OK, so 4k is really kind of one of many catch phrases for the next big leap in defition. We had SD (standard definition) which was generally a 4:3 aspect ratio. Of course there were many variances, but each resolution had a letter designation (love it or hate it) which allowed for some means of defining what was being described. There was a short push to try 5:4, but that didn't work well for projection since so many people had a full complement of 4:3 screens. Of course, not all of them were named.
Then came HD. Did they go to one of the main two cinematic aspects? Of course not. Did they stick with one aspect ratio? Nope. 16:9 or 16:10. Did they offer one naming convention to each resolution? Usually. WXGA is one of the exceptions.
So, with 4k resolution (Ultra High Definition), why would I expect things to be better? Glad I don't have to be the one to gamble on which one will ultimately win. /whining
Then came HD. Did they go to one of the main two cinematic aspects? Of course not. Did they stick with one aspect ratio? Nope. 16:9 or 16:10. Did they offer one naming convention to each resolution? Usually. WXGA is one of the exceptions.
So, with 4k resolution (Ultra High Definition), why would I expect things to be better? Glad I don't have to be the one to gamble on which one will ultimately win. /whining