6 ms·

Note: according to the article the monitor is actually UHDTV (3840x2160), not 4K (4096x2160). Content encoded at 4K will need to be either cropped or scaled dow

Note: according to the article the monitor is actually UHDTV (3840x2160), not 4K (4096x2160). Content encoded at 4K will need to be either cropped or scaled down, similar to 1080p content shown on a 1240x1024 monitor.

binarycrusader 13y ago
The marketing droids won, you'll just have to get over it. Even the $3,600 Sharp monitor Apple sells that's labeled "4K" has the same resolution: With its 32-inch class (31.5-inch diagonal) screen size, 3840 by 2160 Ultra-HD resolution... http://store.apple.com/us/product/HD971LL/A/sharp-32-pn-k321-4k-ultra-hd-led-monitor http://store.apple.com/us/product/HD971LL/A/sharp-32-pn-k321... You and I can be bitter about it all we want, but there's no point.
- clhodapp 13y ago
  They also finally cashed in the 'big side vs. small side' credit they've been holding onto since they first branded HD (720 and 1080 are the (exact) pixel-lengths of the small sides, while 4k is (less than) the length of the big side). Edit: Not only that, but they can (defendably) make the claim that 4k is "4 times the size of 1080p" while (deniably) knowing that some people will misinterpret.
  - jsmthrowaway 13y ago
    Misinterpret how? By expecting that the sides will be four times larger? That exists, and it's called 8K. "Megapixels" already exists as an entrenched concept, and I don't think it's deceptive to call 4K 4x larger than 1080p or 8K 16x larger than 1080p.
    - streptomycin 13y ago
      720 = 720 vertical pixels 1080 = 1080 vertical pixels 4k = 4000 = 4000 vertical pixels? Nope. Shit's confusing. 2k or 4x would be less confusing.
      - jsmthrowaway 13y ago
        I don't know, 3840 is fairly close.
        streptomycin 13y ago
        Yeah, but they're not vertical pixels like the other numbers are.
      - lsaferite 13y ago
        720p -> 720 vertical pixels 1080i/1080p -> 1080 vertical pixels 4k -> 2160p -> 2160 vertical pixels The 4k confusion comes from the decision to simply double 1080p for consumer equipment instead of going the route cinema is going with true 4k horizontal resolution and still co-opt the easy 4k name. And really, who wants to walk around saying 2160p? Makes me want to follow up with "1.21 gigawatts!" I do agree with a statement in an article posted here about 4k a few days back. At this point the cinema guys should toss in the towel and just use the term 4K PRO and let consumer equipment use 4k.
  - josephlord 13y ago
    Using the vertical line count is a legacy of CRT displays and analogue connectivity/broadcasting where there was no horizontal pixel count only a maximum frequency due to the nature of the technology. There were 1080i CRTs so it is only for the next generation it is possible to change to the terminology used in cinema and professionally for some time. Every pixel on a 1920x1080 display is replaced by four pixels on a 4K display so I'm not sure a "4 times the detail" type statement is particularly wrong or misleading. It just doesn't derive from 4000 = 4 x 1080 type logic.
- Crito 13y ago
  > "You and I can be bitter about it all we want, but there's no point." How about "informing other potential consumers" as a point? I certainly appreciated his comment.
MLR 13y ago
While I agree the term is being used wrong and UHD would be better, I don't think enough people would be confused as the term 4k is being used almost exclusively for UHD at the minute. So I think your comment would be better phrased as a complaint against misuse of the term rather than as a note of explanation is what I'm trying to say. Apologies if there are a large number of people who would be confused and this is a useful note though.
- jmillikin 13y ago
  It's sort of like how only software engineers care about GB vs GiB. The average consumer will not care about some cropping here and there, but someone working with graphics or video will. And I suspect that anyone looking to drop nearly a thousand dollars on a monitor is going to care deeply about its actual specs (ie "can this monitor render my project at native resolution?").
gametheoretic 13y ago
Damn. At least it's 1920 times 2.
cstejerean 13y ago
4K means multiple things and we just have to get used to it. There is the DCI 4K native resolution of 4096x2160, 4K UHD of 3840x2160, and then there is the 4K in 16:10 at 4096x2560. Of these the UHD is likely to be the thing anyone cares about because it's what TVs will use. The native DCI resolution is probably the least interesting, because actual content will have different resolutions in practice depending on the actual aspect ratio being used. In a computer monitor however I'd prefer the 16:10 version instead of the 16:9 of UHD.
- r00fus 13y ago
  > Of these the UHD is likely to be the thing anyone cares about because it's what TVs will use. I really hate this logic. 16:9 is a horrible format for displays - 90% of the usage of a work monitor (which is what this is targeted towards). Sure 4K (UHD) is exciting, but I'm really hoping for the 16:10 or taller formats.
  - cstejerean 13y ago
    I agree. I mean that most people will care about because most people will be buying TVs not monitors, and content for their TVs, etc. So there is a good chance that 4K as a term will be most commonly used for TVs not monitors.
jsmthrowaway 13y ago
That's not correct. The resolution you are referring to is the native running resolution of 4K projectors in cinemas established by DCI. If you were being legal about it, which your comment is a little bit, "actual" 4K is 4096x2560. A "proper" 4K film shown at DCI resolution is cropped by removing lines due to the combination of aspect ratio between film and projector. The trend in film photography, however, is towards the DCI standard; the RED EPIC shoots at DCI 4K while its predecessor, RED ONE, shoots more lines (I cannot recall off the top of my head, but it is definitely larger than DCI because it didn't fit in my Media Composer DCI workspace the first time I worked with it; I'm really reaching in long-term memory so I might be wrong about this). All of that, however, is in the cinema world. Since NHK demonstrated 4K TV a couple years ago, everybody in the consumer electronics world has understood 4K to mean 4x 1080p, arranged 2x2, and that is what ITU standardized in recommendation 2020. That's intentional. It's much easier to evolve 1080p equipment to 4K TV than cinema 4K; it's multiplicative and most of the same equipment can be overhauled. Other resolutions affect aspect ratio, and lenses are a significant portion of the expense of a television camera. You're going to have a hard time selling a standard that makes everybody buy lenses again. Don't forget that everybody just did to go HD. (The last lens I shot on in news was $20,000 by itself, which is part of the reason the average photog will get really mad at you if you grab it, as people who don't want to be videotaped are wont to do.) If a consumer is buying 4K equipment, its resolution is 3840x2160. This will also be the resolution at which 4K content targeting consumers should be encoded, so I'm not sure what cropping you are referring to. If a DP is buying 4K equipment, its resolution is higher. This isn't marketing droids winning, it's completely different industries having a different history of resolutions: DCI 4K builds upon DCI 2K as 4K builds upon 2K builds upon 1080p; cinema has always fought for 16:10 while consumer electronics stubbornly fight for 16:9, as well. Wikipedia doesn't help this situation by blurring the history of the two, leading to comments such as this one. Cinema 4K and consumer 4K are not in competition with each other, and there was never a chance of 4K content coming out of the camera at 4096x2560 and making it to a consumer display. They're for different purposes. It's also worth noting that ATSC v3 is still in early stages and is not finalized, which will dictate the broadcast of OTA 4K TV content and pull the industry accordingly. I am aware some 4K monitors have been released to market at cinema resolution. Those are targeted toward film editors and as monitors for shoot work. There's also some other crazy markets; an engineer I worked with in television installed a bunch of early 4K monitors, the ~$20k ones, in an air traffic control tower. They like the resolution because screens get busy, he said. I don't know if that's true, I merely remember the story.
orik 13y ago
Much closer to 1080p content shown on a 1800x1080 screen. Your hyperbole is dishonest.
unabridged 13y ago
I'm not sure why anyone thinks 4096x2160 (256:135) will ever become a standard for consumer monitors? 16:9 has already won TV and computers. Are we really going to want to watch all of the 1080p content fractionally stretched or with bars on the side? 4096x2160 is fine for expensive cameras because it is designed to be cropped to 3840x2160, but I doubt there will ever be consumer content made in that format.
jaytaylor 13y ago
Related reading: "Your new '4K' TV isn't true 4K" http://www.avsforum.com/a/the-not-so-subtle-distinction-between-uhd-and-4k http://www.avsforum.com/a/the-not-so-subtle-distinction-betw...

binarycrusader 13y ago

The marketing droids won, you'll just have to get over it. Even the $3,600 Sharp monitor Apple sells that's labeled "4K" has the same resolution: With its 32-inch class (31.5-inch diagonal) screen size, 3840 by 2160 Ultra-HD resolution... http://store.apple.com/us/product/HD971LL/A/sharp-32-pn-k321-4k-ultra-hd-led-monitor http://store.apple.com/us/product/HD971LL/A/sharp-32-pn-k321... You and I can be bitter about it all we want, but there's no point.

clhodapp 13y ago
They also finally cashed in the 'big side vs. small side' credit they've been holding onto since they first branded HD (720 and 1080 are the (exact) pixel-lengths of the small sides, while 4k is (less than) the length of the big side). Edit: Not only that, but they can (defendably) make the claim that 4k is "4 times the size of 1080p" while (deniably) knowing that some people will misinterpret.
- jsmthrowaway 13y ago
  Misinterpret how? By expecting that the sides will be four times larger? That exists, and it's called 8K. "Megapixels" already exists as an entrenched concept, and I don't think it's deceptive to call 4K 4x larger than 1080p or 8K 16x larger than 1080p.
  - streptomycin 13y ago
    720 = 720 vertical pixels 1080 = 1080 vertical pixels 4k = 4000 = 4000 vertical pixels? Nope. Shit's confusing. 2k or 4x would be less confusing.
    - jsmthrowaway 13y ago
      I don't know, 3840 is fairly close.
      - streptomycin 13y ago
        Yeah, but they're not vertical pixels like the other numbers are.
    - lsaferite 13y ago
      720p -> 720 vertical pixels 1080i/1080p -> 1080 vertical pixels 4k -> 2160p -> 2160 vertical pixels The 4k confusion comes from the decision to simply double 1080p for consumer equipment instead of going the route cinema is going with true 4k horizontal resolution and still co-opt the easy 4k name. And really, who wants to walk around saying 2160p? Makes me want to follow up with "1.21 gigawatts!" I do agree with a statement in an article posted here about 4k a few days back. At this point the cinema guys should toss in the towel and just use the term 4K PRO and let consumer equipment use 4k.
- josephlord 13y ago
  Using the vertical line count is a legacy of CRT displays and analogue connectivity/broadcasting where there was no horizontal pixel count only a maximum frequency due to the nature of the technology. There were 1080i CRTs so it is only for the next generation it is possible to change to the terminology used in cinema and professionally for some time. Every pixel on a 1920x1080 display is replaced by four pixels on a 4K display so I'm not sure a "4 times the detail" type statement is particularly wrong or misleading. It just doesn't derive from 4000 = 4 x 1080 type logic.
Crito 13y ago
> "You and I can be bitter about it all we want, but there's no point." How about "informing other potential consumers" as a point? I certainly appreciated his comment.

MLR 13y ago

While I agree the term is being used wrong and UHD would be better, I don't think enough people would be confused as the term 4k is being used almost exclusively for UHD at the minute. So I think your comment would be better phrased as a complaint against misuse of the term rather than as a note of explanation is what I'm trying to say. Apologies if there are a large number of people who would be confused and this is a useful note though.

jmillikin 13y ago
It's sort of like how only software engineers care about GB vs GiB. The average consumer will not care about some cropping here and there, but someone working with graphics or video will. And I suspect that anyone looking to drop nearly a thousand dollars on a monitor is going to care deeply about its actual specs (ie "can this monitor render my project at native resolution?").

gametheoretic 13y ago

Damn. At least it's 1920 times 2.

cstejerean 13y ago

4K means multiple things and we just have to get used to it. There is the DCI 4K native resolution of 4096x2160, 4K UHD of 3840x2160, and then there is the 4K in 16:10 at 4096x2560. Of these the UHD is likely to be the thing anyone cares about because it's what TVs will use. The native DCI resolution is probably the least interesting, because actual content will have different resolutions in practice depending on the actual aspect ratio being used. In a computer monitor however I'd prefer the 16:10 version instead of the 16:9 of UHD.

r00fus 13y ago
> Of these the UHD is likely to be the thing anyone cares about because it's what TVs will use. I really hate this logic. 16:9 is a horrible format for displays - 90% of the usage of a work monitor (which is what this is targeted towards). Sure 4K (UHD) is exciting, but I'm really hoping for the 16:10 or taller formats.
- cstejerean 13y ago
  I agree. I mean that most people will care about because most people will be buying TVs not monitors, and content for their TVs, etc. So there is a good chance that 4K as a term will be most commonly used for TVs not monitors.

jsmthrowaway 13y ago

That's not correct. The resolution you are referring to is the native running resolution of 4K projectors in cinemas established by DCI. If you were being legal about it, which your comment is a little bit, "actual" 4K is 4096x2560. A "proper" 4K film shown at DCI resolution is cropped by removing lines due to the combination of aspect ratio between film and projector. The trend in film photography, however, is towards the DCI standard; the RED EPIC shoots at DCI 4K while its predecessor, RED ONE, shoots more lines (I cannot recall off the top of my head, but it is definitely larger than DCI because it didn't fit in my Media Composer DCI workspace the first time I worked with it; I'm really reaching in long-term memory so I might be wrong about this). All of that, however, is in the cinema world. Since NHK demonstrated 4K TV a couple years ago, everybody in the consumer electronics world has understood 4K to mean 4x 1080p, arranged 2x2, and that is what ITU standardized in recommendation 2020. That's intentional. It's much easier to evolve 1080p equipment to 4K TV than cinema 4K; it's multiplicative and most of the same equipment can be overhauled. Other resolutions affect aspect ratio, and lenses are a significant portion of the expense of a television camera. You're going to have a hard time selling a standard that makes everybody buy lenses again. Don't forget that everybody just did to go HD. (The last lens I shot on in news was $20,000 by itself, which is part of the reason the average photog will get really mad at you if you grab it, as people who don't want to be videotaped are wont to do.) If a consumer is buying 4K equipment, its resolution is 3840x2160. This will also be the resolution at which 4K content targeting consumers should be encoded, so I'm not sure what cropping you are referring to. If a DP is buying 4K equipment, its resolution is higher. This isn't marketing droids winning, it's completely different industries having a different history of resolutions: DCI 4K builds upon DCI 2K as 4K builds upon 2K builds upon 1080p; cinema has always fought for 16:10 while consumer electronics stubbornly fight for 16:9, as well. Wikipedia doesn't help this situation by blurring the history of the two, leading to comments such as this one. Cinema 4K and consumer 4K are not in competition with each other, and there was never a chance of 4K content coming out of the camera at 4096x2560 and making it to a consumer display. They're for different purposes. It's also worth noting that ATSC v3 is still in early stages and is not finalized, which will dictate the broadcast of OTA 4K TV content and pull the industry accordingly. I am aware some 4K monitors have been released to market at cinema resolution. Those are targeted toward film editors and as monitors for shoot work. There's also some other crazy markets; an engineer I worked with in television installed a bunch of early 4K monitors, the ~$20k ones, in an air traffic control tower. They like the resolution because screens get busy, he said. I don't know if that's true, I merely remember the story.

orik 13y ago

Much closer to 1080p content shown on a 1800x1080 screen. Your hyperbole is dishonest.

unabridged 13y ago

I'm not sure why anyone thinks 4096x2160 (256:135) will ever become a standard for consumer monitors? 16:9 has already won TV and computers. Are we really going to want to watch all of the 1080p content fractionally stretched or with bars on the side? 4096x2160 is fine for expensive cameras because it is designed to be cropped to 3840x2160, but I doubt there will ever be consumer content made in that format.

jaytaylor 13y ago

Related reading: "Your new '4K' TV isn't true 4K" http://www.avsforum.com/a/the-not-so-subtle-distinction-between-uhd-and-4k http://www.avsforum.com/a/the-not-so-subtle-distinction-betw...