Talk:Display resolution standards/Archive 1

Archive 1

CIF

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Intermediate_Format

Why those are not mentioner here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.255.188.172 (talk) 10:27, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

They are not mentioned because they are not commonly used as the actual resolutions for Graphic Displays. They are commonly used to encode video for storage or transmission, but are not commonly used for the actual resolution of a physical display device. However, they are used in some instances for special purpose devices. Makyen (talk) 00:21, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Somebody deleted the IBM laptop with the highest resolution ever sold

I think it was a QSXGA or something like that. It was in the article and I have seen them rarely on ebay. Please re-add it. If we could just get rid of the "deleting editors" on Wikipedia, it would be a good source of information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.131.18.162 (talk) 00:09, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

No 800x600 entry?

Isn't 800x600 defined as SVGA? Anyhow, I can't see an entry for either. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.97.164.91 (talk) 16:39, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

Good point. I have added it in.Makyen (talk) 19:57, 24 January 2011 (UTC)

Suggested merge

I think it would make more sense to merge non-redundant contents of this article to Computer display standard since the standard includes resolution as only one specification of several that make up the standard. --Wtshymanski (talk) 03:05, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Strong Oppose ~ This article (Graphic display resolutions) is a C-class article within the scope of WP Computing, while "Computer display standard" is an unassessed list of display modes. We need to add more prose to Computer display standard, or move to List of computer display standards. –pjoef (talk • contribs) 19:48, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Missing resolutions

There are a bunch of standard resolutions missing; e.g. the previously widespread Hercules mode and the (much more rare) CGA 160x100 mode. Maybe those ought to be added? 188.192.109.47 (talk) 09:54, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

It's the "Encyclopedia Anyone" (mostly) "Can Edit". You're somebody. Unless this is one of the zillions of semi-protected pages, Wikipedia:Be Bold and add the missing statistics. --Wtshymanski (talk) 18:25, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Hard to believe I know, but I arrived here looking for high-end projector resolutions rather than wikistalking you, Wty.

B&H Photo Video is particularly fun for looking for projectors with insanely high resolutions at ridiculous prices. The currently least expensive WUXGA (1920x1200) projector is the 4200 lumen Hitachi CP-WUX645N WUXGA LCD Projector, at around US $3,700.. Cheap! (Well, it's cheaper than the 6500 lumen Panasonic PT-DZ6710U DLP at $12,400 anyway..)

I see some other missing weird resolutions, like "D1" that CCTV companies like to use to hide the fact that they record at a crappy 256x192 or 320x200 resolution, using analog NTSC cameras that are capable of four times better results. DMahalko (talk) 20:15, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Graphic or Graphics?

Should the title not be "Graphics display resolutions"? —Calvin 1998 ^(t·c) 20:32, 10 August 2011 (UTC)

End of WUXGA

I removed the paragraph titled "End of WUXGA in MS Windows Laptop Market, 2010" from the WUXGA section, as it was pretty much just original research. It was also irrelevant to this article - as the move to 16:9 aspect ratio in computer displays affects other resolutions besides WUXGA, this subject should be covered in the history section of the 16:10 article. Indrek (talk) 12:41, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

No sections for 1366x768 or 1920x1080???

I came to this article to find out the correct names for the 1366x768 and 1920x1080 resolutions - probably THE most common resolutions in use today! - so I was rather surprised to discover that neither has its own section. Shurely shome mishtake?

AlexAndrews (talk) 12:56, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

1366x768 is mentioned under WXGA, though it's most commonly referred to as HD and probably deserves a separate section, as do 1920x1080 (FullHD or FHD) and 1600x900 (HD+). Indrek (talk) 16:33, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

1600x900 resolution?

Reasonably common. No mention at all. 76.91.31.210 (talk) 01:06, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

largley ignores old wide "palmtop" ratios (640x240, 640x128)

640x240 very common in palmtops is mentioned in text, but not in table at top 640x128 and 640x64 is ignored altogether

I know every resolution can't be mentioned but these were pretty common. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.245.236.57 (talk) 02:21, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

1920x1200 is not completely unheard of in a laptop

The Dell Precision Mobile Workstation M4400 is a 15.4" laptop with a resolution of 1920x1200 available. This is the standard laptop we use at work.

Plenty of 15" and 17" laptops had this resolution back in the day. Emphasis on "had", though - as the WUXGA section notes, by 2010 it had been replaced by 1920x1080; your M4400's date back to 2008. If you want to note it in the article as an example, go ahead (don't forget its direct competitors, the HP EliteBook 8530w and Lenovo ThinkPad W500). Indrek (talk) 18:25, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Apple's 17" MacBook Pro has always been 1920x1200. Although there is no new mid-2012 model (so the latest model is the late-2011, from 24 October), they haven't phased it out for a 16:9 model, but rather for the still-16:10 15" Retina at 2880x1800. Most people expect that if they do release a new 17" it will be a Retina model, still at 16:10, probably 2880x1800 or 3840x2400. --70.36.140.233 (talk) 05:48, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

16:10 "virtually disappeared"?

According to the article:

By 2011, the 16:10 aspect ratio had virtually disappeared from the laptop display market.

That may be true for the major Windows brands, but all of Apple's laptops, except for the 11" Air, are 16:10: 13" Air (1280x800), 13" Pro (1280x800), 15" Pro (1440x900), 15" hi-res Pro (1680x1050), 17" Pro (1920x1200), and 15" Retina Pro (2880x1800).

Looking at a list of "best selling laptops" for September 2012, the 13" Pro, 15" Retina Pro, and 13" Air are #2, #3, and #10. So 16:10 has not virtually disappeared.

I'll edit the article to be more accurate. --70.36.140.233 (talk) 05:17, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

I've edited that section, and added information about Apple's models (as of the current "mid-2012" versions) in various places where appropriate.

However, the Aspect ratio section as a whole is still misleading. While desktop monitors are definitely converging on 16:9, and so are full-sized major-brand Windows laptops, the same isn't true in any other display category. High-end projectors are almost all 16:10, as are Apple laptops. 4:3 seems to be the most common aspect ratio for tablets (presumably following the iPad). And netbooks, mini-tablets, smartphones, handheld games, and low-end LCD projectors don't seem to be converging on any standard aspect ratio. I'm not sure how to rewrite it to be more accurate; hopefully someone else has some ideas? --70.36.140.233 (talk) 06:33, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure about a lot of your changes, they paint an unrealistic picture of Apple being the sole champion of 16:10, whereas in reality they've moved at least half of their products to 16:9. Also, 16:10 isn't completely gone from non-Apple laptops - at least some Tablet PCs use it still. Heck, Panasonic makes ToughBooks with a 4:3 aspect ratio. So describing Apple as a "notable example/exception" at every opportunity seems incorrect and biased.

As for slates, I believe most of them are 16:10, with the iPad one of the few non-widescreen ones. Most of them will also probably be moving to 16:9 after the release of Windows 8. Still, if you want to edit the article to say that certain products still use 16:10 to a significant degree (provided it can be backed up with sources), I'm not opposed to that. Indrek (talk) 08:55, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

15" Retina MacBook Pro

The 15" Retina MacBook Pro is a 2880x1800 laptop, still at the 16:10 aspect ratio that some people think disappeared two years ago. I added a section for this under QXGA.

While it is exactly twice the WSXGA resolution, as far as I know nobody has ever referred to it as WQSXGA, and other resolutions have been given that name, so it seems like it would be OR to call it by that name (or WQXGA+ or WQXGA(II), which would also both be appropriate). So, for lack of a better name, I described it as Retina 15".

It might be worth noting that, while the screen has 2880x1800 pixels, you actually see 1440x900 (or 1024x640, 1280x800, 1680x1050, or 1920x1200 "points" in all applications except full-screen games. But that didn't seem relevant to me, since it's a characteristic of OS X, not of the display itself.

Rumors abound of 13", 17", and maybe 11" Retina models to come, and it's not hard to guess that the 13" would be 2560x1600 and the 17" either 2880x1800 or 3840x2400, sharing the same form-factor as today's 13" and 17" Air and Pro models. (A possible 11" is harder to predict, since the current 11" Air is a 16:9 model, unlike all of Apple's other laptops.) However, without official confirmation, I don't think it's worth adding speculation about what resolutions they might have if they were to come out. --70.36.140.233 (talk) 05:56, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Note that "Retina" describes a certain level of pixel density, not any particular resolution, so using it in the latter sense is incorrect. I've reverted that edit of yours. Also, I think I've seen at least one mention of 2880x1800 as WQXGA+, but can't find it at the moment. Indrek (talk) 08:57, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

1920x1440

This format exists in the wild, but does not seem to have an abbreviation. Most monitors that support(ed) it were CRTs but it appears LCDs do exist for it.

Incidentally it would be the 3:4 version of QHD, which itself is sometimes sold as WQHD due to the 16:9 ("wide") ratio.

- 67.168.125.31 (talk) 07:50, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

WUXGA Percentage of difference in pixels

Someone completely misunderstood how to calculate those. A 100% rebate (-100%) means free, a -290% rebate means that they *pay* you twice the cost if you take the item for free. Since it is impossible to have a negative number of pixels, none of those can be below -100%. I think only the sign is wrong: since WQXGA has about 4x the pixels of wXGA, a +290% increase seems right, the opposite relation being 1 quarter, -74% seems right too.184.163.250.6 (talk) 19:39, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

I made note of this on the talk page for the template: Template talk:Monitor resolutions. —fudoreaper (talk) 10:13, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

FYI, the percentages in the table were flipped in this revision. Indrek (talk) 11:31, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

fixed - see comment in Template talk:Monitor resolutions 184.163.250.6 (talk) 06:12, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

No 320x200 entry?

Isn't 320x200 the original VGA? Sully76 (talk) 15:54, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

I think that is an EGA standard 204.191.90.245 (talk) 10:26, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

It was actually a CGA standard. When VGA was introduced, the availability of this mode was probably backwards compatibility. 204.191.90.245 (talk) 12:13, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

SXGAW (1600x1024) is not mentioned

SXGAW video standard, which is 1600 x 1024 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.31.61.78 (talk) 11:08, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

As far as I am concerned, the name of this format is WSXGA. --Tobias (talk) 19:35, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

2560 x 1080

There seems to be a new screen resolution of 2560 x 1080 (ratio: 64 / 27). Does it have some proper name? --Tobias (talk) 19:42, 17 July 2013 (UTC)

Same question in the German Wikipedia, with a German reference for the existence of the format --Tobias (talk) 20:44, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

1152x900

This was an old video mode from when the concern was memory. It took one megabyte to store an 8-bit per pixel screen. It was used on many Sun computers. (I'm just not sure where to put it on a page organized by PC technology.) --David Garfield (talk) 14:48, 14 August 2013 (UTC)

No 1600 X 900?

Many wide screen monitors are also 1600x900 please add 1600x900 to this wiki list

87.242.162.94 (talk) 06:48, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

I agree, it's pretty common now. There's a mention of it on the "Computer display standard" page (as HD+) but it's only referred to here in the High-Definition side table, not in the actual text. It also seems to be commonly referred to as WXGA++ but there's no mention of that term on either page.

94.169.114.190 (talk) 16:34, 1 September 2013 (UTC)

Why is 1600 X 900 not listed? I'm using it right now. Anyone add, don't know how. --209.188.53.214 (talk) 22:05, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Width x height vs. "height x width"/portrait for smartphones

Discussion "moved" to Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Dates_and_numbers#Width_first_or_height_for_screen_sizes.3F_And_inches_again.. for the general principle as a WP:MOS guideline.

List of mobile phones with WVGA display linked from here made me think. Usually the lower number is put first in Wikipedia article on (smart)phones as that is the "width" in portrait. I've been "correcting" when the other way around. Of course the other way is right when when put in landscape (as often done for watching video). Any thought on what is the "right" way (mention in WP:MOS)? comp.arch (talk) 17:02, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Obviously, width and height are interchangeable based on the orientation of the display. My opinion on this has evolved with the rest of the industry over the last several years. I recall that, when I first noticed smartphones were being listed in portrait orientation it felt wrong. This was due to a long established habit, from computer displays, of primarily seeing/using the landscape orientation. But now, it feels wrong when seeing a smartphone mentioned with screen dimensions listed in landscape orientation, unless landscape orientation is specifically being discussed.

IMO, dimensions should be listed with the width (first number) being the horizontal direction in which the specific display is most commonly used, or intended to be used. In general, for smartphones this is in portrait orientation; for computer displays this is in landscape orientation. Using the commonly used orientation is, effectively, an evolution in the industry due to the introduction of smartphones. Prior to their introduction, there really was not that much which was most commonly viewed in portrait orientation. Thus, the prior convention of using landscape orientation. For smartphones portrait orientation is clearly the norm in the industry. Generalizing this to be that we use the most common/intended by manufacturer orientation as the one in which we show the dimensions is reasonable.

If the discussion is about a format in general (e.g. this article), then the dimensions should be listed in landscape orientation (largest number first). Unless it becomes that a specific screen resolution is almost always/only viewed in portrait orientation. Off the top of my head, I am not thinking of any which qualify for listing as portrait orientation in this article.

As to mentioning it in MOS, I have a discussion I need to start there regarding dimension formatting. I will include this issue to see if there is a consensus one way or another. However, I expect that it will be to maintain whatever consensus there is across a general subject category.

Makyen (talk) 20:37, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

WSVGA (typo?)

(between 15:9 and 16:9) shouldn't this say (between 16:9 and 8:5) ? 173.14.238.114 (talk) 20:35, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

4K is a DCP format, has nothing to do with resolution.

It does not matter how many times people say it, 4K is simply a DCP format. Nothing more. It is not a resolution. It should be removed from the UHD section!

193.90.61.252 (talk) 21:55, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

AxB pixels should use the × multiply sign

Too many for me to fix. Equinox (talk) 16:16, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

It's been discussed before, the consensus is that unspaced "x" is also acceptable for resolutions (especially since "×" needs to be spaced and include units). Indrek (talk) 16:21, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Equinox is correct about sign × vs letter x. And it's not too many to fix. However, Indrek appears to be on a relentless personal campaign against it, and against clarifying MOS:NUM#Common mathematical symbols, attracting comparisons to WP:Randy from Boise. It already says "Do not use the letter x to indicate multiplication" but could use an an example about dimensions also, and should rather drop it's confused example about 4WD since that article itself uses × not x.

His assertion that there's "consensus" re his opinion is outright wrong; see the last archived discussion where his arguments are heavily disputed and his final change proposal received no support except his own.

Some time has passed; feel free to bring a discussion to clarify MOS:NUM#Common mathematical symbols to it's talk page (WT:MOSDATE). 83.185.243.56 (talk) 14:10, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

The anon is as mistaken as he is uncivil. I've no personal agenda here, I'm merely going by what the MOS says - that unspaced "×" is not allowed. And even if it was, changing from one MOS-accepted format to another is also explicitly forbidden. I fail to see the purpose of this flagrant attempt to paint me as some sort of crusader against policy and consensus.

Regarding the aforementioned discussion from early 2014, the anon appears to have merely skimmed it, rather than actually committing the time to read and understand the arguments presented. The change proposal was merely about explicitly mentioning display resolutions in the MOS. There was, in fact, no consensus not to allow the use of unspaced "x", which means the previous consensus stands (see also a slightly more recent discussion about this at Talk:Computer display standard#nxn). Further, no one actually managed to produce any evidence of problems with the use of unspaced "x", making this an obvious case of WP:DONTFIXIT.

The only thing even remotely reasonable in the previous comment is the suggestion to revisit the issue at WT:MOSDATE. Personally I doubt it would accomplish anything useful (as the whole proposal to outlaw unspaced "x" appears to be a solution looking for a problem), or that most editors would even care, but at least it would be more constructive than throwing around petty, baseless accusations. Indrek (talk) 18:33, 5 October 2015 (UTC)

Order: hd first?

Wouldn't it make sense to put the hd formats first? The article isn't chronological anyway and the hd formats are of course the ones our "customers" come here for most often. I'm gonna boldly do it, please discuss here if you don't agree. PizzaMan (♨♨) 11:09, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Full Ultra HD

User:Avieshek has made multiple edits replacing "8K UHD" with "8K Full UHD" or "8K FUHD". I have undone these because there is no accompanying reference to back this name up. I have searched around but can not find any source that calls it this.

The organisation which created the UHDTV standard, ITU, also calls it 8K UHD. For instance in this press release.[1] ("... they are sometimes called the ‘4K’ and ‘8K’ UHDTV systems")

--Lonaowna (talk) 19:55, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

It seems these edits were made again by someone, and I have undone them again, as once again no references were provided. I have also added the DCI 2K and 4K sections back in; although they are not part of either of the "HD" standards, neither are resolutions like 2560x1440, 3200x1800, or 5K (5120x2880), so if we are going to keep those I see no reason why the DCI sections should not be kept as well. They are often relevant to the 2K/4K/8K discussion.

I have also removed "16K QUHD" as this resolution is basically theoretical, it does not exist in any display and is not even on the roadmap yet, and it is not described in any published standards yet, so even if we were to list this resolution, it does not have any standardized name. This does not mean we get to make up our own name for it.

And lastly I have removed resolutions and edited names from the main chart. "UHD (4K)" (3840x2160) and "FUHD (8K)" (7680x4320) were renamed to "4K UHD" and "8K UHD" as per the official UHDTV specification. "UHD+" was renamed to "5K (UHD+)" since it has no official name and both of those names are frequently used for it. I also removed "16K QUHD" (15360x8640), as well as another made-up resolution "FUHD (8K)" (8192x5120), which is actually a 16:10 resolution, and of course does not exist in any display or roadmap and is not defined in any standard, and so the name "FUHD" is certainly not established by any source, and since it does not exist in any way whatsoever, I see no reason to include it on this list.

I also removed "FUHD (8K)" (10080x4320) and removed the name of "Ultra Wide Television (4K)" (5120x2160), and debating removing that entry entirely as well. These are once again made-up theoretical ultrawide resolutions, based on the extension of 1920x1080 to an ultrawide counterpart of 2560x1080. The next logical step in ultrawides would be the same move from 4K UHD, or in other words double the pixel count of 2560x1080 in each direction, hence 5120x2160. Although this resolution is a likely next step, it does not exist in any displays currently or in the near future, and is not defined in any standard, so it does not have a name. Once again, this does not mean we get to make up our own name.

10080x4320 is another theoretical resolution that came out of typing things into a calculator; once again it is an attempt at predicting the next logical step after 5120x2160 (ultrawide version of 4K UHD); an ultrawide version of 8K UHD! Whoever made these edits calculated this 10080px number from the vertical resolution of 8K UHD (4320px) and determining a horizontal pixel count with a 21:9 ratio, woefully unaware that "21:9" monitors do not actually have an exact 21:9 ratio. If you want to make predictions, the "real" next logical step would be simply doubling pixel count in each direction again from 5120x2160; or in other words 10240x4320, not 10080. But anyway, once again this is just a theoretical dream resolution, it does not actually exist and so there is no reason to list it here until such time.

(EDIT: I left 5120x2160 in there, since it's better than a blank box. "Theoretical" resolutions aren't that big of a problem if we don't go overboard with them I suppose, but the line should be drawn at adding a new row or column with a new pixel number just for the sake of adding a resolution that doesn't exist (i.e. 15360x8640)

GlenwingKyros (talk) 12:09, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for your edits, I completely agree with them. People adding these "exotic"/made-up resolutions should at least mention a source or explain their motivation on the talk page, which they refuse to do.

I'm glad you spotted these edits and the page now again only contains standard resolutions with proper citations.

Lonaowna (talk) 16:16, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

On an unrelated note, please be advised that the non-breaking spaces ( ) that you removed in this edit are actually required by the Wikipedia Manual of Style. From WP:MOS#Units of measurement: "Values and unit symbols are separated by a non-breaking space." Please keep this in mind for future edits. Thank you. Indrek (talk) 19:42, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for the correction. The display industry almost universally does not use spaces with units so I am not accustomed to it, but I will keep that in mind for future edits here. GlenwingKyros (talk) 23:03, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

WQHD / QHD

Someone undid my revision of changing QHD to WQHD. I had provided sources to demonstrate that WQHD is the common term. It may or may not be correct according to some definition, but it's the most practical abbreviation, because qhd has two meanings, depending on whether you capitalize the Q. But that's my interpretation of the reason why WQHD is more popular (original research). Fact is WQHD is the most commonly used term as can be seen in the references, whether it was originally correct or not. PizzaMan (♨♨) 17:16, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Where are the sources that "demonstrate that WQHD is the common term"? All I saw is sources to marketing announcements of certain products, as well as a link to Amazon. Some of them mention "QHD" or "Quad HD", some mention "WQHD". I did not a clear advantage of one over the other. And surely you cannot claim this seemingly random selection of announcements to prove anything?

There is also the other statement from you - that it is done "to avoid confusion with qHD with a small q". Here you say that this is "your interpretation", but in the article it is presented as a fact, completely unsupported by any evidence.

Unless you are willing to provide credible explanations to the above statements, I think that QHD is the better way to go, because it is more accurate. Many people on the internet use improper terms in regards to many things. There is no need for Wikipedia to further contribute to these mistakes, especially when people frequently take Wikipedia as one of the most authoritative sources for information, so in a way you would be perpetuating this misuse. Drst (talk) 18:08, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

There is no such thing as "more accurate" since there is no actual standardized name for this resolution. It's all just based on "lots of companies use this term for it", that's all. Both WQHD and QHD are used commonly, neither is "more correct" than the other. Maybe QHD is more consistent with how these naming conventions generally work, but it doesn't really matter, other conventions listed on this page are inconsistent as well, because those were the names companies decided to use for their products. It doesn't matter what makes more sense, it only matters what the actual industry uses. In this case both terms are used, but I've seen WQHD more often than QHD. GlenwingKyros (talk) 20:58, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Again, "I have seen" is not real evidence. I can certainly tell you that I have seen QHD used more often. Right now, if you search Google, these are the number of queries returned: QHD = 7,820,000, WQHD = 361,000 ; QHD resolution = 440,000, WQHD resolution = 441,000; "QHD Resolution" = 474,000, "WQHD Resolution" = 31,800. As limited and unscientific as this data is, it really does not support the suggestion that WQHD is more often used (even if you account that some of the QHD refers to qHD).

I don't think it will be possible to credible reliable data showing which one is actually more often used, and since they are both half-arbitrary, to me it makes sense to emphasize the one that is at least technically consistent. Drst (talk) 10:27, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

The Google search results are personalised and thus confounded by previous searches. What's more, the hits for QHD are mixed with qHD. When i hit "wqhd qhd" in Google, there seems to be a preference for Quad HD over "Wide Quad HD" but most sources prefer to use abbreviations and in the abbreviations WQHD is often preferred over QHD. And the references in this section reflect that: WQHD is used more often as abbreviation. I do believe the section could use some clearing up and some statements, such as QHD being more technically correct need a reference. I'm not sure if a reference is needed for the counter argument that QHD can be confused with qHD; what do you think? For now i've edited the section title to include both abbreviations under the assumtion that QHD is indeed more technically correct. PizzaMan (♨♨) 16:44, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

I do believe that both should be represented, because, as I said, there is no reliable way to determine which is more common, and in any case it does not matter - both are used commonly enough to be reflected, and I will retract my previous statement that WQHD should not be mentioned in the article; clearly it should. However, I believe that the emphasis needs to be different.

Actually, "QHD being more technically consistent" is the only statement that does not need reference, because it is obvious. HD is 1280x720, Quad HD is exactly four times that, or 2560x1440, by definition. However, some of the statements you make in the article, such as WQHD being more common, or that it was chosen because of the possible confusion with qHD, do need reference, and you have not provided any. The random selection of links to various products does not show what you claim it does.

It is clear that there can be confusion between qHD and QHD, but to say that there can be confusion is not the same thing as to say that "WQHD" was chosen because of this confusion. qHD is a resolution that exists only in the realm of handheld devices, while QHD, until recently, existed almost entirely in the realm of desktop and laptop monitors. Those two worlds rarely intersect, and such a confusion would not normally have a chance to occur. My guess is that the term WQHD was coined by someone, who wanted to emphasize it being a wide resolution, and either forgot that all HD resolutions are wide, or thought that it needed to be made more obvious. But this is just a guess, and I cannot put it up in the article as if it's a fact.

So, yes, I believe the section should be edited a bit, and statements which are not factual, should not be presented as such. I also think that both should be represented throughout the article, given that both are established terms (like 4K and UHD, for example). In places where conciseness is required, I think it is OK to use (W)QHD. When both are mentioned, I think QHD should appear first, because it is more technically consistent, and because it is more fundamental (i.e., the WQHD name is formed by prefixing the existing QHD name with "wide", not the other way around). I updated in article in line with what I suggested. Do you find it acceptable? Drst (talk) 19:49, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Looks great to me. Thanks for synthesizing our thoughts. PizzaMan (♨♨) 04:34, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Nobody uses these letter salad names

The only place you ever see someone refer to a display resolution as WQSGVGA or whatever is Wikipedia. Nobody knows what the hell WUXGA is execpt for the sperglords who write this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.67.20.46 (talk) 13:03, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Actually, they do. Some are used in smartphone specs and reviews, as well as commercial leaflets for notebook computers. Also flatscreen TVs, though the vendor whose website I checked right now is nice enough to write "Full-HD and UHD 4k" instead of just FHD/UHD. I don't like these obscure acronyms either, but they are actually used outside of Wikipedia. Aragorn2 (talk) 13:11, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

x versus ×

Probably not the right place to ask, but would it be worth somebody running a bot to change e.g. 640x480 (note letter x) to 640×480, everywhere it occurs? Equinox ◑ 21:29, 21 July 2017 (UTC)

The use of "x" vs. "×" for display resolutions has been debated before, mostly with inconclusive results if memory serves me. Personally I've given up on caring about this issue, and I doubt most readers would even notice. But if you feel like there's some actual benefit to be had from such a change, go ahead, just make sure you don't change it in e.g. ref details, wikilinks (unless the target is also appropriately changed). Indrek (talk) 06:34, 22 July 2017 (UTC)

Need to add new resolution

In the article isn't present the resolution 256x144 common as 144p. It's not very important but from some years it was adopted by YouTube in the settings menu, so it cannot be absent.--Dato24 (talk) 12:41, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Metricate the screen sizes

When the article gives screen sizes for devices which provide examples of support for a given resolution, they always seem to be in Imperial units. I have no idea how big 37 inches (or whatever size is being used as an example) is. I know metres and millimetres. Can we please dump the Imperial measurements and replace them with SI ones? - Roxor128 (talk) 05:20, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

The Units of measurement section of the Manual of Style gives the following advice for choosing units in articles without strong national ties to either the US or the UK (emphasis mine):

"In all other articles, the primary units chosen will be SI units, non-SI units officially accepted for use with the SI, or such other units as are conventional in reliable-source discussions of the article topic (such as revolutions per minute (rpm) for rotational speed, hands for heights of horses, et cetera)."

Graphics displays are one such topic (along with e.g. loudspeakers) where sizes are almost universally given in inches, both in primary sources (e.g. device specifications, sometimes even model names) as well as secondary ones (e.g. reviews). I understand where you're coming from, but I think for most people converting all sizes to metric would create more confusion instead of clarifying anything. Indrek (talk) 06:36, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Picture "Multiple display standards compared"

It would be nice to expand this till 4k or 5k cause of the new standards in TV ("Ultra HD Premium"-Logo) and Ultra-HD-BluRay-Player. Sorry for the german article: http://www.heise.de/newsticker/meldung/CES-2016-Zertifizierung-fuer-hochwertige-Ultra-HD-Fernseher-3060601.html -- 87.167.87.72 (talk) 12:27, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

I've created a draft of an updated chart, I will attach it on the side. If there are any suggestions for changes, I'm open to discussion here. I don't know what resolutions people feel should be listed, though keep in mind there isn't really much space for many resolutions around 1080p or below.

GlenwingKyros (talk) 13:03, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

A few comments and suggestions:

• 8:5 should be 16:10.
• Add WXGA+ (1440x900), removing SXGA if needed.
• 720p and 1080p are video standards, not display resolutions. I'd label them simply as HD and FHD. Ditto for VGA (SD is also a video standard) and QHD (1440p isn't even an actual standard AFAIK).
• Label 1366x768 also as HD, because that's how computer displays with that resolution are/were advertised. Also, it's not exactly 16:9, so perhaps add the actual aspect ratio (~1.78:1).
• I don't know if the megapixel curves are necessary. Total pixel (or megapixel) count is more relevant to camera sensors than displays.

Overall, though, good job! Indrek (talk) 08:00, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. I'll change 8:5 to 16:10. I'd like to keep SXGA since it is still a fairly common resolution and people looking to replace those monitors, or people who replaced them in the past, might be interested in seeing how it compares to more modern resolutions. I'll look for a way to fit 1440x900 in.

Although 720/1080p are not just resolutions, they're extremely common and recognizable terms for those resolutions, and they are terms that a lot of people will probably be looking for, so I'd like to keep those names in. Maybe the labels could be changed to FHD "1080p" or FHD ("1080p") to indicate the more "casual-ness" of those terms?

On 1366x768, I know it's not exact, but I didn't think it was worth making the distinction since it's 1/3 of a pixel off, and I'd have to go to 4 decimal places (1.7786) to make it distinct from looking like 1.777(...) being rounded to 1.78 or 1.778. GlenwingKyros (talk) 20:29, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, putting "720" / "1080p" in parentheses would work as well.

By the way, I don't think any computer displays used 1280x720, instead they went to 1366x768 for the lowest-end widescreen displays. This got me thinking, though - what types of devices is the chart supposed to cover? Because if we're focusing mainly on computer displays, then it should also include HD+ (1600x900) and QHD+ (3200x1800), for instance. Besides TVs, 1280x720 has been used on phones and tablets. But then for tablets we should also include QXGA (2048x1536). And for phones, WVGA (800x480), possibly also nHD (640x360) and a WXGA variant (1280x768). But including all these would make the chart too crowded. It seems that if we want to fairly represent all device types, we may need to focus on the more recent resolutions, leaving out older ones. Indrek (talk) 08:09, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Sorry I had kinda put this project on the shelf for a while. I've made some modifications as suggested above. I managed to fit 1280×1024 and 1440×900 together. The separate color code for 5:4 was removed though since there is only one entry for it.

http://puu.sh/rIfnc/cd312af6ee.png

I wasn't focusing on any device types in particular, I'm just listing resolution numbers that I think are most commonly encountered or discussed. While resolutions like 640×360 are "common" resolutions as they were/are commonly implemented on low-end phones, those resolution numbers are not commonly discussed because people tend not to care about screen resolution on those devices (generally speaking). On higher end phones, people care more, but those resolutions (720p, 1080p, 1440p) are already included. Older "computer" resolutions like the 16:10 series are not "common" anymore in new products, but are widespread in old computer products, and people check and compare whatever resolution their computer has more often than on a phone, as resolution is not considered as much of a "behind the scenes" spec on computers as it is on phones and tablets. On phones and tablets you never select resolutions for anything, it's all taken care of automatically, so the numbers associated with the screen resolution on phones and tablets are rarely checked or compared, at least relative to computer resolutions. Anyway, the whole point is to provide a comparison between resolutions familiar to most people, so that's what I based my selection on, for the most part.

While 1280×720 was never widely implemented in desktop screens or TVs (although is was in phones), it is still a widely used standard for video content. I know this is "display resolution" and not "video format resolution", but it's often relevant to the comparison of resolutions, and it has a large presence in discussion, so I feel it deserves an entry on the chart for comparison purposes. Likewise the "SD" resolution (or "480p") is often encountered in video (DVD resolution), and I think it's educational to have it on there for comparison purposes. 3200×1800 I feel is something of a stepping stone resolution which I don't think will have much staying power, and I'm not sure if it's worth putting on a chart that will likely be around for a long time, but I can add it if you like. GlenwingKyros (talk) 02:41, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

New (more permanent) link, since other link is dead. https://linustechtips.com/main/uploads/monthly_2017_09/large.59c944e5c3820_ResolutionChart(SmallScale).png.d79c570e2e4020b7f73c8fa452bfa9f3.png GlenwingKyros (talk) 18:05, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

I think that https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Vector_Video_Standards4.svg is the best of all the many charts so far. It is the only chart to include the venerable XGA+ standard, as well as has important notes at the bottom. I think it's great to be adding larger resolutions like 4K which are now becoming more popular, but I think any new chart should be based upon chart 4 I linked above, which I'm quite sure used to be the featured chart in the article until it was replaced by the older, inferior, less complete chart 2 for some reason!! ThinkPadLover123 (talk) 00:17, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

Names

I believe this page shouldn't "endorse" names for formats in section headings unless they are established by a standards document or industry-wide consensus. Formats that don't have standardized names can just be listed by resolution in section headings (like "3840×1080" or "3840×1600" or "2160×1440"). While one particular company may have a name for a format, that can be listed in the description ("Dell calls this format "UW4K", while Acer uses the term "WQHD+""). I don't think a name should be in the heading unless it becomes standard notation recognized across the majority of companies. I have also noticed some names are simply "made-up" by extrapolating patterns from other formats (like "UW5K" for 5120×2160). This page should not be in the business of attempting to propose/create new conventions. It should be made clear to editors that it is ok if a resolution doesn't have a name. Not all resolutions do. And if a resolution doesn't have a name, then don't list a name. A lack of a standardized name is not an opportunity for us to make up our own name for it and hope it catches on. GlenwingKyros (talk) 04:25, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

VGA is not SD!

The article currently claims that 640x480 would be called "SD - in comparison for instance to HD (1280×720) or Full HD (1920×1080)." That is just patently wrong. SD is officially defined as 720x576 for PAL and 720x480 for NTSC for non-square pixel video, and 768x576 and 768x480 for square-pixel video respectively. So WVGA is the actual SD resolution.

It's only become common among amateurs to refer to resolutions far below 720x480 as "SD" simply because regulation organizations such as CCIR/ITU and EBU have assigned much too low datarates for digital broadcast SD TV due to lobbying pressure from HD manufacturers, resulting in lots of artifacts such as blocking and color banding on digital broadcast SD TV, something you'd never see on a proper 9,800 Mbit/s SD DVD, often even on 6,500 MBit/s DVDs. In fact, the low bandrate assigned to digital broadcast SD TV makes it about equal in quality to early-90s MPEG-1 VCDs. So amateurs have comnmonly started to refer to resolutions far below 720x480, the lowest of all official SD resolutions, as "SD" simply because they equate it with the crap quality they're getting on broascast TV. --2003:71:4F24:A80:A800:64BD:EDA9:C240 (talk) 20:08, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

For all purposes, 640x480 is lower than 720x480. Anyway, it's the vertical lines that count, so 480 or 576 are SD, 720 and 1080 HD.

Bitrate is irrelevant, resolution means the number of pixels of the standard, regardless of the image shown. 4throck (talk) 01:54, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

I haven't looked up the NTSC/PAL standards in question, but I tend to agree with the proposition. Having recently written a video timing format calculator, for which I had to read the CTA-861 standards and transcribe all listed formats, which are timing standards for transmission of formats intended mainly for TVs, I recall distinctly that 720x480 and 720x576 were both very prevalent, with a very large number of formats defined in the 861 standards, and I don't recall 640x480 being there at all. On the other hand, perhaps I'm wrong, but I recall 4:3 being the standard aspect ratio for SDTVs, not 3:2; that being the case, were images transmitted at 720x480 but displayed at 640x480? Or were TVs actually built with 720x480 resolution simply with non-square pixels in the physical structure? Or perhaps I'm entirely wrong about this... I will need to look into this more. GlenwingKyros (talk) 03:51, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Resolution first, name second

I think it would be better if headings were listed by resolution first, names second. I believe it is more readable in this format, as resolutions are approximately the same length when written, giving better alignment in the table of contents. In addition, some formats have multiple names associated with them, and this organization makes it more natural to list multiple names. Also, some formats don't have any name at all, so this organization would make it less disjointed to have those formats listed by resolution alone.

Before: https://i.imgur.com/RxTn7iI.png

After: https://i.imgur.com/x553nu9.png

I will make the change in 1 week if there are no objections. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GlenwingKyros (talk • contribs) 20:08, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

No objections here. This might also help with the problem of made-up names you described above - no need to invent a name for the section heading, just use the actual resolution.

One thing to keep in mind, though, is to preserve the existing headings as anchors so incoming links don't stop working.

Indrek (talk) 20:52, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

Done. GlenwingKyros (talk) 03:52, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Computer–graphics merge proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Consensus to re-organize the material rather than merge. Klbrain (talk) 11:50, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

---

See Computer display standard.

I don't know whether a merger would improve the coverage or focus, but I know that the reader who is aware of both articles (unlikely, as things stand) ought not be left wondering which article to digest first.

It's simply not good enough to have one refer to the other in the late-to-the-party "see also" section. — MaxEnt 17:14, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

Bear in mind that many readers are going to arrive—pretty much at random I would guess—on one or the other article after keying in one of the many overlapping, opaque letter-salad acronyms. — MaxEnt 17:23, 22 June 2017 (UTC)

• "Computer display standard" should be focused solely on Personal Computers (Desktops & Laptops). No one would search for 'Computer display' thinking about smartphone, smartwatch or VR headset display screens. "Graphics display resolution" should talk about from all displays resolutions & their ratios, from common & upcoming devices. --Ne0 (talk) 10:07, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

HXGA

I note that the Hyper Extended Graphics Array (HXGA) section doesn't have a single source. Are there any references for these names? It appears that it has been there since the page was created (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Graphics_display_resolution&oldid=379274038), but as far as I can tell they are basically just made up... GlenwingKyros (talk) 19:47, 3 February 2019 (UTC)

I think 60 days is sufficient, I will be removing this section in a week or so due to lack of verifiability. GlenwingKyros (talk) 08:17, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

The only reference to HXGA in an actual physical device I managed to find was this, and that's a camera. For displays, HXGA seems to be an entirely theoretical family of resolutions, probably achieved by stacking multiple lower-resolution displays, and I've no objections to removing that section. Indrek (talk) 11:42, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

WTH

I understand that the issues overlap, but if VGA (as in the IBM PC standard/card) can both have it's own page - and at the same time have a segment in this article called "Video Graphics Array" which explains supported resolutions - why not for Extended Graphics Array (XGA)?

The merged section here called "Extended Graphics Array" is a complete FUBAR mess at it stands right now, with sections containing both information about the IBM PC standard/graphics card and tables and sections about resolutions.

It should be split up so Extended Graphics Array does not redirect here, has it's own page regarding the standard origin and IBM PC card - and a much slimmer section here with tables and notes on the resolutions going under this name.

Another improvement would be cross-linking the freestanding technical/origin/IBM hardwardare info pages for VGA, XGA etc.. with their respective resolution info here.

So top of VGA here has link:

"See Video Graphics Array for the IBM standard concerning their PC graphics cards."

and under XGA resolutions:

"Extended Graphics Array for the IBM standard concerning their PC graphics cards."

This faulty merger/redirect had me quite upset, I was reading about the IBM and following the story behind MGA, CGA, VGA, XGA... boom - totally different content - not relevant at all. Who asked for resolution specifications/tables...? Not me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.235.181.45 (talk) 08:23, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

I can't be sure this wasn't me a few months ago, but I don't remember doing it and the writing style seems different (maybe I was drunk?), and I've just run into the same problem whilst trying to link another article to one about the XGA card (which was an actual thing, following on from the 8514/A, as was the XGA-2), and, whilst doing due diligence to make sure it didn't go to a disambiguation page with other terms using the same acronym, ended up here. Disappointing, and indeed annoying. I can link to the 8514 article (which is itself mistitled, as it talks about the 8514/A... the "8514" is a monitor, not a graphics card), but that doesn't have any relevant subsections for what I was actually trying to link so someone following it would still be slightly wrongfooted until they got the gist of the entire article. Plus it does rather seem like there must have been a separate page for it at some point (a la VGA) which has been zapped, or at least merged in/redirected to this one instead of into the 8514 article which would be the correct approach. All that and the 8514 link here is quite well hidden within the XGA section body text, and that still bangs on at length about the hardware itself instead of being, as per the rest of the page in general, about the resolutions alone. 146.199.0.169 (talk) 12:01, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

How many colors can be displayed simultaneously in SXGA?

How many colors can be displayed simultaneously in 1280×1024 Super Extended Graphics Array? — Preceding comment signature by an anonymous user: 2403:6200:8937:17B8:E825:6F1:3239:3736 (talk) 07:21, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

As many as your graphics card (and monitor, and cable standard) has the memory, bandwidth, DAC width and physical display depth for.

If you're after a concrete example, 4MB of VRAM is sufficient to provide 24-bit colour (3 bytes/pixel x 1280 x 1024 = 3.75MB), and 100MHz of video / memory bandwidth (assuming at least a 24, preferably 32-bit or wider datapath = 300~400MB/s) is just enough to scrape a 60Hz progressive scan (at 62.5kHz line rate) with typical blanking margins. Though a lot of early 1280x1024 LCDs wouldn't have been able to show that with full fidelity as they, like a lot of early LCD TVs based on the same technology, could only physically produce an 18-bit colour depth (6 bits / 64 levels per R/G/B channel = 262,144 total, sufficient for VGA-grade and typical 256- or hi-color modes but not truecolor), maybe with a bit of hardware-generated temporal and spatial dithering to give an imperfect impression of 1 or 2 extra bits/channel.

If you've only got 1MB to play with, you're stuck with a 4bpp / 16-colour mode. Or if you have a suitably fancy graphics card (say, an early CAD-focussed model) you might get 6bpp/64 colours, or 3bpp/8 colours with 512kB (and/or lower memory bandwidths that force a tradeoff between resolution and colour depth, TTL signalling that limits total colour range to 2/8/16/64 rather than the infinite range possible with analogue, a very early flatpanel that can only produce 8/512/4096 colours, etc). 146.199.0.169 (talk) 12:10, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Overview Table

In recent years, it seems more and more common for smartphones and other devices to abandon standardized resolutions/ratios and start using unusual customized resolutions. This has some potential issues for us, since I don't think there has been any discussion or consensus regarding what should be included in the table. My feeling is that we surely shouldn't include every resolution that has ever been used in any device, else the table would become very packed with many numbers that are of interest to very few people. So I feel there should be some sort of discussion about what we think the table should contain. Should we only include "notable" resolutions, whatever that means?

On another note, I feel like the table would be more intuitive if it were listed by horizontal resolutions on the left side, i.e.

H Res	4:3	16:9	≈21:9
1920	1440	1080	800 (2.4)
2560	1920	1440	1080 (2.370)
3840	2880	2160	1600 (2.4)

etc.

It reads more naturally in my opinion. Although I also understand resolutions were traditionally defined by line count, and that still carries into some of the notation today (like the name "1080p"), so I can see both ways making sense, but I still think it's more readable in the format above. GlenwingKyros (talk) 20:48, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

All in a name?

In the spirit of the "notable" resolutions concern, I give the following resolution as an example: 6K (at say, 6016×3384, with 20.358 Mpx). Why? Because it could be argued that there is a perceptible gap in the table. The problems are many: mathematically, there's all kinds of gaps, there's no standard (that I know of) for it, and 6K only currently exists on one device at that given resolution: The Apple Pro Display XDR. And yet, it is a separate number! Currently most resolutions fit in the table, which seems like the prior section's concern, but what happens when new products like these start seemingly to go out of the edges of it like 6K? Or altogether, like...10K?

Perhaps the solution is to say that it not only has to have an associated product, but that it also must have a recognized standard (letter code used by more than one company). So, the name of the standard is what might matter? Wikispherion (talk) 19:47, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Distinction from 'display resolution'

Hello, what is the difference of this term from the display resolution? Their definitions sound identical. --Gufosowa (talk) 18:33, 13 June 2020 (UTC).

VESA video modes

VESA, e.g. in VBE and EDID, historically specified a lot of the original video modes, i.e. resolution together with color bit depth or refresh rate. I think all resolutions supported by VESA should be part of this article, because it is very likely that there is or was some hardware screen that supports it. — Christoph Päper 12:07, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

• 320 × 200 ❌ Mode 13h (mentioned in Aspect Ratio and 1280 × 800 prose, unnamed)
• 640 × 350 ❌ EGA
• 640 × 400 ❌ CGA (mentioned as a third-party mode in XGA prose)
• 640 × 480 ✔ VGA
• 720 × 400 ❌ (mentioned in XGA prose, unnamed)
• 720 × 480 ✔ WVGA
• 800 × 500 ❌
• 800 × 600 ✔ SVGA
• 832 × 624 ❌ (mentioned in SVGA prose, unnamed)
• 848 × 480 ✔ (described as a variant of WVGA, only 854 × 480 in table as FWVGA)
• 896 × 672 ❌
• 1024 × 640 ✔ (only in table, unnamed)
• 1024 × 768 ✔ XGA
• 1152 × 720 ✔ (only in table, unnamed)
• 1152 × 864 ✔ XGA+
• 1152 × 870 ✔ (described as a variant of XGA+, only 1152 × 864 in table)
• 1280 × 720 ✔ HD
• 1280 × 768 ✔ WXGA
• 1280 × 800 ✔ WXGA
• 1280 × 960 ✔ SXGA−/UVGA
• 1280 × 1024 ✔ SXGA
• 1360 × 768 ❌ (1366 FWXGA)
• 1400 × 1050 ✔ SXGA+
• 1440 × 900 ✔ WXGA+
• 1440 × 1050 ❌ (1080 unnamed, mentioned in WXGA prose)
• 1600 × 1200 ✔ UXGA
• 1680 × 1050 ✔ WSXGA+
• 1792 × 1344 ❌
• 1856 × 1392 ❌
• 1920 × 1200 ✔ WUXGA
• 1920 × 1440 ✔ (only in table, unnamed)

CEA EDID v3 not included, e.g. 10240 × 4320, 7680 × 4320, 5120 × 2160, 4096 × 2160, 3840 × 2160, 2560 × 1080, 1920 × 1080, 1680 × 720, 1280 × 720. — Christoph Päper 12:07, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Aspect

The aspect section reads as a history lesson. I suggest to split it in current affairs and describe the historic progression in a section history of aspect ratio. 83.97.87.182 (talk) 18:22, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

Dates and History

Who keeps getting rid of dates and/or history associated with various standards in articles containing collections of progressing technologies? They're VERY important. Please stop deleting dates! Thank you. Clepsydrae (talk) 04:13, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

Sun Microsystems

"Everyone" knows that SPARC hardware used 1152 x 900 for years. And yet, not listed. So sad.

Hmm? Oh, kids, ask your parents what Sun Microsystems was. lol. plaws (talk) 15:35, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Definition vs. Resolution

Hello,

The title of this article is wrong. It confuses resolution and definition.

Definition is the number of picture elements, commonly called pixels. Resolution is a measure of the quality of the reproduced picture, measured by how close two lines can be together before they merge in the image.

Graphics displays are categorized by definition, not resolution. This is even evident in the article as it is; the headline says resolution but the body talks about definition.

This is a very commonly-made mistake; but there is no need to repeat and reinforce the mistake in wikipedia.

Question: is there any point in me fixing the article? Or is someone who is not aware of the error just going to change it all back? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.30.229.172 (talk) 16:33, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Please provide authoritative sources to back up your claim.

Resolution is the common name. It does refer to the pixel dimensions because it is universally used that way, and language/words mean whatever people agree they mean. Resolution also refers to the granularity of an instrument. I think that applies here.GlenwingKyros (talk) 16:51, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

It wouldn't be hard to find a list of ten Engineering textbooks that defined resolution properly. I even have some of them on my bookshelf from grad school in Electrical Engineering doing my thesis on digital video. But when you first ask to please provide authoritative sources to back up your claim, then go on and say it's wrong anyway, this again brings the question if there is any point in getting them off the shelf to quote them in fixing the error, or if someone who is not educated will just change it back.

Is the logic "everyone makes this mistake so it's OK" a good reason to leave the mistake? Take the example of cement. Cement is a white powder made by heating ingredients in a kiln. Concrete is made using a mix of usually about 1/3 cement, 1/3 sand and gravel and 1/3 water and letting it harden. Yet most people refer to concrete as cement. Is that a good reason to stop calling it concrete? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.29.142.68 (talk) 18:27, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia's practice is to refer to something by its common name, even if some authorities view the common name as incorrect. See WP:COMMONNAME. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 18:53, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

The ancient Roman concrete recipe mixed lime, plus some gypsum with non-inert aggregate typically made up of crushed volcanic tuff, Pozzolana sand (really coarse MAFIC volcanic ash), crushed terracotta, and even crushed limestone, forming a true hydraulic cement, which allowed them to make structures underwater (e.g. piers and sea walls) as well as the Pantheon, Rome, which is still the world's largest unsupported concrete dome!

Portland cement was invented two millennia after the Colosseum and Pantheon.

Unlike modern concrete, where aggregate (sand, gravel) is specifically chosen to be non-reactive, the Romans used (mostly MAFIC) volcanic tuff as a source of silica and alumina. This was chemically reactive, and lighter in weight than modern concrete. Cracks propagated into small lumps of lime, which allowed water and lime to mix, sealing the crack before it could further propagate, unlike the recently re-done modern concrete road in front of my house which is growing potholes the size of a fiat. DrKC MD (talk) 03:58, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

References

Should outdated lists of specific monitor models be culled?

Looking particularly at the "3840 × 2400 (WQUXGA)" section, the first paragraph mentions that it's in current use and how a current manufacturer brands it (Dell with UHD+). But the remaining bits of the section described a random set of issues with early 2000s DVI connections and a small subset of early 2000s LCD monitors having support. In the current day, support for this resolution is trivial over DisplayPort and current revisions of HDMI, and it's rare to find any direct DVI support on modern displays of this type. There's such a variety of current laptops and standalone displays using WQUXGA that it'd be pointless to list them as well.

The limitations of using this resolution in the early days of its support is worth retaining as is the mention of the first devices, but it doesn't seem pertinent to keep the list of early LCD displays as detailed as it currently is. Fishmech (talk) 00:32, 14 March 2023 (UTC)

FWXGA

Is FWXGA an actual term used at all? Cause none of the documentation cited in this article appears to list is this name. Cause I think we should delete it if this name isn't used for anything. NintendoTTTEfan2005 (talk) 14:14, 28 April 2023 (UTC)

I just googled the term and I came across this: https://www.converters.tv/vga/7-Inch-Delta-FWXGA-LCD-Panel/15395.html

and this: https://olh.schneider-electric.com/Machine%20Expert/V1.2/en/BoxPCMod/BoxPCMod/iPC_-_Characteristics/iPC_-_Characteristics-3.htm

So I guess it is used in some capacity. NintendoTTTEfan2005 (talk) 14:19, 28 April 2023 (UTC)