Nintendo Switch Likely to be WQHD (2k) to 1080p resolution, Internal Bus Speed 5 GBPS
41 replies, posted
Tbh i didn't even knew 2K was a thing. I always called it 1080p
[QUOTE=Silikone;51577829]Why is everyone saying 2K? If anything, that's what 1080p should be called.[/QUOTE]
I assume they think it's 2k because of the 2 in [B][U]2[/U]560[/B]x1440.
It also doesn't help that 1080p has never really been marketed as 2k. Usually as the misleading "HD" or slighly more accurate "Full HD."
[QUOTE=Merro;51577855]Tbh i didn't even knew 2K was a thing. I always called it 1080p[/QUOTE]
2K and 4K were originally cinema specifications - 2048x1080 and 4096x2160, both at 1.9:1 aspect ratio.
Home widescreen standardized on 16:9 (1.78:1) aspect ratio, starting at 1280x720 and 1920x1080, which were called 720p and 1080p following earlier naming conventions (360p, 480p, 480i, etc)
When the TV manufacturers needed to hype up their UHD TVs, they decided to call them "4K" to make them seem like cinema-quality, even though they were 3840x2160, 1.78:1 displays, not 4096x2160, 1.9:1 displays. Under previous conventions, they should just be called 2160p.
As a pedantic nerd, this really annoys me.
tv manufacturers didnt' use 4k to "hype up", its because the 3840x2160 4k UHD resolution is the actual 4k standard set forth by CTA.
[QUOTE=Wormy;51567661]Hopefully not worse than the Wii U.[/QUOTE]
Unbelievably Watch_Dogs still ran better on the WiiU than it did on my PC up until I got my 1060.
[QUOTE=Map in a box;51578197]tv manufacturers didnt' use 4k to "hype up", its because the 3840x2160 4k UHD resolution is the actual 4k standard set forth by CTA.[/QUOTE]
The CTA never defined a 4K resolution standard. The original standard was 4096x2160 (at 24fps, 36bpp, CIE color space), by the DCI, for cinema projectors, in 2005. Another standard was UHD-1, with a resolution of 3840x2160 (at up to 120fps, Rec. 2020 color space), which was defined by the ITU in 2012, after a half-decade of development mostly by NHK. The CTA has defined "Ultra HD" as a minimum of 3840x2160, 16:9 aspect ratio, but they do not call it 4K. It's television and monitor manufacturers that have been using "4K" labeling.
I always thought it was 4K because it's equivelant to 4 1080p screens
[QUOTE=Ott;51580366]I always thought it was 4K because it's equivelant to 4 1080p screens[/QUOTE]
That's not why it's called 4K. The screen is equivalent to a 2x2 grid of 1080p screens, but that's not the reason for the name.
Home displays used to be defined by their height, because CRT screens care a hell of a lot more about the number of rows they have to scan than the number of phosphors they scan across. So pre-HD TV standards, which all scanned left-to-right then top-to-bottom, were numbered based on the number of rows, with a suffix of "i" for interlaced or "p" for progressive scan. So NTSC TVs were 480i, PAL was 576i, ATSC is 480p, and so on. That naming scheme continued to be used for HD home TV standards, to be an easy comparison to older TVs - 1280x720 was 720p, 1920x1080 was 1080p.
Digital cinema projectors were named based on their width, because cinema film was named based on width because that was the width of the film strip. They had 2K (2048 pixels across - computers really like powers of two) and 4K (4096 pixels across), both of which used a more-or-less standard cinema aspect ratio (wider than home widescreen - it's like 17.2:9 instead of 16:9), giving them a height of 1080 pixels and 2160 pixels, respectively.
Now, for years now, there have been some ultra-enthusiasts who buy a cinema-grade projector for their homes. This was - and is - expensive as fuck, like five-digit-price-tag expensive. But it was undeniably fucking badass. So when the TV companies geared up to sell their 2160p displays to the mass market, they decided to use the same name as the cinema projector standards, so they could imply "this is just as good as that projector the Jones's mortgaged their house for, but it costs only $8000 instead of $80,000". They couldn't come out and say that, because the cinema projectors have a shitload of other things going for them besides just resolution, but by naming it that, the TV makers could borrow some of that reputation.
And then everyone else just fucking went with it, going so far as to retroactively name 1920x1080 "2K" (although some use that for the 21:9 2560x1080 resolution, which makes a bit more sense).
[QUOTE=Rahu X;51576880]
[media]https://twitter.com/mochi_wsj/status/812184930201411585[/media]
Ok, so the hardware can handle 1440p, but will only output at 1080p when docked. Makes a lot more sense.[/QUOTE]
Not really surprising, the guy made me think Nintendo had finally decided to be competitive in resolutions which seemed really out of nowhere. So I thought to myself there's no way it would go above 1080p. It'd be interesting to see if it will be 1080p also when Undocked. But then again we can only speculate until we got the Switch in our hands.
[QUOTE=gman003-main;51578946]The CTA never defined a 4K resolution standard. The original standard was 4096x2160 (at 24fps, 36bpp, CIE color space), by the DCI, for cinema projectors, in 2005. Another standard was UHD-1, with a resolution of 3840x2160 (at up to 120fps, Rec. 2020 color space), which was defined by the ITU in 2012, after a half-decade of development mostly by NHK. The CTA has defined "Ultra HD" as a minimum of 3840x2160, 16:9 aspect ratio, but they do not call it 4K. It's television and monitor manufacturers that have been using "4K" labeling.[/QUOTE]
TV manufacturers have actually been using 4k UHD
[QUOTE=FezianEmperor;51581726]Not really surprising, the guy made me think Nintendo had finally decided to be competitive in resolutions which seemed really out of nowhere. So I thought to myself there's no way it would go above 1080p. It'd be interesting to see if it will be 1080p also when Undocked. But then again we can only speculate until we got the Switch in our hands.[/QUOTE]
Do we really need 1080 when it's undocked? The difference isn't huge on my pc monitor so I can only imagine it'll be very minimal on a screen even smaller
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.