[Las Vegas Dave]

FYI.

[perez24]

I don’t know much about technology and a lot of times I can’t tell if I’m watching HD except for sports so I’m asking this out of ignorance.

Is the quality promised by this TV that much better than what’s out right now?

Also, can TV’s ever get to the point that the picture quality is “better” than the cameras being used by the networks and studios?

[Inyo-Mono]

Thanks for the ping Dave. As per the article:

The picture seemed to be a slight improvement over 1080p HD video, but certainly not an improvement four times greater

I recently purchased a Blu-Ray copy of Gone With the Wind and it looks better than the way I first saw it in the theater in 1964. I think I'll stick with 1080p.

[ProtectOurFreedom]

You'll need improved encoding techniques with better compression and higher bandwidth pipes to be able to use 4K. From Popular Science last June:

Next January [2013], the Joint Collaborative Team on Video Coding will finalize a standard known as High Efficiency Video Coding. HEVC will compress files twice as efficiently as the current standard, MPEG-4 AVC, and will allow studios to fit a full-length 4K feature film onto existing media formats, such as Blu-ray discs.

Over the longer term, Internet service providers will need to improve their infrastructure to support 4K streaming. Today, broadband is fast and reliable enough—the average speed in the U.S. is now more than six megabits per second, and fiber connections can be even faster—for Netflix to deliver full-HD movies. Analysts estimate that 4K streaming will demand more than three times current speeds, at least 20 megabits per second on average. But that level of service is coming. South Korea already has a working one-gigabit-per-second fiber-optic network, and Google is currently testing a similar network in Kansas City. When that happens, viewers will not only have brilliant theater-quality screens; they'll have an entire, instant 4K library to go with them.