"2K" does not mean 2560×1440

[Glenwing]

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), some people decided to start calling it "2K", and other people heard that and repeated it.

 

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

Spoiler

RED:

Spoiler

 

 

 

 

 

 

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:

 

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:

 

Canon EOS C500 Manual

 

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"

 

"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.

 

In digital cinema where these terms originate from, "4K" is and always has been a generic term that refers to a class of resolutions, not any one specific resolution. This idea that 4096×2160 is the "true 4K definition" used in cinema, you may notice, is only held by consumer-level internet people, not by anyone actually involved in cinema.

 

Yes, 4096×2160 is established as a standard resolution by the DCI specification, and they do refer to it as 4K, but that is not a term that they came up with, it's only a generic term. It's no more of a name for 4096×2160 than if you wrote a new standard saying "we're going to establish a standardized 16:9 resolution, 1600×900" and then you had a bunch of people running around on the internet saying "1600×900 is the true 16:9 resolution, it's defined in this standard, 1920×1080 isn't really 16:9!"

 

4096×2160 is not "the definition" of 4K, it is just one of several standardized 4K resolutions, just as we have several standardized 16:9 resolutions but none of them are "the definition" of 16:9, because 16:9 isn't a resolution, it's a category (in this case, anything with a width-to-height ratio of 16:9 fits in that category). And in both cases, it's not really about what resolutions are established by standards. If you have a resolution with a ratio of 16:9, then it's a 16:9 resolution, it doesn't have to have a standards document to go with it, and the same applies to 4K; any resolution with ≈4,000 horizontal pixels is a 4K resolution, because that's the definition of 4K.

 

The entire "4096×2160 is true 4K" thing was completely made up by tech news websites when 4K TVs were first starting to appear. Of course, all the major tech websites wanted to write a "4K explained" article, and of course being consumer-level writers, they themselves knew nothing about the established usage of the term "4K" (which had been used for years in cinema at this point).

 

Long story short, all the articles about "4K explained" were written by a bunch of consumers who know nothing about cinema, and are based on a few Google searches for "4K" in which these writers saw that 4096×2160 was mentioned a lot (since it is quite a common resolution), investigated a little and saw that it was a DCI standard, and leapt to the conclusion that "4K" was a unique name that referred exclusively to 4096×2160 in the same way that "Full HD" refers to 1920×1080.

 

Unfortunately their little assumption was completely wrong, and none of them researched enough to understand how the term "4K" was (is) actually used in industry. But boy did it catch on. Mostly, I suspect, because people on the internet like the feeling of knowing things that other people don't know, or feeling that they're doing things (or saying things) "how the pros do it", and believing the 4096×2160 true 4K thing makes them feel as though they have special cinema industry insider knowledge. Sadly, the entire thing was completely made up by consumers. Sorry to say.

 

"UHD" is not a name for 3840×2160

 

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:

Quote

Under CEA’s expanded characteristics, a TV, monitor or projector may be referred to as Ultra High-Definition if it meets the following minimum performance attributes:

• Display Resolution – Has at least eight million active pixels, with at least 3840 horizontally and at least 2160 vertically.
• Aspect Ratio – Has a width to height ratio of the display’s native resolution of 16:9 or wider.
• [...]

https://www.cta.tech/News/Press-Releases/2014/June/CEA-Updates-Characteristics-for-Ultra-High-Definit.aspx

 

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.

 

3840×2160 is established as a standard by ITU, and it never defines "UHD" as 3840×2160. This is, again, something made up by the internet because it's simple and easy to say "4096 is 4K, and 3840 is UHD", so it catches on easily.

Quote

The ITU-R Recommendation lays out the quality standards for UHDTV in two steps. [...] The first level of UHDTV picture levels has the equivalent of about 8 megapixels (3 840 x 2 160 image system), and the next level comes with the equivalent of about 32 megapixels (7 680 x 4 320 image system).  As a shorthand way of describing them, they are sometimes called the ‘4K’ and ‘8K’ UHDTV systems.

 

http://www.itu.int/net/pressoffice/press_releases/2012/31.aspx#.WAJplugrKCp

 

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"

 

"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..."

 

"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".

 

 

[EminentSun]

The whole 4k thing is kind of ridiculous. We should just be calling it 2160p, but nooooooo. Some marketing team decided to introduce a ridiculous moniker.

[2FA]

I can see I'm not the only one that is annoyed by this.

[VerticalDiscussions]

Spread the word, this post is the most complete and informal anyone will ever get about resolution categories and detailed explanation that 4K is 4096x2160 and not 3840x2160 aswell x-x! Altough every youtuber will still misinterpretate the terms 2K and 4K for that matter.

[Arty]

19 minutes ago, EminentSun said:

The whole 4k thing is kind of ridiculous. We should just be calling it 2160p, but nooooooo. Some marketing team decided to introduce a ridiculous moniker.

Most Tv's in store say y "4K 2160p" on them, most places list 2160p as well as 4k. like youtube and such.

[Glenwing]

11 minutes ago, VerticalDiscussions said:

Spread the word, this post is the most complete and informal anyone will ever get about resolution categories and detailed explanation that 4K is 4096x2160 and not 3840x2160 aswell x-x! Altough every youtuber will still misinterpretate the terms 2K and 4K for that matter.

You may want to read the "True 4K" section at the bottom

 

4096×2160 and 3840×2160 are both 4K resolutions.

[VerticalDiscussions]

Just now, Glenwing said:

-snip-

O-o, mindblown! ShadowCaptain too :p?

 

Nonetheless, this post is bootiful!

[DND]

Very informative and awesome thread. I've been really confused on the 4k 2k things. Now i know. 

[DutchTexan]

@Glenwing I will admit, I always assumed my 2560x1440 monitor was 2k.

 

Thanks for the learnin

[VZX]

Finally you made this sticky. 

 

It irked me so much for many months when people keep saying "2k" to refer QHD resolution.

[Mihle]

I have been annoyed a lot of times when people use 2K wrong ?

[Snadzies]

People can wrongly go about calling 3840 4k all they want, I won't stop'em as it is too ingrained into their heads already but I will laugh at them every time they do.

[Glenwing]

1 minute ago, Snadzies said:

People can wrongly go about calling 3840 4k all they want, I won't stop'em as it is too ingrained into their heads already but I will laugh at them every time they do.

3840×2160 is a 4K resolution. Did you read the "true 4K" section?

[Snadzies]

Just now, Glenwing said:

Did you read the "true 4K" section?

Yes, I did, doesn't make it iny less retarded.

If you want to go around saying "Meh, close enough" that is fine, doesn't make it true since there is no agreed upon standard.

[Suika]

I remember being criticized for saying 1440p isn't technically 2K, the user only responded with "Newegg uses it in their marketing and LTT has referred to it as 2K."

 

That said however, there's information on here that I was ignorant to up until now, so thanks for the post and clarification, @Glenwing.

[Andrewf]

You really love putting things in categories, don't you. You can analyze and simplify colloquialisms all you want, but how dare you put two types of people even close to a comparison?

On 11/15/2016 at 6:18 PM, Glenwing said:

"True 4K"

  Hide 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.

 

Yeah, I agree that 4k can be considered any resolution with around 4,000 horizontal pixels, but only as a colloquialism. How about when 8k starts to come around? You only touch base on it. It comes out to be 7680x4320, no one is going to call that 7.5k, they're going to call it 8k. Unless you want to avoid that, you have to accept that "True 4k" really does mean 4096x2160. I don't know who the hell says consumer TVs aren't real 4k, those people are just dumb.

 

I am one of those people that say 4096x2160 is still True 4k because Digital Cinema basically decided that while film was still the standard. It's how the film was made and it's how it was transferred, and it's what DCI-Compliant projectors use even still today. Yes, that includes digital projectors. It originates in that high quality 35mm film, and especially 70mm film you must scan at very high resolutions and they found that 2048x1920 was better and easier for cropping into Cinema Scope aspect ratio(2.40:1). So double that and you get 4096x2160, True 4k in Cinema Standards where 4k was first ever used.

 

Here's a list of how film is scanned which includes resolutions, aspect ratios, and pixel aspect(kind of like pixel pitch)

https://renderman.pixar.com/view/resolution-table

 

Bottom line, True 4k is 4096x2160, consumer based TVs call 3840x2160 because digital cameras like the RED ONE had an option for it since it was a perfect 16:9 aspect ratio.

If I had to sum up what I'm trying to say, you're perfectly right in everything you say, but only as a simplification of terms for the general TV consumer, when it comes to the actual industry, and Cinema standards, saying True 4k to anyone who is in the industry or anyone who is a film fanatic will likely know that it's 4096x2160. People who think consumer TVs don't have "real 4k" are just dumb and shouldn't be even remotely compared to people in the industry who will tell you that True 4k is 4096x2160.

 

 

[KenjiUmino]

i have two 1680x1050 monitors - now how much k for each monitor then ? 1.7k ? because each screen has 1764000 pixels in total and is almost 1700 pixels wide?

 

honestly, i could not care less about my K score because response time, contrast/color reproduction, viewing angle and overall picture quality are way more important IMO.

 

nobody was talking about any k before they came up with this BS to market their UHD TV's - as if the XXXXp labeling sheme wasn't confusing enough already because that only refered to certain aspect ratios - like 1600x900 is called 900p but 1440x900 is NOT 

 

along with the race for the highest K-rate, pixel density has evolved into some kind of pissing contest as well while the scaling options of most graphical operating systems are still horrible - tell me about how you work your spreadsheet or plaintext HTML code on your slick 14" laptop with the fancy 3840 × 2160 screen - i bet your eyes will be sore before lunchtime

 

sidenote: my all time favorite native resolution is 1920x1200 = 16:10 ratio - because both 1920x1080 16:9 and 1600x1200 4:3 can be displayed without any interpolation (=loss of quality)

 

and at least ONE of these two resolutions is always supported by a game (except maybe for the really, REALLY old stuff from the DOS or early W95 era)

there will in both cases be black bars (or stretching) but they will be smaller than when you view 4:3 content on a 16:9 screen and vice versa (it also won't look half as bad if one decides to stretch the picture instead of adding black borders)

 

 

[Glenwing]

On 11/21/2016 at 5:16 PM, Andrewf said:

You really love putting things in categories, don't you. You can analyze and simplify colloquialisms all you want, but how dare you put two types of people even close to a comparison?

Yeah, I agree that 4k can be considered any resolution with around 4,000 horizontal pixels, but only as a colloquialism. How about when 8k starts to come around? You only touch base on it. It comes out to be 7680x4320, no one is going to call that 7.5k, they're going to call it 8k. Unless you want to avoid that, you have to accept that "True 4k" really does mean 4096x2160. I don't know who the hell says consumer TVs aren't real 4k, those people are just dumb.

 

I am one of those people that say 4096x2160 is still True 4k because Digital Cinema basically decided that while film was still the standard. It's how the film was made and it's how it was transferred, and it's what DCI-Compliant projectors use even still today. Yes, that includes digital projectors. It originates in that high quality 35mm film, and especially 70mm film you must scan at very high resolutions and they found that 2048x1920 was better and easier for cropping into Cinema Scope aspect ratio(2.40:1). So double that and you get 4096x2160, True 4k in Cinema Standards where 4k was first ever used.

 

Here's a list of how film is scanned which includes resolutions, aspect ratios, and pixel aspect(kind of like pixel pitch)

https://renderman.pixar.com/view/resolution-table

 

Bottom line, True 4k is 4096x2160, consumer based TVs call 3840x2160 because digital cameras like the RED ONE had an option for it since it was a perfect 16:9 aspect ratio.

If I had to sum up what I'm trying to say, you're perfectly right in everything you say, but only as a simplification of terms for the general TV consumer, when it comes to the actual industry, and Cinema standards, saying True 4k to anyone who is in the industry or anyone who is a film fanatic will likely know that it's 4096x2160. People who think consumer TVs don't have "real 4k" are just dumb and shouldn't be even remotely compared to people in the industry who will tell you that True 4k is 4096x2160.

Sorry if you felt generalized. Honestly I can't say I've ever met someone who thought 4096×2160 was "True" 4K but that other resolutions were 4K too; most people tend to think those are mutually exclusive. If you call it "True 4K" because it's the main standard in cinema that's fine, the only viewpoint I'm arguing against is when people say it's the "true" 4K resolution to the exclusion of anything else, i.e. all other resolutions are "fake" 4K.

 

In regards to the 7.5K thing, I already addressed that briefly in the "But what about" section. I would say, yes the further you go, the more "off" it gets, especially if you go up to "16K", where 7680 -> 15360 where it rounds to 15K, and so forth; but even 4096 you still have the same problem, but in the other direction. If you go up to, say 32K you're at 32,768 pixels, so... is that 33K? Or still 32K? The answer is, these are casual shorthands that were not really designed to be indefinitely extensible as it were. What it will be called is for the most part just a matter of convention.

 

28 minutes ago, KenjiUmino said:

i have two 1680x1050 monitors - now how much k for each monitor then ? 1.7k ? because each screen has 1764000 pixels in total and is almost 1700 pixels wide?

 

nobody was talking about any k before they came up with this BS to market their UHD TV's - as if the XXXXp labeling sheme wasn't confusing enough already because that only refered to certain aspect ratios - like 1600x900 is called 900p but 1440x900 is NOT 

I talked about both of these in the "But what about" section.

 

29 minutes ago, KenjiUmino said:

sidenote: my all time favorite native resolution is 1920x1200 = 16:10 ratio - because both 1920x1080 16:9 and 1600x1200 4:3 can be displayed without any interpolation (=loss of quality)

Agreed. I wish 1920×1200 and 2560×1600 were more common.

[KenjiUmino]

2 hours ago, Glenwing said:

Agreed. I wish 1920×1200 and 2560×1600 were more common.

for real - seems like no one cares about 16:10 any more they just go wider and wider wich maybe makes sense for games and movies but the industry is totally ignoring the fact that a percentage of people also do other stuff with their computers and a bit more height is really nice to have then - i am thinking of, say a DAW where more vertical "space" means you can have a bunch of tracks on screen at once and still have room for transport buttons and maybe a mixer tab.

 

like so: 

Spoiler

 

you can see 8 tracks on screen at the same time while in 16:9 ....

Spoiler

you only got 7 tracks without scrolling or anything else.

 

it is saddening that this ratio might be forgotten about pretty soon - i got like one of the last thinkpad models that has a 1280x800 screen but the TN panel itself is sooo bad - now for every newer model there are TN and IPS versions available but they are all 16:9 

 

[AshleyAshes]

On ‎11‎/‎21‎/‎2016 at 8:16 PM, Andrewf said:

You really love putting things in categories, don't you. You can analyze and simplify colloquialisms all you want, but how dare you put two types of people even close to a comparison?

Yeah, I agree that 4k can be considered any resolution with around 4,000 horizontal pixels, but only as a colloquialism. How about when 8k starts to come around? You only touch base on it. It comes out to be 7680x4320, no one is going to call that 7.5k, they're going to call it 8k. Unless you want to avoid that, you have to accept that "True 4k" really does mean 4096x2160. I don't know who the hell says consumer TVs aren't real 4k, those people are just dumb.

 

I am one of those people that say 4096x2160 is still True 4k because Digital Cinema basically decided that while film was still the standard. It's how the film was made and it's how it was transferred, and it's what DCI-Compliant projectors use even still today. Yes, that includes digital projectors. It originates in that high quality 35mm film, and especially 70mm film you must scan at very high resolutions and they found that 2048x1920 was better and easier for cropping into Cinema Scope aspect ratio(2.40:1). So double that and you get 4096x2160, True 4k in Cinema Standards where 4k was first ever used.

 

Here's a list of how film is scanned which includes resolutions, aspect ratios, and pixel aspect(kind of like pixel pitch)

https://renderman.pixar.com/view/resolution-table

 

Bottom line, True 4k is 4096x2160, consumer based TVs call 3840x2160 because digital cameras like the RED ONE had an option for it since it was a perfect 16:9 aspect ratio.

If I had to sum up what I'm trying to say, you're perfectly right in everything you say, but only as a simplification of terms for the general TV consumer, when it comes to the actual industry, and Cinema standards, saying True 4k to anyone who is in the industry or anyone who is a film fanatic will likely know that it's 4096x2160. People who think consumer TVs don't have "real 4k" are just dumb and shouldn't be even remotely compared to people in the industry who will tell you that True 4k is 4096x2160.

As someone who actually works in the film industry and has EXR and DPX sequences strangling them in their dreams every night, I'd like to make a few things clear:  All of that is just a projection standard.  Also that whole '4k is 4096x2160' thing is nonsense.  Particularly that 2160 part.  That's one weird as heck ratio and the shows we work on are shot at much less wide ratios an get cropped later.  The scales of the crops are borderline arbitrary and decided by production.  The exact resolutions and aspect ratios of footage varies wildly from project to project.

 

Now, I get it, as a movie fan who is on the outside looking in, it gives you a sense of possessing 'special knowledge' for all techno nerd stuff you said up there but we actually don't bother with any of it.  We deal with the exact resolutions and crops because if someone said 'This movie is 4K', that statement is followed by 'But what's the resolution?' cause '4K' means nothing as a resolution to us.  We work at weird wonky resolutions that you've never typically encountered in media.

 

Let me now explain to you what '4K' and '2K' actually means in the film industry:

 

4K means: "But it's expensive and slow and it makes the entire pipeline cry like a statue of the Virgin Mary. :('

 

2K means: 'Woo, dodged a bullet there. :3'

 

That's it.  They are nothing but approximations of the data sets that we'll have to deal with that we use to judge the stresses on our pipelines.  Sorry to kill the romance for you.

 

 

[Mitchell 3]

On 11/15/2016 at 6:23 PM, EminentSun said:

The whole 4k thing is kind of ridiculous. We should just be calling it 2160p, but nooooooo. Some marketing team decided to introduce a ridiculous moniker.

exactly 

[Mira Yurizaki]

Anyone here who's upset when someone calls 3840x2160 "4K" should be upset if anyone calls KB, MB, GB, TB, etc. as kilobytes, megabytes, gigabytes, and terabytes when technically for most OSes, it's kibibytes, mebibytes, gibibytes, and tebibytes with the appropriate abbreviations KiB, MiB, GiB, and TiB.

 

Or you know, you can not have a thumb up your butt about being pedantic about terms and just accept that certain things, no matter how technically incorrect they are, are in established lexicon.

[Glenwing]

18 minutes ago, M.Yurizaki said:

Anyone here who's upset when someone calls 3840x2160 "4K" should be upset if anyone calls KB, MB, GB, TB, etc. as kilobytes, megabytes, gigabytes, and terabytes when technically for most OSes, it's kibibytes, mebibytes, gibibytes, and tebibytes with the appropriate abbreviations KiB, MiB, GiB, and TiB.

 

Or you know, you can not have a thumb up your butt about being pedantic about terms and just accept that certain things, no matter how technically incorrect they are, are in established lexicon.

AMD: "4GB MEANS 4GB"

 

Internet: "Actually when you guys say 4GB you're talking about 4 GiB. With a space. Units and values should be spaced. L2unit plz"

[ScaryFatKidGT]

Ever sense "4k" became a thing nobody calls anything correctly anymore... althought even 720 on TV's wasn't 1280x720, it was usually 2810x768, and 4k was origonally created by Sony and was actually 4024 or something by something not 3840x2160 it is now, that was UHD.

[Leicester77]

Well there is a "True 4k" and a "True 2k".

DCI 2K 2048x1080

DCI 4K 4096x2160

And then there are cropped versions for the different TV aspect ratios.

Further more there is a so called "generic term" for resolutions around 2000 pixels and 4000 pixels horizontally.

 

Why don't we just call the resolutions by their true names? Because there is one for almost every thinkable combination.

3840x2160 for example, just call it Ultra High Definition - UHD.

1920x1080 Full High Definition - FHD.

 

But still, people should stop making up things which don't exist - like 2.5k or 2.7k.... just staaaahp please.