A new study published in Nature by University of Cambridge researchers just dropped a pixelated bomb on the entire Ultra-HD market, but as anyone with myopia can tell you, if you take your glasses off, even SD still looks pretty good :)
A new study published in Nature by University of Cambridge researchers just dropped a pixelated bomb on the entire Ultra-HD market, but as anyone with myopia can tell you, if you take your glasses off, even SD still looks pretty good :)
If 4k is 4k because the horizontal resolution is around 4000, so you’d think 1080p, with its 1920p-long lines would be 2k. It’s fucked that it isn’t.
It’s all just marketing speak at this point.
“4k” is supposed to be a term for cinema widescreen resolution, but got taken over because it’s short and marketable because “4k is 4x as many pixels as 1080p”
What makes it worse is that then 1440p becomes 2k because “it’s 2x as many pixels”
The flip flop irks me
They shouldn’t use numbers at all tbh. QQVGA, QVGA, VGA, q(uarter)HD, HD, Full HD, QHD, UHD and so on works for all aspect ratios, and you can even specify by adding prefixes like FW (full wide) VGA would be 480p at 16:9. It gets a little confusing cause sometimes the acronyms are inconsistent (and PAL throws a wrench on everything), but the system works.
PS: I also don’t like that 540p is called qHD cause it’s a quarter of Full HD.
1080p is 2k, the commenters above are just wrong.