| invetedlotus123 said: Everyone says 4K is irrelevant at any reasonable size of screen. Is it true? |
Kinda sorta. Like with 720p to 1080p, you only really start seeing the benefit over a particular screen size, but in this case, the change isn't nearly as noticeable no matter how big you go, especially once you involve viewing distance. I have spent a lot of time between 4K and 1080p on screen sizes as large as 65 inches on one rather expensive TV in particular that has seriously good colors, and I have the damndest time telling any kind of noticeable difference between resolutions that wouldn't take really, really looking. I can easily notice the difference between 720p and 1080p, so that seems pretty telling to me.
A large part of it is viewing distance and a difference between true 4K content and upscaled content. To note, the vast majority of 4K content is still upscaled and not native 4K, which make the differences so much harder to notice unless you make a habit out of sitting no more than three or four feet away from your 40+ inch TV, and that is already assuming you don't have ass eyesight that muddies the finest of details anyways.
This article is relatively informative and although it was written a couple years ago, it is still relevant now as largely the entire 4K situation has not changed in any noteworthy way past 1080p TVs becoming the new budget TV, while 4K TVs are just sort of becoming the standard TV you find around and about: http://www.rtings.com/tv/reviews/by-resolution/4k-ultra-hd-uhd-vs-1080p-full-hd-tvs-and-upscaling-compared
