• bss03@infosec.pubEnglish
    3·
    19 hours ago

    Having watched 480i content for so long, you better believe 720p felt HD.

    These days, I mostly watch 1080p content because at the size/distance I’m watching, 4K just doesn’t “buy” any more joy. But, I remember the first time we watched some 4K videos on a new 4K TV, and the nature ones looked like a window and not a screen from across the room.

    • VindictiveJudge@lemmy.worldEnglish
      3·
      16 hours ago

      And 1080p is Full HD.
      1440p is Quad HD.
      2160p/4K is Ultra HD.
      4320p/8K is also Ultra HD, for some bonus confusion.

  • gandalf_der_13te@feddit.org
    112·
    1 day ago

    i still go for 720 all the time because at a certain resolution, you’re just starting to see the pimples, at not extra benefit.

  • TrackinDaKraken@lemmy.worldEnglish
    1·
    20 hours ago

    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.

  • Kazumara@discuss.tchncs.de
    172·
    1 day ago

    1280 × 720 was “HD ready”
    1920 × 1080 was “Full HD”

    I always thought “HD ready” was a bit of a marketing scam.

    • captcha_incorrect@lemmy.worldEnglish
      7·
      1 day ago

      I remember ”HD ready” as HDR, then years later HDR (high dynamic range) came a was very confused as to way a 1080p monitor was marked as HD Ready.

  • Couldbealeotard@lemmy.worldEnglish
    27·
    2 days ago

    It still is.

    720 = HD 1080 = Full HD

    Then I think there’s UHD, before they start labelling them as shortened numbers like 8k

    • BigDanishGuy@sh.itjust.works
      2·
      20 hours ago

      Wut? No

      Update in italics: immediately after posting my comment I see we agree, I just missed it because I had expected a separator between the two formats. I’m going to let my comment be, because it can serve as a reference for others.

      1080p = 1920x1080 = “Full HD”
      720p = 1280x720 = “HD Ready”, or at least according to wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Display_resolution_standards “HD”

      4K has to subtypes 4K UHD and DCI which is both 2160 lines, but UHD is 16:9= 3840 pixels wide, and DCI is slightly wider with 4096 pixel in a 256:135 format. But both are “4K”

      • Couldbealeotard@lemmy.worldEnglish
        1·
        20 hours ago

        I think you should read your link again. It clearly says 720 is “HD”.

        “HD Ready” was a marketing term that was sometimes used for things that were both 720 and close to 720.

    • Zanz@lemmy.worldEnglish
      48·
      2 days ago

      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.

      • Victor@lemmy.world
        13·
        2 days ago

        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.

      • Couldbealeotard@lemmy.worldEnglish
        5·
        1 day ago

        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.

  • dual_sport_dork 🐧🗡️@lemmy.world
    32·
    2 days ago

    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.”

    • Jesus_666@lemmy.world
      14·
      2 days ago

      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)
    • SpacePanda@mander.xyz
      12·
      2 days ago

      All about aspect ratio, at a high aspect ratio 720 looks fine on a reasonably sized TV.

  • ch00f@lemmy.world
    14·
    2 days ago

    I remember TVs that were “HD compatible” which means they were like 520p, but could downscale an HD signal.

    • Psythik@lemmy.world
      2·
      2 days ago

      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 liked 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.

  • Treczoks@lemmy.world
    4·
    1 day ago

    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.

    • BigDanishGuy@sh.itjust.works
      3·
      1 day ago

      Ha you had it easy. My first computer had a mechanical display. It was a wooden frame with 6 rods across. On each rod was 10 beads. There were no “characters” except the people around the fire in our cave!