Ultra High-Definition: CEA gives a new name to 4K resolution TVs

By on October 19, 2012, 1:30 PM

With the marketing push behind 3DTVs slowly fading away, TV manufacturers are already looking at 4K technology as the next major industry development to help boost sales. With that in mind the Consumer Electronics Association took the first step towards an industry-wide marketing strategy, labeling the technology as "Ultra High-Definition", and laying out the criteria that must be met to carry the moniker.

In a nutshell, displays must have at least eight million active pixels, an aspect ratio of 16 x 9 and a resolution of at least 3840 x 2160 pixels. Ultra HD televisions and displays must also have at least one digital input capable of delivering native 4K format video at 3,840 x 2,160 without up converting it.

To put that into perspective, current HDTV displays top out at a resolution of 1,920 x 1,080.

The idea behind marketing 4K as Ultra HD is to make it more obvious to consumers what the technology means and help them "navigate the marketplace to find the TV that best meets their needs"

That said, there are only a handful of products that can handle 4K video in the market, and at the moment there isn’t much content you can play on them beyond a 4K film called “TimesScapes” or outputting your PC screen. Furthermore, it’ll be a while before Ultra HD TVs are available at mainstream prices, with the first 84-inch models from Sony and LG priced somewhere between $20,000 and $25,000.

It’s also worth noting that while on paper Ultra HD has four times the resolution as current HD televisions, experts argue that the technology makes sense in movie theaters and digital projection, but you’re unlikely to notice the difference at home unless you have a huge TV well above 80-inches.

Be that as it may Ultra HD is expected to take a prominent place at next year's CES in Las Vegas.




User Comments: 30

Got something to say? Post a comment
LNCPapa LNCPapa said:

Looks like the TV I've been waiting for is outside of my price range of possibility.

1 person liked this | SalaSSin said:

Call me when tv signal in my country (Belgium) is at least streamed in REAL HD, instead of that half assed 720p ... Then we can start thinking about something new and better

Staff
Jesse Jesse said:

Looks like the TV I've been waiting for is outside of my price range of possibility.

Give it a few years, it will come down in price, just like flat panel LCD TV's did.

Alvaro Alvaro said:

Call me when tv signal in my country (Belgium) is at least streamed in REAL HD, instead of that half assed 720p ... Then we can start thinking about something new and better

We still have 4:3 here, I think the res is VGA.

Alexmx said:

Really? "Ultra HD"?

What comes when 8K arrives? "Ultra Mega HD"?

I'd rather 4K, plain and simple. Besides, even though 720p is technically HD, people still confuses HD and FHD. So, at least here in my country people buy 720p tv thinking they have FHD resolutions, and boxes don't help at all, not giving the screen resolution at first sight.

thewind said:

"but you?re unlikely to notice the difference at home unless you have a huge TV well above 80-inches." You gota be friking kidding me? There's and 80 in on display at bestbuy thats 1080p and it looks terrible unless your 20 feet away from it. I like sitting 6 feet away from my 55" and I still can notice the pixles, at 60" you can really see them. So 4K really would make a difference. Also I have a 2560x1440 Asus 27" monitor thats about 2.5 feet from me and I can tell a huge difference between that and 1080p esspecially in games like GTA IV.

Guest said:

Or Extra FullHD or Super FullHD or 8M TV or Extended FullHD but all upconverted from DVD source, no problem, you will buy again 3rd times same movies

TomSEA TomSEA, TechSpot Chancellor, said:

Although sounds awesome, doesn't make a lick of difference until they get signal broadcasts up to that level (as has already been pointed out).

Sarcasm Sarcasm said:

"but you?re unlikely to notice the difference at home unless you have a huge TV well above 80-inches." You gota be friking kidding me? There's and 80 in on display at bestbuy thats 1080p and it looks terrible unless your 20 feet away from it. I like sitting 6 feet away from my 55" and I still can notice the pixles, at 60" you can really see them. So 4K really would make a difference. Also I have a 2560x1440 Asus 27" monitor thats about 2.5 feet from me and I can tell a huge difference between that and 1080p esspecially in games like GTA IV.

Well for games you probably could tell more of a difference, but for movies it's actually much harder to spot.

I'm not saying you cant tell a difference, but I'm sure a lot of average people won't be able to unless its on a giant screen.

Heck, some of them think 720p = 1080p just by looking at my Galaxy S3. I have to explain to them what native resolution is all the time.

treeski treeski said:

See this interesting article from arstechnica about 4k:

[link]

3DCGMODELER 3DCGMODELER said:

They can make them smaller like 50 inch... daaaaaa. they have the technology... daaaaaaa Ya Think

Guest said:

"To qualify as Ultra HD, a display needs to have a resolution of at least 3,840 pixels horizontally and at least 2,160 pixels vertically, the CEA said."

I knew they would dumb it down.. *sigh*

so we really aren't getting 4k X 4k aka 4,000 x 4,000.

cliffordcooley cliffordcooley, TechSpot Paladin, said:

It's also worth noting that while on paper Ultra HD has four times the resolution as current HD televisions, experts argue that the technology makes sense in movie theaters and digital projection, but you're unlikely to notice the difference at home unless you have a huge TV well above 80-inches.
I completely agree.

My 20" monitor has a resolution of 1600 x 900. A viewing distance of 1.5 feet and I can barely see any blocky edges. Meaning a viewing distance of 3 feet would allow a 40" monitor before any block edges are noticed. Increasing the resolutions width and height 2.4 times to 3840 x 2160 would minimize these blocky edges on a 80" monitor from a distance of 3 feet. Since the viewing distance would normally be 6 feet or greater, I highly doubt anyone would notice a difference between 1080P or 2160P(I assume 2160P will be used for association). If anyone does suggest a difference is noticeable from 6 feet of distance, they must have above average eyes sight (especially if viewing a motion picture).

Guest said:

Are these tvs any good [link]

cliffordcooley cliffordcooley, TechSpot Paladin, said:

I knew they would dumb it down.. *sigh*

so we really aren't getting 4k X 4k aka 4,000 x 4,000.

That would screw up the 16:9, 16:10, 2:1, and etc... screen aspect ratios. Why is it, you are not pleased with progress?

amstech amstech, TechSpot Enthusiast, said:

I think its awesome.

Bring it on, I'll buy one just to see how games look. Although I might need to sell my 2GB GTX 670 and get a pair of 4GB GTX 670's for that rez (I play at 1600p now), will need more frame buffer!

lol I know games and todays GPUs may not go up that high...but soon. :devil:

Timonius Timonius said:

Really? "Ultra HD"?

What comes when 8K arrives? "Ultra Mega HD"?

I can't wait for 'Ludicrous HD' where Lonestar literally sneaks up behind you and smacks people into Plaid-o-vision. :p

NTAPRO NTAPRO said:

Call me when tv signal in my country (Belgium) is at least streamed in REAL HD, instead of that half assed 720p ... Then we can start thinking about something new and better

what's wrong with 720p >_>

1 person liked this | Tekkaraiden Tekkaraiden said:

Call me when tv signal in my country (Belgium) is at least streamed in REAL HD, instead of that half assed 720p ... Then we can start thinking about something new and better

what's wrong with 720p >_>

Absolutely nothing as far as I'm concerned.

BMfan BMfan said:

See this interesting article from arstechnica about 4k:

[link]

I just read this and it's a great article.

RajeGera RajeGera said:

I would love to play games on it.3,840 x 2,160 damn high quality resolution.

NTAPRO NTAPRO said:

Would a higher resolution have any effect on the size of the game?

scorpionvenom said:

Ultra High-Definition on tv in ireland id say 15 years time lol and the price is amazing ?25000 thats a bargain for your ordinary customer in these great times were in :-)

Sphynx Sphynx said:

Call me when tv signal in my country (Belgium) is at least streamed in REAL HD, instead of that half assed 720p ... Then we can start thinking about something new and better

what's wrong with 720p >_>

Nothing wrong with that if your HDTV is only 720p capable. For those of us who owned Full HD (1080p) sets, 720p is not enough to do justice to our sets.

2 people like this | DKRON said:

Call me when tv signal in my country (Belgium) is at least streamed in REAL HD, instead of that half assed 720p ... Then we can start thinking about something new and better

You think you have problems, all but 3 channels here in australia run 540p lol

avoidz avoidz said:

I love the comment about 'Ludicrous HD'...

720p is fine for regular TV viewing, and 1080 for sporting events. Most TV broadcast where I live isn't above DVD quality, so "Ultra" TVs are a waste of their time and money pushing them out. Most viewers would not notice the difference from a 1080 50" television to those crazy resolutions, even if the content was available.

They sure are desperate to sell more sets.

NTAPRO NTAPRO said:

Nothing wrong with that if your HDTV is only 720p capable. For those of us who owned Full HD (1080p) sets, 720p is not enough to do justice to our sets.

There aren't any cable companies in Belgium that run any services that included hd boxes with 1080p? The most common ones I've seen in the US are At&T, Comcast, and Direct TV. Most of the HD channels I came across were 1080p save for a few I think.

Sphynx Sphynx said:

There aren't any cable companies in Belgium that run any services that included hd boxes with 1080p? The most common ones I've seen in the US are At&T, Comcast, and Direct TV. Most of the HD channels I came across were 1080p save for a few I think.

AT&T and Comcast (I'm a Comcast subscriber) don't even broadcast in 1080p, except DirecTV which is actually a satellite provider, not cable. However, DirecTV offers a limited amount of 1080p and their signals are compressed which are lower quality than the Blu-Ray counterparts.

1 person liked this | AlienOverlord said:

How many gigs would a movie need in this resolution? Would it fit on Bluray? I already avoid downloading anything in 1080P because it's just too big and takes too long and I'm content with 720P.

Maybe when I have a 5TB hard drive and better internet speeds I'll move up to 1080P but can't see myself moving to this new resolution for almost 10 years.

I'd be more interested in a laser TV with more color accuracy and deeper blacks and a TV that is 1cm thick.

Arris Arris said:

Can't wait for all the reality TV dross and other crap programming to be broadcast in 4K.... </sarcasm>

Load all comments...

Add New Comment

TechSpot Members
Login or sign up for free,
it takes about 30 seconds.
You may also...
Get complete access to the TechSpot community. Join thousands of technology enthusiasts that contribute and share knowledge in our forum. Get a private inbox, upload your own photo gallery and more.