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.

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.