Some would say the advantages of 4K is a myth:
So 4K is not these 8 mega pixel or 9 mega pixel or 10 mega pixel CMOS images for the Bayer pattern where they add up all the pixels in a row and say hey, we got 4K. The great perpetrators of that mythology have been RED and Dalsa. That's why I call these “marketing pixels." It's intentional obfuscation. Because they really do nothing to improve image quality. They may improve sales volume. But they don't do anything to quality.
But somehow the world has accepted that that's 4K. It's purely semantic. It's like saying, “I don't like my weight in pounds so I converted to kilos. It sounds better!” You'd be amazed at how many non-technical people I meet, often producers and directors, but sometimes even cinematographers get fooled by that stuff.
<SNIP>
So if you had true 4K resolution in your local theater, everybody would have to sitting in the first 6 rows. Otherwise they wouldn't see any extra detail. Their eyes wouldn't LET them see it. You know this intuitively from passing by these beautiful new monitors at trade shows. You find yourself getting absolutely as close as possible to see the detail, and to see if there are any visible artifacts. At normal viewing distances, you can't.
So the whole 2K 4K thing is a little bit of a red herring.
Creative Cow: What do you think about IMAX as a filmgoer?
John Galt: I don't like the frame rate. I saw Gorillas in the Mist and the gorilla were flying across the forest floor. Every frame they seemed to travel like 3 feet. [laughs]. It's really annoying. I mean I loved Showscan: 70mm running at 60 fps. In terms of a sense of reality, I think it was far superior to IMAX.
That's why I subscribe to Jim Cameron's argument, which is we would get much better image quality by doubling the frame rate than by adding more pixel resolution.
http://magazine.creativecow.net/article/the-truth-about-2k-4k-the-future-of-pixels