Why is the 20" Cinema Display not HD?

Posted:
in Current Mac Hardware edited January 2014
I don't quite get the whole HD thing. I am the proud owner of a 20" cinema display, but don't quite understand why it is not HD compatible - it has a DVI input, and shows over 720 line, so what is the deal?



Any help explaining this whole resolution thing much appreciated!

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 17
    1080p resolution is 1920x1080 and your 20" max resolution is 1680x1050.



    Check this.
  • Reply 2 of 17
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Londor

    1080p resolution is 1920x1080 and your 20" max resolution is 1680x1050.



    Check this.




    Ok, but 720p is also an HD standard right? And I can do well over 720 vertical pixels. Does it only count if it supports exactly 720 or something?!
  • Reply 3 of 17
    For a monitor to be considered HD has to be able to display all the HD standards. So a HD monitor has to have at least a 1920x1080 resolution.



    You can watch 480p and 720p content in your 20" but 1080p content will not fit on your screen.
  • Reply 4 of 17
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Londor

    For a monitor to be considered HD has to be able to display all the HD standards. So a HD monitor has to have at least a 1920x1080 resolution.



    You can watch 480p and 720p content in your 20" but 1080p content will not fit on your screen.




    Ah, ok. I have seen TVs which claim to be HD compatible even though they have a lower resolution than my monitor. Is this misleading, or is it acceptable for TVs which display 720 to claim to be HD compatible? \
  • Reply 5 of 17
    This has a good explanation of HD.



    http://www.slate.com/id/2126799/?nav=tap3
  • Reply 6 of 17
    a_greera_greer Posts: 4,594member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by G_Warren

    Ah, ok. I have seen TVs which claim to be HD compatible even though they have a lower resolution than my monitor. Is this misleading, or is it acceptable for TVs which display 720 to claim to be HD compatible? \



    AH HD capable != HD compatible ... Capable in most cases means it can display at least one of the standard HD resolutions, compatible usualy means it meets the spec and plays 1080/720/480p/480i
  • Reply 7 of 17
    Quote:

    Originally posted by a_greer

    AH HD capable != HD compatible ... Capable in most cases means it can display at least one of the standard HD resolutions, compatible usualy means it meets the spec and plays 1080/720/480p/480i



    Ah, ok, so Apple do not claim that the 20" is HD as it cannot quite do 1080 lines, whereas the 23" can. That right? Thanks for the help
  • Reply 8 of 17
    webmailwebmail Posts: 639member
    All Apple Displays really aren't any good for HD. Not a single one supports HDCP which you are going to need to watch HD video from most cable/dish providers.
  • Reply 9 of 17
    plasmaplasma Posts: 74member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Londor

    For a monitor to be considered HD has to be able to display all the HD standards. So a HD monitor has to have at least a 1920x1080 resolution.



    You can watch 480p and 720p content in your 20" but 1080p content will not fit on your screen.






    that is not correct. 720p (1280x720 progressive) is a true HD format. unless apple has their own HD standards there must be some other explanation to why apple did not label the 20" HD.
  • Reply 10 of 17
    dfilerdfiler Posts: 3,420member
    Normally, when a device is advertised as HD capable, compliant, or compatible, it means you can feed it an HD signal. If a device is advertised as HD resolution, this only means that it boasts a lot of pixels.



    HD TVs are rarely an exact 720p or 1080i resolution. Instead, they simply scale input to the display's native resolution. True high-end devices can display, pixel for pixel, an HD signal, but most displays aren't capable of this.



    Computer monitors only sometimes have the neccessary circuitry to receive and scale (if neccessary) a true HD signal... even if they are high resolution.
  • Reply 11 of 17
    xoolxool Posts: 2,460member
    I wish Apple would update the 20" display with full HD support. However, I doubt the added cost to switch to 1080 vertical resolution will be ok for most users. Dell is already nipping at Apple's heels for 1680x1050, and switching to 1080 screens will likely push Apple's prices up another $100.



    Anyone else agree?
  • Reply 12 of 17
    dfilerdfiler Posts: 3,420member
    Plus, hollywood doesn't want you to be able to throw raw HD back and forth between devices. The way they're attacking this is to require encryption on all HD outputs.



    Thus, an HD display will need to have additional circuitry to deal with this unless it is attached, via something like DVI, to a computer. If this is the case then, simple scaling doesn't perceivably degrade the picture and it doesn't matter much if the display isn't exactly 720p or 1080i.



    I suspect that HD technology will be in great flux for many years as hollywood tries to force manufactureres to put copy prevention technology in every product. An HD monitor bought today could very easily be made obsolete.



    Example: I recently had an electrical engineer remove a capacitor and inductor from my new DVD player so that it could upscale everything into 1080i. Yep, hollywood forces manufacturers to actually put a blurrification circuit in there. Only after these components were removed was I able to output HD over component cables. Arrrr.

  • Reply 13 of 17
    smalmsmalm Posts: 655member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Xool

    I wish Apple would update the 20" display with full HD support. However, I doubt the added cost to switch to 1080 vertical resolution will be ok for most users. Dell is already nipping at Apple's heels for 1680x1050, and switching to 1080 screens will likely push Apple's prices up another $100.



    Anyone else agree?




    No. Dell is expesive in Europe.



    BTW most people over 40 don't like so high resolutions - 100 dpi is already to much.

    And so with 40 I bought a 96dpi display - with 44 I bought a 86dpi display

    Maybe the next needs to be 76dpi
  • Reply 14 of 17
    dfilerdfiler Posts: 3,420member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by smalM

    BTW most people over 40 don't like so high resolutions



    To be perfectly accurate, they don't like reading small text and clicking on small targets. A 1000 DPI display would be perfectly fine as long as the interface scaled so things remained a reasonable size.



    But you're right, with today's OS a higher DPI would actually be undesirable for the majority of users. A lot of people with imperfect vision prefer the 14" iBook to any of the power books simply because they can read text better with the lower DPI.
  • Reply 15 of 17
    chuckerchucker Posts: 5,089member
    Technically, though, a higher dpi (combined with a higher-scaled GUI) would be much better especially for such people. It would create less aliasing, thus require less anti-aliasing, thus be less blurry and easier on the eye.
  • Reply 16 of 17
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Chucker

    Technically, though, a higher dpi (combined with a higher-scaled GUI) would be much better especially for such people. It would create less aliasing, thus require less anti-aliasing, thus be less blurry and easier on the eye.



    Yeah, except most UIs hardcode the size of a lot of things in terms of pixels. Even OS X doesn't have a fully resolution independent UI.
  • Reply 17 of 17
    maccrazymaccrazy Posts: 2,657member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by nguyenhm16

    Yeah, except most UIs hardcode the size of a lot of things in terms of pixels. Even OS X doesn't have a fully resolution independent UI.



    I'm sure leopard will bring it
Sign In or Register to comment.