@EOSHD It was because people like me. I wanted 1080p so I bought it, and paid WAY too much for it (back in the day). I know no one, that wants 4K at home. It's just too much. Nobody needs, or wants it. On a 50 inch TV viewed 1,5 to 2 meters away, you can hardly tell the difference of 720p to 1080p. 1080p to 4K is even more far fetched. 4K will never be main stream.

@Brian202020 I'd take it too. But without telling people, nobody would know the difference (1080p vs. 4K).

I saw an 8K TV at the IFA show last month. Up close it was technologically marvellous... incredible... stunning... But at normal viewing distances the reality hits home. It was merely 'good'.

It is telling that the crowd around it were ALL up close to appreciate it rather than standing back as you would in a cinema. And yet cinema in the home is exactly what it is designed for! Logic failure or just good marketing?

@Vitaliy_Kiselev I liked DVD upscaled results :) People need an upscaler for Canon DSLR footage to make it like GH2 footage but there isn't one out for Premiere or Final Cut Pro, which is a lost opportunity.

Indeed, and consumers are willing to pay to subsidise their bullshit. I picked up a Panasonic AX100 projector for £350 on eBay a few months ago. It is 720p but looks great. Next model along was their update to 1080p and it costs 3x more even 2nd hand. Madness.

But guys, where you gonna get 4k content? Most movie theaters don't even have 4k. You want some fantabulous projector to look at your own projects? I like my work too, but I don't like it THAT much.

4k content down-sampled to 1080p will still look better than stock 1080p. A bit like how HD down-sampled and broadcast at SD looks better.

Affordable 4k would be awesome for content makers.

To me, 720p (as German/French TV is broadcasting) looks about as great as Blu-ray on my 1080p projector as on a friends 720p one from normal viewing distance. It shows so much more clarity over upscaled DVD that it seems like 35mm vs. 16 in last centuries cinema. Even in todays cinema only the first few rows could see the difference between 4K and 2K, the human vision doesn't resolve it from farther away.

BUT there's a big difference between necessity of 4K for viewing and 4K for production! Having 4K at the source will improve quality even when downscaled, will end moiré issues, will allow better VFX work, re-framing or stabilization. I'd take a 4K camera for a decent price any time, but I won't exchange my projector before it dies.

That's right, but the SMPTE tests from the nineties are considered widely as precise in the scientific community.

You said "Brain and human vision work in quite complicated ways."
Totally correct, my neighboring department of Media Sciences is leading some important work in that field. They can already tell that contrast and the integral under the MTF curve is more important for the impression of resolution than limiting MTF as given by manufacturers (read up on Otto Schade's groundbreaking research from last century, seems he was right).

In the economy we are going I don't expect 4k very soon. A 60 inch 1080p inch screen will be plenty for most for a long long time. It is not just a question of the bigger is better but the constraint of room size etc that will play.

Most major movies are still post-produced at 2K resolution. 4K is great for huge cinemas, but complete overkill at home IMO.

Vincent

@Mihuel: The GH2 is my first foray into digital video. I made an independent feature film in the 1990s and it was 16mm film all the way. This is much more convenient, time and cost-efficient, and overall better image quality even given film's better latitude and color space IMO :)

Vincent