Since when is 1680x1050 resolution 1080p?

[IsaacKuo]

Lately I've been noticing monitors with 1680x1050 resolution being marketed as "1080p", even though it's smaller than 1920x1080 all around. I could understand 1366x768 being marketed as "720p", since it's more larger than 1280x720...but this 1080p thing is simply deceptive.

When did this start? Grrr....

(Just felt like sort of ranting...)

[mathias]

Yeah, that's annoying, but at least this time the callous retards are only in charge of marketing and not making actual design decisions about the monitors. They should have referred to it as 1080p semi-compatible, since it can take advantage of having a 1080p signal instead of 720p signal, but can't take full advantage of it.

[aristide1]

Don't all wide screen TV's essentially pull the same stunt with DVD's? 16:9 is a specific ratio (1.77777778:1), but movies can be OVER 2:1. Do you see those movies in letterbox format on a 16:9 screen or are they chopped off? Movies sizes have no standard whatsoever, so what's the story with that?

I watch on regular 4:3 CRT, so all my movies are letterboxed and different sizes. At least I know I am seeing the whole picture.

I'm not sure what do to with the Smell-A-Vision movies that were out.

[Vicotnik]

I watch on regular 4:3 CRT, so all my movies are letterboxed and different sizes. At least I know I am seeing the whole picture.

You'll see the whole picture no matter what screen you are using. Unless the settings are messed up somehow.

[Beyonder]

Lately I've been noticing monitors with 1680x1050 resolution being marketed as "1080p", even though it's smaller than 1920x1080 all around. I could understand 1366x768 being marketed as "720p", since it's more larger than 1280x720...but this 1080p thing is simply deceptive.

When did this start? Grrr....

(Just felt like sort of ranting...)

I am sympathetic to your rant.

That said, lately at work I've been working with video with a resolution of 960x720. I've been calling it "4:3 720p" for lack of a better title; I tried to see if there was a more official title, but thus far I have not found one.

And it's hard to explain why I would pick that sort of title to the non-technical people I work with (i.e. marketing, business and customer support). I guess my point is: if not 1080p, then what?

[dragmor]

I could understand 1366x768 being marketed as "720p", since it's more larger than 1280x720...but this 1080p thing is simply deceptive.

Its better than the 1024x1024 plasma TV's that are being marketed as 720p.

Just look at all the mess out there.
http://advancedvisualdesign.com.au/prod ... plasma.htm
http://www.commandaustralia.com.au/reso ... ions.shtml

[mathias]

That said, lately at work I've been working with video with a resolution of 960x720. I've been calling it "4:3 720p" for lack of a better title

"pillarboxed 720p" might be even simpler and more illustrative of the point.

I guess my point is: if not 1080p, then what?

1650x1050 monitors should be referred to as 945p, since 1650x945 is all the space they have that's actually useful for HD movies.

Hmm, I thought this thread had a bit of deja vu to it, but I didn't notice that once again we're on the topic of retards deciding to make the screen a little bit taller. Well, at least a 16:10 screen has some advantages in other situations, unlike a 5:4.

Its better than the 1024x1024 plasma TV's that are being marketed as 720p.

At least that's sort of comparable to 720p.

[dragmor]

Its better than the 1024x1024 plasma TV's that are being marketed as 720p.

At least that's sort of comparable to 720p.

No its not, its not wide enough to display 720p. So you get squished with bars, you get bars with normal SD formats (pal and ntsc).

Its a bloody useless resolution for a TV.

[BrotherEstapol]

Surely you'd have a case for false advertising there wouldn't you?

[nick705]

At least that's sort of comparable to 720p.

No its not, its not wide enough to display 720p. So you get squished with bars, you get bars with normal SD formats (pal and ntsc).

Its a bloody useless resolution for a TV.

"720p" simply describes the number of horizontal lines (non-interlaced) in the image - it doesn't take into account the horizontal resolution as such, so technically a 1024x1024 plasma could quite legitimately be marketed as 720p. The image shouldn't be squished either with a physical screen aspect ratio of 16:9, as the scaler will make appropriate adjustments for the non-square pixels.

Not an ideal situation though, admittedly, especially if you want to feed a PC input into the display.

[Sonic]

That said, lately at work I've been working with video with a resolution of 960x720. I've been calling it "4:3 720p" for lack of a better title; I tried to see if there was a more official title, but thus far I have not found one.

And it's hard to explain why I would pick that sort of title to the non-technical people I work with (i.e. marketing, business and customer support). I guess my point is: if not 1080p, then what?

The answer is simple, call it 960x720 and add the p if it is progressive scan or i if it is interlaced. This uses the exact same number of characters as 4:3, but there is no ambiguity. There is no need for a non-standard title.