Why Don't people understand what 2k/4K is?

Ok, now I know I am stupid. When I went to school 2K meant 2,000. How does 1080p equate to 2,000? I certainly understand where the confusion comes from. I would be more inclined to believe the 1080p would mean 1K.

Milt

"mondo50m" wrote:
Ok, now I know I am stupid. When I went to school 2K meant 2,000. How does 1080p equate to 2,000? I certainly understand where the confusion comes from. I would be more inclined to believe the 1080p would mean 1K.

Milt

1080p = 1920x1080
1920 is pretty close to 2000, hence 2K.

4K screens are 3840x2160.
3840 is pretty close to 4K.

The i/p designations had to do with the number of scan lines in broadcast TV. Kinda antiquated at this point but that's why we use lines for TV displays and pixels-across for full digital display. It all mushes together at this point, though. I blame marketing.

so, when Jossos stated that 2k meant 1080p he was mistaken by stateing that it was 1080p across. It is actually 1920 across. Now it makes sense. I got confused when he said 2k meant 1080 pixels across. Confusion by wrong information. Not a big deal, now I know. I guess he should have said '2k is 1920 pixels across.'

Milt

"MrAdun" wrote:

The i/p designations had to do with the number of scan lines in broadcast TV. Kinda antiquated at this point but that's why we use lines for TV displays and pixels-across for full digital display. It all mushes together at this point, though. I blame marketing.

The i/p has to do with whether the signal is interlaced or progressive. A 1080p signal is a 1920x1080 frame with only one field 1920x1080. Therefore, a 1080p 60hz actually runs at 60hz. An interlaced signal displays the odd rows and then the even rows. Therefore, a 1080i signal is a 1920x1080 frame with two fields one being the odd rows 1920x540 and the other being the even rows 1920x540. Since it takes two fields to produce one frame the speed is cut in half. A 1080i 60Hz signal is actually running at 30Hz. Both formats have the same resolution (1920x1080).

Although the format resolution is the same there can be a potential problem when displaying an interlaced signal on a progressive display. The interlaced signal has to be deinterlaced. For a good description deinterlacing and the issues see the wiki page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deinterlacing

Not everybody is a cinema/home cinema aficinado. Feel free to blame the TV manifacturers for co-opting the term from the cinema industry, after finding their numbers "close enough", and aggressively foisting it on consumers, if you must go high and mighty about it.

For that matter; In cinema it is indeed 2 kibipixels horizontally, but on the vertical it varies.

"mondo50m" wrote:
Ok, now I know I am stupid. When I went to school 2K meant 2,000. How does 1080p equate to 2,000? I certainly understand where the confusion comes from. I would be more inclined to believe the 1080p would mean 1K.

Milt

"Jossos" wrote:
the 'k' is the amount of pixels across.

Your sarcasm makes you look retarded

To complicate things even worse there is actually multiple standards of 4K resolutions.
For 4K Ultra high definition television the resolution is 3840 x 2160 (16:9 ratio) . But for digital cinema (DCI) the 4K resolution is 4096 x 2160 pixels (1.90:1 ratio). These two are the most common 4K formats. But there also exists some exoctic variations as well:

4K Ultra wide television - 5120 x 2160 pixels - (21:9 ratio)
4K WHXGA- 5120 x 3200 pixels - (16:10 ratio)

DCI 4K CinemaScope cropped - 4096 x 1716 pixels - (2.39:1 ratio)
DCI 4K flat cropped - 3996 x 2160 pixels - (1.85:1 ratio)

So you have to be careful when just saying "4K resolution".

Couple with the fact the press keeps saying the Oculus Prototype was 1080p, when in reality the screen that you actually see might be only have of the 1080p, which is 1920 divided by 2 which is : 960 horizontal by 1080 pixels vertically , not really 1080p in the real sense.

Jossos wrote: the 'k' is the amount of pixels across. 2k is literally 1080p. 2.5k is 1440p(or 1600) and 4k is 2160p.

The reason I feel that this statement is misleading to someone who does not know is:

'k' does refer to amount of pixels across, but that pixel count is not 1080, it is 1920. 1080 is the pixel count in the vertical direction. If he was trying to explain the concept to someone who had no idea about it, he should first have explained that the standard is labeled '1080p', referring to the vertical resolution. Without this explanation, the inexperienced would believe that the Oculus is already running in 2k as the horizontal resolution is 1280 which is more than 1080. Yes, 2k is referred to as 1080p, but 2k is actually referring to the horizontal resolution of 1920.

"the 'k' is the amount of pixels across. 2k is literally 1080p" From this statement, taken literally as you stated, you are telling people that 2k (number of pixels across) is 1080. It is not. I understand the concept, but many who are not computer literate, would be greatly confused by the statement.

Just my 2 cents, and I am not a 'slow learner' (the word is 'retarded' is nasty), I am far from it.

2k became a colloquial world for 2.5k.
Probably because 2.5k sounded a bit silly.
Get used to this convention. ;)