Sure, but the resolution is 1440x1080. He was saying that 1440x1080 can't be HD. Bottom line: 2048x1536 is high definition.
But you also said:
Quote:
It was also pointed out that there are video formats that are defined as HD that are shot in 4:3.
ergo, it sounds more like you changed your story, because I pointed out that it wasn't actually shot in 4:3. The original image was 16:9, the output is 16:9, that the number of recorded pixels is in something else is not actually relevant when the recording format is anisotropic. That's like saying Cinemascope is 4:3 because that's how it lands on the film stock, irrespective of the original framing or how it is displayed.
I'm in agreement with your conclusion, but this part of your argument doesn't help support it, in my opinion.
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.
ergo, it sounds more like you changed your story, because I pointed out that it wasn't actually shot in 4:3. The original image was 16:9, the output is 16:9, that the number of recorded pixels is in something else is not actually relevant when the recording format is anisotropic. That's like saying Cinemascope is 4:3 because that's how it lands on the film stock, irrespective of the original framing or how it is displayed.
I'm in agreement with your conclusion, but this part of your argument doesn't help support it, in my opinion.
Point taken. I certainly should have qualified what I meant by 4:3 to refer to the resolution. Poorly worded on my part, for sure.
Comments
And one name shall rule them all...
iPad El Mondo Grosso
Sure, but the resolution is 1440x1080. He was saying that 1440x1080 can't be HD. Bottom line: 2048x1536 is high definition.
But you also said:
It was also pointed out that there are video formats that are defined as HD that are shot in 4:3.
ergo, it sounds more like you changed your story, because I pointed out that it wasn't actually shot in 4:3. The original image was 16:9, the output is 16:9, that the number of recorded pixels is in something else is not actually relevant when the recording format is anisotropic. That's like saying Cinemascope is 4:3 because that's how it lands on the film stock, irrespective of the original framing or how it is displayed.
I'm in agreement with your conclusion, but this part of your argument doesn't help support it, in my opinion.
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.
Apple TV HDxsi 3 - (HD here stands for 'Homer Designed') pure awesomeness.
Can we add in Turbo..everyone loves a turbo
But you also said:
ergo, it sounds more like you changed your story, because I pointed out that it wasn't actually shot in 4:3. The original image was 16:9, the output is 16:9, that the number of recorded pixels is in something else is not actually relevant when the recording format is anisotropic. That's like saying Cinemascope is 4:3 because that's how it lands on the film stock, irrespective of the original framing or how it is displayed.
I'm in agreement with your conclusion, but this part of your argument doesn't help support it, in my opinion.
Point taken. I certainly should have qualified what I meant by 4:3 to refer to the resolution. Poorly worded on my part, for sure.