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

I do work as a cinematographer and I work with 2K footage regularly. 2k footage is slightly higher resolution than 1080p, look it up I'm not talking about 2.5k here either I'm talking about the standard for what constitutes 2k footage. When you hear whether a movie is scanned and mastered in 2k it's mastered in 2k not in 1080.

haha

"owenwp" wrote:
Except Quad HD usually refers to 1440p, because its 4X the pixels of 720p, which is what vanilla "HD" refers to. The marketing term for 2160p is the very helpful "Ultra HD".

Oh yes, my mistake.

"parsec" wrote:
I do work as a cinematographer and I work with 2K footage regularly. 2k footage is slightly higher resolution than 1080p, look it up I'm not talking about 2.5k here either I'm talking about the standard for what constitutes 2k footage. When you hear whether a movie is scanned and mastered in 2k it's mastered in 2k not in 1080.

According to the English Wikipedia 2k can be anything from 1080p to 1600p. In German Wikipedia they even list 1806x976 as 2k. Hence, 2k is a pretty unprecise term and not very helpful when discussing possible dk2/cv1-panels, because they are all 2k with respect to these fuzzy definitions of 2k.

There's been a standard for a long time and I'm sure you guys have seen it before, but it's not incredibly marketable.

"Hey guys, check out this awesome WUXGA monitor I got! It's so much better than the WSXGA+ I had before."

"MrAdun" wrote:
There's been a standard for a long time and I'm sure you guys have seen it before, but it's not incredibly marketable.

"Hey guys, check out this awesome WUXGA monitor I got! It's so much better than the WSXGA+ I had before."

Yes, this standard is not too bad.

But what about converting the horizontal and vertical resolution to hexadecimal numbers, removing the zeros at the end and then concatenating the strings? :P

320  x 240   =>  140 x f0   =>  14f
640  x 480   =>  280 x 1e0  =>  281e
800  x 600   =>  320 x 258  =>  32258
1024 x 768   =>  400 x 300  =>  43
1280 x 720   =>  500 x 2d0  =>  52d
1280 x 800   =>  500 x 320  =>  532
1920 x 1080  =>  780 x 438  =>  78438
1920 x 1200  =>  780 x 4b0  =>  784b
2560 x 1440  =>  a00 x 5a0  =>  a5a
2560 x 1600  =>  a00 x 640  =>  a64
3840 x 2160  =>  f00 x 870  =>  f87

I'm hoping for an a5a-display in the dk2/cv1. ;)

"mrjazz" wrote:

"owenwp" wrote:
Except Quad HD usually refers to 1440p, because its 4X the pixels of 720p, which is what vanilla "HD" refers to. The marketing term for 2160p is the very helpful "Ultra HD".

Oh yes, my mistake.

"parsec" wrote:
I do work as a cinematographer and I work with 2K footage regularly. 2k footage is slightly higher resolution than 1080p, look it up I'm not talking about 2.5k here either I'm talking about the standard for what constitutes 2k footage. When you hear whether a movie is scanned and mastered in 2k it's mastered in 2k not in 1080.

According to the English Wikipedia 2k can be anything from 1080p to 1600p. In German Wikipedia they even list 1806x976 as 2k. Hence, 2k is a pretty unprecise term and not very helpful when discussing possible dk2/cv1-panels, because they are all 2k with respect to these fuzzy definitions of 2k.

In cinema there are more specific definitions for these terms. 1080 and 2k are very distinct things and are never used interchangeably. If I go to a post house I can ask for my film to be scanned and delivered in either a 2k, a 4k or 1080p. The terms 1080p and 2K are never used interchangeably in the film industry as they are distinct and not inexact in any way despite what wikipedia defines it as. In fact DCP projectors will only accept 2K files set to the proper resolutions in many cases.

... and another thing that a lot of people are usually missing is that 1080p isn't technically a resolution. Just like 2K (and 4K), it's a very specific delivery format.

1080p is actually a subset of the REC709 standard for (but not limited to) TV broadcast. It entails, amongst other things (like chroma subsampling, specific 8 bit high and low reference levels etc. etc.), a specific colour space that doesn't really exist on the PC; which, in turn, makes a lot of conversations about resolution a tad silly. 1080p is the delivery format on your BD disc, really, it hasn't got anything to do with the resolution on your computer screen.

I think someone else also touched on it, but that very same standard (REC709, or BT709) also have a younger sibling in REC2020, which pertains to the new post-1080p TV's coming out (which, in turn, has nothing to do with for example 4K, again only making sense within the world of cinema). Another standard that nobody cares to read up on.

The only reason we're even having this conversation is the damn marketers of TV's and electronics. With every new iteration of tech, they muddle the field with their persistent use of the complete and utter wrong terms. This generation it's 4K (instead of the correct UHDTV, as defined by REC2020). In a few years, it will be the exact same story with 16K (or whatever they'll come up with next).

"Probablynotabanana" wrote:
... and another thing that a lot of people are usually missing is that 1080p isn't technically a resolution. Just like 2K (and 4K), it's a very specific delivery format.

1080p is actually a subset of the REC709 standard for (but not limited to) TV broadcast. It entails, amongst other things (like chroma subsampling, specific 8 bit high and low reference levels etc. etc.), a specific colour space that doesn't really exist on the PC; which, in turn, makes a lot of conversations about resolution a tad silly. 1080p is the delivery format on your BD disc, really, it hasn't got anything to do with the resolution on your computer screen.

Rec 709 specifies 1080p as resolution and Rec 709 specifies some other things like the color space and frame rate, BUT 1080p doesn't specify anything else than the resolution, which must be 1080 non-interlaced lines and typically 1920 in horizontal direction. There's no immediate relation between 1080p and color spaces or other stuff not concerning the resolution.
Hence, even for a grim dogmatist it can be perfectly fine to use the term 1080p to communicate the resolution of a display as it is pretty unambiguous in contrast to terms like 2k.

The BT709 never mentions "1080p" at all, it's more of a short hand for BT709 in its entirety. At least that was how it was initially used. It was never external to BT709 at the outset. It's a term stemming from the TV business.

The problem here is that the "p" is usually ignored. Even though you might claim that "1080p" does not entail anything other than resolution, it still does have that "p" there, and that makes no sense, currently, in the PC space. There hasn't been non-progressive on PC for ages (unless you're setting up a editing/colour correcting suite, and are fiddling with monitors).