Reminder: Quad HD doesn't make everything look better

All juvenility aside, the image above was created using JVC's "soon to arrive" ultra high-definition player attached over dual-link DVI to the 4k2k display. The video uses MPEG-4AVC compression to convert the 6Gbps original 4K source into 50Mbps. More pics in the gallery below.
























I don't know if anybody's noticed this yet, but in the side picture it looks like the tv is pretty thick. I hope this new "quadHD" technology doesn't result in these obese lcd's and plasmas to come to the market, I still want a TV that will be thin and not too heavy so I can still hang it on a wall without too much trouble.
I'm skipping this for 8xHD. I'll need it for a decent image on the movie-theatre sized screen I'll keep in my basement, pay for with my high-interest credit card, and hardly ever share with anyone else. I hope it has decent upscaling for playing Mario Kart 64.
For now, I'll just go to the movies and watch the 35mm film's beautiful images with sharp, clean edges, smooth contours, and randomly-placed film grain (as opposed to a graph-paper grid of pixels).
Were's the bad?!?! Where's the bad?!?!
Quad HD Porn could be pretty nasty. So far regular HD isn't doing a lot of porn stars any favors.
Band meeting! Murray? Present.
I think this is the dumbest Engadget entry ever - both post and comments. Time to grow up.
YA RLY
lol at the pic.
So... can it handle Crysis?
I'm assuming the picture shown is just a small fraction of what is on the quad screen. Otherwise downscaling the quad image to 600 by 447 pixels is pointless unless it's just to illustrate a concept. And to add to the wonderful comments in this thread... I love and hate everything.
Maybe this will push for people to look better.