What I'm supposed to prove?
"If you get far enough you won't be able to tell the difference" is a damn stupid argument.
It doesn't prove anything.
I'm slightly myopic. Without glasses I'm hardly capable of watching what's going on on my monitor from few meters away.
But I still can see the difference like day and night if I'm close enough. AND I wear glasses.
You haven't explained your position at all. All I see from you (and those in your camp) are, "No! THAT'S SO GODDAMN WRONG!"
The point been made by the, 4k is pretty redundant side is this:
There are limitations to human perception.
Technology continues to improve and has and will continue to outstrip the limitations of human perception on an increasing number of fronts.
We are at the limits of our visual resolution when viewing a 1080p screen with a 35 degree field of view on our retina. Which roughly equates to a 60" screen from 6-6.5' away.
Of course you can always move closer, and or get a bigger screen. Great - but the caveat here is that our modern media is implicitly designed for viewing angles of 10 to 50 degrees. Larger than that... and things will start to feel quite wrong. Having to swivel your head around to see two people in a close up conversation... or the elements of your HUD in the corners of the screen.
Also, how much more screen do you think the modern user wants to accomodate in their homes? A projector screen is a pretty niche device, as popular as they are.
While we can certainly see some degree of benefit from 4k screens depending on our usage (i.e. sit closer, buy bigger) - it's definetly crossing over the border of effective diminishing returns in a big way.
That said... I applaud 4k technology nonetheless. But the primary benefit for the technology won't be in providing us with larger more detailed TVs - although that's definetly how it'll be marketed at first.
It'll be for VR - where you can get much larger fields of view (really, you'd want it as large as possible if you can)... and you'll want it at a refresh rate exceeding 80-90hz (about the limitation of motion perception for humans).
To provide a fully encompassing field of view at a resolution that exceeds our natural visual acuity - you'd need roughly an 8000x4000 resolution... @ 100hz.
So given that info, we still need to improve transmission bandwidth by (my rough back of the napkin calculations) around 13 times (from 4k @ 30hz) , before we get to the point that there's no benefit.
Of course, a 4k display @ 60hz is still going to be pretty great for VR - so the additional bandwidth, resolution and motion requirements isn't going to be a massive jump in the quality stakes.