True 4K Blu-ray - why I will mostly skip if released

[Ruined]

One thing I want everyone to keep in mind reading the following post is that I am not one to dictate what other people buy or deride them for it. These are my own opinions.

Some of the things I’ve learned looking into 4K more:
* The amount of *true 4k* content is staggeringly small. It appears even the 3D movie library dwarfs true 4k content that was not downscaled at anytime during the production chain. Even several of the movies in Sony’s own 4k delivery system either have 2k effects or were down-converted to 2k at some point, and will then essentially be upconverted from 2k to 4k for the system.

* Even the highest end 4K film cameras apparently have sensors that cannot fully resolve 4k. So even with a movie that is fully shot and post processed in 4k, you are not getting 4k – apparently at best 3k – 3.5k depending on the camera. Which is better than 2k, but still not 4k.

* 4k will require a new Blu-ray player, new 4k discs, and new display device. It may require a new receiver/preamp as well.

* Even if you get past all that, as stated in post #1, Joe Kane says you need a 120” screen to START to appreciate the difference. Sony – the one trying to sell you all new hardware -- said at CEDIA you need at least an 84” screen otherwise 4k is pointless. Either way those are LARGE screens compared to what most people are willing to buy. We’re not most people, okay I get that.

BUT – does this not seem fishy to some people? This almost seems like they are trying to create a market for a product that does not exist yet, which the majority of people will gain no benefit from buying. Taking 2K films and upscaling them to 4K, using cameras that cannot fully resolve 4k yet calling it 4k anyway, all with the knowledge that 99.9% of consumers won’t have a screen size to even begin seeing the difference between 2K and 4K, nevermind 2K and whatever half-baked product is apparently being delivered?

Maybe 20 years from now when whole-wall TVs are the norm and cheap, 4K will make sense for most. At this point, I am really struggling to see the point and would love to see an argument for how this will possibly take off in any way shape or form that will be anything less than blatent wallet destruction for consumers. I can see how it makes sense for the camera companies, to make money selling new cameras to the studios… And the developers/software companies, to make money selling new “4k” production and effects software… And the consumer electronics companies, to sell you all new hardware again… And the content providers, to sell you all new media again. But I really don’t see it making sense for consumers especially in a real bad economy (and that is being nice).

To be honest, you know what I would like to see even more than 4k Blu-ray? How about Strange Days on Blu-ray? How about a new Blu-ray remaster of Apollo 13 that is at least as good as the HD DVD video master (and not DNR’d, EE’d and contrast boosted like the BD trainwreck Universal released) with some nice DTS sound? Heck, how about RAD on Blu-ray? How about your favorite cult movie that does not exist on Blu-ray?

Think about how many Blu-rays you could buy with the thousands of dollars it will cost in hardware to upgrade to 4k… If the difference was VHS > DVD, or DVD > Blu-ray, I totally get it. But 4k seems like SACD/DVD-Audio all over again – CD was good enough (in fact, MP3 at lower quality than CD was good enough), yet all that marketing trying to convince us that SACD/DVD-A was better… Studios putting pristine masters on the HD audio side of the disc, then putting a garbage master on the CD side of the disc so when we flipped it we heard “the difference.”

The more I think about it, I am turning into someone against this rather than ambiguous. But, I am nobody special of course… Just debating it in my own mind whether consumers are being sold a piece of the Brooklyn bridge here.

I apologize for the wall of text