content: I'm with you on all that stuff and upvoated, I have a background in film developing (but i don't have silly nostalgic tendencies wanting to go back to film processing) and used to be very much into video/movie production and used read tons of stuff.  I haven't really shot any video (cell phones and p&s cameras don't count) or done any real video production work in more than 10 years though.  This video is interesting to me because they claim to see very little difference between 4k and 1080p on their monitors.  I spot flaws in almost every video these guys put up but that's not the point here... these guys are doing production that i regularly watch and for the most part Linus has been against 60fps and 4k for their videos and i get to kind of live vicariously by watching their opinions, arguments, and tests - if I worked with him I'd be one of the guys pushing for more.    The upsampling 1080p to 4k for youtube being "worth it" argument was a little surprising to me, but probably because I don't have any experience with 4k.    They did say that 4k is beneficial even just for youtube videos, but their test footage wasn't good enough if they really want to spot differences in the raw footage IMO.  Get or make some proper test charts with resolution patterns and yes, the difference should become clear even if those differences don't make much of a difference with the stuff they usually shoot or for their intended audience of 24 inch and smaller screens.  I agree with them though that spending money on quality optics will have a bigger impact on the quality of the output than cramming more pixels onto a tiny chip.  An $800 fixed lens camera that can shoot 4k isn't likely to produce better looking footage than a $1200+ setup that's only outputting 1080p... and I think that's more who/what this video is meant for, people on a budget, not necessarily people wanting to make money or get better at the craft.