It really shows how bad the marketing of these higher resolutions are. We always advertised the vertical lines and then we switched to horizontal lines.
You can’t expect a video game journalist to understand basic display principles. EDIT: /s
I get not wanting to call it “2160p” because that’s a lot of syllables. But you’re right, it was really dumb to switch which lines we are referring to. I’m sure a better name could have been come up with. Even UHD was better imo.
The one that really irks me are the people who call 2560x1440 2K. I have always known 2K to mean 2048 x 1080. But it has picked up so much traction that it has pretty much been redefined at this point.
2K is supposed to refer to a 2048x2048 square 1:1 aspect image, same with 4K being a 4096x4096 image. This term is correctly used a lot when referring to texture sizes. A 4K texture is 4096x4096 texels.
I think the term started getting mixed up with people discussing what resolutions benefit from texture size increases. Generally, if you are running, say, 4K textures, you would really only always benefit from that if you have a 2160p screen, just because lower resolutions dont have the definition to actually display those texels. So, people start inter changing “4K screen” and “4K-benefitting screen” and we end up where we are now.
“UHD features a 16:9 aspect ratio and is twice the resolution of full HD. In other words, two times 1080p, two times 1920 x 1080 pixels, that is 3840 x 2160 pixels. Having the same 16:9 aspect ratio means it is backward compatible with other HD derivates. However, both 4K and UHD can be shortened to 2160p to match the HD standard and therefore, companies use the terms interchangeably.”
“If you think 4K and UHD are one and the same, I don’t blame you. I blame the companies that LOVE to use them interchangeably all the time. You pick up a Blu-Ray movie disc of a 4K movie and you will most definitely see an Ultra HD label on it. 4K is actually not a consumer display and broadcast standard but UHD is. 4K displays are used in professional production and digital cinemas and feature 4096 x 2160 pixels”
Yeah but that would only be an increase in the horizontal resolution… you’d have 3840 x 1080.
So you gotta double the vertical resolution too, which means you’ve now doubled both horizontal and vertical resolutions, which is equal to 4 times the initial resolution
Actually, display resolution refers to exactly what you call pixel density, and NOT the pixel dimensions. This error is so common that the term resolution has practically been redefined outside of the professional (science and engineering) space, but technically, display resolution and pixel density are the same thing.
UHD features a 16:9 aspect ratio and is twice the resolution of full HD.
According to Wikipedia resolution is:
The display resolution or display modes of a digital television, computer monitor or display device is the number of distinct pixels in each dimension that can be displayed
Its pixels, why do you think QHD (Quad HD) is called that. Because its 4x the pixels of HD(720p)
You cant talk about only horizontal because you open up the chat to ultrwides and deceptive marketing, such as AMD using “8k” to show off their new GPUs, when in fact they intentially used a ultrawide and marketed it as 8k.
It really shows how bad the marketing of these higher resolutions are. We always advertised the vertical lines and then we switched to horizontal lines.
You can’t expect a video game journalist to understand basic display principles. EDIT: /s
Yes you can.
Wtf is sarcasm?
Sarcasm is my wife.
I get not wanting to call it “2160p” because that’s a lot of syllables. But you’re right, it was really dumb to switch which lines we are referring to. I’m sure a better name could have been come up with. Even UHD was better imo.
The one that really irks me are the people who call 2560x1440 2K. I have always known 2K to mean 2048 x 1080. But it has picked up so much traction that it has pretty much been redefined at this point.
2k is the term i refuse to use in my linguo. Ill yake QHD, or 1440p, but not 2k. 2560 doesnt even round to 2000 in the thousands place.
2K is supposed to refer to a 2048x2048 square 1:1 aspect image, same with 4K being a 4096x4096 image. This term is correctly used a lot when referring to texture sizes. A 4K texture is 4096x4096 texels.
I think the term started getting mixed up with people discussing what resolutions benefit from texture size increases. Generally, if you are running, say, 4K textures, you would really only always benefit from that if you have a 2160p screen, just because lower resolutions dont have the definition to actually display those texels. So, people start inter changing “4K screen” and “4K-benefitting screen” and we end up where we are now.
I don’t expect a journalist to know, I expect an editor or fact checker to at least Google “4k resolution”.
Or how about “red dead redemption xbox” to see what the BC version runs at…
Pro-tip: Xbox One S / Series S - 1440p
Xbox One X / Series X - Native 4K
https://www.eurogamer.net/digitalfoundry-2018-red-dead-redemption-4k-xbox-one-x-analysis
It’s pretty confusing
“UHD features a 16:9 aspect ratio and is twice the resolution of full HD. In other words, two times 1080p, two times 1920 x 1080 pixels, that is 3840 x 2160 pixels. Having the same 16:9 aspect ratio means it is backward compatible with other HD derivates. However, both 4K and UHD can be shortened to 2160p to match the HD standard and therefore, companies use the terms interchangeably.”
“If you think 4K and UHD are one and the same, I don’t blame you. I blame the companies that LOVE to use them interchangeably all the time. You pick up a Blu-Ray movie disc of a 4K movie and you will most definitely see an Ultra HD label on it. 4K is actually not a consumer display and broadcast standard but UHD is. 4K displays are used in professional production and digital cinemas and feature 4096 x 2160 pixels”
Heh, no. 4k is exactly four times the resolution of 1080p.
1920 x 2 = 3840 (4K UHD)
That’s what he’s talking about.
Yeah but that would only be an increase in the horizontal resolution… you’d have 3840 x 1080.
So you gotta double the vertical resolution too, which means you’ve now doubled both horizontal and vertical resolutions, which is equal to 4 times the initial resolution
It is double the resolution, because resolution is expressed as an x,y pair. It is 4 times the pixel density for the same screen size.
Actually, display resolution refers to exactly what you call pixel density, and NOT the pixel dimensions. This error is so common that the term resolution has practically been redefined outside of the professional (science and engineering) space, but technically, display resolution and pixel density are the same thing.
UHD is 4x Full HD resolution. The person who wrote that can’t even do math. That’s like saying 4m^2 = 2 x 1m^2 because 2 x 1 x 1 = 2 x 2
It’s obviously talking about horizontal lines, not pixels
No they specifically say
According to Wikipedia resolution is:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Display_resolution
Resolution is the number of pixels in both dimensions, so they are wrong
I think the point is that it’s ducking hard to talk about lmao 🤣
Its pixels, why do you think QHD (Quad HD) is called that. Because its 4x the pixels of HD(720p)
You cant talk about only horizontal because you open up the chat to ultrwides and deceptive marketing, such as AMD using “8k” to show off their new GPUs, when in fact they intentially used a ultrawide and marketed it as 8k.
How is it obvious that they are talking about horizontal when they also include vertical in the same calculation?
They just don’t know the difference between pixels and lines.
I don’t know that it’s THAT confusing, since by definition we’re talking consumer grade products, not professional grade.
Amd that’s a distinction consumers have been making for years.
https://www.caranddriver.com/news/a36125131/2022-hyundai-santa-cruz-pickup-revealed/
I mean, yeah, technically it’s classified as a pickup truck… but nobody will ever confuse it for:
https://www.kbb.com/ford/f250/
I thought the term “basic” would hint the sarcasm but I failed.
It really isn’t that hard to grasp, unless you are trying to frame your article a certain way.