4 ms·

We really ought to insist on using more correct terms like UHD (Ultra High Definition = 3840×2160 pixels) and only referring to "true" 4K cinema (4096 × 2160 pi

We really ought to insist on using more correct terms like UHD (Ultra High Definition = 3840×2160 pixels) and only referring to "true" 4K cinema (4096 × 2160 pixels) content/equipment as 4K.

eterm 12y ago
Like "HD" (1080) vs "HD Ready" (720) I think we've already lost that battle, and yet again it's "buyer beware" where people will get sold inferior goods as if they're the good stuff by having the same or similar terms for different quality. (Although in this case it's not as large a difference as HD vs HD ready was)
- QuotedForTruth 12y ago
  Ive never seen "HD Ready" refer to 720. As I remember it, HD Ready meant that the TV was HD (720 or 1080), but it didnt include an ATSC or QAM tuner. It was more like a monitor than a true TV. The distinction I've seen with 1080p is calling it True or Full HD.
  - huskyr 12y ago
    Maybe this is specific per country, but in the Netherlands 'HD Ready' always referred to 720 instead of 1080.
    - jwr 12y ago
      Actually, it referred to 768, as that was the number of lines that the cheap panels had. Which meant that even to display 720p content you had to scale it.
- snarfy 12y ago
  There really needs to be an international standard for these terms. What's wrong with listing a display by its capabilities? 1920x1080 60hz 24bpp. That way we can get rid of all this HD, HD Ready, UHD, 4K nonsense. It's marketing speak only meant to confuse you into buying something you wouldn't have if you were better informed.
  - Terretta 12y ago
    Listing by megapixels would make me happy. The number of diagonal inches has been the least helpful indicator of screen quality over the last decade, and the WUXGA nonsense is too hard to keep track of as well. Adopting a MP number would do more to get us high res screens than any other change.
dman 12y ago
We can do better, how about having marketing be based on a) Number of pixels in scientific notation b) Alternatively log base 10 of number of pixels
- micampe 12y ago
  They do that for digital camera displays and it’s super confusing.
  - dman 12y ago
    That was meant to be in jest - though i would probably chuckle if I saw a marketing banner that said "All new Monitors now with 5.02 x 10^7 pixels"
    - wlesieutre 12y ago
      If you used megapixels it wouldn't be any worse than camera sensors. I'm honestly surprised this hasn't been done as an alternative to VGA, SVGA, DVGA, WSVGA, XGA, WXGA, SXGA, WSXGA, UXGA, WUXHA, WQSXGA, WXUSXGA, qHD, HD, FHD, QHD, UHD, FUHD, etc. (several resolutions omitted) A number of megapixels and an aspect ratio would give all the information you need, while boiling it down to easily comparable numbers.
      - dublinben 12y ago
        General consumers often care more about physical size than actual resolution. Why else would 1920x1080 pixel computer monitors be sold in sizes up to 27 inches? What explains the proliferation of 15 inch, 1366x768 laptops, or even 17 inch 'laptops' of any resolution?
        Terretta 12y ago
        It's not that the consumers cared more about physical size, it's that they literally didn't know any better.
        12y ago

We really ought to insist on using more correct terms like UHD (Ultra High Definition = 3840×2160 pixels) and only referring to "true" 4K cinema (4096 × 2160 pixels) content/equipment as 4K.

eterm 12y ago

Like "HD" (1080) vs "HD Ready" (720) I think we've already lost that battle, and yet again it's "buyer beware" where people will get sold inferior goods as if they're the good stuff by having the same or similar terms for different quality. (Although in this case it's not as large a difference as HD vs HD ready was)

QuotedForTruth 12y ago
Ive never seen "HD Ready" refer to 720. As I remember it, HD Ready meant that the TV was HD (720 or 1080), but it didnt include an ATSC or QAM tuner. It was more like a monitor than a true TV. The distinction I've seen with 1080p is calling it True or Full HD.
- huskyr 12y ago
  Maybe this is specific per country, but in the Netherlands 'HD Ready' always referred to 720 instead of 1080.
  - jwr 12y ago
    Actually, it referred to 768, as that was the number of lines that the cheap panels had. Which meant that even to display 720p content you had to scale it.
snarfy 12y ago
There really needs to be an international standard for these terms. What's wrong with listing a display by its capabilities? 1920x1080 60hz 24bpp. That way we can get rid of all this HD, HD Ready, UHD, 4K nonsense. It's marketing speak only meant to confuse you into buying something you wouldn't have if you were better informed.
- Terretta 12y ago
  Listing by megapixels would make me happy. The number of diagonal inches has been the least helpful indicator of screen quality over the last decade, and the WUXGA nonsense is too hard to keep track of as well. Adopting a MP number would do more to get us high res screens than any other change.

dman 12y ago

We can do better, how about having marketing be based on a) Number of pixels in scientific notation b) Alternatively log base 10 of number of pixels

micampe 12y ago
They do that for digital camera displays and it’s super confusing.
- dman 12y ago
  That was meant to be in jest - though i would probably chuckle if I saw a marketing banner that said "All new Monitors now with 5.02 x 10^7 pixels"
  - wlesieutre 12y ago
    If you used megapixels it wouldn't be any worse than camera sensors. I'm honestly surprised this hasn't been done as an alternative to VGA, SVGA, DVGA, WSVGA, XGA, WXGA, SXGA, WSXGA, UXGA, WUXHA, WQSXGA, WXUSXGA, qHD, HD, FHD, QHD, UHD, FUHD, etc. (several resolutions omitted) A number of megapixels and an aspect ratio would give all the information you need, while boiling it down to easily comparable numbers.
    - dublinben 12y ago
      General consumers often care more about physical size than actual resolution. Why else would 1920x1080 pixel computer monitors be sold in sizes up to 27 inches? What explains the proliferation of 15 inch, 1366x768 laptops, or even 17 inch 'laptops' of any resolution?
      - Terretta 12y ago
        It's not that the consumers cared more about physical size, it's that they literally didn't know any better.
      - 12y ago