Sometimes what is termed "technological progress" is not necessarily progress -- it's just another option, minimal/incremental change, or something extra with benefit in areas other than what it is being presented as.

What you have observed is just the reality of what many are going to see as they catch up with you and step up to 4K. 4K televisions' greatest strengths are probably not in added "detail" but in the fact that most future 4K sets will support HDR + DCI/P3. These are the features that are FAR more likely to make most people say "wow" -- but many will just think it's the magic of that ubiquitous marketing term "4K". Again, the detail that 1080p can display is (frankly) not seen by most viewers if one goes by average seating distances relative to the average screen sizes that have been most popular over the last several years. Now, what 4K does offer is the opportunity to sit very close to a screen and or have a very large screen while not being bothered by highly visible pixels. With a large gaming monitor this is wonderful to have everything smooth and clear even up close (it's not so much the "added detail" --- again, the detail bump really is not THAT great since 1080p done right can offer wonderful detail). Additionally, it is engrossing and almost overwhelming to be able to sit quite close to an 80+" television with a good 4K Blu ray and not have the visible pixels ruin the experience. --- Also, where passive 3D is concerned, 4K is excellent. To be blunt, if HDR + DCI/P3 were available on 1080p televisions, many consumers would get just as much of a boost as they every will with 4K. 8K?... Whatever...It will be awesome when I can afford a home theater with an iMax size screen (and run the same setup that NVIDIA had for their CES conference last night with 10 quadro GPUs :-) --- oh wait, that would require good multi GPU support to be of any use)...

This gives a good answer to your questions Gaming4Life1981:
http://www.rtings.com/tv/re...