4K Resolution TVs Will Be Called ''Ultra HD''

The Consumer Electronics Association (CEA) has announced the next TV resolution: Ultra HD, which previously was also known under monikers such as QuadHD, can be used for TVs that deliver at least 8 million active pixels via a resolution of at least 3,840 horizontally and at least 2,160 vertically. UltraHD displays will also have to provide an aspect ratio with width to height of "at least" 16 X 9, the CEA said.

"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 UltraHD label is the result of a recommendation of the "4K" Working Group that was formed by the CEA earlier this year.

There was no information on the rollout of commercial devices and how those UltraHD TV sets will be offered. Let's hope that it will be less confusing than the rollout of HD, which introduced terms such as HD ready and HD capable, full HD, 1080p, 1080i, 768p and 720p, which had substantial differences and puzzled consumers and retail staff alike.

If you can't wait, 4K displays are already on sale and can be yours from about $25,000.

Contact Us for News Tips, Corrections and Feedback

Create a new thread in the US News comments forum about this subject
This thread is closed for comments
Comment from the forums
    Your comment
    Top Comments
  • bkinder83
    How large would the movie file be at this resolution?
  • CrArC
    jn77so I am confused (Not that I would recommend doing this) but why can't I buy 4 "New Ipads" or Ipad 3's or what ever Apple calls them, gut the screens out of them and stack them 2x2 for a rectangle screen, use precise alignment tools so the pixels line up and for $2000 have a (approximate) 20 inch 4K display.There is no way they cost $25,000 to make. I just proved it; now if you are talking about a 120 inch 4k display, then that might be different.

    I work in the LCD industry, perhaps I can explain. There are various generic issues (supply/market demand, quantities involved, etc) which are very basic reasons for the price, I'll skip over those and address the technical issues affecting costs.

    Mostly it's a matter of yield. When you make an LCD, you are layering a complex lattice of components and chemicals in a very precise fashion to formulate a functional display. The higher the resolution, the greater the chance of a faulty panel. 4K res is over 8 million pixels per display. That's over 24 MILLION sub-pixels in an RGB panel. The chance of pixels being faulty is... well, high. For a premium TV, dead/stuck pixels are basically unacceptable, so you've gone to all that effort to make this complex panel and now you must throw it away. Bear in mind these complex materials and chemicals cannot really be recycled into the process, so they're wasted too unless you spend even more money trying to recover them. Because of the low yield, you're doing this a lot to get working panels.

    On a smaller display, no big deal, but these are large telly panels. They use more glass and fab resources. Each one wasted is a bigger deficit. For a given surface area of glass, you could have several defects, but when the glass is divided into smaller panels you have several workable displays from a given batch. On a bigger panels, much more wastage occurs. So your iPad Retina displays are much cheaper to manufacture than these 4K display can be.

    Even if the panel has no dead pixels, it may have other issues. Panels are very complex to drive properly. New, higher resolutions and smaller dot-pitches demand new technologies to make them happen. There are teething problems (look at Apple's Retina Macbook image retention issues, for instance).

    There's also development costs for these new technologies and new manufacturing equipment. It's expensive. Very expensive.

    There's also the cost of the components required to drive the display. To me, it's incredible displays work as well as they do. Seriously impressive. 8 million pixels (24 million sub-pixels) requires some serious hardware to push the incoming data to the crystals. You can't just pop a voltage across each sub-pixel and call it a day. DC voltage damages pixels, they're actually driven by an AC waveform. It's a complex weave of carefully design PWM pulses at varying levels designed to oscillate the pixels, while moving them into the correct orientations for a given image, without inducing interference in neighbouring pixels. It's a bloody nightmare and the more pixels you have... well, you can image. This, again, costs oodles of money to achieve.

    So no, you can't just glue four Retina iPads together, haha. Well, you could, but assuming you managed to build a Retina display without a bezel (you can't) you'd still have this bizarre cross-shaped line running through the middle of your bodged display. The pixel pitch is vastly smaller than the distance between the display's active area and its edges.
  • freggo
    CrArCI work in the LCD industry, perhaps I can explain...

    Rare to see such a well written explanation in here.
    Thank you for taking the time!
  • Other Comments
  • mightymaxio
    Wait I thought 8k was going to be UHDTV and 4k was going to be Super High Def. Things change quick lol
  • stevelord
    "The new Samsung 1080P ULTRA HD DLP LCD LED TV with 3D and 240h-z" Just call it HZ instead of hertz at this point.

    Getting annoying....
  • bkinder83
    How large would the movie file be at this resolution?