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."
post
It still is.
720 = HD 1080 = Full HD
Then I think there's UHD, before they start labelling them as shortened numbers like 8k
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"
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.
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.
I still consider it HD lol
720p IS HD.
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?
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.
remember when vhs only recorded 250 lines? remember when it was 240 by 320, remember when, fuck you....I remembeer when amber and greeen were the only colors....
Standard definition, high definition, full high definition, ultra definition, AI upscaled ultra high definition, nuclear holocaust definition, stone age definition
It's still good on phone screens.
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 480p was called Enhanced Definition.
I still have a widescreen ED CRT with an HDMI port in the garage, it’s the best Wii screen ever made.
1280 × 720 was "HD ready"
1920 × 1080 was "Full HD"
I always thought "HD ready" was a bit of a marketing scam.
720p hits that sweet spot between file size and picture clarity so that's my default preference for torrents.
Yeah no. 720p is so low resolution that it no longer qualifies as HD IMO. I need 1080p minimum, 4K remux ideally. But what matters even more than resolution is codec and bitrate. I rather watch well-encoded 1080p video over a poorly-encoded 4K file.
No way, not even close. At least I can't enjoy that anymore, I'm too much of a snob now... Are you watching on your phone or Laptop? That would make sense.
However, 1080p h.265 can get you superior quality while saving space over 720p h.264.
When I had to watch on my 65" UHD, it was 4-5GB/hour 1080p h.264 files at minimum. 8-10GB UHD h.265 minimum. When I rip BDs my 1080p stuff i rip and convert to h.265 and keep them around 5-6GB/hour (which is like 8-10 h.264 so a gain), and my UHD + DV/HDR stuff I rip are also about 12-15GB/hr... but I cut out all subtitles and alternate audio and keep stereo and multi channel English to help maximize that file size (for friends/family who don't have surround or just use TV).
Now that I'm on an 85" UHD, I kept most content the same (most shows don't need UHD + DV or HDR) but on bigger theatrical stuff or content where I care, movies are closer to 20-22GB/hour for maximum enjoyment. It makes a very big difference when viewing lower bitrate vs higher bitrate! Way less banding, pixelation, and offers smoother playback in higher motion scenes. Plus, audio plays a huge part in immersion!
Not everyone has the space though, for that content, so I get it. But treat yourself occasionally and watch something hi res with quality audio!
I'm watching on a 2m wide projector screen, and honestly for most movies high-bitrate 720p is still acceptable. Heck, if the movie is good enough I'd even watch it in DVD quality (which is 480p). High-bitrate 1080p is nicer of course, but usually not enough to waste storage space on it. I'd much rather see 3-4 movies in 720p than 1 movie in 1080p (which is about the size difference you get).
I guess different people have different preferences, but for me movies are not about examining the pimples on character's faces. It's about temporarily transporting me to a different reality, starting some in-depth discussion with whoever I'm watching it with, or just making me think about some area of life. Don't need 1080p for any of that, my brain is more than good enough at suspending disbelief with a million pixels at any one time.
Heck, some of my favorite movies have been shot on consumer-grade cameras and film. The medium doesn't matter as much as the direction, acting, composition and cinematography in general.
In my opinion 1920x1080 should be the baseline "standard definition" nowadays.
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.
Technology advances, something is cutting edge, then the standard, then outdated.
I remember when youtube basically only had one format and I'm pretty sure it was 240p lol.
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.
If its not sports or something where you're watching a tiny subject on the screen, there is no reason for more than 720p.
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.
But you need 4k so that you can see the peach fuzz on a female character to fuel an incel rant.
Also, if you didn't spend a months wages on a monitor and game at less than 60fps you might as well poke your eyes out.
top 65 comments