Hmmm... DVD is only 540 horizontal resolution (according to the EIA)

Discussion in 'DVD Video' started by SFTVratings_troy@yahoo.com, Jan 31, 2007.

  1. Guest

    For comparison other standards are:
    240 - VHS (ditto Betamax)
    330 - NTSC broadcast
    425 - laserdisc (ditto S-VHS)
    540 - DVD

    I was a bit surprised, but apparently the Electronics Industry
    Association measures the resolution differently than one might
    expect. They put a giant circle in the middle of the screen, count
    the number of visible pixels across, and arrive at a number like "425
    for laserdisc" or "540 for dvd". It seems counterintuitive, but
    that's how it's done.

    I imagine if the DVD is severely compressed, the quality would drop
    much lower than 540 (just as a VHS tape recorded in super-slow mode is
    only ~120 across). 540 is the ideal, not the norm.
     
    , Jan 31, 2007
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > For comparison other standards are:
    > 240 - VHS (ditto Betamax)
    > 330 - NTSC broadcast
    > 425 - laserdisc (ditto S-VHS)
    > 540 - DVD
    >
    > I was a bit surprised, but apparently the Electronics Industry
    > Association measures the resolution differently than one might
    > expect. They put a giant circle in the middle of the screen, count
    > the number of visible pixels across, and arrive at a number like "425
    > for laserdisc" or "540 for dvd". It seems counterintuitive, but
    > that's how it's done.
    >
    > I imagine if the DVD is severely compressed, the quality would drop
    > much lower than 540 (just as a VHS tape recorded in super-slow mode is
    > only ~120 across). 540 is the ideal, not the norm.
    >

    Even in optimal situations, there are two resolutions to consider.
    First is the signal. I had understood NTSC to be 525 each way, (for a video
    camera)
    Second is the display - there are regions of the signal ( top & bottom)
    which are not displayed on the screen


    So what you actually see is less than what is recorded. The technical
    sections of sites like digitalfaq explainm this properly.

    Stuart
     
    Stuart Miller, Jan 31, 2007
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. In article <D_6wh.832427$5R2.679581@pd7urf3no>,
    says...
    >
    > <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    > > For comparison other standards are:
    > > 240 - VHS (ditto Betamax)
    > > 330 - NTSC broadcast
    > > 425 - laserdisc (ditto S-VHS)
    > > 540 - DVD
    > >
    > > I was a bit surprised, but apparently the Electronics Industry
    > > Association measures the resolution differently than one might
    > > expect. They put a giant circle in the middle of the screen, count
    > > the number of visible pixels across, and arrive at a number like "425
    > > for laserdisc" or "540 for dvd". It seems counterintuitive, but
    > > that's how it's done.
    > >
    > > I imagine if the DVD is severely compressed, the quality would drop
    > > much lower than 540 (just as a VHS tape recorded in super-slow mode is
    > > only ~120 across). 540 is the ideal, not the norm.
    > >

    > Even in optimal situations, there are two resolutions to consider.
    > First is the signal. I had understood NTSC to be 525 each way, (for a video
    > camera)
    > Second is the display - there are regions of the signal ( top & bottom)
    > which are not displayed on the screen
    >
    > So what you actually see is less than what is recorded. The technical
    > sections of sites like digitalfaq explainm this properly.


    Don't confuse HORIZONTAL resolution with VERTICAL resolution.

    525 is the VERTICAL resolution of NTSC. Of those 525, only 480 actually
    carry picture information. The rest are for sync, closed captioning, and
    other digital transmission features (parental control, XDS,
    TVGuideOnScreen, timecode for VCR's, etc...)

    The 240/330, etc mentioned above are rough HORIZONTAL resolutions.

    For reference, the HD resolutions are:
    1280(h)x720(v)
    1920(h)x1080(v)

    --
    If there is a no_junk in my address, please REMOVE it before replying!
    All junk mail senders will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the
    law!!
    http://home.att.net/~andyross
     
    Andrew Rossmann, Jan 31, 2007
    #3
  4. David Guest

    "Andrew Rossmann" <andysnewsreply@no_junk.comcast.net> wrote in message
    news:...
    > In article <D_6wh.832427$5R2.679581@pd7urf3no>,
    > says...
    >>
    >> <> wrote in message
    >> news:...
    >> > For comparison other standards are:
    >> > 240 - VHS (ditto Betamax)
    >> > 330 - NTSC broadcast
    >> > 425 - laserdisc (ditto S-VHS)
    >> > 540 - DVD

    Please note that the horizontal resolutions for all of these are not
    expressed in pixels, but expressed in "lines of resolution per picture
    height". This is the standard method for defining analog resolutions in the
    4:3 format. To get to pixels (approximately), these numbers have to be
    multiplied by 1.333.

    David
     
    David, Jan 31, 2007
    #4
  5. Anim8rFSK Guest

    In article <D_6wh.832427$5R2.679581@pd7urf3no>,
    "Stuart Miller" <> wrote:

    > <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    > > For comparison other standards are:
    > > 240 - VHS (ditto Betamax)
    > > 330 - NTSC broadcast
    > > 425 - laserdisc (ditto S-VHS)
    > > 540 - DVD
    > >
    > > I was a bit surprised, but apparently the Electronics Industry
    > > Association measures the resolution differently than one might
    > > expect. They put a giant circle in the middle of the screen, count
    > > the number of visible pixels across, and arrive at a number like "425
    > > for laserdisc" or "540 for dvd". It seems counterintuitive, but
    > > that's how it's done.
    > >
    > > I imagine if the DVD is severely compressed, the quality would drop
    > > much lower than 540 (just as a VHS tape recorded in super-slow mode is
    > > only ~120 across). 540 is the ideal, not the norm.
    > >

    > Even in optimal situations, there are two resolutions to consider.
    > First is the signal. I had understood NTSC to be 525 each way, (for a video
    > camera)
    > Second is the display - there are regions of the signal ( top & bottom)
    > which are not displayed on the screen
    >
    >
    > So what you actually see is less than what is recorded. The technical
    > sections of sites like digitalfaq explainm this properly.
    >
    > Stuart


    Stuart, allow me to introduce you to Troy Heagy, performance troll and
    the self styled "most annoying man on usenet"

    Troy posts under at least half a dozen names (see below) and his game is
    to create a thread that might otherwise be interesting, and introduce a
    deliberate mistake into it, and watch it fall apart with people arguing
    about his mistake instead the actual topic.

    He's been busted in rec.arts.tv so many times that he's expanding his
    net to other groups, like mostly sci-fi like Farscape, and technical
    ones like these. But he sets the cross posts to rec.arts.tv to show
    that he's still managing to annoy us here.

    He'll now scream that we're haters, and are stalking him, etc., etc.,
    etc., and probably threaten legal action, yadda yadda yadda.

    Oh, and he sends death threats to people that expose him like this, and
    then will claim they've been sending HIM death threats, and writing his
    boss and trying to get him fired, blah blah blah.

    Killfile Troy Heagy in all (s)he-its many incarnations now:
    ,
    ,,
    **DON'T FORGET THE NEWEST ONE>>>
     
    Anim8rFSK, Feb 1, 2007
    #5
  6. Anim8rFSK Guest

    In article <>,
    Andrew Rossmann <andysnewsreply@no_junk.comcast.net> wrote:

    > In article <D_6wh.832427$5R2.679581@pd7urf3no>,
    > says...
    > >
    > > <> wrote in message
    > > news:...
    > > > For comparison other standards are:
    > > > 240 - VHS (ditto Betamax)
    > > > 330 - NTSC broadcast
    > > > 425 - laserdisc (ditto S-VHS)
    > > > 540 - DVD
    > > >
    > > > I was a bit surprised, but apparently the Electronics Industry
    > > > Association measures the resolution differently than one might
    > > > expect. They put a giant circle in the middle of the screen, count
    > > > the number of visible pixels across, and arrive at a number like "425
    > > > for laserdisc" or "540 for dvd". It seems counterintuitive, but
    > > > that's how it's done.
    > > >
    > > > I imagine if the DVD is severely compressed, the quality would drop
    > > > much lower than 540 (just as a VHS tape recorded in super-slow mode is
    > > > only ~120 across). 540 is the ideal, not the norm.
    > > >

    > > Even in optimal situations, there are two resolutions to consider.
    > > First is the signal. I had understood NTSC to be 525 each way, (for a video
    > > camera)
    > > Second is the display - there are regions of the signal ( top & bottom)
    > > which are not displayed on the screen
    > >
    > > So what you actually see is less than what is recorded. The technical
    > > sections of sites like digitalfaq explainm this properly.

    >
    > Don't confuse HORIZONTAL resolution with VERTICAL resolution.
    >
    > 525 is the VERTICAL resolution of NTSC. Of those 525, only 480 actually
    > carry picture information. The rest are for sync, closed captioning, and
    > other digital transmission features (parental control, XDS,
    > TVGuideOnScreen, timecode for VCR's, etc...)
    >
    > The 240/330, etc mentioned above are rough HORIZONTAL resolutions.
    >
    > For reference, the HD resolutions are:
    > 1280(h)x720(v)
    > 1920(h)x1080(v)


    Andrew, allow me to introduce you to Troy Heagy, performance troll and
    the self styled "most annoying man on usenet"

    Troy posts under at least half a dozen names (see below) and his game is
    to create a thread that might otherwise be interesting, and introduce a
    deliberate mistake into it, and watch it fall apart with people arguing
    about his mistake instead the actual topic.

    He's been busted in rec.arts.tv so many times that he's expanding his
    net to other groups, like mostly sci-fi like Farscape, and technical
    ones like these. But he sets the cross posts to rec.arts.tv to show
    that he's still managing to annoy us here.

    He'll now scream that we're haters, and are stalking him, etc., etc.,
    etc., and probably threaten legal action, yadda yadda yadda.

    Oh, and he sends death threats to people that expose him like this, and
    then will claim they've been sending HIM death threats, and writing his
    boss and trying to get him fired, blah blah blah.

    Killfile Troy Heagy in all (s)he-its many incarnations now:
    ,
    ,,
    **DON'T FORGET THE NEWEST ONE>>>
     
    Anim8rFSK, Feb 1, 2007
    #6
  7. Guest

    Andrew Rossmann wrote:
    >
    > Don't confuse HORIZONTAL resolution with VERTICAL resolution.
    > 525 is the VERTICAL resolution of NTSC. Of those 525, only 480 actually
    > carry picture information. ....



    Correction: 486.
     
    , Feb 1, 2007
    #7
  8. Guest

    David wrote:
    > "Andrew Rossmann" <andysnewsreply@no_junk.comcast.net> wrote in message
    > news:...
    > > In article <D_6wh.832427$5R2.679581@pd7urf3no>,
    > > says...
    > >>
    > >> <> wrote in message
    > >> news:...
    > >> > For comparison other standards are:
    > >> > 240 - VHS (ditto Betamax)
    > >> > 330 - NTSC broadcast
    > >> > 425 - laserdisc (ditto S-VHS)
    > >> > 540 - DVD

    >
    > Please note that the horizontal resolutions for all of these are not
    > expressed in pixels, but expressed in "lines of resolution per picture
    > height". ...


    "pixels per picture height" would also be a valid expression.

    > This is the standard method for defining analog resolutions in the
    > 4:3 format. To get to pixels (approximately), these numbers have
    > to be multiplied by 1.333.




    >From edge-to-edge of screen:

    321 - VHS (ditto Betamax)
    440 - NTSC broadcast
    565 - laserdisc (ditto S-VHS)
    720 - DVD
     
    , Feb 1, 2007
    #8
  9. Guest

    Anim8r is an internet stalker. He follows me around from forum to
    forum. It was originally an annoyance, but now it's genuinely
    starting to scare me. I may have to seek legal action.



    Anim8rFSK wrote:
    > In article <>,
    > Andrew Rossmann <andysnewsreply@no_junk.comcast.net> wrote:
    >
    > > In article <D_6wh.832427$5R2.679581@pd7urf3no>,
    > > says...
    > > >
    > > > <> wrote in message
    > > > news:...
    > > > > For comparison other standards are:
    > > > > 240 - VHS (ditto Betamax)
    > > > > 330 - NTSC broadcast
    > > > > 425 - laserdisc (ditto S-VHS)
    > > > > 540 - DVD
    > > > >
    > > > > I was a bit surprised, but apparently the Electronics Industry
    > > > > Association measures the resolution differently than one might
    > > > > expect. They put a giant circle in the middle of the screen, count
    > > > > the number of visible pixels across, and arrive at a number like "425
    > > > > for laserdisc" or "540 for dvd". It seems counterintuitive, but
    > > > > that's how it's done.
    > > > >
    > > > > I imagine if the DVD is severely compressed, the quality would drop
    > > > > much lower than 540 (just as a VHS tape recorded in super-slow mode is
    > > > > only ~120 across). 540 is the ideal, not the norm.
    > > > >
    > > > Even in optimal situations, there are two resolutions to consider.
    > > > First is the signal. I had understood NTSC to be 525 each way, (for a video
    > > > camera)
    > > > Second is the display - there are regions of the signal ( top & bottom)
    > > > which are not displayed on the screen
    > > >
    > > > So what you actually see is less than what is recorded. The technical
    > > > sections of sites like digitalfaq explainm this properly.

    > >
    > > Don't confuse HORIZONTAL resolution with VERTICAL resolution.
    > >
    > > 525 is the VERTICAL resolution of NTSC. Of those 525, only 480 actually
    > > carry picture information. The rest are for sync, closed captioning, and
    > > other digital transmission features (parental control, XDS,
    > > TVGuideOnScreen, timecode for VCR's, etc...)
    > >
    > > The 240/330, etc mentioned above are rough HORIZONTAL resolutions.
    > >
    > > For reference, the HD resolutions are:
    > > 1280(h)x720(v)
    > > 1920(h)x1080(v)

    >
    > Andrew, allow me to introduce you to Troy Heagy, performance troll and
    > the self styled "most annoying man on usenet"
    >
    > Troy posts under at least half a dozen names (see below) and his game is
    > to create a thread that might otherwise be interesting, and introduce a
    > deliberate mistake into it, and watch it fall apart with people arguing
    > about his mistake instead the actual topic.
    >
    > He's been busted in rec.arts.tv so many times that he's expanding his
    > net to other groups, like mostly sci-fi like Farscape, and technical
    > ones like these. But he sets the cross posts to rec.arts.tv to show
    > that he's still managing to annoy us here.
    >
    > He'll now scream that we're haters, and are stalking him, etc., etc.,
    > etc., and probably threaten legal action, yadda yadda yadda.
    >
    > Oh, and he sends death threats to people that expose him like this, and
    > then will claim they've been sending HIM death threats, and writing his
    > boss and trying to get him fired, blah blah blah.
    >
    > Killfile Troy Heagy in all (s)he-its many incarnations now:
    > ,
    > ,,
    > **DON'T FORGET THE NEWEST ONE>>>
     
    , Feb 1, 2007
    #9
  10. MassiveProng Guest

    On 31 Jan 2007 20:30:29 -0800, Gave us:

    >Anim8r is an internet stalker.


    And you are a top posting Usenet retard.

    Keep your horseshit out of alt.video.dvd

    We don't need a fucked in the head seminar from a dope that doesn't
    know hat we already know about video's history.

    If you don't even know how to respond to a Usenet post right, you
    don't deserve to be paid any attention.

    You are a TOFU retard, at best.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Top-posting
     
    MassiveProng, Feb 1, 2007
    #10
  11. On Thu, 01 Feb 2007 02:40:45 -0800, MassiveProng
    <> wrote:

    > Keep your horseshit out of alt.video.dvd


    And, keep it out of rec.video.desktop too.

    Thanks! :-D
    --
     
    Martin Heffels, Feb 1, 2007
    #11
  12. Guest

    MassiveProng wrote:
    >
    >And you are a top posting Usenet retard.
    > We don't need a fucked in the head seminar from a dope that
    > doesn't know hat we already know about video's history.
    > You are a TOFU retard, at best.



    "Manners ease the stress of communal living, and mannerly behavior
    recognizes the right of others to share communal space. Many of our
    daily expressions of politeness reflect this function. Saying "excuse
    me," for example, shows that you recognize that you have invaded
    another's space, and regret the necessity of doing so.

    "That manners matter is evidenced by the fact that large books have
    been written on the subject, advice columns frequently deal with
    questions of mannerly behavior, and that schools have existed for the
    sole purpose of teaching manners." - Read more here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manners
     
    , Feb 1, 2007
    #12
  13. Richard C. Guest

    Ignore massiveidiot.
    He is an angry 12 year old who cannot communicate without
    12 year old swear words.
    His home base in alt.video.dvd.
    We apologize for and are embarrassed by him.

    ============================================
    <> wrote in message
    news:...
    >
    > MassiveProng wrote:
    >>
    >>And you are a top posting Usenet retard.
    >> We don't need a fucked in the head seminar from a dope that
    >> doesn't know hat we already know about video's history.
    >> You are a TOFU retard, at best.

    >
    >
    > "Manners ease the stress of communal living, and mannerly behavior
    > recognizes the right of others to share communal space. Many of our
    > daily expressions of politeness reflect this function. Saying "excuse
    > me," for example, shows that you recognize that you have invaded
    > another's space, and regret the necessity of doing so.
    >
    > "That manners matter is evidenced by the fact that large books have
    > been written on the subject, advice columns frequently deal with
    > questions of mannerly behavior, and that schools have existed for the
    > sole purpose of teaching manners." - Read more here:
    > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manners
    >
     
    Richard C., Feb 1, 2007
    #13
  14. Default User Guest

    Richard C. wrote:

    > Ignore massiveidiot.


    Ignore Troy aka SFTVRatings* aka many other aliases. He's a troll, he's
    trolling your newsgroup. Really. Seriously.




    Brian

    --
    If televison's a babysitter, the Internet is a drunk librarian who
    won't shut up.
    -- Dorothy Gambrell (http://catandgirl.com)
     
    Default User, Feb 1, 2007
    #14
  15. "Anim8rFSK" <> wrote in message
    news:-media.com...
    > In article <D_6wh.832427$5R2.679581@pd7urf3no>,
    > "Stuart Miller" <> wrote:
    >
    >> <> wrote in message
    >> news:...
    >> > For comparison other standards are:
    >> > 240 - VHS (ditto Betamax)
    >> > 330 - NTSC broadcast
    >> > 425 - laserdisc (ditto S-VHS)
    >> > 540 - DVD
    >> >
    >> > I was a bit surprised, but apparently the Electronics Industry
    >> > Association measures the resolution differently than one might
    >> > expect. They put a giant circle in the middle of the screen, count
    >> > the number of visible pixels across, and arrive at a number like "425
    >> > for laserdisc" or "540 for dvd". It seems counterintuitive, but
    >> > that's how it's done.
    >> >
    >> > I imagine if the DVD is severely compressed, the quality would drop
    >> > much lower than 540 (just as a VHS tape recorded in super-slow mode is
    >> > only ~120 across). 540 is the ideal, not the norm.
    >> >

    >> Even in optimal situations, there are two resolutions to consider.
    >> First is the signal. I had understood NTSC to be 525 each way, (for a
    >> video
    >> camera)
    >> Second is the display - there are regions of the signal ( top & bottom)
    >> which are not displayed on the screen
    >>
    >>
    >> So what you actually see is less than what is recorded. The technical
    >> sections of sites like digitalfaq explainm this properly.
    >>
    >> Stuart

    >
    > Stuart, allow me to introduce you to Troy Heagy, performance troll and
    > the self styled "most annoying man on usenet"
    >
    > Troy posts under at least half a dozen names (see below) and his game is
    > to create a thread that might otherwise be interesting, and introduce a
    > deliberate mistake into it, and watch it fall apart with people arguing
    > about his mistake instead the actual topic.
    >
    > He's been busted in rec.arts.tv so many times that he's expanding his
    > net to other groups, like mostly sci-fi like Farscape, and technical
    > ones like these. But he sets the cross posts to rec.arts.tv to show
    > that he's still managing to annoy us here.
    >
    > He'll now scream that we're haters, and are stalking him, etc., etc.,
    > etc., and probably threaten legal action, yadda yadda yadda.
    >
    > Oh, and he sends death threats to people that expose him like this, and
    > then will claim they've been sending HIM death threats, and writing his
    > boss and trying to get him fired, blah blah blah.
    >
    > Killfile Troy Heagy in all (s)he-its many incarnations now:
    > ,
    > ,,
    > **DON'T FORGET THE NEWEST ONE>>>


    Thanks for the 'heads up' - I have read the rest of this thread now

    Stuart
     
    Stuart Miller, Feb 1, 2007
    #15
  16. Anim8rFSK Guest

    In article <CLpwh.846572$R63.601948@pd7urf1no>,
    "Stuart Miller" <> wrote:

    > "Anim8rFSK" <> wrote in message
    > news:-media.com...
    > > In article <D_6wh.832427$5R2.679581@pd7urf3no>,
    > > "Stuart Miller" <> wrote:
    > >
    > >> <> wrote in message
    > >> news:...
    > >> > For comparison other standards are:
    > >> > 240 - VHS (ditto Betamax)
    > >> > 330 - NTSC broadcast
    > >> > 425 - laserdisc (ditto S-VHS)
    > >> > 540 - DVD
    > >> >
    > >> > I was a bit surprised, but apparently the Electronics Industry
    > >> > Association measures the resolution differently than one might
    > >> > expect. They put a giant circle in the middle of the screen, count
    > >> > the number of visible pixels across, and arrive at a number like "425
    > >> > for laserdisc" or "540 for dvd". It seems counterintuitive, but
    > >> > that's how it's done.
    > >> >
    > >> > I imagine if the DVD is severely compressed, the quality would drop
    > >> > much lower than 540 (just as a VHS tape recorded in super-slow mode is
    > >> > only ~120 across). 540 is the ideal, not the norm.
    > >> >
    > >> Even in optimal situations, there are two resolutions to consider.
    > >> First is the signal. I had understood NTSC to be 525 each way, (for a
    > >> video
    > >> camera)
    > >> Second is the display - there are regions of the signal ( top & bottom)
    > >> which are not displayed on the screen
    > >>
    > >>
    > >> So what you actually see is less than what is recorded. The technical
    > >> sections of sites like digitalfaq explainm this properly.
    > >>
    > >> Stuart

    > >
    > > Stuart, allow me to introduce you to Troy Heagy, performance troll and
    > > the self styled "most annoying man on usenet"
    > >
    > > Troy posts under at least half a dozen names (see below) and his game is
    > > to create a thread that might otherwise be interesting, and introduce a
    > > deliberate mistake into it, and watch it fall apart with people arguing
    > > about his mistake instead the actual topic.
    > >
    > > He's been busted in rec.arts.tv so many times that he's expanding his
    > > net to other groups, like mostly sci-fi like Farscape, and technical
    > > ones like these. But he sets the cross posts to rec.arts.tv to show
    > > that he's still managing to annoy us here.
    > >
    > > He'll now scream that we're haters, and are stalking him, etc., etc.,
    > > etc., and probably threaten legal action, yadda yadda yadda.
    > >
    > > Oh, and he sends death threats to people that expose him like this, and
    > > then will claim they've been sending HIM death threats, and writing his
    > > boss and trying to get him fired, blah blah blah.
    > >
    > > Killfile Troy Heagy in all (s)he-its many incarnations now:
    > > ,
    > > ,,
    > > **DON'T FORGET THE NEWEST ONE>>>

    >
    > Thanks for the 'heads up' - I have read the rest of this thread now
    >
    > Stuart


    Sure thing. :)
     
    Anim8rFSK, Feb 1, 2007
    #16
  17. Rick Merrill Guest

    Re: Hmmm... DVD is only 540 horizontal resolution (according to theEIA)

    Andrew Rossmann wrote:
    > In article <D_6wh.832427$5R2.679581@pd7urf3no>,
    > says...
    >> <> wrote in message
    >> news:...
    >>> For comparison other standards are:
    >>> 240 - VHS (ditto Betamax)
    >>> 330 - NTSC broadcast
    >>> 425 - laserdisc (ditto S-VHS)
    >>> 540 - DVD
    >>>
    >>> I was a bit surprised, but apparently the Electronics Industry
    >>> Association measures the resolution differently than one might
    >>> expect. They put a giant circle in the middle of the screen, count
    >>> the number of visible pixels across, and arrive at a number like "425
    >>> for laserdisc" or "540 for dvd". It seems counterintuitive, but
    >>> that's how it's done.
    >>>
    >>> I imagine if the DVD is severely compressed, the quality would drop
    >>> much lower than 540 (just as a VHS tape recorded in super-slow mode is
    >>> only ~120 across). 540 is the ideal, not the norm.
    >>>

    >> Even in optimal situations, there are two resolutions to consider.
    >> First is the signal. I had understood NTSC to be 525 each way, (for a video
    >> camera)
    >> Second is the display - there are regions of the signal ( top & bottom)
    >> which are not displayed on the screen
    >>
    >> So what you actually see is less than what is recorded. The technical
    >> sections of sites like digitalfaq explainm this properly.

    >
    > Don't confuse HORIZONTAL resolution with VERTICAL resolution.
    >
    > 525 is the VERTICAL resolution of NTSC. Of those 525, only 480 actually
    > carry picture information. The rest are for sync, closed captioning, and
    > other digital transmission features (parental control, XDS,
    > TVGuideOnScreen, timecode for VCR's, etc...)
    >
    > The 240/330, etc mentioned above are rough HORIZONTAL resolutions.
    >
    > For reference, the HD resolutions are:
    > 1280(h)x720(v)
    > 1920(h)x1080(v)
    >


    Small nit: "only 480 actually carry picture information. The rest" are
    for Vertical Retrace and get to carry CC, etc.
     
    Rick Merrill, Feb 1, 2007
    #17
  18. Rick Merrill Guest

    Re: Hmmm... DVD is only 540 horizontal resolution (according to theEIA)

    wrote:
    > David wrote:
    >> "Andrew Rossmann" <andysnewsreply@no_junk.comcast.net> wrote in message
    >> news:...
    >>> In article <D_6wh.832427$5R2.679581@pd7urf3no>,
    >>> says...
    >>>> <> wrote in message
    >>>> news:...
    >>>>> For comparison other standards are:
    >>>>> 240 - VHS (ditto Betamax)
    >>>>> 330 - NTSC broadcast
    >>>>> 425 - laserdisc (ditto S-VHS)
    >>>>> 540 - DVD

    >> Please note that the horizontal resolutions for all of these are not
    >> expressed in pixels, but expressed in "lines of resolution per picture
    >> height". ...

    >
    > "pixels per picture height" would also be a valid expression.
    >
    >> This is the standard method for defining analog resolutions in the
    >> 4:3 format. To get to pixels (approximately), these numbers have
    >> to be multiplied by 1.333.

    >
    >
    >
    >>From edge-to-edge of screen:

    > 321 - VHS (ditto Betamax)
    > 440 - NTSC broadcast
    > 565 - laserdisc (ditto S-VHS)
    > 720 - DVD
    >


    Hang on, 'resolution' is the number of tiny dots while 'pixel' is the
    smallest unit of, well, picture. On many displays the number of
    phosphor dots is several times the number of pixels. Now on a 1080i
    screen with HD TV they are about equal. Anyone have had data to clarify
    this?
     
    Rick Merrill, Feb 1, 2007
    #18
  19. MassiveProng Guest

    On 1 Feb 2007 05:02:19 -0800, Gave us:

    >"Manners ease the stress of communal living, and mannerly behavior
    >recognizes the right of others to share communal space.



    You are invading MY space. So **** off.

    That's all the manners a twit like you deserves. Learn to post
    correctly, and you MIGHT climb a rung or two up on the ladder that
    leads out of the shit barrel you have placed yourself into.
     
    MassiveProng, Feb 2, 2007
    #19
  20. MassiveProng Guest

    On Thu, 1 Feb 2007 06:57:19 -0800, "Richard C." <>
    Gave us:

    >We apologize for


    You speak for no one except your own multiple fucktard
    personalities, jack-ass.
     
    MassiveProng, Feb 2, 2007
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Daniel

    horizontal, vertical resolution (dpi) of image

    Daniel, May 21, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    4,487
    nixjunk
    May 21, 2004
  2. Allan
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    621
    Allan
    Mar 23, 2005
  3. arie
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    576
  4. jess
    Replies:
    11
    Views:
    1,812
  5. Vic

    TIA/EIA Standards

    Vic, Nov 4, 2009, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    877
Loading...

Share This Page