720p IS HD.
And 1080p is Full HD.
1440p is Quad HD.
2160p/4K is Ultra HD.
4320p/8K is also Ultra HD, for some bonus confusion.
It still is, but nobody cares anymore. At 16:9 1920x1080 is considered “Full High Definition,” and 3840x2160 (at minimum) is “Ultra High Definition,” at least in terms of their official marketing speak. The latter has mutated to include both 4K and 8K content somehow, apparently because the brainworms in the marketing department ran out of superlatives after “Ultra.”
They should’ve hired tea industry execs. If the tea industry can come up with grades like “Special Finest Tippy Golden Flowery Orange Pekoe”, they can come up with something beyond Ultra High Definition.
Maybe like this:
- High Definition (HD)
- Full High Definition (FHD)
- Ultra High Definition (UHD)
- Very Ultra High Definition (VUHD)
- Special Very Ultra High Definition (SVUHD)
- Full Special Very Ultra High Definition (FSVUHD or SVUHD1, both are acceptable)
Not that these grades would only apply to displays that don’t support picture-in-picture or split screen. Displays with those features (“broken” displays) would use the following equivalent grades instead:
- High Broken Definition (HBD)
- Full High Broken Definition (FHBD)
- Ultra High Broken Definition (UHBD)
- Golden Ultra High Broken Definition (GUHBD)
- Special Golden Ultra High Broken Definition (SGUHBD)
- Full Special Golden Ultra High Broken Definition 1 (FSGUHBD1)
SSG3UIHD
It still is.
720 = HD 1080 = Full HD
Then I think there’s UHD, before they start labelling them as shortened numbers like 8k
Uhd is not 4k. Uhd is 3840x2160, 4k is 4096x2160. TV companies calling 2160P UHD is a scam.You can’t watch 4k on 2160p uhd, but you can watch 2160p on real 4k. All hollywood movies have to be rerendered or upscaled from a 2k (2048x1080) version to fit on a t v.
Wikipedia:
4K resolution is a horizontal display resolution of approximately 4,000 pixels. For digital cinematography, it is 4096 × 2160 (DCI 4K), typically with a 256:135 (1.9:1) aspect ratio; for digital television, it is 3840 × 2160 (4K UHD), typically with a 16:9 (1.78:1) aspect ratio.
I think it’s fine. 160 px here and there is less than 5% difference.
Which studios still shoot in 2k? Or use a 2k intermediate?
Honestly, I stopped trying to understand them after 1080.
I’ve worked on broadcast for over a decade and up until recently is been almost exclusively 1080i that I’ve dealt with.
It’s still good on phone screens.
And handheld game consoles
I remember the 720p vs 1080i wars …
Interlacing is trash, fight me
Whoa there: I said “I remember”, not that interlacing was good.
And interlacing is only "good"for old video games that leveraged its weirdness for blending pixels.
It is terrible as a video format.
Remember when your dvd player had a “progressive scan” button?
Like I could afford a DVD player
I remember TVs that were “HD compatible” which means they were like 520p, but could downscale an HD signal.
Yeah I had one such 47" “HD Ready” plasma that did 848x480p. The pixels were so large you could see them but 720p content still looked good on it, and DVDs looked even better than they did on an HDTV due to the similar resolution of 720x480 that they output at. They were so much sharper on a display close to their native resolution.
On a small enough screen it still is.
My first computer screen was 40col by 24 row of text, with 8x8 pixel characters. So 320 by 192, but you could not use it as canvas, just as characters. You could redefine characters, but not enough to make a real pixel display.
I don’t mind 720p at all, but I play a lot of old games and usually upscaling to 720p on PlayStation 2 games and stuff makes a tremendous difference.
Anything older, CRT filters. Bloom and interlacing make games like Super Metroid very eerie.
Remember when 1080i was a thing? Now it’s all but dead beyond broadcast and cable TV (which is pretty much dead).
People used to say that 720p was better because it had a higher vertical resolution at any given moment due to being progressive scan, but IMO 1080i looked sharper for the most part unless there was a lot of motion in the scene. The resolution was high enough that the flickering from the interlaced images didn’t bother me. So I usually went with 1080i over 720p. Sports titles and games with a lot of action were the only time when I would go with 720p.
I remember when youtube basically only had one format and I’m pretty sure it was 240p lol.
1080p is now standard 4k is high definition Anything above 4k is overkill unless youre talking extremely large screens, bitrate, or VR applications
Pepperidge Farms about to start needing regular colonoscopies. 👀
Literally never
Do I remember? I’m fucking 60, I remember everything y’all ask about and much more. I remember when my 16" 1024 X 768 monitor died and I rushed to Staples before they closed to pay $400 for a 14" monitor, which was as much as I could afford at that moment. But, how far back do you want to go? MS-DOS 2.0 on a 12" amber monitor (I didn’t like green)? I was there.
My current “big” TV is a 1920 X 1080 14-year-old 55" Toshiba dumb TV.
I got a 27" 4K monitor a few months ago, when my old monitor died. I have my second, old 1920 x 1080 monitor next to it. Yes, I can tell the difference, but only in text, not in video.
I wouldn’t mind having a 100" OLED 4K TV, but for two things. I don’t want to pay for it, but I would pay for it, except I’m afraid it would die in a couple of years, because my experience has been that new appliances are crap. So, I’ll just stick with my old TV, and be happy that it’s much better than my 27" Sharp CRT it replaced.
Now excuse me while I go look at new TVs.
