How much do you care about whether you are viewing content in Standard Definition (SD), High Definition (HD), or Ultra HD/4K? Each version gets successively more expensive to rent or buy, and there are also varying costs for subscription plans. Typically the cost is about one dollar higher for HD versus SD, with an even bigger difference (usually about $2) for 4K/Ultra HD. I don't have a 4K television, so that's not even a consideration for me, but I do have some friends with 4K TVs, and some who will pay the extra money, as well as some who are perfectly content with watching in HD, rather than Ultra HD. Which version do you typically watch, and do you feel the added expense is worth it for higher resolution content?
I'm more concerned with the quality of the content than the quality of the resolution. I know some people will "boo!" that, including my husband, ha ha. For me, it's not really worth it to pay much more for higher resolution. Of course, I guess it does depend on what you're watching too. It might be worth a bit more if you're watching stuff with elaborate special effects and whatnot. I typically watch standard fare... comedies, cop shows, and the like. For sci-fi and other special effect intensive showings, it might be worth a bit more to get the full effect.
I still have a box television which is standard definition and there is definitely a huge difference in the picture quality when I watch in HD. When I wander around in the home theater section and look at the displays I really can't tell any difference in the picture quality . What I can tell is the difference in the audio and that's where I would spend my money on.
I most often rent in Standard Definition, rather than High Definition. I splurged on High Definition when I rented San Andreas, because I knew the special effects would be stupendous, and it would be worth the extra dollar. In my head, I'm usually calculating what I can do with the dollar I save by opting for Standard Definition, rather than High Definition. I agree, it's definitely worth the dollar in some cases, such as movies like San Andreas, but if it's just a standard movie, I would rather save the money. I agree @Zyni, in most cases, I also care more about the content than resolution. @MrsJones I never thought I'd be one to pay for additional audio equipment, until I moved into this house. The sound bounces all over the place downstairs when I only use the television sound, so I ended up purchasing a sound bar.
I really could care less in what format I am viewing content, as long as I have it. I know I have high def on my TV, but as for my kindle, since it is not an HD one I am sure I am viewing content in SD. I have seen some of those 4D TV's at Costco, and they are sweet...but if I had an extra few thousand dollars it would go towards a new car, not some fancy TV!
I don't care about the quality of the picture as long as the lowest quality is good enough, which these days fortunately it is. I mostly watch wherever I can like computer monitors or laptops or even tablets and I rarely use actual TV sets and even then I can't say I really can tell that much of a difference between the higher quality screens and the lower ones. The most I'd care is if I'm watching video game tournaments where seeing small icons and text more clearly could add to the enjoyment but those aren't carried by streaming services so I don't usually pay additional for the difference because that adds up to a substantial amount if you count it by year and also as part of the many other streaming services we pay for.
Since most of screens support at least 1280x720, I see no reason why one would want to watch something in Standard Definition. Why pay hundreds of dollars on High Definition capable-of-displaying TV while streaming SD content to it? Makes no sense. So, let's just leave SD out of the streaming content 'battle' even if one has to pay extra $2 to get HD. As far as 2K is concerned, yes, it wasn't up until end of 2013 and beginning of 2014 that 2K got some actual traction. That mostly game from YouTube gamers who uploaded 2K content for 'show-off' at first. This fact started shaping new market 'needs' so more consumers started looking for 2K TVs. If that wasn't enough, the standards started being pushed farther, beyond 2K. That's where companies like Samsung and LG found an opportunity to be exploited: Ultra High Definition (4K). Yup, doesn't it sound so BIG? Better quality for movies, enjoy cinema at your house (same tagline for Full HD and 2K..). Currently, not many are adopting the UHD (4K) simply because their bandwidth won't be able to easily handle that kind of content. However, if you give this half a decade of time, I believe that 2K will replace the now-standard Full HD (1080p) and 4K will be of the same, if not higher, demand as 2K is. You see, it's not only about the resolution but it has more to do with advertising and of course Internet Connection. Many countries, including certain areas within US, have dreadful Internet speeds so I guess until Google expands their Fiber network beyond the currently available areas, we will have to wait for 2K and 4K to become the next standards. P.S. Compression algorithms also matter. H.264 MPEG-4 compressions work nicely with Full HD and 2K but at 4K it's really more of a compromise between quality and file size.
