[criley2]

>But really, what are you realistically going to watch on your phone that's been filmed with a 4K camera and optics that match that resolution?

You seem to be avoiding the fact that the primary use case of smartphones includes images and text, not video.

You're right that video of sufficiently high enough quality to notice isn't readily available -- but who cares?

1440p makes the text under an app icon easier to read.

It makes webpages easier to read.

It makes "online magazines" crisper. It takes better advantage of a plethora of high resolution iconography and imagery designed to take advantage of "retina" this and "4k" that.

Sure, it maybe a decade before we're streaming >1440p video on our devices, but higher resolution screens making better text was a need ten years ago, not just today.

[semi-extrinsic]

Did you miss the fact that we are discussing a video codec?

[criley2]

>>Why would anyone want more than 1080p on a phone?

>Did you miss the fact that we are discussing a video codec?

I apologize that you cannot follow basic thread context. I have provided the question that I answered for you so you can understand that the context of this thread wasn't artificially limited as you suggest -- (the question wasn't "with regards to video content only, why would anyone want >1080p"...)

Furthermore, I broadened the context explicitly by listing my 3 different tests (including video) that I based my answer off of. If you didn't want to use this context, you should not have replied to me, because I found these tests relevant to the larger question of why >1080p is useful and will become standard.

Thanks!