Depends on what you're watching, but to be immersed you're looking for a 16:9 screen to be 30 degrees of width (for immersive cinema you want 40")

At 8', that's 60" screen size for 30 degrees (80" for cinema)

Now I treat these with a pinch of salt, they're SMPTE values, and the last SMPTE event I went to we all agreed that in the UK 4K is pretty much pointless for 80% of the country, but SMPTE can't say that because panel manufacturers want to sell new screens every few years. Still 30 degrees feels like a fairly good number.

Assuming you have 20:20 vision, and have a 60" TV, it's only worth going to UHD over 1080 for resolution if you're nearer than 8'. For a 40" TV, it's 5'.

Now UHD comes with other benefits, namely a higher temporal resolution (interlace has gone, there's no 2160i - thank god), and higher dynamic range. I suspect they'll flog 8k panels for the Tokyo 2020 olympics, but bundle 120fps at the same time.

That's the real problem with modern TVs. Several "upgraded" aspects come together in a bundle:

• Bigger screens.

• Much better screens (like QLED by Samsung).

• Better hertz values (doesn't irritate the eyes).

• More "smart" builtin software and firmware, with tons of bugs and security holes.

• Bigger resolution.

I'd take all of the above points except the smart TV software. To be perfectly fair I also think 4K is the absolute maximum for resolution that we need to use on TVs for like 5-10 years, too. As many people pointed out in the past in other threads here in HN, I'd love for these TVs to come in two packages -- with and without the hardware module that gives it its "smart" software.

Alas, we don't have the choice. Our best course of action is:

(1) Never give our TV access to our WiFi network.

(2) Make sure to buy an HDMI cable with lower protocol version so it doesn't pass-through your Ethernet connection.

It's a pretty screwed up market. I bet 10-20% of the price of the modern TVs comes from the supposed value proposition of the "smart" features and our group of users pays this premium without needing it.

8K exists, and will be in use for at least some of the 2020 olympics.

why will 5-10 years make any difference? Will living rooms become larger?

I mean that I am not very sure the human eye can even distinguish between 4K and 8K, provided at least 60FPS.

IMO we're hitting maximum levels beyond which there's no sense to continue -- except to sell us the latest and the shiniest.

Required resolution depends on field of view, which tends to be well under 40 degrees required for "movie" style experience for most people even now

However 4K isn't worth it until you get over 30 degrees, and any higher isnt worth it unless your tv is too large, at least with modern cinematic techniques.

That's subjective though, I think we can all agree.

I have a pretty decent Philips 58" TV and to be fair, watching it from the bed (2.5 - 3.0 meters) it does seem small to me.

However, if I am to buy a gaming console and sit like 1.5 meters away from the TV then it seems to be plenty enough, even a bit bigger than needed.

I will probably settle for 65" in the next 1-2 years or, if I want to spend a lot of money, 75". But that's because I plan on having a 40+ square meters (131 sq. ft.) living room.

Pretty good if you like to watch movies with friends.