Naming conventions of "2560" as a distribution resolution?

[Tom Lowe]

Lately I've been craving 2560x1440 material. Like many of you, I have a 30" 2560x1600 display for my computer. For my own recent "TimeScapes 4K" video (shot and finished at 4K) I did release a 2560 version, which Jarred was generous enough to host here: http://red.cachefly.net/TimeScapes4K2560p.mp4 This download has become very popular, even compared to 1080p. The 2560 image is far superior to 1080p. It is one way to differentiate footage shot on 4K rather than 1080p. I think any of us with 2560 monitors would prefer full 2560 renders versus 1080p, which only fills up about 2/3rds of the screen. I wonder why Apple has not released any trailers at 2560 yet, considering the fact they have probably sold tens of thousands of Apple 30" 2560 displays? 2560 for trailers seems long overdue.

But here's a question: what should this resolution be named? In my opinion, "2560" sounds way better than "1440p". Also, because of varying aspect ratios, it might be common to see 2560x1100 trailers, for example. To me, it makes more sense to concentrate on the 2560 number of vertical resolution lines, rather than the number of horizontal resolution lines. This would follow the same naming convention as "4K", but it doesn't make much sense to call it "2560K"... or "2.56K". Calling it "2560p" might technically work, but could also be confusing. Maybe just simply "2560" resolution?

[David Battistella]

2.5k?

[Zac Dixon]

I like 2560... it has a nice ring to it! However it might be confusing considering almost every other full number (ie. 1080, 720) resolutions are classified by their vertical resolution.
2.5k is nice!
As far as that resolution though, its extremely nice for those of us with 27" iMacs (or Apple Cinema Displays for that matter)! I'm so tired of watching my up-resed 1080p footage look like crap on my screen.

[Sanjin Jukic]

I would call it short and simply 30" resolution and everybody would know that it's 2560x1600px 16:10 display resolution, than for it you could crop many different ratios starting from 16:9 up to the wide 2.40:1and 2.35:1 or whatever...

As I'm very well known about thinking in the right direction even Nikon with its newest DSLR D4 somehow did a bit of "copy & paste" with an extension from one of my ideas at

5.6K 2.40:1 than cropped to wide HD 1920x800 (http://vimeo.com/25051429).

Btw, officially WQHD is 2560x1440 mostly made with 27-inch LCDs but it still has HD as a part of the name that some people try to skip for a certain reason.

Seems to me 30" fits perfect.

[Tom Lowe]

I kinda think "2560" can do the job.

[Josh Beadle]

"25 Large"

[Erik Franzén]

1440p makes sense -- anything else would just f*ck up the system in place by being even more confusing ("Oh, 2560 -- that's a lot more than 1080p!"). 2560 has a nice ring, but, again, in context of concurrent naming schemes, doesn't make sense.

[Pawel Achtel]

TomVision
or
LoweVista

:)

[Subhadip Sen]

The official term is "WQHD". But 2.5K works and by 16:9 HD conventions - 1440p. (Remember, most movies that are 1920x808 are also called 1080p) Both 2.5K and 1440p are in sync with standard conventions. Anything else breaks it.

[PatrickFaith]

But here's a question: what should this resolution be named? In my opinion, "2560" sounds way better than "1440p". Also, because of varying aspect ratios, it might be common to see 2560x1100 trailers, for example.

I too have a 2556x1440 for color correction (NEC PA271) ... you can get them now for around $1,300 btw. The picture is so "clean" it's real different then normal 1080p (you see a lot of production errors when you want in color correction monitors).

So ... for the term I use is "2.5K" (i'm not sure many people have seen how clean color correction monitors are ... ). For your time lapse shots (specially night ... were people really don't ever see the colors) ... watching on 2.5k would be awesome.

[Maxi Claudio]

I like 2.5k

[Kyle Gentz]

"25 Large"

+1 for 25 Large

[Hrvoje Simic]

"2.5K" would make the most sense with 2K and 4K in mind. Although it would require additional explanations.
"2560" leads to HP EliteBook laptop model (2560p), and with additional suffix "p" leading to new online noise, and breaks letter naming convention above 1080p;
"1440p" although already used online occasionally and unofficially, can cause more confusion, potentially sounding inferior to 2K and breaking letter naming convention above 1080p.

Typical X by Y is a no-brainer for now, and wouldn't require explanations and cause confusion.

The thing is...standardizing new resolution for video content distribution in this particular case, based on current display resolutions...may easily become shooting a moving target.

[Mitch Gross]

How about

"Phantom Flex native resolution"

;-D

(Please don't get mad, it's just a joke!)

[Stivan Widick]

2.5K works with existing standards for footage measured horizontally. 4K is 4096. 5K is 5120. Half that, 2560, is 2.5K. I like this.

[Tom Lowe]

How about

"Phantom Flex native resolution"

;-D

(Please don't get mad, it's just a joke!)

This would be great, except for the fact that you need to factor in the necessary Bayer-pattern downsample for the Flex ;)

[Stuart English]

The official term is "WQHD". But 2.5K works and by 16:9 HD conventions - 1440p. (Remember, most movies that are 1920x808 are also called 1080p) Both 2.5K and 1440p are in sync with standard conventions. Anything else breaks it.

Arggg ... marketing :-)

WQHD is just stupid as it is not a wider format than QHD - which is 3840 x 2160, it's just a bigger version of HD...

...but I'm sure the pictures do look great.

[Subhadip Sen]

Arggg ... marketing :-)

WQHD is just stupid as it is not a wider format than QHD - which is 3840 x 2160, it's just a bigger version of HD...

3840 x 2160 is actually QFHD.

HD = 1280 x 720
WQHD = 2560 x 1440 (I don't understand the need for the W...)
FHD = 1920 x 1080
QFHD = 3840 x 2160

I know it's all very silly and confusing, but that's how it is... QFHD is already being colloquialized to QHD. (much more sensible) They should have named 720p sHD (semi-HD) or something, 1080p is fine being just HD.

[Stuart English]

3840 x 2160 is actually QFHD.

HD = 1280 x 720
WQHD = 2560 x 1440 (I don't understand the need for the W...)
FHD = 1920 x 1080
QFHD = 3840 x 2160

I know it's all very silly and confusing, but that's how it is... QFHD is already being colloquialized to QHD. (much more sensible) They should have named 720p sHD (semi-HD) or something, 1080p is fine being just HD.

OK that make sense now, but as QFHD is being collapsed to QHD it all falls apart... "full high definition" v's "high definition" never made sense either.. I guess that's the problem when you keep moving in incremental steps...

[Filip Vandoorne]

some call it QHD - see Samsung at CES http://www.engadget.com/2012/01/05/samsungs-bringing-three-new-displays-to-ces-commence-throwing/

you could say that its 4 time a 720 HD signal which is 1280x720 -- QHD = 2560x1440
720p is also called HD... marketing pixels are always bigger...

the samsung display is already available here as LS27A850DS, nice panel, matte finish of display and casing,
unlike the Apple 27" imac, which is also QHD, but too glossy for me personally.

[Jeff Kilgroe]

Around here, we call it 2.5K... or "deuce and a half". Not everyone thinks of it as 30" monitor resolution, as most new 2560-pixel wide displays are not 30" displays. Seems the 2560x1440 16:9 format is currently the preferred size and it comes mostly in 27" size, but also in 24" 26" and 32", depending on who makes the panels. It's starting to show up in high-DPI smaller displays on compact notebook or ultrabook PC's too.

All the XGA, WXGA, FHD, QFHD, WQHD, etc.. naming conventions are pretty stupid, IMO. On some levels they make sense, but not all manufacturers use them or the same terms to identify the same resolutions. There are multiple standards organizations who claim to be the authority -- the originator of these conventions (IBM) has long since ducked out of the loop. Most of these become confusing to consumers who don't track which letters correspond to which numbers. Right now we have display makers trying to name their "4K" panels different things. For 3840x2160 I'm seeing it called "4K", "QFHD", "QHD" and "SHD" all depending on who is making the display and what their marketing department wants to call it. Personally, I don't think it's right to call a 3840 pixel wide display "4K" and the rest are just confusing... To me, QuadHD or QHD makes the most sense, but there's still a handful of people that want that "F" in there because it's not just "Quad HD" it is "4 x *FULL HD*", which "FULL HD" and "FULL HD 3D" have been huge marketing buzz-words for some companies <cough> Panasonic </cough> for the past couple years.

[Petr Dvorak]

Whatever you name it I dont care. Just make tons of it. It so mesmerizing ...

[Jun-Dai]

WTFHD?

[Gavin Greenwalt]

HD = 1280
FHD = 1920
WQHD = 2560
QFHD = 3840

Actually Apple's 30" isn't any of the above it's WQXGA (Wide Quad XGA).

The fact that people call FHD "HD" and QFHD "QHD" isn't the naming convention's fault. It's the people who are misnaming things. I don't understand why "W" was introduced though for QHD. 2560 should just be QHD.

[Felix K.]

2,5k makes sense. I still find it stupid to talk about 4k but 1080p...