File talk:Video Standards.png

Shouldn't it be 4:3 instead of 3:4?

Good catch, I'll change that :-)

Shouldnt it be 720p instead of 720i as there is no 720i standard Mirddes 06:47, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed :-) (I should really check this more often.) I also changed the purple to teal for greater readability.

Shouldn't the 1080i be changed to 1080i/p too, since there's 1080p too? 213.169.24.81 23:59, 8 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It should probably best be “HD 720” and “HD 1080”. (It’s not only HDTV, but also on HD DVD etc.)

WXGA is usually 1280 or 1366 × 768, i.e. 720p signals are either stretched or framed. SXGA is usually 1280 × 1024, I don’t know what 1280 × 960 is called (and I haven’t seen such display devices yet). QXGA is also called SUXGA. PAL/SECAM is SDTV, too. It’s probably too much to include the wide (16:9) versions of PAL and NTSC, HD-MAC (up to 2048 × 1152) or even Sharp’s PAL optimal (720 or rather 960 × 540) and Sony’s Playstation Portable (480 × 272). It would be nice to see the xes replaced by multiplication crosses (×); the correct sign for inches is ″ not ” (or "). For consistency reasons QVGA should be oriented the same as the other formats (think I-Pod). VGA Max could be replaced by WVGA (854 × 480, e.g. many plasma TVs). I’m not sure whether the ACD is WQXGA or QWXGA. My I-Mac has a WSXGA+ screen and is not a laptop. With less descriptive text inside the labels (“Laptop”, “Ratio Line”) this image could be used better in foreign-language Wikipedias. Christoph Päper 22:43, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there. Great graphic. One thing: while '8:5' is mathematically correct, this ratio is more commonly expressed as '16:10.' I think it would be good to list both, like maybe 16:10 (8:5).

Hello! I took as many of your suggestions as possible and overhauled the entire thing. Hope you like it! Please continue to post any suggestions/comments regarding this image! (And thanks to Christoph Päper for making so many suggestions!) - Matthew Tardiff (Tuesday, June 13, 2006)

I believe this image contains error, it referes to SXGA as 1280x960. SXGA is actually 1280x1024. What's labelled as SXGA on here is actually QVGA. That's Quad VGA as opposed to Quarter VGA, meaning it's 4 times the size of VGA rather than one quarter the size (Quarter VGA = 320x240). I hope this is the proper way to point out the error, I just signed up, I'm not so familiar with the process. Kembel 04:59, 31 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Kembel - I moved your post into the talk section :-) I fixed the SXGA problem, but I believe QVGA is actually Quarter VGA...according to Wikipedia :-) Matthew Tardiff (Tuesday, June 13, 2006)

1152x864 is a very common resolution for 17" screens, at the very least more common than SXGA+, WSXGA+ and the likes. --Trygvebw 13:39, 15 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's a variant of XGA (or XGA-2?), which I myself haven't encountered yet. It isn't listed in the article on XGA in the English Wikipedia, but for example in the German one. Christoph Päper 12:12, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just thinking out loud... —Nightstallion (?) 21:18, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe now it is *wink* *wink* - Matthew Tardiff (Tuesday, June 13, 2006)

I thought WSXGA is 1440x900 (my laptop), not 1680x1050. --Chris 13:41, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting...Wikipedia lists it as both under display resolutions.The SXGA+ page lists it as 1680 × 1050. -- Matthew Tardiff

how about adding the 3:2 aspect ratio to compare with photos and other things at that size? --128.6.176.13 20:48, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just the ratio line? - Matthew Tardiff

Conspicuous by its absence are the EGA 640x350 mode and CGA 640×200 mono mode. I'd add them myself, but I'd make a complete hash of it. Plus I have no idea how best to express non 1:1 pixel size modes? --Billpg 19:38, 8 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also missing from this chart is the WXGA display mode. I realize that the denotation of 'WXGA' is kind of sloppy- there's 16:9 and 16:10, and you already have the HD 720 mode up. However, I've been looking at many laptops with WXGA screens at 1280x800. I, too, would ruin the pic if I tried adding it myself.

Thanks for the great reference, though! (Full size! 0.o)

Wikipedia's own WXGA article says "Usually WXGA is understood to refer to a 1366 x 768 resolution with an aspect ratio of 16:9". So please add it to this awesome chart on the purple 16:9 line, maybe with an asterisk because computer and TV makers slap "WXGA" on so many resolutions. -- Skierpage 04:57, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The WXGA article is simply wrong; it's not "one or the other" but a case where the terms differ depending on whether you're talking from TV/Consumer-electronics-land or computers. Going by the closest thing to a definitive standards body for displays (VESA), they use both in different contexts: http://www.vesa.org/Public/Panel%20Standards/TVpnlV1.pdf - 1366x768 for TVs / http://www.vesa.org/press/AsiaTourOct05.pdf "WXGA. (1280x768)" for computer displays. Nate (talk) 08:22, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So how about 1440x900 (on the 16/10 line). Many 17" laptops have this resolution. It should be WXGA+ (which is in my own opinion different from WSXGA; I would write WXGA+ if I were you). Maybe adding it would be nice. :-) --Le Sage 13:04, 2 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If the image is recreated in SVG, adding WXGA should be considered. Its very common along notebook screens. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.225.112.236 (talk • contribs).

What about the traditional analog NTSC American television standard?

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.7.39.176 (talk • contribs).

This Illustration is about digital Formats. Analog ones are not easily comparable. (Okay, displayed PAL somehow got in there.) “Digital NTSC” (4:3) is something between VGA and 720 × 540. -- Christoph Päper 12:01, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If someone revs this, there's a fairly common WSVGA standard (used mainly in smaller subnotebooks and ultramobile PCs) at 1024x600 - it's a non-standard aspect ration in between 16:9 and 16:10. Nate (talk) 08:23, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]