1080p... Something I don't understand.

Permabanned
Joined
8 Feb 2004
Posts
4,539
Sorry for being an idiot but I don't understand how a blu-ray film can be 1080p when it is in aspect resolution of anything other than 16:9.

Surely if a blu-ray film is presented in the 2.4:1 aspect ratio then it will have a resolution of 1920x800 but it is still refered to as 1080p... Why?
 
Sorry for being an idiot but I don't understand how a blu-ray film can be 1080p when it is in aspect resolution of anything other than 16:9.

Surely if a blu-ray film is presented in the 2.4:1 aspect ratio then it will have a resolution of 1920x800 but it is still refered to as 1080p... Why?

The viewable image will have that resolution, but you've got to include the black bars as well.
 
I don't consider black bars as being part of the image but understand your point.

Why not use the horizontal resolution instead as this is not affected by aspect ratio and call the high definition resolutions 1920p and 1280p? Maybe it comes back to the differences between PAL and NTSC why the vertical resolution is used for nomenclature?

I'm not being a pedant... Just a little bored at work :)
 
Im hungry so will post my fantastic point before I rush off to the cafe with hot polish ladies making sandwiches.

1080p sounds better than 800p :p
 
Does it matter? The video on the disc is still 1920x1080 as the bars are part of the encode and whether the aspect ratio is 16:9 or 100:1 the image that's there still has the same amount of definition.
 
I think it's done by the vertical res since TV broadcasts were always referred to by the number of 'lines' they had, whereas the horizontal resolution was never really a strict value.
 
I think it's done by the vertical res since TV broadcasts were always referred to by the number of 'lines' they had, whereas the horizontal resolution was never really a strict value.

Indeed 1080p is the signal whether or not the image actually takes advantage of the full resolution or not.
 
Back
Top Bottom