yes - 1080p is more than enough. you can't see a pixel structure and if the optics are good it's more important (but expensive). I can't understand all this fuss with 4k when most of the people still watch less than 65" TVs. The human eye just can't resolve it. another sales trick. they better invest in proper contrast level, colour space reproduction,uniform backlight and no bleed etc.
I concur 100% with your view on 4K here and it is also the view of a very knowledgeable and respected film archivist and restoration expert.
However, your insistence on 1080p vs 720p in the HMZ's completely ignores some basic facts about that debate:
- At the 'distance' that the HMZ puts its screens virtually to the viewer, 720p is more than enough and there is even a table on this on another thread in AVS.
- Increasing the pixels by a factor of 2.25 will also increase the probability of a dead pixel by that factor.
- I have no concrete knowledge on this either way but arent we assuming that 2.25 times the OLED pixels can even be fit into the same space they currrently have.
- There was a popular study done [Google "image resolution of 35mm film in theatrical presentation"] that proved the effective resolution of the best film prints in the best theaters to be an average of about 750 lines.
This means that in the days of film projection, what you were seeing had an effective resolution of what we now call 720p.
This was because you were never watching a print made straight from the negative but a 3rd and in some cases, even 4th-gen dupe with its effective loss in resolution at each stage.
- Yes, 1080p might be better on the HMZ's, but for most people it wont be enough of a difference to justify the large difference in cost that 1080p per eye is going to incur.