Talk:4K resolution

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Most of the 4k video material I've seen (in an academic context, see or was 4096 x 2160 pixels at 24 fps. See I was curious why this format is not mentioned (is it not standardized or uncommon?) Macfreek (talk) 14:53, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Can someone tell me what "K" in 4K stands for? Thanks. (talk) 15:52, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

The "K" means "thousand". So together it means 4 thousand which is obviously referring to the resolution. ( (talk) 09:36, 10 January 2012 (UTC))

Thought the sources this article refers to speak of a horizontal resolution of 2160 pixels. ( So the article now contradicts it source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:56, 29 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, the K means "thouand" as in "kilolines" (in this case, referring to roughly how many vertical lines there are instead of how we're used to using the number of horizontal lines for the nomenclature as with the lower resolutions, for some reason. It's basically the same as the K in "kilobyte" (except that those are in multiples of 1024). (talk) 07:41, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

List of 4K monitors and projectors[edit]

I am separating individual models into separate rows since having a single row per manufacturer creates a list that is essentially non-sortable. Also, I will slightly alter the "device type" column entries such that projectors, monitors, and TVs are the first word. I will put the editorially inspired "professional"/etc part in parens to the right...

If you have any objections, please revert. If you revert though, please cite what rule was violated so that I don't make that mistake again... — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:09, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

I think its time to split the list into its own article. There are a range of new 4k monitors, tvs and projectors hitting stores and if the list expands it would make the article more unbalanced. - Shiftchange (talk) 15:03, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Incorrect image[edit]

The image showing the different resolutions is off. The size of the 6K and 4K rectangles are correct, but the rest of the rectangles are too small. The 1080p rectangle is about 1010 pixels high instead of 1080, which makes the 4k resolution look more than twice the height of 1080p. I suppose the issue is that 2K and 1080p are the same thing, but instead the 1080p rectangle (and 720 and DVD) have all been reduced in size. Quinzer (talk) 15:49, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Correct. It is misleading (talk) 01:33, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Agree. Incorrect image. I will try to make one myself and update here. Arkrishna (talk) 15:49, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

If 4k is intended to be the horizontal resolution, why does the image show it as vertical? Also, I think 1080 res is acturally a vertical standard, it shows on the image as horizontal. Someone needs to check all this again and remake the image. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:52, 4 October 2015 (UTC)

The image is correct. The 2K and 4K text is just placed vertically because it doesn't fit horizontally. The 1080p and 720p are shown in the most common 16:9 aspect ratio, making them 1920x1080 and 1280x720 respectively. Lonaowna (talk) 16:53, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

No commentary?[edit]

I'm sure the details here are useful, but I came here hoping to find some sort of overview of 4K tv from a consumer's perspective. Dougweller (talk) 12:37, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Standardized resolutions[edit]

I've removed all the non-existent or rarely supported resolutions from the table of common/standard resolutions. If you want to add other resolutions to the table, explain why here.--Father Goose (talk) 05:55, 1 January 2014 (UTC)


I heard that this is the actual 4K res, which still has a nice 16:10 ar. But there's no mention of it in TFA. Can anyone confirm/deny the existance of this res in relation to "4K"? Zoef1234 (talk) 18:50, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Actual how? I see some computer monitors exist. But we won't be buying 16:10 TVs anytime soon, as this aspect ratio is not defined in current Widescreen signaling. -- (talk) 21:26, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
Yes, 4K requires 4K pixels in at least one dimension. The screen makers are not doing customers a service by telling them non-4K screens are 4K. (talk) 22:21, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
4096x2560 is "proper" 4k. 3840x2160 is Ultra HD, but it's called 4K since 3840 rounds up to 4000. (talk) 09:02, 19 May 2016 (UTC)


Why is WHXGA (5120x3200) mentioned instead of HXGA (4096x3072)? 4096/3840 is 4k width. 5120 is (theoretically) 5k width. This is especially confusing as Youtube specifically calls HXGA (4096x3072) 4k. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:01, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

4K is 4 * 1024 or 4096. 5K is 5 * 1024 or 5120. (talk) 22:37, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Avoid use of "next-generation network" and similar[edit]

Addressing this removal [1] as requested [2]. The vague term "next-generation network" doesn't mean anything in this context (are they just talking about bitrates? migrating cable channels onto IP, as the term actually implies? something else?), and the linked article has been tagged as outdated since 2009. The article implied that you can't do 4K without such a network, which is clearly incorrect. (I imagine this is fairly clear from the new info you added noting the actual bitrates involved, which is much better.) ToBk (talk) 13:21, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

4K vs 4k[edit]

Does anyone know what the definitive term is? Most sources use 4K including this article, but a few use 4k and 4k matches the SI unit for kilo. --Dee Earley (talk) 13:08, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

The standard seems to be to have it capitalized. It looks better from a marketing perspective, I have no idea if it has anything to do with SI. B137 (talk) 04:20, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
Yes, it is short for "kilo," as in... "kilolines," heheh... But yeah, most of them are capping it (the k; not the 4 :-D ...). It's basically the same as the K in "kilobyte" (except that those are in multiples of 1024). (talk) 07:45, 25 November 2015 (UTC)

Ultra wide television - wrong math[edit]

5120:2160 does NOT equal 21:9, but 5040:2160 does. This is an obvious inconsistency for flat screens, but can make sense for curved ones, because 5120 pixels can be actually seen as 5040 pixels, depending on the distance from the screen. Any ideas? (talk) 11:51, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

That resolution equals 21.3:9, so approximately 21:9. It is just rounded for convenience by the manufacturer. This is also done for flat screens, and has nothing to do with curved screens. This is also explained in 21:9. Lonaowna (talk) 13:05, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Comparing to change to 1080p[edit]

It's not a completely fair comparison, in fact it's almost apples to oranges because the change to 1080p also entailed a change from bulky projection and direct-view tube TVs to flat panels, which make older technologies look barbaric (there were "1080p" signal accepting-CRTs etc but they did not actually display 1920x1080 pixels). This would give the original HD a huge advantage as it was a complete change in tech, not just a single spec, and makes the 4K takeoff surprising. This could relate to a more connected society and may have implications in other subjects worth noting. B137 (talk) 23:44, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Section build (signatures may not play usual talk page role)[edit]

Despite rapid price drops beginning in 2013 for viewing devices, the home cinema digital video projector market saw little expansion, with only a few manufactures (only Sony As of 2015) offering limited 4K-capable lineups, with native 4K projectors commanding five-figure price tags well into 2015 before finally breaking the US$10,000 barrier.[1] This despite criticisms that at normal panel size and viewing distances, the extra pixels of 4K are redundant at the ability of normal human vision. On the contrary, home cinema employs much larger screen sizes without necessarily increasing viewing distance to scale. JVC has used a technique known as "e-shift" to extrapolate extra pixels from 1080p sources to display 4K on screen through upscaling or from native 4K sources at a much lower price than native 4K projectors.[2] This technology of non-native 4K entered its fourth generation for 2016.[3][this ref suffices for mere existence][4][5] JVC used this same techcology to provide 8K flight simulation for Boeing that met the limits of 20/25 visual acuity.[6]

Finding refs was pretty easy, for now things ref'ed elsewhere will remain for now without inlines. B137 (talk) 14:01, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

  1. ^ Katzmaier, David (March 30, 2015). "Sony VPL-VW350ES review". CNET. Retrieved December 7, 2015. 
  2. ^ Pendlebury, Ty (September 26, 2013). "JVC debuts cheaper pseudo-4K projectors". CNET. Retrieved December 7, 2015. 
  3. ^ "DLA-X550R Overview". JVC. Retrieved December 7, 2015. 
  4. ^ Silva, Robert (October 16, 2015). "JVC Intros 4th Generation e-Shift 4K Projectors at CEDIA 2015". Retrieved December 7, 2015. 
  5. ^ Cohen, Steven (October 19, 2015). "JVC Readies New eShift 4K D-ILA Projectors with HDR". High-Def Digest. Retrieved December 7, 2015. 
  6. ^ Turnbull, Grant (November 25, 2015). "I/ITSEC 2015: New training approaches for Boeing". Shephard Media. Retrieved December 7, 2015. 

Merge proposal[edit]

I suggest that the article 2160p be merged with this one.

There is simply no reason to have 2160p as an article since its information can be used here in a section. (talk) 09:00, 19 May 2016 (UTC)


2160@400 or 2160@120, a new topic is in place here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:08, 15 February 2017 (UTC)


I have removed a line about the 8K standard UHD-2, since it seemed like off-topic trivia. If anyone wants to add the info to 8K resolution or elsewhere, it was as follows (after editing):

UHD-2, used by NHK/BBC R&D's 7680×4320 pixel UHDTV 2 with their basic parameter set, is defined by the ITU BT.2020 standard.[1] (talk) 08:14, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 4K resolution. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:30, 23 June 2017 (UTC)