?
You miss the entire point of 4K and it has nothing to do with the resolution. It has to do with the wider color gamut and HDR. That makes a much bigger difference than 2K vs. 4K resolution.

You really need to educate yourself a bit on video tech, especially if you are selling it to customers. The marketing right now is very confusing to customers (and apparently to dealers as well).
There are a lot of lies pop'n up now on TV boxes about what features it has and what it can do. You have to really look close and pay attention. TVs saying they are HDR when they actually are not - I've seen TVs with regular panels sporting this and just because they can 'process' and HDR signal, they say they are HDR capable. And recently have seen a 32" LG TV that said HDR, because they renamed the 'contrast enhancer' feature as HDR. Very dirty marketing BS.

As far as 8K goes, yeah it is stupid. AFAIK it is just a resolution increase and nothing more. And that just isn't going to matter at all for most viewing distances and TV sizes in a home vs. 4K. You will need a situation where the display is filling you entire field of view - like a large format monitor (30"+) sitting at a desk 1-2 meters away. Or a dedicated theater room with a 120"+ display at regular seating distances.
And good luck with being able to deliver 8K content to a consumer. The only way this will be possible is with downloads to a drive to play back. Or streaming 'if' they have a high enough speed 'and' no bottle necks from them to the server host. That last one is important because even if they have a gigabit internet service, doesn't mean there isn't a bottle neck somewhere else that would cause the stream to compress or buffer constantly.

We are just now getting real 4k content in a larger selection. But a lot of people still can not get regular access to it, since it is mostly streaming and you need much faster than a 10Mbps DSL connection to get it correctly. The only real way for many to view true 4K content in all its glory (and not compressed to shit and missing features) is with a UHD bluray player and buying UHD discs (since you can't rent them yet).
It will be many years before 8K could even be doable for most that wanted to try. The infrastructure has to improve in most places here in the US (because our internet sucks) or a new service which allows downloads to a storage drive would have to exist (which I doubt Hollywood will allow because they suck).

I don't want to challenge the physics, but I wonder about physiology. For example, if our head is mechanically clamped, we have some difficulty precisely localizing a sound source. We move our head constantly and this helps the localization process. This is why binaural listening is not always as stunning as one might expect. A great example of this is if the recording is done with microphones attached to a live head and the recording individual walks around the room. The listeners perception is muddled because the sound changes as if there is movement, but this movement does not correspond to the listener's own movement.

In this respect, I wonder how eye movement influences our sense of detail. For example, at specific viewing distance some of the 8K pixels might fall between our rods and cones. However, with eye movement these intermediate pixels will be discovered. I haven't seen any research about this, but I think that it is likely that our response will be similar to the auditory interpretation while our head is moving. At minimum I think that we will qualitatively perceive that more detail is available and assign a (+) to that image, compared to a lower resolution image.

But, humans are very sensitive to the color gamut. It's a difficult choice to assign "best" if the 4K image has a wider color gamut than the 8K image.

I have a client with the 77" Sony OLED......

IT IS THE FINEST PICTURE THAT I HAVE EVER ENCOUNTERED

my nickle,
RR

I wouldn’t give you a nickel for your nickle... 😀

Nope, you missed my point. My 1080 looks great, as is, no desire for now to upgrade it. I dont care about the resolution, HDR or wide gamut. I care that is looks great and it does. I have other area well before this one that will get upgraded.

I'd give you four cents for it. Lets do it! A lot.

buzz's comments are spot on, as usual. This entire area is similar to loudspeaker listening where a half decibel volume difference, with no other difference between the speakers, will lead many people to select the louder speaker as better.

If only there were some sort of Professional Association of Integrators..... who would pressure the HDMI consortium or at least put forth our voice......
You know, instead of the one that currently tells us how to "deal with it" via multiple adapters/best practices etc... to accommodate the moving target given us. Don't get me wrong. I appreciate the existence of those adapters and the manufacturers who support us, it just seems that there could be some sort of class action brought upon the consortium on behalf of the public (consumers) who are sold "capabilities" only to find out that there are many "incompatibilities". And now that 4k displays have reached the tock bottom price of a few hundred dollars, the need for several hundred in fixes/pars to make it work properly....

A 4K a 3D and an HD makes an 8K. You just have to get the right adapters on amazon.

not a bad post but you are missing three extremely important points

1) why do you assume everything works out "nicely"? let's assume that a cone happens to cover the area equal to 4 screen pixels how do you know that those 4 pixels would be the 4 put together if you went down one resolution (i.e. 2k instead of 4k) it could be that it would get 4 parts of 4 bigger pixels, it could be at the higher resolution that you have one pixel in the center and the 8 pixels around it covering the rest of the cones area.

2) you have two eyes and they both see something different from a slightly different perspective, so even if the left eyes was perfect for what you said it would not be true for the right eye for that same screen area. And your brain will mash up those two pics together

3) Like you said the eyes have cones but they also have rods. The rods can't differentiate between red/green and blue(hue) but they are a lot more sensitive to differences but only in brightness and we have around 120M rods in each eye. That is also why most video is coded in higher brightness/greyscale resolution then it is in colour resolution

I have a 60" 1080 Fujitsu and not only does it have a great picture, that really pops off the screen, but it also keeps the room nice and warm in the winter.

“Comparison is the thief of joy”.

I used to think that my 60 inch Panasonic ZT-series plasma still made a good picture that held up to most everything currently built. Then last year I bought a 65X940E for my father-in-law, and burned it in on the floor beneath my wall-mounted plasma. The Sony is dramatically better in every way with streaming 4K, Xfinity cable, 1080p BluRay, and PS4 gaming content.

Just ask the "Clinton News Network" (CNN)
They seem to agree!!

I thought she lost

I have a 156" SI screen fed by Kaleidescape and Sony 885ES projector, would love to compare 8K.