The EBU has produced a policy statement on Ultra High Definition Television. It seems to note areas other than just a higher pixel count as part of UHDTV.

https://tech.ebu.ch/docs/techreports/tr028.pdf

Mmmmm? The easy way out?


Ron

They seem to be wanting more from UHDTV than just television sets that can manage a higher resolution, which seems to be the current marketing ploy by the manufacturers. Things do tend to move quickly when there aren't committees involved, although they tend to be needed when large groupings are required to stay in step for compatibility.

But with parameters beyond the aspect of resolution not even standardized, it's going to be a long torturous road.

A road I'm not willing to travel until it's totally paved.
I'll still be buying HD cameras for the next few years.

I'll still be buying HD cameras for the next few years.
I suppose it depends what your market is, what people will pay you to use, and how much your work is of immediate value only, how much it has future value.

The document is interesting, mainly because it's a first step towards getting a debate going and eventually (hopefully) getting some sort of consensus. It's valid in so far as it recognises that UHD should be about more than just resolution - but I'm less sure about their seeming keenness for what they describe as enhanced 1080p. Personal view is that if we're going for a future standard, let's not go for half measures - let's indeed go for higher frame rates and what they describe as "better pixels" - but AS WELL as 4k resolution - not instead of it.

To come back to Ed's point, then if your material has future value, then whilst it may be ideal to shoot to any full future spec, then it can only be better to shoot 4K than HD (all else equal) can't it? Surely partial future proofing is better than none at all? Certainly for high budget material.

Ugh, that thing reads like the result of a few "official" people getting together, booking an expensive weekend at a fancy retreat, getting massages, eating expensive meals and having to have "something" to show for it at the end... I'll bet that was probably a EU10K+/page "statement"... and that's letting them call the blank one a page!

By the time the EU "TC" (whoever or whatever they are?) get around to saying something meaningful, I suspect we all could be enjoying holographic 3D....

They seem to be rather annoyed that the "CE industry" is forging ahead, releasing 4K TV's and cameras without some "standards committee" having had time to schedule an expensive meeting to set "standards"... Perhaps the "redundant committee on irrelevance" needs to get with the programme?

Practically speaking, there are displays available and coming (yes some with so so specs, a little like 720p "HDTV"), the cheap one I got looks quite good for the $$ spent. The cameras are coming in various forms at various price points, and are being USED to good effect... It's working...

I'm not sure why they are worried about "higher frame rates, more contrast in images (dynamic range), better colours and immersive audio". These ALL come with the natural progress of new technology...



As those who are early adopters of 4K are finding, you may have to compromise on the frame rate (curse you 30p... even if it can be worked with!) a bit, but if the camera has good dynamic range, and good color... you get nicer results with 4K...

I'm glad they "mention" audio, but I venture that most consumers will CONTINUE to listen to a pair of tinny speakers embedded in the plastic frame bezel of their TV... MOST of the time... you're not exactly sticking a 7.1 surround system on a TV? Maybe transmission of quality audio hasn't been laid out...?

I wonder if they had a nice meeting and "position statement" between SD and HD?

They seem to be rather annoyed that the "CE industry" is forging ahead, releasing 4K TV's and cameras without some "standards committee" having had time to schedule an expensive meeting to set "standards"...
Remember what the "B" in "EBU" stands for - "Broadcasting". (And that may include via the internet.)

As such, they have to look after the interests of the Broadcasters of Europe in a technical sense - and for such, standards are VITAL. It would be no use at all France, Germany, the UK, Belgium etc all deciding to go their own way and set their own standards - it was bad enough in the PAL/SECAM analogue era, and it's unfortunate there are now two basic HD transmission standards (720p/50 and 1080i/25). At least in the 50Hz analogue world both PAL and SECAM shared the same 625 line monochrome standard.

Move to 4K, and issues around framerates, bitdepth, colour coding etc and the possibilities for confusion get even worse. And this is before we even start to think about transmission issues, DVB standards, and all the ancillary equipment that fits in the broadcast chain between the existing cameras and displays!

Does it matter? I'd argue yes, very much so.

If we were only talking about cameras and displays, it may not matter as much - though even then you'd want a display to recognise any valid signal that may get thrown at it. But with a transmission chain (such as DVB) it's a huge issue. All such receivers have to meet a given standard - any subsequent improvement (say to H264 coding, or to 1080p/50) will mean any such transmissions can't be received on ALL previous receivers. There are also huge benefits to manufacturers in being able to make TVs which are equally happy in the UK, France, Germany, any country of the EU - and why many non-EU countries tend to go along with EBU technical standards as well.

(Going back to analogue times, even though 625 line was standard, and there were only two colour systems, there were various transmission standards with differing video bandwidths, channel spacings, and sound-vision frequency separations. Buy a British TV then, and if you took it to Germany you may get a colour picture but no sound, take it to France and get a b/w picture but no sound, and etc. Please don't send us back to worse than that for lack of standard setting! :-) )

Yes, they may sound annoyed about the CE industry, but isn't that more because the latter are only CREEPING ahead? (Resolution, but nothing else?) With the EBU seeing the danger being that once too many sets are out there, a simple resolution increase does become the de facto new standard - when it could be so much more with a bit of forethought?

For some usage today I can see the merit of shooting 4K, even if only 25p - some future proofing must be better than none? But can you be sure that any 4K display bought today will be able to handle framerates better than 25/30 fps at 4K if such becomes widely adopted in the future?

It's also worth saying that organisations like the EBU or DVB will set MAXIMUM standards to any system - it doesn't mean then that all transmissions have to be such. So, for example, a current UK DVB receiver will receive SD broadcasts with MPEG2 coding as well as HD at 1080i/25 or 720p/50 (and H264). But if a broadcaster wanted to transmit 1080p/50 - tough. No receivers in the country are capable of it's reception. It would require a rewriting of the standard (and everyone in the country to buy new equipment) to enable it. That's why you simply can't rely on some things "coming with the natural progress of new technology... ". The cameras may come, the displays may come, but if a broadcaster suddenly switches to the new standard, he stands a good chance of being blacked out to most of his current viewers!

Hopefully that gives some flavour of why EBU talking about future standards is such a big thing?

The EBU isn't alone. I've heard a few Hollywood technical and business people voice concern about a resolution-only next generation of video.

Say you bought a favorite film on VHS. If you're a real fan, you bought the same title on DVD and then again on Blu-ray Disc. The studios would like you to buy the next-generation version as well. But does UHD resolution alone do it for you? Will you upgrade the TV (many will)? Will you update the player (maybe it's physical, downloaded or streamed)? And then will you pay for the title again if you already own the BD?

The worry is that the mass-market won't go for resolution alone. (They'll upgrade TVs over time but will they replace titles?)

But what if there is a wider color gamut, more bits, higher dynamic range, and better audio? If the new system can noticeably improve the experience such that the average viewer can't help but notice the difference, UHD media sales will be a big success. If it takes a close gaze from an expert to see the difference, we might have another SACD and DVD-A on our hands.

Of course if you walked into a store and saw a bunch of TV's that were a league apart from the rest thanks to UHD, high DR, better pixels etc you would be more likely to buy than UHD alone.

But, and this is happening right now, if you go into a store and there are a few TV's to choose from with little price difference between them and one looks a little better than the others, which do you buy?

I was in my local TV store the other day looking at the prices of 4K TV's. There were some good deals on a couple of Samsung and LG 55" 4K TV's. They were at a similar price to regular HD TV's. Guess what, I watched the salesman complete a deal to sell one of the 4K TV's. I didn't see any other TV's sell during the same period.

Give it another couple of years and 4K TV's will be no more expensive than HD TV's, just as most TV's are 3D capable today. What will these lucky 4K TV owners watch? If the traditional broadcasters don't pull their fingers out it will leave the door wide open for online services that can react faster. This will further erode the market share of the traditional broadcasters.

Maybe UHD alone isn't a huge step forwards. But (done right) the pictures are better. Yes, I'm all for "disruptive technologies" like dolby extended dynamic range too, but sometimes it take little steps to get there.
As content creators we already have the tools available to create not only UHD but also high dynamic range content. From the production side we can meet most of what the EBU are muttering about right now.

I think that expressed it quite well! I've suspected that 4K may "catch fire" more rapidly than expected, and the CONTENT will be streamed over the internet rather than traditional "broadcast" channels?

Just speculation, but when the tech is charging forward, looks great, and does not cost too much more , it my well catch on rather fast! I've seen articles indicating that the actual "cost" of producing a 4K TV is very little more than for an "HD" set, the prices are just higher/premium since it's "new"... My cheap-o 4K "TV/Monitor" was actually not much of a premium over an HD model... or I wouldn't have bought it! I presumed it would be "good enough" for at least a couple years...

If "broadcasters" sit on their hands very long, they may not have much of a "seat" left? I believe that "wireless screens" over the internet ALREADY are becoming the primary "channel" for many people, at least here in the US. Just like "land lines" are moving towards irrelevance, "broadcast" could easily become a footnote. I have been switching over to watching things on web sites, I can pick the time that's convenient to me, watch just what I want, and get (most times) as good or better quality... as more of the cable "channels" offer their content on the web, I could see cutting the "TV" part of my cable (actually FiOS fiber) bill... of course the "data" part of that bill will no doubt "catch up"!

Having watched over the years as technology changes how people "do things" and leaves some things to history, I can only conjecture that the "broadcast" business model may well be a dinosaur already thrashing about in the tar pit...

How the means of "broadcast" changes in the future remains in the future changes remains to be seen. There are many means of distribution, given the current bandwidth limitations of the web (the US doesn't seem to have the fastest average broadband service around), there seems to be a future for the various shades of broadcaster, many of whom produce and/or fund the premium productions that many love to view on their laptops.

Setting of high technical standards for the broadcasters is one method of giving them a premium over the the highly compressed web, as someone suggested that 4k on the web is perhaps just a means to actaully see HD.

Broadcast changes are happening now, it's not a future thing. Services such as Netflix, Hulu, Amazon etc have grown exponentially in the last couple of years. We just dropped our multi-room satellite TV add on in favour of NetFlix and may well drop the satellite movie channels too. We must also remember that unlike a traditional broadcaster with a limited footprint, these online services have global reach.

House of Cards, a NetFlix in house production looks amazing in 4K. It's only 15-17Mbps, so a 4G phone or modem is fast enough to stream it. We should not forget that bandwidth is just as big an issue for a broadcaster as it is for online services. You can't just double the bandwidth used to broadcast in 4K without either reducing the number of channels or putting new, very expensive infrastructure in to place. It's going to be very hard for broadcasters to find extra bandwidth.

Yes, overall the speed of the internet is going to be an issue in some areas, but look how much the internet has improved in only a few short years. In 3 years I went from a 15Mbps connection to a 100Mbps connection. H265 and VP9 will mitigate the bandwidth issues to some degree for both web and traditional delivery, but for a broadcaster that means new transmitters, satellite transponders and set top boxes.

Not saying that over-the-air broadcasting is going to go away any time soon. But premium services and premium content may well become the domain of the online providers. There is no reason why companies like NetFlix can't produce high end premium content. They already produce some extremely high quality content such as House of Cards, Orange is the new Black or DreamWorks Dragons. In many respects the subscriber based services are going to be the ones that may well come out on top as in order to attract new customers they will need unique premium content, at the same time they will also have a revenue stream to pay for that content from a global audience. Meanwhile the traditional broadcasters must rely on ever diluted and dwindling advertising revenue.

The online providers can react and change their technical standards more or less overnight. If there was a demand for HDR, then provided there is HDR content, NetFlix could stream it tomorrow. NetFlix are already streaming 4K and it looks good. As can be seen from the EBU doc, the traditional broadcasters are going to take a very long time to react. I wonder how many subscribers Sky TV picked up when they were the only HD service available in the UK. Once you've picked up subscribers it's relatively easy to hold on to them provided you don't provide an inferior service and that hurts advertising revenue for the old school broadcasters.

It could come down to different market sectors, with the "traditional" broadcasters offering free delivery with defined territories, perhaps with specific cultural remits, for example language. Certainly, there has been and continues to be changes in the means of distribution and the broadcasters will have to reinvent themselves.

The great thing was supposed to be smart TVs, but in the end 4k TVs is just a manufacturing matter, with the hope that the market will feel the need for 4k sets. Putting better speakers in as standard would probably have more impact in most domestic viewing environments.

Some of the new Sony Bravia's now have much better speakers and the sound is quite impressive. But it does make the set quite a bit wider.
55" Class (54.6" diag) XBR 4K Ultra HD TV - XBR55X900A Review - Sony US (http://store.sony.com/55-class-54.6-diag-xbr-4k-ultra-hd-tv-zid27-XBR55X900A/cat-27-catid-All-XBR-Series-TVs)

Broadcast changes are happening now, it's not a future thing. Services such as Netflix, Hulu, Amazon etc have grown exponentially in the last couple of years. We just dropped our multi-room satellite TV add on in favour of NetFlix and may well drop the satellite movie channels too. We must also remember that unlike a traditional broadcaster with a limited footprint, these online services have global reach.



The problem with internet provided TV is the compression. Netflix and others simply don't look as good as either satellite provided content, most cable and certainly OTA. So for a videophile that demands the best picture quality, it's very hard pulling the plug on the conventional providers.

The internet providers don't look bad (well, sometimes they do), but compared to our more conventional source providers, they simply aren't 'as good'. Black levels suffer, overall contrast suffers and the picture just doesn't have the 'sheen' that satellite, cable or OTA has.

The BBC are using just 8Mbps for HD broadcasts in the UK other HD channels vary between 6Mbps and 10Mbps. There is nothing stopping an online provider from using similar bit rates, or much, much more.

Digital broadcasting is tied to largely fixed bit rates to fit "X" channels onto "X" space. An online service can provide variable bit rate streams depending on the end to end network bandwidth. If you have a good connection you can get a better picture. It's not tied to to the fixed bandwidths allocated to specific transmitters or transponders.

Netflix currently provide streams up to 6Mbps for HD if you have a dedicated streaming device such as an Apple TV, WD TV, Roku etc or a TV with a hardware decoder. If you have a 4K TV with HEVC then you get 15.6 Mbps 4K. Netflix looks just as good as most conventional HD broadcasters in my home. Arguably NetFlix etc have an advantage in that they can spend more time getting a really good encode of their content as the encoding does not have to be real time.

I think it boils down to the fact that Internet content 'could' have higher bit rates, but doesn't. I've got huge up & down speeds, but my HD Netflix picture is not nearly as good as my Directv picture.

I've suspected that 4K may "catch fire" more rapidly than expected, and the CONTENT will be streamed over the internet rather than traditional "broadcast" channels?
That may or may not be true, but in the context of this thread internet or conventional broadcast is irrelevant - we're talking about standards that are common to both. (At least some of the standards. Other standards will be relevant to broadcast but not internet delivery, and vice versa.)

The danger is that if more than a critical mass of 4K TVs get sold, but which can not handle higher frame rates (only 25p, say - not 50p, let alone higher) or better bitdepth etc it will set a default lowest common denominator standard by default. Which "broadcaster" (either traditional or one such as Amazon, Netflix etc) will even think of 50p or 10 bit for their 4K offerings if many of the 4K TVs out there won't be handle it!?! They'll just shrug and say, "OK, 4K, 8 bit, 25 fps it is then". Their advertising people will still be able to say "IN 4K!!!", which I suspect is what really matters to them.

History gives that leaving matters to the market is rarely a good idea as far as technical standards are concerned. It's no secret that when colour was coming, in the UK the commercial broadcasters and manufacturers were in favour of keeping the existing 405 line network and simply adding NTSC standard colour to that. Advantage - it could have been done sooner, and they saw it as financially good in the short term. Disadvantages - the country would have been stuck with a far inferior service to what eventually came about, and compatibility problems with the rest of Europe, and (as happened in the US) not much viewing would have been done in colour anyway in the late 50's, early 60's - the cameras and receivers were just too big, expensive and unreliable to become mainstream.

But unfortunately we no longer live in an age where traditional broadcasters such as those that work to, or will wait for the EBU guidelines have total control.

People want things now, they will not wait, unless the thing they are waiting for is clearly defined and within easy reach. If the EBU mess around taking a couple of years to come up with their guidelines, let alone actually implement any of the changes, it may well be too late.

This happened with HD where the EBU finally, after many years of discussion and debate declared in 2009 that the optimum standard for HD broadcasting was 720p50 and recommended that HD broadcasting should be predominantly based on 720p50. However early adopter HD satellite services had been broadcasting1080i since 2006 (largely due to the amount of content produced using 1080i29.97 rather than 720p) and 1080i25 soon became the de-facto standard. The EBU was still trying to push for 720p50 in 2010, but it was way too late by then. The EBU is simply far too slow to react these days. Really they should be defining the standards for beyond 4K now as 4K is in effect already here.

It looks like we will see 60fps HDR 4K TV's from Samsung and Sony this year with Vizio and others to follow early next year. Without clearly defined standards from some governing body, the TV manufactures will just create their own standards and build their own content delivery networks, they will not wait for the EBU.

I don't disagree with a word Alister has written above - the fact is it's the reality. But I do note the choice of the word "unfortunately", so I'm assuming you don't disagree with the principle of what I've said? I agree that the EBU are far from perfect, and act slowly - perhaps inevitable, given the numbers of people they represent - but they are at least trying to act in the medium/long term, not the short term of the commercial interests.

It's between the camera and display that standards have most importance, and whilst that may not mean too much to a one man operator, it's when you come to large live broadcasts (think Olympics and World Cup) that they have most significance. You have to take into account all the in between equipment - vision mixers, routers, graphics, links, slo-mo, servers etc. OB providers don't want to have to worry about interoperability between all the equipment - they would like a situation of "is it 4K? - yes? - fine!"

Alister is also correct about the situation with current HD. The EBU desire for 720p/50 was laudable initially, but largely based on a relatively smaller screen size in the home than is now the case. (I think they reckoned 37" was likely to be the norm, with 42" the exception.) Flat panels came along, average screen size sored, and their assumptions were out of date almost before the ink was dry. Arguably the most unfortunate thing was that 1080p/50 was not included as part of the current HD spec - so DVB receivers would need to be able to decode it. That would not mean that anyone would initially have to transmit such - the receivers would still decode lower systems - but would mean that as technology advanced, it would be relatively simple for a broadcaster to switch to 1080p/50. They would know that no existing receivers (and their viewers! ) would be left with a blank screen.

Yes David, I agree with what you said, but I think that the EBU may be too slow to respond so the standards will end up set by the manufactures rather than any governing body.

but I think that the EBU may be too slow to respond so the standards will end up set by the manufactures rather than any governing body.

Then they won't be STANDARDS by definition and we'll see the whole VHS/Beta or HD-DVD/BluRay debacles repeat themselves.

Manufacturers don't typically play well with each other, with each looking for competitive advantage, and the result will be a morass of proprietary stuff that doesn't work together. IMHO.

While Netflix is starting a foray into independent production, a lot of the stuff we know and love is still being purchased/commissioned by the broadcasters. Disrupting THAT model would be an interesting one... I see a lot of seriously substandard content coming out if that happens as the lowest price to stream model couldn't possibly finance the big budget prime time series we all love to watch, at least without sold commercials. Then we're back to the broadcast model, only over IP instead of cable of OTA.

Keep in mind that the EBU deals mainly in broadcast and works somewhat parallel to SMPTE (which includes both the cinema and broadcast sides.) There's still a lot of work to do before broadcasters will feel comfortable building out a UHDTV head end. For higher frame rates such as 100 and 120, we don't even have timecode standards yet.

For broadcast transmission, we have DVB for Europe etc, ATSC for the Americas and Korea, and ARIB in Japan. And then there is FOBTV which is where the three groups compare notes. Broadcasts will definitely be standards-based rather than proprietary. (Let's not get into the transition plan though. That's the real challenge.)

For receivers, HDMI 2.0 lagged a bit, resulting in UHD TVs that couldn't handle 50 and 60 Hz. HDMI 2.0 is becoming available, so those 25 and 30 Hz TVs will just have been a temporary blip.

And then there's MPEG, which is working on HDR and other advanced topics.

From the cinema perspective, 4K has been around for some time. You can shoot it, edit it, grade it and so on. Any one of us in a large city could go rent a 4K camera (or grab one from the equipment closet) and shoot a short 4K film in a day.

But consider broadcast. Where do you rent a 4K truck? What broadcast 4K cameras do you use? Need an extreme zoom for sports? Where do you get a 2/3" 4K camera or an S35 sports zoom? What switcher, router, and cables do you use? What real-time encoder? What transport stream? What modulation?

4K for cinema is easy. UHDTV for live production and broadcast still has a ways to go.

The SMPTE.org website has a "Report of the UHDTV Ecosystem Study Group" available under the Standards tab, Committee reports. It appears to be available for download if you provide them some identifying information.

But 4K live is already happening. GloboSat have a 4K truck as do Telegenic. In additon Telegenic also have a 4K mobile production unit. These were using in Brazil for 4K coverage of several world cup games. There are many 4K capable switchers, often an HD switcher can be used for 4K by tying together multiple channels. There's always the Blackmagic ATEM 4K switcher line which is remarkably low cost. Sony's F55 has a full 4K live fiber option and there are optical adapters to use 2/3" lenses on the s35mm sensors. Lenses are probably the weakest link right now but there are options.

For receivers, HDMI 2.0 lagged a bit, resulting in UHD TVs that couldn't handle 50 and 60 Hz. HDMI 2.0 is becoming available, so those 25 and 30 Hz TVs will just have been a temporary blip.
But of all the 4K TVs on sale at the moment, how many are capable of 4K at 50/60p? Looking around, I suspect the answer is "not a lot". Sony's main offering doesn't seem to be (though it will handle 1080p/50), and other manufacturers don't even seem to give any max framerate spec.

And that's the problem. If too many get bought, with customers eager to watch true 4K, then it's storing up a can of worms. There is no interlace at 4K, and for sport especially 50/60p is needed. So as more and more sport may become available at 4K/50p, all the early adopters presumably won't be able to receive it. Expect a lot of unhappy people......

The situation is the same as the very early days of HD, and it needs an equivalent to the "HD ready" logo - which specified a certain minimum technical and connectivity specification. (I seem to remember that was largely an EBU initiative?)
But consider broadcast. Where do you rent a 4K truck? What broadcast 4K cameras do you use? Need an extreme zoom for sports? Where do you get a 2/3" 4K camera or an S35 sports zoom? What switcher, router, and cables do you use? What real-time encoder? What transport stream? What modulation?

4K for cinema is easy. UHDTV for live production and broadcast still has a ways to go.
4K OBs aren't common, but a lot of the problems have been got over, as least as far as cameras, interconnect cabling and mixing go.

Experiments were done with football last year, there was more 4K broadcast from Sochi at the winter Olympics, and there is more still coming from the Brazil football World Cup. I expect that by the time of the next Olympics, 4K origination will be relatively common. But it's a general transmission/distribution standard that isn't there - and since I believe the World Cup coverage is 4K/60p, a lack of monitors to display it on....?

The only camera I'm aware of being used for 4K broadcast is the Sony F55, and it seems very suitable for the purpose. They seem to be taking the compressed RAW it produces down a fibre to a base end, which gives a huge range of control in terms of truck processing. (It's like going back to the days of separate R,G,B feeds to CCU's!!)

4K 2/3" cameras seem quite unlikely due to diffraction issues - they're only likely to be operable over a very small range of iris between wide open and diffraction limiting. As Alister says, the lens issues of a sports zoom have been largely overcome by the use of adaptors to allow standard 2/3" zooms to be used on s35 cameras like the F55.

There's a half truth going around that you lose a lot of light via such a convertor. In practice, for the same lens settings, it increases the focal length by a factor of about 2-3x and reduces the f number by 2-3 stops. My first reaction was "what! 2-3 stops light loss!" but if you think about it, that gets largely nullified by the larger sensor having an inherent higher sensitivity - and the effects tend to cancel out. If you like, no light gets LOST in the convertor - it's just dimmer, but spread over a wider area. So no change in low light performance. And same for depth of field considerations - larger sensor, longer focal length, but smaller aperture - so back to square one.

(**CAVEAT** The above assumes all else equal - and practically the big difference is that 2/3" cameras are 3 chip, s35 are single. That difference - not sensor size - DOES mean about a stop drop in lowlight performance compared to a 2/3" 3-chipper. But it's not the near 3 stop difference that gets wrongly assumed.)

But of all the 4K TVs on sale at the moment, how many are capable of 4K at 50/60p? Looking around, I suspect the answer is "not a lot". Sony's main offering doesn't seem to be (though it will handle 1080p/50), and other manufacturers don't even seem to give any max framerate spec.



This is not correct. Virtually all 2014 UHD TVs are 4K 60p capable. This includes Sonys, Samsungs, LGs and the upcoming Panasonics and Vizios. Additionally, many of the 2013 UHD TVs have been upgraded to bring them from 4K 30p to 4K 60p.

So this is simply not an issue any longer.

...The situation is the same as the very early days of HD, and it needs an equivalent to the "HD ready" logo - which specified a certain minimum technical and connectivity specification...

CEA just announced such a specification last month, including a 60 Hz minimum requirement.

CEA Updates Characteristics for Ultra High-Definition Displays - CEA (http://www.ce.org/News/News-Releases/Press-Releases/2014/CEA-Updates-Characteristics-for-Ultra-High-Definit.aspx)

This is not correct. Virtually all 2014 UHD TVs are 4K 60p capable. This includes Sonys, Samsungs, LGs and the upcoming Panasonics and Vizios. Additionally, many of the 2013 UHD TVs have been upgraded to bring them from 4K 30p to 4K 60p.

So this is simply not an issue any longer.
It may be a matter of where you live - I looked on Sony's US site, and what you say is certainly true there - they clearly specify 3840x2160 @60p and USB2.0 against the whole range, for example. Try to do the same thing on the .co.uk site and there is a glaring absence of the equivalent information. I bought a small TV for my son yesterday and took the opportunity to ask about framerate and 25/50p for the 4K sets - I might as well have asked the question in Russian. The best I got was that "this one has 1000Hz picture processing?" (Which may be true, if not very helpful.)
CEA just announced such a specification last month, including a 60 Hz minimum requirement.
It's a step in the right direction, but really it's the bare minimum I'd expect. 50/60p is good - but there's a lot of talk that 4K really needs 100/120fps, and the CEA spec only requires 8 bit to qualify for the logo.

Dave, I think the answer is simple, if it's a 2014 model, it's a good bet it's 4K@60p. The 2013 sets were all 4K@30p.

As I said, many of those 2013 sets have received an upgrade to 4K@60p. However I think that most still won't accept 4K via their USB inputs. That too has changed with the 2014 models. I sincerely doubt that a 2014 Sony, for example, would still be at 30p regardless of where it's sold. If it's a 900B, 950B or 850B it should support 4K@60. The same is true of the Samsung "HU" series.

Regarding 100/120 fps, many TVs interpolate to that today and there is no 100/120 Hz content on the near horizon. HDMI 2.0 doesn't support 4K at 100/120 Hz, so it would require dual inputs. There are no source boxes with dual 100/120 Hz outputs. There's just no viable market for such a display right now.

I've noticed that the main proponents of higher frame rates are from Europe, where 50 Hz flicker has been annoying for years. There's little interest from the US. With 60 Hz, few viewers see any problem with the current frame rate.

Personally, I'm happy with 60 Hz, and I've seen a fair amount of 4K content on large displays. Then again, my motion acuity doesn't seem to be all that high. I'm not really bothered by motion blur, though I do notice ghosting on double-flashed systems. And I really like 24 fps for narrative. So, for me, 120Hz adds cost without benefit. On the other hand, I really like HDR, wide gamut, more bit depth and resolution - when the content works well with the medium and is nicely mastered. :)

Co-incidentally, just seen this - TVTechnology: DVB Confirms Specs For UHDTV and OTT in Europe (http://www.tvtechnology.com/news/0086/dvb-confirms-specs-for-uhdtv-and-ott-in-europe/271256)

If my TV died tomorrow, I might get a current 4K set, but without a pressing need to get a new one, I'd say it makes a lot of sense to wait until the dust settles before going for 4K.... Wait for the DVB spec (including tuner and defined codec) to be fully implemented. (Let alone be sure of 60p and 10 bit!)