Re: Sounds like a "proper" spec unlike the HD Farce
Sounds like it, but it's not, in my view. I talked about the UHD Alliance in my IBC report (and I talked to them, and told them I thought they were going to cause anguish too, though in rather more robust language). IBC report is here.
Why? Because I think this is only half a spec. They have a spec for production, and they have a spec for displays - because those are where they can persuade people to pay money for logos to put on shiny new kit, especially at the display end.
But what the spec specifically does NOT include is any mention of connectivity and interoperability, which they don't see as their problem. Fall all the flaws of the HD Ready and Full HD standards, they did specify things like 'HDMI with HDCP" whereas the UHD Premium doesn't.
So, for example, there is kit out there that doesn't support UHD on all its HDMI ports. That's fine if you just have the one bit of kit that outputs a 4K signal. But what when you get a new Sky box, say, and discover you can't have both 4K gadgets plugged in at the same time? Let alone also get ARC back to your AV kit....
There is just as much potential for customer confusion in creating a labelling system that refers only to the display capabilities and not at all to the connectivity as there was with the "HD Ready" mess.
Take a look at the DTG's "UHD Ready" website, where you can see how some current services are only compatible with certain sets.
(And, of course, the high frame rate stuff is all still to come, as chipsets aren't likely to be widely available for at least another year or two, and we'll probably have another logo for that). I still maintain, as I've said here before, that unless you really have to replace a set now, there's no point rushing into buying 4K