Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
Glenwing

"2K" does not mean 2560×1440

Recommended Posts

It's very difficult to simplify this to me. I don't prefer this due to problem below. 

 

Example: vertical column (1080p & 1440p) 
1080p - 1920 x 1080 
True 2k - 2048 x 1080 

 

You could refer to true 2k and what they deem 1080p as both 1080p. 

 

1440p - 2304 x 1440 
True 2.5k - 2560 x 1440 

 

You could refer to true 2.5k and what they deem 1440p as both 1440p. 

 

This works as well with 4k between 3840 x 2160 and 4096 x 2160. 

 

Example 2: horizontal column 
2.5k - 2560 x 1600 
3.8k - 3840 x 1600 

 

Both are 1600p, but the horizontal column is different. 

I hope I explained the examples above well enough and didn't confuse too much. 

 

Cheat sheet 
1920 × 1080 - 1.9k x 1.0k
1920 × 1200 - 1.9k x 1.2k
2048 × 1080 - 2k x 1.0k
2048 × 1152 - 2k x 1.1k
2048 × 1536 - 2k x 1.5k 

2304 × 1440 - 2.3k x 1.4k 
2400 × 1350 - 2.4k x 1.3k 
2560 × 1080 - 2.5k x 1.0k 
2560 × 1440 - 2.5k x 1.4k 
2560 × 1600 - 2.5k x 1.6k 

3840 × 1600 - 3.8k x 1.6k
3840 × 2160 - 3.8k x 2.1k 
3840 × 2400 - 3.8k x 2.4k 
4096 × 2160 - 4k x 2.1k 
4096 × 2304 - 4k x 2.3k 
4096 × 2560 - 4k x 2.5k 
4096 × 3072 - 4k x 3.0k 

 

This is how I simply convert it myself. You could round up, but to keep it simpler I'm taking the first two digits.


Example: 1920 x 1080 

Take the first two digits of 1920 x 1080. 

 

19 (1920) & 10 (1080) 
1.9k x 1.0k 

 

or 

 

Example: 2560 x 1440 
Take the first two digits of 2560 x 1440. 

 

25 (2560) & 14 (1440) 
2.5k x 1.4k 
 

Some people may hate this, but a quick cheat sheet that can be used. Thought I'd share it and it might be too different or confusing for some. LMK if any of it's confusing or I didn't explain it well enough. 

 

In the end I prefer to keep it all with one example being 2560 x 1440 or 2.5k x 1.4k. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted · Original PosterOP
On 2/17/2017 at 1:31 AM, e23 said:

It's very difficult to simplify this to me. I don't prefer this due to problem below. 

 

Example: vertical column (1080p & 1440p) 
1080p - 1920 x 1080 
True 2k - 2048 x 1080 

 

You could refer to true 2k and what they deem 1080p as both 1080p. 

 

1440p - 2304 x 1440 
True 2.5k - 2560 x 1440 

 

You could refer to true 2.5k and what they deem 1440p as both 1440p. 

 

This works as well with 4k between 3840 x 2160 and 4096 x 2160. 

 

Example 2: horizontal column 
2.5k - 2560 x 1600 
3.8k - 3840 x 1600 

 

Both are 1600p, but the horizontal column is different. 

I hope I explained the examples above well enough and didn't confuse too much. 

 

Cheat sheet 
1920 × 1080 - 1.9k x 1.0k
1920 × 1200 - 1.9k x 1.2k
2048 × 1080 - 2k x 1.0k
2048 × 1152 - 2k x 1.1k
2048 × 1536 - 2k x 1.5k 

2304 × 1440 - 2.3k x 1.4k 
2400 × 1350 - 2.4k x 1.3k 
2560 × 1080 - 2.5k x 1.0k 
2560 × 1440 - 2.5k x 1.4k 
2560 × 1600 - 2.5k x 1.6k 

3840 × 1600 - 3.8k x 1.6k
3840 × 2160 - 3.8k x 2.1k 
3840 × 2400 - 3.8k x 2.4k 
4096 × 2160 - 4k x 2.1k 
4096 × 2304 - 4k x 2.3k 
4096 × 2560 - 4k x 2.5k 
4096 × 3072 - 4k x 3.0k 

 

This is how I simply convert it myself. You could round up, but to keep it simpler I'm taking the first two digits.


Example: 1920 x 1080 

Take the first two digits of 1920 x 1080. 

 

19 (1920) & 10 (1080) 
1.9k x 1.0k 

 

or 

 

Example: 2560 x 1440 
Take the first two digits of 2560 x 1440. 

 

25 (2560) & 14 (1440) 
2.5k x 1.4k 
 

Some people may hate this, but a quick cheat sheet that can be used. Thought I'd share it and it might be too different or confusing for some. LMK if any of it's confusing or I didn't explain it well enough. 

 

In the end I prefer to keep it all with one example being 2560 x 1440 or 2.5k x 1.4k. 

I'm just explaining the naming convention that is currently in use in the industry, so... You can have your own personal system if you want, and we can talk about what would make the most sense, but it's not as if we're here to take a vote on which convention is best or which one should be used.

 

I would also point out that this convention is for shorthands, not names, and it does slightly defeat the purpose of a shorthand if it is just as many characters as writing out the full resolution. While a 2-character shorthand like "4K" is imprecise and ambiguous, the point is that shorthands are used in situations where the details aren't relevant, such as a discussion comparing 4K-class material against 2K-class material. In this context, 3840×2160 and 4096×2160 are for all intents and purposes the same resolution, and distinguishing between them is not valuable to the discussion, so using an ambiguous shorthand is acceptable. In situations where you need precision, you would just write the full resolution.

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Glenwing said:

I'm just explaining the naming convention that is currently in use in the industry, so... You can have your own personal system if you want, and we can talk about what would make the most sense, but it's not as if we're here to take a vote on which convention is best or which one should be used.

 

I would also point out that this convention is for shorthands, not names, and it does slightly defeat the purpose of a shorthand if it is just as many characters as writing out the full resolution. While a 2-character shorthand like "4K" is imprecise and ambiguous, the point is that shorthands are used in situations where the details aren't relevant, such as a discussion comparing 4K-class material against 2K-class material. In this context, 3840×2160 and 4096×2160 are for all intents and purposes the same resolution, and distinguishing between them is not valuable to the discussion, so using an ambiguous shorthand is acceptable. In situations where you need precision, you would just write the full resolution.

I wasn't disagree or agreeing with you. Just explaining why I prefer a cheat sheet which I hope helps other people to see how it's defined. Shows them the difference between 2k and 2.5k as well as all the other resolutions. 3.8k can be defined as 4k when rounding up. Just so people can see it all laid out and might make it easier to see how it all works here. It's just there to allow people to transfer it from total pixels to pixels counted by the 1,000. 

 

It will be interesting to get your input at some point if there's a discussion about whether 7680×4320 is 7.5k (rounded down) or 8k. If there's a difference between 2k and 2.5k then it might be safe to say 7680×4320 is 7.5k (rounded down) and not 8k. We'll save that for another time I guess though rather than going into it in detail here. 

 

Next time I will start my own thread, but I figured it might help some to easily see how it all works. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted · Original PosterOP
1 hour ago, e23 said:

It will be interesting to get your input at some point if there's a discussion about whether 7680×4320 is 7.5k (rounded down) or 8k. If there's a difference between 2k and 2.5k then it might be safe to say 7680×4320 is 7.5k (rounded down) and not 8k. We'll save that for another time I guess though rather than going into it in detail here.

I touch on that in the "But What About" section.

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Glenwing said:

I touch on that in the "But What About" section.

Thank you missed that. Great information to read over. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 15/11/2016 at 11:18 PM, Glenwing said:

"2.5K" refers to resolutions around 2,500 (2.5K) pixels horizontally. For example:

  • 2304 × 1440 (16:10)
  • 2400 × 1350 (16:9)
  • 2560 × 1080 (64:27 / ≈21:9)
  • 2560 × 1440 (16:9)
  • 2560 × 1600 (16:10)

All of these are examples of 2.5K resolutions.

result my 2K monitor is now 2.5K! yeah.


CPU Intel i7 7700K @5Ghz Motherboard ROG Maximus Hero IX RAM Corsair Vengeance 32GB 3000MHz 

GPU MSI Gaming X 1080ti Case Corsair Vengeance C70 Storage SSD Boot plus Samsung 960 Evo M.2 nvme storage 

PSU Corsair RM750W Gold Display Asus ROG Strix XG32VQ 144Hz 1440p Cooling Corsair H100i V2 

Keyboard Corsair K65 Rapidfire Mouse Roccat Kone Aimo Audio MK3 Fostex T50RP + Schiit Magni 3 AMP and Modi 2 DAC 
Operating System Win 10

VR HTC Vive, Audio Strap Motion Platform DOF Reality 2 DOF

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/16/2016 at 1:18 AM, Glenwing said:

Terms like "2K" and "4K" don’t refer to specific resolutions. They are resolution categories. They are used to classify resolutions based on horizontal pixel count. "2K" refers to resolutions that have around 2,000 (2K) pixels horizontally. Examples include:
  • 1920 × 1080 (16:9)
  • 1920 × 1200 (16:10)
  • 2048 × 1080 (≈19:10)
  • 2048 × 1152 (16:9)
  • 2048 × 1536 (4:3)

All of these are examples of 2K resolutions. 1920×1080 is a 2K resolution. 2048×1080 is another 2K resolution. 2560×1440 is not a 2K resolution, it is a 2.5K resolution.

 

"2.5K" refers to resolutions around 2,500 (2.5K) pixels horizontally. For example:

  • 2304 × 1440 (16:10)
  • 2400 × 1350 (16:9)
  • 2560 × 1080 (64:27 / ≈21:9)
  • 2560 × 1440 (16:9)
  • 2560 × 1600 (16:10)

All of these are examples of 2.5K resolutions.

 

So why do people call 2560×1440 "2K"?

 

Because when "4K" was new to the consumer market, people would ask: "What's 4K?", and usually the response was "it’s four times as many pixels as 1080p". Unfortunately most people misinterpreted this and assumed that the "4" in "4K" actually stood for "how many times 1080p" the resolution was, and since 2560×1440 is popularly known as being "twice as many pixels as 1080p" (it's 1.77 times, but close enough), they decided to start calling it "2K".

 

While it’s true that 4K UHD (3840×2160) is four times as many pixels as 1920×1080, that isn’t why it’s called "4K". It’s called 4K because it's approximately 4,000 pixels horizontally. The fact that it’s also 4 × 1080p is just a coincidence, and that pattern doesn’t continue with other resolutions.

 

For example, the 5K resolution featured in the Retina 5K iMac, 5120×2880, is equivalent to four 2560×1440 screens. If 1440p is "2K" because it’s twice as many pixels as 1080p, then wouldn’t four of them together be called "8K"? (Well, technically 7K since like I said 1440p is 1.77 times not 2 times 1080p, but that’s beside the point). We don’t call it 7K or 8K. We call it 5K, because it's around 5,000 pixels horizontally. It has nothing to do with "how many times 1080p" the resolution is.

 

In addition, an actual 8K resolution such as 8K UHD (7680×4320) is equivalent to four 4K UHD screens. A single 4K UHD screen is four times as many pixels as 1080p, so four of those together is sixteen times as many pixels as 1080p. But 7680×4320 isn't called "16K", it’s called "8K", because it’s approximately 8,000 pixels horizontally. Again it doesn't have anything to do with "how many times 1080p" the resolution is.

 

So although 2560×1440 is around twice as many pixels as 1080p, it is not called "2K", because that isn’t where these names come from. Since 2560×1440 is approximately 2,500 pixels horizontally, it falls into the 2.5K classification.

 

Examples of How the Cinematography Industry Uses These Terms

  Hide contents

RED:

  Reveal hidden contents

 

large.58364b40a1101_ss(2016-11-06at03_05

 

large.58364b416c8d7_ss(2016-11-06at03_06

 

large.58364b3fe496d_ss(2016-11-06at02_41

 

 

 

RED Scarlet-W Manual

 

In the charts above, the naming convention is made pretty clear, though it's not without its inconsistencies. For example, every 6:5 format has a far lower horizontal pixel count than its name suggests since these formats are intended to be used with anamorphic lenses, and the images will have a wider horizontal pixel count once they are de-squeezed. There are other minor oddities like 5568×3160 being classified as 6K while 5632×2948 is classified as 5.5K, but this is somewhat expected since this naming convention does not have any "official" set of rules for determining names, it's all just convention-based. In any case, despite the occasional deviation, the main pattern of the naming convention quite clearly follows the horizontal pixel count, and definitely not "how many times 1080p".

 

Just to sum up some of the more interesting parts of the above charts from the RED Scarlet-W manual:

  • 1920×1080 is listed as "2K 16:9 (HD)".
  • 2560×1080 is listed as "2.5K 2.4:1". Despite being an "ultrawide" version of 1920×1080 (2K 16:9), calling it "2K ultrawide" is improper usage of the term 2K, as it is a 2.5K resolution, not 2K.
  • 2560×1340 is listed as "2.5K Full Frame", it’s safe to say if 2560×1440 were included on the list it would be classified as a 2.5K resolution as well. (You might think ''1340" is just a typo for "1440", but actually it's more likely a typo for "1350", which would make it a 256:135 (≈19:10) ratio which is consistent with the other full frame resolutions listed)
  • 3840×2160 and 4096×2160 are both classified as 4K resolutions. 4096×2160 is not "the only" 4K resolution.
  • 5120×2160 (ultrawide version of 3840×2160) is listed as "5K 2.4:1". Calling it "4K ultrawide" is improper usage of the term 4K, as it is a 5K resolution, not 4K.

 

Blackmagic Design:

 

large.58364b3f65fbe_ss(2016-10-15at01_02

Blackmagic Cinema Camera PL

2400×1350 is classified as a 2.5K resolution here. A slightly higher resolution like 2560×1440 would also be classified a 2.5K, certainly not 2K.
 
Canon:
 
large.58364b41bbf12_ss(2016-11-06at03_28
 
Note here that 2048×1080 and 1920×1080 both fall under the "2K" categories. 2K definitely does not refer to 2560×1440 or similar resolutions. 4096×2160 and 3840×2160 are also both classified as "4K" resolutions. 4096×2160 is not "the only" 4K resolution.

 

"True 4K"

  Reveal hidden contents

"True 4K"

 

While I’m here, I may as well address this one too. Some people will get upset when you call 3840×2160 "4K", and will say:

 

"3840×2160 isn’t ‘4K’, that’s ‘UHD’! True 4K is 4096×2160!"

 

And some go as far as saying 4K TVs are a consumer scam because they're not "real 4K". This is nonsense, really. As explained at the top, "4K" isn’t a resolution. It’s a category. The term is used to refer to any resolution approximately 4,000 (4K) pixels horizontally, for example:

  • 3840 × 1600 (24:10 / ≈21:9)
  • 3840 × 2160 (16:9)
  • 3840 × 2400 (16:10)
  • 4096 × 2160 (≈19:10)
  • 4096 × 2304 (16:9)
  • 4096 × 2560 (16:10)
  • 4096 × 3072 (4:3)

All of these are examples of 4K resolutions. None of them is "the one true" 4K resolution, because there is no such thing. They are all classified as 4K resolutions, and neither 3840×2160 nor 4096×2160 is more "true" than the other. If you want to refer to a specific 4K resolution, some of them have more specific names that people use. The term "4K UHD" has been used to refer to 3840×2160, and "DCI 4K" is understood to mean 4096×2160. If it comes down to it you can always just write out the actual resolution you are talking about, and there will be no possibility for confusion.

 

Secondly, UHD is not a name for 3840×2160. The whole "4096×2160 is 4K, and 3840×2160 is just called UHD" thing is entirely wrong; both of those resolutions are 4K resolutions, and in fact both of those resolutions are UHD resolutions as well. UHD is a term created by CEA as a marketing standard to refer to displays that meet certain requirements. Here is the relevant part of the definition of UHD:

 

UHD is basically a class of display; note that the definition is at least 3840×2160, and 16:9 or wider. This means that higher resolutions and wider ratios, such as 4096×2160, or even 5120×2880 or higher, or ultrawide resolutions, qualify as "UHD resolution". UHD does not have to be 3840×2160, or even a 4K class display at all.

 

But 4K is a DCI standard!

 

There are several standardized 4K formats, including the DCI format. DCI did not create the term "4K", nor do they own it. It is a general term which does not refer specifically to the DCI specification. Yes, the terms "2K" and "4K" are used within the DCI spec as shorthands to refer to the formats being defined by the specification, but that's it. The definitions of the shorthands are established at the top of the relevant sections (basically saying "when we say '4K' in this document, we are talking about 4096×2160"), but these are in no way some kind of industry-wide definitions of the terms. They are only local definitions being defined for use within the context of the standard. This should be pretty clear to anyone who actually read the DCI specification beyond just opening it and Ctrl-F-ing for "4096".

 

There are other standardized 4K formats, such as the ones defined by ITU in Rec. 2020:

 

This standard does the exact same thing, establishing "4K" and "8K" as shorthand terms for discussing the formats in the context of the standards document. It does not mean 4K is "the name" for 3840×2160, just as the DCI specification's usage of the term does not mean 4K is "the name" for 4096×2160 either. It is just a general term used in the industry for anything ≈4,000 pixels horizontally, but of course may have specific meanings within certain standards documents, which are made clear in the documents themselves and only apply within that respective document.

 

There is no sense in which 3840×2160 is "just called UHD", or in which 4096×2160 is the "one true" 4K resolution.

 

"K" and "Ultrawide"

  Reveal hidden contents

"K" and "Ultrawide"

 

Every once in a while I see someone asking about "4K ultrawide", and what they mean by that is the most common 4K resolution (4K UHD, 3840×2160) extended horizontally to a ≈21:9 aspect ratio, so something like 5120×2160 (or four times 2560×1080).

 

Unfortunately this is really a misuse of the term "4K". Remember that 4K isn’t a name for a specific resolution like 3840×2160, so "4K ultrawide" doesn’t mean "that resolution, but wider". The "K" term refers to the width in pixels, so "something wider than 4K" would be called 5K. Saying "4K ultrawide" is like asking for an extra-wide 4-meter-wide table or something like that. "You mean...a 5-meter-wide table?" "No, a 4 meter table, but extra wide! Like maybe 5 meters in width!" "...Right..."

 

5120×2160, being ≈5,000 (5K) pixels horizontally, is a 5K resolution, so calling it "4K ultrawide" doesn’t really make sense. Terms like "1080p" and "1080p ultrawide", or "1440p" and "1440p ultrawide" work because the numbers 1080 and 1440 refer to the height rather than width, so when you have a resolution that is the same height but wider, you can still use the same number and it makes sense.

 

But a term like "2.5K" can’t just be used as a drop-in replacement for "1440p", because not all 1,440 pixel-tall screens have ≈2,500 pixels horizontally. Only 1440p screens with 16:9 ratios do. A 1440p screen with a wider ratio like 21:9 will have more horizontal pixels, which will classify it as a 3K or 3.5K resolution, even though the vertical pixel count (1440p) remains the same.

 

The same is true with 4K resolutions. A resolution like 3840×2160 (a 16:9 ratio) is a 4K resolution that could also be referred to as "2160p", but this does not mean "2160p" and "4K" are interchangeable. Extending 3840×2160 to a wider ratio like 21:9 results in a resolution that is still 2,160 pixels tall, but is 5K pixels wide instead of 4K. So even though "2160p ultrawide" still makes sense for that resolution, the "4K ultrawide" name does not.

 

"But if I can’t call it 4K ultrawide, what should I call it? If I say "5K", people will think I’m talking about 5120×2880 (16:9), and if I say 5K ultrawide then people will think I mean an ultrawide extension of that resolution, plus 5120×2160 is more like 5K ultrashort anyway..."

 

Usually it’s assumed when you say "4K" or "5K" that you’re talking about the 16:9 resolutions since they are the most common, so when people refer to different aspect ratios they’ll usually include the aspect ratio to avoid confusion. 5120×2160 can be referred to as as "5K 21:9" or something like that.

 

Another alternative that has been used is writing out both dimensions with "K" instead of just the horizontal. For example, 3840×2160 (4K UHD) is often called "4K × 2K". An ultrawide version of that resolution, 5120×2160, would be referred to as "5K × 2K", meanwhile the 16:9 resolution of 5120×2880 is referred to as "5K × 3K", so this convention does make the two resolutions distinguished from each other.

 

A third option (and probably the best option for most people) would be to not mix "K" and "ultrawide" together at all. Just use the old "vertical pixel count" convention and call it "2160p ultrawide".

 

Of course, you can always just write out the full resolution if you want to avoid any ambiguity, that option is always available too.

 

"But what about..."

  Reveal hidden contents

"But what about..."

 

Q: "But what about resolutions like 1280×720? Is that 1K? 1.5K? 1.25K? 1.28K? If we round to the nearest 0.5K, then it’s 1.5K, but then what about 1600×900? Is that also 1.5K?"

 

"K" is a casual shorthand, not a full-blown naming system. Typically it isn’t used at all for low resolutions like 1280×720, and there are some mid-range resolutions like 2304×1440 and 2880×1800 where people question how sensible this convention is (should 2560×1440 be called 2.5K while 2880×1800 and 3200×1800 are both 3K, even though 2880 is an equal distance between 2560 and 3200?).

 

The "K" shorthand originated in the cinema industry where discussions about resolution are generally centered around a few monolithic classes of resolutions, so this shorthand was never intended to be "high precision". If used for resolutions in the PC industry, yes there will be some that are ambiguous in what they should be called. If you’re talking about an unusual resolution, then it’s best to write out the full resolution rather than using abbreviations. These shorthands don’t cover every possible resolution and they were never intended to do so.

 

Q: "But if we round to the nearest 0.5K, shouldn’t 7680×4320 be called 7.5K rather than 8K? If it’s not 7.5K because you’re rounding to the nearest whole number, then 2560×1440 shouldn’t be 2.5K either!"

 

2560×1440 rounds up to 3K if using the nearest whole number, so you still don’t have any reason to call it 2K. Good try though.

 

This system of shorthands isn’t strictly defined by any industry body, and so there are no absolute rules. But the general consensus is that at the higher values (above 5K, usually) more "plus or minus" margin is given and we round to the nearest whole number instead of 0.5 value. At lower resolutions, it doesn't take as many pixels for two resolutions to be significantly different, so more granularity is needed to distinguish them, so we round to the nearest 0.5. There is no "definition" of where the absolute cutoff point is though.

 

For example if we rounded to the nearest 1K for all resolutions, then 1600×900 and 2304×1440 would both be considered "2K" resolutions, even though the difference between them is very significant. So instead, we round to the nearest 0.5K, and the names become 1.5K vs 2.5K, which gives a better representation of the difference. On the other hand if you had higher resolutions that were maybe 7680 vs. 8192, the difference isn’t really very significant (percentage-wise it's the same as the difference between 1920 and 2048), so there’s not much point in naming them to different categories.

 

Q: "Why are we suddenly using horizontal pixels anyway, vertical makes much more sense! The "4K" name is just marketing gibberish created by TV companies!"

 

The "K" shorthand was not created by TV companies. It is borrowed from the cinematography industry, where it has been used commonly for years prior to the introduction of 4K TVs to the consumer market. In cinematography, it makes much more sense to use horizontal resolution to classify images, because movies are often cropped vertically (black bars on top and bottom), so naming resolutions by vertical pixel count would mean the resolution classification of the material would change just based on how much black bar is added, even though the detail level of the image hasn’t changed. Since resolution is used to classify detail level, it doesn’t make any sense to have a classification system that changes designations when the detail level remains the same.

 

Instead, horizontal resolution is used to classify images, so that images with the same level of detail will be classified in the same group regardless of what aspect ratio has been chosen for the material.

 

However, in gaming, images are not cropped vertically when moving to a wider aspect ratio, but instead they are expanded horizontally because the content is rendered in real time, so it is possible to generate additional new content to fill the extra width rather than just expanding the existing image to fill the screen and cropping the top and bottom off. In this case classifying resolutions based on width alone isn’t all that useful, because the aspect ratio plays a much larger role in how the content appears on the screen.

 

But since the TV industry is more concerned with cinematic material than it is with gaming, they chose to use the "K" shorthand that is used in cinematography.

 

Q: "Ultimately a shorthand "means" whatever everyone agrees it means; if it’s universally accepted that "2K" means 2560×1440, and whenever you say 2K that’s what people interpret it as, then it DOES mean 2560×1440 no matter if it has logical basis or not!"

 

But everyone doesn’t agree that 2K means 2560×1440, that’s just the problem. Although "2K = 2560×1440" is becoming a widespread misconception among consumers, with people pointing to websites like Newegg and companies like ASUS starting to use the term "2K" to refer to 2560×1440, this is far from "universal agreement" on the meaning of 2K. It may be worth noting that Newegg also lists resolutions like 3440×1440 as "2K" which shows just how far out of touch they are; they’re just using "2K" as a drop in replacement term for "1440p" without any thought about it.

 

Within the cinematography industry, where this naming convention originated from in the first place, it is agreed without any ambiguity that "2K" refers to resolutions like 1920×1080 or 2048×1080, while 2560×1440 is definitely classed as a 2.5K resolution. Examples of this can be seen in the above section, "Examples of How the Cinematography Industry Uses These Terms".

 

 

Personally.... I don't care about the estimated resolutions if it ain't True resolution of its standard - I don't want it. 2k, 4K, 8K and UHD -I just can't compromise quality for the "almost there".

 

Besides what's the difference in prices of the Estimated 4K vs True 4K... 5-15%? It comes down to value for money.

 

Though I don't like the estimated resolution screens, I do however like the fact that you provided an informative chart of comparison between the standards of estimated vs True resolutions

- Bravo on that one ;).

Link to post
Share on other sites

I admire this thread for existing but it won't stop people from saying this :(

 

On 4/10/2017 at 2:22 PM, Frenky said:

How many "K" is  3440x1440?

1. It's really annoying that anyone would even try to shorten such an odd resolution to something K.

2. Do the math? 1K = 1000. I doubt anyone ever intended for anything to be X.5K. But because peoeple need everything dumbed down for them, someone decided to shorten 2560x1440 to 2.5K and here we are.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted · Original PosterOP
On 4/19/2017 at 7:21 AM, jim2point0 said:

I admire this thread for existing but it won't stop people from saying this :(

 

1. It's really annoying that anyone would even try to shorten such an odd resolution to something K.

2. Do the math? 1K = 1000. I doubt anyone ever intended for anything to be X.5K. But because peoeple need everything dumbed down for them, someone decided to shorten 2560x1440 to 2.5K and here we are.

I don't expect this thread to stop people from calling it 2K, it's mostly just a place for people to point to when they see someone else call it that ;)

 

2K, 2.5K, 3K etc. is just the convention that is used in the industry where the shorthand originated from. Whether it makes sense to round to the nearest 0.5 or not is sort of irrelevant, that's what the convention is so that's what my post explains. I'm not a big fan of these shorthands myself, but if people are going to use it they can at least use it correctly.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just use the full resolution and the aspect ratio to describe the monitors or TV's. example: 2560x1080@21:9 or 1920x1080@16:9, ect.....


6700k@4.7ghz-Cryorig R1 Ultimate-EVGA GTX1070FTW-Asus Z170 pro gaming-EVGA650 G2 PSU-Toshiba480gb SSD-Toshiba1tb HHD-NZXT HUE-NZXT H440 Razor Case-EVGA DDR4 4x8=32gb 3000mhz-Z35 Predator 35in 200hz Gsync display-Razor mamba TE & Blackwidow chroma keyboard.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted · Original PosterOP
14 minutes ago, Noob900 said:

Just use the full resolution and the aspect ratio to describe the monitors or TV's. example: 2560x1080@21:9 or 1920x1080@16:9, ect.....

That's what I recommend, but if people are going to use shorthand they may as well use it correctly.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm gonna correct ppl after reading this post.... The correct terminology in important.... If ppl don't know what they are talking about they should rip it and listen to someone who knows what they are talking about. Ya know??? learn something!!!! b/c knowledge is power... I don't mean to be harsh but ppl should try to learn the correct terms. 


6700k@4.7ghz-Cryorig R1 Ultimate-EVGA GTX1070FTW-Asus Z170 pro gaming-EVGA650 G2 PSU-Toshiba480gb SSD-Toshiba1tb HHD-NZXT HUE-NZXT H440 Razor Case-EVGA DDR4 4x8=32gb 3000mhz-Z35 Predator 35in 200hz Gsync display-Razor mamba TE & Blackwidow chroma keyboard.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Honestly don't know why people care if others call 1440p 2k or not. This whole thread is someone getting triggered by their pet peeves and it's funny as hell watch this thread. 😎 Carry on boys your my source of entertainment.


CPU: 6700K Case: Corsair Air 740 CPU Cooler: H110i GTX Storage: 2x250gb SSD 960gb SSD PSU: Corsair 1200watt GPU: EVGA 1080ti FTW3 RAM: 16gb DDR4 

Other Stuffs: Red sleeved cables, White LED lighting 2 noctua fans on cpu cooler and Be Quiet PWM fans on case.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/10/2017 at 2:23 PM, Glenwing said:

3.5K

3.44k rounding is for people who use 2k and 4k. Lol :P don't mind this smartass post.


CPU: 6700K Case: Corsair Air 740 CPU Cooler: H110i GTX Storage: 2x250gb SSD 960gb SSD PSU: Corsair 1200watt GPU: EVGA 1080ti FTW3 RAM: 16gb DDR4 

Other Stuffs: Red sleeved cables, White LED lighting 2 noctua fans on cpu cooler and Be Quiet PWM fans on case.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree 4k naming scheme is stupid as fuck, but not everyone and their mother knows about technology and what a "resolution" is on a TV, so they walk into a BestBuy and see a TV that says 4 times the resolution of 1080p so guess what TV they buy? the one that says 4 times the resolution of 1080p 


CPU: Ryzen R7 1700 With Corsair H110i GT GPU: GTX 1060 Strix OC MSI X370 Gaming Pro Carbon 1tb Samsung 850 Evo

Link to post
Share on other sites

This is why 4K isn't becoming a welcome standard. 

Back in my day it was easy. Full screen, or widescreen. 

 

4:3, or 16:9 (probably.)


LTT Fan Fiction:

PC game list: 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/17/2017 at 7:00 AM, fpo said:

This is why 4K isn't becoming a welcome standard. 

Back in my day it was easy. Full screen, or widescreen. 

 

4:3, or 16:9 (probably.)

Sometimes I wonder where the common aspect ratios came from.  OK, we started with 4:3, simple enough.  But then, who decided on 16:10?  Why not call it 8:5?  Is it to match the 16 in 16:9?  Then why didn't we just start with 12:9, and who decided 16:9 should be the next leap anyway?  And now we have 21:9, which if you work out the math, quite often is actually just ever so slightly off the true ratio given by the resolutions people use >_<

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Ryan_Vickers said:

Sometimes I wonder where the common aspect ratios came from.  OK, we started with 4:3, simple enough.  But then, who decided on 16:10?  Why not call it 8:5?  Is it to match the 16 in 16:9?  Then why didn't we just start with 12:9, and who decided 16:9 should be the next leap anyway?  And now we have 21:9, which if you work out the math, quite often is actually just ever so slightly off the true ratio given by the resolutions people use >_<

The same reason why the speed of light is exactly 299,792,458 m/s or 0C is the freezing point of water in 1 atm of pressure. i.e., Because someone had a "logical enough" reason and screamed loudly enough for it to be adopted.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted · Original PosterOP
13 minutes ago, Ryan_Vickers said:

Sometimes I wonder where the common aspect ratios came from.  OK, we started with 4:3, simple enough.  But then, who decided on 16:10?  Why not call it 8:5?  Is it to match the 16 in 16:9?  Then why didn't we just start with 12:9, and who decided 16:9 should be the next leap anyway?  And now we have 21:9, which if you work out the math, quite often is actually just ever so slightly off the true ratio given by the resolutions people use >_<

4:3 is 4:3, 16:10 is (I think) based on the golden ratio(≈1.6:1), and called 16:10 to reference that rather than 8:5. 16:9 came out of some math derived from determining the best ratio that could fit all common aspect ratios best (including various cinema ratios), plus it's 42:32 which is cool I guess as a successor to the previous standard TV ratio of 4:3? xD 21:9 is an approximation made for easy comparison with 16:9.

 

I'd rather we just transitioned to decimal notation (1.33:1, 1.6:1, 1.77:1, 2.4:1, etc.) rather than whole number ratios, but it is what it is.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Glenwing said:

4:3 is 4:3, 16:10 is (I think) based on the golden ratio(≈1.6:1), and called 16:10 to reference that rather than 8:5. 16:9 came out of some math derived from determining the best ratio that could fit all common aspect ratios best (including various cinema ratios), plus it's 42:32 which is cool I guess? xD 21:9 is made for easy comparison with 16:9.

 

I'd rather we just transitioned to decimal notation (1.33:1, 1.6:1, 1.77:1, 2.4:1, etc.) rather than whole number ratios, but it is what it is.

That would be good, especially if the trend toward wider screens continues, since the film industry is already well established using 2.38:1, and so on (decimals).

 

Speaking of 4/3 squared, (4/3)3 = 2.37, rather close to 21:9 and most movie shapes... more coincidences? xD 

Edited by Ryan_Vickers
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted · Original PosterOP
Just now, Ryan_Vickers said:

That would be good, especially if the trend toward wider screens continues, since the film industry is already well established using 2.38:1, and so on (decimals).

IMO we should all standardize around 16:10 and 24:10, and for people who want squares, 5:4, which mounted in portrait would be 4:5 or 8:10. Then we would have 8:10, 16:10, and 24:10. Standardized resolutions would be a lot easier to carry between ratios, 1600×1280 (5:4), put it in portrait, two of them would be 2560×1600 (16:10) and three of them would be 3840×1600 (24:10), both of which already have seen use, but if they were all standardized it would be a lot easier to have matching heights and pixel densities, the way that 3440×1440 monitors are sized specifically so they can match 27" 2560×1440 monitors.

 

But alas...

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

8 bit guy did a video on why he likes square monitors explaining that wide screens allows companies to sell less monitor for the same money. 

(If I said this already; sorry I've been drinking a lot of beer the past week. ) 


LTT Fan Fiction:

PC game list: 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, fpo said:

8 bit guy did a video on why he likes square monitors explaining that wide screens allows companies to sell less monitor for the same money. 

(If I said this already; sorry I've been drinking a lot of beer the past week. ) 

Well, I suppose you could look at widescreen as removing vertical space... or you could look at it as adding horizontal space :P 

Or, you could just judge it by the number of pixels which makes a lot more sense imo.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


×