Imagine 80-inch screens with quadruple the image quality of Full HD, plus passive 3D content that you’d consider actually watchable. That’s 4K TV technology. It could deliver a stunning home theater experience—just as soon as 4K-enabled TV’s like Sony’s latest begin to cost less than a Kia.
But what exactly is 4K, and why should you care? Here’s a brief history of the future of television.
First of all, there’s 4K TV and then there’s 8K TV. They make up the lower and upper halves of the Ultra-High Definition (UHD) standard, a digital video format proposed by NHK Science & Technology Research Laboratories in 2007. Both are capapble of playing footage at 24, 25, 50, 60, and even 120 frames per second (you can almost hear Peter Jackson squealing with delight).
At 2160p, 4K UHDTV is double the resolution of the current 1080p Full HD standard. So at 3840 x 2160, it’s twice as wide, twice as tall—with an 8.3MP image that’s quadruple the 2.1MP image found on current HD. Interestingly, the term “4K” actually refers to the horizontal pixel count, even though the industry standard counts along the vertical axis.
With 8K, at twice the resolution of 4K, the display shows a staggering 7680 × 4320 resolution. You’d have to stack current HDTVs in two rows of four to match the bit count of a single 8K set. What’s more, 8K features a truly massive 33.2MP image—equivalent to the quality produced by top-shelf pro cameras like the Nikon D800.
However, like all brand new technologies, the UHDTV standard, especially the higher 8K range, still has a few kinks to work out. Like the fact that current network infrastructure struggles to transmit such large amounts of data. Oh, and the fact that 8K UHDTV cameras cost about a million friggin’ pounds.
NHK’s 3rd-generation 8K prototype camera, for example, is limited to one hour of filming. That’s how fast its dual banks of 16 × 64 GB P2 cards fill to their terabyte capacity. The camera’s 1.5-inch CMOS sensor captures 33.2MP footage shot at 120fps—that’s roughly 4 billion pixels per second of data, moving at a rate of 51.2 GB per second, sychronously transmitted on 96 channels. The resolution is so high that focus isn’t even controlled by the cameraman. Viewfinders currently don’t have a resolution greater than 1K, so the cameraman can’t know if the shot is actually in focus, so the job is handled by a remote CCU operator.
Today’s 4K cameras aren’t nearly expensive—though dropping £15,400 on a 4K Red One makes “expensive” a relative term. As for the difficulty of actually broadcasting so much information, Sony recently demonstrated that, utilising the h.264 compression scheme, it could successfully transmit 4K video at a rate of 50Mbps without a discernible loss of image quality. This opens the door for UHD content creators to broadcast their work somewhere other than YouTube.
You probably haven’t ever seen 4KTV on a consumer television—unless, of course, you had an extra 25 grand laying around last month to get the new 84-inch Sony Bravia. But you will see it.
The beauty of 4K is that it packs so much visual data onto the screen, that the pixels can be absolutely minisucle while still displaying 10 bits of data at a time. Think of an Apple Retina display, but at a higher resolution, and on an 80-inch screen—that’s UHD. To even be able to notice the individual pixels, you’d have to smash your face right up against the display.
An increased pixel count will also benefit 3DTV. Passive 3D cuts the horizontal resolution in half to create a 3D effect—so if you’re watching a 1080p movie (1920 x 1080) in 3D using passive glasses, you’re really watching a 1920 x 540 picture. By doubling the resolution of the whole image, 4K effectively overcomes 1080p’s limitations, producing an HD-quality 3D image. You’re in for crisper, clearer 3D movies. And research is already under way to see if a 4K image, combined with sufficiently high refresh rates, can deliver 3D images sans glasses.
As more and more companies jump on the 4K bandwagon—LG has a 3D UHD set, Sharp has Super Hi-vision, and Sony launched the 4K Home Projector—prices are expected to drop as precipitously as they did with early HDTVs. The future looks fantastic.
[YouTube - Nikkei - Wikipedia 1, 2 - About - What HiFi - Life Goes Strong - DVX User]













Seiki 50-Inch 4K TV Eyes-On: How the Hell Is a TV This Beautiful So Cheap?
Sharp Has a 4K TV Ready for This Summer
That Massively Expensive 4K Sony TV Now Comes With 10 Minorly Interesting 4K Movies
Nice article, thanks for the info.
It’s not exactly a ‘How it Works’ article though?
This is more than enough info for my tiny brain.
“At 2160p, 4K UHDTV is double the resolution of the current 1080p Full HD standard.”
Correction . . . . . it’s four times the resolution rather than double the resolution.
(do your maths for screens in 2D rather than 1D).
“With 8K, at twice the resolution of 4K, the display shows a staggering 7680 × 4320 resolution”
Again same correction . . . . . 8k is four times the resolution of 4K – rather than double the resolution.
“You’d have to stack current HDTVs in two rows of four to match the bit count of a single 8K set.”
Correction . . . . you would have to stack *four* rows of *four* HDTVs to match the resolution of an 8K set (rather than *two* rows of *four*).
And what on earth is a ‘bit count’ ? Do you mean ‘bit depth’ ? or perhaps pixel ‘count’ ?
“What’s more, 8K features a truly massive 33.2MP image—equivalent to the quality produced by top-shelf pro cameras like the Nikon D800.”
Not the ‘quality’ – simply the resolution.
If you were to apply this logic universally you could (erroneously) argue that a number of cheap kid’s toy cameras shooting at 640×480 when gang together in sufficient numbers would give you the ‘quality’ of a Nikon D800.
” Passive 3D cuts the horizontal resolution in half to create a 3D effect—so if you’re watching a 1080p movie (1920 x 1080) in 3D using passive glasses, you’re really watching a 1920 x 540 picture.”
Surely the horizontal resolution in this case is 1920px, making current passive 3d broadcasts a 960 x 1080 image?
#morecorrections
“NHK’s 3rd-generation 8K prototype camera, for example, is limited to one hour of filming. That’s how fast its dual banks of 16 × 64 GB P2 cards fill to their terabyte capacity.”
A 1 hour shooting time is not a limit in any practicable sense, cameras used in professional environments will typically shoot scenes – at the very most – of a few minutes, traditional celluloid film usually comes on spools of just a few minutes.
Saying a camera is limited to an hour of filming is like admonishing a car design for only having a top speed of a couple of hundred miles an hour.
>>”The beauty of 4K is that it packs so much visual data onto the screen, that the pixels can be absolutely minisucle while still displaying 10 bits of data at a time.”
What does “at a time” mean in this context ?
>>”To even be able to notice the individual pixels, you’d have to smash your face right up against the display.”
Ok, more maths basics:
A 16:9 aspect ratio calculates the width of a 80 inch TV to be around 70 inches (16*diag/square root(337)).
A 4K TV is 3840 pixels wide.
3840 pixels divided by 70 inches give us a screen resolution of ~55 ppi . . .
. . . which is less – much less – than even old CRT monitors from 20 years ago – of course you don’t view an 80 inch TV from the same kinds of distances you’d view a standard TV or computer monitor, for an 80 inch screen you need to be positioned much further back, but the idea that the pixel density is such that you’d need to ‘smash your face right up against the display’ to see them is nonsense, in reality the size of the individual pixels is actually fairly large.
>>”An increased pixel count will also benefit 3DTV. Passive 3D cuts the horizontal resolution in half to create a 3D effect—so if you’re watching a 1080p movie (1920 x 1080) in 3D using passive glasses, you’re really watching a 1920 x 540 picture”
Correction . . . . a 1920 x 1080 stream having it’s horizontal resolution halved would result in a 960 x 1080 stream (rather than a 1920 x 540 stream).
>>”By doubling the resolution of the whole image, 4K effectively overcomes 1080p’s limitations, producing an HD-quality 3D image”
Correction . . . by *quadrupling* the resolution of the whole image, 4K effectively overcomes 1080p’s limitations . . .
But apart from that, it’s pretty much spot on?
He he – yeah I can see the article has been very well received
Lee you are a king among kings, you’ve absolutely torn this piece apart, your posts have been awesome entertainment, thank you!
I was reading though ready to make all these corrections only to see Lee beat me too it!
The issue is the article treats 4K/8K as only the vertical measurement where it should be treated by how many Red, Green and Blue dots a screen can push.
Ahhh damn it I wanted to star him – who beat me too it?
My other account
(I ditched that because it was getting “hot”, can’t say why)
MikJe, is it really you?!
I’m pretty sure pixels aren’t apparent even in current TVs at standard viewing distances.
I agree. I reckon I’d struggle to tell the difference between 720p and 1080p on my 40″ at home.
Isn’t this crazy 4K stuff only really for monster 60″+ kinda screens?
Probs. That and the next gen of big computer monitors maybe? Again though, it’s hard to imagine how a 2560×1440 display on a 27″ monitor could be improved…
Might allow us to do “back to the future” style multiple picture in picture screens at a decent pixel count.
I’m thinking 4 or 8K project onto the lounge wall!
These would make four player split screen actually usable!
ah, goldeneye on the N64, squinting at the screen whilst bashing your friend on the arm trying to distract them…. happy times
Heh, split screen totally won’t be around by then. You think game manufacturers will countenance as many as two players using one copy of the game? Are you INSANE?!
Maybe by the time this is affordable, we’ll be able to play Half Life 3 on it. Hurhurhur
Ah but you could buy an original N64 and goldeneye and play it on that, although I guess with the resolution of an N64 blown up this big that might look like a Lego version of the game!
wow its all great and pretty (and as Lee points out wrong but that aside) we wont have any mainstream content on this format for fooking years. Blu-Ray and games will be first. Blu-Ray was dubbed the last physical format and will support 4&8K with smart layering and compression so maybe that still holds true. but TV, On-Demand content etc… is struggling with 1080i let alone above that. pushing that kind of bandwidth for TV broadcast will need a lot of equipment changes inc. sats and antennas that have only just been upgraded to try and handle HD and 3D. Then there is issues with content being filmed in that size, stored and edited in that size, most places run at full capacity now and simply dont have the money or space yet to increase to this ability again.. i know you are all thinking sky are stinking rich and will do this for football (which i sure they think as well) but sky were the last UK broadcaster to lose tape, have just spent millions building an new building and info structure to house HD&3D and it does not have the ability to support anything bigger with out more massive spending.,., which tbh i dont think they will see the point.
im not even sure film studios will see the points of 2,4 and 8K publications as DVD still outsells blu-ray.. the cost wont be worth the return. its a shame but its going to take years to get anything on the TV sets.. is it even worth it to upscale stuff.. will it even do that?
4th gen games consoles are where we will see 4k first i think
I literally cannot be excited about anything anymore until I can play games on this beast.