Do we need a 4k monitor??

Hi,i'm editing a lot of 4k clips from my gh4 on 1080p monitor and i'm quite impressed of the quality of the 1080 p clips downscaled from 4k source,i can't even see the difference if i look at them side by side unless i zoom in 100%...
When i edit timelapses from raw still,there is a huge difference from the 1080p downscaled compared to the 4k...someone can please report his experience??do we need a 4k monitor to appreciate 4k??

About camera downsampling it depends on how well the camera downsamples internally.Theoretically downsampling in post from 4K yelds slightly "better" (sharper?) results, but it depends on the camera's sensor etc .My C100 is ridiculously sharp even at -10 sharpness.If it ever were to output 4K it would be softer and i imagine that if i downconverted myself it would be even sharper.

Now about timelapse and raw's.
Yes there is a big difference in sharpness at first,which is the most obvious.

Now appreciation and working with something are 2 different things.While you can appreciate both formats,when you need to do critically technical evaluation then rule says that you must view at 1:1 pixel.
Apparently almost noone does that here i assume,including me, but if you want to take a really good look at 4K source to see things like grain structure,artifacts,soft focus,lens/sensor spots etc you will need to zoom in in the timeline or import your footage to a program that does 1:1 and thats where it gets complicated and time consuming.

4K monitors allow your workflow to be simple if you want of course to provide footage that will pass quality control and meet specific criteria.For the time being 4K monitors are expensive and small,and not all gpu's output 2160p or 2304p so there's little need for.
If time comes where 10bit 30'' panels will cost the same as nowadays 1200p or 1080p ones then we all propably should.
For better or worse broadcast standards these past years have started to look like polite guidelines,but the repercussions of that are another subject of discussion.

Good question, I've been wondering about that myself.
My first guess is we don't. At least not for stock. Maybe if you also do editing for complete films, commercials, etc.

But I would like to hear from someone that may use one and if it really makes a difference.

I was looking at this LG. Pretty nice.
http://www.lg.com/us/monitors/lg-34UM95-P-ultrawide-monitor

Thanks guys...
Gcrook...i wasn't talking about the downscaled hd version straight out the camera but the hd version we get from editing...
Kk5hy....this lg monitor looks pretty nice but i can't find the price...

In a recent workshop with Adam Epstein (Editor SNL) it was asked as well. The answer was a stern no for them. They take footage from a 4K arsenal (Arri to Canon high end cameras) and bring everything down to HD. As Adam put it; "It's great to have 4K for those sometime (rare) pan or zooms for specific post repairs.However, editing is all done in HD." - Of course this is for television specifically, not for feature film purposes. Hence, they have seen no need for 4K monitors.

Oh i see.Then the simple answer (i enjoyed the rant though) is that 4K is merely an 8mpx image downscaled to 2 and raw images can be anywhere from 12 to 20+ hence the greater impact in our eyes when downscaled to such a low relosution image.
Simply more pixels to choose from.

Thanks for the info Andy. I was thinking about going to his workshop but was traveling to Colorado when he was in Houston.

Sebolla the price for the monitor is $999