All else being equal then upscaled 720 will always be softer than 1080. This may be a trade you are willing to make fir whatever reason but you cannot claim it is invisible. "just fine" is dependent on who's defining "fine".
Sure, technically. But all things are rarely equal. And most people would not be able to notice the difference under real world viewing conditions.
Quote:
You will find that all 1080 HDTV displays have the same pixel density at the 30 degree HVA distance...namely 1 pixel per degree which is the rough threshold of human visual acuity for 20/20 vision. It's part of the HDTV spec.
I know that all LCD panels do not have the same pixel density. I don't understand the other parts you are talking about. Can you provide a link to the HDTV spec that explains it further.
No one producing high quality is skimping by going 1080 (instead of 2048) to save bits.
Its all a matter of perspective.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nht
Resolution isn't the most important aspect of PQ but no one producing high quality is skimping by going 720p to save bits. Typically they'll choose a medium without as much size constraints.
I know that all LCD panels do not have the same pixel density. I don't understand the other parts you are talking about. Can you provide a link to the HDTV spec that explains it further.
Hmm...don't see a link for the ATSC spec. Here are the old NHK white paper that discuss the 30 degrees HVA that drove the 1080 number.
I'm sure you are right. I'm sure it was probably a minimum in the original spec. But there is no law that says manufacturers have to follow that stuff to the letter.
There is a reason why Dynex is selling 40" TV's for $480 while Sony's 40" TV's are $1000+. You see the difference in the quality.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nht
Hmm...don't see a link for the ATSC spec. Here are the old NHK white paper that discuss the 30 degrees HVA that drove the 1080 number.
They don't appear the be the same paper I read a while back but...ah...still my first week with Bing...my googlefu works poorly at the moment.
But keep in mind that the acuity of human vision varies greatly between people. A non-insignificant percentage of the population has better than 20/20 vision. For some of these people, 720 vs 1080 is quite noticeable at typical viewing distances.
Sometimes we get lost in bickering about the percentage of people for which this is true, or the significance of perceived differences. For most people though, this is largely irrelevant. It only really matters if they personally can see the difference... or at least if they think they can see the difference.
Don't get me wrong there certainly is a qualitative difference between 720 and 1080.
My point is that that difference so narrow. That most people will choose to stream 720 than make the effort needed to obtain 1080 on a disc.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dfiler
Sometimes we get lost in bickering about the percentage of people for which this is true, or the significance of perceived differences. For most people though, this is largely irrelevant. It only really matters if they personally can see the difference... or at least if they think they can see the difference.
Sure but my tvs all do 1:1 pixel mapping so no overscans. ,
I don't bother running VE any more and frankly I watch a lot of SD netflix. I know for me convenience trumps PQ 99% of the time. I buy BR with digital copy/DVD and typically watch the digital copy or the ripped DVD even on the HDTV because that's what happens to be in iTunes.
But I like owning the blu-ray because I can see the diff between current streamed hd (cable, Netflix, whatever) and blu-ray.
Resolution isn't the most important aspect of PQ but no one producing high quality is skimping by going 720p to save bits. Typically they'll choose a medium without as much size constraints.
I don't think the streaming service buz will compensate 1080p over the 720p when capable, since it is bigger marketing gimmick. It is more likely to compensate on bit rate for most distribution, unless, you're using neflix or appleTV with much compensated contents, however, 1080p HDX contents from VuDu looks promising as potential streaming model. Anyone can test it for free on their trailer streaming. The minimum requirement to stream 1080p HDX file from Vudu is 4.5Mbps and it includes HD video and HD 5.1 audio.
I was not intending to claim 720p is better than 1080p for all materials, but we do have about 5 to 10% of released titles on bluray worthy of 1080p contents and I do appreciate and value the efforts of those titles on bluray and streaming. As I have noted in the prior post, one of the critical quality attribute of PQ is how it's mastered and transferred on to a disk. One of the living example is the case of " The Element". The initial release was 1080p garbage compared to the remastered release version.
I just watched Avatar in 3D and was playing around the files in 480p vs. 720p vs. 1080p, and 1080p did look better than 480p but not much noticeable with 720p file I've created as MPEG4 from the bluray disk. My assessment may change once the 4K displays are available on 4k contents, but my current assessment with 720p vs. 1080p contents with sufficient bit rate does not seem to produce noticeable differences with 1080p vs. 720p. The 720p content was 6GB and the 1080p versoon was 12GB file with 5.1 audio generated in DVDFab on 67" 1080p screen sitting from 10-12 ft away.
They might choose to, but at the moment they don't.
It depends on how you look at it though. If you compare the total streamed content available: Youtube, Netflix, mainstream cable TV etc and compare it to content viewed on a physical disc, streaming vastly outnumbers it.
Streaming comes up short vs DVD in on-demand content right now but it varies a lot by region and makes the same revenue as Blu-Ray, slightly more actually.
According to an article in USA Today, consumers are even still buying DVDs to play on their Blu-Ray players:
Nothing says consumers are happy with low quality content more than buying SD content even when they own a Blu-Ray player. The main reason given is price, the same issue raised about VOD. Is 1080p worth spending $15 more to get?
As the following article points out, there are a few delivery types to consider and they won't all disappear for one method, there's just a revenue shift:
However, "on-demand viewing of video content, whether by transaction or subscription, is taking hold".
I really think the buy vs rent decision is a very important factor. Naturally the ideal scenario is that everyone gets access to desired content at an affordable price, at the highest quality and in the most convenient way. Distribution methods like products have areas of emphasis, which act as selling points over the others and the response differs from person to person.
We have the same thing with audio and how people can absolutely tell 256k AAC from CD-quality to the point where they will never buy online until iTunes offers uncompressed. It's not a bad thing by any means to prefer the highest quality but it's clear from iTunes being the #1 music retailer now, there has been a shift in emphasis from quality to choice and convenience.
Culture has changed in the same time towards a more disposable nature. It's evident in everything from relationships, to products, to celebrity, to food. People don't want to wait for the season release of Glee on Blu-Ray to watch it in the quality the producer intended, they want it now so they can talk with their work colleagues about how the lives of teenagers in high-school described through song may or may not have any correlation to what's going on in their life.
This societal change has implications for the rent vs buy decision and I think one of the smartest decisions Apple made with the ATV was to go streaming-only. The not-so-smart decision was not having enough content to rent at a good price. But still, I consider there to be a clear line between distribution methods that I would abbreviate in the following way:
Streaming for rental, Blu-Ray for ownership.
The word rental I'd use in this context to mean any kind of temporary viewing including linear TV as you rent the service as a whole.
But now you have to consider how much content do you want to own? How many movies have you seen that deserve the accolade of ownership and out of those movies that you do own, how many have you watched or are likely to watch more than 3 times? Of course like with insurance, it's better to have it and not need it than otherwise but for the majority of the consumed content, streaming will suffice. Rather than back Blu-Ray until it gets good, it would be better pushing providers to make streaming better and more accessible. Backing services like Steam has done this to the games industry.
But now you have to consider how much content do you want to own? How many movies have you seen that deserve the accolade of ownership and out of those movies that you do own, how many have you watched or are likely to watch more than 3 times? Of course like with insurance, it's better to have it and not need it than otherwise but for the majority of the consumed content, streaming will suffice. Rather than back Blu-Ray until it gets good, it would be better pushing providers to make streaming better and more accessible. Backing services like Steam has done this to the games industry.
The how much do you want to own dilemma is evolving as the ease of acquiring video changes. It used to be you had to have a movie collection if you wanted to be able to select what to watch on any given night. This was especially true back when cable systems had fewer channels.
Streaming has changed this motivation. No longer when you like a movie and want to share it with friends or family in the future, do you have to own that movie. Nor do you need shelves full of movies just to have a chance of having that seems interesting for the current mood.
Combine this with rarity of repeated viewing, and it seems obvious that movie ownership will be on the decline. Unlike music, we tend not to watch things repeatedly. On the occasions that we do, streaming via a subscription or rental might still be a better option.
My prediction is that the era of widespread movie collecting will be killed by streaming. Serious movie lovers will still collect, but it will be collecting for the sake of collecting. There are already increasing reports of this across the web. More and more people are related stories about how they used to buy DVDs but don't buy blu-ray or downloads.
My prediction is that the era of widespread movie collecting will be killed by streaming. Serious movie lovers will still collect, but it will be collecting for the sake of collecting. There are already increasing reports of this across the web. More and more people are related stories about how they used to buy DVDs but don't buy blu-ray or downloads.
I agree. It seems purchasing movies on a disc has become thing of the past for iTune generation. I guess new generation requires new market model.
Most kids don't even talk on the phone anymore. Texting is much preferred. Things are changing fast and business models have to evolve with younger generation lifestyle.
How on earth did you come to that conclusion? By what standard are you measuring? Of what relevance would whether or not a film is animated be?
Beats me. I am just an avid consumer. I am not an expert and is based my own experience in the course of setting my home streaming solution. As far as playing around with encoding HDDVD/BD titles for streaming needs for my NAS, I have tried to encode the material in combination of different bit rate & resolution contents on my HTPC. At my optimal encoding settings, most of the titles are indifferent between 720p vs. 1080p, except for few known tier 0 titles.
For other questions you may have, you can easily find the answer via google.
Then why are you stating such things as if they are facts?
Quote:
Originally Posted by bitemymac
For other questions you may have, you can easily find the answer via google.
There is no answers for why only 5% of films are worthy of being 1080p because it simply isn't true. One could say they're not willing to pay extra for 1080p if given the choice, but never is there a negligible difference between a 720p and 1080p encode if the film was properly mastered. If you're not seeing a difference then you're either working with a poor master from the start, not increasing the bitrate to take advantage of the added resolution, sitting too far from your television or you have a poor HDTV.
Then why are you stating such things as if they are facts?
There is no answers for why only 5% of films are worthy of being 1080p because it simply isn't true. One could say they're not willing to pay extra for 1080p if given the choice, but never is there a negligible difference between a 720p and 1080p encode if the film was properly mastered. If you're not seeing a difference then you're either working with a poor master from the start, not increasing the bitrate to take advantage of the added resolution, sitting too far from your television or you have a poor HDTV.
For the things you are not aware, that does not make you an expert to disqualify other's opinion. Do some digging for yourself for your own answers. I would start from AVSforum/Blu-ray Software and there should be thread listing on the video rating. If you really want to know, then try encoding your own samples and see what you get. Take couple of titles from each tiers list and find out for yourself.
Most of my own encoding methods and testing was directly compared to the HDDVD/BD discs. Most BD titles were ripped as ".m2ts" file at different resolution versions for testing.
For the things you are not aware, that does not make you an expert to disqualify other's opinion. Do some digging for yourself for your own answers. I would start from AVSforum/Blu-ray Software and there should be thread listing on the video rating. If you really want to know, then try encoding your own samples and see what you get. Take couple of titles from each tiers list and find out for yourself.
Most of my own encoding methods and testing was directly compared to the HDDVD/BD discs. Most BD titles were ripped as ".m2ts" file at different resolution versions for testing.
I'm fully aware of AVSForum's picture quality tier thread. But that has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not any film is not "worthy" of a 1080p encode. It also has nothing to do with whether or not their is a perceivable difference between 720p and 1080p, which there is. The films that score high on that thread are those which are better eye candy than others; just because "Secretariat" doesn't have CGI dragons does not mean the picture doesn't benefit from a higher resolution and bitrate. The films that score low are those which were not shot well or mastered well, the latter of which can be corrected if the studio chooses to do so; in either case only older catalog titles can suffer this fate. And the films in the middle are largely those which don't have that sharp-as-a-tack picture quality, but that doesn't mean they'd look the same at 720p as they do 1080p.
Blu-Ray, and by extension 1080p accompanied by a high bitrate, allows films to be viewed at home as best they possibly can; for some films that is saying more than others, due to the content or age of the film. But the idea that only 5% of films are "worthy" of 1080p is silly. You don't go through your iPhoto library and downsave your family photos at half the size of your landscape photos. You don't change the setting on your camera to 480p when recording your kids birthday party. You don't change the resolution of your xbox for non-action games. And you don't lower your computer monitor's resolution based on activities. A higher resolution is sharper and more detailed regardless of the content it's displaying.
Comments
All else being equal then upscaled 720 will always be softer than 1080. This may be a trade you are willing to make fir whatever reason but you cannot claim it is invisible. "just fine" is dependent on who's defining "fine".
Sure, technically. But all things are rarely equal. And most people would not be able to notice the difference under real world viewing conditions.
You will find that all 1080 HDTV displays have the same pixel density at the 30 degree HVA distance...namely 1 pixel per degree which is the rough threshold of human visual acuity for 20/20 vision. It's part of the HDTV spec.
I know that all LCD panels do not have the same pixel density. I don't understand the other parts you are talking about. Can you provide a link to the HDTV spec that explains it further.
Its all a matter of perspective.
Resolution isn't the most important aspect of PQ but no one producing high quality is skimping by going 720p to save bits. Typically they'll choose a medium without as much size constraints.
I know that all LCD panels do not have the same pixel density. I don't understand the other parts you are talking about. Can you provide a link to the HDTV spec that explains it further.
Hmm...don't see a link for the ATSC spec. Here are the old NHK white paper that discuss the 30 degrees HVA that drove the 1080 number.
http://www.nhk.or.jp/digital/en/tech...pdf/02_1_1.pdf
http://vrsj.ime.cmc.osaka-u.ac.jp/ic...pers/91117.pdf
They don't appear the be the same paper I read a while back but...ah...still my first week with Bing...my googlefu works poorly at the moment.
There is a reason why Dynex is selling 40" TV's for $480 while Sony's 40" TV's are $1000+. You see the difference in the quality.
Hmm...don't see a link for the ATSC spec. Here are the old NHK white paper that discuss the 30 degrees HVA that drove the 1080 number.
They don't appear the be the same paper I read a while back but...ah...still my first week with Bing...my googlefu works poorly at the moment.
But keep in mind that the acuity of human vision varies greatly between people. A non-insignificant percentage of the population has better than 20/20 vision. For some of these people, 720 vs 1080 is quite noticeable at typical viewing distances.
Sometimes we get lost in bickering about the percentage of people for which this is true, or the significance of perceived differences. For most people though, this is largely irrelevant. It only really matters if they personally can see the difference... or at least if they think they can see the difference.
My point is that that difference so narrow. That most people will choose to stream 720 than make the effort needed to obtain 1080 on a disc.
Sometimes we get lost in bickering about the percentage of people for which this is true, or the significance of perceived differences. For most people though, this is largely irrelevant. It only really matters if they personally can see the difference... or at least if they think they can see the difference.
My point is that that difference so narrow. That most people will choose to stream 720 than make the effort needed to obtain 1080 on a disc.
They might choose to, but at the moment they don't.
Sure but my tvs all do 1:1 pixel mapping so no overscans. ,
I don't bother running VE any more and frankly I watch a lot of SD netflix. I know for me convenience trumps PQ 99% of the time. I buy BR with digital copy/DVD and typically watch the digital copy or the ripped DVD even on the HDTV because that's what happens to be in iTunes.
But I like owning the blu-ray because I can see the diff between current streamed hd (cable, Netflix, whatever) and blu-ray.
Resolution isn't the most important aspect of PQ but no one producing high quality is skimping by going 720p to save bits. Typically they'll choose a medium without as much size constraints.
I don't think the streaming service buz will compensate 1080p over the 720p when capable, since it is bigger marketing gimmick. It is more likely to compensate on bit rate for most distribution, unless, you're using neflix or appleTV with much compensated contents, however, 1080p HDX contents from VuDu looks promising as potential streaming model. Anyone can test it for free on their trailer streaming. The minimum requirement to stream 1080p HDX file from Vudu is 4.5Mbps and it includes HD video and HD 5.1 audio.
I was not intending to claim 720p is better than 1080p for all materials, but we do have about 5 to 10% of released titles on bluray worthy of 1080p contents and I do appreciate and value the efforts of those titles on bluray and streaming. As I have noted in the prior post, one of the critical quality attribute of PQ is how it's mastered and transferred on to a disk. One of the living example is the case of " The Element". The initial release was 1080p garbage compared to the remastered release version.
I just watched Avatar in 3D and was playing around the files in 480p vs. 720p vs. 1080p, and 1080p did look better than 480p but not much noticeable with 720p file I've created as MPEG4 from the bluray disk. My assessment may change once the 4K displays are available on 4k contents, but my current assessment with 720p vs. 1080p contents with sufficient bit rate does not seem to produce noticeable differences with 1080p vs. 720p. The 720p content was 6GB and the 1080p versoon was 12GB file with 5.1 audio generated in DVDFab on 67" 1080p screen sitting from 10-12 ft away.
You might as well be saying the sky is green.
They might choose to, but at the moment they don't.
It depends on how you look at it though. If you compare the total streamed content available: Youtube, Netflix, mainstream cable TV etc and compare it to content viewed on a physical disc, streaming vastly outnumbers it.
Streaming comes up short vs DVD in on-demand content right now but it varies a lot by region and makes the same revenue as Blu-Ray, slightly more actually.
According to an article in USA Today, consumers are even still buying DVDs to play on their Blu-Ray players:
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/product...ure06_ST_N.htm
Nothing says consumers are happy with low quality content more than buying SD content even when they own a Blu-Ray player. The main reason given is price, the same issue raised about VOD. Is 1080p worth spending $15 more to get?
As the following article points out, there are a few delivery types to consider and they won't all disappear for one method, there's just a revenue shift:
http://www.billingworld.com/news/201...nd-dvd-sa.aspx
However, "on-demand viewing of video content, whether by transaction or subscription, is taking hold".
I really think the buy vs rent decision is a very important factor. Naturally the ideal scenario is that everyone gets access to desired content at an affordable price, at the highest quality and in the most convenient way. Distribution methods like products have areas of emphasis, which act as selling points over the others and the response differs from person to person.
We have the same thing with audio and how people can absolutely tell 256k AAC from CD-quality to the point where they will never buy online until iTunes offers uncompressed. It's not a bad thing by any means to prefer the highest quality but it's clear from iTunes being the #1 music retailer now, there has been a shift in emphasis from quality to choice and convenience.
Culture has changed in the same time towards a more disposable nature. It's evident in everything from relationships, to products, to celebrity, to food. People don't want to wait for the season release of Glee on Blu-Ray to watch it in the quality the producer intended, they want it now so they can talk with their work colleagues about how the lives of teenagers in high-school described through song may or may not have any correlation to what's going on in their life.
This societal change has implications for the rent vs buy decision and I think one of the smartest decisions Apple made with the ATV was to go streaming-only. The not-so-smart decision was not having enough content to rent at a good price. But still, I consider there to be a clear line between distribution methods that I would abbreviate in the following way:
Streaming for rental, Blu-Ray for ownership.
The word rental I'd use in this context to mean any kind of temporary viewing including linear TV as you rent the service as a whole.
But now you have to consider how much content do you want to own? How many movies have you seen that deserve the accolade of ownership and out of those movies that you do own, how many have you watched or are likely to watch more than 3 times? Of course like with insurance, it's better to have it and not need it than otherwise but for the majority of the consumed content, streaming will suffice. Rather than back Blu-Ray until it gets good, it would be better pushing providers to make streaming better and more accessible. Backing services like Steam has done this to the games industry.
But now you have to consider how much content do you want to own? How many movies have you seen that deserve the accolade of ownership and out of those movies that you do own, how many have you watched or are likely to watch more than 3 times? Of course like with insurance, it's better to have it and not need it than otherwise but for the majority of the consumed content, streaming will suffice. Rather than back Blu-Ray until it gets good, it would be better pushing providers to make streaming better and more accessible. Backing services like Steam has done this to the games industry.
The how much do you want to own dilemma is evolving as the ease of acquiring video changes. It used to be you had to have a movie collection if you wanted to be able to select what to watch on any given night. This was especially true back when cable systems had fewer channels.
Streaming has changed this motivation. No longer when you like a movie and want to share it with friends or family in the future, do you have to own that movie. Nor do you need shelves full of movies just to have a chance of having that seems interesting for the current mood.
Combine this with rarity of repeated viewing, and it seems obvious that movie ownership will be on the decline. Unlike music, we tend not to watch things repeatedly. On the occasions that we do, streaming via a subscription or rental might still be a better option.
My prediction is that the era of widespread movie collecting will be killed by streaming. Serious movie lovers will still collect, but it will be collecting for the sake of collecting. There are already increasing reports of this across the web. More and more people are related stories about how they used to buy DVDs but don't buy blu-ray or downloads.
Only 5 to 10 percent of blu-ray are worthy of 1080p?
You might as well be saying the sky is green.
You sound surprised. Now, remove animation films from the list and you'll get less than 5% worthy of 1080p.
You sound surprised. Now, remove animation films from the list and you'll get less than 5% worthy of 1080p.
How on earth did you come to that conclusion? By what standard are you measuring? Of what relevance would whether or not a film is animated be?
My prediction is that the era of widespread movie collecting will be killed by streaming. Serious movie lovers will still collect, but it will be collecting for the sake of collecting. There are already increasing reports of this across the web. More and more people are related stories about how they used to buy DVDs but don't buy blu-ray or downloads.
I agree. It seems purchasing movies on a disc has become thing of the past for iTune generation. I guess new generation requires new market model.
Most kids don't even talk on the phone anymore. Texting is much preferred. Things are changing fast and business models have to evolve with younger generation lifestyle.
How on earth did you come to that conclusion? By what standard are you measuring? Of what relevance would whether or not a film is animated be?
Beats me. I am just an avid consumer. I am not an expert and is based my own experience in the course of setting my home streaming solution. As far as playing around with encoding HDDVD/BD titles for streaming needs for my NAS, I have tried to encode the material in combination of different bit rate & resolution contents on my HTPC. At my optimal encoding settings, most of the titles are indifferent between 720p vs. 1080p, except for few known tier 0 titles.
For other questions you may have, you can easily find the answer via google.
Beats me.
Then why are you stating such things as if they are facts?
For other questions you may have, you can easily find the answer via google.
There is no answers for why only 5% of films are worthy of being 1080p because it simply isn't true. One could say they're not willing to pay extra for 1080p if given the choice, but never is there a negligible difference between a 720p and 1080p encode if the film was properly mastered. If you're not seeing a difference then you're either working with a poor master from the start, not increasing the bitrate to take advantage of the added resolution, sitting too far from your television or you have a poor HDTV.
Then why are you stating such things as if they are facts?
There is no answers for why only 5% of films are worthy of being 1080p because it simply isn't true. One could say they're not willing to pay extra for 1080p if given the choice, but never is there a negligible difference between a 720p and 1080p encode if the film was properly mastered. If you're not seeing a difference then you're either working with a poor master from the start, not increasing the bitrate to take advantage of the added resolution, sitting too far from your television or you have a poor HDTV.
For the things you are not aware, that does not make you an expert to disqualify other's opinion. Do some digging for yourself for your own answers. I would start from AVSforum/Blu-ray Software and there should be thread listing on the video rating. If you really want to know, then try encoding your own samples and see what you get. Take couple of titles from each tiers list and find out for yourself.
Most of my own encoding methods and testing was directly compared to the HDDVD/BD discs. Most BD titles were ripped as ".m2ts" file at different resolution versions for testing.
For the things you are not aware, that does not make you an expert to disqualify other's opinion. Do some digging for yourself for your own answers. I would start from AVSforum/Blu-ray Software and there should be thread listing on the video rating. If you really want to know, then try encoding your own samples and see what you get. Take couple of titles from each tiers list and find out for yourself.
Most of my own encoding methods and testing was directly compared to the HDDVD/BD discs. Most BD titles were ripped as ".m2ts" file at different resolution versions for testing.
I'm fully aware of AVSForum's picture quality tier thread. But that has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not any film is not "worthy" of a 1080p encode. It also has nothing to do with whether or not their is a perceivable difference between 720p and 1080p, which there is. The films that score high on that thread are those which are better eye candy than others; just because "Secretariat" doesn't have CGI dragons does not mean the picture doesn't benefit from a higher resolution and bitrate. The films that score low are those which were not shot well or mastered well, the latter of which can be corrected if the studio chooses to do so; in either case only older catalog titles can suffer this fate. And the films in the middle are largely those which don't have that sharp-as-a-tack picture quality, but that doesn't mean they'd look the same at 720p as they do 1080p.
Blu-Ray, and by extension 1080p accompanied by a high bitrate, allows films to be viewed at home as best they possibly can; for some films that is saying more than others, due to the content or age of the film. But the idea that only 5% of films are "worthy" of 1080p is silly. You don't go through your iPhoto library and downsave your family photos at half the size of your landscape photos. You don't change the setting on your camera to 480p when recording your kids birthday party. You don't change the resolution of your xbox for non-action games. And you don't lower your computer monitor's resolution based on activities. A higher resolution is sharper and more detailed regardless of the content it's displaying.
A higher resolution is sharper and more detailed regardless of the content it's displaying.
Nope.
Nope.