said by Greg2600:
Yes I could discern PQ if I walked up to the screen. People aren't watching that closely like they would on a computer screen.
Exactly. SD to HD was one thing. SD was glaringly insufficient for 50"+ TVs. Most people just don't have room for the 70"+ inch TV that will be necessary to see the difference at a typical viewing distances.
People had trouble seeing the difference between 480p and 720p at standard viewing distances on 42" plasma TVs, back when that was an option. I'm not even really itching to replace my 720p 50" set. I'm actually more interested in that OLED set for black level and color reproduction characteristics than I am the pixel density.
You know what I *CAN* see on my 720p set watching typical broadcast channels? Compression artifacts galore! Why are we talking about 4k when we can't even get the most out of a 720p set?
I anticipate 4k to get filed in the same bin as DVD-Audio and SACD. Better audio quality exists, but CD audio is good enough for most people's ears. Consumers became more interested in actually losing
some quality for improved convenience and portability. Along the same lines, I would not be surprised to find that the average population finds HD quality video to be all they need for home viewing.
U-verse TV is mighty popular in my neighborhood, despite the HDpicture quality being noticeably worse than cable or DirecTV. People love the multiroom and wireless set top features. People love their satellite radio, despite the sound quality being trash. I saw a poll a while back and some ridiculous 50% of the responders thought XM audio was the same as CD quality. Some even thought it was better.
I will be happy to be wrong, if I am wrong. I would love to have the best quality possible. I just don't think consumers care enough about quality for it to ever take off.--
AT&T U-Hearse - RIP Unlimited Internet 1995-2011