There are a number of glaring errors in this article, but I'll point out just one.
In the case of 4k Tv. It's totally incorrect that one must sit further back to eliminate seeing the pixels. The facts are totally different. In order to see each pixel, which is the only reason to buy 2k HD or 4k HD, one must sit CLOSER. The author doesn't understand what's happening here. With SD, in the old days, the resolution was so low, and the scan lines so prominent, that you didn't want to sit so close as to see them. That's no longer true. Now you so want to see them, small as they now are.
There are two opposed concepts that are at play here. The first is the one that deals with resolution. The higher the resolution, the closer one must sit to get the benefit of it. But for the movie industry, they have another concept which has nothing to do with resolution. They go by the angle of view, which they say should be around 55 degrees so that the view is large enough to fill our field of wiew, but not so large so as to force us to move our heads back and forth.
So going by the latter, the bigger the screen, the further back we should sit. For a 100" dia screen we should sit about 9' back. That works out well for 2k HD, which is the current 1080p, because we can see all the detail it offers at that distance, and actually we can sit back almost 12'. But for 4k HD, we need to sit much closer to see all the detail, which would be about 6'. This is clearly too close for comfort to such a large screen. But if you don't sit that close, then there's no point in getting 4k.
So we can see that the two standards are in opposition. For best viewing, we need to sit further back, but for full detail we need to sit further forward.
Deciding which is more important should decide what resolution screen is needed.