Why is HD 1080p? | Nostalgia Nerd
Вставка
- Опубліковано 29 чер 2024
- Support the channel at / nostalgianerd / Grab my book (affiliate) nnerd.me/GadgetsGizmos ~ Screen resolutions have changed a lot over the years. We started out with a set number of horiztonal lines with early television, before jumping to digital and onto HD, but why oh why is HD 1080p? Why is that the resolution we settled for on both TV and computer?
⌚Timings⌚
00:00-00:24 Introduction
00:24-00:48 Nerd Stuff
00:48-04:45 Early TV resolutions
04:45-08:25 Early Computer resolutions
08:25-16:58 HDTV
16:58-18:22 HDTV meets Computer
18:22-20:32 The 1080p Proposal
20:32-20:58 Credits
🔗Video Links🔗
Sony CRT: • Worlds largest CRT mon...
CCIR Recommendations 1982: search.itu.int/history/Histor...
XVIth CCIR Plenary Assembly: search.itu.int/history/Histor...
Study Group 11 Conclusions: www.itu.int/dms_pub/itu-r/opb...
BT.709-6 HDTV Standards: www.itu.int/dms_pubrec/itu-r/...
SMPTE Standard: car.france3.mars.free.fr/HD/IN...
CCIR Recommendations 1992: www.itu.int/dms_pubrec/itu-r/...
HDTV Development Europe: tech.ebu.ch/docs/techreview/t...
Rec 601 Peter Rainger Interview: tech.ebu.ch/docs/techreview/t...
Rec 601 Chris Clarke BBC: tech.ebu.ch/docs/techreview/t...
EU "Route map to HD": tech.ebu.ch/docs/tech/tech329...
HDTV Overview: www.itu.int/net/ITU-R/informa...
CCIR 1978 Recommendations: search.itu.int/history/Histor...
Origins of 4:2:2 DTV Standard: tech.ebu.ch/docs/techreview/t...
"Present State of HD TV": www.itu.int/dms_pub/itu-r/opb...
HDTV Harmonization: www.itu.int/dms_pub/itu-r/opb...
King's Quest: nerdlypleasures.blogspot.com/...
Jill of the Jungle: nerdlypleasures.blogspot.com/...
🏆 Support 🏆
Support my channel, get exclusive videos & perks, as well as an ad and sponsor free experience at / nostalgianerd from just $1
🏪 NN Shop & Affiliate Links! 🏪
My eBay Shop: nnerd.es/NerdShop (Now Re-open!)
My Retro Tech book: nnerd.me/HVFtSB (2nd edition is out!)
Desk Shelves for Retro Computers: nnerd.me/RetroShelves (Because you're worth it)
🍻 Share/Like 🍻
If you wish to share this video in forums, social media, on your website, or ANYWHERE else, please do so! It helps tremendously with the channel! Also, giving a thumb up or down also helps with visibility on UA-cam. Many thanks!
📟 Subcribe 📟
Click to Subscribe: nnerd.es/2K4TYvX
📱 Join me on Social Media 📱
🐥 / nostalnerd
🎮 / nostalgianerd
👱🏼📘 / nostalnerd
📸 / nostalgianerd
🌍 www.nostalgianerd.com
🎥 Equipment 🎥
Panasonic Lumix G5
Rode NT-1 Mic
Corel Video Studio Ultimate 2020
Corel Paint Shop Pro 2020
📜 Resources 📜
In video links and references are provided where possible. If you believe I have forgotten to attribute anything, please let me know (drop me an email via. the about page on UA-cam or send me a tweet), so I can add it here. Apologies if I have missed anything out, it takes time to make these videos and therefore it can be easy to forget things or make a mistake.
Errors and omissions excepted.
Some material in this video may be used under Fair Dealing / Fair Use. Where under section 107 of the Copyright Act of 1976 (UK: Sections 29 and 30 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988), allowance is made for purposes including parody, quotation, criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, education and research. Fair Dealing / Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing.
To be fair HD is 720P, FHD is 1080p, 4k is UHD and then we kinda gave up as 8k and 16k have no names that I've heard.
720p is HD ready
NHK calls their 8K broadcasts “Super Hi-Vision”, which those also have 22.2 surround sound.
They are:
720p / HD ready
1080p / Full HD / FHD / HD ready 1080p
4K / 4K UHD / UHD-1
8K / 8K UHD / UHD-2 / Super Hi-Vision
4K = Ultra High Def, 8K = OctopiDef, 16K = Hexadefcimal
Correct
What I find the most fascinating is how many extra features engineers were able to cram into the analog standards. Adding in color signals, closed captions, secondary audio programs and programming data into the same bandwidth while still maintaining compatibility with older television receivers.
Old school engineers were wizards. Kind of amazing to see what they pulled off with so little.
An analog signal can transmit a mind boggling exponentially larger amount of data than a digital one. The hard part is encoding, decoding, and dealing with decay/loss.
We just very recently figured out how to transmit data with another band of light in fiber optics.
Making color signals still work on B&W TVs was genius.
And "hiding" a 16:9 picture in the existing 4:3 signal using its full resolution, for wide screen TV's (PALplus).
@@faming1144 pal also had teletext
France had 819 line HD TV broadcasts from 1950 until the mid 80's.
Not only the France but also Monaco, Belgium , Luxembourg, Algeria ... the 819 line was a 737i @ 14Mhz in France @ 7Mhz in Belgium and Luxembourg ...
625 lines developped by CCCP was adopted with the color (PAL / SECAM) and 819 lines has been abandonned between 1972 and 1983 ...
@@zichittufrederic7489 Visited France in High School in mid 70s, was astonished at how much sharper their TVs were.
@@jamesheartney9546 are you sure it wasn't just the 625-line/SECAM signal but a true 819 line TV
If only Conan knew this:
In the year 2000! In the year 2000!
TV aspect ratios and resolutions will become more standardized
Well, it's a long time until the year 2000 factorial. :-)
So glad it only took 70 years to standardize displays, let's pray it doesn't take USB as long.
USB is a data transfer protocol, quite different from display tech.
USB has been the standard for decades, I have bo doubt it’ll keep title even with USB C gaining prominence
@@Stabbyhara There's different versions, though. And why the need for all those different plugs on the peripheral end, I don't know.
@@Foebane72EU just signed Type C as The Standart, required for all devices. Even Apple devices finally got sensible connections.
@@udenszirnis1644 USB only APPEARS sensible until you look closer. Sure, the physical connection is the same, but you have USB 2, USB 3.0, USB 3.1, USB 3.2 (actually 3.0), USB 3.2 (actually 3.1), USB 3.2 (this one is genuinely 3.2), whether or not it supports thunderbolt, different levels of power delivery, etc.
The first Plasma TV I ever got apparently had a physical resolution of 1024x768, but it used rectangular pixels and gave the illusion of being a 720p display until you hooked up a computer to the VGA input. I looked at the physical pixels and checked, but it turned out the resolution it was feeding to the computer was absolutely right, the pixels were just physically rectangular and stretched a 4:3 ratio out to 16:9. The reason this worked at the time was because DVDs usually achieved widescreen by being anamorphic... that is, they actually delivered a "squished" 4:3 picture that, when spread out to 16:9, looked correct. So the TV was designed to accommodate this without a lot of horizontal scaling, by just having the same aspect ratio as the DVD while having a wider screen through the odd-shaped pixels. I will say, out of all the HDTVs I ever watched, I thought that one looked the best with 4:3 content stretched to fill the screen, and I never knew why for years. But once I knew how it worked, it was obvious... because it really is a native 4:3 display, they just managed to make it wider than it is tall. The ultimate test... which worked, was ripping a Blu-Ray and downscaling it to 1024x768, using the anamorphic setting usually intended for DVDs to see if it looked better on this TV. It did... looked better than anything coming in on the HDMI port, or anything from component video. It was kind of weird, because I realized the majority of people using that TV would never see the best picture it could produce, because everything was either too high a resolution and had to be scaled down using a bad scaler, or too low a resolution and had to be scaled up using a bad scaler. But if you feed it an anamorphic widescreen DVD, or better yet a customized 1024x768 signal over the VGA port that reproduces the anamorphic effect? It's perfect. In fact, I now wonder if some of the places that sold those TVs did just that, used a VGA port and a custom signal to show the TV at it's best, using content like that I created for it by hand...
720p is a signal type, not a panel resolution. There does not need to be any direct relation between the signal and the panel resolution.
I had that same Panasonic.
I always found it weird / interesting that 1080p was chosen when 720p was the faux-standard for HD for a lot of the early standard's definition.
Don't forget 480pPSHD
@@everythingponyI never heard of this.
I've never seen a 1080p television signal. They are 480p, 720p, 1080i, 4K. 1080p seems to be only the PC/gaming standard.
@@bartek053031080p tvs are pretty Common here in Europe. Atleast the Netherlands. My tvs always have been 1080p previously
@bartek05303 digital broadcast is progressive
I'm old, so going from a B&W to a colour TV in 1976 was earth shattering to a kid.
must’ve been insanely weird seeing it for the first time 😅
I’m pretty young and going from a 60Hz monitor to a 120Hz monitor felt absolutely amazing… though probably nothing like seeing a colored TV for the first time 😮
@@pstm53god, I remember when games went from 30 to 60 fps and everyone almost lost their shiz
My dad still talks about seeing Star Trek in color at a (rich) friend's house for the first time and being absolutely blown away by it...
color*
@@allentoyokawa9068 both are proper English. Both are able to be used in this situation
That Sony TV would've made my brain explode in 1988. I didn't even have a colour TV till like 1985!
what a dumbass
We had a b&w tv in our kitchen/dining room until like 1998 when my dad and I secretly threw it out and replaced it with a color set because it made the most god awful high pitched squeal that my mom refused to believe existed and she refused to get rid of it.
I remember when 'big' Tvs were anything much bigger than like 35", lord help your mover's backs if you went bigscreen, doubly so for that brief period of HD tube TVs.
@@baronvonslambertlmfao, my Dad is 78 and has hearing loss in the high range from shooting at the gun range (was a cop), and recently his battery backup for his pc needed the battery replaced, I go in his house and it's a constant squeal from this thing, he couldn't have cared less 😂.
@@baronvonslambertMost adults can't actually hear the high pitched squeal, so that's why your mother couldn't hear it. Protect your hearing!
2:16 - "would have their own stuff going on" - check the subtitles on that lol...
LOL
Hahahahahaha
GUESSING, some captioners add a swear to prevent YT from listing a vid as 'for kids, educational' and shutting off comments and Miniplayer.
@@kaneo1 it might just be auto captions not hearing things right.
happens a bit in my videos.
The best reference for this topic from the U.S. perspective is the book "Defining Vision" by Joel Brinkley. It documents the entire agonizing political (and sometimes technical) story behind the seemingly endless battle for high definition television in the U.S. There were around ten proposed resolutions from various organizations at various times for various reasons and the computer industry had little input. The first proposals were analog or hybrid digital/analog systems until one company developed a fully digital system that, while wasn't still good enough, was clearly superior to all of the other proposed systems.
Same reason as they now call everything that has nothing to do with AI, AI...
Marketing..
You're AI
OMG someone else noticed lol. I am always bitching about the fact that nothing out there is sentient yet thankfully.
@@nbrown5907AI =/= AGI. Much stuff is AI. Much is barely machine learning. Artificial general intelligence is wayyyyyyy off.
i saw sunglasses once with "4k vision" lenses, yeah.... theres alot BS around indeed
Ever heard of "AI-powered deodorant"? Yeah, its that bad nowadays. Marketing are dumb asmf, and those that fall for it are even worse.
still remember the time where 1080 was new. all we could focus on were the objects around the subject, not the subject itself 😂
i remember seeing blades of grass on a football game field. mind was def blown at that!
I remember being able to see the light in the beads of sweat on a WWE wrestler's body the first time I used a 1080p TV.
@@CyanRooper I remember thinking "I'm not sure I'm going to like the new era of movies where we can see the actor's pockmarks and stubble"
1:10 Interesting seeing an article from the 1930’s talking about fixing “bugs”. Never knew the term was used prior to computers.
It's an old term, literally came from actual insects messing things up when they would get inside of machinery.
Very interesting! A brief search of online dictionaries only mentions this sense being used in "computing" not other fields.
I found a blog I'm sure I can't link, which offers the below:
"The word has been used in engineering since the nineteenth century.
The word ‘bug’ actually is short for Bugbear. (sometimes found as Bugaboo). It’s meaning is much closer to ‘Gremlin’, where the people who worked on engineering prototypes often grew to suspect that the problems were due to malicious spooks. I sometimes even still hear it said that some software is cursed with malicious spirits. The ‘Bug’ or ‘Bogey’ part of the word is traceable back to the fifteenth century in the meaning of ‘Hobgoblin’, devil or ghost. In East Anglia particularly, the word Bugbear’, first recorded in the sixteenth century, is still used in referring to problems with machinery."
Channel named "Our own devices" _just_ made a video about telegraphy (morse code), where he explains the term!
"Bug" was a nickname for an inexperienced telegraph operator.
The fact that they did not immediately realize the need for square pixels insane. PCs got square pixels already in 1987 with the VGA. Square pixels make things so much simpler.
I reckon working with a *generated* image instead of a *captured* image might have had something to do with it - it's hard enough figuring out where to put down the next black pixel when drawing a circle with square pixels - if they're not square, it's even worse. Of course, this was immediately subverted by things like the ZX Spectrum video memory structure, where the order was line 0, then 8 lines below, then another 8 lines below - for ONE THIRD of the screen; then continue with line 1, line 9, line 17 etc; then proceed to the second third and repeat. YOU try drawing a circle onto that...
Standard resolution on a CRT TV for basic programming doesn't require the same pin sharp focus of reading fine text on a monitor. Generally any image looks great on a CRT when reading fine text isn't a requirement
Yeah, if you have rectangular pixels, the software designers will often still treat them as if they are square, resulting in a stretched look. Most NES games did have that issue.
1987? Macs had square pixels in 1984. And they were 72dpi so 1 pt in software was 1pt onscreen.
Life isn’t made of squares, so it makes sense to me that it took a digital overthrow of analog signals to force the change.
I had no idea 1080i went back to before I was born. It felt new and fancy during my teens in the early 2000.
I can remember being stunned by my little white MacBook being capable of 1080p 444 content playback in ~2007.
similar age to me, i remember working at an electronics store in 2001 at 17 years old and seeing one of the early HD plasma screens hanging on a wall. mind blown for sure.
1080i was anoying to watch (sky used it for a very long time) I just set everything to 720p until sky had newer boxes that could actually use 1080p
@@leexgx interlaced is kinda weird. Gran Turismo 4 on the PS2 could do 1080i and I usually went with 480p because it didn't make the road jitter while turning
@@smiththers2I miss plasma tvs. Sure, they doubled as space heaters but they had such nice picture quality. OLED is close but still too expensive
i remember watching a documentary in the 90s about how everyone would enjoy HD digital TV and it was fascinating. Now we are at 4K heading into 8K.
I watched a similar show, showing the advances in TV Japan.
They showcased portable handheld TV's that were so far above what we could get in the US too.
To be fair, that was at least 25 years ago
ARE WE?
The best screen in my place, is a 27inch 1440p display... Everyone else is fine with their over sized 1080p tv's. 4K isn't even considered.
@@justinpatterson5291 Hmm, pretty close to 24" 1920x1200 in MY book ;-)
Popular Science magazines had articles about HD TV in the 80's and would say in just a few years. 25 years later!
FYI - Most broadcast 1080p is actually encoded at 1920 x 1088 - because of maths or something...
If you enable the DLSS console in your game. Sometimes it reported 1920 X 1088 reder resolution for some reason as well
Mod16 encoding
It's because 1088 is divisible by 16 and most videos are enconded in 16x16 px blocks
love your videos for years, cheers from switzwrland
Peter, this is incredibly well made, detailed and informative. You should be very proud and this should be required watching for all interested in all things video.
Here's an interesting idea for a video. Why not look at the evolution of the picture standards in relation too colour & contrast.
from rec.601, rec.709 to rec.2020 HDR. for instance why was the original colour gamut, gamma curves & 100nits of brightness decided upon?
what was the point of the minor upgrades of rec.709? Why did it take so long for HDR to become a thing when LCD's have been exceeding aspects of the SDR specs since the 90's. And why did they decide on the rec.2020 colour gamut if it still can't handle all visible colours, officially it's so they don't require conversion chips to handle imaginary colours but seeing as all digital video requires computer chips anyway that explanation always baffled me.
Minor correction: BT.2020 is UHDTV, which is an SDR standard. BT.2100 (HDR-TV) uses the same primaries though.
As for how they decided on those primaries: Look up the paper "UHDTV Image Format for Better Visual Experience"
@@Dogelition Can't access that paper without being an institutional member or purchasing for far too much money.
isn't available through any other sources either that I can find.
This was a great insight and the connection to the early 80’s computers is fascinating, especially given I’ve very recently been watching your histories of Sinclair, Acorn, Dragon and Commodore and they’re amazing! I love this place!
My Dad bought a Sony HD CRT in 1999 for around $4k (I'm not exactly sure how much). He was so proud of it but within 5 years flat-screens started coming out and it made our insanely expensive and insanely heavy HD TV already look outdated. He kept it until the late 2000s though.
and now those monsters are worth money to the right people... they're such amazing tvs and i wish i could have one. some people selling them around me but would need to reeeeeealy be ready to put it in one place and never move it again
So glad you are still uploading, can't wait for the next video!
Hope the arcade is going well and the book is flying off the shelves. I assume that’s where you’ve been?
Your explainers are sooo goood!!! Many many thanks for the work you do! Thanks a ton! 🙏
CGA, EGA, and Hercules would like a word with you about computer monitors not being interlaced... 🤣
Also about square pixels. ♥
Those were not interlaced at least not the MDA. Interlacing is rare on computers as it makes horizontal lines jump up and down. I did have a SVGA that could either do 800x600x56 or 1024x768x96i. The latter was awful on normal Widows content but very nice on images.
They did use interleaving at the memory level but this did not show to the monitor.
@@okaro6595 Oh, there very much WERE real interlaced modes, displayed as such. A special edition of the S3 Virge 3D video card came with LCD shutter glasses, which got their switching signal directly from the bottom two lines of the picture, as sampled by a dongle on the VGA output - the final two lines were supposed to be 1/4 white and 3/4 white respectively, each identifying which half-picture is on the screen at the time, blacking the LCD for the other eye...
@@okaro6595amigas like a word with u
I remember writing programs for the PC in my youth and having to choose between 320x200 with 256 colors, or 640x480 with only 16 colors. Back then, it was a point of great frustration, but now I look back on those limitations with a feeling of nostalgia. Feels like we're just wasting pixels these days, with 4K/8K resolutions, and the only relevant trade-off is the framerate/bandwidth.
I have just realised that I have watched this whole video without getting bored, that is no mean feat. I do look forward to these.
as a person with ADHD, i too really enjoy a video that never loses my attention to something else.
Me: clicks video
Video: loads in at 720p
Me: ha.
This is the best explanation I've come across as to why those specific numbers were chosen. Here I was thinking that it was the closest approximation of 1 megapixel (720) and 2 megapixels (1080) at 16:9.
I've never understood the concept of the megapixel. It's an absolutely useless and unintuitive way to measure resolution, which has thankfully largely died out by now.
@@Wishbone1977 It was a marketing tool for digital cameras. It wasn't designed to be useful, it was designed to sound impressive.
Book ordered! Thanks for everything you do :D
ITs always nice to see your content videos..true nostalgia...Greetings from Portugal
Portugal, caralho!
This is a fantastic video! I'm an engineer who works at one of the companies that makes a lot of the broadcast equipment, and I was taught all of this during my internship. You did a great job of going through the history of video in an interesting and not drawn-out manner. I will be sharing this video with my coworkers and I'm sure many others. Keep up the good work!
Red Dwarf Quotes! 05:50
I loved learning about this. Thank you for the great video. I always appreciate your videos
1080p is still sweet spot.
No it isn't lol. 4k is the golden standard now
@@elitepauper7400 on pc gaming 1080p is the most popular resolution.
@@Tofu3435 for pc 1440p will be the norm pretty soon. Those monitors aren't that expensive anymore. I own a 3440x1440p one myself
@@Tofu3435 I'm the weird one preferring either 1440p native or 1080p scaled to 4k for performance. Everyone has their preferences I suppose. Running games at 4k native is kind of ass still. I'm just not into these weird upscaling technologies like DLSS.
@@elitepauper7400Maybe that's how it's viewed, but I'd still argue 1080p is the sweet spot. Newer, higher-resolution stuff still looks good on it, and at the same time, it doesn't make older, lower-resolution stuff look quite as bad as 4k does. That's what _I'd_ call a gold standard.
I remember I had a 1600x1200 screen, and my one absolute firm rule was "When I change screen, it needs to be greater or equal to the HEIGHT I already have.", which pushed me to 1920x1200 in a 16:10 screen. I actually had 3 screens of this resolution, before the market saw them vanish with 1920x1080 being the only option, at which point I pushed up to 2560x1440.
Unfortunately, I wanted to keep my 24" size, but I had to choose between a 1920x1080 24" screen, or a 2560x1440 27" screen, so I went bigger.
Also interestingly, I remember a few years earlier when I got my 3rd 1920x1200 screen, that I almost bought a 2560x1600 screen, still 16:10.
Yeah the early 2000s was touch for those of us with higher end monitors.. 1080p was a downgrade, and 1440p wasn't yet available
Okay, I feel old when I watch this and remember all of it happening. Excellent ! Thanks for the memories!
This is a great documentary that is very informative. Thanks a lot for this, as it is greatly appreciated.
Even IBM computers took a while to use square pixels, 320x200 was a common CGA/EGA/VGA resolution and wasn't letterboxed, so pixels were "tall" compared to 320x240.
Fun fact: both of those can be integer resized to 1600*1200. Multiply by 5 horizontally and by 5 or 6 vertically.
I still remember when 1080p became mainstream and it was simply just awesome.
Fantastic work! A nerdy and very enjoyable video!
Book looks cooool! ;) Very good and interesting video production!
I have a Mitsubishi XL5U projector that can project at 720p (native resolution of 1024x768) that I’ve had since I was 8.
14 years later, I now have an Acer projector that’s a native of 1080p.
720p to me as a kid was imax quality comparing the 2 now 🤣🤣🤣
projectors were and still are a strange thing as far as resolutions are concerned. you can typically feed them with a much higher signal than they will output, but they wont complain about it and run just fine..
@@smiththers2 yet you try and feed a monitor with a higher res, then it will occasionally complain about the input not being supported
Then there's the CRT that really doesn't care about resolution. As long as the signal is right it'll try to output it. Make windows look very tiny with a huge resolution. Don't think anybody even cared about native resolution until LCD screens came along.
@@davidmcgill1000 However some CRT monitors could get physically destroyed when feeding them unsupported video modes (basically the problem was exceeding the maximum supported horizontal or vertical frequency).
I'm a bit shocked. I've never seen this subject fully understood in a YT video before. They always get something way wrong, or gloss over important details. I expected to be typing pedantic corrections here today, but no. Instead, I learned a few more details myself. You have a new subscriber.
Full on history lessons is what I come here for, so thank you!
Nice, informative video! Thanks.
As an additional step, that super-odd resolution of 1366x768 that was common on so many laptop panels for so long was actually a stopgap resolution, that was meant to be compatible with programs that required 1024x768 while also delivering a widescreen resolution for watching 1280x720 media and navigating websites meant for widescreen displays. I had more than a few programs (meant for work!) that would outright crash if the resolution wasn't at least 1024x768, and the 1366x768 resolution was a great alternative!
too bad it was SO common in TVs too. Dreadful era. That and they'd stick that on 15" laptops too, those pixels were so huge and chunky and barftastic.
@@colinstu it being on a laptop of the era might've looked bad but it was still better than having a straight 1280x720p panel. But yeah all those 1366x768 panels on televisions were GNARLY
@@QuestionBlockGaming also any idea on 1360x768? that seemed to come up a lot too. Seriously why 6 less.
@@colinstu I think it's to do with divisibility by powers of two. 1366 isn't divisible by 8, but 1360 and 1368 are (170*8 and 171*8, respectively), and when it comes to lists of funny resolutions, you usually see one or both of them.
@@Roxor128 Multiples of 16, actually. That's a common cell size of LCDs, so if you needed any resolution that's not a multiple of 16x16 you'd to have special partial cells on one (or worse, two) sides. You get the same issue with 1080 displays, where there's a half cell on the top or bottom. On some displays, you can even see those unused 8 pixels when you compare how the top and bottom edge looks. But there, manufacturers have no choice---leaving out the last row (i.e. delivering 1920x1072) is no option. But leaving out a column that'd be 10/16 unused from a no-real-standard-resolution display...easy.
CDs, Laserdisc, First colour TV, ect. I had no idea they did this compliance of standards so early. Great video!
*etc
I wish 1080i was a stop gap... 99% of what's on tv here is still 1080i. Most operators don't broadcast anything higher than that either. Even if you do get an operator that broadcasts everything in 1080p, you can still see the programmes are almost universally produced in 1080i.
1080i was chosen when it was early days for 1080i let alone 1080p sensors. Industry has been slow as all adopting anything higher than 1080i.
Movies though have been 4k for a long time now.
Watching this on a 1080p monitor hits hard
8:26 is the sample used in Panda Style by LAOS, on Hospital Records. Didn’t expect that one to hit me in the face😮😅
cool vid dude very informative ty
Between the 8 Bit Guy and Nostalgia Nerd, I learned more about CRT technology in the last week than I learned in the first 50 years of my life. Outstanding!
19:28 It's weird not seeing 4K or 2560p on this chart, because (at least) in professional environments, these have become the standard. I work as engineer and use 4K desktop monitors since around 2014. I still have my first 4K monitor on a different system and don't want to throw it away, because it was super expensive.
Nowadays 2560p and 4K monitors can be had for 250€ at the low end. 1080p and below is just bad at multi tasking or working with professional software, such as CAD.
Most modern programs are very wasteful with screen space too, because of awful design trends. Same with websites, where there are oversized UI elements with a whole lot of empty space between them and everything having it's own menu now. I oppose this trend of inefficient UI.
The video was about how we arrived at the 1080p HD resolution (FHD). I imagine so-called "4K" (2160p) and "8K" (4320p) would be part of the next chapter.
Ugh! Yes! I had to create some custom CSS for Firefox when one update brought a UI change that spaced things out on the menu listing all your thousands of open tabs, making it take twice as much scrolling to find what you were after.
Thanks for featuring my HDM-3830 monitor in your video :-)
Another informative great video
I suspect the answer is gematria and the moon. Screens are 1080 and 2160p because those are the average radius and diameter of the moon at its equator, respectively. Hence, 1080 and 2160p. 2160 is the sum of a cube's angles, 90x4=360 per face x 6 faces = 2160. Drop the zero, you have 216, the 6th cube number. 6x6x6=216. The most prominent aspect ratio is 16:9. This can be explained with (pythagorean / digital root) gematria. The word "you" = 25 + 15 + 21, as y is the 25th letter, o the 15th, and u the 21st. The sum being 41, the 13th prime, where 13 is the 6th prime and also 6+1+6, a "number of the beast" and also part of Earth's orbital velocity. Which is 66,616 miles/hour. 6 is the first perfect number, the 3rd triangular number, and so on.
In pythagorean gematria (compared to "ordinal") a digital root is taken before adding the numbers together. So Y=25, 2+5=7, Y=7. O=15=1+5=6, U=21=2+1=3. Simple digit sum. So You=7+6+3=16. There's the 16 in 16:9. i is the 9th letter. There's the 9. So the screen aspect ratio 16:9 is the ratio of you:i. "Money" is likewise, the word is an encoded reference to the eye of Horus, ie the moon. Mo[o]ney[e]. You also have mon-E, or one e. One energy, one 5, where 5 is the senses, sensory reality, and witht he 5 pointed star it's the top point, the hidden "aetheric" mover, the spirit. The other 4 are the elements, or the visible, the seen. Fire, water, air, earth. The pentagram also encodes the music scale in its unfolded ratios, it has infinite recursion, and so on.
Screen sizes and resolutions are references to the moon. Which is chased away by the sun, it reflects the sun, it eclipses the sun periodically. Where the masculine and feminine, the sun, and moon, the beast divided, become one, revealing the corona, ie the white ring. There was an important eclipse over much of Europe in November (11) of 1331. Fold in your ring finger, you have 13. Flip your hand around, 31. 1331.
For the older 4:3 screens it's the same. 16 is the 4th square. 9 is the 3rd square. 4x4 and 3x3. ie 16:9. The magic square of the sun is 111 and it's a 6x6 grid. 1080, drop the zeroes, 18. A lucky number. Also 3x6, or 6x3. 6+6+6. Which is the number that connects the sun, the moon, and the Earth. It's the number of "The World". That's the beast. Also in Hebrew gematria the word for "a man" = 216, 6x6x6. It's the number of a man. "six hundred threescore and six" gives 313 and 133, which is a whole 'nother rabbit hole.
1:45 441 lines. 441 is the 21st square. 21x21. 21 is the 6th triangular number. 66 again. Or U is the 21st letter, So U times U. You x you, you alone, or alone with others, in front of the TV. Not that I was ever all that social. 2+1=3. So 33 also.
625 x 576 for PAL. 625 is the 25th square. 25 is the 5th square. 5^4. 576 is the 24th square. 2+4=6. 66. X is also the 24th letter. So XX. 625 x 576 = 360,000. 600th square, 600x600. Or drop the zeroes, 36. The 6th square. 6x6 either way.
Bro what are you yapping about
@@lovrito2008 I forgot to mention that 1331 is the 11th cube. 11x11x11.
Conspiracy theories be like:
@@lovrito2008 The other thing is the 1920 part. "eclipse" = 192, "second" = 192. Both Agrippa's key.
15:20 Love that video. So retro!
I love 1080p. It's the best of most if not all worlds. It's very clear, sharp, not too far that you can't see the pixels and for what I do when converting shows and movies to my Xbox 360. I need to see the individual pixels even in a 100% window size so I can tell between what is the original and what happened to it. Of course I'm mainly referring to Virtual Dub but overall 1080p is a perfect and controllable resolution. I just wish UA-cam wouldn't treat is so harshly. Have you ever noticed that videos that get the VP9 treatment ruins the 1080p option whilst 1440p removes 90% of the artifacts? What's up with that? AV1 had better fix this.
Funny that they changed counting the vertical (720p, 1080p) to counting horizontal (4k). Counting by the latter scheme, 1080 should be called 2k instead.
The also went the disk-manufacturer route and started lying about the values, too. What they call "4k" is only 3.84k.
They didn't really change; they just adopted the movie resolution names and used them for the closest video resolution. A "real" 4k frame is 4 thousand pixels wide, not those 3840 computers and TVs use.
Move resolutions have always been about the width. The width of a film strip is constant, but how you subdivide the infinite length of the strip is up to you. Although it makes very much sense to use multiples of the perforation and mask off areas at the top and bottom you don't need. Quite the opposite of the fixed number of lines and fuzzy horizontal resolution of TV/video signals. So when digitizing film, the only thing standardised is the horizontal resolution. The number of lines is how many you get after cutting off the black areas and can be different from movie to movie.
A notable exception is IMAX, where they run a 70mm-wide film strip horizontally, so it becomes 70mm high and the width becomes the variable.
Let's make a 1280x720 resolution!!
...
Ok 1366x768 it is!
"hd ready"
Marvellous stuff!
Why was 1366x768 / 1360x768 so common there during those 720p days? What a painful 5yrs or so.
It probably was cheaper to manufacture than 1920x1080 (until economies of scale changed that). It had no loss of vertical resolution over the 1024x768 of earlier computer monitors. And existing 1024x768 computer content mapped perfectly to the middle of it, with no need for scaling.
_EDIT: QuestionBlockGaming said it better in their own comment._
Love your little Red Dwarf references.
Just bought my copy of the book, it looks great!
Very interesting, thanks! 🙂
Finally, history I'm interested in learning about!
Wonderful Video.
Woohoo. Good to see you back. Haven't watched it yet, but know it will be a good vid😊😊😊😊
In my personal computing history, for the purposes of mostly using a computer for software development, I went from 320x256->768x288->1600x1200->2x1600x1200->1920x1080->3840x2160
Started in 8bit Acorns, then 32bit Acorns, then onto PCs with dual monitors before falling back to FHD once I had to negotiate space with my wife and two large high resolution CRTs took up too much of it!
I remember than on the A1200 dblpal modes you could set a full overscan resolution of 768x576, which on a decent monitor could give you 1:1 pixel aspect ratio in 4:3, that was great for productivity work, so close to the 800x600 that was common on PC at the time.
In really looking forward to see more tests since I've ordered the i3 n305 version!
Actually, I had long wondered why they chose 720x576 instead of 768x576 for (PAL) DV video (the latter would have resulted in square pixels for 4:3 aspect ratio). Now it makes sense. Thank you.
You're a creative genius! 🎨 __ "The only way to do great work is to love what you do.."
I remember having a 1440x1050 4:3 laptop back in the day (IBM Thinkpad)... Lovely aspect ratio. To beat that you needed a 16:9 screen and a hugely wide laptop.
TL;DR: it's 1080p because reasons.
18:50
4K 'cause tiny xxxxs
Nice Red Dwarf reference at 5:40
Something I don't know about a boring standard preferential? Going right back to the 40s? Brilliant! Sign me up! Don't know if you noticed this yourself, but the rest of the recommendations on my homepage is a goddamn global dumpster fire on the brink of collapse. Pity it only goes for 20 min. I may even watch it twice. So, please sir. Continue. I'm more than invested .
I wishlist your book I'm looking forward to buying it once I can justify the budget. 😊
14:00 Now a days at least, its call HD thin raster in the digital domain. It was used by the HDCAM format, the non SR one witch is full resolution.
Screen resolution in nutshell:
480p: UA-cam mobile
720p: Good enough internet
1080p: Stable internet
1440p: Internet cafe
4k: Bro is rich
1080p UA-cam is like a few Mbps
@@bartek05303 Shoot 4k nowadays is low bitrate af too. Guy is stuck in like 2012 with his thinking. Since most streaming platforms provide content in h.265 (HEVC)/AV1/VP9 those 4k60 streams rarely use more than like 40-50mbps I've noticed (may see spikes above 200mbps as youtube wants to buffer ahead ofc). For most a $30/m internet connection is enough for 1-2 4k streams (netflix likes to use like 20mbps 4k streams so can do like 3-4) on those standard internet connections
Edit: I love modern encoding formats as even while I was Deployed in Saudi with 7mbps internet (1 full mb/s) I was able to watch netflix streams in 1080p sometimes even some 4k if I let it buffer a minute first
when watching on my tablet or phone with my mobile phone internet. i prefer 480p or 360p. to save on internet quota.
the picture is still very clear for my 6.x inch phone and 10 inch tablet.
i don't need 4K. 4K are rich people territory.
even on PC. i still use 1080p monitor. when gaming i can still max out the graphic settings on 1080p.
Still remember 480p referred to as "DVD quality" and marking a major improvement due to not interlacing and getting away from 480i and 240p.
@@bartek05303 Through the years my internet has slowly gotten faster. These are roughly the minimum speeds I've found for watching youtube (w/wired internet).
480p/30fps: ~0.7mbps ▪720p/30fps: ~2mbps▫720p/60fps ~4mbps ▪1080p/30fps ~4.5mbps▫1080p/60fps ~9mbps◾1440p/30fps ~8mbps
◽1440p/60fps ~16mbps◾4K/30fps ~18mbps◽4K/60fps ~36mbps◾◾◾ These speed are ~10% slower than what youtube recommends.
That's probably down to me being the only person on my home internet. If other people are on then the requirements are pretty spot on.
I believe 720P is the starting resolution of "HD". But really it's anything that has progress lines and not interlanced.
Thanks for adding actual captions for the Deaf
I think it's interesting that the terminology used to talk about resolutions has always been the number of horizontal lines, like 480p, 720p, 1080p, even 1440p, until 4k came into the world and started using the number of vertical lines (3840x2160 is 4k but we don't call it 2160p). interesting to think that that terminology was a holdover from counting scanlines.
Back in 2008, a buddy of mine that worked in TV post-production was telling me about film transfers being done in 4K, which was twice the horizontal and twice the vertical resolution on 1080i and being progressive scan (he may have mentioned the fps, but I don't recall). I asked him why it was referring to the horizontal rather than the vertical resolution and he said because film aspect ratios vary so it's better to think in terms of the commonality - the horizontal. I also asked why it isn't 4096, to be true 4K and he said to keep the resolution an integer multiple of 720p and 1080i for easy down converting.
Sometimes it is called 2160p
Really the exact name depends on the context because 4k could mean a bunch of different resolutions
It's not interesting. 2160p is double of 1080p, of course that's a big no-no for marketing departments. We must call it '4K' so people know it's 4 times more better than their crammy obsolete 1080p monitors. Buy now!
@@rager1969 Those 2k and 4k used in movie production are actually 2048 and 4096 pixels wide. The TV/PC world stole those names and used them for 1x and 2x 1080p, respectively.
Movies go by horizontal resolution because that's a fixed size---the width of the film strip. The height of the picture depends on how many perforations high the camera exposed and on ow much of that the director blocked off. So a 2-1 aspect ratio movie would be 4096x2048, while a 4-3 movie would be 4096x3072. In video world, those two would be 3840x2160 with 240 pixels of black bars at the top and bottom and 3840x2160 with 960 pixels of black bars at the sides
there is no official standard of 720i. Though with decent software you can make a video of any resolution you like and choose either progressive or interlaced.
I really wished we had settled on a 2:1 aspect ratio. That would have been a much better fit for films shot in 'scope. Narrower content (1.85) could have been pillar boxed similarly to how we pillar box old NTSC/standard def. and 4:3 film content today.
I can't believe in 2024 that some things are still interlaced.. given just how long it's been
Not just live broadcasts either, AMC shows have been notorious for this.. streaming out Walking Dead episodes that were originally 1080i but seemingly re-encoded as 1080p. Add onto that all the film grain and you get >5GB per episode, some of the highest bitrate 1080p streams available and the picture quality is literally worse than if it was native 540p as you can't de-interlace it properly anymore or even "AI upscale" your way out of the jaggies
BBC streams of Staged are interlaced to all hell, as are ABC iView (Australia) streams of Utopia.. it needs to end
1280x1024 is actually a 5:4 aspect ratio and not 4:3 as said in the video. 4:3 is a relic of the early days of moving pictures and old tape movies that were 4 inches by 3 inches with 35mm film.
Interesting fact: 15KHz TVs could be slightly overclocked or even both over and underclocked and it is for some possible to create 48Hz (or 24Hz interlaced) at slightly higher vertical resolution. It is kinda the best way to display 24Hz Blu-Rays on standard definition TV. On PVM monitor it looks pretty good. Then again VGA CRT can display 1080p at ~72Hz no issues for 3x24(/1.001)Hz. BTW. That 1080i monitor from 1988 - would love to get my hands on that beauty!!!
The original 1936 405-line broadcasts from the BBC (until 1985) were declared the first "high definition" regular broadcasts in the world - far from what we class as HD now but a leap ahead to previous television technology beforehand.
Who else got the reference at 5:44… tell me you got the reference without telling me you got the reference
PAL was a color standard and has nothing to do with the number of lines. The 625 line system existed before anyone even thought of PAL. In the UK the black and white standard was 405 lines though they adopted the 625 line system in anticipation of the color in the 60s.
Holy fuck I love these videos so much
**cleans their glasses even though they know the bloom on those light sources was a video effect that reached right into their brain**
🌀All these Circles ⚫equal a line 👽All these ⚫Circles equal a line 👽All these Circles ⚫equal a line 🐈⬛
i was blinking my eyes like mad because i had just woken up....
I think this took a lot of time to make, so I'm doubly sorry to say it's a video that should not have passed quality control. There are several illiustrations that are just wrong, for example visualizing columns instead of lines,and vice versa in several stages. Most of the footage feel like unrelated stock-like material of something that vaguely *resembles* the concept being discussed, but not the actual concept. For example, showing a stylized Trinitron mask when discussing the general topic of dot pitch.
I remember my first 720p 32in TV back in 2007. Booting up my PS3 left me speechless. All my friends still had CRTs or Plasmas.
They were smarter. They knew CRT has zero lag.
The only thing that kinda pisses me off, that 720p TVs are NEVER actually 1280x720. They are almost always actually 1366x768, simply because it was easier/cheaper for manufacturers to convert existing processes to make TVs, instead of making new ones.
Yeah, that sucked. The only two ways of getting real 720p back in the day were either finding one of the super-rare, native 720p monitors or using a 720p wall projector with DVI.
But there simply were no native 720p TVs. So we were robbed of the true, 1:1 picture clarity on X360 & PS3.
@@ThePreciseClimber I have a Retrotink 4k now, and you can integer scale 720p 3x to 4k, allowing you to see the true 1:1 picture quality of PS3/360 games.
It looks amazing, to see the actual pixel perfect graphics. I also like to use the LCD grid effect to create a faux 720p Display, and it looks even better although it darkens the image quite a bit.