3 ms·
As I read the article, all I could think was, "Really?". The specs clearly state 1024x600. The marketing material says it supports HD content. That means if yo
by Osiris 15y ago
As I read the article, all I could think was, "Really?". The specs clearly state 1024x600. The marketing material says it supports HD content. That means if you have a video that's encoded in 720p or 1080p that you can play it on the table without converting it.
On a 7" screen, I bet you could barely, if at all, tell the difference between 1280x720 and 1024x600 playing a 720p video, so I don't think that's really a good argument against the device.
However, you CAN tell the difference between a 720p video playing at 600p versus a 480p video being upscaled to 600p. You retain much more quality when downconverting than upconverting. I do a lot of video conversion (re-encoding my BluRay and DVDs for XBMC) and believe me, a BluRay downconverted to 720p looks immensely better than a 480p DVD upconverted.
So, I say "Fantastic!" Now I don't have to re-encode all my x264 encoded 720p BluRay files to watch them on my Nook (well, it probably doesn't support MKV or AC3, but that's another topic).
- deleted 15y ago[deleted]
- nitrogen 15y ago[Edit: since the parent post was deleted while I was typing my response, it claimed HD could only mean exactly 720 and 1080 vertical pixels.] 720p and 1080p, in common parlance, typically include whatever vertical resolution corresponds to 1280 or 1920 horizontal pixels for aspect ratios greater than 16:9, and whatever horizontal resolution corresponds to 720 or 1080 vertical pixels for aspect ratios less than 16:9. For example, "720p" can be used, colloquially, to refer to 2.35:1 videos at 1280x544 or 4:3 videos at 960x720. The resolution of the Nook screen is quoted in the parent post as 1024x600, which is 1.7067, between 16:9 (1024x576) and 16:10 (1024x640). Presumably 1024x600 is a good choice of resolution because it allows 800x600 and 1024x576 content to be displayed without scaling.