Whatever happened to 4K? The rise of “Ultra HD” TV

Companies seem averse to calling their latest TVs 4K.

Read the whole story

 

[theJonTech]

I can't wait for Samsung's next device


Samsung Galaxy Nexus 46.3457" 4G LTE Max Ultra HD 4K+

 

[davegermain]

They are going to be using the red ray codec, supposedly have had a break through and got it way down on bandwidth 2.5MB a second for streaming 4k video
http://www.redgrabs.com/up/1354328970.jpg

That's not nearly enough data. Need closer to SATA2/3 speeds. each frame of 4k is soumthing like 45MB is sze @ 25fps....

 

[theJonTech]

They are going to be using the red ray codec, supposedly have had a break through and got it way down on bandwidth 2.5MB a second for streaming 4k video
http://www.redgrabs.com/up/1354328970.jpg

That's not nearly enough data. Need closer to SATA2/3 speeds. each frame of 4k is soumthing like 45MB is sze @ 25fps....

Time to move to a place with Google Fiber?

 

[Postulator]

So... when is someone going to start testing a 4K television signal? And how much bloody bandwidth will it require?

This is something for the mass market once distribution channels are actually wide enough to deal with it. There is absolutely no reason for the majority of people to spend lots of money upgrading to a screen that looks almost the same as their current screen. Even less reason when they start realising that there's no current method for content distribution once they do upgrade.

People will not want to be buying movies on "Blu-Ray ultra" discs or whatever term the marketers come up with, they want to access content any time, any place. 4K at the moment is not going to be available like that - unless you live in Kansas City (where everything's up to date).

Wake me up in 15 years or so, when we have the networks to carry this traffic and the prices are sensible.

 

[Jokotai]

So, when do we get Frank's 2000" TV so we can appreciate the resolution?

 

[NinjaNerd56]

I bought a high end 60 inch Sony HD set (720p with DVI input) in 2003 and it was a major upgrade over a 25 inch Trinitron CRT.

Just installed a Panasonic 65 inch plasma set that nukes not only the 2003 Sony, but everything I've seen to date. I knew 4K/UHD sets were coming, but I paid $2500 for a $3700 set that comes out to $250/year if I get 10 years out of it. At point, it'll probably be 'direct brain feed 16K' or something else well beyond what's out. I'm good being a late adopter on some things!

That said, every one of these new sets will up convert signal, so I'd buy one NOW...if they were $2500.

 

[alxx]

So... when is someone going to start testing a 4K television signal? And how much bloody bandwidth will it require?

This is something for the mass market once distribution channels are actually wide enough to deal with it. There is absolutely no reason for the majority of people to spend lots of money upgrading to a screen that looks almost the same as their current screen. Even less reason when they start realising that there's no current method for content distribution once they do upgrade.

People will not want to be buying movies on "Blu-Ray ultra" discs or whatever term the marketers come up with, they want to access content any time, any place. 4K at the moment is not going to be available like that - unless you live in Kansas City (where everything's up to date).

Wake me up in 15 years or so, when we have the networks to carry this traffic and the prices are sensible.

For those in the Euro zone with sat recievers
http://www.eutelsat.com/products/broadc ... ra-hd.html

EUTELSAT 10A at 10° East:
Frequency: 11304 MHz
Polarization: Horizontal
Symbol rate: 27500
DVB-S2
8PSK
FEC 2/3
Pilot ON

 

[tedsofbeverlyhills]

It takes a mighty living room to provide an experience on par with a movie theater.

Then mine is mighty. Number of jackasses taking out their big LCD phones every five god damn minutes: 0 Total amount of distraction/annoyances: 0

 

[BullBearMS]

I say, stick to the existing system and call it 2160p. At least that has some real world meaning.

 

[Kronykus]

I'm fine with 1080.... wake me when we have full color HD holographic sets/projectors... or even better, when I can have a room of my house converted to a holodeck... That being said, if priced right, I'd still pick up one of these...

 

[quillan]

Anyone else think "Ultra High Defnition" is a little redundant? Why not just Ultra definition? I can't wait for a sales rep to tell me "It's a Yotta Zetta Exa Peta Tera Giga Mega Ultra High Definition TV!" I'll be forced to reply "that's Supercalafragilisticexpialodocious!"

 

[Cheesewhiz]

I believe one of the reasons was also because old film reel would melt if they tried to roll it at the high frame rate that the new Hobbit and Avatar 2 are being shown; maybe not Hobbit speeds but Avatar 2 speeds.

Well, you do get a lot of friction from hobbit speeds. Squat bodies, short legs.

 

[freefall722]

I think the term 4K is confusing. Until very recently, I thought that 4K meant around 4000 line resolution as we always refer to current resolutions by mentioning the number of lines (720p, 1080p) I simply assumed they also referred to the number of lines and not to 4 times the area in pixel as it is actually the case.

The term 4K does have a logic to it though - it's just not related to the vertical resolution like 720p and 1080p are but to the horizontal resolution.

And yes that also means the 3840 horizontal lines of UHD doesn't quite meet the definition of 4K.

 

[xoa]

They are going to be using the red ray codec, supposedly have had a break through and got it way down on bandwidth 2.5MB a second for streaming 4k video
http://www.redgrabs.com/up/1354328970.jpg

That's not nearly enough data. Need closer to SATA2/3 speeds. each frame of 4k is soumthing like 45MB is sze @ 25fps....

And how much bloody bandwidth will it require?

How much bandwidth? This isn't hard: with the same codec and settings, the naive ballpark is that it'll scale pretty linearly with res. So with 4x the pixels, it'd take 4x the bandwidth too look good (this isn't universal, some sources will do fine with less). For 1080p 10-16 Mbps should be exceptionally good quality for nearly anything, but for broadcast it's extremely common to use half that or even less. So 4K video would be expected to be in the range of 40-60 for archival quality and 15-25 for a lot of broadcast work assuming H.264 (based on past experience expect a lot of broadcasters to use terrible quality in order to offer more variety). HEVC/H.265 is supposed to be able to offer another 50% improvement, so you could halve all those numbers for that.

That's faster then a lot of the connections in 3rd world countries like America, but it's overall it's nothing particularly special. A 2x increase in bandwidth and storage requirements over 1080p is certainly something that overall can be handled pretty trivially, with the same fallbacks available as already exist for those who can't handle 1080p or for that matter 720p. It certainly does not require gigabit speeds or anything remotely close.

 

[Cheesewhiz]

I think a lot of people are missing the fact that the tv manufacturers are using uhd sets in large formats. In that application, it makes a lot more sense. And it has nothing to do with uhd content actually being created or available.

A 5" 1080p screen would be considered "retina" quality, with essentially pixel-free viewing. But a 90" screen with 1080p? Not so much.

I currently have a 60" 1080p tv. At my viewing distance in my living room, it looks fine. But if I were to go to a 65" or larger, it could likely have a negative effect on picture quality, in terms of pixelization.

So I see no problems with simple pixel doubling for a large (60"+) screen in order to improve pq. Seems like a logical application of 4k sets, without the need for any expensive backend upgrading. Now if you are talking 2160p for a 32" set, with a 15' viewing distance, that would just be pointless.

 

[gullevek]

Personally I don't care much about 4K TV, BUT the best thing we will get from this is finally more high resolution displays for computers. We are stuck with this horrible 1080 displays thanks to HD TV, I really hope this pushes it finally into "Retina" display area for normal bigger displays too.

 

[MobiusPizza]

I thought 4k was also called Quad HD?
Isn't that more informative than Ultra HD?

Everyone can infer Quad HD = 4x HD = 4x resolution/no. of pixels.
Now Ultra HD encompasses 2 resolutions, and another term will be needed to avoid confusion

 

[Postulator]

Personally I don't care much about 4K TV, BUT the best thing we will get from this is finally more high resolution displays for computers. We are stuck with this horrible 1080 displays thanks to HD TV, I really hope this pushes it finally into "Retina" display area for normal bigger displays too.

Go to Ebay and search for 2560 x 1440 - there are some very cheap, decent quality 27" monitors there. Monoprice in the US has also decided to repackage and sell them for under $400 per.

 

[freefall722]

They are going to be using the red ray codec, supposedly have had a break through and got it way down on bandwidth 2.5MB a second for streaming 4k video
http://www.redgrabs.com/up/1354328970.jpg

That's not nearly enough data. Need closer to SATA2/3 speeds. each frame of 4k is soumthing like 45MB is sze @ 25fps....

Raw 8bit 4k would be roughly 25MB per frame or 750MB per second (30fps) - way to much for current transmission. Keep in mind though that so is the 178MB per second (30fps) that raw 8bit 1080p transmission is. That's where compression comes in. Netflix is streaming those 1080p signals at around 2.5 Mbps so using the same compression 4k would come in at 10Mbps. (becomes more complicated because since the pixels are closer they can be compressed more because of them sharing similar data)

4k transmission at 30fps (or more film friendly 24p) will only be twice as much data as 1080p transmission at 60p so it'll be less of a jump from what we have now than it seems.

Note: The 45MB per frame size comes from Red shooting 16bits per channel - I use 8bit here because all our TV sets are 8bit or less. The extra data the Red shoots is for color correction

 

[TreestumpX]

I am confused about why computer monitors, from a technical standpoint, have stalled in resolution over the past few years. From a manufacturing standpoint I understand most companies are churning out TV's to sell but why can't I get a 4k (or something suitably higher resolution) 30 inch computer monitor. I'd rather than than the 2 monitors I use at home and work now.

 

[andrew_berge]

Well, HD, Full HD, Ultra HD and 4K all have one thing in common.

Stupidly ambiguous names.
Emphasis on "Stupid".

 

[ScifiGeek]

dupe

 

[ScifiGeek]

I am confused about why computer monitors, from a technical standpoint, have stalled in resolution over the past few years. From a manufacturing standpoint I understand most companies are churning out TV's to sell but why can't I get a 4k (or something suitably higher resolution) 30 inch computer monitor. I'd rather than than the 2 monitors I use at home and work now.

Because VERY few people are buying these:
http://accessories.us.dell.com/sna/prod ... u=224-9949


If people don't buy step 2, step 3 takes a lot longer.

 

[WaveRunner]

When will HD Audio get the love it deserves? The fact that we live in a stereo world I thought would eventually change once everyone owned a 1080p... but no apparently it's taking a back seat once again. If only there was a way to miniaturize audio components.

 

[Jokotai]

When will HD Audio get the love it deserves? The fact that we live in a stereo world I thought would eventually change once everyone owned a 1080p... but no apparently it's taking a back seat once again. If only there was a way to miniaturize audio components.

There are already too many people who believe that Bose and Beats Audio are the pinnacle of sound quality.

 

[Postulator]

When will HD Audio get the love it deserves? The fact that we live in a stereo world I thought would eventually change once everyone owned a 1080p... but no apparently it's taking a back seat once again. If only there was a way to miniaturize audio components.

There are already too many people who believe that Bose and Beats Audio are the pinnacle of sound quality.

It's all about the Dr Dre, man.

(Excuse me while I wash that foul taste out of my mouth).

 

[Postulator]

I am confused about why computer monitors, from a technical standpoint, have stalled in resolution over the past few years. From a manufacturing standpoint I understand most companies are churning out TV's to sell but why can't I get a 4k (or something suitably higher resolution) 30 inch computer monitor. I'd rather than than the 2 monitors I use at home and work now.

Because VERY few people are buying these:
http://accessories.us.dell.com/sna/prod ... u=224-9949


If people don't buy step 2, step 3 takes a lot longer.

At $1,399, Dell is overcharging ridiculously. Of course people aren't going to buy ridiculously overpriced monitors. My 27" will be coming from South Korea.

 

[codfrantic]

What will they call the next standard after that? Super Awesome Exclusive Deluxe Limited Edition Ultra HD?

Reminded me of this.

* ArSa is not a scsi expert
* slurpee was a scsi expert until they came out with 134533109 flavors of it
slurpee: like ULTRA 2 WIDE MEGA XL ALPHA STREET FIGHTER SCSI

 

[nctrns]

I think we should go from horizontal line descriptors like 1080p to vertical ones like 4k. Since we're in the digital age, everything should be progressive (don't get me started on interlaced "hd" broadcasts), so we don't need to bother with "p" or "i". Besides, vertical resolution varies with aspect ratio - I have 1080p movies with a resolution of 1920x816 (2.35:1), 1920x1038 (1.85:1), 1920x1080 (1.78:1 or 16:9), and there are more. Notice the constant here? Hint: it's 1920.

What's more: I want 4k resolutions on computer monitors in the 24-30" ranges. I don't care about 50" TV's, but all the "retina" rage and 1080p 10-inch tablets tell me that hardware like that would be a real hit. I can see obvious benefits for all kinds of graphic, design and video editing work.

 

[Fritzr]

I think the term 4K is confusing. Until very recently, I thought that 4K meant around 4000 line resolution as we always refer to current resolutions by mentioning the number of lines (720p, 1080p) I simply assumed they also referred to the number of lines and not to 4 times the area in pixel as it is actually the case.

A 2K TV is a 1080 HD
A 4K TV is QuadHD 2xW & 2xH
An 8K TV is HexaHD 4xW & 4xH

The 4K/8K designations refer to a nominal 4K Horizontal pixel count & 8K Horizontal pixel count
Actual resolutions are 3840*2160 & 7680*4320
There are also 2K/4K/8K cinema standards that are wider than (U)HD.

Digital Standard Resolutions
720×480 : Widescreen DVD (anamorphic)
1280×720 : HDTV, Blu-ray
1440×1080 : HDTV
1920×1080 : HDTV, HD DVD, Blu-ray,
1998x1080 : 2K Flat (1.85:1)
2048×1080 : 2K Digital Cinema
3840x2160 : 4K UHDTV
4096×2160 : 4K Digital Cinema
7680×4320 : 8K UHDTV
10,000x7000 : IMAX
15360x8640 : 16K Digital Cinema

Hmmm a 16K TV (15360x8640 UHHD*) with a matching 16K HoloDisk player would be a nice addition to the entertainment center

*UHHD Ultra High High Def

 

[morfraen]

I don't care about 4k TV, I just want computer monitors that have higher resolutions than CRT ones did 10+ years ago. Unfortunately with the way flatscreen production works, one is dependant on the other :-(

 

[morfraen]

I predict 4K or ultra HD or whatever else it is called will never catch on. Very few people want their living rooms dominated by a monstrous screen. And even fewer people watch a movie and focus on the weave of the leading lady's knickers or the grain on the protagonist's leather sofa.

I'm sure you could find the exact same quote refering to color, widescreen, 480p (DVD), 720p, 1080p etc...

 

[Fritzr]

I can't wait for Samsung's next device


Samsung Galaxy Nexus 46.3457" 4G LTE Max Ultra HD 4K+

You might settle for the 2014 Nexus 10 tablet with UHD resolution.
A 10 inch screen is currently the smallest 4K display being made

 

[Jilkon]

Thank god. The worst part about "4K" for me was that there was literally no four thousand in there. It made no sense at all.

 

[Kingmöb1]

I predict 4K or ultra HD or whatever else it is called will never catch on. Very few people want their living rooms dominated by a monstrous screen. And even fewer people watch a movie and focus on the weave of the leading lady's knickers or the grain on the protagonist's leather sofa.

I'm sure you could find the exact same quote refering to color, widescreen, 480p (DVD), 720p, 1080p etc...

This argument is as useless as the 'people thought the earth was flat as well' argument. It doesn't actually say anything about the topic. Imagine 8K catches on, people will also be saying the same about 32K or some such displays I'd imagine, the difference being there that they would be definitely right wouldn't you agree? Yet your argument would be exactly the same.

Although I do believe many people don't mind their living room being dominated by a TV, I know I don't. But at the 4K sizes things start to become downright impractical, at least for now. We are talking TVs that need to be literally bigger than the people buying them.

That doesn't mean that more isn't always better of course. If I can buy it, I probably will

 

[scratsmacker]

Instead of bumping up the resolution to levels which are hardly distinguishable on normal TV sizes they should focus on higher framerates and more than 16 bits/pixel.

Especially color banding is even more visible now with the crisp and much more detailed dispay of a modern bluray movie. And the 24fps is just a limitation from the olden days, a compromise between smoothness of the motion and film stock required.
And please don't even start arguing that the "film look" would be lost with higher framerates. That stutter you see with fast motion is an artifact and nothing desirable. What about the clicks and pops of vinyl? That disappeared with the advend of digital audio. I never heard somebody complain about that loss. Or the scratches and dust particles in movies? Also an artifact, a limitation of old technology.

IMO, moviemakers should strive to produce as lifelike an image as possible. For movie theatres, and to some extend for home entertainment, that of course means higher resolution. But that is only part of it.

 

[scratsmacker]

so-ooo....
is there a Ultra HDi and an Ultra HDp?

Frankly, I liked 4K. Simple. Frank. To the point.

(And half the syllables.)

Got a point there. And it's scalable. 4k, 8k, 16k. No problem. What are they gonna call the tec after Ultra HD?

 

[Kalessin]

What are they gonna call the tec after Ultra HD?

Beyond Belief HD, aka Memorex.

 

[Ten Wind]

My current monitor is a 47 inch 3D 1080p TV. For use as a monitor, it's adequate, but I would definitely see a lot of benefit in moving to a UHD display. I think that as HTPCs become more normal the added benefits of a high resolution will become more apparent.

What I would really like to see in a TV is 120Hz input. 60Hz isn't bad, but the refresh is still noticeable especially when I'm moving objects quickly while modelling, or even while I'm gaming for that matter.

My next display purchase is probably going to be an 84inch or so 4K 3D display with 120Hz input that costs about $2000-$3000. I'm not sure when that will happen, but at a guess I would say it will be 5-7 years.

 

[odcchaz]

It seems like "4XHD" might be a nice moniker to describe the tech while maintaining the "HD" continuity and providing the actual description of 4 times HD resolution.