@codinghorror @Gargron

Well, yes and no. The full argument was that:

- most of the digital film cameras are recording at less than 4k (2.4k was used as a median).
- those that use film, get digitalised before cutting for that ~2.4k, and that's the resolution on which efects are added, and which forms the defacto max-resolution.
=>so what they sell as 4K is often only 2.4k, with stretched pixels.

Further: to stream those streched extra-pixels, they tend to over-compress colour profiles.

@iju @codinghorror @Gargron yeah, streaming (as opposed to 4k Blu-ray) has effectively made 4k TVs pointless. They mostly target 15mb/s and most of the detail is lost. Same goes for the Dolby Vision dynamic HDR profiles they use for streaming.

Stick a high bitrate Blu-ray of a decent film transfer on a well calibrated display and you’ll be blown away, though.

@WiteWulf - the thing is that many people still watch plain old TV, and in Germany, that means 720p at most.
Which is scandalous, given that FullHD is now what, 20 years old?

I do notice a good FullHD quality jump.

I also notice a huge quality jump going to 4K.

At 4K, I have enough. Eyes can't tell any higher even at monitor distance. And even if the footage is older, grainy, whatever: at least it's not an issue of too low resolution. 4K should just be standard. Period.

Then we can concentrate on other things like surround sound.