
