Of course they are unless the signal received is not 4k resolution, and as far as I know it's not common for for broadcasts to have that resolution.

Maybe if you played games you may enjoy it provided that you have enough graphic power but otherwise it's just wasting money

It is without content

> viewing distance
> feet

I don't believe any of these charts, I can see 720p difference from like 20ft away on a macbook.

>>51861734
Yes

>>51861812
If you're as blind as I am, you don't need to be that far away for quality differences to become unnoticeable.

If youre an artist who appreciates the beauty of ultra-high res, then its worth buying a tv just for that to use as a monitor to do art and view art. If you dont care about resolution and image quality, then its pointless. Is a $400 dollar graphics card pointless? Its is for 99% of the world population. Is a $200 sound card pointless? of course it is for the entire urban population of the world who dont deal with high definition music.

>>51862589
>buying a tv just for that to use as a monitor
Oh god why would you ever recommend using a television as a monitor? That's just a horrible user experience.

>>51862625
Im using one now as a monitor, it used to be horrible but tv's are made with 'game mode' now so the picture is just as good as a monitor

>>51862717
Monitor here.
Can confirm.

>>51862717
Wouldn't you still run into an issue with response time, though?

I can't believe normalfags fall for the 4k meme when there are literally zero applications that utilize it

>>51863235
Gayming does, but just in the sense that it's 2160p instead of 1080p or 1440p. Not

>>51863258
>normalfags gaming on a pc
I suppose that's my fault for not specifying but still

>>51863051
no, Im not using 4k and Im not playing games, just using it for regular computer use

>>51861734
Nah, they're great. One nice thing is they make games look better even if they're rendered in 1080p