Talk:Display resolution standards

Please add {{WikiProject banner shell}} to this page and add the quality rating to that template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Computing C‑class Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing articles
C	This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives (index)

Index 1

This page has archives. Sections older than 365 days may be automatically archived by when more than 4 sections are present.

Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers.

This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.

[[Aspect ratio (image)#36:10 (3.6:1)|IMAX UltraWideScreen 3.6]] The anchor (#36:10 (3.6:1)) is no longer available because it was deleted by a user before.

Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors

Definition vs. Resolution

Hello,

The title of this article is wrong. It confuses resolution and definition.

Definition is the number of picture elements, commonly called pixels. Resolution is a measure of the quality of the reproduced picture, measured by how close two lines can be together before they merge in the image.

Graphics displays are categorized by definition, not resolution. This is even evident in the article as it is; the headline says resolution but the body talks about definition.

This is a very commonly-made mistake; but there is no need to repeat and reinforce the mistake in wikipedia.

Question: is there any point in me fixing the article? Or is someone who is not aware of the error just going to change it all back? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.30.229.172 (talk) 16:33, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide authoritative sources to back up your claim.

Resolution is the common name. It does refer to the pixel dimensions because it is universally used that way, and language/words mean whatever people agree they mean. Resolution also refers to the granularity of an instrument. I think that applies here.GlenwingKyros (talk) 16:51, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It wouldn't be hard to find a list of ten Engineering textbooks that defined resolution properly. I even have some of them on my bookshelf from grad school in Electrical Engineering doing my thesis on digital video. But when you first ask to please provide authoritative sources to back up your claim, then go on and say it's wrong anyway, this again brings the question if there is any point in getting them off the shelf to quote them in fixing the error, or if someone who is not educated will just change it back.

Is the logic "everyone makes this mistake so it's OK" a good reason to leave the mistake? Take the example of cement. Cement is a white powder made by heating ingredients in a kiln. Concrete is made using a mix of usually about 1/3 cement, 1/3 sand and gravel and 1/3 water and letting it harden. Yet most people refer to concrete as cement. Is that a good reason to stop calling it concrete? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.29.142.68 (talk) 18:27, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia's practice is to refer to something by its common name, even if some authorities view the common name as incorrect. See WP:COMMONNAME. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 18:53, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The ancient Roman concrete recipe mixed lime, plus some gypsum with non-inert aggregate typically made up of crushed volcanic tuff, Pozzolana sand (really coarse MAFIC volcanic ash), crushed terracotta, and even crushed limestone, forming a true hydraulic cement,^[1] which allowed them to make structures underwater (e.g. piers and sea walls) as well as the Pantheon, Rome, which is still the world's largest unsupported concrete dome!

Portland cement was invented two millennia after the Colosseum and Pantheon.

Unlike modern concrete, where aggregate (sand, gravel) is specifically chosen to be non-reactive, the Romans used (mostly MAFIC) volcanic tuff as a source of silica and alumina. This was chemically reactive, and lighter in weight than modern concrete. Cracks propagated into small lumps of lime, which allowed water and lime to mix, sealing the crack before it could further propagate, unlike the recently re-done modern concrete road in front of my house which is growing potholes the size of a fiat. DrKC MD (talk) 03:58, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Ahmad, Zahra (2017-07-03). "Why modern mortar crumbles, but Roman concrete lasts millennia". Science. doi:10.1126/science.aan7051. ISSN 0036-8075.

Sun Microsystems

"Everyone" knows that SPARC hardware used 1152 x 900 for years. And yet, not listed. So sad.

Hmm? Oh, kids, ask your parents what Sun Microsystems was. lol. plaws (talk) 15:35, 30 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Should outdated lists of specific monitor models be culled?

Looking particularly at the "3840 × 2400 (WQUXGA)" section, the first paragraph mentions that it's in current use and how a current manufacturer brands it (Dell with UHD+). But the remaining bits of the section described a random set of issues with early 2000s DVI connections and a small subset of early 2000s LCD monitors having support. In the current day, support for this resolution is trivial over DisplayPort and current revisions of HDMI, and it's rare to find any direct DVI support on modern displays of this type. There's such a variety of current laptops and standalone displays using WQUXGA that it'd be pointless to list them as well.

The limitations of using this resolution in the early days of its support is worth retaining as is the mention of the first devices, but it doesn't seem pertinent to keep the list of early LCD displays as detailed as it currently is. Fishmech (talk) 00:32, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Overview

Does anyone else think that the overview section needs to be significantly improved? Like all the fake resolution names and things like 1280 × 864 being listed as 3:2 when 1296 × 864 and 1280 × 854 actually 3:2. NintendoTTTEfan2005 (talk) 07:02, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @NintendoTTTEfan2005: I just saw your post here. I had the same idea, and started editing here. Overview improved!? Regards --W like wiki ^{good to know} 22:18, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cool!! NintendoTTTEfan2005 (talk) 22:34, 17 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

FWXGA

Is FWXGA an actual term used at all? Cause none of the documentation cited in this article appears to list is this name. Cause I think we should delete it if this name isn't used for anything. NintendoTTTEfan2005 (talk) 14:14, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I just googled the term and I came across this: https://www.converters.tv/vga/7-Inch-Delta-FWXGA-LCD-Panel/15395.html

and this: https://olh.schneider-electric.com/Machine%20Expert/V1.2/en/BoxPCMod/BoxPCMod/iPC_-_Characteristics/iPC_-_Characteristics-3.htm

So I guess it is used in some capacity. NintendoTTTEfan2005 (talk) 14:19, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

NHD

Can someone please explain what the "N" in "NHD" stands for? NintendoTTTEfan2005 (talk) 04:51, 15 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@NintendoTTTEfan2005: If you mean nHD than it can be ninth HD!? --W like wiki ^{good to know} 13:51, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No, look at the notes for like 960 × 720, 720 × 540, 1200 × 900, 1440 × 1080, and 2880 × 2160. That is what I am talking about. Does it mean "Normal"? or what? NintendoTTTEfan2005 (talk) 15:07, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sourcing for ninth-HD description

I see that the “nHD” entry isn't well-sourced in the text. I don't see a particularly authoritative Web source for it, but I do see a bunch of tangential use related to products: for instance, there's an Engadget article about a mini DLP projector and a security camera data sheet that describe 640×360 resolution and notate it as “nHD” in passing. Should we maybe be adding those? It feels borderline to call those reliable sources, but at the same time I'm not sure how much research can actually be done here in practice. Rana Dexsin (talk) 20:18, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if there isn't much research that can be done, then I'd say put it in. But I am honestly not too great with that stuff so Idk. NintendoTTTEfan2005 (talk) 08:15, 16 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

PAL NTSC vs 576i 480i

I agree that PAL NTSC are popular names for these resolutions, but 576i and 480i are also commonly used (for example in TV user manuals). Perhaps we should show both designations PAL (576i), NTSC (480i) like for HD (720p) ?

Anyway, we should always link to 576i and 480i, because designations, horizontal resolutions, transport formats and media are discussed there. Linking to the analog systems makes no sense in a digital context.

I can do these changes, but I think it's best to discuss it them here first to avoid any misunderstanding. 4throck

PS - Why is D1 only mentioned for "PAL" and not the "NTSC" ?

(talk) 07:25, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good. —DIYeditor (talk) 08:45, 5 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

OK, changed 4throck (talk) 08:26, 6 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I messed this up and want to delete it but can't figure out how. Please delete!

[1] Ahmad, Zahra (2017-07-03). "Why modern mortar crumbles, but Roman concrete lasts millennia". Science. doi:10.1126/science.aan7051. ISSN 0036-8075.

[1]