Bob, I think the higher pixel density renders more information and sharper pictures although probably best viewed on a 50 inch TV or larger. I think in the UK it has been mainly used for live sport by Sky & BT who use the term Ultra HD. Consumers tend to get confused about labels for 4K and 8k but take up will probably be driven by young people. Several friends with aging eyesight tell me that standard HD is perfectly acceptable to them, and they see no reason to pay a premium at least until more content becomes available.
Sometimes we just can’t keep up with the changes. Apple is now pioneering HEIF & HEVC to replace jpegs and videos (mpeg compression without loss of quality giving 50% smaller file sizes) but that has viewing implications for all software programs and browsers.
Being in my late 60's, and having a 4k tv for over a year now, (in uk) i have found that only in the last 6 months has the amount of content really become worthwhile, from cable and internet providers. The BBC is planning on offering 4k content as part of the freeview broadcasts in the next year, but only initially in certain areas.
When it comes to the web, (it is a smart tv) one really starts to see the terrible quality of images and videos used by most web sites, that have not bothered to offer such assets for hi-dpi devices, (also have wi-fi mouse and keyboard connected to tv).
As for VR, when i tried the Sony ps4 vr i found it made me feel ill, so i will not be buying one.
Note: there was a lounge discussion a few months ago, about web content, to add to the bad videos and images comment. My smart tv browser will not allow downloadable fonts, (@font-face rule) so only used the old web safe fonts. Anyone relying on web fonts and not providing a web safe alternative, the site will get my default font.
At present I don't receive 4K as my current TV is 1920x1080. To be honest at normal viewing distance that is probably about the limit of my eyes as far as resolution is concerned - although I wish that some of the normal HD content didn't suffer from the blocking that we sometimes see on broadcast
In UK, 4K broadcast is limited to some Sky . Online 4K TV is catered for by Amazon and Netflix who both offer some content, BT Sport, and the BBC have had some trials.
360VR - I think it will be a novelty item for a while then quietly fall away - look at 3D as a prime example of that.
Thanks for those.
I should admit the question was more personal than professional--we'll likely be buying a new TV soon (next month or so) and I'm wracking my brain to decide whether 4K is worth the extra money. I have to admit that (as I 64 myself) I really wonder if I'd see the difference compared to our present 1920x1080P 50 inch set. I suspect the answer will be save my money.
Professionally, my standard High Def camera has few years life in it yet--and I doubt I'll be shooting much longer!
The VR question was inspired by a radio interview I head the other day--they found 3 film producers working on experimental VR productions and all had very different ideas on how to use it. At least two of the three were reported as having made test audiences feel ill!
Personally Bob, i would say yes 4k tv's are worth the extra cost, but only if you watch films on blu-ray. I do notice the extra quality one gets with films, but for terrestrial broadcasts the difference is not worth the extra.
Maybe that will change in 5 or so years, once more broadcasters offer 4k content.