The New York Times is reporting that ABC will be the first of the major broadcast networks to put all of its programming online to be streamed live to an iPad app. ABC, which was one of the first networks to release an on-demand video app for tablets when the iPad was first released in 2010, will debut this streaming service for its New York and Philadelphia viewers. That means that every second of video that those users would otherwise watch on their local ABC television station will be accessible via ABC's new "Watch ABC" app.

But this is no cord-cutting measure.

Here are the caveats to this plan, which ABC executives say was already in development prior to the announcement of Aereo and the litigation that has followed. First, only cable and satellite service subscribers will be able to tap into the ABC livestream, and will have to sign in to authenticate their subscription in the app, much like HBO subscribers have to do with HBO Go. Second, ABC says that making this content available (both in livestream and on-demand formats) in an app means that it'll gradually withhold that content from free-to-view services like Hulu and even its own ABC.com site. This would be to sweeten the deal for cable and satellite providers who want to ensure that users keep paying for that subscriptions.

Also, the livestream will have advertisements, but it won't be the same ads that are piped to broadcast viewers--they'll be digital ads like you'd find on ABC.com. And finally, ABC will only be able to expand this service to other markets if it can work out deals with the owners of its 200 affiliate stations. In the case of the east coast, many of those affiliates are owned by Hearst, which ABC has a good relationship with. There are many stakeholders that need to be appeased in making this happen, and the consumer is rarely on the top of that list.

At CES 2013, Microsoft showed off a new Microsoft Research project called IllumiRoom, not as a product, but as a proof-of-concept--a possible way to do something very, very different with the Kinect. IllumiRoom combines a Kinect sensor with a projector to take in the layout of a room and then project video from a game onto the walls surrounding the TV. The system could extend the content of a game beyond the boundaries of the television screen, effectively turning an entire part of a room into a giant screen. But the augmented reality potential of the technology is much cooler.

Microsoft Research just released a video overviewing IllumiRoom's potential uses. Check it out for yourself below. Extending a full game's environment outside the TV looks jarring and distracting in some cases--due to the differences in tone and brightness, the two don't really blend. The AR effects, on the other hand, look pretty cool. In one example, the video shows only gunfire and explosions in a first-person shooter extending onto the walls, and the way they fly out of the TV frame and into the living room works really well. A similar gimmick makes it snow all around the TV.

The Research team also released a white paper describing the technology of IllumiRoom and giving multiple examples of how it could be implemented. Here's an excerpt describing how IllumiRoom could be implemented:

"Our vision for a fully developed IllumiRoom system includes an ultra-wide field of view device sitting on the user’s coffee table, projecting over a large area surrounding the television. The device would be connected wirelessly to a next generation gaming console as a secondary display...

Our current proof-of-concept prototype uses a commodity wide field of view projector (InFocus IN126ST) and a Microsoft Kinect for Windows sensor. The prototype is limited by the field of view of the Kinect and projector (~57º horizontal FOV). Therefore, the system is mounted above and behind the user’s head, as they are seated on a couch in front of the television.

The Kinect sensor captures the color and geometry of the scene, and the system renders the illusions using the acquired depth map. Careful calibration of the system is required in order for the illusions to tightly match the onscreen content and the physical environment. The calibration of the IllumiRoom system is fully automatic, determining the relative pose of the projector to the depth sensor and the position of the television in the projector image. Therefore, setup only requires that the projector and depth camera are placed such that they cover the area surrounding the TV."

The use of the Kinect allows IllumiRoom to conform to furniture or other objects in a room, which means it isn't limited to a flat, white surface as much as other projectors. But there are other limitations--you'll still need a dark room, bundling a projector with a console would be expensive, and developers will have to rethink or reprogram their games to fully take advantage of IllumiRoom. On that note, though, Microsoft's video also demonstrates some ways IllumiRoom can still interpret game motion and show that on the walls in what they call Peripheral Flow.

Even if this proof-of-concept isn't destined to show up at Microsoft's May 21st Xbox reveal, we hope Microsoft Research sticks with it. IllumiRoom could be in the running for weirdest video game accessory ever if it becomes a weird product.

The Panasonic ST50 was last year’s pick for best TV because of its affordable price and outstanding image quality. By all accounts, this year’s ST60 has even better image quality--and cheaper too. CNet put it simpily in their homepage splash this week: “Our first-ever 5-star TV is the one you should buy.”

Initial reviews, including my own testing for an extensive upcoming Sound and Vision article, have even found the replacement not only superior to the ST50, but in many ways equal to last year’s VT50, Panasonic’s top of the line (and one of the best TVs of 2012). As such it is easy to recommend the ST60 for people looking for a big, high-performance TV at a great price.

How can we be so sure? Last year, the ST50 hit a sweet spot in price and performance, making it one of the best deals going for flat panel TVs. They out-performed similarly priced plasma TVs from Samsung and LG. The ST60 is a big jump from its predecessor, offering black levels (and contrast ratios) equal to the much more expensive VT50 from last year.

David Katzmaier from CNET recently posted his review of the ST60, one of the best and first, giving it the first ever 5/5 star CNet rating for a TV. He said the ST60 has “Reasonable price; incredibly good picture quality with exceedingly deep black levels, great shadow detail, accurate colors, solid bright-room performance, and superb off-angle and uniformity characteristics; sleek styling with metal accents; plenty of Smart TV content; includes two pair of 3D glasses.” His opening line says it all, really, “I’ve written TV reviews for more than 10 years, but I’m pretty sure this one is the most important. I’ll cut to the chase: If you value picture quality and don’t have money to burn, you should buy the Panasonic TC-PST60.” His bottom line? “The midlevel price and outstanding quality of the Panasonic TC-PST60 series make it our strongest TV recommendation ever.”

Another David, this time David Mackenzie from HDTVtest.co.uk found the ST60 “is another outstanding plasma TV which produces lush, vibrant image quality in normal living room and home cinema environments. For passive movie and television viewing, it doesn’t deviate from the winning formula of 2012′s ST50 series, and in fact improves on it by delivering even better contrast performance, with black depth that’s better still.“ He also said, “Install a Panasonic TX-P42ST60B in a moderately lit, or better yet, dedicated room, and you’ll be rewarded with one of the best HD television-sized experiences you can buy at any price level – the fact that it’s on sale for £900 is a cause for celebration.” He concludes that the ST60 is “Highly Recommended.” I have tested an ST60 for an upcoming review in Sound+Vision magazine, and can confirm what the Davids found in their reviews.

It’s also worth noting that the ST60 is 3D, comes with 2 pairs of glasses, and has all the Smart TV features we expect in a 2013 TV (like Netflix, Hulu Plus, Vudu, Amazon Instant Video, a web browser, etc). The ST60 is an excellent television that just happens to also have a great price.

It's 2009, and the Blu-ray Disc Association has a problem. Hollywood is gaga over 3D. Coraline and Monsters vs. Aliens try to sell families on 3D early in the year, while My Bloody Valentine 3D and The Final Destination grab the teenage market. And then in December, James Cameron's Avatar becomes the box office phenomenon Hollywood expected it to be. Thanks to 3D ticket premiums, the movie goes on to earn $2.7 billion worldwide. But Blu-ray doesn't do 3D...yet. So the Blu-ray Disc Association set out to update the specification for an install base of 10 million households.

"Blu-ray is unique in that it's the first package media format I've worked with--and I've worked with every one since LaserDisc back in 1980s--it's the first one we've had with an adaptable format," says Andy Parsons, a Blu-ray Disc Association spokesperson and Senior VP at Pioneer. "No one changed the CD spec to add functionality. No one changed DVD spec to add functionality. When 3D came along, we said 'we'd like to add 3D. Is it technologically feasible, is it possible?' "

Indeed it was. On December 17, 2009, the day before Avatar opened in the United States, the Blu-ray Disc Association announced it had finalized a specification for Blu-ray 3D. The Disc Association went from investigating the possibility of 3D Blu-ray to releasing that specification in eight months. "That was a world record, I think," adds Parsons. He's proud, and with good reason--it took less than a year to add a new dimension to Blu-rays, something that had never been done with CD or DVD or VHS or LaserDisc.

But now it's three years later, and 3D is still a divisive medium. It no longer has the easy selling power to guarantee a movie like My Bloody Valentine 3D a $100 million box office. On December 12, 2012, Peter Jackson's The Hobbit hit the silver screen, bringing with it the most significant technological advance since Avatar sold the world on 3D. The film was shot and released at 48 frames per second, double the traditional frame rate of a century of cinema.

But this time, there's no new Blu-ray spec waiting to usher in a generation of high frame rate films. And despite the proliferation of 4K TVs at this year's Consumer Electronics Show, there's no specification for 4K Blu-ray, either. There's no doubt that Blu-ray will evolve again to keep up with Hollywood's next big thing. But will it be 4K? Or HFR? Or H.265?

As Parsons explains, adding any of those features to Blu-ray will be a whole lot of work.

Where's my 48 fps Hobbit Blu-ray?

Avatar was huge for 3D, but Cameron didn't have to justify 3D all by his lonesome. In ushering in a new frame rate, The Hobbit doesn't have the same pull that 3D did. A relatively small percentage of theaters actually showed the film at 48 fps, and many viewers had trouble adapting to high frame rate footage (but that's another story). It's not too surprising, then, that we won't be seeing The Hobbit on Blu-ray at 48 fps--at least, not anytime soon.

"If you go in and add something like HFR to the spec, you want to make sure it works," says Parsons." That responsibility lies with the "format extension study task force," which the Blu-ray Disc Association established in 2012. It's a new group, but they're doing the same work that the BDA had to do back in 2009, when it weighed the prospect of 3D Blu-ray: Studying "technical feasibility, market demand evaluation, and impact on the install base." 50 million US households are now equipped with Blu-ray players.

Market demand evaluation is an easy one to figure out, here: One movie won't cut it. But what about technical feasibility? Trickier to diagnose.

HDMI doesn't support 48 fps, and TVs would need a firmware update to properly process the signal anyway.

"[We were able to] make [Blu-ray 3D] in such a way, that it...could play like a 2D disc in a 2D player," Parsons says. "If they had a 2D player it would turn out 2D, if you had a 3D player it would play in 3D...Perhaps we could do something like that with HFR." But, he adds, "Not all studios made 3D discs work that way." Some movie studios--Disney, for example--choose to release their films in combo packs, and those 3D versions won't play on 2D disc players.

If possible, the BDA wants to avoid adding features that will only work on certain players. 3D is, for the most part, backwards compatible. But HFR isn't just a problem for the Blu-ray Disc Association to solve. The current HDMI spec doesn't specify support for 48 fps (it can do 50, which isn't quite the same), and TVs would, best case scenario, need a firmware update to properly process the signal. In other words, even if you got a 48 fps Blu-ray, you might not be able to watch it.

One major theme heard loudly at this year's CES was the promise of 4K – the ultra high-definition video format that television manufacturers hope will make all of our current HDTVs obsolete. The idea is that we'll get a crisper, sharper, more detailed image from a TV that is the same physical size, thanks to an increase in pixel density similar to what's occurring with the displays on tablets and phones.

The story that many people are focusing on, however, is price. 4K televisions are prohibitively expensive; the early models cost as much as $25,000 and so are unlikely to make it into the average home anytime soon. And these stories are, for the most part, correct. But they give the impression that price is the only obstacle preventing our transition to a truly 4K world. It's not.

Rather, price is just one of many hurdles that will prevent widespread 4K adoption anytime soon. There are concerns about content – or the lack-thereof – and what benefits 4K can offer over HD, not tomorrow, but today.

Contrary to what reports from CES might have you think, 4K is a still a dream – and it's going to take an industry-wide shift in consumer, manufacturer and content creator habits to make that dream come true. Let's examine exactly how tv makers are defining 4K, where consumers are likely to get 4K content, and the truth about upconverting 1080p video.

What Exactly is 4K?

By now you've probably heard of Ultra High-Definition, or UltraHD. The "ultra" indicates an improvement over boring old high-definition, but exactly how much of a difference does that extra adjective make?

As you can probably guess, it all comes down to pixels. High-definition refers to an video image that is 1920x1080 pixels in size. UltraHD, however, has more pixels – about four times as many, give or take. That means content displayed in UltraHD has four times the resolution of regular 1080p HD. Often times you'll hear this referred to as 4K.

The Consumer Electronics Association (or CEA, otherwise known as the folks who organize CES), formed a working group last year to discuss how 4K technology would be marketed and named. After a unanimous decision by the CEA's board of "industry leaders" – executives from the big tech companies pushing 4K – the working group settled on UltraHD.

The group also provided a clear definition of what, exactly, UltraHD, or 4K, means. Televisions, monitors and projectors must have a resolution of at least 3,840 by 2,160 pixels, and an aspect ratio of at least 16:9. That minimum is important, because it allows manufacturers to include displays that are 4096x2160 pixels in size – a standard used in many 4K cinema projectors and some TVs – under the UltraHD name.

If the average person's eyes can't resolve individual pixels on a 50" HDTV when sitting 6.5 feet away, just imagine how close you would have to sit to get the full benefit of 4K.

In other words, there are two different resolutions that we consider 4K, or UltraHD, but both are more or less the same.

The real question, of course, is how much of a difference will the Ultra in UltraHD actually make when compared to your existing 1080p HD set? When you consider that the average person's eyes can't resolve individual pixels on a 50" HD television when sitting more than 6.5 feet away from their TV, give or take, just imagine how close you would have to sit to get the full benefit of 4K (the answer is pretty damn close).

In reality, the difference between viewing content in HD versus UltraHD is similar to the increase in pixel density from older Apple smartphones to Retina quality displays. More pixels are being packed into a screen that is still the same physical size, and the result is an image that looks sharper and more detailed – especially when viewed up close. It's an experience that's hard to convey in words or pictures, however, and something you'll need to see in person at, say, your local Sony Store or Best Buy.

H.264 is practically ubiquitous with HD video. Even if you don't know a thing about video codecs, you've probably heard of H.264. It's the video encoding process used for Blu-ray, Netflix, YouTube, and Vimeo. Watch a video on the web, and chances are H.264 encoding is responsible for delivering a great picture at a bitrate your Internet connection can handle--80 percent of web video now runs on the H.264 codec. But H.264 isn't ready for the monstrous amount of data it would take to encode 4K video, which is why a new standard is peeking over the horizon. It's called H.265.

Well, technically, H.265 goes by the name of HEVC, or High Efficiency Video Coding. As H.265's longer name implies, the video codec is designed to succeed H.264 with a more efficient encoding standard. That means it will support video files of 4K and 8K resolutions while simultaneously improving upon current streaming by cutting the required bitrate by up to 50 percent. The way it does this is relying on more specialized hardware and computing power--with improved compression algorithms and more time or a computer has to process a video, the more compact a video can be compressed without losing too much visual fidelity. H.265 will require more computational power than its predecessor, but the trade-off is a no-brainer. Computer processors, especially mobile CPUs, grow more powerful every year, but our network infrastructure and bandwidth speeds are growing much more slowly. HEVC theoretically will make current HD video streaming more efficient while paving the way for a future of 4K content.

H.265 took a big step towards actual implementation on Friday, as the International Telecommunication Union announced the standard had received first-stage approval. That doesn't mean H.265 is completely finished--the ITU's press release notes that HVEC extensions are still in development--but it's out of draft status and ready to be unleashed on the world. Of course, adoption can't happen overnight.

For H.265 to take off, chipmakers will have to release hardware that supports HEVC decoding. You're able to watch Netflix and YouTube on your smartphone because the graphics chip inside it can decode H.264 video, but those chips won't just magically work with H.265. A few companies like Broadcom have announced hardware chips with HEVC support; Broadcom's processor can handle 4096x2160p video at 60 frames per second, but volume production won't begin until mid-2014. 4K streaming likely won't be the immediate draw of H.265, though--we expect companies like Netflix to eagerly support the codec, since it will allow them to stream 1080p video at half the currently used bitrate.

You're not going to buy a 4K TV this year. There's one reason to buy into 4K this early--it's shiny and new--but there are tons of reasons not too. It's too expensive. There are no 4K Blu-rays or streaming options. There's no 4K cable service. Sit far enough away from your TV, and you won't even be able to differentiate 1080p and 4K sets. You shouldn't care about 4K TVs yet. But you should care about 4K computer monitors.

ViewSonic and LG both had prototype 4K monitors to debut at CES this year. Both are clearly a ways away from a retail release, but ViewSonic hopes to have theirs out on the market by the end of 2013. Unlike 4K TVs, higher resolution monitors offer some real practical benefits. We sit closer to monitors, so individual pixels are much easier to discern. More screen real estate is a major boon to productivity. And scaling the operating system, like Apple does with its "retina" displays, results in much sharper text.

ViewSonic told me that their 32-inch, 3840x2160 panel is LED backlit, though its thick housing resembles bulky older CCFL 30-inch monitors like the Dell UltraSharp U3011. That's not unusual for a prototype; the final model will likely be slimmed down and given a few features notably lacking in the unit that was on display.

Currently ViewSonic is pumping images to the 4K display with two DL-DVI cables, but the final version will probably include DisplayPort (which supports resolutions up to 3840x2160) and HDMI (which maxes out at 4096x2160). A ViewSonic rep said that they'll probably throw in VGA just for kicks, so I expect the usual range of connection options to be on-board.

Since LG supplies panels to Apple, Dell, and tons of other Korean monitor-makers, I asked ViewSonic if their 32-inch 4K display was using LG technology. They said no, and that yields are extremely low on 4K panel production. No surprise there, but it means the prototype model is painfully expensive--it cost ViewSonic somewhere between $15,000 and $20,000 to produce. Good news: the final unit should be cheaper.

Viewsonic's rep told me they hope to get the cost down to $10,000 for a consumer release. Okay, that's still way too expensive for a monitor, though the 4K monitor is squarely aimed at serious photographers and video editors. But given how dramatically monitor prices have dropped in the past few years, it shouldn't take long for yields to improve and for 4K monitors to drop down to reasonable prices. LG may be able to help with that: Details are light on their 4K prototype, but when they start producing panels en masse, we can hope for 4K to become the new 1440p. In the meantime, companies like Monoprice are dragging 2560x1440 monitors into the affordable mainstream.

Bilbo Baggins waddles down the dimly lit hallway of his cozy hobbit hole, its cramped quarters at once instantly familiar, though they've lain dormant since 2003's Return of the King. Familiar, yet something feels off. The old hobbit moves too quickly, and as he opens a chest, peering fondly at the relics of his adventures collected within, I expect him to pull out a well-worn trinket and suddenly appear on the set of Antiques Roadshow. Or to reminisce himself into a flashback and be carried away into a PBS revolutionary war reenactment, where Bilbo's outfit wouldn't look entirely out of place.

In its opening moments, The Hobbit's 48 frames per second cinematography overwhelmingly reminds me of a public broadcast television program, filmed at a slightly-too-fast 30 frames per second.

Since silent films gave way to talkies in the 1920s, the frame rate of 24 frames per second has become standard in the film industry. 24 fps is not the minimum required for persistence of vision--our brains can spin 16 still images into a continuous motion picture with ease--but the speed struck an easy balance between affordability and quality. For the past century, cinema has trained us to recognize 24 frames per second as a reflection of reality. Or, at least, a readily acceptable unreality.

Doubling that speed to 48 frames per second removes the motion blur and strobing of fast-moving images, argued Peter Jackson in 2011. "3D shows you a window into reality; the higher frame rate takes the glass out of the window," said James Cameron. But to the average viewer, 48 fps looks like an exaggerated version of a television program shot at the common video tape speed of 30 fps.

The stigma around higher frame rates leads to an important, and extremely complicated, question about how we perceive film: Why does 48 frames per second look so weird?

"[Film] is the medium we're exposed most to in our everyday life and it has evolved very rapidly in the last 100 years to permeate all aspects of visual culture. And yet so little is actually known of the psychology of viewers and how we make sense of what's presented on the screen in front of us," says Tim J. Smith, a lecturer in the psychological sciences department at Birkbeck University in London. Smith specializes in film cognition, studying how our brains process images and how perception interacts with the world of film.

In studying film cognition, Smith worked to link the language of film--moviemaking conventions and guidelines like the 180 degree rule--to their cognitive foundations. He came up with the attentional theory.

"The basic idea is that in the first few decades that film was around, at the start of the 20th century, filmmakers went through a rapid phase of self-experimentation," he says. "There were so many things they could do with the camera and with editing that they would try out things and see how they worked on themselves and see how audiences liked it. What they were doing was seeing which techniques were acceptable to their own visual system, which things made it easier for them to see what was happening on the screen and to make sense of the narrative. The things they experimented with that didn't work didn't get picked up by other filmmakers, so they died out very rapidly. You had this very rapid standardization towards how to shoot a scene and actually edit it together."

After about 90 years, that standard of the film language may be rewritten.

Part of that standardization was the frame rate of 24 frames per second. Now, after about 90 years, that part of the film language may be rewritten. The audience will have to learn to read again--and judging by The Hobbit's 48 fps presentation, filmmakers will likewise have to relearn how to write. Smith helped shed some light on the psychology of high frame rate film and why our brains so vehemently reject it. Read on.

Fact: Processing a video, especially a long one, takes time. Encoding and compression is a system-intensive process that can easily take hours, which means we don't envy Netflix's video team one bit--they have a lot of video to process. Not just because Netflix has thousands of movies and TV episodes available on Instant, but because the service supports approximately 900 different devices, many of which require unique codecs or file types to handle a video stream.

According to a recently released behind the scenes video, Netflix prepares 120 files for each and every video in its library. That includes versions encoded for your Xbox and PC and iPad and Android phone, with separate audio packages and subtitle sets for different languages. Some more trivia: for over a million pieces of content, Netflix stores more than 10 million assets and more than 100 million video encodes. Metadata for the content alone takes up terabytes.

A companion blog post about Netflix's supply chain touched on the way Netflix interacts with its partners to get content and the "versionitis" that afflicts modern video. Basically, there are so many different versions of any given film that it can be hard to ask a content provider for exactly the right one, which is why Netflix sometimes ends up with crappy 4:3 versions of movies filmed in widescreen. Netflix's partners also have to grapple with file issues, making sure the versions they send out are paired with appropriately times subtitles.

2013 seems like it will bring positive changes to the company. Netflix is launching a website for content partners to share data about all the video available on the service and plans to expand its hardware support to new systems. Plus, you know, Arrested Development.

The Consumer Electronics Association is showing 4K some love: on Thursday the organization announced an official name for the next-gen standard that we got a glimpse of at CES 2012. How will the layperson know that 4K is better than the high definition TV they own now? Because it's not just HD (720p) or Full HD (1080p). It's Ultra High Definition!

The Ultra HD moniker aims to "help consumers and retailers understand the attributes of this next generation of superior television and display technology," but we're not sure many people could tell you the different between HD and Full HD and qHD. The CEA slapped a name on 4K, but they also gave it some clear guidelines that will benefit consumers: Ultra HD TVs will have an aspect ratio of at least 16:9 and contain, at minimum, 3840x2160 pixels.

Sharp 8K TV prototype we saw at CES 2012.

The standard also requires TVs to have at least one digital input that can handle 4K resolution without upconverting, which may require a new version of HDMI. The current version of HDMI, 1.4, can handle a resolution of 4096x2160--but only at 24 frames per second. HDMI 2.0 is expected to be ratified by the end of 2012.

Ultra High Definition sets the standard for the next generation of HD televisions, but it doesn't guarantee a strict definition of what "4K" actually means. For example, a 1.85:1 film shot at 4K resolution will measure 3996x2160 pixels, while a 2.39:1 film will measure 4096x1714 pixels.

The "Ultra HDTV" standard for broadcast television, expected to hit airwaves around 2016, will at least line up with the 3840x2160 television standard...for 4K. Ultra HDTV also denotes an 8K standard that's even higher resolution.

Confused yet? That's okay--despite the buzz around 4K, there's no content to go along with the TV resolution yet. Blu-ray only supports 1080p. Some films go through the editing and production process at 2K, even if they're shot at a higher resolution. But hey: at least Youtube is ahead of the curve.

TV makers eagerly show off their new sets at CES every year, hyping up thinner displays, 240Hz refresh rates, and, of course, "smart" everything. After CES we have to wait months for pricing and sometimes even longer for the TVs themselves to be released. Exact release dates for this year's crop of TVs are still under wraps, but the pricing details have already slipped out.

HDGuru knows what Sony and Sharp will be charging for their upcoming HDTVs and found prices for Panasonic's TVs. Sony's basic 1080p 60Hz sets will be affordable at $400-$800 for 32-inch, 40-inch and 46-inch LCDs. Sharp's focusing on the higher end with edge-lit and fully backlit LED displays that start around the $1000 range.

We'll admit it: we wanted to watch classic Hollywood epics and cinematic masterpieces on Vizio's 21:9 CinemaWide display when we saw it at CES. The 2560x1080 screen fits 2.35:1 or 2.39:1 with a snugness impossible for 16:9 televisions. The 71-inch model is the definition of a luxury TV, and judging by the newly announced pricing on the 58-inch model, it will come with a luxury price tag. The 58-inch Vizio CinemaWide goes on sale this March for $3500.

The smaller 50-inch model and that 71-inch set we're still lusting after won't arrive until the second half of 2012. Let's put that pricing in perspective: how much TV do you think you can buy with $3500, setting aside the unique nature of the CinemaWide's 21:9 aspect ratio?

While Sharp and Panasonic and the rest of the TV industry duke it out to have the best OLED TV in the business, Vizio's launching a fancy new display in an untapped category. Now that 4:3 TVs are all but gone from the market, super wide 21:9 screens have a chance to snatch the meaning of "widescreen" away from our standard 16:9 sets. Vizio's CinemaWide LED TVs are built for 2.35:1 and 2.39:1 widescreen films, which are tweaked slightly for Blu-ray's 2.4:1 aspect ratio; the 35mm anamorphic aspect ratio still reigns supreme in Hollywood.

Naturally, the 120Hz Vizio CinemaWide TVs support 3D and are loaded with apps. Putting those bells and whistles aside, there's really only one important thing about the CinemaWide: it looks fantastic playing 2D content. With Vizio's history of success in the budget HDTV category, the company's 58-inch CinemaWide might be the first 21:9 TV to have a shot at affordability. But your existing Blu-Rays may not be optimized for it. Here's why.

If you followed our CES 2012 coverage, you'll know that while Sharp's press conference presentation underwhelmed us (a smart tv on a smart car? c'mon), the 8K TV they had on the convention floor is a strong contender for the single best technology we saw at the entire show. Unfortunately, it's also the kind of thing that's difficult to convey in words or even show in high-def video footage. But I did manage to take some macro and wide-angle photos that may give you a sense of what 8K looks like. The 85-inch LCD TV was showing video shot by one of very few 8K cameras in the world--owned by Japanese broadcast studio NHK. Sharp reps couldn't divulge exactly how this video was being fed to the TV, but heard from a little bird that the TV is displaying video from an array of 16 HDMI cables.

Here are two scenes that were shown in the 8K TV demo. I zoomed in on both shots to show you just how much detail 8K resolution allows.

Samsung was all about “pushing boundaries” at this year’s CES keynote—which made it all the more ironic to see Angry Birds finally make its way to the company’s Smart TVs. But smartphone games of yesteryear aside, Samsung has big plans for its line of internet-enabled TVs—in particular, a new future proofing strategy that might just lessen the blow of post-purchase regret.

According to Boo-Keun Yoon, the president of Samsung’s consumer electronics division, the company sold over 5.7 million units in 2011 alone. That’s no small feat—two TVs per second, said Yoon—and Samsung might have a way to sell even more.

Forget the TV industry's focus on bigger, badder, smarter 3DTVs for a minute: Sharp's looking for your attention, and it's willing to strut and saunter all over CES to get it. The company unveiled a new range of lightweight TVs for 2012 dubbed Aquos Freestyle, and true to their name the TVs are built to be hauled around with ease.

The 20-inch, 32-inch, 40-inch and 60-inch Freestyle TVs are designed to be moved around the house for special occasions or just for kicks; the smallest model weighs in at only 5.5 pounds and includes an optional handle, which has previously been proven to make any electronic device more adorable.

CES always hosts its share of jaw dropping prototype TVs that will take years and years to make it to market, but overall the direction of consumer TV development is easy to follow. In 2009, LED edgelighting started to appear. In 2010, 3D ruled the show. In 2011, TV apps started moving into full-on "smart TV" territory. And in 2012, LG's continuing on with those same priorities, pushing smart TV functionality alongside a growing range of 3D TVs and a very fancy OLED that fits into that jaw dropping, not-for-the-average-consumer category.

LG's press conference covered the usual sales statistics for its TV business in 2012, then looked ahead to what's coming this year. Smart TV and 3D are leaving the way, but there were still a couple surprises: namely limited support for Google TV (it's not dead yet!) and a heavy focus on passive 3D technology.