Previous news story    Next news story

Consumer Electronics Association names Ultra HD definition of 4k video

By dpreview staff on Oct 19, 2012 at 21:13 GMT

Industry body CEA has defined a minimum standard for '4K' video and has chosen the terms 'Ultra High-Definition' and 'Ultra HD' to describe it. The consumer electronics body, which includes most major camera makers, has concluded that devices must be capable of showing 3840 x 2160 pixel video to be classed as Ultra HD devices. Despite being a member of CEA, Sony has said it will continue to use the term 4K, and will brand its products as 4K UHD.

Sony is quoted by tech site The Verge as saying: 'Sony will continue to use the 4K moniker for its products and will market its future products as 4K ultra high-definition (4K UHD).' Just to help matters, Japanese broadcaster NHK has also used the term 'Ultra High Definition Television' for the 'Super Hi-Vision' 8K system it is developing.

The move helps solidify the definition of 4K video, which has been used to describe a number of pixel dimensions. The 3840 x 2160 definition dates back to the Society of Motion Picture and Television Engineers' 2007 specification.


Press Release:

Consumer Electronics Industry Announces Ultra High-Definition

Sonoma, CA – 10/18/2012 – The next generation of so-called “4K” high-definition display technology for the home giant-screen TVs with more than eight million pixels of resolution, four times the resolution of today’s high-definition televisions will be called “Ultra High-Definition” or “Ultra HD,” connoting its superiority over conventional HDTV, according to the Consumer Electronics Association (CEA)®.
 
CEA’s Board of Industry Leaders unanimously voted yesterday to endorse the consensus opinion of CEA’s “4K” Working Group recommending the term “Ultra High-Definition” and related performance attributes. The name and related minimum performance characteristics are designed to help consumers and retailers understand the attributes of this next generation of superior television and display technology beginning to roll out this fall. The vote came during the Board’s meeting at CEA’s annual CEO Summit and Board Retreat held here through Friday. 
 
The Working Group, now known as the CEA Ultra HD Working Group, was formed earlier this year to bring a wide array of stakeholders together to discuss how best to define and educate consumers about this new technology.
 
“Ultra HD is the next natural step forward in display technologies, offering consumers an incredibly immersive viewing experience with outstanding new levels of picture quality,” said Gary Shapiro, president and CEO, CEA. “This new terminology and the recommended attributes will help consumers navigate the marketplace to find the TV that best meets their needs.”
 
The consumer electronics industry’s new designation for Ultra HD products was the result of extensive consumer research conducted by CEA’s market research group. “Ultra HD” consistently rated highest in terms of helping consumers understand the technology and in communicating the technology’s superior viewing experience.
 
The group also defined the core characteristics of Ultra High-Definition TVs, monitors and projectors for the home. Minimum performance attributes include display resolution of at least eight million active pixels, with at least 3,840 horizontally and at least 2,160 vertically. Displays will have an aspect ratio with width to height of at least 16 X 9. To use the Ultra HD label, display products will require at least one digital input capable of carrying and presenting native 4K format video from this input at full 3,840 X 2,160 resolution without relying solely on up-converting.
 
“Under CEA’s leadership, the Ultra HD Working Group spent the majority of the summer meeting and discussing how to bring this technology to market,” said CEA Ultra HD Working Group Chairman Gary Yacoubian, president and CEO of Specialty Technology/SVS. “We discussed and debated two important steps, the name and recommended attributes, in a forum that allowed a variety of key stakeholders, manufacturers, retailers, broadcasters and Hollywood professionals to lend their voices. As we educate and raise awareness among consumers, I look forward to working with our robust committee to pave the way for a successful rollout of Ultra HD.”
 
“TVs remain highly sought after and were the second most frequently mentioned device on consumer wish lists this holiday season, behind only tablets,” said Shapiro. “There has never been a greater time to be a consumer of televisions and displays. You can select from a wide array of choices offering outstanding high-definition picture quality, an amazing 3D experience, and interconnectivity within and outside of the home. And now we are proud to present Ultra HD for those consumers who want tomorrow’s next-generation of displays and televisions, today.”
 
Ultra HD technology will be prominently displayed at the upcoming 2013 International CES®, the world’s largest and most important annual consumer technology trade show, which will be held January 8-11, 2013, in Las Vegas.

Comments

Total comments: 78
Francis Sawyer
By Francis Sawyer (Oct 22, 2012)

Once again let's go with some wack dimensions that don't match anything currently used in Hollywood. Why require 4096 pixels across? Eh, 3840 is good enough. Nobody will notice a 6% degradation, when the compressed dog crap they're watching only delivers VHS resolution anyway.

16:9 didn't match anything being used on feature films either, but did that stop the geniuses setting the standards? Nope.

And of course there's the issue of bitrate, which makes almost everything called "HD" today a fraud. Just wait until you see 4K at 3 Mbps.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 9 minutes after posting
1 upvote
Cy Cheze
By Cy Cheze (Oct 24, 2012)

Blu-ray discs at variable bitrates averaging 25mbps are no fraud, except perhaps if viewed on a screen too tiny to convey the IQ.

Widespread 4k or 8k is impossible unless the industry agrees on some standards that will apply across the tools, players, and products. If the contenders agree on a 4k standard in 2 years, that is a lot faster than the 20 or so years of blathering it took to agree on HDTV standards.

0 upvotes
HopeSpringsEternal
By HopeSpringsEternal (Oct 22, 2012)

yipee! i hope 4k spreads to computer monitors because i'm sick and tired of 720p and 1080p monitors especially for photo editing and viewing.

1 upvote
Cy Cheze
By Cy Cheze (Oct 24, 2012)

Ultra definition monitors already exist: NEC MultiSync PA271W-BK-SV, Dell UltraSharp U2711, ASUS PB Series PB278Q, the Apple Thunderbolt, and several others. But they aren't especially large, so you notice the additional definition only by sitting rather close. One also needs special graphics cards to see 4k video.

0 upvotes
tbcass
By tbcass (Oct 22, 2012)

It will be a long time before reality catches up with the new format. Systems have enough trouble with HD tech. Few if any cable systems can handle the bandwidth. The TV's will be outlandishly expensive. Very little now is broadcast in true HD so you need a blu ray player. What new medium will have to be invented? Probably 10-20 years off. Last but not least, it won't make tv shows or movies any better. What it will be good for is seeing photographs on a large screen TV from 2 feet away.

1 upvote
Cy Cheze
By Cy Cheze (Oct 24, 2012)

1 or 2 years off, not 10 to 20. The manufacturers can't sell any more HDTVs, except at prices too low to make money, so they have to raise the ante, or else close factories. The price for 80' 4k screens will fall from $25k to $5k by 2014, then to $2.5k by 2015. At that point, profits will again narrow, prompting the need to introduce 8k screens.

0 upvotes
rikkus
By rikkus (Oct 21, 2012)

USB: Full < Hi < Super
HD: Full < Ultra
I suppose 'Hi' was already in the acronym. Will Super be higher res than Ultra, then?

0 upvotes
Cy Cheze
By Cy Cheze (Oct 24, 2012)

Japanes firms prefer "power" or "x" for the tip-top. Then come "power ^2" or "X2." So eventually there will be X2DTV, perhaps by 2025: powerful enough for the IRS to put the entire 1040 guide on a single screen and readable by microscope.

1 upvote
munro harrap
By munro harrap (Oct 21, 2012)

What can move that many pixels at a fast enough refresh rate? It wont be workable for 20 years. There will be enormous problems with noise and lag and rolling shutter etc on any capture devices, but, that said there is now going to be a screen with enough resolution to exhibit my stills on, or yours in a museum or gallery- the way they should be seen

1 upvote
unlearny
By unlearny (Oct 21, 2012)

good point! It shirley impossibles! You need to call JVC and have them stop selling their 4k kamkorder. http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/839193-REG/JVC_GY_HMQ10U_GY_HMQ10_4K_Compact_Handheld.html

0 upvotes
Francis Sawyer
By Francis Sawyer (Oct 22, 2012)

This has nothing to do with noise, lag, or rolling shutter. What do you think movies are typically shot on now? Yep: 4K cameras.

1 upvote
MPerks
By MPerks (Oct 29, 2012)

The GOPRO 3 shoots 4k already... sure it's only 15 fps, but it's a $400 camera. I think capture devices are pretty much ripe for 4k shooting.

0 upvotes
sproketholes
By sproketholes (Oct 21, 2012)

Thats a stupid bloody name.. what happens when 8k comes out will that be called Mega Ultra HD

2 upvotes
GordonAtWork
By GordonAtWork (Oct 20, 2012)

It's a real shame that the quality of tv programming hasn't increased with the technology. Just how much detail would you want to see on Strictly Come Dancing or The X-Factor or The Valleys (Vallies?).

1 upvote
Francis Carver
By Francis Carver (Oct 20, 2012)

oh, that's easy. 4K worth of details now, and the later, 8K worth of details. Right?

1 upvote
unlearny
By unlearny (Oct 21, 2012)

Nowadays, resolution improves bad programming. These folks on the bachelor pad look pretty good, but how do their pores look? Huh? Well?

0 upvotes
tkbslc
By tkbslc (Oct 20, 2012)

Ultra HD is silly because someday it will be low definition in comparison to the new Mega-Super-Ultra HD.

Just call it 4k or 3840P or something that makes an easy point of reference to current and future tech without setting it up to have an ironic name in the future.

3 upvotes
Francis Carver
By Francis Carver (Oct 20, 2012)

It has been decided by the powers to-be. It will be called "Ultra High-Definition." Simple, really. Took them a couple of years to come up with the name, but now, it's finally done with.

1 upvote
wus
By wus (Oct 20, 2012)

Again, as already when introducing the HDTV "standard", the industry association fails to specify a minimum frame rate.

1080 @ 24p is already ridiculous, before we move to 4K we should really introduce a higher frame rate for the standard 1080p material that renders fast movements sharp AND smooth. IMHO this is much more inportant than increasing the resolution.

After trying 24, 30, 50 and 60 p with full HD resolution I would think the minimum should be around 72 fps. And for any upcoming 4K standard we should aim at a minimum of 100 fps, and 200 fps for 3D material so that the effective frame rate for full 3D reproduction remains at 100 fps.

7 upvotes
Francis Carver
By Francis Carver (Oct 20, 2012)

Whaaaat? The MINIMUM frame rate should be around 72fps? Or 100 fps Or 200 fps? What an Earth for?

Minimum should be -- and is -- 24 fps (as with Blu Ray), 99.7 percent of all cinematic major motion pix are still shot at 24 fps, after all. And CES probably is not the right entity that should specify and predetermine any maximum frame rate, that is not their job. Maybe SMPTE?

2 upvotes
Dennis Linden
By Dennis Linden (Oct 21, 2012)

I am not sure if it's frame rate or not, but watching 3D coverage of the Olympics was pretty disappointing. The images I could see on a satellite system definitely suffered from a low frame rate. Some conversions from 24 to 30 fps suffer from a lack of smoothness. So, yea, I support 60 or more fps. Good Luck.

0 upvotes
unlearny
By unlearny (Oct 21, 2012)

They live in a hole, a tiny hole that's usually empty.
Usually empty, tiny too.
They live in a hole hole a hole that's usually Smpty
which stands for, Society of Motion Picture and Television Engineers. Maybe I think that's what keeps them in sync.

0 upvotes
Oomingmak
By Oomingmak (Oct 22, 2012)

Totally agree with wus.

I'm sick and tired of frame rates being ignored and left to languish at stupidly low rates, while resolution gets all the attention.

YouTube is already capable of displaying 4k (despite hardly anybody having the capability to create such footage) but yet YouTube still can't even display basic 50 / 60 fps that so many freely available domestic devices are capable of, despite the fact that these frame rates have been available for a good couple of years.

0 upvotes
Francis Sawyer
By Francis Sawyer (Oct 22, 2012)

24 FPS is too low, but 48 is fine. Beyond that, and you're bloating the hell out of the data payload for diminishing returns.

We can't even get HD at 24 FPS with a decent bitrate. 4K? HA HA HA.

1 upvote
liran1
By liran1 (Oct 20, 2012)

Standardization for these types of formats is good for the technology to move ahead.

0 upvotes
Robert Eckerlin
By Robert Eckerlin (Oct 20, 2012)

What I would have really loved: a standard for TV and PC Monitors (and other display devices?) that sports a similar colour and contrast quality (or even a higher quality?) as the new iPad Retina displays ...a standard that ensures that photo colours/contrast can be easely rendered (without device calibration) in the same way on all display devices that support that new standard.

I do not care at all about UHD.

Comment edited 33 seconds after posting
2 upvotes
Francis Carver
By Francis Carver (Oct 20, 2012)

Robert, if you indeed do not care about this news item, why are you commenting on it here? And since when does any Apple product have got anything to do with any of this, anyhow?

0 upvotes
Robert Eckerlin
By Robert Eckerlin (Oct 22, 2012)

Hello Francis,

Thank You for having taken the time to provide feedback.

The reason of my original post: I am fed-up with the manufacturers of Cameras and of Displays/Monitors and about association like the CEA (which according to dpreview “includes most major camera makers”) because even after more than 25 years after the advent of PCs they have still not be able to define and implement a standard, that allows to display the colours and the contrast of digital photos in a similar way on all monitors/Displays that support that hypothetical standard.

...continuation in next Post

Comment edited 8 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
Robert Eckerlin
By Robert Eckerlin (Oct 22, 2012)

Look at what happened to me because of that lack of standard. Originally, I was organizing, editing and viewing my digital photos with Photoshop Elements on my Desktop Windows PC with a standard monitor of Dell. Because I was not happy with the color rendering on that Dell Monitor, I asked for the assistance of a professional photographer who calibrated my Dell PC Monitor with a calibrating device from Spyder. After that calibration, I had to redo a lot of my original photo editing in order to adapt them to the better color-rendering of the calibrated monitor.

...continuation in next Post

0 upvotes
Robert Eckerlin
By Robert Eckerlin (Oct 22, 2012)

Then I came across an EIZO monitor with much better color rendering. I bought that Eizo monitor, had it calibrated and used it for probably around 4 years. Then a couple of years later, when displaying my photos on the TV-Screen/Monitor of my living room (which is much better at displaying colors and
dark parts of the photos), I realized that a lot of the editing that I had done with my Eizo Monitor weres looking poor on the TV. Again, I had to redo some of my Photo-Editing.

---continuation in next Post

0 upvotes
Robert Eckerlin
By Robert Eckerlin (Oct 22, 2012)

Then recently, my wife bought an ipad and wanted to look at some of my newer Photos on her ipad. And again, I got confronted with the fact, that on the ipad the photos were looking differently and much better than on my Eizo Monitor and on the TV Monitor (and even much better than on the monitor of my HP laptop). I am not a specialist and can therefore be wrong: but I have read that this is because the retina display of the ipad supports a much wider gamut of the sRGB color-space.

It is incredible that the major manufacturers and their associations are not able to agree on a standard that allows to display photos in the same (or very similar) way on all display / monitor devices that support such a hypothetical standard (and that without the need of a calibration by the user).

1 upvote
Robert Eckerlin
By Robert Eckerlin (Oct 22, 2012)

How many hundreds of hours have non-professional photographers like me wasted because such a lack of standard? I am fed up with these manufacturers and their associations who now brag about their new “Ultra HD” standard.

0 upvotes
Robert Eckerlin
By Robert Eckerlin (Oct 22, 2012)

By the way: Francis, if you can help me to find a 19 inch PC Monitor and a 24 inch TV Monitor who display colors and contrast of Photos the same way (and as excellently as the newer ipads): I will be very grateful to you. Notice, that I am living in Europe/Switzerland and not in the US.

And of course, I will be very grateful to you (and to others) who might have an influence and might help convince manufacturers to provide the kind of standard that I would like so much to get.

Kind regards
Robert

---end of my multiple Posts

Comment edited 3 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
Francis Sawyer
By Francis Sawyer (Oct 22, 2012)

What does color and contrast have to do with resolution? Nothing. You're drawing pointless parallels with the "Retina" display.

1 upvote
Robert Eckerlin
By Robert Eckerlin (Oct 23, 2012)

Both colors/contrast and resolution have to do with the quality of how fotos or videos are rendered on TVs, monitors and other consumer devices.

I was describing which kind of standards in that area are important to me and which ones are not important important...for the devices that I will be able to buy in a couple of years.

Comment edited 2 times, last edit 2 minutes after posting
0 upvotes
Jeff Engel
By Jeff Engel (Oct 23, 2012)

3840 x 2160 pixels is an objective standard, engineered into the system. Color and contrast are subjective standards that vary with personal taste or vary with the technical limits of the monitor, printer, or projector. By logic, the industry can control the objective standard and allow the subjective standard to be user defined. Your friend with the Spyder stopped short of teaching you the whole lesson.

0 upvotes
Robert Eckerlin
By Robert Eckerlin (Oct 23, 2012)

Even if "color and contrast are subjective standards that vary with personal taste or vary with the technical limits of the monitor, printer or projector" , the industry could and should nevertheless agree on standards that would render photos in the same/similar way on all devices supporting these standards.

My objective would be to be able to render/display my photos in the same way on my current PC Desktop monitor, on my future PC Desktop monitors, on my laptop, on my TV, on the Ipad of my wife, on the PC monitors or Laptops of friends....This would not preclude me to adapt (e.g. with Photoshop Elements) individual photos to my personal taste or to optionally adapt (if this would be sufficiently important for me) the settings of individual devices to my personal tastes. And this should not preclude the support different variations of rendering to exploit for example more expensive devices.

Even if I am not an expert: this should be reasonably possible and seems desirable.

0 upvotes
Tord S Eriksson
By Tord S Eriksson (Oct 20, 2012)

4K works, why change? And what happens to DOF when the sensors have to have that resolution, by the way?!

8K sounds a bit absurd ;-)! Unless you use it to display lots of shots at the same time! Like gigantic iPhone!

The nuclear industry will love it - first use a lot of power to show your shots, then use even more energy to cool everything down (heating the surrounding in the process)!

1 upvote
zkz5
By zkz5 (Oct 20, 2012)

"And what happens to DOF when the sensors have to have that resolution, by the way?!"

Nothing. Resolution has no impact on DOF.

4 upvotes
JaFO
By JaFO (Oct 20, 2012)

HDTV sounded pretty absurd.
And IMHO it still is when you consider that the source material for classic tv still is 4:3 standard definition, which creates absolutely horrible picture quality whenever they try to convert it to 'HD' quality

0 upvotes
Francis Carver
By Francis Carver (Oct 20, 2012)

@ Tord, your comment as a whole sounds quite a bit absurd, quite frankly. It takes some doing to drag the nuclear power industry into a discussion about high-def TVs and ultra high-def TVs, after all.

@ JaFO: "the source material for classic tv still is 4:3 standard definition, which creates absolutely horrible picture quality whenever they try to convert it to 'HD' quality."

Not quite sure where you are getting your facts from. All movies and TV shows before going widescreen were shot at Academy 1.37:1 aspect ratio, not 4:3. If they were shot on 35mm film stock, they can readily be upconverted to 4K digital video's amazing resolution. "Robin Hood" with Errol Flynn and "Gone with the Wind" have received such 4K scans a few years ago.

But for those TV shows that had the misfortune of being shot on one of the legacy SD video format, nothing much can be doen to bring them into HD and UHD. Maybe that's what you're talking of?

0 upvotes
Cy Cheze
By Cy Cheze (Oct 24, 2012)

4k or 8k on a 80" screen can result in an image so large that your own eye's select the DOF because your focal vision will fix on a portion of the image, leaving the rest to the softer peripheral vision. Narrow DOF on small photographs is merely a condensed imitation.

0 upvotes
silentstorm
By silentstorm (Oct 20, 2012)

What kind of standards is CEA upholding???

Last i studied form my text books, 4k resolution is referred to horizontal resolution having 4000 or more pixels. 4096 is what i understood from Zeiss research decades ago.

Why is 3840 consider 4k resolution????? So that makes 1920x1080 a 2k video standard too??? WHAT A JOKE!!!!

Is our standards getting lower?? Or did someone goofed?

Comment edited 41 seconds after posting
1 upvote
Tom_N
By Tom_N (Oct 20, 2012)

"Why is 3840 consider 4k resolution?" Because 3840 x 2160 pixels is exactly two times as many pixels in each direction as 1920 x 1080, the resolution for 1080p HDTV. Exact integer scaling should simplify the design of UHDTVs that have to be backwards compatible with current HDTV programming. At the very least, it can't hurt. That's more important to manufacturers than boosting the horizontal pixel count from 3840 to 4096.

As far as the "goof", 3840x2160 has four times as many pixels as 1920x1080. You know, pixels as in 2D? So they're not calling 1920x1080 "2k", they're calling it "1080" or "1k' as always.

2 upvotes
Julian Bates
By Julian Bates (Oct 20, 2012)

err no actually, 1920x1080 is "2k" in digital cinematography. "4k" has previously been described quite routinely as anything which exceeds 4k horizontal pixels. Yes, 3840 is twice the horizontal resolution as 1080p, which does simplify many aspects.
By the way, its a shame GoPro can get away with claiming their new camera is "4k" when actually it only shoots 15fps...but frame rates are another discussion I guess...

0 upvotes
JaFO
By JaFO (Oct 20, 2012)

The same kind of non-standard they invented when they chose to allow both 720 and 1080 as 'HDTV'.
Sure, technically one had to be referred to as 'HDTV Ready', but the damage had been done.

0 upvotes
Joe Ogiba
By Joe Ogiba (Oct 20, 2012)

720p60 is used by ABC,FOX ,ESPN etc for sports . CBS, NBC etc uses 1080i and both are HD.

0 upvotes
angstroms
By angstroms (Oct 20, 2012)

Would have been nice if they based this on SMPTE standard for Motion Picture definition for 4K 4096 x 2160. But they did match the vertical resolution so you only be clipping the edge of the scene like we do with Theatrical 2K vs HD delivered to the home.

Oh well one more step in post production.

Great articles on who making what panel by Display Search http://www.displaysearchblog.com/2012/09/faster-4kx2k-slower-amoled-tv/

0 upvotes
Francis Carver
By Francis Carver (Oct 20, 2012)

"they're not calling 1920x1080 "2k", they're calling it "1080" or "1k."

Not really. 2K = 2048 x 1080. Obviously, it is more like 2.048K video. 1080 HD = 1920 x 1080. You can call 1920 x 1080 a 1.92K video, but 1K is usually referred to 720p video (having app. 1.1MP total resolution).

Irrespective of what CEA had just come up with, "4K is usally referred to just about anything in-between 3.5K and 4.5K, with 3840 and 4096 lines being the 2 most often used horizontal resolutions in 4K video and film-to-data scans.

0 upvotes
Francis Sawyer
By Francis Sawyer (Oct 22, 2012)

"1920x1080 is "2k" in digital cinematography"

No it isn't.

"So they're not calling 1920x1080 "2k""

He didn't say they were. He said it's AS IF they were.

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
1 upvote
GodSpeaks
By GodSpeaks (Oct 20, 2012)

Just an announcement from yet another useless industry association that is trying to be relevant.

1 upvote
FunckyPIX
By FunckyPIX (Oct 20, 2012)

+1 right. The next name will be super ultra hypra giga over High definition. They seem to be bored at job shame as millions dont have jobs.

1 upvote
Francis Carver
By Francis Carver (Oct 20, 2012)

"yet another useless industry association that is trying to be relevant."

Yes indeed. CEA is so much irrelevant, they can garner up 110,000 to 120,000 people in person to attend their annual CES Show in Las Vegas every January. Totally irrelevant, indeed.

1 upvote
Cy Cheze
By Cy Cheze (Oct 24, 2012)

Without industry associations, such as SAE or ISO, the world would be a jungle of ad hoc, proprietary, or incompatible parts, measures, or codecs.

0 upvotes
Francis Carver
By Francis Carver (Oct 20, 2012)

Amazing times indeed. Consumer will be having Ulta HD 4K TV sets in their homes by Christmas 2013, all the while 95+ percent of digital cinema projectors still only have 2K resolution panels (app. 1/4 the definition of UHD). Will be interesting to see how thing develop, definitely.

0 upvotes
JaFO
By JaFO (Oct 20, 2012)

Consumers won't have them.
Or are we that stupid that we're going to fall for the same trick twice ?
Remember HDTV ?
Remember when early hardware was rebranded 'HDTV Ready' so manufacturers could fool people into buying 'high definition' hardware that wasn't 'high definition' ?

Meet the new boss.
Same as the old boss ...
won't get fooled again (I hope)

0 upvotes
Joe Ogiba
By Joe Ogiba (Oct 20, 2012)

How many consumers will buy a $20,000 4K HDTV this year ?

Comment edited 38 seconds after posting
0 upvotes
Francis Carver
By Francis Carver (Oct 20, 2012)

"How many consumers will buy a $20,000 4K HDTV this year?"

No earthly idea about that, Joe. I was actually talking about NEXT year. You know, as in "Christmas 2013" next year. By then, 4K TV sets will probably be around $3,500 to $6,000. Those prices will be more tenable for those who want UHD television than today's $20K, $25K early adopters prices.

Since you buy a native 4K panel projector right now for under $25,000, I am not sure who would give that same amount of money for a mere flat-screen TV set?

0 upvotes
Cy Cheze
By Cy Cheze (Oct 24, 2012)

Any self-respecting CEO or Managing Director will get a 4k screen, now that all the lowly underlings have caught up with his or her 1920x1080 >40" standard. Winners crave conspicuous trophies and measures of their success. Plus, there will be plenty of sports bars or mega-churches that will want the screens to draw in less affluent clients.

0 upvotes
Marshal
By Marshal (Oct 20, 2012)

So 4K is to be called "Ultra High Definition"?

I thought that's what 8k was to be called that NHK & Sharp have been working on. Now they'll have to call 8K "Ultra Ultra HD. "

Would be better to call 4K "Super HD" and 8K "Ultra HD."

0 upvotes
Francis Carver
By Francis Carver (Oct 20, 2012)

8K is called "Super Hi-Vision," just read the news article above.

0 upvotes
Lee Jay
By Lee Jay (Oct 19, 2012)

So, RED's 4K 2:1 aspect ratio at 4096x2048 and 4.5K 2.333:1 at 4480x1920 aren't 4K? No one tell Jim. Smoke might come out of his ears.

Comment edited 1 minute after posting
1 upvote
graybalanced
By graybalanced (Oct 19, 2012)

Name is so ridiculous. This kind of thinking leads to names like "WUXGA" and "SXGA+". Just say 4K already. This is also how Apple is able to get rich simplifying technology by not using ambiguous terms that the public can't compare without a translation table.

Comment edited 2 minutes after posting
3 upvotes
Francis Carver
By Francis Carver (Oct 20, 2012)

I am glad you were able to bring the word "Apple" into the world of Ultra High-Definition 4K television in your second sentence already. Congrats are in order, surely.

3 upvotes
Optimal Prime
By Optimal Prime (Oct 20, 2012)

@Francis - as opposed to your use of the A word in your first sentence...?

0 upvotes
Cy Cheze
By Cy Cheze (Oct 24, 2012)

Apple calls its 4k "Thunder" or "Retinal." Should others call their 4k "Rumble" or "Rectal"?

0 upvotes
random78
By random78 (Oct 19, 2012)

And what will they call the next standard - ultra-super-duper-high-definition? I think sticking to 4K is a better idea.

1 upvote
AV Janus
By AV Janus (Oct 19, 2012)

What use is this CEA and others if anybody can still call it anything they want?
Its like they deliberately leave glaring loop holes...

God bless these non important agencies and standard makers!
My they forever leech their fat paychecks from whichever sucker pays them.

I am sure we are all paying for the pleasure to read from time to time about their hard working and well deserved accomplishments at least every few years!

...end sarcasm...

3 upvotes
M Lammerse
By M Lammerse (Oct 19, 2012)

Indeed indeed, I just will call it UPT (Uber Pixel Technology)

1 upvote
Francis Carver
By Francis Carver (Oct 20, 2012)

They needed to spend 2-years in a committee to decide that 4K is not really 4K but "Ultra High-Definition."

Just imagine the name they would have come up with if they had an extra 2 years to mull over the name.

What kills me with CES is that they were pumping-up 3D HDTV for the past 3 years really hard, and now when everyone who had anted one has one, they will have to tell them they were all stupid 'cause now they will need to get with the 4K program and get themselves a 2D UHD TV.

Then, 2-3 years from now, it will be time to launch 3D UHD TVs. Out with the (2-3 years) old, in with the new (and totally not yet needed).

You see a pattern developing here?

1 upvote
Reilly Diefenbach
By Reilly Diefenbach (Oct 19, 2012)

Exciting stuff for photgraphers! Imagine a 4K 60" showing your jpgs and vids.

1 upvote
luka3rd
By luka3rd (Oct 19, 2012)

60" HD is more than enough! Spend money on something else...

1 upvote
Reilly Diefenbach
By Reilly Diefenbach (Oct 20, 2012)

I already have a 60" 1080p LED and it looks good, but an 8MP display is going to kill it. I'll have a slammin 60" 4K monitor in my living room within a couple of years, I can pretty confidently predict.

0 upvotes
jquagga
By jquagga (Oct 20, 2012)

If you can find yourself to one of those Sony stores that has their 84" 4K monster on display that is an extremely cool TV to see. I have a 42" at home so it's pretty much 4 of those glued together. And at that size, you can see the advantage 4K brings.

1 upvote
Robmac07
By Robmac07 (Oct 20, 2012)

It's cool to think of 4x resolution and super panels, better cinemas etc but where are the program sources in the near future coming from? Except for viewing hi res photos, what are we going to watch? Upscaled Bluray or even very upscaled SD DVDs? So much of the off air rubbish is only SD still, and there is a massive investment out there in TV and home with only low def stuff. I guess technology marches on because it can.

0 upvotes
Tom_N
By Tom_N (Oct 20, 2012)

Program sources == the huge library of movies shot on film.

Yes, there's work to be done in developing a 4k equivalent of DVD / Blu-Ray, but if the vendors thought that couldn't be done, why would they spend money developing the UHDTVs?

0 upvotes
JaFO
By JaFO (Oct 20, 2012)

Anyone remember the failure that was SACD and super-audio (or whatever it's competing standard was)?
4k will go the same route.

The average consumer has already proven they prefer the convenience of lossy formats like mp3 to supposedly 'better' tech that required them to buy their entire library for the 3rd time.

The same will happen to the movie/tv-industrty if they try to push this too hard.

Services like Netflix and the piratebay will be far more popular, because all that really matters to consumers is availability and access.

0 upvotes
Francis Carver
By Francis Carver (Oct 20, 2012)

"there's work to be done in developing a 4k equivalent of DVD / Blu-Ray."

Most film scans for Full-HD Blue Ray transfers are actually done at 4K rez or even higher, so in addition to the HD master, they already now have 4K masters for a whole bunch of movies. Regarding shooting in 4K -- anything shot on film is automatically 4K rez or higher, there are about a dozen 4K video cameras out there already, and even a couple that will be able to shoot 8K (such as the Sony F65 digital cinema camera).

Folks who won't be able to afford to go the full 4K/UHD route will find reasons why HD is better than 4K/UHD.

Re. streaming true and usable 4K signal on the Internet -- not for the next 5 years, that's for sure. Internet 2, anyone?

1 upvote
Total comments: 78