Misconception? 4k TVs cost too much?

[SvennoJ]

bonzobanana said:

SvennoJ said:

True, at this point a 4K tv mostly useful for a 4K console. Here we only have 1 experimental 4K tv channel with a few sports broadcasts. 4K streaming isn't much of an option with capped bandwidth nor is there much to choose from. 4K blu-rays have a big premium price tag and really most new movies suck, while old movies hardly benefit from a 4K release.

If you have $500 to spend, better spend it on VR for a new experience instead of an already outdated tv (hdmi 2.1 is already announced). Content wise they're about the same :)

Old 35mm film is about 4k in effective resolution so a good print and decent transfer to digital actually can be pretty good plus modern digital processes can clean up the images very nicely. Often better quality now than they have ever been. 

It's very dependent on what kind of film stock was used and how well it has aged. Besides that, 35mm film was anamorphic or compressed width wise. A 2.35:1 movie compressed to 1.33:1 already results in close to half the detail width wise. In practice I have watched many older 35mm movies on blu-ray that already show the limitations at 1080p. Sure, less compression artifacts and improved color reproduction will make a difference, but it won't be even remotely close to the difference between dvd and blu-ray. Certainly not worth double dipping again imo.

I wouldn't mind watching movies shot on 70mm again on 4K blu-ray, but that can wait.