For normal viewing distances, I don’t think most people will notice much difference between full bitrate 1080p and 4k on TV’s under 65”

60”? None. 80”? Some. 100”? A lot.

Is there really that much appeal to go at least 4K from 1080P? I mean I thought 1080P was IT when I saw a 1080i broadcast on my plasma and then later on a blu-ray film. I mean you could seen the texture of materials, hair, skin, etc. With 4K, how much more NOTICEABLE definition will you get let’s say on a 60” screen?

It will be fine for gaming, this is just marketing speak for a fancier back-lighting system that can get brighter and be more localized (so darker blacks) allowing you to see more detail in the image.

I would be very surprised if 8K TVs ended up being a thing in the home, given that at normal viewing distances people generally can’t even tell the difference between 1080p and 4K on most sets. Wikipedia suggests 8K resolution is mainly for the use of filmmakers so that they can shoot better source footage for…

...right. But you don’t need a special monitor to display HDR. Which was my point, if you actually read my comment.

So it’s super-high CONTRAST? Because that’s what you call the difference between light areas and dark areas. Not dynamic range. Dynamic range does refer to light and dark areas, but only when they’re being captured, and it refers to the detail you can see in the highlights and lowlights.

In a normal photograph (or…