Talk:Graphics display resolution

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Computing (Rated C-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon 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.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

AxB pixels should use the × multiply sign[edit]

Too many for me to fix. Equinox (talk) 16:16, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

It's been discussed before, the consensus is that unspaced "x" is also acceptable for resolutions (especially since "×" needs to be spaced and include units). Indrek (talk) 16:21, 27 August 2015 (UTC)
Equinox is correct about sign × vs letter x. And it's not too many to fix. However, Indrek appears to be on a relentless personal campaign against it, and against clarifying MOS:NUM#Common mathematical symbols, attracting comparisons to WP:Randy from Boise. It already says "Do not use the letter x to indicate multiplication" but could use an an example about dimensions also, and should rather drop it's confused example about 4WD since that article itself uses × not x.
His assertion that there's "consensus" re his opinion is outright wrong; see the last archived discussion where his arguments are heavily disputed and his final change proposal received no support except his own.
Some time has passed; feel free to bring a discussion to clarify MOS:NUM#Common mathematical symbols to it's talk page (WT:MOSDATE). (talk) 14:10, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
The anon is as mistaken as he is uncivil. I've no personal agenda here, I'm merely going by what the MOS says - that unspaced "×" is not allowed. And even if it was, changing from one MOS-accepted format to another is also explicitly forbidden. I fail to see the purpose of this flagrant attempt to paint me as some sort of crusader against policy and consensus.
Regarding the aforementioned discussion from early 2014, the anon appears to have merely skimmed it, rather than actually committing the time to read and understand the arguments presented. The change proposal was merely about explicitly mentioning display resolutions in the MOS. There was, in fact, no consensus not to allow the use of unspaced "x", which means the previous consensus stands (see also a slightly more recent discussion about this at Talk:Computer display standard#nxn). Further, no one actually managed to produce any evidence of problems with the use of unspaced "x", making this an obvious case of WP:DONTFIXIT.
The only thing even remotely reasonable in the previous comment is the suggestion to revisit the issue at WT:MOSDATE. Personally I doubt it would accomplish anything useful (as the whole proposal to outlaw unspaced "x" appears to be a solution looking for a problem), or that most editors would even care, but at least it would be more constructive than throwing around petty, baseless accusations. Indrek (talk) 18:33, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

4K is a DCP format, has nothing to do with resolution.[edit]

It does not matter how many times people say it, 4K is simply a DCP format. Nothing more. It is not a resolution. It should be removed from the UHD section! (talk) 21:55, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Full Ultra HD[edit]

User:Avieshek has made multiple edits replacing "8K UHD" with "8K Full UHD" or "8K FUHD". I have undone these because there is no accompanying reference to back this name up. I have searched around but can not find any source that calls it this.

The organisation which created the UHDTV standard, ITU, also calls it 8K UHD. For instance in this press release.[1] ("... they are sometimes called the ‘4K’ and ‘8K’ UHDTV systems")

--Lonaowna (talk) 19:55, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

It seems these edits were made again by someone, and I have undone them again, as once again no references were provided. I have also added the DCI 2K and 4K sections back in; although they are not part of either of the "HD" standards, neither are resolutions like 2560x1440, 3200x1800, or 5K (5120x2880), so if we are going to keep those I see no reason why the DCI sections should not be kept as well. They are often relevant to the 2K/4K/8K discussion.

I have also removed "16K QUHD" as this resolution is basically theoretical, it does not exist in any display and is not even on the roadmap yet, and it is not described in any published standards yet, so even if we were to list this resolution, it does not have any standardized name. This does not mean we get to make up our own name for it.

And lastly I have removed resolutions and edited names from the main chart. "UHD (4K)" (3840x2160) and "FUHD (8K)" (7680x4320) were renamed to "4K UHD" and "8K UHD" as per the official UHDTV specification. "UHD+" was renamed to "5K (UHD+)" since it has no official name and both of those names are frequently used for it. I also removed "16K QUHD" (15360x8640), as well as another made-up resolution "FUHD (8K)" (8192x5120), which is actually a 16:10 resolution, and of course does not exist in any display or roadmap and is not defined in any standard, and so the name "FUHD" is certainly not established by any source, and since it does not exist in any way whatsoever, I see no reason to include it on this list.

I also removed "FUHD (8K)" (10080x4320) and removed the name of "Ultra Wide Television (4K)" (5120x2160), and debating removing that entry entirely as well. These are once again made-up theoretical ultrawide resolutions, based on the extension of 1920x1080 to an ultrawide counterpart of 2560x1080. The next logical step in ultrawides would be the same move from 4K UHD, or in other words double the pixel count of 2560x1080 in each direction, hence 5120x2160. Although this resolution is a likely next step, it does not exist in any displays currently or in the near future, and is not defined in any standard, so it does not have a name. Once again, this does not mean we get to make up our own name.

10080x4320 is another theoretical resolution that came out of typing things into a calculator; once again it is an attempt at predicting the next logical step after 5120x2160 (ultrawide version of 4K UHD); an ultrawide version of 8K UHD! Whoever made these edits calculated this 10080px number from the vertical resolution of 8K UHD (4320px) and determining a horizontal pixel count with a 21:9 ratio, woefully unaware that "21:9" monitors do not actually have an exact 21:9 ratio. If you want to make predictions, the "real" next logical step would be simply doubling pixel count in each direction again from 5120x2160; or in other words 10240x4320, not 10080. But anyway, once again this is just a theoretical dream resolution, it does not actually exist and so there is no reason to list it here until such time.

(EDIT: I left 5120x2160 in there, since it's better than a blank box. "Theoretical" resolutions aren't that big of a problem if we don't go overboard with them I suppose, but the line should be drawn at adding a new row or column with a new pixel number just for the sake of adding a resolution that doesn't exist (i.e. 15360x8640)

GlenwingKyros (talk) 12:09, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for your edits, I completely agree with them. People adding these "exotic"/made-up resolutions should at least mention a source or explain their motivation on the talk page, which they refuse to do.
I'm glad you spotted these edits and the page now again only contains standard resolutions with proper citations.
Lonaowna (talk) 16:16, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
On an unrelated note, please be advised that the non-breaking spaces ( ) that you removed in this edit are actually required by the Wikipedia Manual of Style. From WP:MOS#Units of measurement: "Values and unit symbols are separated by a non-breaking space." Please keep this in mind for future edits. Thank you. Indrek (talk) 19:42, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for the correction. The display industry almost universally does not use spaces with units so I am not accustomed to it, but I will keep that in mind for future edits here. GlenwingKyros (talk) 23:03, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Picture "Multiple display standards compared"[edit]

It would be nice to expand this till 4k or 5k cause of the new standards in TV ("Ultra HD Premium"-Logo) and Ultra-HD-BluRay-Player. Sorry for the german article: -- (talk) 12:27, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

I've created a draft of an updated chart, I will attach it on the side. If there are any suggestions for changes, I'm open to discussion here. I don't know what resolutions people feel should be listed, though keep in mind there isn't really much space for many resolutions around 1080p or below.

Resolution Chart (Small Scale) (Draft 2).png

GlenwingKyros (talk) 13:03, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

A few comments and suggestions:
  • 8:5 should be 16:10.
  • Add WXGA+ (1440x900), removing SXGA if needed.
  • 720p and 1080p are video standards, not display resolutions. I'd label them simply as HD and FHD. Ditto for VGA (SD is also a video standard) and QHD (1440p isn't even an actual standard AFAIK).
  • Label 1366x768 also as HD, because that's how computer displays with that resolution are/were advertised. Also, it's not exactly 16:9, so perhaps add the actual aspect ratio (~1.78:1).
  • I don't know if the megapixel curves are necessary. Total pixel (or megapixel) count is more relevant to camera sensors than displays.
Overall, though, good job! Indrek (talk) 08:00, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback. I'll change 8:5 to 16:10. I'd like to keep SXGA since it is still a fairly common resolution and people looking to replace those monitors, or people who replaced them in the past, might be interested in seeing how it compares to more modern resolutions. I'll look for a way to fit 1440x900 in.
Although 720/1080p are not just resolutions, they're extremely common and recognizable terms for those resolutions, and they are terms that a lot of people will probably be looking for, so I'd like to keep those names in. Maybe the labels could be changed to FHD "1080p" or FHD ("1080p") to indicate the more "casual-ness" of those terms?
On 1366x768, I know it's not exact, but I didn't think it was worth making the distinction since it's 1/3 of a pixel off, and I'd have to go to 4 decimal places (1.7786) to make it distinct from looking like 1.777(...) being rounded to 1.78 or 1.778. GlenwingKyros (talk) 20:29, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, putting "720" / "1080p" in parentheses would work as well.
By the way, I don't think any computer displays used 1280x720, instead they went to 1366x768 for the lowest-end widescreen displays. This got me thinking, though - what types of devices is the chart supposed to cover? Because if we're focusing mainly on computer displays, then it should also include HD+ (1600x900) and QHD+ (3200x1800), for instance. Besides TVs, 1280x720 has been used on phones and tablets. But then for tablets we should also include QXGA (2048x1536). And for phones, WVGA (800x480), possibly also nHD (640x360) and a WXGA variant (1280x768). But including all these would make the chart too crowded. It seems that if we want to fairly represent all device types, we may need to focus on the more recent resolutions, leaving out older ones. Indrek (talk) 08:09, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Order: hd first?[edit]

Wouldn't it make sense to put the hd formats first? The article isn't chronological anyway and the hd formats are of course the ones our "customers" come here for most often. I'm gonna boldly do it, please discuss here if you don't agree. PizzaMan (♨♨) 11:09, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

WQHD / QHD[edit]

Someone undid my revision of changing QHD to WQHD. I had provided sources to demonstrate that WQHD is the common term. It may or may not be correct according to some definition, but it's the most practical abbreviation, because qhd has two meanings, depending on whether you capitalize the Q. But that's my interpretation of the reason why WQHD is more popular (original research). Fact is WQHD is the most commonly used term as can be seen in the references, whether it was originally correct or not. PizzaMan (♨♨) 17:16, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Where are the sources that "demonstrate that WQHD is the common term"? All I saw is sources to marketing announcements of certain products, as well as a link to Amazon. Some of them mention "QHD" or "Quad HD", some mention "WQHD". I did not a clear advantage of one over the other. And surely you cannot claim this seemingly random selection of announcements to prove anything?
There is also the other statement from you - that it is done "to avoid confusion with qHD with a small q". Here you say that this is "your interpretation", but in the article it is presented as a fact, completely unsupported by any evidence.
Unless you are willing to provide credible explanations to the above statements, I think that QHD is the better way to go, because it is more accurate. Many people on the internet use improper terms in regards to many things. There is no need for Wikipedia to further contribute to these mistakes, especially when people frequently take Wikipedia as one of the most authoritative sources for information, so in a way you would be perpetuating this misuse. Drst (talk) 18:08, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
There is no such thing as "more accurate" since there is no actual standardized name for this resolution. It's all just based on "lots of companies use this term for it", that's all. Both WQHD and QHD are used commonly, neither is "more correct" than the other. Maybe QHD is more consistent with how these naming conventions generally work, but it doesn't really matter, other conventions listed on this page are inconsistent as well, because those were the names companies decided to use for their products. It doesn't matter what makes more sense, it only matters what the actual industry uses. In this case both terms are used, but I've seen WQHD more often than QHD. GlenwingKyros (talk) 20:58, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
Again, "I have seen" is not real evidence. I can certainly tell you that I have seen QHD used more often. Right now, if you search Google, these are the number of queries returned: QHD = 7,820,000, WQHD = 361,000 ; QHD resolution = 440,000, WQHD resolution = 441,000; "QHD Resolution" = 474,000, "WQHD Resolution" = 31,800. As limited and unscientific as this data is, it really does not support the suggestion that WQHD is more often used (even if you account that some of the QHD refers to qHD).
I don't think it will be possible to credible reliable data showing which one is actually more often used, and since they are both half-arbitrary, to me it makes sense to emphasize the one that is at least technically consistent. Drst (talk) 10:27, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
The Google search results are personalised and thus confounded by previous searches. What's more, the hits for QHD are mixed with qHD. When i hit "wqhd qhd" in Google, there seems to be a preference for Quad HD over "Wide Quad HD" but most sources prefer to use abbreviations and in the abbreviations WQHD is often preferred over QHD. And the references in this section reflect that: WQHD is used more often as abbreviation. I do believe the section could use some clearing up and some statements, such as QHD being more technically correct need a reference. I'm not sure if a reference is needed for the counter argument that QHD can be confused with qHD; what do you think? For now i've edited the section title to include both abbreviations under the assumtion that QHD is indeed more technically correct. PizzaMan (♨♨) 16:44, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
I do believe that both should be represented, because, as I said, there is no reliable way to determine which is more common, and in any case it does not matter - both are used commonly enough to be reflected, and I will retract my previous statement that WQHD should not be mentioned in the article; clearly it should. However, I believe that the emphasis needs to be different.
Actually, "QHD being more technically consistent" is the only statement that does not need reference, because it is obvious. HD is 1280x720, Quad HD is exactly four times that, or 2560x1440, by definition. However, some of the statements you make in the article, such as WQHD being more common, or that it was chosen because of the possible confusion with qHD, do need reference, and you have not provided any. The random selection of links to various products does not show what you claim it does.
It is clear that there can be confusion between qHD and QHD, but to say that there can be confusion is not the same thing as to say that "WQHD" was chosen because of this confusion. qHD is a resolution that exists only in the realm of handheld devices, while QHD, until recently, existed almost entirely in the realm of desktop and laptop monitors. Those two worlds rarely intersect, and such a confusion would not normally have a chance to occur. My guess is that the term WQHD was coined by someone, who wanted to emphasize it being a wide resolution, and either forgot that all HD resolutions are wide, or thought that it needed to be made more obvious. But this is just a guess, and I cannot put it up in the article as if it's a fact.
So, yes, I believe the section should be edited a bit, and statements which are not factual, should not be presented as such. I also think that both should be represented throughout the article, given that both are established terms (like 4K and UHD, for example). In places where conciseness is required, I think it is OK to use (W)QHD. When both are mentioned, I think QHD should appear first, because it is more technically consistent, and because it is more fundamental (i.e., the WQHD name is formed by prefixing the existing QHD name with "wide", not the other way around). I updated in article in line with what I suggested. Do you find it acceptable? Drst (talk) 19:49, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
Looks great to me. Thanks for synthesizing our thoughts. PizzaMan (♨♨) 04:34, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Nobody uses these letter salad names[edit]

The only place you ever see someone refer to a display resolution as WQSGVGA or whatever is Wikipedia. Nobody knows what the hell WUXGA is execpt for the sperglords who write this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:03, 2 May 2016 (UTC)