Hunter Hampton
Carbonite Member
There we go Terry!
Samsung FALSE ADVERTISING
- Thread starter ripupthehwy
- Start date
ripupthehwy may be correct. Does anybody have a copy of ANSI/I3A IT10.7000-2004 Photography - Digital Still Cameras - Guidelines for Reporting Pixel-Related Specifications?
In a search, this keeps coming up - "The term 'Resolution' shall not be used for the number of recorded pixels"; ^ ANSI/I3A IT10.7000-2004 Photography - Digital Still Cameras.
In a wiki, they refer to this document and also state that US and Japanese standards use the term resolution for lines of resolution, not for spacial capacity. If we are going to discuss the use of a term, we should refer to a standard.
In a search, this keeps coming up - "The term 'Resolution' shall not be used for the number of recorded pixels"; ^ ANSI/I3A IT10.7000-2004 Photography - Digital Still Cameras.
In a wiki, they refer to this document and also state that US and Japanese standards use the term resolution for lines of resolution, not for spacial capacity. If we are going to discuss the use of a term, we should refer to a standard.
john threat
Carbonite Member
all samsung products rock and I love them! i integrate them into every part of my life
nutmegger
Well-known member
If this has been mentioned in an earlier response, I apologize.
HD = 1920 times 1080 = 2,073,600 pixels
Ultra HD = 3840 times 2160 = 8,294,400 pixels
8,294,400 divided by 2,073,600 = 4.0. This why Ultra HD is advertised as having 4 times the resolution of HD.
It has been mentioned several times. The argument now comes down to what the term 'resolution' means. I believe the OP is correct based upon the little I can find on papers regarding the use of the term. He is certainly correct in regards to its historical use in television and printing.
Terry_Lasater
All about the Caption
Your thought on the topic?
Vertical resolution, but it's also double horizontal resolution.
Pixel-wise, it's exactly the same as having 4 1080p screens.
I was just funnin' ya, TL.
Liam Hall
Veteran
No it's not. You are quite simply wrong.
Terry_Lasater
All about the Caption
I thought the hair seemed a bit red to be a chimp, but, hey, ya know, there it was on the internet; figured it must be real and true by default.
j1clark@ucsd.edu
Veteran
There are many cases where manufacturers will 'obfuscate' the truth in quasi factoidal statements...
It is a true statement that there are 4x pixels in the 4k sensor... and it is also a fact, given the relationship between the spatial dimensions of the 2k vs 4k, there is only a 2x increase
in spatial resolution...
Most people as far as I can tell for most photo applications are interested in spatial resolution, and perhaps as a second thought resolution of the light intensity...
The '4x' increase in pixels is just simply a byproduct of the 2x increase in resolution in each of the X and Y dimensions respectively...
The camera manufacturer could have increased the resolution in only one dimension... and only got a 2x increase in area (say maintain the same number of lines vertically, but 2x pixels horizontally...).
Or they could have marginally changed the X and Y dimensions, yielding for 'still' photo some non-standard video dimension... which works ok for stills... but not so great for video...
Yes, this is exactly correct. 4x the information and 2x the lines of resolution. The resolution (meaning the number of lines that can be resolved) is double on two axis. That does not mean the resolution is 4x. It does not resolve 4 times as many lines. It resolves 2x as many lines. The fact that it does this in two dimensions does not multiply the lines of resolution.
Let me save you some time. I'll put a forehead slap in my next post.
Doh!
Vertical resolution isn't the only important axis. If it were, full-raster, square-pixel 1920x1080 would not be noticeably sharper than 1440x1080 rectangular pixel.
And that's before you even get into the difference in color information.
Darren Levine
Veteran
6 pages... dear lord...
i'm going to try and resolve this, probably unsuccessfully. but..
i had a similar argument with an older friend of mine who worked at HBO in the days of NTSC. it was a frustrating argument which boiled down to this:
traditionally, the way of determining resolution, was by how many lines of resolution does something resolve, because thats the way systems worked and our eye is more sensitive to that axis, also taking into account the old non-square pixels.
back then, that happened because they could save bandwidth by reducing the pixels on the axis which we don't see as well.
but, now we have a crap-ton of bandwidth, and square pixels make displaying across multiple devices simpler, and it makes sense to favor both axis equally, even if one doesn't have as much as much of a visual impact on our eye.
so, nowadays, it has become commonplace to refer to resolution, not as what the image is technically resolving per horizontal line, so much as the sum of it's pixels. again, because we now use square pixels
and spatially, it is still correct because the basis of spatial resolution is quite simply: what is the smallest detail that can be resolved. the smallest being a pixel, so the more of those that you have, the more details are being captured.
so when samsung says it's 4 times the resolution, they are saying that it's 4 times the pixels, all else remaining equal. it doesn't necessarily matter that you could get a similar visual outcome with less pixels, because that's not how we display things anymore.
so my suggestion is to agree that there are two different schools of thought on the same terminology, and that be it. the OP is saying that samsung is advertising with the new school of thought, which doesn't necessarily match up with the old school of thought, on resolving power of a TV.
i'm sure i got something wrong inside there somewhere, or maybe not. im just curious how much longer this thread can beat on....
i'm going to try and resolve this, probably unsuccessfully. but..
i had a similar argument with an older friend of mine who worked at HBO in the days of NTSC. it was a frustrating argument which boiled down to this:
traditionally, the way of determining resolution, was by how many lines of resolution does something resolve, because thats the way systems worked and our eye is more sensitive to that axis, also taking into account the old non-square pixels.
back then, that happened because they could save bandwidth by reducing the pixels on the axis which we don't see as well.
but, now we have a crap-ton of bandwidth, and square pixels make displaying across multiple devices simpler, and it makes sense to favor both axis equally, even if one doesn't have as much as much of a visual impact on our eye.
so, nowadays, it has become commonplace to refer to resolution, not as what the image is technically resolving per horizontal line, so much as the sum of it's pixels. again, because we now use square pixels
and spatially, it is still correct because the basis of spatial resolution is quite simply: what is the smallest detail that can be resolved. the smallest being a pixel, so the more of those that you have, the more details are being captured.
so when samsung says it's 4 times the resolution, they are saying that it's 4 times the pixels, all else remaining equal. it doesn't necessarily matter that you could get a similar visual outcome with less pixels, because that's not how we display things anymore.
so my suggestion is to agree that there are two different schools of thought on the same terminology, and that be it. the OP is saying that samsung is advertising with the new school of thought, which doesn't necessarily match up with the old school of thought, on resolving power of a TV.
i'm sure i got something wrong inside there somewhere, or maybe not. im just curious how much longer this thread can beat on....
Well, that is it. But the fun is in making the arguments one way or the other and then posting posters of chimps. I assume no one is taking this seriously.
What would be fun is if Samsung did get sued (they won't). I'd like to hear the arguments for each side.
tmnt
King of Australia
Not sure what you're point is there, no-one eluded to resolution in one way, it's a given.
I find the facepalms hilarious when they could be used for the other side of the argument just as easy... Like... What's 2x certain numbers ha.
I think someone may have already pointed out but there's been a shift with 4k where they are going off the horizontal resolution as opposed to the vertical for 1920*1080p so I suppose that's the way it will be now.
thekreative
Veteran
I LOVE THIS THREAD! better than waiting for Blackmagic 4K footage............ now how much bigger is it from 2.5K BOOM!