News - ITU approves NHK's UHD TV standard - 4K television is coming

Quote:

---

An official broadcast standard now exists for 4 and 8K resolutions.

---

Read more.

"4K (3,840 x 2,160)" Image included says otherwise, 4096 x 2160 to be exact.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Noxvayl

"4K (3,840 x 2,160)" Image included says otherwise, 4096 x 2160 to be exact.

---

The image is representing a different standard at 4K, only 8K in that is super hi-vision. The article text is the one to go by.

About bloody time, can't wait for it to filter into monitor manufacturing, fed up of the enormous gap in price between 1920x1200 and 2560x1600.

Well, I suppose it means nVidia and Amd will go through another "Fillrate King" run then seeing as 8k is around 16 times higher res's than the standard now.
Mind you, AA will become a moot point at those kind of res's, so that'll spare a little power at least.
Also Cpu's'll have to get a fair old boost in per-core performance to cope with those res's as well.
It's gonna be like the old 3Dfx/nVidia war all over again :D I miss those times.

Hmm, good for computers, great in fact!, but really my TV I'm not really unsatisfied with 1080p, maybe it's because my TV is "only" a 40" TV, but my movie experience is fine with even 720p movies, and I'm not itching for a much bigger TV, I recently helped my brother setting up his 46" smart TV, and yeah, great looking with 3D if you want, wouldn't see the point in going higher in resolution unless you're planning on 60"+ TV or some theater like solution.

Given how most people only now have access to about 5'hd' channels I'm not overly bothered. Its takes the industry and people that long to adapt new tech that by the time this catches on there will be something new released.

Likewise, I only get a few HD channels, Blu-ray and games run great at 1080p, really can't see a reason to change just yet.

Quote:

---

It's interesting to note that the now trending 48p frame-rate isn't currently present in the standard, however, it's perhaps even more interesting to realise that interlaced frames have been dropped altogether, hurrah!

---

Seconded! Most recently, interlacing has only been used as an evil marketing ploy to sell substandard hardware to unsuspecting tech noobs who thought that '1080' really meant '1080p'.

So now I have to rebuy my movie collection in Super Hi-Vision.. then again in another 5 years for Extreme Hi-Vision. There really should be some sort of trade in program. It's even worse for dvd box sets of TV shows.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by demonwolf

So now I have to rebuy my movie collection in Super Hi-Vision.. then again in another 5 years for Extreme Hi-Vision. There really should be some sort of trade in program. It's even worse for dvd box sets of TV shows.

---

Doesn't it all depend on how it was filmed?

HD versions of TV shows is fairly pointless unless there is a HD source or they are going to spend a lot of time up-scaling and cleaning the footage. The only things that will benefit from 4K is things shot on decent film. As it is a direct multiple of full HD, it means up-scaling is really easy and you are just a well doing that when viewing rather than at source.

Anyway, 4K is UHD (Ultra HD). Super Hi-Vision is 8K and very experimental at the moment. 4K is regularly used to master cinema releases. The new Canon EOS C500 does 4K footage for $30,000.

D:
No way I'll ever afford one of these...