That is correct.

65"? You don't live in sunny England, do you? Unless you are a millionaire and live in a mansion, your normal living room is about the size of a large dog kennel would be in places like Austria or Poland. My TV is 32" and it is HUGE for my living room size.

And the point of 5" 4k screens? Or even 1080p? Bragging rights only, nothing else. The picture does not look any sharper whether you have 480 lines or 1480, unless you look at it through the microscope. The weakest link is the human, not the technology, It is the same reason the TV digital watches never caught on, even though they were available since the 1980s.

OK, now I understand why you think HD is useless. On a 32" TV I also would count it as useless with normal view distance between 2 and 3 meters.

A minor correction: I did not say useless, I said overhyped.

Which is often the same

Human eye while can theoretically see around 600 MP, in practice its actually focusing on 7 MP and about an additional 1 MP for the peripheral.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4I5Q3UXkGd0

So that's 8 MP.... 8,000,000 pixels.... 8K, hence 7680 x 4320 resolution.

We're almost there... we've got 3.5K (2560 x 1440), we just need 8K for the OculusRift.

...then we can all ditch these flat-screen tvs!


( PS pichlo, if you want a larger tv, just sit closer and closer towards the display : )

Dependant on the viewing distance, check the graph in your youtube video on 1 minute 45 seconds.

I'm about 3,5 meters (11,5 feet) away from my TV. So I could get even a 80" TV to get full benefit of 1080p. For 4k, my wall is not big enough to get full benefit from it

Which reminds me -- Pierogi macros support a "pause" feature, so you can create a macro to hit the "power" button, wait a second or two, and then hit some channel buttons. Still not as convenient as the instant-on feature, but it's something.

too me its sounds that your wall is too small. Dont blame UHD for that

Its not an accurate graph, and changes from person to person.
That graph probably suits my granmother who wears glasses.
I on the other hand, noticed the clear distinction between 720p and 1080p, on a 42in display, sitting from a 4 metre distance.

I shudder at the constant 576p resolution that streams on digital TV. With only one other channel showing 720p resolution, and another (sports oriented) channel showing 1080i.

Besides the console and BluRay, its hard to get proper content on the home screen. There's native YouTube support so I can usually get 720p content, and occasionally 1080p as well. But the trick seems to be getting a TV Box like Roku 3 (best content provider, but limited to US and UK only), a Nexus Player (Android Apps and Casting), or Apple TV (AirPlay and few iOS Apps).

I have noticed 4K making an improvement, but I think this would be noticeable at a closer distance (2.5m) and on a larger (65in) display.


P.S. by the way, I only just understood the really weird SONY "K" naming scheme. So a 1024 x 576 (regular TV) resolution is actually a 1K resolution.

1280 x 720p (or 1366 x 768) is x1.5 bigger, but its still labelled as a 1K resolution. Whatever.

1600 x 900 is 1.5K resolution.
1920 x 1080 is 2K resolution.
2560 x 1440 is 2.5K resolution.
3200 x 1800 is 3K resolution.
3840 x 2160 is 4K resolution <-- this is about 8MP, close to human eye focal limit. See my above post.
5120 x 2880 is 5K resolution (iMac Retina)
6400 x 3600 is (unusual) 6.5K resolution.
7680 x 4320 is 8K resolution.


And also noticed that new iMac Retina is a MASSIVELY FLAWED gadget. On sale for $3,000 but is worth only about half that price. Why? It doesn't take advantage of that screen, not even OSX, it doesn't even do PC Gaming. Its only worth as much as a $1,500 dektop. But I would say it could've been a $3,500 worth device if it had 2 very minor differences; HDMI-in and gaming gpu. Apple Y U ALWYZ LET DOVVN ?!