Image talk:Vector Video Standards2.svg

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Nice image, I'm however missing common resolutions such as 1280x800 (16:10 15.4" LCD standard resolution AFAIK) ... Oskar Liljeblad (talk) 21:34, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi,

I believe that NTSC is depicted incorrectly. It should have 704x480 visible, rectangular (10x11) pixels, so that it should fit exactly in the VGA (640x480 with square pixels) rectangle. Can anyone confirm this ? --hdante (talk) 16:43, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

hello,

actually this ratio is correct, according to NTSC

From the NTSC article: This table illustrates total horizontal and vertical pixel resolution via box size. It does not accurately reflect the screen shape (aspect ratio) of these formats, which is either 4:3, or 16:9. --hdante (talk) 22:56, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Maybe someone in the US could pick a ruler and measure their TV. :-) --hdante (talk) 23:01, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

All right, from somewhere in the net:

Resolution NTSC has 525 horizontal scan lines (this is why NTSC is sometimes referred to as "NTSC-525" or simply "525-line"). However, about only 486 of these lines are visible on the screen, the rest are in the sync pulse, which is not visible. Each horizontal line is made up of 720 pixels. This gives NTSC a total screen resolution of 720 x 486. (NTSC DV uses a resolution of 720 x 480)
Aspect Ratio NTSC has an aspect ratio of 4:3 (sometimes expressed as reduced to 1.33). Note that the 720 x 486 resolution expressed above does not divide evenly into a 4:3 ratio. This is because NTSC pixels are not square; the pixels themselves have an aspect ratio of 9:10 (0.9). This can cause problems when you want to create material using a computer (that uses square pixels) to be viewed on a television. See "Creating NTSC-Compliant Graphics" for more on dealing with this problem.

http://people.csail.mit.edu/tbuehler/video/ntsc.html

--hdante (talk) 23:22, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

We might consider leaving NTSC and PAL out of this chart since they're the only two with rectangular pixels.

From the Final Cut Pro User Manual: "SD NTSC pixels are taller than computer pixels and SD PAL pixels are wider than computer pixels."

But both NTSC and PAL appear 4:3. So NTSC's resolution (720 x 480) looks like 640 x 480 (or 720 x 540). And PAL's resolution (720 x 576) looks like 720 x 540 (or 768 x 576).

So, to sum up, if we were to make the NTSC box appear the correct aspect ratio, it would be the exact same size and shape as VGA. And we could just add a note to the flag. It could say: "NTSC / 720 x 480 / (rectangular pixels)". Something similar should be done for PAL. PAL's correct resolution is 720 x 576. So PAL's flag could read: "PAL / 720 x 576 / (rectangular pixels).

--Andrewroz (talk) 02:18, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes - the current labeling is misleading -- what matters more is how it's used -- the graph implies from looking at it that NTSC 720x480 is displayed as a 3:2 aspect ratio. This is misleading. It should be labeled "NTSC 720x480 (rectangular pixels) -- 4:3" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.58.178.213 (talk) 01:53, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

"NTSC" and "PAL", when labeled that way, refer to the analog standards. The analog standards of both systems do not have a pixel resolution. NTSC is a 525-line system, the vertical refresh rate is 59.94 Hz, and each horizontal scan line's active picture area lasts 52.655 microseconds. PAL is a 625-line system, the vertical refresh rate is 50 Hz, and each horizontal scan line's active picture area lasts 52.000 microseconds. To talk about "NTSC" or "PAL" in terms of pixel dimensions is incorrect. To properly talk about pixel dimensions for these formats, you have to choose which particular method of analog to digital conversion you wish to discuss. A popular analog to digital conversion method for each system is DV, which samples an NTSC or PAL analog signal at 13.5 MHz. This results in pixel dimensions of 720x480 (with 711x486 being active picture area) for NTSC, and 720x576 (with 702x576 being active picture area) for PAL. These formats should be labeled "NTSC DV" and "PAL DV". They are both intended to be displayed at a display aspect ratio of 1.33:1 for the active picture area (NOT for the sample matrix area). In terms of the chart, the chart is based around the display aspect ratio (the diagonal lines), and should therefore talk about NTSC DV and PAL DV in terms of their intended display aspect ratio regardless of their pixel dimensions. The box containing NTSC DV should be a 4:3 box (with its lower right corner on the 4:3 aspect ratio line), and it should be labeled "NTSC DV, 720x480 (non-square pixels)". Similarly, the box for PAL DV should be a 4:3 box (with its lower right corner on the 4:3 aspect ratio line), and it should be labeled "PAL DV, 720x576 (non-square pixels)". I propose that any format added to this chart that has non-square pixels be labeled as such, possibly with a footnote noting the actual pixel aspect ratio, and that the box representing the format be shown at the intended display aspect ratio (4:3 for both NTSC DV and PAL DV), regardless of the actual pixel dimensions. For further information on how the true pixel dimensions are computed, see A Quick Guide to Digital Video Resolution and Aspect Ratio Conversions (http://lipas.uwasa.fi/~f76998/video/conversion/). --SomeJoe7777 (talk) 19:46, 6 June 2008 (UTC)


Hey! Fix the label on the picture for the UXGA (1600x1200) resolution, as it currently says "UGA". (In the old image, it used to be correct...) 216.254.181.126 (talk) 20:01, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, UGA (Ultra Graphics Array) is correct, UXGA (Ultra eXtended Graphics Array) is more common but they are both proper. 24.129.237.34 (talk) 00:05, 6 March 2008 (UTC)


I would like to submit the following information with respect to the NTSC and PAL composite color video formats on the Wikipedia Vector Video Standards 2 chart in the hope that it will help to resolve any disputed video resolutions. It is also important to note that the frame aspect ratio will vary from that specified in the analog standards depending on which digital video standard one uses.

NTSC (M) and PAL (M) Composite Color Video Standards
Application(s)   Total Resolution   Active Resolution   Aspect Ratio (Active)
SVCD:   572 × 525   480 × 480   1:1
Square pixels:   780 × 525   640 × 480   4:3
MPEG 2:   858 × 525   704 × 480   22:15
BT.601:   858 × 525   720 × 480   3:2
Consumer DV:   858 × 525   720 × 480   3:2
             
PAL (B, D, G, H, I, N, NC) Composite Color Video Standards
Application(s)   Total Resolution   Active Resolution   Aspect Ratio (Active)
SVCD:   576 × 625   480 × 576   5:6
Square pixels:   944 × 625   768 × 576   4:3
MPEG 2:   864 × 625   704 × 576   11:9
BT.601:   864 × 625   720 × 576   5:4
Consumer DV:   864 × 625   720 × 576   5:4
             
Source: Jack, K., pp. 371, Video Demystified - 3rd Edition, LLH Technology Publishing

 

~ C6H3N3O3 (talk) 21:52, 9 April 2008 (UTC)


I have converted the labels to text, but I haven't changed any of the actual content. Sorry about the multiple commits; this is my first upload, and it didn't go as smoothly as I'd hoped. Aihtdikh (talk) 03:12, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Missing Resolutions

I think 1600x1024 should be on there as there are enough of those to make it worthwhile.[1] — Nicholas (reply) @ 20:47, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

IBM Monochrome Display Adapter (MDA) should also be included. Helpsloose 16:01, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Another missing resolution

1366x768 is also now a fairly common resolution - one of several resolutions under the WXGA+ umbrella. --Terrygtx (talk) 15:43, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] File size

The SVG file would be MUCH smaller if it used real <text> instead of paths with the letter forms. 190.188.178.151 (talk) 22:08, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

<text> is not universally supported - Indeed, current stable builds of Firefox do not render it properly. --84.65.206.64 (talk) 12:34, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I have changed the image to use <text> tags. I have tested on Firefox 2 on Windows and seen no problems (as well as Firefox 3, Opera 9 and Safari 3), so I'm uploading my changes for others to test and use. What is the issue with Firefox 2 and <text> tags? Aihtdikh (talk) 02:50, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Yet Another Missing Resolution: 1800 x 1350

After installation of Ubuntu 7.10 my computer and monitor can also work on the 1800 x 1350 resolution mode. It seems to be a little bit unknown standard, as it didn't find it in the manual. With the addition of 200 horizontal and 150 vertical pixels it is still a 4:3 ratio screen. ChardonnayNimeque (talk) 21:24, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] License

The metadata doesn't match the stated license. Rocket000 (talk) 05:46, 10 May 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Original

Got to say, the original image ("Video_Standards.svg") is much easier to understand -- the colours on this are too close. I didnt see how they all related along a line. The diagonal lines are just better. Dont like the black of the orig though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.174.142.62 (talk) 13:00, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] XGA+

1152x864 (4:3) is yet another missing resolution in the image. It is known as XGA+. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fotero (talk • contribs) 17:56, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Incorrect resolution for 2K

The resolution for 2K is incorrect. The actual resolution is 2048x1536 (which I verified in Adobe After Effects, as well as here). 66.182.71.226 (talk) 05:33, 1 June 2008 (UTC)