4k resolution coming

[Lucid_Dreamer]

I don't think that's it at all. 1080p is 2x the resolution of 720p but there's no attempt to communicate that. AFAIK the 4k name comes from cinema using a different metric to TV, and we've just switched convention. It is ridiculous, not least because 4k isn't accurate in the horizontal resolution (which varies a lot too), but it's not manipulative.

Like I said before, 2x jump in resolution doesn't seem as like much of a big deal to the average consumer. When a consumer looks at the two different resolutions (720p and 1080p), it wouldn't look like much of a big deal. The big push was for 1080p and not 720p. I believe, this was due to the striking difference between 480p and 1080p. It's a much easier sell.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

But 480p was never even sold as 480p, so there was no comparison for the consumers to see. Plus 480p to 1080p is a 2x increase, which is what 1080p to 2160p would be. Why does 2160p need a change to 4k to push a perceptible 4x larger improvement? Why is that naming convention then only going with a doubling to 8k for the next resolution increase? There's clearly no consistent policy or marketing metric in operation. If they wanted to do that, they'd go with megapixels, or data rate (resolution x fps). We're just seeing a mix of standards and not a marketing gimmick, where cinema counted the horizontal lines because the width of the picture is the same regardless of the aspect, with some films being much smaller vertically that others.

 

[user542745831]

Just came across this:

http://www.gtplanet.net/gran-turismo-tech-demo-shown-running-at-4k-resolution/

 

[Gubbi]

There's clearly no consistent policy or marketing metric in operation. If they wanted to do that, they'd go with megapixels, or data rate (resolution x fps).

Well, you can't go more HD than FULL HD, can you ?

HD ready
Full HD
Really Full HD
Very Very Full HD

It's all about marketing a product to consumers that aren't equipped to judge image quality. Consumers need a one-dimensional metric to judge quality, a score from 1 to 10. We had MHz for processors, now we have core counts.

Same with TV sets, first it was all about resolution; Full HD @1920x1080 was obviously better than HD Ready (1024x768, 1280x720, 1280x768, 1366x768) sets. Then when all TVs were 1920x1080 it was all about refresh, 100/120Hz is obviously better than bog standard 50/60Hz, and 200Hz is obviously better than 100Hz, - all on panels with 15+ms of gray to gray transition times. It became ridiculous when PDP manufactures started advertising refresh rates using the 600Hz sub-field drive frequency of plasma panels.

So now its back to resolution: 4K is obviously four times better than Full HD.

All because there is no simple way to convey all the parameters that make a good display device to the consumer; In order of importance:
Contrast ratio
Colour reproduction
Motion artifacts, - like ghosting and false colours.
Resolution

And for gaming, add input lag to the above list. Most TVs have a game mode that cuts input lag, but adds a ton of artifacts.

Cheers

 

[Shifty Geezer]

It's all about marketing a product to consumers that aren't equipped to judge image quality.

So now its back to resolution: 4K is obviously four times better than Full HD.

I flatly disagree that the choice of 4k as a naming convention is due to marketing. This is after I was explained about the origins of the term on this board when I was complaining that 4k was horizontal rather than vertical resolution.

I do not believe that the choice of 4k came from the marketing department looking at options and deciding 4k was the best way to express a far better experience. The term existed before marketing people were involved as it was a technical descriptor used in cinema. Furthermore, the same marketing departments who are supposedly wanting to express this 4x times improvement in the new display standard name were/are happy to express smaller improvements (480p to 1080p, 4k to 8k) with a linear dimension instead of the area. And similar marketing people have been using megapixels to sell mdeia for ages and that'd give by far the best impression. "Upgrade from 2 megapixels (1080p) to 8 megapixels," and then, "upgrade from 8 megapixels to an incredible 32 megapixels (8k)!!"

As I understand it, the names 720p and 1080p came from the broadcast sector counting vertical lines. The names 4k and 8k come from the cinema sector counting horizontal lines. That's all there is to it, as evidenced by a lack of pattern in the naming conventions that'd illustrate a desire to present the improvement in the greatest possible metric which would be megapixels or somesuch.

 

[Gubbi]

I flatly disagree that the choice of 4k as a naming convention is due to marketing. This is after I was explained about the origins of the term on this board when I was complaining that 4k was horizontal rather than vertical resolution.

That wasn't my point at all. I don't know how they'll market the resolution jump. My point is it will be marketed as if all TV sets with lower resolution are useless.

Cheers

 

[Kaotik]

The standards should always include both horizontal & vertical resolutions assuming standard aspect ratios, so naming on either one is just fine.
With the current "HD Ready" it's enough that you have 720p (or over) vertical resolution, meaning that plasma makers could advertise 1024x768 plasmas as "HD Ready"

 

[onQ]

The standards should always include both horizontal & vertical resolutions assuming standard aspect ratios, so naming on either one is just fine.
With the current "HD Ready" it's enough that you have 720p (or over) vertical resolution, meaning that plasma makers could advertise 1024x768 plasmas as "HD Ready"

"HD Ready" just means that it doesn't have a HD Tuner but it can accept HD content through it's inputs.

 

[Kaotik]

"HD Ready" just means that it doesn't have a HD Tuner but it can accept HD content through it's inputs.

"HD Ready" also means it has to have at least 720px vertical resolution, not just that it has to accept HD content through inputs.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

"HD Ready" also means it has to have at least 720px vertical resolution, not just that it has to accept HD content through inputs.

Yes. In the EU this standard was enforced to ensure no-one was sold a sub 720p set that could take an HD signal. It seems to only apply to TVs though as projectors have no such distinction and you have to check native resolution rather than advertised resolution.

 

[Kaotik]

Yes. In the EU this standard was enforced to ensure no-one was sold a sub 720p set that could take an HD signal. It seems to only apply to TVs though as projectors have no such distinction and you have to check native resolution rather than advertised resolution.

Could be that projectors indeed don't follow the same standards. Nothing changes my point though, that it's important to actually enforce both vertical and horizontal resolutions, which HD Ready at least didn't, allowing the 1024x768 plasmas to be sold as HD Ready TV's

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Technically "HD Ready" didn't enforce the horizontal resolution as it was only for 720 lines, so a 1024x720 plasma could still be HD Ready. It just so happens that manufacturers stuck to a 16:9 LCD panel that ensured a minimum 1280x720 so you knew you were getting a natively HD screen.

 

[Kaotik]

Technically "HD Ready" didn't enforce the horizontal resolution as it was only for 720 lines, so a 1024x720 plasma could still be HD Ready. It just so happens that manufacturers stuck to a 16:9 LCD panel that ensured a minimum 1280x720 so you knew you were getting a natively HD screen.

Yeah, that was my whole point, that they should enforce it while "HD Ready" didn't.
And 16:9's "HD Ready" Plasmas were 1024x768, not 1280x720 (most, if not all anyway)

 

[onQ]

"HD Ready" also means it has to have at least 720px vertical resolution, not just that it has to accept HD content through inputs.

Yeah, that was my whole point, that they should enforce it while "HD Ready" didn't.
And 16:9's "HD Ready" Plasmas were 1024x768, not 1280x720 (most, if not all anyway)

There are also 1080P HD Ready TVs , 'HD Ready' doesn't define which resolution the TV is, it's just letting you know that it can output HD if hooked up to a HD source.

 

[Kaotik]

There are also 1080P HD Ready TVs , 'HD Ready' doesn't define which resolution the TV is, it's just letting you know that it can output HD if hooked up to a HD source.

There's HD Ready and HD Ready.
In US what you said holds true, in EU it dictates that vertical resolution has to be at least 720 px in widescreen aspect ratio (and then plasmas with 1024x768 resolution with rectangle pixels were verified as "HD Ready")

 

[onQ]

There's HD Ready and HD Ready.
In US what you said holds true, in EU it dictates that vertical resolution has to be at least 720 px in widescreen aspect ratio (and then plasmas with 1024x768 resolution with rectangle pixels were verified as "HD Ready")

http://www.engadget.com/2005/08/30/hdtv-ready-vs-hdtv/

Sometimes we get so wrapped up in the latest, cutting edge high-definition technologies, we inadvertently forget those who are new to the HD world. This article about HD Ready labeling in Europe reminded me that we should define the difference between "HD-Ready" and "HDTV".

If you're new to all of this: don't worry, this is one of the easiest, if not critical, definitions you need to understand when purchasing a new set. In fact, I think this information is relevant to one of the first decisions you need to make: where will you be getting your high-definition content from?

Currently, you can get your high-def programming from cable, satellite or what we call "OTA" or over-the-air. If you plan to receive an HD signal from cable or satellite, you only need an HD monitor, i.e., an "HD Ready" set. This label indicates that the set is capable of displaying a high-definition picture that is provided from some tuning device or set-box that is external to the set itself. Basically, this is high resolution monitor.

As we previously mentioned, you can receive HD via OTA signals as well. You have to provide a digital tuner box and an antenna, but the benefit is that there are no monthly fees. You will likely only receive your local channels but again, the benefit is that the signal is free.

An HDTV set is a "step up" because it includes a built in digital tuner, which is known as an ATSC tuner. There is no additional tuner box necessary as the set is capable of both receiving and displaying your high-def programming. This set will typically cost more to offset the additional digital tuning components. Again, you will need to supply an antenna for free OTA programming, but you don't need to purchase an external tuner.

Similar to an HD Ready set an HDTV set can also receive high-def programming from cable or satellite. All of this really boils down to one key difference: does the set have a built in digital tuner or not? If it does, it's an HDTV; if it doesn't, it's HD Ready.

 

[DuckThor Evil]

Yes, but the "HD Ready" label still requires a minimal vertical resolution of 720P among it's many requirements!

 

[onQ]

Yes, but the "HD Ready" label still requires a minimal vertical resolution of 720P among it's many requirements!

That's a given but I was responding to statements like this.


"Same with TV sets, first it was all about resolution; Full HD @1920x1080 was obviously better than HD Ready (1024x768, 1280x720, 1280x768, 1366x768) sets."


I was just pointing out that HD Ready wasn't defined by it's resolution because sets with 1920x1080 can be HD Ready too, it just mean that it can produce HD but it doesn't come with a HD Tuner.

 

[user542745831]

Just came across this:

Gran Turismo Demo at 4K Resolution Described as “Absolutely Stunning”

http://www.gtplanet.net/gran-turismo-demo-at-4k-resolution-described-as-absolutely-stunning/

 

[Rangers]

but, we cant even see the difference between 1080 and 720 so how could it be stunning