Isn’t a full HD resolution ( 1920 x 1080 ) almost four times less pixels than 4K ( 3840 x 2160 )? I think I understand that a higher bit depth gives me more information per pixel, resulting in for instance less banding, but I still expected my 1080p 10-bit video files to look very soft and literally low-res.
3840x2160 isn’t almost four times the pixels of 1920x1080. It is exactly four times the pixels. So every full HD content will be upscaled without any loss. One pixel will just take up four pixels in the higher resolution.
On top of that full HD already gives a very sharp image. And when you are far away enough and/or the screen is small enough and/or your eyesight is bad enough there is no visual difference between the two.
Also 1080p 10-bit probably has good encoding. DVD content probably not-so-much, particularly in the era when it was expected to be viewed on CRT screens where some softness was intended (in other words, the same thing that happened with pre-HDMI consoles and flat panel displays).
Thanks! Naturally I fucked up the post by not telling that it’s 42 inch screen. But then, depending on everything else you said, such as the distance to it and my eyesight, it still - evidently - can look good…? XD
For me the jump from VHS to DVD was big enough. I usually don’t even mind watching SD content. I almost never go out of my way to get 4k content. Most of my library is at full HD.