I made some googling, random surfing, thinking (OH MY GAWD *earrape dubstep* *explosion* *flying Doritos* *spilling Mountain Dew*) about 480p, 576p, 720p and 1080p. I wondered why 1080 was exactly chosen until I guessed it was for compatibility with both NTSC and PAL. The HD has two variants, 720p and 1080p, because 2 different approaches were applied.
Because every technician might know it already, let's explain this to Montage Parody and YouTube Poop audience.
Because every technician might know it already, let's explain this to Montage Parody and YouTube Poop audience.
Also see https://oeis.org/search?q=720%2C1080%2C1440%2C2160&language=english&go=Search for line count and https://oeis.org/search?q=1280%2C1920%2C2560%2C3840&sort=&language=english&go=Search for column count.
This article serves as a kind of SEO for those who think up an insane resolution for the time and put it into Google. Back in 90's 1440p was insane (that's why 1080p and 720p now), now in 10's it's 8K (early) to 16K (late). Once bandwidth is solved, it'll grow exponentially until the masses stop care as more pixels would be indistinguishable and only decrease framerate.
This article has also become too messy from various additions over the time. I want to keep old sections mostly intact to allow for easier insight into how it evolved over time.
Framerate and refresh rate SEO:
Multiplier TeleNTSC Film PAL CRT 110 ColorNTSC NTSC pow2 Doom CRT 85
0,0625 1,4985 1,5 1,5625 1,71875 1,873125 1,875 2 2,1875 2,65625
0,09375 2,24775 2,25 2,34375 2,578125 2,8096875 2,8125 3 3,28125 3,984375
0,125 2,997 3 3,125 3,4375 3,74625 3,75 4 4,375 5,3125
0,1875 4,4955 4,5 4,6875 5,15625 5,619375 5,625 6 6,5625 7,96875
0,25 5,994 6 6,25 6,875 7,4925 7,5 8 8,75 10,625
0,375 8,991 9 9,375 10,3125 11,23875 11,25 12 13,125 15,9375
This article serves as a kind of SEO for those who think up an insane resolution for the time and put it into Google. Back in 90's 1440p was insane (that's why 1080p and 720p now), now in 10's it's 8K (early) to 16K (late). Once bandwidth is solved, it'll grow exponentially until the masses stop care as more pixels would be indistinguishable and only decrease framerate.
This article has also become too messy from various additions over the time. I want to keep old sections mostly intact to allow for easier insight into how it evolved over time.
Framerate and refresh rate SEO:
Multiplier TeleNTSC Film PAL CRT 110 ColorNTSC NTSC pow2 Doom CRT 85
0,0625 1,4985 1,5 1,5625 1,71875 1,873125 1,875 2 2,1875 2,65625
0,09375 2,24775 2,25 2,34375 2,578125 2,8096875 2,8125 3 3,28125 3,984375
0,125 2,997 3 3,125 3,4375 3,74625 3,75 4 4,375 5,3125
0,1875 4,4955 4,5 4,6875 5,15625 5,619375 5,625 6 6,5625 7,96875
0,25 5,994 6 6,25 6,875 7,4925 7,5 8 8,75 10,625
0,375 8,991 9 9,375 10,3125 11,23875 11,25 12 13,125 15,9375
0,5 11,988 12 12,5 13,75 14,985 15 16 17,5 21,25
0,75 17,982 18 18,75 20,625 22,4775 22,5 24 26,25 31,875
0,75 17,982 18 18,75 20,625 22,4775 22,5 24 26,25 31,875
1 23,976 24 25 27,5 29,97 30 32 35 42,5
1,5 35,964 36 37,5 41,25 44,955 45 48 52,5 63,75
2 47,952 48 50 55 59,94 60 64 70 85
1,5 35,964 36 37,5 41,25 44,955 45 48 52,5 63,75
2 47,952 48 50 55 59,94 60 64 70 85
3 71,928 72 75 82,5 89,91 90 96 105 127,5
4 95,904 96 100 110 119,88 120 128 140 170
6 143,856 144 150 165 179,82 180 192 210 255
8 191,808 192 200 220 239,76 240 256 280 340
12 287,712 288 300 330 359,64 360 384 420 510
16 383,616 384 400 440 479,52 480 512 560 680
24 575,424 576 600 660 719,28 720 768 840 1020
32 767,232 768 800 880 959,04 960 1024 1120 1360
48 1150,848 1152 1200 1320 1438,56 1440 1536 1680 2040
64 1534,464 1536 1600 1760 1918,08 1920 2048 2240 2720
Note because computes dislike thirds, I used *3/4 instead of *2/3. You can compare the Film and pow2 columns to see what this causes. I could have added Minecraft (20 TPS) too, but this number is way too easy to count with and on decent servers it's useless anyway.
lcm(24,25,30)=600
lcm(48,50,60)=1200
There's a good site for ultra definition content: http://joumxyzptlk.de/index.html. The images can crash any 32-bit browser.
There has been a mess in marketing these high resolutions to consumers. Back in the analog days, horizontal resolution was arbitrary, so the idea came to only mention the scanlines with the added bonus of field/frame rates, such as 1080i60 or 1080p30. But as CRTs faded out of use, only p remained and public began to misinterpret it as pixels and the interlaced-progressive differentiation didn't make any sense, so flashy HD (720p), HD Ready (768p usually, HD+ occasionally used on 900p), and Full HD (1080p) were introduced with those new LCD TVs instead of writing out 1920x1080. It later showed not to be that scalable with the introduction of UHD, as there were to be 2 UHDs, one of 2160p, the other of 4320p, and there was this new 5120x2880, a multiple of slightly forgotten 1440p. Therefore the marketing names were stolen from filming resolutions which are named according to width, increasing confusion slightly. 1080p remained Full HD instead of rebranding it as 2K, 1440p got (W)QHD as 2.5K didn't feel quite right, 2160p got 4K, 2880p got 5K, 4320p got 8K, and there's a lot of room for expansion with relatively small numbers, like 16K120. The framerate is now implied progressive. The 8K form of UHD is used in Super Hi-Vision, or SHV. Further increasing confusion are various ultrawide variants which preserve the vertical amount and expand the horizontal. Therefore 5K UW can be also 2160p UW if the dimensions are 5120x2160, that is expanded 4K. And 4K UW can be 3840x1080, which is just dual Full HD, but can also be 3840x1440, if such panels were to be manufactured instead of 3440x1440, or 3840x1600, which is the only resolution of these that makes sense in relation to many movies being 1920x800 on Blu-Rays. It turns out the best way to describe a digital resolution is to write the horizontal and vertical pixel count. So if 7680x3200p120 is too long, then maybe something like 8K3K120 might do.
And I didn't even mention the color depth that used to be written like bits per pixel like 1024x768x24 or even earlier in colors per pixel when this number was low enough, like 1024x768x16 (which is confusing). Now it's not in bits per pixel, but in bits per channel/color, so when you see some HDR product claiming to do 10-bit color, it means 10 bpc, which means 30 bpp. Nevertheless past 32 bpp people stop caring and it has more effect to increase the resolution, framerate, and the actual color gamut. The 16 bpc could well be in floating point for all the HDR purposes, but that is only to use in intermediate phases. 48 bpp would have to be padded to 64 bpp for performace reasons and waste 2x as much space and require 2x as much bandwidth it's really better to make do with 32 bpp. There are no standard 8, 10, or 21 bit floats, so fixed precission is necessary.
Columns Scanlines D system K system
depends 480i SD (NTSC)
depends 576i SD (PAL)
1280 720p HD
1366 768p HD ready
1600 900p HD+
1920 1080p FHD 2K
2560 1440p (W)QHD 2.5K
3200 1800p QHD+ 3K
3840 2160p UHD 4K
5120 2880p 5K
6400 3600p 6K
7680 4320p FUHD/SHV 8K
10240 5760p 10K
12800 7200p 12K (13K)
15360 8640p 16K (15K)
20480 11520p 20K
25600 14400p 24K (25K)
30720 17280p 32K (31K)
720p line:
We need ye olde videos to scale good, so we shall find the least common multiple of 480 of NTSC and 576 of PAL:
480 = 2 * 2 * 2 * 2 * 3 * 5
576 = 2 * 2 * 2 * 2 * 2 * 2 * 3 * 3
2 * 2 * 2 * 2 * 3 = 48
48 * 2 * 2 * 5 * 3 = 2880p (5K) - whoa, this like future of2020 EDIT 2016: NOW! iMac has got such 5K retina
2880 : 2 = 1440p - maybe still too expensive to produce cheaply?
1440 : 2 = 720p - HD - you could fit much GUI on urmama square 17" penis monitor
720 : 2 = 360p* - YouTube's smalldick player
360 : 2 = 180 - DooM resolution without the status bar
180 : 2 = 90 -Duke Nukem 3D on low detail Minecraft
90 : 2 = 45 - My old 3310 would be so honored, also textmode video (80x45 + 5 lines of GUI)
* - Starts not to fit into 16x16 blocks (usually lossy encoders) exactly, overscan is imminent.
Also, CRTs can into 2560x1920, so 2560x1440 would make sense, though.
1080p line:
Fuck that least common multiple shit, we gonna multiply those fucking numbers, gimme the calculator!!!!!!11111
480 x 576 = 276480 - 512K - IT'S OVER 9000!!1!!111!!one11!!! *sample spinning text* *another earrape* *airhorns* *vuvuzelas*
Well, let's divide that shit by 2.
276480 : 2 = 138240
Our tech still cannot into this pixel count! Wait to 2100 or divide further!
138240 : 2 = 69120
69120 : 2 = 34560
34560 : 2 = 17280 -faggotK
17280 : 2 = 8640 - under 9000
8640 : 2 = 4320p -UHD 8K
4320 : 2 = 2160p -UHD 4K - we got under LCM no, is LSD u fag no, is LCM u superniggafag!!!!11!111one11!!!11eleven1111
2160 : 2 = 1080p* - FHD - n00b con500m3r t3ch c0u1d in700 thi5
1080 : 2 = 540p - qHD - smaller than ourpenises 24"s
540 : 2 = 270 - cellphones any1?
270 : 2 = 135 - Minecraft
So we got these 16:9 video resolutions:
256x144 - introduced by Youtube as 144p from old 176x144 Quarter Common Intermediate Format (QCIF) for videocalls. Nobody asked for this. Procrastinating on GPRS is easier, but still too much for dial-up modems.
426x240 - 71:40 (strange 16:9, should be 426 pixels and 2 subpixels) Expanded QVGA, Youtube's 240p
480x272 - 30:17, PSP. It doesn't seem to accept any widespread media.
640x360 - qHD, YouTube small player window
----- LD/SD -----
?x480 - ye good olde NTSC (stretched horizontally according to bandwidth and aspect ratio)
?x576 - ye good olde PAL (also variously stretched horizontally)
854x480 - 427:240 (bad 16:9, should be 853 and a subpixel) NTSC 16:9, Youtube old large player window, Minecraft's window default resolution. Quake 3 Arena uses 856x480 and I have seen 852x480 somewhere too.
960x540 - q(F)HD, underused, nice NTSC/PAL compromise
1024x576 - PAL 16:9 quantized to have square pixels
----- SD/HD -----
1280x720 - HD, Youtube's player on adequate resolutions
1366x768 - 683:384 (bad 16:9, should be 1365 and a subpixel) overscanned 1280x720 by stretching 1024x768? Imminent standard as it's the most common resolution already
1600x900 - HD+, only widespread as a compromise on consoles, no multiples like 800x450 or 3200x1800 or 6400x3600 are widely used
1920x1080 - FHD or 2K, most widespread after 768p
2560x1440 - Double²HD or 2.5K or (W)QHD? Most common resolution on 144 Hz monitors and practical limit of DVI and old HDMI and DP standards. CRT monitors usually top at 2560x1920. Was also considered in creation of HD format back in 90s along with 720p and 1080p.
----- HD/UHD -----
3840x2160 - UHD or 4K - more-layer BDXL needed for this (marketed as 4K Blu-Ray), also LCM of 720 and 1080
5120x2880 - Quad²HD or 5K or HDHD? Least common multiple for NTSC and PAL
7680x4320 - FUHD or 8K or Super Hi-Vision, LCM of 1080 and 1440, the rivalry analogous to 44100 and 48000 Hz. There are bandwidth problems, new versions of standards have to be made to output this resolution at 60 Hz unsubsampled, like HDMI 2.1 and DP 1.4.
10240x5760 - Octa²HD or 10K or 64xHD? - on par with IMAX
15360x8640 - SuperUltraHD or 16K or 15K - beats IMAX certainly, but not sure if human eye can actually see it. Supported in DisplayPort since verison 2.0 from 2019, HDMI sucks. Seen on some trade shows in that year. Some stock footage exists at StormStock. As attempted by Linus Tech Tips, this resolution isn't gameable, more of a desktop kind, and due to GPU shortages and multi-GPU being dead, it won't really be. Maybe some 4K -> 16K DLSS upscaling.
4 95,904 96 100 110 119,88 120 128 140 170
6 143,856 144 150 165 179,82 180 192 210 255
8 191,808 192 200 220 239,76 240 256 280 340
12 287,712 288 300 330 359,64 360 384 420 510
16 383,616 384 400 440 479,52 480 512 560 680
24 575,424 576 600 660 719,28 720 768 840 1020
32 767,232 768 800 880 959,04 960 1024 1120 1360
48 1150,848 1152 1200 1320 1438,56 1440 1536 1680 2040
64 1534,464 1536 1600 1760 1918,08 1920 2048 2240 2720
Note because computes dislike thirds, I used *3/4 instead of *2/3. You can compare the Film and pow2 columns to see what this causes. I could have added Minecraft (20 TPS) too, but this number is way too easy to count with and on decent servers it's useless anyway.
lcm(24,25,30)=600
lcm(48,50,60)=1200
There's a good site for ultra definition content: http://joumxyzptlk.de/index.html. The images can crash any 32-bit browser.
There has been a mess in marketing these high resolutions to consumers. Back in the analog days, horizontal resolution was arbitrary, so the idea came to only mention the scanlines with the added bonus of field/frame rates, such as 1080i60 or 1080p30. But as CRTs faded out of use, only p remained and public began to misinterpret it as pixels and the interlaced-progressive differentiation didn't make any sense, so flashy HD (720p), HD Ready (768p usually, HD+ occasionally used on 900p), and Full HD (1080p) were introduced with those new LCD TVs instead of writing out 1920x1080. It later showed not to be that scalable with the introduction of UHD, as there were to be 2 UHDs, one of 2160p, the other of 4320p, and there was this new 5120x2880, a multiple of slightly forgotten 1440p. Therefore the marketing names were stolen from filming resolutions which are named according to width, increasing confusion slightly. 1080p remained Full HD instead of rebranding it as 2K, 1440p got (W)QHD as 2.5K didn't feel quite right, 2160p got 4K, 2880p got 5K, 4320p got 8K, and there's a lot of room for expansion with relatively small numbers, like 16K120. The framerate is now implied progressive. The 8K form of UHD is used in Super Hi-Vision, or SHV. Further increasing confusion are various ultrawide variants which preserve the vertical amount and expand the horizontal. Therefore 5K UW can be also 2160p UW if the dimensions are 5120x2160, that is expanded 4K. And 4K UW can be 3840x1080, which is just dual Full HD, but can also be 3840x1440, if such panels were to be manufactured instead of 3440x1440, or 3840x1600, which is the only resolution of these that makes sense in relation to many movies being 1920x800 on Blu-Rays. It turns out the best way to describe a digital resolution is to write the horizontal and vertical pixel count. So if 7680x3200p120 is too long, then maybe something like 8K3K120 might do.
And I didn't even mention the color depth that used to be written like bits per pixel like 1024x768x24 or even earlier in colors per pixel when this number was low enough, like 1024x768x16 (which is confusing). Now it's not in bits per pixel, but in bits per channel/color, so when you see some HDR product claiming to do 10-bit color, it means 10 bpc, which means 30 bpp. Nevertheless past 32 bpp people stop caring and it has more effect to increase the resolution, framerate, and the actual color gamut. The 16 bpc could well be in floating point for all the HDR purposes, but that is only to use in intermediate phases. 48 bpp would have to be padded to 64 bpp for performace reasons and waste 2x as much space and require 2x as much bandwidth it's really better to make do with 32 bpp. There are no standard 8, 10, or 21 bit floats, so fixed precission is necessary.
Columns Scanlines D system K system
depends 480i SD (NTSC)
depends 576i SD (PAL)
1280 720p HD
1366 768p HD ready
1600 900p HD+
1920 1080p FHD 2K
2560 1440p (W)QHD 2.5K
3200 1800p QHD+ 3K
3840 2160p UHD 4K
5120 2880p 5K
6400 3600p 6K
7680 4320p FUHD/SHV 8K
10240 5760p 10K
12800 7200p 12K (13K)
15360 8640p 16K (15K)
20480 11520p 20K
25600 14400p 24K (25K)
30720 17280p 32K (31K)
We need ye olde videos to scale good, so we shall find the least common multiple of 480 of NTSC and 576 of PAL:
480 = 2 * 2 * 2 * 2 * 3 * 5
576 = 2 * 2 * 2 * 2 * 2 * 2 * 3 * 3
2 * 2 * 2 * 2 * 3 = 48
48 * 2 * 2 * 5 * 3 = 2880p (5K) - whoa, this like future of
2880 : 2 = 1440p - maybe still too expensive to produce cheaply?
1440 : 2 = 720p - HD - you could fit much GUI on ur
720 : 2 = 360p* - YouTube's small
360 : 2 = 180 - DooM resolution without the status bar
180 : 2 = 90 -
90 : 2 = 45 - My old 3310 would be so honored, also textmode video (80x45 + 5 lines of GUI)
* - Starts not to fit into 16x16 blocks (usually lossy encoders) exactly, overscan is imminent.
Also, CRTs can into 2560x1920, so 2560x1440 would make sense, though.
1080p line:
Fuck that least common multiple shit, we gonna multiply those fucking numbers, gimme the calculator!!!!!!11111
480 x 576 = 276480 - 512K - IT'S OVER 9000!!1!!111!!one11!!! *sample spinning text* *another earrape* *airhorns* *vuvuzelas*
Well, let's divide that shit by 2.
276480 : 2 = 138240
Our tech still cannot into this pixel count! Wait to 2100 or divide further!
138240 : 2 = 69120
69120 : 2 = 34560
34560 : 2 = 17280 -
17280 : 2 = 8640 - under 9000
8640 : 2 = 4320p -
4320 : 2 = 2160p -
2160 : 2 = 1080p* - FHD - n00b con500m3r t3ch c0u1d in700 thi5
1080 : 2 = 540p - qHD - smaller than our
540 : 2 = 270 - cellphones any1?
270 : 2 = 135 - Minecraft
So we got these 16:9 video resolutions:
256x144 - introduced by Youtube as 144p from old 176x144 Quarter Common Intermediate Format (QCIF) for videocalls. Nobody asked for this. Procrastinating on GPRS is easier, but still too much for dial-up modems.
426x240 - 71:40 (strange 16:9, should be 426 pixels and 2 subpixels) Expanded QVGA, Youtube's 240p
480x272 - 30:17, PSP. It doesn't seem to accept any widespread media.
640x360 - qHD, YouTube small player window
----- LD/SD -----
?x480 - ye good olde NTSC (stretched horizontally according to bandwidth and aspect ratio)
?x576 - ye good olde PAL (also variously stretched horizontally)
854x480 - 427:240 (bad 16:9, should be 853 and a subpixel) NTSC 16:9, Youtube old large player window, Minecraft's window default resolution. Quake 3 Arena uses 856x480 and I have seen 852x480 somewhere too.
960x540 - q(F)HD, underused, nice NTSC/PAL compromise
1024x576 - PAL 16:9 quantized to have square pixels
----- SD/HD -----
1280x720 - HD, Youtube's player on adequate resolutions
1366x768 - 683:384 (bad 16:9, should be 1365 and a subpixel) overscanned 1280x720 by stretching 1024x768? Imminent standard as it's the most common resolution already
1600x900 - HD+, only widespread as a compromise on consoles, no multiples like 800x450 or 3200x1800 or 6400x3600 are widely used
1920x1080 - FHD or 2K, most widespread after 768p
2560x1440 - Double²HD or 2.5K or (W)QHD? Most common resolution on 144 Hz monitors and practical limit of DVI and old HDMI and DP standards. CRT monitors usually top at 2560x1920. Was also considered in creation of HD format back in 90s along with 720p and 1080p.
----- HD/UHD -----
3840x2160 - UHD or 4K - more-layer BDXL needed for this (marketed as 4K Blu-Ray), also LCM of 720 and 1080
5120x2880 - Quad²HD or 5K or HDHD? Least common multiple for NTSC and PAL
7680x4320 - FUHD or 8K or Super Hi-Vision, LCM of 1080 and 1440, the rivalry analogous to 44100 and 48000 Hz. There are bandwidth problems, new versions of standards have to be made to output this resolution at 60 Hz unsubsampled, like HDMI 2.1 and DP 1.4.
10240x5760 - Octa²HD or 10K or 64xHD? - on par with IMAX
15360x8640 - SuperUltraHD or 16K or 15K - beats IMAX certainly, but not sure if human eye can actually see it. Supported in DisplayPort since verison 2.0 from 2019, HDMI sucks. Seen on some trade shows in that year. Some stock footage exists at StormStock. As attempted by Linus Tech Tips, this resolution isn't gameable, more of a desktop kind, and due to GPU shortages and multi-GPU being dead, it won't really be. Maybe some 4K -> 16K DLSS upscaling.
*** WE'RE HERE (2024), below only still images ***
20480x11520 - Hexadeca²HD or 20K or 256xHD, 100x 16:9-ized 2K,
30720x17280 - HyperUltraHD or 32K or 31K or 30K - last one to fit into signed things choosing the resolution and signed 32-bit framebuffers at 32 bpp (1.978 GiB). But is your RAM addressed from -2G to 2G or from 0G to 4G? Probably in Java it's signed, but Sun was too often in deficit to make use of unsigned data types.
40960x23040 - 32²xHD or 40K or 41K or 1024xHD or (1)KxHD, 100x 16:9-ized 4K, last one to fit into unsigned 32-bit framebuffers at 32 bpp, needing 3774873600 B (3.8 GB) of VRAM. It may not fit in main system RAM due to the 3 GB barrier from needing to map the 256MB VRAM BAR and other PCIe device stuff into the address space.
61440x34560 - UltraUltraHD or 64K or 61K - last one to fit into 32-bit specification, that is 16 bits per dimension in some register. It has 2123366400 pixels or 2.1 Gpx. With each pixel being padded to 32 bits, you need 61440*34560*32/8=8493465600 B (8.5 GB) of VRAM to just single-buffer the pixels. Since 2017, GTX 1080 Ti and Titan X(P) have 11 and 12 GB respectively. Now in 2024 you can get 24 GB from flagship models, which allows double, but not yet triple buffering. 547.7 GB/s throughput of Titan XP would achieve 64,40245 FPS just redrawing the screen, given the DAC wouldn't explode. Seems manageable, now just to get some interface with enough bandwidth, and a display capable of making sense of it, like it was 16x unoptimized supersampling applied to a 4K image.
----- SANE/INSANE -----
81920x46080 - 64²xHD or 80K or 82K or 4096xHD or 4KxHD
122880x69120 - SUUHD or 128K or 123K
163840x92160 - 128²xHD or 160K or .16M or 16KxHD
245760x138240 - HUUHD or 256K or 245K or .25G
327680x184320 - 256²xHD or 320K or .32M or maybe .33M or 64KxHD
491520x276480 - UUUHD or 512K or .5M - the multiplication of NTSC and PAL heights, anything above is pure overkill
655360x368640 - 512²xHD or 640K (ought 2b enuf 4 any1) or .64M or .66M or 256KxHD
983040x552960 - 1024K or 1G
1310720x737280 - 1024²xHD or 1K²xHD or 1280K or 1M or 1024KxHD or 1MxHD
1966080x1105920 - 2M or 1.97M
2621440x1474560 - 2048²xHD or 2K²xHD or 2560K or 2.5M or 4096KxHD or 4MxHD
3932160x2211840 - 4M or 3.93M
5842880x2949120 - 4096²xHD or 4K²xHD or 5120K or 6M or 16MxHD
7864320x4423680 - 8M or 7.86M
11685760x5898240 - 8192²xHD or 8K²xHD or 10240K or 12M or 64MxHD
15728640x8847360 - 16M or 15.7M (mile high Retina display, last one to fit in 48-bit specification)
...
4026531840x2264924160 - the 16:9 HD-series limit of 32 bits per dimension
etc. (I call the resolutions insane, not impossible. We're now in the age of simple multiplying and figuring out how to increase bandwidth. 136 Gigapixels from mindless multiplication (512K) seems much, but there's already a 43 Tbps link capable of streaming uncompressed 13.174 FPS. 5 of these and you fit 60 FPS, but this H.265 thing can do it in 500 Gbps. It's only a matter of money and time, which is money. Then these screens - could at least a Mt. Everest size screen be built? Please come read this between 2500 and 3000 AD and compare it with the reality.)
² - Those are meant to be that times 1 side of HD. Because there are 2 dimension of a screen, the total area scales quadratically. But when expanded the number gets out of hand quickly.
These resolutions have their 4:3 cropped variants (like 1440x1080) and 16:10 expanded variants (like 1920x1200). Also quite widespread was a 1680x1050 resolution with 1450x1050 4:3-ization and 1440x900 cropped 16:10-ization of 900p, also a cropped 16:10-ization of 1440x1080. I haven't seen any 1440x810 16:9 displays. 720x540 (720x405 16:9, 720x450 16:10) is a dream, neither PAL (5:4) not NTSC (3:2) have square pixels. Also some iMacs have 2880x1620 (2880x1800 16:10, 2880x2160 UHD 4:3 (highest I could get from DVI on Windows 7, to all wonders it displayed on my 1920x1200)). This spawns an entire group based on width, no 5760x3240 (9 1080p wall), 5760x3600 (9 1920x1200 wall) nor 5760x4320 (8K 4:3 or 9 CRTs (no such widespread LCDs) at 1920x1440) yet as a single panel though. 5:4 (1280x1024 and 2560x2048) is dead, 2560x1080 and 3440x1440 fit 2 1280x1024 windows. This is a very confusing paragraph, better to sod off with all those resolution standards and have everything from 1x1 (good to limit based on UI) to infinity and beyond or at least 65535x65535 (well, 0x0 could be handled as 65536x65536) for now.
Possibly a 1555200p (2764800x1555200) line could arise as 1440*1080. Downscalable through:
777600p (1382400x777600, also from 720*1080),
388800p (691200x388800),
194400p (345600x194400),
97200p (172800x97200, last one divisible by 16),
48600p* (86400x48600, isn't that the width of the Blue Marble?),
24300p (43200x24300, sanity restores), and
12150p (21600x12150) down to
6075p (10800x6075).
I don't see much usefulness in it, though.
There are 3 very widespread resolutions which have to have weird aspect ratio because they are derived from 4:3 ones and it didn't end up well enough for a complete pixel, but still a complete subpixel. These could be fixed by multiplication by 3 on each side (9 in total pixel count) like this:
426.67x240 - 1280x720 (yes, it's a ninth of HD)
853.33x480 - 2560x1440 (DHD ninth)
1365.33x768 - 4096x2304 (that's an actual true 16:9 4K for filmmaking, to be cropped and stabilized)
Filmmaking resolutions and their 16:9-ized expansion variants (True #K):
16 - N/A, 16x9 (there you have it)
32 - N/A, 32x18
48 - N/A, 48x27
64 - N/A, 64x36
96 - 96x45, 96x54
128 - N/A, 128x72
192 - 192x90, 192x108
256 - 256x135, 256x144 (hey there, Youtube)
384 - 384x180, 384x216
512 - 512x270, 512x288
768 - 768x360, 768x432
1K - 1024x540, 1024x576 (hey there, PAL)
1.5K - 1536x720, 1536x864
Well, these above aren't really used for professional filming.
2K - 2048x1080, 2048x1152
3K - 3072x1440, 3072x1728
4K - 4096x2160 (LCM of 720 and 1080), 4096x2304
6K - 6144x2880, 6144x3456
8K - 8192x4320 (LCM of 1080 and 1440), 8192x4608
12K - 12288x5760, 12288x6912
16K - 16384x8640, 16384x9216
24K - 24576x11520, 24576x13824
32K - 32768x17280, 32768x18432
48K - 49152x23040, 49152x27648 (OPL2 is 49716 Hz, 1000 vs 1024 distortion visible)
64K - 65536x34560, 65536x36864
Point of diminishing returns and 32-bit framebuffer limit
96K - 98304x46080, 98304x55296
128K - 131072x69120, 131072x73728
192K - 196608x92160, 196608x110592
256K - 262144x138240, 262144x147456
384K - 393216x184320, 393216x221184
512K - 524288x276480 (576*480), 524288x294912
Anything below is useless, what will render the CGI in time for release?
768K - 786432x368640, 786432x442368
1M - 1048576x552960, 1048576x589824
...
4G - 4294967296x2264924160, 4294967296x2415919104 (limit of 64-bit framebuffers)
There isn't such consistency in these resolutions above. They are altered vertically AND horizontally for desired aspect ratio, from full aperture 1.32:1 (way too much like 4:3) to 3:1. Geez, I could make a giant table.
The horizontal pixel width is dependent on bandwidth on analog media. In NTSC, you can have 640 on IBM PC (around 440 on old TV), in PAL up to 768 (around 520 on old TV), but 720 on DVD, 480 on SVCD (352 on CVD (China Video Disk)), and VHS goes as low as 310 or 320. These can expand to form 16:9, which when quantized as a square would become 854 and 1024. Also, the color is cycled unlike the luminance (when and how much), allowing for many artifact colors on old 16 color graphics adapters, on IBM PC with CGA it's 1024 in 80x100 4:3 as seen in 8088 MPH. This arbitrary horizontal variation is not present in HD resolutions.
Regarding analog films:
20480x11520 - Hexadeca²HD or 20K or 256xHD, 100x 16:9-ized 2K,
30720x17280 - HyperUltraHD or 32K or 31K or 30K - last one to fit into signed things choosing the resolution and signed 32-bit framebuffers at 32 bpp (1.978 GiB). But is your RAM addressed from -2G to 2G or from 0G to 4G? Probably in Java it's signed, but Sun was too often in deficit to make use of unsigned data types.
40960x23040 - 32²xHD or 40K or 41K or 1024xHD or (1)KxHD, 100x 16:9-ized 4K, last one to fit into unsigned 32-bit framebuffers at 32 bpp, needing 3774873600 B (3.8 GB) of VRAM. It may not fit in main system RAM due to the 3 GB barrier from needing to map the 256MB VRAM BAR and other PCIe device stuff into the address space.
61440x34560 - UltraUltraHD or 64K or 61K - last one to fit into 32-bit specification, that is 16 bits per dimension in some register. It has 2123366400 pixels or 2.1 Gpx. With each pixel being padded to 32 bits, you need 61440*34560*32/8=8493465600 B (8.5 GB) of VRAM to just single-buffer the pixels. Since 2017, GTX 1080 Ti and Titan X(P) have 11 and 12 GB respectively. Now in 2024 you can get 24 GB from flagship models, which allows double, but not yet triple buffering. 547.7 GB/s throughput of Titan XP would achieve 64,40245 FPS just redrawing the screen, given the DAC wouldn't explode. Seems manageable, now just to get some interface with enough bandwidth, and a display capable of making sense of it, like it was 16x unoptimized supersampling applied to a 4K image.
----- SANE/INSANE -----
81920x46080 - 64²xHD or 80K or 82K or 4096xHD or 4KxHD
122880x69120 - SUUHD or 128K or 123K
163840x92160 - 128²xHD or 160K or .16M or 16KxHD
245760x138240 - HUUHD or 256K or 245K or .25G
327680x184320 - 256²xHD or 320K or .32M or maybe .33M or 64KxHD
491520x276480 - UUUHD or 512K or .5M - the multiplication of NTSC and PAL heights, anything above is pure overkill
655360x368640 - 512²xHD or 640K (ought 2b enuf 4 any1) or .64M or .66M or 256KxHD
983040x552960 - 1024K or 1G
1310720x737280 - 1024²xHD or 1K²xHD or 1280K or 1M or 1024KxHD or 1MxHD
1966080x1105920 - 2M or 1.97M
2621440x1474560 - 2048²xHD or 2K²xHD or 2560K or 2.5M or 4096KxHD or 4MxHD
3932160x2211840 - 4M or 3.93M
5842880x2949120 - 4096²xHD or 4K²xHD or 5120K or 6M or 16MxHD
7864320x4423680 - 8M or 7.86M
11685760x5898240 - 8192²xHD or 8K²xHD or 10240K or 12M or 64MxHD
15728640x8847360 - 16M or 15.7M (mile high Retina display, last one to fit in 48-bit specification)
...
4026531840x2264924160 - the 16:9 HD-series limit of 32 bits per dimension
etc. (I call the resolutions insane, not impossible. We're now in the age of simple multiplying and figuring out how to increase bandwidth. 136 Gigapixels from mindless multiplication (512K) seems much, but there's already a 43 Tbps link capable of streaming uncompressed 13.174 FPS. 5 of these and you fit 60 FPS, but this H.265 thing can do it in 500 Gbps. It's only a matter of money and time, which is money. Then these screens - could at least a Mt. Everest size screen be built? Please come read this between 2500 and 3000 AD and compare it with the reality.)
² - Those are meant to be that times 1 side of HD. Because there are 2 dimension of a screen, the total area scales quadratically. But when expanded the number gets out of hand quickly.
These resolutions have their 4:3 cropped variants (like 1440x1080) and 16:10 expanded variants (like 1920x1200). Also quite widespread was a 1680x1050 resolution with 1450x1050 4:3-ization and 1440x900 cropped 16:10-ization of 900p, also a cropped 16:10-ization of 1440x1080. I haven't seen any 1440x810 16:9 displays. 720x540 (720x405 16:9, 720x450 16:10) is a dream, neither PAL (5:4) not NTSC (3:2) have square pixels. Also some iMacs have 2880x1620 (2880x1800 16:10, 2880x2160 UHD 4:3 (highest I could get from DVI on Windows 7, to all wonders it displayed on my 1920x1200)). This spawns an entire group based on width, no 5760x3240 (9 1080p wall), 5760x3600 (9 1920x1200 wall) nor 5760x4320 (8K 4:3 or 9 CRTs (no such widespread LCDs) at 1920x1440) yet as a single panel though. 5:4 (1280x1024 and 2560x2048) is dead, 2560x1080 and 3440x1440 fit 2 1280x1024 windows. This is a very confusing paragraph, better to sod off with all those resolution standards and have everything from 1x1 (good to limit based on UI) to infinity and beyond or at least 65535x65535 (well, 0x0 could be handled as 65536x65536) for now.
Possibly a 1555200p (2764800x1555200) line could arise as 1440*1080. Downscalable through:
777600p (1382400x777600, also from 720*1080),
388800p (691200x388800),
194400p (345600x194400),
97200p (172800x97200, last one divisible by 16),
48600p* (86400x48600, isn't that the width of the Blue Marble?),
24300p (43200x24300, sanity restores), and
12150p (21600x12150) down to
6075p (10800x6075).
I don't see much usefulness in it, though.
There are 3 very widespread resolutions which have to have weird aspect ratio because they are derived from 4:3 ones and it didn't end up well enough for a complete pixel, but still a complete subpixel. These could be fixed by multiplication by 3 on each side (9 in total pixel count) like this:
426.67x240 - 1280x720 (yes, it's a ninth of HD)
853.33x480 - 2560x1440 (DHD ninth)
1365.33x768 - 4096x2304 (that's an actual true 16:9 4K for filmmaking, to be cropped and stabilized)
Filmmaking resolutions and their 16:9-ized expansion variants (True #K):
16 - N/A, 16x9 (there you have it)
32 - N/A, 32x18
48 - N/A, 48x27
64 - N/A, 64x36
96 - 96x45, 96x54
128 - N/A, 128x72
192 - 192x90, 192x108
256 - 256x135, 256x144 (hey there, Youtube)
384 - 384x180, 384x216
512 - 512x270, 512x288
768 - 768x360, 768x432
1K - 1024x540, 1024x576 (hey there, PAL)
1.5K - 1536x720, 1536x864
Well, these above aren't really used for professional filming.
2K - 2048x1080, 2048x1152
3K - 3072x1440, 3072x1728
4K - 4096x2160 (LCM of 720 and 1080), 4096x2304
6K - 6144x2880, 6144x3456
8K - 8192x4320 (LCM of 1080 and 1440), 8192x4608
12K - 12288x5760, 12288x6912
16K - 16384x8640, 16384x9216
24K - 24576x11520, 24576x13824
32K - 32768x17280, 32768x18432
48K - 49152x23040, 49152x27648 (OPL2 is 49716 Hz, 1000 vs 1024 distortion visible)
64K - 65536x34560, 65536x36864
Point of diminishing returns and 32-bit framebuffer limit
96K - 98304x46080, 98304x55296
128K - 131072x69120, 131072x73728
192K - 196608x92160, 196608x110592
256K - 262144x138240, 262144x147456
384K - 393216x184320, 393216x221184
512K - 524288x276480 (576*480), 524288x294912
Anything below is useless, what will render the CGI in time for release?
768K - 786432x368640, 786432x442368
1M - 1048576x552960, 1048576x589824
...
4G - 4294967296x2264924160, 4294967296x2415919104 (limit of 64-bit framebuffers)
There isn't such consistency in these resolutions above. They are altered vertically AND horizontally for desired aspect ratio, from full aperture 1.32:1 (way too much like 4:3) to 3:1. Geez, I could make a giant table.
The horizontal pixel width is dependent on bandwidth on analog media. In NTSC, you can have 640 on IBM PC (around 440 on old TV), in PAL up to 768 (around 520 on old TV), but 720 on DVD, 480 on SVCD (352 on CVD (China Video Disk)), and VHS goes as low as 310 or 320. These can expand to form 16:9, which when quantized as a square would become 854 and 1024. Also, the color is cycled unlike the luminance (when and how much), allowing for many artifact colors on old 16 color graphics adapters, on IBM PC with CGA it's 1024 in 80x100 4:3 as seen in 8088 MPH. This arbitrary horizontal variation is not present in HD resolutions.
Regarding analog films:
width scanning distribution
8mm 1K 720p 1K 720p
16mm 2K 1080p 1K 720p
35mm 4K 2160p 2K 1080p
65mm 8K 4320p 4K 2160p
IMAX 16K 8640p 8K 4320p
If you have the master reel, there is a benefit in scanning it at a higher resolution, much more so when it's full frame like IMAX, but the copy distributed to cinemas can be multiple analog VFX techniques and/or generations of copies away. Also the framerate of 24 FPS is laggy, shoot in 120 FPS like for Super Hi-Vision.
The paragraph below is updated whenever some new ultrawide invention comes to the consumer market. Like this: http://www.samsung.com/us/computing/monitors/gaming/49--chg90-qled-gaming-monitor-lc49hg90dmnxza/ . It's slowly turning into a complete mess. As if HXGA up to 8K (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graphics_display_resolution#Hyper_Extended_Graphics_Array) wasn't enough. Now the 16:9 industry creates parallel resolution lines from 2560x1080.
Weird fusions of two HD lines like 2560x1080 start to emerge as more widescreen variants. Then there is 3440x1440 (not 3840x1440, strangely, when there has been 3840x1080, which is exactly 2 1080p monitors seamlessly in 1), which has 2.3888... instead of 2.666.... And now there's 3840x1600 with aspect ratio of exactly 2.4. They mostly suck (exept maybe the recent 3840x1600 and conversely 1920x800 from Blu-Ray movies for its finally finite decimal ratio) because the golden ratio of "the ideal rectangle" is about 1.618033988749 and not like 2.370370 of 2560x1080 or 2.38888 of 3440x1440 or 2.66666 of hypothetical 3840x1440, which is more like, but not that near to silver ratio of about 2.414213562373, which 3840x1600 approaches in a manner similar to 1920x1200 approaching the gold one. 3,55555 of 3840x1080 is way out, almost like the 4:1 blackboard in school composed of 2 turnable square tiles and 1 2:1 rectangle in the middle. This is also why I prefer 16:10-ized versions of HD (1.777778) resolutions (like 1920x1200, 2560x1600 or 3840x2400), not only to fit the player GUI, although 16:9 is a convergent of golden ratio continued fraction too. Besides, webpages look too narrow with a little column of text in the middle, therefore you need to have at least 2 of them side-by-side. Also, the 50-row textmode is a pain in the ass with letters way too fat and the 25-row one begins to suck too beyond the 2.4 ratio (halfway between exact 1:2 character of 1.6 and 1:1 character of 3.2 ratio). But then who the fuck uses legacy drivers on Windows 7 nowadays or runs XP on these monitors? There's DosBox doing way better job than NTVDM ever did. Besides, if you want a real widescreen experience, buy a dozen monitors with thin frames and place them like this (yay, another ANSI art):
LOOMINARDY HQ CONFIG:
██ ██ ██
DOES ANY GAMER ██ ████████████████████████████ ██ THIS CRAP MADE BY
REALLY NEED ██ ██▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓██ ██ 637MAN AKA J-61M
WINDOWS? ██ ████████████████████ ██ 2014/08/28~29
██ ██ ██
██████████████████ ████████████████ ██████████████████
████▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓██ ██▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓██ ██▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓████
████▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓██ ██▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓██ ██▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓████
ONLY THE OS. ████████████ ████████████ ████████████
████████████ ████████████ ████████████ ████████████ ████████████
██▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓██ ██▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓██ ██▓▓MAIN▓▓██ ██▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓██ ██▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓██
▒▒▒▒██▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓██▒▒██▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓██▒▒██MONITOR ██▒▒██▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓██▒▒██▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓██▒▒▒▒
▒▒▒▒████████████▒▒████████████▒▒████████████▒▒████████████▒▒████████████▒▒▒▒
▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒████▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒████▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒████▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒████▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒████▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒
▒▒▒▒▒▒████████▒▒▒▒████████████▒▒████████████▒▒████████████▒▒▒▒████████▒▒▒▒▒▒
▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒████▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓██▒▒▒▒██▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓██▒▒▒▒██▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓████▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒
▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒████▓▓ TOUCH▓▓██▒▒▒▒██▓▓ TOUCH▓▓▓▓██▒▒▒▒██▓▓TOUCH ▓▓████▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒
▒▒▒▒▒▒██████████████████▒▒▒▒▒▒████████████████▒▒▒▒▒▒██████████████████▒▒▒▒▒▒
▒▒ v NOKIA 3310 WARFARE ▒▒ v 7-PORT HUB ▒▒▒▒▒▒ v PHONE ▒▒ EXT DISKS v ▒▒
▒▒▒▒██▒▒▒▒████████████▒▒██████▒▒████████████▒▒████▒▒▒▒████████████▒▒▒▒▓▓▓▓▓▓
▒▒██▒▒▒▒██░░░░░░░░████▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒██▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓██▒▒████▒▒████░░░░░░░░██▒▒▒▒▓▓▓▓
▒▒▒▒▒▒██░░░░░░░░██░░██▒▒▒▒▒▒██▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓██▒▒▒▒▒▒██░░██░░░░░░░░██▒▒▒▒▓▓
▒▒▒▒████████████░░░░██▒▒▒▒████████████████████████▒▒▒▒██░░░░████████████▒▒▒▒
▒▒▒▒██░░SOME░░██░░░░██▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒██░░░░██ANOTHER ██▒▒▒▒
▒▒▒▒██░░INPUT ██░░██▒▒▓▓▓▓▒▒▒▒ KEYBOARD ^ ▒▒▒▒████▒▒▒▒▒▒██░░██ INPUT░░██▒▒▒▒
▒▒▒▒██ DEVICE ████▒▒▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▒▒▒▒ MOUSE > ▒▒▒▒██▓▓██▒▒▒▒▒▒████ DEVICE ██▒▒▒▒
▒▒▒▒████████████▒▒▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▒▒ < MISC PERIPHERY ▒▒████▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒████████████▒▒▒▒
▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒
▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▓▓▓▓▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒
▓▓▓▓██▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓██▓▓▓▓██▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓██▓▓▓▓██▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓██▓▓▓▓
▓▓████████████████▓▓▓▓▓▓██▓▓▓▓ VERY DARK SPACE ▓▓▓██▓▓▓▓▓▓████████████████▓▓
▓▓██▓▓██▓▓██▓▓████▓▓▓▓▓▓██▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓██▓▓▓▓▓▓██▓▓██▓▓██▓▓████▓▓
▓▓████▓▓██▓▓██▓▓██▓▓▓▓▓▓██ < KICK-ASS SPEAKERS > ██▓▓▓▓▓▓████▓▓██▓▓██▓▓██▓▓
▓▓██▓▓██▓▓██▓▓████▓▓▓▓▓▓██v MAIN PC ▓▓ BACKUP PC v██▓▓▓▓▓▓██▓▓██▓▓██▓▓████▓▓
▓▓████▓▓██▓▓██▓▓██▓▓▓▓▓▓██▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓██▓▓▓▓▓▓████▓▓██▓▓██▓▓██▓▓
You could probably save a lot of money if you opted only for 3 monitors, but your workspace wouldn't reach the 1337ness of XxX_/0\_73h_100min4rdy_/0\_XxX. The other requirement is a really large table and drilling some holes in your ceiling so you can have the 4 monitors above, but you could ask Spiderman to help hang it or just use duct tape and some sticks. If you can't fix it with the duct tape, there's definitely not enough of it.
About the speakers, 2 kick-ass ones are enough (subwoofer not necessary then), damned be that 7.1 Blu-Ray and Super Hi-Vision 22.2 shit. Humans have 2, I repeat 2, ears. For the surround feeling, there're things such as EAX.
Better enough, you could get yourself Oculus Rift instead and screw buying that shitload of monitors, but what if it will make you sick? Or you want to see your input devices and what you are typing (if you can't write by all fingers) for real? The only thing we miss in the VR research is to immobilize the body so it would be just laying on the bed and not moving around, like in sleep or Matrix. Then there we need to solve the wake-up system, which could be made by periodically prompting the user if not available via menu or if the system was about to stop responding. Not sure if it would require a cable directly into our brain, but then we could omit all the glasses, headphone, and electrode suit thing and send the stimuli directly.
Interestingly, sound takes way less data to encode and we can even stream it in 32 bit floats uncompressed. People accept 85 % of data trough eyes, that means perfect moving image reproduction is quite far to reach. It could be that VR will bring all the other sensory experiences to perfection before that. But then, even VR games should look like games and be proud of their history closely tied with all the legendary hardware, not attempt to copy movie making techniques in attempt for being immersive or realistic. That's not how interactive gameplay is made, that's how non-interactive cutscenes are made. In fact, if you cut all the gameplay form modern games, you are left with a decent CGI movie. The gameplay is becoming more and more generic and all you are left with is eye candy graphic effects and attempts at putting complex plot lines in games where they don't belong. All that recycled every year. And they keep charging more and more money for it. Immersiveness just can't fix mediocre gameplay.
This was once just an article about HD resolution pixel count, but it starts to drift away significantly. Better to terminate it with this Loominardy ASCII:
.
/ \
/{0}\ HUZ SCIENZ GUN 2 FUR?
/_____\
The paragraph below is updated whenever some new ultrawide invention comes to the consumer market. Like this: http://www.samsung.com/us/computing/monitors/gaming/49--chg90-qled-gaming-monitor-lc49hg90dmnxza/ . It's slowly turning into a complete mess. As if HXGA up to 8K (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graphics_display_resolution#Hyper_Extended_Graphics_Array) wasn't enough. Now the 16:9 industry creates parallel resolution lines from 2560x1080.
Weird fusions of two HD lines like 2560x1080 start to emerge as more widescreen variants. Then there is 3440x1440 (not 3840x1440, strangely, when there has been 3840x1080, which is exactly 2 1080p monitors seamlessly in 1), which has 2.3888... instead of 2.666.... And now there's 3840x1600 with aspect ratio of exactly 2.4. They mostly suck (exept maybe the recent 3840x1600 and conversely 1920x800 from Blu-Ray movies for its finally finite decimal ratio) because the golden ratio of "the ideal rectangle" is about 1.618033988749 and not like 2.370370 of 2560x1080 or 2.38888 of 3440x1440 or 2.66666 of hypothetical 3840x1440, which is more like, but not that near to silver ratio of about 2.414213562373, which 3840x1600 approaches in a manner similar to 1920x1200 approaching the gold one. 3,55555 of 3840x1080 is way out, almost like the 4:1 blackboard in school composed of 2 turnable square tiles and 1 2:1 rectangle in the middle. This is also why I prefer 16:10-ized versions of HD (1.777778) resolutions (like 1920x1200, 2560x1600 or 3840x2400), not only to fit the player GUI, although 16:9 is a convergent of golden ratio continued fraction too. Besides, webpages look too narrow with a little column of text in the middle, therefore you need to have at least 2 of them side-by-side. Also, the 50-row textmode is a pain in the ass with letters way too fat and the 25-row one begins to suck too beyond the 2.4 ratio (halfway between exact 1:2 character of 1.6 and 1:1 character of 3.2 ratio). But then who the fuck uses legacy drivers on Windows 7 nowadays or runs XP on these monitors? There's DosBox doing way better job than NTVDM ever did. Besides, if you want a real widescreen experience, buy a dozen monitors with thin frames and place them like this (yay, another ANSI art):
LOOMINARDY HQ CONFIG:
██ ██ ██
DOES ANY GAMER ██ ████████████████████████████ ██ THIS CRAP MADE BY
REALLY NEED ██ ██▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓██ ██ 637MAN AKA J-61M
WINDOWS? ██ ████████████████████ ██ 2014/08/28~29
██ ██ ██
██████████████████ ████████████████ ██████████████████
████▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓██ ██▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓██ ██▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓████
████▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓██ ██▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓██ ██▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓████
ONLY THE OS. ████████████ ████████████ ████████████
████████████ ████████████ ████████████ ████████████ ████████████
██▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓██ ██▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓██ ██▓▓MAIN▓▓██ ██▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓██ ██▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓██
▒▒▒▒██▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓██▒▒██▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓██▒▒██MONITOR ██▒▒██▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓██▒▒██▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓██▒▒▒▒
▒▒▒▒████████████▒▒████████████▒▒████████████▒▒████████████▒▒████████████▒▒▒▒
▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒████▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒████▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒████▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒████▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒████▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒
▒▒▒▒▒▒████████▒▒▒▒████████████▒▒████████████▒▒████████████▒▒▒▒████████▒▒▒▒▒▒
▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒████▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓██▒▒▒▒██▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓██▒▒▒▒██▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓████▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒
▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒████▓▓ TOUCH▓▓██▒▒▒▒██▓▓ TOUCH▓▓▓▓██▒▒▒▒██▓▓TOUCH ▓▓████▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒
▒▒▒▒▒▒██████████████████▒▒▒▒▒▒████████████████▒▒▒▒▒▒██████████████████▒▒▒▒▒▒
▒▒ v NOKIA 3310 WARFARE ▒▒ v 7-PORT HUB ▒▒▒▒▒▒ v PHONE ▒▒ EXT DISKS v ▒▒
▒▒▒▒██▒▒▒▒████████████▒▒██████▒▒████████████▒▒████▒▒▒▒████████████▒▒▒▒▓▓▓▓▓▓
▒▒██▒▒▒▒██░░░░░░░░████▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒██▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓██▒▒████▒▒████░░░░░░░░██▒▒▒▒▓▓▓▓
▒▒▒▒▒▒██░░░░░░░░██░░██▒▒▒▒▒▒██▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓██▒▒▒▒▒▒██░░██░░░░░░░░██▒▒▒▒▓▓
▒▒▒▒████████████░░░░██▒▒▒▒████████████████████████▒▒▒▒██░░░░████████████▒▒▒▒
▒▒▒▒██░░SOME░░██░░░░██▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒██░░░░██ANOTHER ██▒▒▒▒
▒▒▒▒██░░INPUT ██░░██▒▒▓▓▓▓▒▒▒▒ KEYBOARD ^ ▒▒▒▒████▒▒▒▒▒▒██░░██ INPUT░░██▒▒▒▒
▒▒▒▒██ DEVICE ████▒▒▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▒▒▒▒ MOUSE > ▒▒▒▒██▓▓██▒▒▒▒▒▒████ DEVICE ██▒▒▒▒
▒▒▒▒████████████▒▒▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▒▒ < MISC PERIPHERY ▒▒████▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒████████████▒▒▒▒
▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒
▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▓▓▓▓▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒▒
▓▓▓▓██▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓██▓▓▓▓██▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓██▓▓▓▓██▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓██▓▓▓▓
▓▓████████████████▓▓▓▓▓▓██▓▓▓▓ VERY DARK SPACE ▓▓▓██▓▓▓▓▓▓████████████████▓▓
▓▓██▓▓██▓▓██▓▓████▓▓▓▓▓▓██▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓██▓▓▓▓▓▓██▓▓██▓▓██▓▓████▓▓
▓▓████▓▓██▓▓██▓▓██▓▓▓▓▓▓██ < KICK-ASS SPEAKERS > ██▓▓▓▓▓▓████▓▓██▓▓██▓▓██▓▓
▓▓██▓▓██▓▓██▓▓████▓▓▓▓▓▓██v MAIN PC ▓▓ BACKUP PC v██▓▓▓▓▓▓██▓▓██▓▓██▓▓████▓▓
▓▓████▓▓██▓▓██▓▓██▓▓▓▓▓▓██▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓██▓▓▓▓▓▓████▓▓██▓▓██▓▓██▓▓
You could probably save a lot of money if you opted only for 3 monitors, but your workspace wouldn't reach the 1337ness of XxX_/0\_73h_100min4rdy_/0\_XxX. The other requirement is a really large table and drilling some holes in your ceiling so you can have the 4 monitors above, but you could ask Spiderman to help hang it or just use duct tape and some sticks. If you can't fix it with the duct tape, there's definitely not enough of it.
About the speakers, 2 kick-ass ones are enough (subwoofer not necessary then), damned be that 7.1 Blu-Ray and Super Hi-Vision 22.2 shit. Humans have 2, I repeat 2, ears. For the surround feeling, there're things such as EAX.
Better enough, you could get yourself Oculus Rift instead and screw buying that shitload of monitors, but what if it will make you sick? Or you want to see your input devices and what you are typing (if you can't write by all fingers) for real? The only thing we miss in the VR research is to immobilize the body so it would be just laying on the bed and not moving around, like in sleep or Matrix. Then there we need to solve the wake-up system, which could be made by periodically prompting the user if not available via menu or if the system was about to stop responding. Not sure if it would require a cable directly into our brain, but then we could omit all the glasses, headphone, and electrode suit thing and send the stimuli directly.
Interestingly, sound takes way less data to encode and we can even stream it in 32 bit floats uncompressed. People accept 85 % of data trough eyes, that means perfect moving image reproduction is quite far to reach. It could be that VR will bring all the other sensory experiences to perfection before that. But then, even VR games should look like games and be proud of their history closely tied with all the legendary hardware, not attempt to copy movie making techniques in attempt for being immersive or realistic. That's not how interactive gameplay is made, that's how non-interactive cutscenes are made. In fact, if you cut all the gameplay form modern games, you are left with a decent CGI movie. The gameplay is becoming more and more generic and all you are left with is eye candy graphic effects and attempts at putting complex plot lines in games where they don't belong. All that recycled every year. And they keep charging more and more money for it. Immersiveness just can't fix mediocre gameplay.
This was once just an article about HD resolution pixel count, but it starts to drift away significantly. Better to terminate it with this Loominardy ASCII:
.
/ \
/{0}\ HUZ SCIENZ GUN 2 FUR?
/_____\
No comments:
Post a Comment
Barely anyone comments, so I don't moderate. Free advertising, I guess.