Gear & Gadgets / Product News & Reviews

4K TVs are coming, but they face an uphill battle in the home

Exhibitors and panelists at CE Week emphasize the challenges the standard faces.

The only 4K TV on the floor at CE Week, Westinghouse's D55QX1, was showing off a Google Maps image instead of a video. This is a problem.

TV makers are at a bit of an impasse: for the first time ever, demand for LCD TVs is down year-over-year. After years of increasing sales and declining prices, the market is finally beginning to become saturated, and the incremental improvements and new features that the television companies have added since LCD TVs became mainstream—things like OLED lighting and 3D TVs—have either been well out of consumers' price ranges or too niche to attract a wide audience.

The TV industry is looking for that must-have feature that will get people with existing LCD TVs to upgrade their sets, and one of those features is the 4K resolution standard. While 4K TV sets are slowly making their way to the market, both the discussion panels and vendors at Consumer Electronics Week seem a bit unsure about the standard's prospects in the home

A primer on 4K (and why you probably don't need it)

4K originated in movie theaters, and the number, as you might be able to guess, refers to the 4096 horizontal pixels in a 2.39:1 movie screen that supports the standard. Other resolutions exist for other aspect ratios, but the number of horizontal pixels always rounds up to about four thousand. Most 4K TV screens, however, conform to the Quad Full High Definition (QFHD) standard, which doubles the horizontal and vertical pixels of a 1080p screen to make a 3840x2160 display—think of it as a sort of "Retina Display" standard for TVs.

As we noted in our Retina MacBook Pro review, pixel doubling can make for sharp, gorgeous displays, but the "Retina" look doesn't just come from pixel density, but also from how far you typically sit from a given device—the iPhone, iPad, and Retina MacBook Pro all have a different number of pixels per inch, but the screens are going to look more or less the same to your eyes because people typically sit further away from their laptops than their tablets, and further away from their tablets than their phones. Most people sit even farther away from their television set, which means that depending on the size of your screen and its distance from your couch, the pixel density required before your eyes stop being able to tell the difference can be much lower.

Enlarge / Showing the screen size and distance from the screen necessary to see the benefits of high-resolution TVs with the naked eye. Note that 4K displays don't even begin to be beneficial in sizes smaller than 50 inches.

Carlton Bale has published an excellent chart and explanation that sums up 4K TV's problems in a nutshell: at some distances and screen sizes, even the difference between 720p and 1080p to the human eye can be negligible, and this is even more true of 4K. To get any benefit out of a 4K TV, you either need to have a very large screen (the benefits begin to become apparent—barely—at around 50 or 60 inches), be sitting very close, or both, and small differences like this might appeal to true home theater enthusiasts or videophiles, but it's going to be a hard sell for the average consumer.

4K at CE Week

Both content distributors and exhibitors themselves are hedging their bets on 4K TVs, at least if my experiences at CE Week are any indication.

The first problem is going to be 4K content, namely the fact that there really isn't much of it. Nick Slater, VP of Video Product Management for DISH Network, summed up some of the best points from the content industry's end during the Next Gen TV panel: "We're certainly looking at the market. The relevance of 4K really only applies to large-size televisions right now, so we're trying to scope how that fits in with the traditional DISH base," he said. "Things like 4K are very popular to talk about at events like this in New York City and San Francisco, but you get to Iowa where our customer lives, it's not gonna be for a while."

Slater went on to emphasize that broadcasting 4K content requires considerably more bandwidth than HD content, and that to upgrade DISH's infrastructure to support 4K would require either the launch of new satellites, or for the provider to cut back on current HD channels.

"Those are all things we're willing to do," he said, "but there needs to be a return on the investment for us."

Others on the stage also hedged about the availability of native 4K content. John Taylor, VP of Public Affairs and Communications for LG Electronics USA, talked about "very powerful upconverters" for displaying 1080p content on a 4K screen, while VP of Marketing for Westinghouse Digital Rey Roque mentioned potential alternate uses for all of the pixels in a 4K screen, including "technologies to split the screen, and watch four [streams] of Nick [Slater]'s 1080p material." Both statements reflect a desire to sell 4K sets despite a lack of broad availability of native content, which (aside from bizarre edge cases like those mentioned by Roque) mostly defeats the purpose of the technology for the user.

Even the sole TV exhibitor with 4K hardware on the floor—Westinghouse—seemed a bit reluctant to show off or discuss the prototype 4K set (the 55-inch D55QX1) that it had brought to the show. For starters, and perhaps because of the lack of 4K content we just talked about, the set was displaying a browser window showing a static image from Google Maps, while the (much larger) 1080p set right next to it was playing a bright, full-color video of The Muppets. When I went to play with the 4K TV's keyboard and mouse, I got just far enough to confirm its resolution (3840x2160) before a representative asked me to stop what I was doing, informed me that the unit was a prototype, gave me a printed press release with no new information about the device or its prospective launch date, and sent me on my way. Their hints were subtle, but I somehow got the feeling that they weren't interested in subjecting the television to close scrutiny.

The feeling I get from this year's CE Week is that 4K is coming, but that even the content providers and TV manufacturers with an interest in pushing the standard are perhaps unexcited about it, or at the very least aren't entirely convinced of the feature's prospects for most consumers. It's telling that the majority of the Next Gen TV panel avoided talking about picture quality enhancements as major sales drivers: much more time was spent on Internet TV and ways to make the wealth of content available from providers like DISH Network more accessible to consumers, indicating that—at least for now—content and ease of use still beat out tech specs in most peoples' living rooms.

Expand full story

189 Reader Comments

  1. 4K is going to be a very tough sell. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't believe even HDTV has full market penetration yet (~75%). What makes set manufacturers think that people are going to pay even more for something that look identical when they can't even get everyone to upgrade to vanilla 720p?
    942 posts | registered
  2. There aren't any tangible benefits to 4K that would interest mainstream users. If the cost-benefit analysis is good enough then they might buy, but the old mantra "if it's not broke, don't fix it" is what most mainstream consumers live and die by.
    597 posts | registered
  3. They just need to settle in and accept that LCD' TVs are a commodity, just like CRT TVs were for the last several decades.

    They aren't going to make a substantial profit from selling super high-end to the masses, we just aren't going to buy it. You will always have the audio/videophiles who will lap it up, but not the average customer.

    Last edited by mattclary on Thu Jun 28, 2012 7:46 am

    582 posts | registered
  4. I can't imagine wanting a 4K TV. My eyes won't see the difference under 98+% of use cases.

    Once you reach the limits of human biology, pushing technological limits seems rather pointless, unless you can come up with a different use for the new stuff. I don't think TV is it, though.

    Last edited by hanser on Thu Jun 28, 2012 7:46 am

    31804 posts | registered
  5. Yeah, we went like 80+ years with 480p. Since the 1920's. When I was growing up in the '80's, we had one TV. That TV STILL LIVES. We got our second TV in 1998, and we now have 4 TVs around the house. Only one is bigger that 15".

    My family JUST got our first 51" 1080p Plasma last year. (Samsung PN51D7000) for $1500. And we're not about to make another investment like that any time soon.

    It's way, WAY too soon for another definition bump. I know I'm channeling my dad when I say this. But...

    "When I was a kid, we didn't have HDTV! If the signal was too snowy to pick up Lost in Space that night, we had to wait till summer man!"

    I think there really is a point when you have to just be happy with what we have.
    60 posts | registered
  6. I'd really love for a higher frame rate to be the "next big thing" rather than just adding pixels the user can't see (and whose effects are diminished by data compression).

    The best example I've seen of this is watching two GoPro videos I took - one at 30fps/1080, and one at 60fps/720. The 60fps video looks so much more real and immersive despite its lower resolution than the 1080 video.

    Though I guess the manufacturers wouldn't go for that since most TVs can already do the higher frame rate and that wouldn't move any new products.

    Last edited by Bongle on Thu Jun 28, 2012 7:48 am

    343 posts | registered
  7. BruceLee1255 wrote:

    Vanilla 720p? is there a chocolate 720p? :P In all seriousness, you may be right about the 25% who might not have a hi-def plasma/lcd/led TV, but if they're anything like the 2 people I know who haven't upgraded yet, it doesn't matter what it does, they won't care until their sets decide to burn out and are forced to replace it. (Both of these people do not have computers either as they see no relevant use to them btw)
    662 posts | registered
  8. I believe the cable and media industry should embrace and push 4k content and adoption as hard as they can. At the current bandwidth speeds most people will never download a 4k tv or movie and would rather buy a blu-ray and cable subscription to watch media. This could lead to a reversal of the pirating trend and return the media industry to the old days.
    227 posts | registered
  9. TV makers want what they had during the LCD transition, but didn't prepare for saturation and plateau/drop-off. Rather than realizing the previous sales trends were temporary as long as LCD was replacing CRT, they have the money bug in their eyes and want to keep the same level of profits.

    They either push this or 3D. Yay for crass consumerism/capitalism. :D
    8907 posts | registered
  10. I could see an appeal if you could sit closer and use it as a giant computer monitor. The trouble is twofold. Firstly, living rooms aren't usually set up with a desk and keyboard nearer the TV than the couch is. Secondly, neither Windows nor MacOS seems to be set up to act as a bridge in a way that would make sense.

    Maybe in 10 years time, when you've got a full wall sized TV straddling the lounge/kitchen, meaning you could sit at the kitchen counter and use the same screen to do work that you use to watch TV on later. This is a bit like the apartment at the beginning of the Schwarzenegger film "Total Recall".
    1918 posts | registered
  11. 4K is too much on a 60" TV, but then everyone need 3K on a 15", 2K on a 10" or 1K on a 3.5".

    Call it "Retina Display" and put a fruit logo on it and it will probably become the "best TV ever".
    3008 posts | registered
  12. The other problem with 4K is that there is no 4K content, Upscaling 720p or 1080p content to 4K is going to result in a somewhat softer (i.e.: fuzzier) image, which entirely nullifies the man benefit of 4K.

    Games aren't going to support 4K (they have enough trouble with current HDTV resolutions, and Bluray isn't doesn't support it (Sony and others will release players next year which will upscale to Ultra HD resolutions). Cable/IP TV won't support it either, at least not for while.

    As Marshall McLuhan suggested: the content is the audience. So until there is sufficient UltraHD content, they aren't going to have much of an audience for 4K TVs.
    1948 posts | registered
  13. Brady Lee wrote:
    Yeah, we went like 80+ years with 480p.

    I think you mean 480i. :) IIRC 480p didn't get mainstream traction until digital media and digital broadcasting carried it to consumers, which was in the last 30 years.
    969 posts | registered
  14. To my eternal annoyance, my wife does not wear her glasses while watching TV. From her favorite living room spots, she can't tell an uncompressed 1080p video from a black crushed artifact ridden SD on a 50 inch screen 10ft away. When I do get her to put them on or have her just get within 3 ft of the screen to see something specifically, she puts them on and says 'OH WOW' every time, either just to humor me or actually surprised by the difference. Either way she doesn't care enough about the image quality to bother wearing her glasses. The only upgrade I have been able to talk her into is saving for a projector so that I can increase the screen size to 120" at which point even she would be able to finally tell the differences that annoy me between the quality of sources from hulu to netlfix and blu-ray. I want a reasonably priced 4K monitor so badly, but it just isn't going to happen for the living room television unless it is in a projector. With consoles makers just now planning to support native 1080p in their NEXT generation, 4K has a hell of an uphill battle to get into consumer heads much less homes.
    2924 posts | registered
  15. Retina screens on my iPhone and iPad were revolutionary to me only because of one thing... I can read so much more clearly on them and now I don't want to read anything in any other format. Other than that, increases in resolution are fluff, they aren't major upgrades that everyone will want. Some people like the increase in resolution and there will be some crazy people who think anything less than 4K is jaggy (visual nerds who dissect the aspect ratio and color selections of every Coppola movie ever made). Other than that, the rest of us want content. TV makers enjoyed a brief shot in the arm thanks to shift to LCD and HD, but TVs became commodities a long time ago, and they are going back to their commodity status. They need to come to grips with that fact and move on and look to what's coming beyond that. Christ, Google's trying to create a technology where you simply wear something on your head and see augmented reality. What if people stopped watching video on their TVs and got a full widescreen HD experience beamed directly into their eyeballs?? Why buy a huge 40 lb piece of plastic and chips when you can get a 4 oz computing device to do the same thing. It's coming! Skate to where the puck is going not where it is.
    236 posts | registered
  16. All I want is a 4K computer monitor. With this, I can kiss antialiasing goodbye!!
    64 posts | registered
  17. Well, what's after 4K and ultra widescreens?

    I'm going to be stick with 1080p for awhile. 720p is good enough for me actually, but I don't like the idea of buying a resolution that's 768p and not 720p.

    Would love to see content with higher framerate.

    Last edited by PretentiousMan on Thu Jun 28, 2012 8:01 am

    5 posts | registered
  18. The problem is that 1080p is more than good enough, and heck, it will probably be 10 years before cable companies drop their SD channels.

    I can see this occupying the "Laser Disc" niche - basically for very high end early adopter videophiles who want to strut their stuff. Content could come via a new physical format, or on 3-4 bluray discs. Though who knows, maybe people who can afford 4K TVs can stream 150GB movies over their leased fiber line.
    1683 posts | registered
  19. The thing that could convince me to get a 4k TV was the same thing that convinced me to get a 3D TV. I didn't care about 3D (and haven't used that even once), but the display quality and brightness was that much better than the non-3D version of the TV. It made my current media look good.

    4k TVs could do the same thing. If the display is noticeably better for what I actually use it for, then regardless of the resolution it supports, I would consider it. 4k support would just be icing on the cake.
    62450 posts | registered
  20. philbot01 wrote:

    Wholeheartedly agreed. Multiple monitors? Pfft. Give me one huge monitor with the same pixel density I have now. I'll be fine watching 1080p in a window.

    I've been worried recently that available computer monitor resolutions would plateau at 1080p, when video cards can be much more capable.
    969 posts | registered
  21. There is effectively no consumer use for 4k resolutions at the moment. Data connections are not sufficient for television providers to delivery content at that resolution. I am an audio/videophile, and at the moment, a 4k set just screams "waste of money".
    278 posts | registered
  22. bag wrote:
    Brady Lee wrote:
    Yeah, we went like 80+ years with 480p.


    Even more recently than that - I'd say more like 15-20 years. 480p became popular about the time DVD's did in the late 90's. Before DVD, I'm not aware of any "mainstream" media available, even if you happened to have a progressive scan TV.
    342 posts | registered
  23. Unless there is a new type of content that can benefit from 4k, I doubt this will ever get traction with the public. I think High Dynamic Range display set would have a bigger impact on people.
    16 posts | registered
  24. Why would any mainstream consumer ever want a 4K set? You can't even tell the difference between 720p and 1080p till you get into the 55" and above range on TV's (40-46" seems to be the most popular option for sets). Digital cable, satellite and streaming options don't even really support bit-rates to really show off 720p as it is much less 4K resolutions. BluRay isn't the huge seller DVD was, and hasn't remotely replaced the serious downturn in DVD sales, yet it's the only purchasable medium that offers video that takes advantage of 1080p (if you have a set large enough to make 1080p worthwhile). More people and renting, and streaming is slowly becoming the more popular option (but let's be honest, 1080p Netflix 1080p streaming isn't nearly on par with 1080p Bluray discs or ISO's made from a Bluray disc, and 720 streaming has similar issues).

    If OLED lighting and 3D aren't interesting consumers, higher resolution won't either. The only people something like this would appeal towards are high end PC users, and extremely wealthy individuals with full fledged home theater projection systems where a 200" or larger viewing area is desired. The rest of us buy a TV then use it till it doesn't work any longer. I couldn't care less that neither my plasma set or my LCD set don't do 3D or have 4K resolution. I'm not buying another set till my current sets (which I bought in 2006 and 2008) die. I also still have my old 36"CRT and use it in another room. TV manufacturers, get over it. I don't buy something just because it's new. That's for fools with more money than sense (although, looking at the state of bankruptcy filings, it seems to just be for fools). I buy based upon what I feel I need. I have all the working TV's I need.
    2611 posts | registered
  25. Most flat screen owners would get a better picture just by getting a new TV with current tech before one with more pixels. The industry has pushed 1080p so hard that's all you can find now in LCD. Higher bit rate 720p sources will always trump "unspecified" 1080p but the situation demands consumer education, not heralding ever-more resolution.
    882 posts | registered
  26. masterbinky wrote:
    To my eternal annoyance, my wife does not wear her glasses while watching TV. ...(snip)... so that I can increase the screen size to 120" at which point even she would be able to finally tell the differences that annoy me between the quality of sources from hulu to netlfix and blu-ray.

    Just say no to becoming a videophile, kids.
    3079 posts | registered
  27. Hell we cant even get uncompressed 1080P yet, maybe not even 720P like that so who cares about 4k TVs.

    Besides it would end up being billed to us in a crappy way:

    Digital TV $$
    HD version of the same stuff $$
    4k version of the same stuff $$

    No thanks.
    22 posts | registered
  28. bag wrote:
    philbot01 wrote:


    Don't knock multiple monitors until you try it! I love being able to have a game or something going full-screen on my main display and have other apps that I want to monitor the status of (IM, TeamSpeak/Ventrilo to see who's talking, file transfers, etc.) on a second display.
    342 posts | registered
  29. Magnus Incognitus wrote:


    This, more than anything else. Streaming 1080P causes the cable and telcos to squirm and complain about bandwidth concerns. Loading a 1080P movie through Netflix is bad enough if you're not on fiber. On the transfer limit side of the house, if you have a 250Gb cap, you have closer to a 30GB cap. One 1080P movie can eat 20% of that. 4K would eat almost half.
    8907 posts | registered
  30. I live in Tokyo, and I could actually go out and buy a 4K TV tomorrow if I wanted. Also supports passive 3D. Toshiba Regza X3:

    Took a look at it in person, and they had native-4K video playing on it. Despite all the graphs/etc above claiming it's basically indistinguishable from regular HD, it was frankly very easy to tell the difference on the detailed scenes they were displaying (it's a 55" screen, and it's gorgeous).

    The real issue is that there is ZERO native-4K content, essentially zero motivation for anyone to supply any, and most scenes on TV won't be showing the kind of detail that allows your eyes to say "yes, that's clearly better". In a sense, it's a window into where we will probably all end up, but the rationale for upgrading is weak. It's a damn fine screen though, but nothing that will persuade me to upgrade from my Cell Regza X2 ;)
    20 posts | registered
  31. This would all make sense if these extra pixels were put on curved displays for gaming.

    My 600 Hz Panasonic 42" Plasma HD TV is 5.5' away from where I sit, so according to your chart I wouldn't benefit from a better resolution and a larger screen would just aggravate my neck as if I was sitting in the front row of the Cinema repeatedly scanning the projected image.

    I can see some benefit if combined with 3D (using the FPR polarized glasses technology) as an enormous screen would approach the IMAX experience, for I have noticed that objects that are intended to appear to be infront of the screen that travel out towards the periphery (say, in an explosion) create an unfortunate cognitive dissonance as they are cropped behind the frame of the TV. Obviously, the more your attention is kept focused on the central area of the display the less this pulls you out of the experience. The fact that all new content has to be made to fit this "Stuff only happens in the middle region" format, realistically rules this out for the forseeable future.

    Actually, if you are honest about what content you want this display for you'd build one of these instead:
    1005 posts | registered
  32. Brady Lee wrote:
    It's way, WAY too soon for another definition bump.

    The fact that it's all digital now makes it much easier for multiple standards to coexist without everyone having to buy new stuff.

    With 4k digital cinema, it seems likely that some people will be willing to pay for the same resolution the theaters get. It's just a question of what those numbers are.
    18785 posts | registered
  33. Give me a Hi-Res monitor already. High-end GPU's such as the 680 and and 7970 can breeze past 1080 and can run 2560x1440 above 30 fps. What happened to the days where we were always looking to upgrade our cards to play the latest games. I've had this 6870 for almost 2 years(I think) and have not thought about upgrading since BF3 was released. But then again, some of that can be blamed on consoles. Either way, good high-res monitors for gaming please.
    11 posts | registered
  34. There's no reason that the 4K format can't be successful but it has to be combined with other advantages to really sell it. An obvious one would be to increase the framerate from 1080p's 24fps up to 60fps, which would provide smoother motion, enhanced 3D and sharper images when paused. Numerous upcoming films are already moving to 60fps and this could increase quite rapidly. The next issue to address is distribution of 4K content, which is where high-speed DSL and cable really excel. The strength of this is that it can be provided in an on-demand manner to suit the needs of consumers. Continuing on you have games consoles. Obviously the next-generation will be targeted at 1080p but already that is considerably lagging behind PC gaming, which is pushing twice the pixels at 1600p and three times the pixels at 3*1200p (multi-monitor gaming). And retina displays haven't yet entered the equation. It doesn't seem unreasonable to expect that the generation of consoles beyond will be targeting 4K. And, more importantly, 4K provides the resolution necessary to provide autostereoscopic 3D - that is, 3D without glasses. That offers very obvious appeal to consumers who might not care as much about the extra resolution but certainly would be swayed by not needing to wear the annoying glasses that are currently required.

    Finally you have computing. Current 1080p HDTVs are poor for using as a computer monitor (not as a desktop but when combined with wireless keyboard and mouse), especially when talking about the 42"+ sets that are quickly becoming standard. Doubling the quality and moving away from pixel dependence (as Windows 8 does to some degree) will provide a considerably improved computing experience, especially when combined with technologies like Kinect. And there are a lot of Android devices being targeted now as media devices for TVs, like the Nexus Q.

    So sure, in terms of pure resolution 4K is not particularly attractive to the average consumer. But with the right marketing and additional improvements - particularly autostereoscopic 3D - it is very possible that 4K can become as much a success as both 720p and 1080p were.
    81 posts | registered
  35. It's amazing to me that the people responsible for producing consumer electronics apparently don't understand their consumers. How can they not see that 4k will flop like 3D? When it comes to displays, the main thing that interests people and might convince them to buy another TV will be if they can make them even bigger and cheaper.
    441 posts | registered
  36. 4K wont revolutionize TV. The only place it will live up to its expectation is on 3D. Increasing resolution on 3D will reduce the eyestrain and everything will look more "solid". IMHO manufacturers would be better trying to increase their color gamut and get a finer contrast, in other word : get 4K OLED TVs on the market.
    162 posts | registered
  37. That graph is completely wrong. The lines in relation to the Y axis are completely backwards. They're fine with regards to the X axis (bigger screens benefit more from higher pixel count, since the density is lower.)

    But with regards to view distance, the closer you sit to the TV the more benefit you will see from they higher resolution displays. The lines in the graph are indicating that the FURTHER you sit from the TV the more benefit you get, which is totally wrong.

    The paragraph prior to the graph just got done explaining this with regards to the Retina displays on the iPhone, iPad and MBP. The closer you sit, the higher pixel density you need.

    Can't believe that got through, I'd expect you guys at Ars to catch this sort of thing, since usually I think you're smarter than me. :)


    Misread graph. I blame it on being hungry. ;D

    Last edited by ebbv on Thu Jun 28, 2012 8:44 am

    303 posts | registered
  38. I was going to post something about "why would I spend" and "stupid TV gimmicks flooding the market that no one needs" and "all I have is a ____ and I don't watch it"...

    ... and then I remembered that I have a 27" monitor. And yes, I like it better than dual monitors.

    If someone wants to drop a few thousand on a TV that looks worse than the average desktop monitor, who am I to complain? It ain't my money even if I do think it's a waste.
    1651 posts | registered
  39. TIL: DISH Network has one customer, and he lives in Iowa.
    1533 posts | registered

You must to comment.