2009 has just started, and yes – it is the year of video telephony, at least as far as I can tell. I guess the main reason for this is because video quality has become decent with industry work over the past two years, touting it as “High Definition”.
High Definition has many different definitions: it’s 1080p (1920×1080) for sure. It’s also 720p (1280×720). At times, 480p is considered HD as well (HTC Touch HD has 480×800 resolution). The term is being overused for so many things.
I prefer just taking Sagee’s perception regarding HD, stating that it is the best available resolution at a given point in time.
Number of pixels in different resolutions
I know people who don’t see the need for 1080p – they can’t see the difference from 720p. And now, there’s this TRUEDEF thing that does 4096×2048 resolution. Four times the pixels as 1080p. Hmm.
As for the technical differences of the video coding technologies of TRUEDEF from HD, I’ll leave that to others who are more suited to deal with them than I am.
Do we really need this kind of resolution? Isn’t 1080p enough?
I’d rather go for 3D than invest time and money into more pixels.
Comments and trackbacks
1. Mats Perjons | January 9th, 2009 at 3:18 pm
Tsahi,
Thanks for your comment on the gipscorp.com/blog
> It seems we’re talking about similar things
Very much so. Great post on your side.
It is also interesting that you sometimes connect frame rate with the HD term, although HD is from the beginning a resolution definition. Then it is a question if you can call a solution that provides 1 frame/s with 960×720 resolution a HD solution?
Mats
2. Tsahi Levent-Levi | January 9th, 2009 at 3:35 pm
Mats,
That’s a good point you’re making about frame rate. The way I see it, doing less than 30 frames per second can’t be slated as HD for video.
HD is usually touted as anything from 720p and above in screen resolutions, and 30 or 60 frames per second.
Tsahi
Trackback this post | Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed