14 
Ultra HD is marketing-speak for 4K or 8K resolution TVs. And that’s more or less it. You’re going to be hearing the term a lot this show though — and throughout the year — so here’s a little more information about what exactly that means.
As you might already know, the industry measures a TV’s resolution by its vertical pixel count. So a 1920×1080 TV is “1080p”. But for 4K and 8K resolutions, we’ve for some reason switched to the horizontal measurement. For example, the “4K” resolution is 3840×2160. The official name for that resolution is Quad Full HD (QFHD), but 4K has stuck. Likewise, the 8K resolution (which, confusingly, is officially called Ultra HD or UHD) is 7680×4320.
All of that you might or might not have known. But announcements for new TVs are mostly using Ultra HD to mean 4K, or, sometimes, 8K. Maybe the most important stat, though, is the amount of content available for these hyper-pixeled displays: next to none. Now you know.
What Is an UltraPixel?
The Spectacular Last Flight of Space Shuttle Endeavour In Ultra-HD Video
Samsung's Giant Amazing Ultra-HD TVs Are Imprisoned In Horrible Metal Bars
This makes me sad…
I’m just going to wait for Holo-vision tech, can’t be too far away now, can it?
I know I could do the sums but I am lazy…
How much more “defined” would a picture actually be? I know we have twice the horizontal pixels, but these TVs are also boasting much larger screen sizes.
I guess what I am getting at is pixel density. More pixels but more screen is not as impressive as QFHD/UHD on a 38inch telly!
I’m sure I’m missing the point here somewhere…
that was my logic, congrats they’ve put a really high resolution picture into a TV, but that TV is probably twice the size of the normal TV someone has in their house
impress me when you’ve advanced everyday life, not just advanced tech
Funnily enough I think this was mentioned in an earlier article by JD commenting on Sony’s offerings – He went to see the 84″ 4K TV, which obviously is good; but the same image shown on a 55″ 4K TV is unsurpassed.
“The official name for that resolution is Quad Full HD (QFHD), but 4K has stuck.”
Reading that, I think I’d like to make “Kwuffed” happen. Maybe I’ll have to try and rope in Kayvan Novak for that, though.
http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/26/digitalvideoresolutions.png/
1920×1080 can actually be referred to as 2k, and really the “p” has no place in a resolution’s name. Once you learn to associate 1920×1080 with 2k it’s really quite simple, 4k is twice as long in each dimension and 4 times the total resolution, and 8k is 4 and 16 times respectively. You can even include 2560×1440 as 2.5k, with 1.25 times the resolution in each dimension and around 1.8 times the total resolution.
It would have been a much easier way to learn it for most people. Still disappointed, 2160p and 4320p have such a nice ring to them
I don’t get it. If we’re struggling to get HD TV from the TV stations, what’s the point of having an “Ultra” HD TV?
Are we really struggling? It seems like there’s plenty of HD channels at the moment, even on Freeview. Besides 4k isn’t really for broadcasts but rather films and games.
What’s wrong with improving tech? Personally I’m wanting cheaper higher res monitors
As usual its what ever is bigger so they can sell. What we have coming is 2160P HD and 4320P HD.
The worst is that TV’s has lagged behind PC monitor resolution’s for years that its a bit of a joke. Even iPad’s have been making a joke of TV’s until now.