you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 49 points 1 week ago (5 children)

But 720p literally is HD 🤔

  • source
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 21 points 1 week ago (2 children)

    720 is what cheapskate manufacturers marketed as HD even though it was a half-assed step away from 480 (or whatever NTSC and PAL actually are). They pushed the whole distinction between “HD Ready” (720) and “Full HD” (1080) which wouldn’t have been necessary if they’d just bit the bullet and went straight to 1080.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 1 week ago (1 child)

    My eyes really just miss whatever res CRTs were. Looking at every flat screen makes my eyes tired. This handheld one too.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 1 point 1 week ago

    480p*.

    Fun fact: These numbers only show the vertical resolution because CRTs don't have a fixed horizontal resolution. The electron beam starts in the top left and moves continuously left to right, jumping back to the left edge at the end of every "scanline", and there's no limit (theoretically) to how quickly it can flicker during each scanline. You can feed them a 640x480 signal or a 720x480 signal and it'll display both just the same (although the latter will be a bit squished). Also, the "p" doesn't stand for pixels, it stands for "pan scan", meaning every scanline is hit every frame, as opposed to 480i (which is what most TV content was actually broadcast in) for "interlaced", meaning each even-numbered frame has only the even-numbered scanlines and each odd-numbered frame has only the odd-numbered scanlines, creating a total image that's 480 lines tall using half the amount of bandwidth. This had the obvious problem that if the camera was moving, the even and odd rows of "pixels" (CRTs, again, don't have pixels per se) being from different frames meant it would look a little... zigzaggy

  • source
  • parent