Talk:Graphics display resolution
|WikiProject Computing||(Rated C-class, Low-importance)|
|Threads older than 365 days may be archived by.|
Computer–graphics merge proposal
I believe this page shouldn't "endorse" names for formats in section headings unless they are established by a standards document or industry-wide consensus. Formats that don't have standardized names can just be listed by resolution in section headings (like "3840×1080" or "3840×1600" or "2160×1440"). While one particular company may have a name for a format, that can be listed in the description ("Dell calls this format "UW4K", while Acer uses the term "WQHD+""). I don't think a name should be in the heading unless it becomes standard notation recognized across the majority of companies. I have also noticed some names are simply "made-up" by extrapolating patterns from other formats (like "UW5K" for 5120×2160). This page should not be in the business of attempting to propose/create new conventions. It should be made clear to editors that it is ok if a resolution doesn't have a name. Not all resolutions do. And if a resolution doesn't have a name, then don't list a name. A lack of a standardized name is not an opportunity for us to make up our own name for it and hope it catches on. GlenwingKyros (talk) 04:25, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
Resolution first, name second
I think it would be better if headings were listed by resolution first, names second. I believe it is more readable in this format, as resolutions are approximately the same length when written, giving better alignment in the table of contents. In addition, some formats have multiple names associated with them, and this organization makes it more natural to list multiple names. Also, some formats don't have any name at all, so this organization would make it less disjointed to have those formats listed by resolution alone.
- No objections here. This might also help with the problem of made-up names you described above - no need to invent a name for the section heading, just use the actual resolution.
- One thing to keep in mind, though, is to preserve the existing headings as anchors so incoming links don't stop working.
- Indrek (talk) 20:52, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
VGA is not SD!
The article currently claims that 640x480 would be called "SD - in comparison for instance to HD (1280×720) or Full HD (1920×1080)." That is just patently wrong. SD is officially defined as 720x576 for PAL and 720x480 for NTSC for non-square pixel video, and 768x576 and 768x480 for square-pixel video respectively. So WVGA is the actual SD resolution.
It's only become common among amateurs to refer to resolutions far below 720x480 as "SD" simply because regulation organizations such as CCIR/ITU and EBU have assigned much too low datarates for digital broadcast SD TV due to lobbying pressure from HD manufacturers, resulting in lots of artifacts such as blocking and color banding on digital broadcast SD TV, something you'd never see on a proper 9,800 Mbit/s SD DVD, often even on 6,500 MBit/s DVDs. In fact, the low bandrate assigned to digital broadcast SD TV makes it about equal in quality to early-90s MPEG-1 VCDs. So amateurs have comnmonly started to refer to resolutions far below 720x480, the lowest of all official SD resolutions, as "SD" simply because they equate it with the crap quality they're getting on broascast TV. --2003:71:4F24:A80:A800:64BD:EDA9:C240 (talk) 20:08, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
- For all purposes, 640x480 is lower than 720x480. Anyway, it's the vertical lines that count, so 480 or 576 are SD, 720 and 1080 HD.
- Bitrate is irrelevant, resolution means the number of pixels of the standard, regardless of the image shown. 4throck (talk) 01:54, 13 May 2018 (UTC)
- I haven't looked up the NTSC/PAL standards in question, but I tend to agree with the proposition. Having recently written a video timing format calculator, for which I had to read the CTA-861 standards and transcribe all listed formats, which are timing standards for transmission of formats intended mainly for TVs, I recall distinctly that 720x480 and 720x576 were both very prevalent, with a very large number of formats defined in the 861 standards, and I don't recall 640x480 being there at all. On the other hand, perhaps I'm wrong, but I recall 4:3 being the standard aspect ratio for SDTVs, not 3:2; that being the case, were images transmitted at 720x480 but displayed at 640x480? Or were TVs actually built with 720x480 resolution simply with non-square pixels in the physical structure? Or perhaps I'm entirely wrong about this... I will need to look into this more. GlenwingKyros (talk) 03:51, 16 May 2018 (UTC)