Originally Posted by SolipsismX
His argument is that a 4:3 resolution would bastardized the term and be dishonest. I pointed out a known HD resolution that is 4:3. The pixel dimensions are irrelevant at this point but backs up my argument since 1440x1080 would not be represented pixel for pixel on a 16:9 HD display. No matter how you slice it high definition is not a measure of the aspect ratio. Of course, we now have people who say 720p isn't or wasn't HD.
PS: If being well above 1920x1080 isn't HD then is having a wider than 16:9 aspect ratio not widescreen because it's not common on TVs?
Exactly. And the term HD predates atsc broadcasts in 16:9.
As bothersome as it is to some people, there is no global definition task force that can dictate the meaning of words.
In my book, it isn't a bastardization to call the new iPad "HD". It can display all pixels from a 1080 source. If this wasn't a good enough definition, most blu-rays wouldn't be HD. After all, many movies are not 16:9.
Attempting to narrowly define HD as exactly 16:9 is a pointless and counterproductive neuroses.