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.

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)
Sorry I had kinda put this project on the shelf for a while. I've made some modifications as suggested above. I managed to fit 1280×1024 and 1440×900 together. The separate color code for 5:4 was removed though since there is only one entry for it.
I wasn't focusing on any device types in particular, I'm just listing resolution numbers that I think are most commonly encountered or discussed. While resolutions like 640×360 are "common" resolutions as they were/are commonly implemented on low-end phones, those resolution numbers are not commonly discussed because people tend not to care about screen resolution on those devices (generally speaking). On higher end phones, people care more, but those resolutions (720p, 1080p, 1440p) are already included. Older "computer" resolutions like the 16:10 series are not "common" anymore in new products, but are widespread in old computer products, and people check and compare whatever resolution their computer has more often than on a phone, as resolution is not considered as much of a "behind the scenes" spec on computers as it is on phones and tablets. On phones and tablets you never select resolutions for anything, it's all taken care of automatically, so the numbers associated with the screen resolution on phones and tablets are rarely checked or compared, at least relative to computer resolutions. Anyway, the whole point is to provide a comparison between resolutions familiar to most people, so that's what I based my selection on, for the most part.
While 1280×720 was never widely implemented in desktop screens or TVs (although is was in phones), it is still a widely used standard for video content. I know this is "display resolution" and not "video format resolution", but it's often relevant to the comparison of resolutions, and it has a large presence in discussion, so I feel it deserves an entry on the chart for comparison purposes. Likewise the "SD" resolution (or "480p") is often encountered in video (DVD resolution), and I think it's educational to have it on there for comparison purposes. 3200×1800 I feel is something of a stepping stone resolution which I don't think will have much staying power, and I'm not sure if it's worth putting on a chart that will likely be around for a long time, but I can add it if you like. GlenwingKyros (talk) 02:41, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
New (more permanent) link, since other link is dead. GlenwingKyros (talk) 18:05, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

I think that is the best of all the many charts so far. It is the only chart to include the venerable XGA+ standard, as well as has important notes at the bottom. I think it's great to be adding larger resolutions like 4K which are now becoming more popular, but I think any new chart should be based upon chart 4 I linked above, which I'm quite sure used to be the featured chart in the article until it was replaced by the older, inferior, less complete chart 2 for some reason!! ThinkPadLover123 (talk) 00:17, 2 December 2017 (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)

Actually, they do. Some are used in smartphone specs and reviews, as well as commercial leaflets for notebook computers. Also flatscreen TVs, though the vendor whose website I checked right now is nice enough to write "Full-HD and UHD 4k" instead of just FHD/UHD. I don't like these obscure acronyms either, but they are actually used outside of Wikipedia. Aragorn2 (talk) 13:11, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Computer–graphics merge proposal[edit]

See Computer display standard.

I don't know whether a merger would improve the coverage or focus, but I know that the reader who is aware of both articles (unlikely, as things stand) ought not be left wondering which article to digest first.

It's simply not good enough to have one refer to the other in the late-to-the-party "see also" section. — MaxEnt 17:14, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Bear in mind that many readers are going to arrive—pretty much at random I would guess—on one or the other article after keying in one of the many overlapping, opaque letter-salad acronyms. — MaxEnt 17:23, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

x versus ×[edit]

Probably not the right place to ask, but would it be worth somebody running a bot to change e.g. 640x480 (note letter x) to 640×480, everywhere it occurs? Equinox 21:29, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

The use of "x" vs. "×" for display resolutions has been debated before, mostly with inconclusive results if memory serves me. Personally I've given up on caring about this issue, and I doubt most readers would even notice. But if you feel like there's some actual benefit to be had from such a change, go ahead, just make sure you don't change it in e.g. ref details, wikilinks (unless the target is also appropriately changed). Indrek (talk) 06:34, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Need to add new resolution[edit]

In the article isn't present the resolution 256x144 common as 144p. It's not very important but from some years it was adopted by YouTube in the settings menu, so it cannot be absent.--Dato24 (talk) 12:41, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Metricate the screen sizes[edit]

When the article gives screen sizes for devices which provide examples of support for a given resolution, they always seem to be in Imperial units. I have no idea how big 37 inches (or whatever size is being used as an example) is. I know metres and millimetres. Can we please dump the Imperial measurements and replace them with SI ones? - Roxor128 (talk) 05:20, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

The Units of measurement section of the Manual of Style gives the following advice for choosing units in articles without strong national ties to either the US or the UK (emphasis mine):
"In all other articles, the primary units chosen will be SI units, non-SI units officially accepted for use with the SI, or such other units as are conventional in reliable-source discussions of the article topic (such as revolutions per minute (rpm) for rotational speed, hands for heights of horses, et cetera)."
Graphics displays are one such topic (along with e.g. loudspeakers) where sizes are almost universally given in inches, both in primary sources (e.g. device specifications, sometimes even model names) as well as secondary ones (e.g. reviews). I understand where you're coming from, but I think for most people converting all sizes to metric would create more confusion instead of clarifying anything. Indrek (talk) 06:36, 7 November 2017 (UTC)